Correct way to Read Genesis Creation

[buffalo]

We follow today’s Church, not the Church as it was last century. Genesis was understood literally for centuries due to the lack of better explaination, yet today scientific evidence has shown us that we did indeed evolve. I do not try to alter mny science to fit the book, but rather I think we just need to accept that it was not written literally, but rather to explain certain truths, that God created the world and man, and that man fell by his own free will.
Today’s Church teaches that this is a perfectly acceptable view, which Pope John Paul II also subscribed to.

No- Catholicism grows organically like a bush. It gets fuller.

The modern church will not reverse Revealed dogmas. Where Revelation and our scientific conclusions intersect one has to reconcile the science with the truth.

 

[COPLAND_3]

The way I see it is that what is written in the Genesis creation account did happen, but the process that it happened as far as time intervals and the evolving process is not clear and is obscure in Scripture, and science as we know it is more obscure because the science establishment changes all the time. Science has taught us a lot, but I believe that we have not begun to scratch the surface and should not act as if what science has taught us to be as valuable as what Scripture teaches us.

But I don’t believe that the issue is between whether Gen 1-3 or science is correct, but how we understand Gen 1-3 is the issue. You have those who say that Gen. 1-3 is fiction but it teaches important moral lessons, and then you have those of us who say that Gen 1-3 did in fact happen, but we all speculate in various ways on the details.

But another thing I want to mention are those who ignore science completely and act as if it’s from the Devil. I reject that as much as those who say Gen 1-3 is fiction.

 

[GeorgeSword]

GEORGE SWORD WRITES:

You have it backwards, friend.

It is, rather, that we are not to alter the Book to fit the “assured results” of science.

WALTHER

I do not suggest altering the book but, rather, our understanding of it.
As for Buffalo, please be so kind as to point out to me exactly when it became dogma that one must understand Genesis in a literal manner?

 

[juliamajor]

I do not suggest altering the book but, rather, our understanding of it.
As for Buffalo, please be so kind as to point out to me exactly when it became dogma that one must understand Genesis in a literal manner?

Exactly!The book doesn’t change but the understanding does because of insights from different disciplines and discoveries (such as ancient near east libraries) “Divino Spiritu Afflante” acknowledges that .

 

[buffalo]

I do not suggest altering the book but, rather, our understanding of it.
As for Buffalo, please be so kind as to point out to me exactly when it became dogma that one must understand Genesis in a literal manner?

I didn’t claim that. Catholics do not read the Bible literally. We read it with the interpretation held by the Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. I said we read it as the church has constantly taught and understood the meaning. I additionally pointed out that no Catholic dogma has been overturned.

Here is more:
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[DOShea]

Genesis was understood literally for centuries due to the lack of better explaination, yet today scientific evidence has shown us that we did indeed evolve.

Would you be kind enough to provide the citation(s) to this scientific evidence you claim that “has shown us that we did indeed evolve.” To the best of my knowledge, the only hard evidence we have of ANY evolution being proven is microevolution, that is, changes within a particular (to use the Genesis term) “kind.” There are many types of dogs, for instance, and it would not be unreasonable to suspect they all had a common ancestor. That is completely different from macroevolution that holds that the dog is descendant of some other kind of creature. That, I contend, has never been proven.

But I am open to hear your evidence proving that we “did indeed evolve.”

 

[GeorgeSword]

Would you be kind enough to provide the citation(s) to this scientific evidence you claim that “has shown us that we did indeed evolve.” To the best of my knowledge, the only hard evidence we have of ANY evolution being proven is microevolution, that is, changes within a particular (to use the Genesis term) “kind.” There are many types of dogs, for instance, and it would not be unreasonable to suspect they all had a common ancestor. That is completely different from macroevolution that holds that the dog is descendant of some other kind of creature. That, I contend, has never been proven.

But I am open to hear your evidence proving that we “did indeed evolve.”

Well, if you wish I can find you some valid documents on the matter, but for now I would present as evidence primarily transitional fossils. If you look at these side by side it’s very difficult to dismiss them, and they clearly aren’t just a changing ‘kind’.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I have no problem with the idea that we have evolved,that is, to a degree that does not contradict Catholic belief.

