Catholics And The Creation Account

[Protestant101]

I would be interested in comparing and contrasting the Catholic views on the creation account in Genesis, with the views that I have been taught. The way I thought it would be of most benefit, is for me to make a series of 4 posts to explain my views, and to begin answering some questions that were put to me about Genesis by another member here at CAF.

In a minute, I will post the questions but first, I just want to explain that I have chosen to address this in a separate topic, because I believe much more than the questions about the fourth commandment are at stake here.

If Catholics do indeed officially teach that the 7 days, (or just some of them) are not literal, 24 hour days, I would like to know about it, and why.

In a challenge to me about the 4th commandment, “Patrick” a CAF member asked me the following questions:

So I think the best approach I can take to quickly summarize my thoughts, will be to look at the Creation story as a literal 7, 24 hour day period. I think this will reduce the miscommunication between me and the others who can only look at this story as a literal 24 hour 7 day period. What the scriptures reveal for us will not be lost by looking at a 24 hour day, or a 24 thousand year day…so let’s go literal.

However, you will have to answer those who will raise the questions that arise in looking at each day as a 24 hour period of time. For instance:

1. How is there light and darkness, evening and morning for 3 days before the sun and stars are created on the 4th day?

1. How do you reconcile the creation story of Genesis chapter 1 with the creation story of Genesis chapter 2, where God places Adam in the Garden before the animals were created, and then creates the animals, and then after seeing that none of the animals were suitable companions, God creates woman?

1. How long were Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall took place in Chapter 3? Was it before or after the creation of the 7th day?

1. Why is there no mention of the sabbath rest in Chapter 2?

1. Is sabbath observance at creation the covenant between God and man, or is it a sign of another covenant? Is sabbath observance even commanded to manking by God before the fall of mankind?

1. Was keeping saturday holy in the unfallen world God’s plan for mankind, or was marriage and family and communion with God the original plan?

Please be kind enough to wait for ten minutes to post here so I can get the other posts done consecutively. While I want to continue answering these 6 questions here; I would like to concurrently discuss the Catholic views on the Genesis account of Creation, and how those views might impact the challenges being put forth in these 6 questions about the Sabbath. You will know I am finished when end the last post with the phrase: “Responses Welcome!”

 

[Protestant101]

Hello Patrick

From Genesis to Revelation, there have been numerous attempts to discredit the Bible by those parties such as yourself with
special interests to do so, and your 6 questions are no exceptions to this sad commentary on what people think they can do to, or with the Bible in distorting it’s plainly declared truths about the literal creation account in Genesis.

Here is your first question, as you stated it:

1. How is there light and darkness, evening and morning for 3 days before the sun and stars are created on the 4th day?

I have to admit some trepidation as I enter into the arena of answering your “questions”. I think your “questions” are actually statements, echoing personal conclusions. I have followed other responses to your “questions”; and you appear to be automatically rejecting any answers given – including the rejecting of clear scripture evidences which clearly imply that the seven days of creation were literal 24 hour days.

Your answers appear to be scripted – that is, I think you are getting them from somewhere else, in fact I have seen many Bible critics, and atheists come up with the same arguments from Genesis to discredit the Bible.

Your questions all appear to do just that, discredit the Bible, and degrade God’s authority to say what is truth, without Him having to “prove” every iota of what He clearly declares. Otherwise, where is there room for faith?

If you look at what anti- christians are doing in the world today, this question #1 of your’s is the very kind of reasoning they use to discredit the Bible. I have also seen some Catholic leaders/apologists in their desperate attempts to try to discredit the Bible, in very similar ways so that they can meet the agenda of “Tradition.”

You appear to be implying, within the immediate context here, that because you don’t see any explicit statement about “evening and morning” and how to “reconcile” this phrase with the fact that all seven days of creation were literal 24 hour periods, that the concept of literal 24 hour days in Creation is not plausible.

