Any young earth creationists out there?

[Glark]

My very simple request seems to have caused you some confusion. I asked you for YOUR interpretation of Genesis 1:14-18, not what you think Augustine’s was.

For example, you claim that “day” in Genesis 1 is symbolic of billions of years, so what does “Let there lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night” mean?

And if a “day” is symbolic of billions of years, what is “night” symbolic of?

What does “the greater light to rule the day” mean?

 

[Glark]

St. Paul writes that at the last judgment, the faithful will be raised imperishable in an instant - not over millions of years, but in an instant, the twinkling of an eye.

If a “day” can be interpreted as “billions of years” (as in Genesis 1), then “the twinkling of eye” can be interpreted as “thousands of years”.

 

[Glark]

Are we all men?

“Q: Are We Not Men?
A: We Are Devo!”

 

[Glark]

Some translations are poor and need correcting.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Some translations are poor and need correcting.

Such a shame that Glarkian isn’t in Google Translate yet…

 

[edwest211]

DEVOlving? Mentally and socially, some are.

 

[Gorgias]

My very simple request seems to have caused you some confusion. I asked you for YOUR interpretation of Genesis 1:14-18, not what you think Augustine’s was.

Aah… sorry – I thought you were still beating that same dead horse.

For example, you claim that “day” in Genesis 1 is symbolic of billions of years

No, I never made that claim. I recall you raising that claim as something you hold as possible – a creation of the universe prior to “day one”, followed by lots of time prior to “day one”.

, so what does “Let there lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night” mean?

It’s all part of the figurative account of the creation of the universe. Again, as I’ve already mentioned, each element doesn’t have to have a particular interpretation.

And if a “day” is symbolic of billions of years, what is “night” symbolic of?

Again, I’m not making the claim that ‘day’ has one specific meaning of a distinct length of time (and therefore, I’m not claiming that ‘night’ stands for a particular length of time, either).

What does “the greater light to rule the day” mean?

In the context of the tale itself? Clearly, the author thinks that the sun is different from other stars, so to him, everything is understood in terms of its effects on us here on earth: the sun brings daytime light, and the moon brings nighttime light.

What’s my take on Genesis 1? It’s a poem, teaching us theological truth by means of features of that genre. It teaches us that God created everything from nothing – that He created the universe and then populated it with life and everything He created was good. It teaches that humanity, while part of God’s universe, is a special creation, made in His image and likeness.

 

[Glark]

Such a shame that Glarkian isn’t in Google Translate yet…

Try the Dark-web

 

[bobperk]

Something that is often left out of these threads is the echoing effect of accepting evolution (especially of Adam and Eve being “evolved” instead of instantaneously created) on other aspects of theology and Catholic teaching such as original sin, the fall, the Immaculate Conception, etc. The scientific approach dominated nearly all of these evolution threads (there was a new one just started a few days ago). The theological hurdles can be brushed over, but are not really solved (and are quite a stretch) when we posit “evolved” first parents.

 

[edwest211]

That’s the point of these threads - to drown out the idea God did miraculous things only God can do and try, as hard as possible, to tell people that He did nothing science can’t solve/explain, and that, eventually, those who don’t accept this will be called names.

 

[Gorgias]

Something that is often left out of these threads is the echoing effect of accepting evolution (especially of Adam and Eve being “evolved” instead of instantaneously created) on other aspects of theology and Catholic teaching such as original sin, the fall, the Immaculate Conception, etc.

What is the ‘effect’ that you’re perceiving?

The theological hurdles can be brushed over, but are not really solved (and are quite a stretch) when we posit “evolved” first parents.

What are the ‘hurdles’?

 

[Bradskii]

You know when children are small, they get excited about someone doing a magic trick because they think it’s really magic.

They don’t realise that it’s a tremendous piece of work by The Magician in any case. It LOOKS like the rabbit appeared, fully formed from His hat. But grown ups realise how He did it. And it doesn’t actually spoil the enjoyment or make us think any less of Him when we work out how He did it.

In fact, it makes a lot of people appreciate what He can do even more. But we must allow the children to believe what they want. When they grow up enough to be able to understand, then we can explain it to them.

Whether some will understand is another matter. Some might prefer to cling to the belief that there is no explantion other than magic.

 

[Aloysium]

It would appear that some people lack the capacity to experience cognitive dissonance. At least guys like Brad are consitant in their views, as unrealistic as they are.

 

[Techno2000]

You know when children are small, they get excited about someone doing a magic trick because they think it’s really magic.

They don’t realise that it’s a tremendous piece of work by The Magician in any case. It LOOKS like the rabbit appeared, fully formed from His hat. But grown ups realise how He did it. And it doesn’t actually spoil the enjoyment or make us think any less of Him when we work out how He did it.

In fact, it makes a lot of people appreciate what He can do even more. But we must allow the children to believe what they want. When they grow up enough to be able to understand, then we can explain it to them.

Whether some will understand is another matter. Some might prefer to cling to the belief that there is no explantion other than magic.

Yes , Judas thought Jesus was a Magician.

 

[bobperk]

What is the ‘effect’ that you’re perceiving?

What are the ‘hurdles’?

• The concept of merely “infusing” two pre-humans with souls is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture. The creation of our first parents implies they were created immediately, body and soul. Aside from Genesis, and just to name a few, 1 Chronicles 1, Tobit 8:6, Wisdom 10:1, Sirach 33:10, 40:1 and 49:6, Hosea 6:7, 2 Maccabees 7:28, Luke 3:38, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2, and Jude 1:14 allude to the creation of Adam and nowhere in these passages does one get the sense that the creation of his body and soul were separate.
• Evolutionist views of Adam and Eve often imply that they then had to breed with soulless human-like beings who lived at the same time.
• The concept of “Paradise” is only empty symbolism if we assume that our first parents were just pre-humans who were then infused with souls; rather, they were part of a pre-human tribe grunting and gathering, subject to all natural ailments, when they were ensouled and became aware of an already fallen world.
• Along this same thought, the evolutionary view of human creation suggests that only life on earth gradually improved as humans used their reason and intellect to improve society; again, there is not much room left for Eden and original Paradise.
• From the CCC: 400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. “Become(s) alien and hostile to man” - this would now mean that instead of God creating everything “good” from the beginning, it was in fact not, but only now because of the Fall does man “realize” he is at odds with God, and Creation.
• The points of the CCC 413-421 also do not follow intuitively if man were evolved instead of created immediately. E.g. CCC 419, “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . 'proper to each.” Anything except monogenism equates propagation with imitation, but from Trent to Bl. Paul VI they are two separate concepts.
• The parallels between Jesus and Mary and Adam and Eve seem more metaphor than historical fact when accommodating an “evolved” set of first parents.
• In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus reminds His listeners that God made us male and female “from the beginning.” So was “the beginning” the two souls zapped into male and female pre-humans, or was it how it was understood for centuries, the direct creation of Adam and Eve made in the image of God, created in Paradise?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

What are the ‘hurdles’?

• The concept of merely “infusing” two pre-humans with souls is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

That’s simply untrue. In Genesis 2, the creation of man is literally described as a two-step process! God first “formed the man out of the dust of the ground” and only then did He “blow into his nostrils the breath of life”!

The creation of our first parents implies they were created immediately, body and soul.

That’s not what the narrative says.

Aside from Genesis, and just to name a few, 1 Chronicles 1

Only mentions Adam’s name. As I start looking up your other quotes, I see that you simply list any time Adam’s name is mentioned, and without any support for your argument!

• Evolutionist views of Adam and Eve often imply that they then had to breed with soulless human-like beings who lived at the same time.

And it still amazes me that those who wish to take the opening chapters of Genesis strictly literalistically are horrified at this notion, while being absolutely cavalier that they’re asserting wide-spread incest!

• The concept of “Paradise” is only empty symbolism if we assume that our first parents were just pre-humans who were then infused with souls; rather, they were part of a pre-human tribe grunting and gathering, subject to all natural ailments, when they were ensouled and became aware of an already fallen world.

Not at all what’s being proposed. Besides, this forces us to presume that the ‘death’ that entered the world was strictly physical. When Paul talks about death entering the world, it’s the spiritual death that sin brings!
And, if you want to presume that physical death did not enter the world until after the fall, you’d have to assert a number of problematic themes:

• carnivores weren’t really carnivores until after the Fall
• the ‘preternatural gifts’ that Adam and Eve had – among them, immortality – wouldn’t have been given to the animals… so they could die prior to the fall!

• Along this same thought, the evolutionary view of human creation suggests that only life on earth gradually improved as humans used their reason and intellect to improve society; again, there is not much room left for Eden and original Paradise.

If we’re attempting a harmony between revelation and science, then this time of “using reason and intellect to improve society” happens after the fall. That means that there’s no conflict here, as you suggest there is.

• From the CCC: 400
  this would now mean that instead of God creating everything “good” from the beginning, it was in fact not, but only now because of the Fall does man “realize” he is at odds with God, and Creation.

How could it be anything other than good from the beginning? You’re not making sense, here…

 

[Gorgias]

• The points of the CCC 413-421 also do not follow intuitively if man were evolved instead of created immediately. E.g. CCC 419, “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . 'proper to each.” Anything except monogenism equates propagation with imitation, but from Trent to Bl. Paul VI they are two separate concepts.

You’ll need to explain this a bit better; it’s not clear where you see the problem. If it’s propagation of human nature, then it’s only propagated after the fall!

• The parallels between Jesus and Mary and Adam and Eve seem more metaphor than historical fact when accommodating an “evolved” set of first parents.

How so?

• In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus reminds His listeners that God made us male and female “from the beginning.” So was “the beginning” the two souls zapped into male and female pre-humans, or was it how it was understood for centuries, the direct creation of Adam and Eve made in the image of God, created in Paradise?

Doesn’t cause a problem. Either way you take it – as “in the beginning” of their bodies, or “in the beginning” as humans – they were created male and female. No problem there.

I dunno… sure looks like a lot of straw men, from where I’m sitting…

 

[Aloysium]

When Paul talks about death entering the world, it’s the spiritual death that sin brings!

I’m not clear as to what is referred to here as “spiritual death”. It could be a metaphor for a rupture in one’s relationship with God, a disconnect from what is truth, beauty, joy and love, losing oneself to the abyss of transience and illusion, the separation of oneself from Life itself.

While seemingly a valid interpretation, it isn’t actually what we believe as Catholics when we claim that it is a consequence of our original sin that death entered the world.

According to the CCC:

1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered.
1009 Death is transformed by Christ. Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite his anguish as he faced death, he accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to his Father’s will. The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing

 

[Shakuhachi]

Evolutionist views of Adam and Eve often imply that they then had to breed with soulless human-like beings who lived at the same time.

I don’t think so, rather, that they are mythical characters.

 

[bobperk]

That’s simply untrue. In Genesis 2, the creation of man is literally described as a two-step process! God first “formed the man out of the dust of the ground” and only then did He “blow into his nostrils the breath of life”!

That’s not what the narrative says.

Genesis 2:7, “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (RSVCE)
Genesis 2:7, " 7 then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (NABRE)
Neither of these passages inserts a “then” between the formation of Adam and God breathing a soul into him. The creation of Adam is literally accomplished in this one verse. Where is the vast amount of time between his body and soul? Not in Gen 2:7.

Only mentions Adam’s name.

All of these quotes imply Adam as our first father. Nothing other than monogenism is ever implied. Where only Adam’s name is mentioned, the point is that there are none before him. Tobit and 2 Macc imply a simultaneous body and soul formation.

And it still amazes me that those who wish to take the opening chapters of Genesis strictly literalistically are horrified at this notion, while being absolutely cavalier that they’re asserting wide-spread incest!

You are correct that to modern ears either option seems unpalatable. So the options are to accept sibling relations, or bestial relations. But would a man-beast offspring have a rational soul?

Not at all what’s being proposed. Besides, this forces us to presume that the ‘death’ that entered the world was strictly physical.

This could mean only human death as humans only are made in the image of God. In Romans, St. Paul explains that death spread to men with no mention of animals. Adam was allowed to eat fruit prior to the fall, so he had dominion over nature already. The plants were living but their fruit was able to be eaten. Also, Jesus suffered and died a physical death for us, stressing the physical with His torture and crucifixion. So the physical obviously is important.