 

[BibleAnswer]

There is one account, and it begins at GEN 1:1.

Six days later, God created man, the original [seed] of God. GEN 1:27, at this point Adam is the patriarch.

Adam and Eve at some point had Cain and Abel.
Abel was to be the patriarch.
Cain Killed Abel.

When Adam and Eve were 130 years old, they had Seth. at this point Seth becomes the patriarch to replace the murdered Abel. The [seed] continues…

From this point Genesis carefully traces the patriarchs in the bible, continuing the [seed]. Then describes the rise of man, the evil of man, the fall of man, the Grace of God in the redemption of man through Noah!

Noah is the patriarch, before the flood Noah begot Shem. Shem is the patriarch, the birthright, the line of Christ.

The earth at this point was a single continent!

Noah and his three sons and their wives enter the ark 40 day and 40 nights. The Ark rests and the eight people who were spared among the whole entire dead world leave the ark to shepherd to the world and create.

Shem begot Arphaxad when he was 502 years old. Arphaxad is the patriarch… The [seed] continues…

Peleg later becomes the patriarch, during his reign, man was at his height in knowledge and arrogance and spoke a single language **Gen 11:1 **“Now the whole earth had one language and one speech”;and was capable of anything of doing anything…

**Gen 11:4 **And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”
**Gen 11:5 **But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
**Gen 11:6 **And the LORD said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they purpose to do will be withheld from them.
**Gen 11:7 **“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
**Gen 11:8 **So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
**Gen 11:9 **Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

God confused the languages, all the people gathered to their groups of like languages and scattered abroad. God separated the earth and created continents.

All of this happens before the birth of Peleg’s son, Reu, who was born 239 years later and became the patriarch. The line continues, while the earth has been scattered.

Abram is born, and becomes the Patriarch, when Abram is 99 years old, the LORD appears to Abram and makes His covenant, changing Abram’s name to Abraham.

Then Isaac,

Then Jacob, who becomes Israel,

Israel beget Joseph, Levi and 10 other sons to became the 12 tribes of Israel,
Levi is the patriarch, his line connects to Christ.

The second youngest with the multicolored coat, Joseph, was sold into slavery by his 10 older brothers, and they told Jacob that Joseph was mauled and killed by a beast by presenting the multicolored coat full of gore.

Jacob learns of his son still being alive many years later and takes his family and moves to Egypt, where Pharaoh welcomes him and sets him up to live his life in peace and luxury.

Joseph dies at 110, Levi dies at 114; Levi’s children connect to Moses.

That is the single account of Genesis. It is Literal, it is earthly, but there is also a spiritual meaning. That is what a parable is, an earthly story with a spiritual meaning. The word is Christ, and Christ spoke in parables. Christ is God, God speaks through prophets, Moses was a prophet, Moses wrote the book of Genesis as spoken by God. God is the word, the word is Christ, Christ spoke in parables, everything, including the account of Genesis, is a parable. A parable is a earthly story with a spiritual meaning. The account of Genesis is the earthly true literal story. However that would be the milk of the word, what we can understand and infer just by reading, and believing the infallible word of God, there is no question about that.

Just believe the account or don’t. If you don’t believe the account then your knowledge of God is still not as developed as you might like it to be. Because to question something as basic as the account of creation would mean your rationalizing God and making Him with your own characteristics and abilities as you understand them. But God is incomprehensible. That is faith, to just believe. For we were not there to witness it, however we can witness it through His word and the Holy Spirit. If you don’t believe that is an indication of a tare. A tare has no spiritual ears and cannot get passed the milk of the word to the meat of the word. The spiritual part of the account of Genesis is deep and many meanings. too much for this paragraph. But in this sense if you want to say there are two accounts, You would be accurate.

Joseph dies, Pharaoh dies, Then the new Pharaoh, who does not know of Joseph sees a new threat; the Jews, that is the line of Israel, begin to populate exceedingly and Pharaoh has a new fear of the Jews revolting against him and his people. Pharaoh enslaves them, they begin to build pyramids and would sojourn as slaves for 430 years, until Aaron and Moses lead the Exodus.

