Are we going against the Church Fathers?

[Gorgias]

Where does the bible say both these things? What two differing accounts?

Genesis 1 gives the six-day creation account, with man & woman created without order, hierarchy or differentiation. Genesis 2 gives a different creation account, including the creation of Adam (alone), with animals as God’s first choice as Adam’s helpmate, but only later is a woman made (from man, not on her own) as a helpmate. Two distinct stories.

Where does Genesis say the universe came from a primordial soup?

I’m betting he’s referring to Genesis 1:2 – the ru’ah was “over the waters” prior to any of God’s performative utterances of creation.

 

[Gorgias]

What is Genesis then, according to you? What truth does it communicate? What did the original inspired author (whoever he was) intend to say, if not to communicate a straight forward historical narative?

Everything that the Catechism says that it communicates! Namely, that God created everything from nothing; everything that God created was good and nothing was bad; humanity was created “in the image and likeness of God”. All of these facts are true – and they don’t depend on the historicity of the creation narratives for their truth!

 

[Arthropod]

Genesis 1 gives the six-day creation account, with man & woman created without order, hierarchy or differentiation. Genesis 2 gives a different creation account, including the creation of Adam (alone), with animals as God’s first choice as Adam’s helpmate, but only later is a woman made (from man, not on her own) as a helpmate. Two distinct stories.

I don’t see where the contradiction is. Genesis 1:27 does not say they were created without order, it just says they were created male and female. They were not asexuals or hermaphrodites. I don’t see how that contradicts the slightly more detailed account in genesis 2.
Animals the first choice as Adam’s help mate? If God had intended the animals to be Adam’s help mate then he would have designed them to be suitable! The woman was created later, but I see no reason why that couldn’t have still been on day six.

I think that Gen 1:1-2:2 is the word of God verbatim describing what God did from God’s point of view, and 2:3 onwards is what Adam wrote, from Adam’s point of view. It makes good sense of the words. If this is true, it would mean that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not the same narative and should not be viewed as such.
Then Moses compiled them and stuck them inbetween the same cover.
Then the 21st century athiests come along and read it as a single narative, and apply western journalistic standards to it, thereby making it contradict itself.

I’m betting he’s referring to Genesis 1:2 – the ru’ah was “over the waters” prior to any of God’s performative utterances of creation.

But Genesis 1:1 says God created the heavens and the earth. First. Before anything else, including the primordial soup.

 

[Arthropod]

Everything that the Catechism says that it communicates! Namely, that God created everything from nothing; everything that God created was good and nothing was bad; humanity was created “in the image and likeness of God”. All of these facts are true – and they don’t depend on the historicity of the creation narratives for their truth!

Oh so parts of Genesis 1 narative are true and parts of it are poetry? The bits you like are true and the bits you don’t like are not true? Do you believe that the catechism is above the inspired word of God, and is the infallible interpreter of scripture?

Did you know your own ‘infallible’ pope has said the scriptures are the inspired and inerrant word of God and cannot err?
Pope Leo XIII:

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”

 

[Darryl_B]

I would be interested to see the church fathers who said the earth was billions of years old.

It makes a HUGE difference.

http://creation.com/images/fp_articles/2012/8797-death-suffering-disease.jpg

How can a loving God create a world of disease, death, suffering etc? How could a loving God use death, disease, and suffering as a means to create? As a biblical creationist I can answer that he didn’t - we just stuffed it up, he made everything perfect. You, on the other hand, don’t have a leg to stand on.

I recognized the image instantly as a creation.com image. I subscribe to creation magazine. I have been interested in science for quite some time (since birth) and I am particularly interested in volcanic evidence for a young earth, since I come from an entirely volcanic region. I do find the science does fit the creation.com model nicely.

I am glad to agree with you.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I don’t know if I agree with the a day is like a thousand year analogy because first of all, there are two different stories in genesis that if you go at it from a scientific view contradict each-other. Also the explanation of earth is way off, also take a book shelf with 20 books on it . The length of the universe are these 20 books, the length of the existence of the earth is maybe a dozens of pages in one book, the existence of humans maybe a page in one of these books if even that. Genesis messes up the order as well, how can the earth be there with no light. I wouldn’t even claim that let there be light is the big bang, because the scribe of genesis would have no knowledge of the big bang so in no way could this be his intent. I could go on and on.

My basic point is while it sounds nice and all to claim that in Genesis a day is like a thousand years, I don’t really think it adds up correctly with the truth. Genesis isn’t a scientific retelling of creation, don’t hold it to that standard. Don’t try and adjust it to make it sound like it is.

You are correct. The point of Genesis is to show us the power of God and to teach us that everything was created by His hand. The point is not to tell us how He went about that creation.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I agree with your analogy, but we are not talking about God bringing good things out of evil, but a God who created a world of evil using evil his first preference tool of creation. The analogy doesn’t fit.

How are we talking about God using evil for creation?

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Where does the bible say both these things? What two differing accounts? Where does Genesis say the universe came from a primordial soup?

