Catholics And The Creation Account

[Steadfast]

You would be correct. Is there a Lutheran one?

The LCMS is officially young earth creationist, as is the WELS.

ELCA has no official stance I believe, but I welcome correction.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

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:

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,

I take great offense at your repeated accusations that I am trying to “discredit the Bible” and “degrade God’s authority”. I am doing NO such thing.

I take equal offense at your stating "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.”

If that is what you think and believe…you are wrong.

As for evading what I think about the 7th day sabbath, I have shared my answers on the thread **“Why is sunday instead of saturday the sabboth?”. **

I have asked you and other SDAs to show scriptures from the Bible to support your claim to Bible only derived beliefs…which none have done so far. Not with these six questions, nor with the second set of 6 questions posted in the thread "Why is sunday instead of saturday the sabboth?"

My questions are my questions, they are not taken from any other source. But perhaps they sound familiar since most reasonable people may have the same questions for SDAs regarding their beliefs and the claim that SDA beliefs are Biblical and Catholic beliefs are UN-Biblical.

These aren’t trick questions tyring to trap anyone. Perhaps the stess you are feeling in trying to answer my two sets of questions comes from the difficulty in finding scriptures to support your “scripture only” beliefs.

But I will wait to see if you decide to answer any of the others.

God bless all!!!

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101,

I take great offense at your repeated accusations that I am trying to “discredit the Bible” and “degrade God’s authority”. I am doing NO such thing.

I take equal offense at your stating "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.”

If that is what you think and believe…you are wrong.

As for evading what I think about the 7th day sabbath, I have shared my answers on the thread **“Why is sunday instead of saturday the sabboth?”. **

I have asked you and other SDAs to show scriptures from the Bible to support your claim to Bible only derived beliefs…which none have done so far. Not with these six questions, nor with the second set of 6 questions posted in the thread "Why is sunday instead of saturday the sabboth?"

My questions are my questions, they are not taken from any other source. But perhaps they sound familiar since most reasonable people may have the same questions for SDAs regarding their beliefs and the claim that SDA beliefs are Biblical and Catholic beliefs are UN-Biblical.

These aren’t trick questions tyring to trap anyone. Perhaps the stess you are feeling in trying to answer my two sets of questions comes from the difficulty in finding scriptures to support your “scripture only” beliefs.

But I will wait to see if you decide to answer any of the others.

God bless all!!!

Patrick; being “offended” is a choice you make, and that you admitted to doing; but it does not then automatically follow that an actual offence has taken place.

I did answer your question #1 already, above. Where is your reply? I also said I would be happy to adress the other 5 questions when some discussion and resolution has taken place with question #1. It’s totally your choice to be involved, or not involved. You won’t offend me either way.

 

[ralphinal]

The LCMS is officially young earth creationist, as is the WELS.

ELCA has no official stance I believe, but I welcome correction.

Interesting. So what happens to those who see the science? Are they called to either ignore it or convert?

Do you have a link that explains the issues raised, such as “Day and Night” existing before the sun, or plants before the sun?

 

[Steadfast]

Interesting. So what happens to those who see the science? Are they called to either ignore it or convert?

Do you have a link that explains the issues raised, such as “Day and Night” existing before the sun, or plants before the sun?

Ralph,

I accept the evolutionary thesis. In my case I just keep my mouth shut and pick my battles.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,

I accept the evolutionary thesis. In my case I just keep my mouth shut and pick my battles.

Ah. Ok.

How often is Creationism preached in the churches that you have been to? Is it a topic more or less ignored?

How do you feel about the Catholic stance (one of the few no stance at all stances that we have)?

 

[The_Preacher]

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:

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!”

What creation account? My field is historic-redaction analysus. In other words I study scripture and socialanthropology to determine what was originally said and why. The several “creation accounts,” including the prolog to the Gospel according to John are statements of authority, not histories of creation. YHWH did it, therefore He has authority over it. That’s all. Genesis used the convention of using the seven orders of existance from the first and simplist to the seventh and most perfect. Why did God rest on the seventh? Because He created nothing as perfect as Himself. There is no argument here because there is no issue here.

 

[Steadfast]

Ah. Ok.

How often is Creationism preached in the churches that you have been to? Is it a topic more or less ignored?

We don’t really hear many sermons on the subject in the LCMS though our Assistant Pastor has a degree in Biology and is very firm on the Creationist perspective. He brings it up during bible study, but he doesn;t go out of the way to force it on people.

How do you feel about the Catholic stance (one of the few no stance at all stances that we have)?

I think the Catholic stance is probably wise. I am continually bothered by the occasional “pronouncement” by the head of this or that congregation to the effect that the strict creationist view is to be equated with benighted fundamentalists (and probably Americans!), but as I understand it, the view of most Catholic biblical scholars is very close to my own.

 

[ralphinal]

We don’t really hear many sermons on the subject in the LCMS though our Assistant Pastor has a degree in Biology and is very firm on the Creationist perspective. He brings it up during bible study, but he doesn;t go out of the way to force it on people.