Genesis gives all the information a true believer would need. All the accounts written are amazingly pieced together and tell this incredible detailed story that connects in every conceivable way. Genesis is not a scientific book that gives the names of elements or the physics of light or the nature of spirit. This information is not necessary for salvation. We can know this because it is not recorded in the bible. It is interesting and leads to amazing hypotheses. But you must always test your hypothesis against the bible. not the other way around. you make your ideas fit into Gods plan, not makes Gods plan fit your ideas.

 

[diggerdomer]

There is one account, and it begins at GEN 1:1.

Six days later, God created man, the original [seed] of God. GEN 1:27, at this point Adam is the patriarch.

Adam and Eve at some point had Cain and Abel.
Abel was to be the patriarch.
Cain Killed Abel.

When Adam and Eve were 130 years old, they had Seth. at this point Seth becomes the patriarch to replace the murdered Abel. The [seed] continues…

From this point Genesis carefully traces the patriarchs in the bible, continuing the [seed]. Then describes the rise of man, the evil of man, the fall of man, the Grace of God in the redemption of man through Noah!

Noah is the patriarch, before the flood Noah begot Shem. Shem is the patriarch, the birthright, the line of Christ.

The earth at this point was a single continent!

Noah and his three sons and their wives enter the ark 40 day and 40 nights. The Ark rests and the eight people who were spared among the whole entire dead world leave the ark to shepherd to the world and create.

Shem begot Arphaxad when he was 502 years old. Arphaxad is the patriarch… The [seed] continues…

Peleg later becomes the patriarch, during his reign, man was at his height in knowledge and arrogance and spoke a single language **Gen 11:1 **“Now the whole earth had one language and one speech”;and was capable of anything of doing anything…

**Gen 11:4 **And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”
**Gen 11:5 **But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
**Gen 11:6 **And the LORD said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they purpose to do will be withheld from them.
**Gen 11:7 **“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
**Gen 11:8 **So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
**Gen 11:9 **Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

God confused the languages, all the people gathered to their groups of like languages and scattered abroad. God separated the earth and created continents.

All of this happens before the birth of Peleg’s son, Reu, who was born 239 years later and became the patriarch. The line continues, while the earth has been scattered.

Abram is born, and becomes the Patriarch, when Abram is 99 years old, the LORD appears to Abram and makes His covenant, changing Abram’s name to Abraham.

Then Isaac,

Then Jacob, who becomes Israel,

Israel beget Joseph, Levi and 10 other sons to became the 12 tribes of Israel,
Levi is the patriarch, his line connects to Christ.

The second youngest with the multicolored coat, Joseph, was sold into slavery by his 10 older brothers, and they told Jacob that Joseph was mauled and killed by a beast by presenting the multicolored coat full of gore.

Jacob learns of his son still being alive many years later and takes his family and moves to Egypt, where Pharaoh welcomes him and sets him up to live his life in peace and luxury.

Joseph dies at 110, Levi dies at 114; Levi’s children connect to Moses.

That is the single account of Genesis. It is Literal, it is earthly, but there is also a spiritual meaning. That is what a parable is, an earthly story with a spiritual meaning. The word is Christ, and Christ spoke in parables. Christ is God, God speaks through prophets, Moses was a prophet, Moses wrote the book of Genesis as spoken by God. God is the word, the word is Christ, Christ spoke in parables, everything, including the account of Genesis, is a parable. A parable is a earthly story with a spiritual meaning. The account of Genesis is the earthly true literal story. However that would be the milk of the word, what we can understand and infer just by reading, and believing the infallible word of God, there is no question about that.