I am not sure about the primordial soup, I don’t remember that, but it has been a while since I have read Genesis. However, if you do give it a read, you will find that there are two unique stories of creation in Genesis.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Oh so parts of Genesis 1 narative are true and parts of it are poetry? The bits you like are true and the bits you don’t like are not true?** Do you believe that the catechism is above the inspired word of God, and is the infallible interpreter of scripture?**

Did you know your own ‘infallible’ pope has said the scriptures are the inspired and inerrant word of God and cannot err?

I believe that the Church teaches without error when telling us what Scripture means. The Church tells us that parts of Scripture are meant to be taken literally and parts are not.

The point of Genesis was to get across the message that the universe and everything in it was created by God and by God alone. It was not to provide a science lesson on how that creation took place.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t see where the contradiction is. Genesis 1:27 does not say they were created without order, it just says they were created male and female. They were not asexuals or hermaphrodites.

‘Asexuals’? ‘Hermaphrodites’? I’m afraid I’m not seeing where you’re getting that from? No, I simply mean to say that, in the first creation story, God creates humans in his image and likeness, and He creates them male and female. There’s no order (Adam first, then Eve); there’s no hierarchy (Adam is created, then Eve from him).

Animals the first choice as Adam’s help mate?

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam… but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” (Gen 2:18-19, 20).

According to the creation story of Genesis 2, God made animals as Adam’s ‘help meet’. It didn’t work, though, so God created Eve.

I think that Gen 1:1-2:2 is the word of God verbatim describing what God did from God’s point of view

Hmm… if it’s God’s narrative, then why doesn’t the first creation story read like, “on the first day, I created…”?

If this is true, it would mean that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not the same narative and should not be viewed as such.

I agree – they are two distinct stories.

But Genesis 1:1 says God created the heavens and the earth. First. Before anything else, including the primordial soup.

I see where you’re coming from: our translations differ – mine suggests that a more correct translation of Gen 1:1 is “when God created the heavens and the earth” – that is, v1 sets up the context of the story, but doesn’t report an actual creation event. That seems to make sense – every other act of creation is an act that God does through a speech act; you’re suggesting that the God created the heavens and earth, but then, every other act of creation is different, proceeding from speech. Why would Gen 1:1 be different?

 

[Gorgias]

Oh so parts of Genesis 1 narative are true and parts of it are poetry?

No – all of it is true; the fact that it’s expressed as an epic poem doesn’t change the fact that it’s inspired truth!

The bits you like are true and the bits you don’t like are not true?

Nope – that’s not it at all!

Do you believe that the catechism is above the inspired word of God, and is the infallible interpreter of scripture?

LOL… so, who (or what) do you say infallibly interprets Scripture?

Did you know your own ‘infallible’ pope has said the scriptures are the inspired and inerrant word of God and cannot err?

And I would agree! However, where the Bible does not intend to tell a literal story, it does not ‘err’ in telling something that is not literal!

 

[catholictiger]

Where does the bible say both these things? What two differing accounts? Where does Genesis say the universe came from a primordial soup?

Oops my fault i got Big Bang language mixed up.

I meant to say vast and formless wasteland

 

[catholictiger]

Oh so parts of Genesis 1 narative are true and parts of it are poetry? The bits you like are true and the bits you don’t like are not true? Do you believe that the catechism is above the inspired word of God, and is the infallible interpreter of scripture?

Did you know your own ‘infallible’ pope has said the scriptures are the inspired and inerrant word of God and cannot err?

The Church has develop since that understanding of scripture and now says the bellow. This is from vatican two which makes it official church teaching.

1. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

 

[catholictiger]

There is another part of scripture that talks about a different idea of creation, but I rather not get into that discussion because it would turn into a cannon of scripture debate. Should X be included.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I would be interested to see the church fathers who said the earth was billions of years old.

catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

There were a pelethora of opinions about the time frame, varying from instant, to 6 days, to thousands of years, to indefinite and long. I don’t think any have hit upon the exact number suggested by modern science, but this would be because they didn’t have modern science, and were giving their opinions based on what they did have.

It makes a HUGE difference.

How can a loving God create a world of disease, death, suffering etc? How could a loving God use death, disease, and suffering as a means to create? As a biblical creationist I can answer that he didn’t - we just stuffed it up, he made everything perfect. You, on the other hand, don’t have a leg to stand on.

How indeed? But the fact that you can ask how does not mean there is no answer. In fact, I highly suggest you do some research on the question instead of just saying that because you came up with it that everyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

Here is a quote that sums up my position pretty well, from St. Augustine:

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

And further:

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).

And there’s more. Taken from the link I gave you. If you want to believe in literal 6 days, that’s fine. But don’t pretend that everyone always has, or that everyone is bound to.

 

[Arthropod]

LOL… so, who (or what) do you say infallibly interprets Scripture?

I asked you first!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

LOL… so, who (or what) do you say infallibly interprets Scripture?

I asked you first!

Fair enough! But, after I answer, I wanna hear your answer, too!

OK: you asked me whether I “believe that the catechism is above the inspired word of God, and is the infallible interpreter of scripture”. My answer is that the catechism isn’t above Scripture, per se, but neither is it less accurate than Scripture. That is, the two aren’t in competition with one another for accuracy. Rather, the Catechism accurately reflects inerrant sources: God’s revelation, as expressed in written (Scripture) and oral (Apostolic teaching) forms.

So, the Catechism does not interpret Scripture, but rather, expresses the Revelation that we find in Scripture and Apostolic teaching. (So, if there were an error in the Catechism, we would expect to find the correction one of those two sources.) Since both Apostolic teaching (oral) and Scripture (written) are the inspired and protected expressions of God’s revelation, there is error in neither of them.

If you’re looking for an “interpreter of Scripture”, though, the only possible place to find it is in the oral expression of the Revelation of God – Apostolic teaching.

OK… your turn: what do you say is the interpreter of Scripture?

 

[Arthropod]

Fair enough! But, after I answer, I wanna hear your answer, too!

OK: you asked me whether I “believe that the catechism is above the inspired word of God, and is the infallible interpreter of scripture”. My answer is that the catechism isn’t above Scripture, per se, but neither is it less accurate than Scripture. That is, the two aren’t in competition with one another for accuracy. Rather, the Catechism accurately reflects inerrant sources: God’s revelation, as expressed in written (Scripture) and oral (Apostolic teaching) forms.

So, the Catechism does not interpret Scripture, but rather, expresses the Revelation that we find in Scripture and Apostolic teaching. (So, if there were an error in the Catechism, we would expect to find the correction one of those two sources.) Since both Apostolic teaching (oral) and Scripture (written) are the inspired and protected expressions of God’s revelation, there is error in neither of them.

If you’re looking for an “interpreter of Scripture”, though, the only possible place to find it is in the oral expression of the Revelation of God – Apostolic teaching.

OK… your turn: what do you say is the interpreter of Scripture?

I say scripture is its own interpreter.

1:

Exodus:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

In what version of the english (or Hebrew) language can the word “days” with number in front of it be interpreted as figurative?

2:

Christ:

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,** 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”female.’**

Male and female at the BEGINNING of creation. Any atheist will tell you that sexual reproduction only arose very recently. After billions and billions and billions of years.

3:

Paul:

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

Now I take it that you believe that the scientific consensus is the truth, and you are reinterpreting the scripture according to that. Did you know that the popular scientific consensus will tell you that the depth and breadth of genetic variation we see today could not possibly have arisen from two individuals?
Do you say Paul is wrong too, in saying every nation of men came from one man?

And most importantly, accepting the secular timescale of the world brings in a huge chronology problem.

The bible says death is an enemy. Death is evil. Death is unnatural.

The bible says that death is the direct result of sin.

If you accept an evolutionary timescale, then you put death before sin. You put death into God’s alledgedly very good world.

 

[Arthropod]

Fair enough! But, after I answer, I wanna hear your answer, too!

OK: you asked me whether I “believe that the catechism is above the inspired word of God, and is the infallible interpreter of scripture”. My answer is that the catechism isn’t above Scripture, per se, but neither is it less accurate than Scripture. That is, the two aren’t in competition with one another for accuracy. Rather, the Catechism accurately reflects inerrant sources: God’s revelation, as expressed in written (Scripture) and oral (Apostolic teaching) forms.

So, the Catechism does not interpret Scripture, but rather, expresses the Revelation that we find in Scripture and Apostolic teaching. (So, if there were an error in the Catechism, we would expect to find the correction one of those two sources.) Since both Apostolic teaching (oral) and Scripture (written) are the inspired and protected expressions of God’s revelation, there is error in neither of them.

If you’re looking for an “interpreter of Scripture”, though, the only possible place to find it is in the oral expression of the Revelation of God – Apostolic teaching.

OK… your turn: what do you say is the interpreter of Scripture?

But the thing is, here am I alledging a contradiction between the catechism and the bible, and instead of looking for a correction in one of the two sources, you say there is none because there can be none (“What does the bible say?” “Whatever the catechism says it says”).
I want to know a) who says the catechism is inerrant, other than you, and b) what people did before the catechism, which was published recently.

If you like, I can PM you some contradictions between the current catechism and previous catechisms, and the current catechism and papal bulls that are supposed to be infallible. (Private message so as not to drag the thread more off topic than it already is)

 

[Markus2007]

I don’t know if we find a universal agreement in the Church fathers on the interpretation of genesis. I do know however, that that no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” (see for example the Council of Trent and Vatican I).

It would be interesting to see if they indeed have a unanimous agreement on this issue (as for example the Kolbe Center claims: kolbecenter.org see especially this article that’s supposed to give the theological perspective: kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/)

Edit: Also, in any event you are certainly not required by Catholic teaching to interpret genesis according to evolution theory, or even believe in evolution theory at all.