I think the Catholic stance is probably wise. I am continually bothered by the occasional “pronouncement” by the head of this or that congregation to the effect that the strict creationist view is to be equated with benighted fundamentalists (and probably Americans!), but as I understand it, the view of most Catholic biblical scholars is very close to my own.

Ok.

The last time I discussed this with a Lutheran minister (He was LCMS), he said that he was a creationist, but I do not remember him saying that it was a required understanding. I was just checking on it.

Sometimes, people seem to associate the stance that some Christians have on this issue as a hatred of science or an attack on education. I agree to some extent, but I am more inclined to see it as a backlash directed at an attack on faith.

 

[The_Preacher]

We don’t really hear many sermons on the subject in the LCMS though our Assistant Pastor has a degree in Biology and is very firm on the Creationist perspective. He brings it up during bible study, but he doesn;t go out of the way to force it on people.

I think the Catholic stance is probably wise. I am continually bothered by the occasional “pronouncement” by the head of this or that congregation to the effect that the strict creationist view is to be equated with benighted fundamentalists (and probably Americans!), but as I understand it, the view of most Catholic biblical scholars is very close to my own.

The real problem here is not theological, but one of onthic mythology. That is that societies both define and justify themselves by a common set of beliefes. Those who insist upon a litteral translation do so because it is the basis of their identity. To challange it is to undermine their security. I do not believe in the Bible, I believe in Jesus Christ present with the Holy Spirit in and through His anointed Church (Don’t ask me about other manefestations, I serve God, I don’t limit Him). The Bible is one part of that belief as it is inturpreted by the Holy See. The question is: Where does one put one’s faith? What is one’s onthic mythology? And by the way; I am a Catholic Biblical Scholar, lecturer and teacher under obedience. My stance is in strict accordance to the Magesterium. Oh, and twenty years ago I began my studies as a Lutheran Pastor, but Luther convinced me to become Catholic. I love that man.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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:

No - simply noting a fact. If the book is inspired, this claim cannot be based on its text.​

Other books in the Pentateuch are closer to being described as inspired, & parts of them are said to be of Divine origin. Once we get to the Prophets, claims of inspiration are clearly expressed. But not here. And even the claim, when at length we meet it in Exodus, is itself of no great weight; claims to Divine origin can be found in other literatures.

Features of the text - or the lack of them - deserve to be taken seriously. Doing that, helps towards understanding the book. What we can’t do is treat as though it had been written for us - it wasn’t: Bronze Age - or Second Temple - Jews knew 0 about us, & were not writing for us.

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.

No one said that (not even me). If “day” can mean “billion year period”, it is arbitrary to say it cannot mean “Man of Krypton”, “bazooka”, “Atlantis”, or a thousand other things. This is Humpty-Dumpty exegesis: words are made to made mean what we make them mean - which is to treat the text with less respect than if it were a literary classic, let alone the inspired thing we claim to believe it is.​

It’s intellectual suicide to make words fit the meanings we inflict upon them - for while those meanings may fit our concerns, in the here & now, what of the concerns of our descendants ? We have no right to assume that what concerns us, will concern them; but if we make the meaning of words fit our concerns, what sense are our descendants, with *their *concerns, to make of it ? We will have hamstrung & muzzled the text in our interests, & that is a disservice to future generations. The solution: to submit to what the text meant when composed, so far as this is ascertainable.

Besides, there are reasons for words to have specific meanings. Yom means day, because that is what the author was saying; & was doing so, for reasons that were adequate for his purposes, whether or not later generations agreed with him; words are chosen because they express the composer’s intention. If people aren’t satisfied with Genesis - let them re-write it, as the Mormons have. The price of claiming that the book is “inspired, sacred, & canonical” is that we listen to the author’s meaning, instead of force-feeding our own into the text.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

Just be grateful they didn’t refer to you as something else ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ralph,

I accept the evolutionary thesis. In my case I just keep my mouth shut and pick my battles.

Calvinist Churches appear to be YEC, or at least to believe in a 144-hour working week for the Almighty.​

Dispies - if they follow the Scofield Bible - have a variant on this:
Gen. 1.1 - creation of all things
Jeremiah 4 - fall of Satan, everything “waste and void”
Gen. 1.2 onwards - re-creation of all things

Whether the revised SB of 1967 (or since ?) retains that note,

Do any non-Dispies adopt this idea ? Some interpolate lots of unnamed Patriarchs in Gen. 5, so that Adam becomes the ancestor of Seth, & not his male parent. The reason for this seems to be the gaps in Matt 1 (see Henry Morris, “The Genesis Flood”).

Steadfast:

I think the Catholic stance is probably wise. I am continually bothered by the occasional “pronouncement” by the head of this or that congregation to the effect that the strict creationist view is to be equated with benighted fundamentalists (and probably Americans!), but as I understand it, the view of most Catholic biblical scholars is very close to my own.