Just believe the account or don’t. If you don’t believe the account then your knowledge of God is still not as developed as you might like it to be. Because to question something as basic as the account of creation would mean your rationalizing God and making Him with your own characteristics and abilities as you understand them. But God is incomprehensible. That is faith, to just believe. For we were not there to witness it, however we can witness it through His word and the Holy Spirit. If you don’t believe that is an indication of a tare. A tare has no spiritual ears and cannot get passed the milk of the word to the meat of the word. The spiritual part of the account of Genesis is deep and many meanings. too much for this paragraph. But in this sense if you want to say there are two accounts, You would be accurate.

Joseph dies, Pharaoh dies, Then the new Pharaoh, who does not know of Joseph sees a new threat; the Jews, that is the line of Israel, begin to populate exceedingly and Pharaoh has a new fear of the Jews revolting against him and his people. Pharaoh enslaves them, they begin to build pyramids and would sojourn as slaves for 430 years, until Aaron and Moses lead the Exodus.

Genesis gives all the information a true believer would need. All the accounts written are amazingly pieced together and tell this incredible detailed story that connects in every conceivable way. Genesis is not a scientific book that gives the names of elements or the physics of light or the nature of spirit. This information is not necessary for salvation. We can know this because it is not recorded in the bible. It is interesting and leads to amazing hypotheses. But you must always test your hypothesis against the bible. not the other way around. you make your ideas fit into Gods plan, not makes Gods plan fit your ideas.

So did God create humans first, or animals first?

 

[BibleAnswer]

**Gen 1:20 **And God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heaven.”
**Gen 1:21 **And God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
**Gen 1:23 **So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
**Gen 1:24 **And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind; and it was so.
**Gen 1:26 **And God said, “Let Us make man in Our Image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
**Gen 1:27 **So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
**Gen 1:31 **And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

animals and man were both created on the sixth day. While we both have the breath of life in us, only Mankind has an eternal spirit. Thus we were made in Gods image, who is eternal and spirit.

 

[diggerdomer]

**Gen 1:20 **And God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heaven.”
**Gen 1:21 **And God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
**Gen 1:23 **So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
**Gen 1:24 **And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind; and it was so.
**Gen 1:26 **And God said, “Let Us make man in Our Image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
**Gen 1:27 **So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
**Gen 1:31 **And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

animals and man were both created on the sixth day. While we both have the breath of life in us, only Mankind has an eternal spirit. Thus we were made in Gods image, who is eternal and spirit.

The passage you quoted clearly states that some animals were created on the fifth day. Right? Or are you not including birds and sea creatures as animals?

 

[BibleAnswer]

The passage you quoted clearly states that some animals were created on the fifth day. Right? Or are you not including birds and sea creatures as animals?

i suppose a dolphin and a whale would be considered mammals and they are of the sea and created the fifth day.

also, you knew what i meant. lets not try to nitpick ridiculous things OK. You knew what i meant as it was written for you to read.

This is another quality of humans which animals don’t have, the ability to turn a statement into a question, and the ability to adequately answer that question

 

[catholicsuffer]

There really is no specific reason to view it as “two different” creation accounts. God did the same thing in Ch 2 as He did in Ch. 1, the only difference was Adam was standing next to Him when He did most of the creating in Ch. 2. It might explain why we have no record of Adam being a skeptic.

You’ll note in Gen. 1:27 it says God created man in His image… male and female.

Then in Gen 2:7 it tells you the story of how Adam was made, then Gen 2:21-22 tells of Eve’s being created.

If this is two different creation events, you need to explain why God needed to create man, plants, and animals twice. Then you must explain what happened to the Ch.1 Adam and Eve such that they needed to be re-created in a different event? A much more reasonable approach IMO is to view Ch. 2 as a kind of “zoomed-in” view of what happened in Ch. 2. Notice the emphasis is completely on man no matter what is done by God. Plants are raised up because now there are people to work the soil, animals are created and named by man, Adam gets a mate, etc. It seems like the same account as Ch. 1 but here the focus is mainly on the human aspect of the entire creation.

Adam in Eve are made in both accounts, that is why I don’t think they are seperate, sequential events. The accounts mesh perfectly well as is and both tell the same story, with Ch. 2 being the more detailed account of one portion of the overall. I think you are making a serious exegetical error trying to divide these accounts and paint one as somehow “real” and the other one some kind of fairy tale, especially claiming the overall part is allegory, but a section within that allegory is real. That is like saying the book Snow White is a fairy tale, but the part in chapter 4 where you meet Grumpy is real and must be believed. You can’t have real inside fable.

