Correct way to Read Genesis Creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter shoewindow3000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
diggerdomer said:
It is not called such by the Catholic Church.

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.

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
Click to expand...
Do I have the wrong idea? What are you saying?
 
catholicsuffer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Genesis is a many layered wonderful book that I spent a whole year studying.God has given us Faith but he also gave us reason (also an encyclical By JPII)two gifts that we were endowed with at the inception of humanity.So what are we to do with those gifts? We can’t and shouldn’t hide them or deny them. God invested us with these -so there has to be some purpose .Studying His Word with Faith and Reason that He gave us-can’t be a job just for scholars but something God Himself wishes us to do
Peace and Joy in Christ Our Lord
 
GeorgeSword said:
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’.
Click to expand...
Dr. Miles Eldredge, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museam of Natural History said that the categories of families and above (referring to classification of species) could not be connected.

Dr. Stephen J. Gould, certainly among the most prominent American evolution thinkers admitted when he introduced his ideas of punctuated equilibrium that the transitional fossils that one would predict should be in the fossil record simply are not there.

Dr. Patterson, senior palaeontologist at the British Museam of Natural History and editor of their scientific journal was asked why he did not include any artists’ renderings of transitional forms when he published his book, Evolution. This is how he replied (boldface emphasis mine):
‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? …Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
Click to expand...
So I have to conclude that transitional fossils are not compelling evidence. What is clear to me, as Eldridge freely admits, is that “science” has no place believing what they cannot prove, which is what we hear anytime you add science + religion in any topic. If science is fully capable of accepting “belief” when it is convenient, and capable of rejecting belief (Creationism, ID, etc.) when it doesn’t like it, then that makes their decision arbitrary, not scientific.

I would also point out in fairness that Gould spent a lot of his later life backtracking from that quote and even went to so far as to develop theories concerning whale transitional fossils. Those theories were overturned by later work that proved his transitional forms were simply a subset of whales, but the killer fact was that they appeared earlier in the strata. The whole concept of strata dating relies on the fact that what is lower in the strata came earlier than what lies above it. So you can’t have a whale turn into something that is lower in the strata than whales are found.

Transitional fossils is not good evidence to prove anything evolved from anything else. The big names in the scientific fields concerning them are all in agreement that we wish we had some, but we don’t.
 
BibleAnswer said:
Do I have the wrong idea? What are you saying?
Click to expand...
I think he’s saying what I’ve been saying. Scripture is not a book of science, but of faith. God inspired us spiritually through it, and scientifically by giving us a reasoning mind. You claim that even considering evolution is ‘rebelling against God’, yet it is the teaching of the Church that it is acceptable.
 
GeorgeSword said:
I think he’s saying what I’ve been saying. Scripture is not a book of science, but of faith. God inspired us spiritually through it, and scientifically by giving us a reasoning mind. You claim that even considering evolution is ‘rebelling against God’, yet it is the teaching of the Church that it is acceptable.
Click to expand...
I need to see this Magisterial teaching affirming evolution.
 
Not that it’s official teaching, but JPII also affirmed his personal belief in the theory in a speech as well.
Speaking of not all theories being acceptable, that’s very right, and many people don’t seem to realize it. For instance, we must still give God His credit, and we must believe that no matter how we were created it was by God.
 
buffalo said:
Exactly.

What is acceptable - change within species - AKA microevolution - no one argues this, change is evident.

What is not - polygenism, materialism
Click to expand...
My apologies, I thought that was a link to something else, but that is the speech I mentioned above :rolleyes:
Where does it say that the change must be within the species? I read paragraph see and I’m not seeing it. He calls it a theory. Microevolution is not a theory, is it? He is speaking of macroevolution, or so it seems to me.
And how exactly does evolution now lead to materialism?
 
GeorgeSword said:
My apologies, I thought that was a link to something else, but that is the speech I mentioned above :rolleyes:
Where does it say that the change must be within the species? I read paragraph see and I’m not seeing it. He calls it a theory. Microevolution is not a theory, is it? He is speaking of macroevolution, or so it seems to me.
And how exactly does evolution now lead to materialism?
Click to expand...
The Church has had no problem with change within species since the beginning. Distinctions must be understood.

Materialism would be methodological naturalism.

You will note also that he speaks of the ontological leap. It is a much deeper question than seems on the surface.

Also, any evolutionary theory must square with original sin, Adam and Eve first parents, etc…
 
BibleAnswer said:
HI, my fault,

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

Baloney! Evolution is not rebelling against God - it is simply an attempt to understand everything we know regarding God’s universe.
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
shoe,
To get back to your original idea expressed in the opening post.
The second account, which is of Adam and Eve,* is to be taken literally, *and always has been.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

We are not held to believe their names were actually Adam and Eve.
We are not held to believe a garden of Eden actually existed.
We are not held to believe the first human was made from dirt or clay.
We are not held to believe the first human named all the animals in existence as they walked by.
We are not held to believe the first woman was made from an actual male human rib.
We are not held to believe an actual restriction was levied on the first two humans against eating from one specific solitary tree.
We are not held to believe the first woman had conversations with serpents or any animal.
We are not held to believe snakes used to walk upright and talk.
We are not held to believe thorns never existed until after the first humans disobeyed God.
We are not held to believe biological death never existed until after the first humans disobeyed God.
We are not held to believe there is an actual plant, a tree, that bears fruit endowing one with eternal life.
We are not held to believe a fiery rotating sword is, at present or ever was, blocking the path to this tree.

I can dismiss with all of the above.
I can totally disregard any or all of the above and be in good standing with the Catholic Church.

We are held to believe all humankind descends from one pair of original parents - one man and one woman - whom scripture and tradition refer to as Adam and Eve.
We are held to believe that somehow these first two humans disobeyed God causing themselves and all subsequent humanity to be out of right relationship with God - original sin.

And that’s about all we have to agree with if you want to boil it down to the core ideas. How it all actually happened is a mystery, the details of which I am free to speculate upon as long as that speculation does not lead me into error on some other matter of faith.

In fact, I find more items to agree with, literally, in the seven day creation account than in the account of the fall, but I’ll talk to that later.

I also do not accept the two creation account hypothesis, but I’ll touch on that later, also, that is unless the predictable thread migration surrounding this topic renders it pointless to do so.

PeterK
 
Please lets stick to scripture and not slide into the evolution debate.It’s soooo boring when that happens and there has been like a million threads on evolution.
 
buffalo said:
I need to see this Magisterial teaching affirming evolution.
Click to expand...
The only evolution to believe is Catholic Evolution and this is what I mean by that:
Once Jesus died on the cross and ascended he started conquering Satan. We know this to be true via historical documents. For instance what was consider the norm back in those days such as the someone ordering the execution of all male born children would be considered a lunatic today. What was a form of entertainment back then such as watching folks be torn to pieces by lions is replaced today by football(GO SEMINOLES(FSU)) or basketball. People acting very animalistic back then, if anyone has any doubt about that, just meditate on the crucifix of Jesus. This is the only evolution which should be taught…and it is very provable.
 
GeorgeSword said:
I believe in evolution simply due to the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. Creationists of course have their pseudo scientific explanations, but they simply do not hold up. I suppose I am a theistic evolutionist, then. I believe that God created us through evolution. I’m uncertain, though, if He simply put out the first single cell organisms and designed them so as to evolve into the pinnacle of His creation, man, or if He perhaps shaped man along the way. It really doesn’t matter. The Jewish writer Maimonides said that if the Torah was in conflict with science, it must be reinterpreted, as it cannot be in error. I think Christians should heed these words, rather than reinterpreting science without any evidence.
Click to expand...
Who removed God from His throne and replaced Him with Science? It matters a great deal that two individuals sinned and that Christ was born, lived, died and rose again in payment of our debt.

What would you say to someone who asked you - Why did Jesus have to die? What would be your answer?

Peace,
Ed
 
GeorgeSword said:
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.
Click to expand...
“perfectly acceptable”? According to who? Not the Church. See Communion and Stewardship, available online. The only thing, we are led to believe, that is required of Catholics today is a new circumcision called evolution. It is “perfectly acceptable.” Not so.

Referring to the statement made by Pope John Paul II and repeated by many and without understanding, Pope Benedict said, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

When this was posted, the responses were angry.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
“perfectly acceptable”? According to who? Not the Church. See Communion and Stewardship, available online. The only thing, we are led to believe, that is required of Catholics today is a new circumcision called evolution. It is “perfectly acceptable.” Not so.

Referring to the statement made by Pope John Paul II and repeated by many and without understanding, Pope Benedict said, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

When this was posted, the responses were angry.

Ed
Click to expand...
Are you saying that belief in evolution is heretical to the Catholic faith?
 
edwest2 said:
For clarity about the Church’s position, please read Part 64 of Communion and Stewardship:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Please note the reference that cites the continuity of this document with the encyclical Humani Generis (1950).

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the Churches position is that of one that perceives evolution as necessarily contradictory to the Catholic faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top