>young Earth creationism is a problem of protestant and seeker

So why doesn't it say "the world was created in 6 stages" ?
And how do you know which part you should read literally and which - metaphorically?

>>1451978
New Testament is literal, Old Testament is metaphorical mythology which can be mostly ignored. This has been Catholic position since forever.

It's only Protestant autists that started going "but wait a second it says right here in the Jewish Bible that blah blah"

>>1451985
>This has been Catholic position since forever
Since 100 years ago*

>>1451993
>source
your ass

>>1451993
Since Saint Augustine.

That's 1600 years ago.

>>1451932
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Biblical_dates_for_creation

>Bede was one of the first to break away from the standard Septuagint date for the creation and in his work De Temporibus ("On Time") (completed in 703 AD) dated the creation to 18 March 3952 BC but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC

>>1451978
>lmao why did the sphinx ask time of day when she meant life what a jobber

>>1452001
He only thought the days of creation were metaphorical. Catholics accepted the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, geaneologies, deluge, Noah's ark, Tower of Babel, exodus, etc as literal right up until modern times.

>>1452009
> Need to relay something important to the people
> Instead of writing it down as it is came up with shit ton of vague metaphors dressed as a plausible literate narrative
> Instead of getting that important message straight, people argue about the actual interpretation for thousands of years, some of them taking it literally
Whoever came up with this plan have totally failed.

>>1451978
>And how do you know which part you should read literally and which - metaphorically?
Holy Bible belongs to the Church and is integral part of the Tradition. If the scriptures of one apostolic fathers are unclear, other scriptures of another apostolic fathers explain it.

>>1452004
>but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC
And then he was proclaimed a Venerable, doctor of the Church and a saint. Bishop Wilfrid was not.

>>1452022
Saying one part of the Old Testament can be metaphorical means it can all be.

Either way this was never taken hugely seriously by the Church, and debate as to how literal the Old Testament should be taken was always allowed. In practice however it was disregarded.

>>1452022
So what's your point?
Even if that was the Catholic position a long time ago we should focus on today

Modern catholic scholars believe gen is a patchwork of prior myths from the area and is not intended as a literal account of the events that took place

>>1452039
I'm just pointing out that 'ignore the old testament as metaphorical mythology' hasn't been the Catholic position since forever and is in fact quite recent.

>>1452052
>Catholic position
>there is only one Catholic
okay

>>1452039
Church teaches that human life starts during the very moment of conception, therefore we can have a single cellular human being. Therefore act of creation was creating a single celled Adam, creation of Eve was that first cell splitting up and sex between the cells later on was bacterial conjugation. Great Flood was great extinction periods in world's history.

>>1452052
Yes, this is exactly why I quoted Bede living between 7th to 8th century AC.

>>1452066
>church teaches
Depending on what church you go to you could leave believing angles were fucking humans and the earth is a couple thousand years old
I don't mean to say that the church's position should be completely disregarded
The church's job is to try to understand the stories that are in the bible not determine if they happened or not

>>1452083
>Depending on what church you go to you could leave believing angles were fucking humans and the earth is a couple thousand years old
Did you even bother to read ANYTHING written in this thread?

>>1451993
Please provide proofs

>>1452147
I skimmed it
Why do you ask?