Probably for the same reason biblical scholars don’t view it as historical narrative - it’s not written in that format. But you have to be careful with that because not written in a historical narrative format does not equal “it didn’t happen,” as in there is NO historical merit in it. We are here, so there is obviously some truth to it, it just may not have happened in the same time and sequence as the text portrays.

Very good reply except the last part where you said there is obviously some truth to it. I believe it is ALL TRUTH, some are just not letting the Holy Spirit led them but instead let man and therefore never see the TRUTH.

 

[diggerdomer]

i suppose a dolphin and a whale would be considered mammals and they are of the sea and created the fifth day.

also, you knew what i meant. lets not try to nitpick ridiculous things OK. You knew what i meant as it was written for you to read.

This is another quality of humans which animals don’t have, the ability to turn a statement into a question, and the ability to adequately answer that question

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I simply read what you wrote, and when it didn’t make sense to me, I asked for clarification. I didn’t think it was directed at me, I thought it was for everyone to read.

At the risk of further misunderstanding, can you clarify what then you were exactly trying to say? Or was it just to reiterate the passages in Genesis 1?

Thanks

 

[jfallaw]

Genesis must be understood as the church has taught and understood it for centuries.

Yes, like Galileo, we should all share in the centuries old belief of the infallible Church.

"I Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei,
Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally
before this tribunal and kneeling before
you, Most eminent and Lord Cardinals,
Inquisitors-General against heretical pravity
throughout the entire Christian Commonwealth,
having before my eyes and touching
with my hands the Holy Gospels, swear that I
have always believed, do believe, and with
God’s help will in the future believe all that is
held, preached and taught by the Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church. But, whereas, after an
injunction had been lawfully intimated to me
by this Holy Office to the effect that I must
altogether abandon the false opinion that the
sun is the center of the world and immobile,
and that the earth is not the center of the world
and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or
teach, in any way verbally or in writing, the
said false doctrine, and after it had been notified
to me that the said doctrine was contrary to
Holy Scripture, I wrote and printed a book in
which I treated this new doctrine already condemned
and brought forth arguments in its
favor without presenting any solution for them,
I have been judged to be vehemently suspected
of heresy, that is of having held and believed
that the sun is the center of the world and
immobile and that the earth is not the center
and moves.
. . . I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid
errors and heresies . . .”

 

[juliamajor]

Very good reply except the last part where you said there is obviously some truth to it. I believe it is ALL TRUTH, some are just not letting the Holy Spirit led them but instead let man and therefore never see the TRUTH.

I think semantics are getting in the way. Some things are the truth without being factual- they don’t necessarily mean the same thing.
Modern word usage is not helpful. Getting back to what the text meant in the context of the past can truly aid us in the here and now. But giving it an anachronistic meaning serves no purpose but can cause much confusion and much wrong exegesis.

 

[BibleAnswer]

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I simply read what you wrote, and when it didn’t make sense to me, I asked for clarification. I didn’t think it was directed at me, I thought it was for everyone to read.

At the risk of further misunderstanding, can you clarify what then you were exactly trying to say? Or was it just to reiterate the passages in Genesis 1?

Thanks

HI, my fault,

I was trying to say that evolution, even the notion of entertaining evolution is called, ‘rebelling against God’. Sure we have our imaginations and brains, which God gave us, however when it is known that the Bible is the Word of God, then once you read an account, you must believe it. And it is very easy to tell which stories are literal, such as Jonah and the Whale, Lots wife turning to a pillar of salt, Samson and his hair, Elijah calling down fire from God alone, amongst the army of priest that worshiped Baal, David slaying Goliath, and God creating everything in six days. These are true stories. You can tell what is a parable or a vision or a prophecy by the language used. So God created man and animal on the same day. Animals only have the breath of life and not spirit. While we have the breath of life and a spirit, just like God, a spiritual being.