And, for some reason, you are evading coming right out with what you think your 6 questions actually mean regarding the seventh- day Sabbath – like you are trying to draw people out, and trap them somehow. But you yourself have yet to prove from God’s Word only, or from official Catholic teachings, or from any other source, that the days were not all literal 24 hours.

It is so easy to dream up trick questions for the purpose of deception, or to cut and paste them from other internet sites, for the grand purpose of tripping up opponents. I have seen many Catholics here go to all kinds of non-Catholic, even anti-catholic sites to try to make Adventists look stupid. But you can’t even prove us wrong on this by Catholic teachings!!

As far as I know, there is actually no need to “prove” anything about this first question, for the simple reason that the Bible declares that there was an “evening and morning” for all seven days of creation. There has been no change or loss of the Sabbath since God made it in Genesis. The very origin of the week is found in the creation story; and this same week can be shown throughout the entire Bible.

 

[Protestant101]

If the Bible says something, it does not always seek to prove it. Atleast not by yours or my standards. It is just declared. Your question #1 is akin to saying there is no such thing as the “Trinity” because the word “Trinity” is not explicitly written in the Bible. You yourself have stated that you “worship the Trinity.”

For example; as we see in the following text, the miracles of Jesus were one way He manifested His glory:

Joh 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

As we also see, in another text in John there is a strong connection from the revelation of Christ’s glory to the written word of God. John 20:30-31,

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

The “signs” that reveal the faith-awakening glory of Christ are not mainly all the new signs being done today by so called religious leaders,or leading religions, but these signs are written in the Holy Bible. These are written “so that you may believe.” Jesus “manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.”

Catholics try to use this text of John 20 to “prove” that not all Jesus said or did was "written” so that they can squeeze a little extra-Biblical “Tradition” along-side the Bible as “Truth;” yet Protestants use this same text to definitively prove that all which was written, (in the Bible) is enough, “that we might believe.”

In other words what the Bible does say about creation and Sabbath is sufficient. We don’t need anything or anyone else to tell us about these two subjects, except the Holy Bible! Just because you say you cannot figure out your “question” #1 here,does not mean that what God declares is not true, or that it is “symbolic”.

I would rather build up the Bible and it’s trustworthiness than to discredit it with your type of “questions” about Genesis.

 

[Protestant101]

To set down as the basis of our reasoning that God must have done thus and so in creating the world, else nature’s laws would have been violated, is to darken God’s holy counsel with words of falsehood, and to give aid and comfort to the skeptic, who has always insisted that the whole Mosaic record is not accurate because it allegedly violates the laws of nature.

Why should we attempt to be wise above that which is written? It is just like saying that it is “scientifically impossible” for Jesus to raise the dead, when the Bible declares otherwise!! We serve a God who has the authority to say what is truth, without having to “prove” every iota of what He clearly declares. We can trust what God declares, even if we cannot prove it; God Proves It by declaring it!!

Therefore, with your first question; I have faith in the literal creation story, because of the written Word of God, but not just God’s Word in Genesis, rather, faith in God’s Word everywhere in the Bible which talks about or refers to the creation story, and the seventh-day Sabbath.

This is why your one requested restriction of only using the text in Genesis 1 & 2 by itself to “answer” your “questions” is not Biblically correct, for on any given subject, the entire Bible must be consulted in order for us to be able to say “the Bible says…”

You certainly don’t even come close to doing anything like this in any of your statements about Sunday exaltation; or with your many Sabbath objections; and neither does the Roman Catholic Church, or any of the so called former Adventists who profess to be “authorities” on Adventists. (How can you be one if you are not one?)

The Creation Story has to be limited by what is written!

 

[Protestant101]

If Saturday/Sabbath is so mixed up as you say, then so is your alleged "Lord’s day/Sunday; and you have no way of properly keeping your own “Sunday obligation” as described in your own Catechism, because how can you even know when it really is?

If all the other days clearly have “evening and mornings” why would not the ones where it’s not as clearly or explicitly stated, (such as the seventh day) also have the same hours? What reason is there to say the number of hours in some of the creation days would be different? And what do you say it will “prove” if they were different?

I don’t think you are even staying with official Catholic teaching on that point – that would be interesting to find out too. Plus, there is no “evening and morning” sometimes in the Artic, yet we know there is always “evening and morning” even there! How could you even go to bed and get up on time for work there if that wasn’t so? If God says it about one day, then he says it about the other days. 24 hours!! “Evening and morning!!”

Before this first question can be answered further, you will have to state exactly what you think your personal conclusions/questions mean, in terms of the literal 24 hour concept for all seven days of creation. Right now, there is too much mystery to your question, and I need facts to reply to. What are you saying that it would mean if indeed the days of the creation story in Genesis were not literal? I would also like to know if official Catholic teachings say that the seven days of creation were in fact all 24 hours. I will reply more to your other questions, once this first one is resolved better. In the meantime; here is another article to study, which does give some details on your other questions, in addition to this first one.

1. How is there light and darkness, evening and morning for 3 days before the sun and stars are created on the 4th day?

The answer to your question #1 is because God says there was:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Is God’s answer not good enough for you? Maybe the Catholic Church is teaching you to not accept some of God’s answers?

RESPONSES WELCOME!!

 

[requiemaeturnum]

What are you asking? You wanna play the Prot two step then lets dance pretty boy- but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Steadfast]

Catholics are not limited to a literal interpretation of the creation account, though many (maybe even most, worldwide) still hold to it.

Most Catholic scholarship understands the account to be a theologoumenon, a rendering given to portray truth the details of which may or may not be fictionalized.

Again though there is a good amount of liberty for Catholics here. If they want they can continue to be as hard edged about it as any Protestant Fundamentalist.

 

[TomaszA]

The Church does not endorse what today is called “creationism.” - The literal interpretation of Genesis, not considering it’s genre, and therefore leading to such beliefs as God creating in literal 24-block days.

 

[Protestant101]

The Church does not endorse what today is called “creationism.” - The literal interpretation of Genesis, not considering it’s genre, and therefore leading to such beliefs as God creating in literal 24-block days.

Thanks to the answers so far.

I have summarized what I believe and why; and tried using “the Bible only” as the six questions asked, but as I also stated in the OP; I would like to see official Catholic references for your position. I did not realize that Catholics do not officially teach a “literal creation.”

 

[JonNC]

What are you asking? You wanna play the Prot two step then lets dance pretty boy- but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

CONDUCT RULES
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.

 

[dzheremi]

Is God’s answer not good enough for you? Maybe the Catholic Church is teaching you to not accept some of God’s answers?

This is an offensive assumption. Please be more charitable in your discussion.

Please see this article from the Catholic.com archives. It explains the Catholic position very well. It has nothing to do with disbelieving in “God’s answers”.

 

[adstrinity]

But…very plainly, the story reads like a myth. The thing to remember about this is that there is also Jewish mythology…which is something a lot of the literal Creationists, no matter whom, don’t know. Lillith and all that… Read a Greek or Chinese myth, and this reads the same way. It’s not so much what happened and what didn’t, but, what is God trying to tell us?

Protestant101, do you also have scientific evidence to back up your beliefs? (A friend of mine HAS looked at this and, I believe still, with his finds, very much believes it…though, there was something he looked up and cited that was a forgery…but, I just don’t think we can go to the Bible for this…nobody was around, God didn’t tell anybody how He did it, this is His people trying to come up with how everything happened…it may not be real).

 

[TomaszA]

Adstrinity,

I think it’s important to clarify that “myth” does not mean the story is fake.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks to the answers so far.

I have summarized what I believe and why; and tried using “the Bible only” as the six questions asked, but as I also stated in the OP; I would like to see official Catholic references for your position. I did not realize that Catholics do not officially teach a “literal creation.”

There’s an ambiguity which ought to be sorted out ASAP. You said:​

• If Catholics do indeed officially teach that the 7 days, (or just some of them) are not literal, 24 hour days, I would like to know about it, and why.
  The days can be 24-hour days, without being historically real - to put in another way, the use of the word yom in Genesis, which does mean “day (of twenty-four hours)”, does not by itself settle whether the day in question is one that really took place, or is not. Trees, swords, days, fruit & so on are the same thing whether historically actual or not - the mere names “day”, “sword”, “fruit”, “tree” & so on is no indication as to whether they exist. Trees can be fictional.

So the day can be 24 hours long, without having been real. There is nothing in the context to suggest that yom means anything but a 24-hour day, framed by evening & morning.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But…very plainly, the story reads like a myth. The thing to remember about this is that there is also Jewish mythology…which is something a lot of the literal Creationists, no matter whom, don’t know. Lillith and all that… Read a Greek or Chinese myth, and this reads the same way. It’s not so much what happened and what didn’t, but, what is God trying to tell us?

Protestant101, do you also have scientific evidence to back up your beliefs? (A friend of mine HAS looked at this and, I believe still, with his finds, very much believes it…though, there was something he looked up and cited that was a forgery…but, I just don’t think we can go to the Bible for this…nobody was around, God didn’t tell anybody how He did it, this is His people trying to come up with how everything happened…it may not be real).

Unfortunately people conflate:​

• the sense of the text
• the literary genre of the text
  so that some have difficulty seeing how a literary fiction can convey a truth. One can only guess that they don’t know much mythology - perhaps there are people who regard it as a sin to read anything but the Bible

There is no indication that Genesis 1 is inspired, or is different from any any other composition: no “The word of the Lord came to X…”, “And the Lord said to X…” or that kind of thing.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

There is no indication that Genesis 1 is inspired, or is different from any any other composition: no “The word of the Lord came to X…”, “And the Lord said to X…” or that kind of thing.

Are you saying that Genesis 1 isn’t inspired? If that is your claim, it seems as though you are at odds with Catholic teaching on that score, at least from what I can tell from the Catechism:

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

Now I don’t think that necessitates an interpretation of Genesis 1 as creation in 6 24 hour days, but to say that it was just written on a whim from the mind of man is a major error.

 

[Steadfast]

I am 83% sure that there is no “official Catholic interpretation” of the Genesis creation account.

 

[Dameedna]

I asked a friend of mine about this who is a catholic professor, and he indicated to me that there is nothing wrong with the concept that genisis is not an actual 24 hour period. If we evolved we evolved over a long period of time. The stories, can only be interpreted not treated as factual history.

I think the issue here, is that people live(wether they like it or not) with a “proof” based mentality. Our secular world, requires it.

For many, their proof of God is in the bible itself. That is why they alway’s claim “See, the bible say’s it’s the word of God, and if you don’t believe it then you aren’t following God. God has already TOLD US”.

Actually, it’s a book, written thousands of years ago, and it cannot prove itself.

But people need their proof because our current culture and climate demands it(and in many way’s it should). If the bible, is their proof and their interpretation of it, is the truth, what happens when it’s challenged? Poof…there goes their proof.

If one relies on a particular interpretation of a particular book for their faith, then their faith is shakey indeed It isn’t based on God, it’s based on a Book.

Hence the current assult on science by fundamentalists.

 

[ralphinal]

I am 83% sure that there is no “official Catholic interpretation” of the Genesis creation account.

You would be correct. Is there a Lutheran one?

 

[guanophore]

What are you asking? You wanna play the Prot two step then lets dance pretty boy- but I have no idea what you are trying to say.

It is a violation of the forum rules to refer to members as “prot” or “Prots”. I realize that this is an abbreviated form of his username, so we will all need to aspire to the higher good by using the whole username, or selecting a different nickname. People have gotten into trouble shortening mine too.