OTOH - the USA is the home of the Fundamentalist movement.​

Most of the Traditional Catholic stuff in the UK is from the USA; & the TC movement tends to equate mainstream RC Biblical scholarship with “modernism”, even when Rome has encouraged it. If they wish to people the earth with ancient Patriarchs in their 900s, they are welcome to do so - but they have no right to make any one else believe that kind of thing.

 

[The_Preacher]

I didn’t choose my nom de plume for nothing: Vanity, vanity, all is vanity and chasing after wind. If you’re going to argue the inturpretation and insperation of scripture, deep six the translations and take the time to study at least basic Hebrew and Greek, bearing in mind that much of the Greek is a translation of the Aramaic. Then study the soial-anthropology and the sits en laben of the original and subsequent redactors. It’s only taken me twenty years to scratch the surface. Otherwise, obey the Magesterium. I don’t say this hautally or with contempt. St. Ignatious wa right when he spoke of indifference. It’s just that Scripture is so pontent a curative that misused it has caused unimanagable damage; war, hatred, and opression, and is addictive. Just what it was ment to counter. It really should be a controlled substance, as it was before Gutenberg. And yes, I do misspell equally well in five different languages. This too is vanity.

 

[Protestant101]

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.

Please leave the “correcting” up to me when it comes to what people call me. This is not worth worrying about.

 

[Protestant101]

What creation account? My field is historic-redaction analysus.

They didn’t even teach you how to spell it right. Hmmm. Another “expert” opinion I suppose. But what you said is not proof.

 

[Ads]

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.

Wow i cant believe what i just read, how are we to no God if not through the Bible? Its his love letter to us.
Also the Bible will interpret itself, there is one truth. If you say it can not be treated as actual history, then you deny him as our creator.

Quote: Actually, it’s a book, written thousands of years ago, and it cannot prove itself.
I just dont no where you have your faith, because its apparently not in God

Quote:
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.

The scripture is to be compared with scripture, in this way you can only come to one conclution/interpretation, ‘TRUTH’. With this no faith can be shaken.

May Gods people be unshaken. :O)

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Ads,

Welcome to the forums. I hope you enjoy your time here.

You should know, if you do not already, that Catholics are not Biblical literalists on this and many other issues. That stance is most closely associated with various forms of Protestantism for us. The trouble with Biblical literalism is (among other things) that we do not give the Bible more weight than is given to sacred tradition. Sacred tradition, of course, must predate the Bible, as the Bible was not canonized until several centuries after the death of Jesus and His original apostles and their deciples. In the meantime, who or what could have guided the holy men of God in their interpretations of their world? If the Bible is the ultimate arbiter and revealer of the truth of God’s message, what are a people without a Bible to do? And how, for that matter, did the people in the Bible receive the gospel with such clarity from Paul, Mark, and all the others? After all, none of these men were Jesus, so it is concievable that at least some of the people they and their descendents would have converted could not have seen all of Our Lord’s miracles with their own eyes.

Remember Jesus’ post-resurrection conversation with Simon Barjona (Peter)? Christ tells him that he is blessed for having believed without seeing. This is a good lesson too for those of us in Christianity who are quick to indulge in bibliophilia. It is not that the Bible is not important or does not contain sacred, divine truths, but it is not the entire message of God nor at all times the most effective, precisely because of the myriad of interpretations that have been laid upon it by people who invest in it the ultimate authority, when Jesus Christ Himself invested authority in His desciples and the Church, built upon Peter as per Our Lord’s explicit instruction. It is good to always meditate upon the Word of the Lord, but this has many different implications, and to restrict it only to interpretation of scripture (and still more self-interpretation) is ultimately ruinous with even the best of intentions.

Peace!

 

[hugh_miller]

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.”

Please visit www.kolbecenter.org to get an update on the true teachings of the Catholic Church, the Church fathers, most popes and some of the science that backs up the church teachings on Creation being literal.

Unfortunately the “smoke of Satan” has entered the church in the last 100 or so years as Pope Plaul VI has suggested [with regards the lituregy as I remember but it applies to theology as well in my estimation] so there is much confusion particularly through members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) and those who invited these unbelievers to joint, most of whom are proponent of biological evolution and long ages. Pope St. Pius X about 1909 and other Popes before him have tried to put out the fire that is the source of the “smoke”
but his success was but short lived. Hopes this helps.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I would never try to make a statement that one cold say is the official stance of the RCC. I may Quote church source and I agree or I pray for understanding of them.

That said I am a creatationlist. It is difficult to reckon what we know from science to this but not impossible, As what we know from science is always changing. Also as another poster said here there are other stories of the creation in Jewish text that did get included in scripture and if read with scripture fill in some of those missing and conflicting gaps in the 2 stories in Genesis. I also believe in evolution, but only within species: a rabbit was always a rabbit and will always be a rabbit. the species can change within itself but not into another species.