Besides, Louie Pastur proved the theory of evolution was just a story, by being the first man to study micro organism, tiny one celled bacteria, living, complicated, infinitely more complicated than even the most advanced computer known to man today, that complex, in a tiny one celled bacteria, created by God.

Louie Pastur studied the reproduction of bacteria, and how they reproduced like organisms. ““LIKE”” even one celled organisms have only evolved as much as reproducing themselves, like as was originally intended by God. He discovered this and many other incredible scientific breakthroughs, meanwhile Louie always gave all the credit to God and lived as humbly as you can imagine. A great man in my opinion who did a lot for the world always giving credit and believing in God. Though he is not talked about in school, however Darwin is. Pathetic and a sign of the times if you ask me.

If anybody ever tells you the story in Genesis is just a story and that we most likely evolved from apes or bacteria, then you can feel pity for them, because they have no saviour who died for them, no matter how adamantly they believe in Christ. They cant pick and choose. God created man from dust, and Christ died and rose again. If they choose to pursue evolution study and believe it, then they don’t believe the account of God in Genesis, but rather pursue and study the made up stories of Mankind. Also they have no saviour because Christ did not come to save animals, he came to save man. And only man was made in Gods image. If they believe they evolved from something, then they originally were not made in Gods image, but something else, in which case they are under Gods Wrath because Christ did not save them, Christ came to save Mankind.

Which is another indication of being a Tare. Somebody who thinks they are saved, yet are not. Just like somebody who believes in God, yet thinks Genesis is a story. It doesn’t work that way. You are under Gods wrath, even if you were baptized, even if you confessed, even if you worshiped in Mass and received the Eucharist, none of that will matter when judgment comes the day you die. And the wages of sin is death, eternal spiritual death. And when you die in this body, you are dead forever because as a person under Gods wrath, means you never were reborn and baptized in the Holy Spirit, which is the baptism which matters, and all the water you poured on yourself will have had only made you wet.

 

[catholicsuffer]

I think semantics are getting in the way. Some things are the truth without being factual- they don’t necessarily mean the same thing.
Modern word usage is not helpful. Getting back to what the text meant in the context of the past can truly aid us in the here and now. But giving it an anachronistic meaning serves no purpose but can cause much confusion and much wrong exegesis.

I see your point, I just see things a little different then most, guess because of my different experiences dealing with Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Just as I try to explain once to someone that a vision was more real then what was around us. It went something like this: You see the wall , you see this desk well a vision is more real then that. I kind of see those stories in the old covenant in much the same way, I see them more factual, in other words not the truth but the TRUTH. I once read a lesson on Scott Hahn’s web site about this subject matter(Creation-Adam and Eve) and had a vision which I sent him dealing with the matter. Wish I could recall it so that I could share it with this board but I can not at the current moment.
I hope you do not feel that I am taking this out of chronological, proper, or historical order(anachronistic), but I feel that it has a lot more meaning then first meets the eye but is presented to us in such a way that even as children it teaches us about the greatness of God in such a language that we understand at a very early stage of life.As far as critical explanation or analysis(exegesis), I will leave that up to the Fathers and Scholars.

 

[diggerdomer]

HI, my fault,

I was trying to say that evolution, even the notion of entertaining evolution is called, ‘rebelling against God’.

It is not called such by the Catholic Church.

And it is very easy to tell which stories are literal, such as Jonah and the Whale, Lots wife turning to a pillar of salt, Samson and his hair, Elijah calling down fire from God alone, amongst the army of priest that worshiped Baal, David slaying Goliath, and God creating everything in six days. These are true stories.

Again, this is not the understanding required by the Catholic faith. Read the Catechism para 50-141. Catholics are of course free to interpret them as factual, literally…but we are not required to.

If anybody ever tells you the story in Genesis is just a story and that we most likely evolved from apes or bacteria, then you can feel pity for them,

I feel pity for those who confuse the Bible and science, or set up a false dichotomy between the two. As Pope John Paul II (and the Catholic Church) teaches:

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm