Correct way to Read Genesis Creation

[Convert66]

I thought at least someone would take a shot at my ramblings . . .I guess I’m just not controversial enough. :hey_bud:

 

[MindOverMatter]

May I point out that it is neither clear nor obvious. If a process like evolution occurred, Catholics are required to believe that God was a direct, causal agent, and that evolution could not occur without God. In other words, textbook biology excludes this vital information and is incomplete.

Peace,
Ed

Perhaps thats because they teach science in science classes and theology in theology classes. Is there any reason why they should merge?

 

[NotWorthy]

the bible says Arphaxad was born when Shem was 602, not 590, at the time of the flood Shem was 100 years old. And 502 years later Arphaxad was born. The language of “begot” is the answer to your question, when we see begot, we do our math a little different, thus Arphaxad was born when Shem was 602 and dies.

I PM you for the calandar and you can look at it yourself, it will be clearer to understand, Anyway trust it or not, study it or not, use it to discredit my claim or not. But there it is.

I am pleased that you showed an interest though. That speaks highly of your nature to understand the mysteries of God, at least your being objective, good show!!

Oh, I am trying to understand. And here’s the deal. I looked at the King James Version of Genesis, so I see where you are getting the “begat’s” from. But I still don’t understand. Let me show you the verses.

***10These are the generations of Shem: ***(a) Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: *** 11And Shem lived ***(b) after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

OK, so here’s the crux of my dilemma.
a) Shem was a hundred years old when Arphaxad was born. The author of Genesis explains that this occurred 2 years after the flood - not 500 years after the flood.
b) Shem lived fully 500 years after Arphaxad was begat.

Do you see why I’m confused with your timeline.

P.S. I got your PM, but I won’t have time to study it until this weekend, so please be patient.

 

[NotWorthy]

I thought at least someone would take a shot at my ramblings . . .I guess I’m just not controversial enough. :hey_bud:

Can you repost your ramblings and myabe someone will bite. Remember it is the woman who kept complaining to the magistrate who finally won her case.

 

[GeorgeSword]

ya we have fun on here dont we. Julia I understand your argument.

1. when i present bible verses, and then explain them it is because that is how a teacher teaches, by explianing, and pointing in the right direction.
2. A teacher may be able to understand the word, does this mean i am God because i can presume to teach something spiritual. I suppose that makes your priests, pastures, deacons, bishops and popes and churches Gods doesn’t it, sense they present infallible teaching and you are not allowed to refute them.is very rude as is your mo with me it seems.
3. Well i do refute them, and I refute by presenting biblical references. Just because you are not liking what the bible is saying, is on you julia. I am not twisting words and I have no motive, and it really does become that easy to see a spiritual truth once you know how. I can see, and you cant. you said as much in your last post. So here is the delemma, you continue to bash me as if i am the devil trying to ruin your salvation, what are you kidding me? Aren’t you doing what your saying i am doing. YOu are right, You have the understanding, You know what the verse says and means because You are more open to truth than me. Are you God Julia. Do you see how stupid that sounds, totally disconected from the topic and an attack on me, which
4. The only way to discuss spiritual things is to use spiritual means, that is the bible, and i quoted, and explained, and the explanation is unsatisfactory to you, so you presume to say that I think i am God., And the argumen is old because you are mocking the bible, considering i quoted from it, word for word, then you turn right around and tell me that i dont know what im talking about.

are you sure Julia. Are you that incredibly sure of your understanding and your knowledge that you are able to say my teaching is evil. When i teach from the bible and only give bible verses, you are there by saying the bible is evil. A big leap i know, but i am not presenting verses from my mind Julia, I am opening my book and writting them down for discussion.

Your argument was a little better, but you still hold to the idea that you don’t need to prove your understanding by presenting a source other than your own fallible illogical mind. It is illogical because you are not even being objective.

At least be objective then we can discuss certian points. What sort of dialogue can we have when you don’t care to read what i write and see if you can see what i see before you immediately post a vitriolic post.

You have yet to refute a single teaching of the Church, nor will you, because it is the truth. And the truth cannot be refuted.
Answer one question… why is it that God has saved the propper understanding of Scripture 2,000 years so that you could find it and tell it to people on an internet forum, because your interpetations, however similar they may be to some, are certain to have their quirks.
Evolution is not a teaching of the Church, either. The only thing the Church teaches is that we may choose to interpet Scripture literally or illiteratly. In the end, as I’ve said, it simply does not matter. Do you interpet Genesis literally? Is all Scripture to be taken literally? Do you believe in geocentricism as well? Is the mustard seed the smallest in the world?

 

[Crumpy]

Can’t think o f his name, but the priest who was responsible for the the fourth section of the Catechism on prayer called the first creation account the “overture” of the Bible.

Ever since I read that, I can’t help but almost always overlay some spontaneous melody to the first creation account, Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3. Works for me.

The JPS commentary referred to way up at the top of the thread points out that the word for God in 1:1 is elohim which is used to refer to God but which also has the meaning “judges.”

So, we see God judging each day of creation, that it is good, and that everything is very good.

God gives man “dominion” over creation, which Scott Hahn sees as a reflection of the royal pedigree of Adam and Eve. There are also words there (see the third section of Hahn’s book, Reasons to Believe) that portray the priestly activities of our first parents. That is, the words referring to tending the garden are the same words used later in Exodus and Lev for the duties of the priests in the temple.

Both accounts of creation are clearly written to demythologize the pagan religions surrounding the Israelites, which believe that clouds, air, animals, or rocks are gods – which are shown in Genesis to be simply products of creation.

The religious meaning of the opening chapters of Genesis have little to do with the astronomical implications of 24-hour days and everything to do with showing the origins of the Jewish monotheistic religion.

Jewish exegesis in the Talmud and elsewhere unwraps the significance of the use of the number seven – seven days of creation, repeating seven times “God said…” and “God saw”, and seven is prominent as the number or multiple of the number of Hebrew words in the opening creation account – seven being the metaphor for perfection, completion, divine plan, etc.

Proper exegesis simply has to discard the obsession with the creation versus evolution that is so evident in this thread. The prominent Jewish approach to genesis is a canonical exegesis, as is the proper Catholic approach – consideration of the totality of the writing and sidestepping the meat-grinder / garbage disposer arguments which pose undue emphasis on shreds of verses, rather than taking the verses for what they were written to convey.

Sober up, hey?

Scott Hahn (ibid) points out that the sin of Adam and Eve is in their abdication of the dominion over nature (thus submitting to the serpent) - the dominion which characterizes the first parents best as being made in the image and likeness of God.

IMO this is the answer to the thread question, how to read the creation accounts in Genesis.

 

[juliamajor]

Can’t think o f his name, but the priest who was responsible for the the fourth section of the Catechism on prayer called the first creation account the “overture” of the Bible.

Ever since I read that, I can’t help but almost always overlay some spontaneous melody to the first creation account, Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3. Works for me.

The JPS commentary referred to way up at the top of the thread points out that the word for God in 1:1 is elohim which is used to refer to God but which also has the meaning “judges.”

So, we see God judging each day of creation, that it is good, and that everything is very good.

God gives man “dominion” over creation, which Scott Hahn sees as a reflection of the royal pedigree of Adam and Eve. There are also words there (see the third section of Hahn’s book, Reasons to Believe) that portray the priestly activities of our first parents. That is, the words referring to tending the garden are the same words used later in Exodus and Lev for the duties of the priests in the temple.

Both accounts of creation are clearly written to demythologize the pagan religions surrounding the Israelites, which believe that clouds, air, animals, or rocks are gods – which are shown in Genesis to be simply products of creation.

The religious meaning of the opening chapters of Genesis have little to do with the astronomical implications of 24-hour days and everything to do with showing the origins of the Jewish monotheistic religion.

Jewish exegesis in the Talmud and elsewhere unwraps the significance of the use of the number seven – seven days of creation, repeating seven times “God said…” and “God saw”, and seven is prominent as the number or multiple of the number of Hebrew words in the opening creation account – seven being the metaphor for perfection, completion, divine plan, etc.

Proper exegesis simply has to discard the obsession with the creation versus evolution that is so evident in this thread. The prominent Jewish approach to genesis is a canonical exegesis, as is the proper Catholic approach – consideration of the totality of the writing and sidestepping the meat-grinder / garbage disposer arguments which pose undue emphasis on shreds of verses, rather than taking the verses for what they were written to convey.

Sober up, hey?

Scott Hahn (ibid) points out that the sin of Adam and Eve is in their abdication of the dominion over nature (thus submitting to the serpent) - the dominion which characterizes the first parents best as being made in the image and likeness of God.

IMO this is the answer to the thread question, how to read the creation accounts in Genesis.

BRAVO! Love that JPS & Mr. Hahn

 

[catholicsuffer]

Perhaps thats because they teach science in science classes and theology in theology classes. Is there any reason why they should merge?

No reason they should merge, just keep God in everything, at least I shall. So, if your evolution theory does not meet my expectation then I have the right to condemn it and reject its’ theory. Besides my Catholic Evolution Theory makes a whole lot better sense. But if you want to claim to be from monkeys then please by all means keep it to your self and out of my and my children life. People are really fed up with you atheist slaughtering the minds of innocence children with your stupidity. Thank you.

 

[catholicsuffer]

Can’t think o f his name, but the priest who was responsible for the the fourth section of the Catechism on prayer called the first creation account the “overture” of the Bible.

Ever since I read that, I can’t help but almost always overlay some spontaneous melody to the first creation account, Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3. Works for me.

The JPS commentary referred to way up at the top of the thread points out that the word for God in 1:1 is elohim which is used to refer to God but which also has the meaning “judges.”

So, we see God judging each day of creation, that it is good, and that everything is very good.

God gives man “dominion” over creation, which Scott Hahn sees as a reflection of the royal pedigree of Adam and Eve. There are also words there (see the third section of Hahn’s book, Reasons to Believe) that portray the priestly activities of our first parents. That is, the words referring to tending the garden are the same words used later in Exodus and Lev for the duties of the priests in the temple.

Both accounts of creation are clearly written to demythologize the pagan religions surrounding the Israelites, which believe that clouds, air, animals, or rocks are gods – which are shown in Genesis to be simply products of creation.

The religious meaning of the opening chapters of Genesis have little to do with the astronomical implications of 24-hour days and everything to do with showing the origins of the Jewish monotheistic religion.

Jewish exegesis in the Talmud and elsewhere unwraps the significance of the use of the number seven – seven days of creation, repeating seven times “God said…” and “God saw”, and seven is prominent as the number or multiple of the number of Hebrew words in the opening creation account – seven being the metaphor for perfection, completion, divine plan, etc.

Proper exegesis simply has to discard the obsession with the creation versus evolution that is so evident in this thread. The prominent Jewish approach to genesis is a canonical exegesis, as is the proper Catholic approach – consideration of the totality of the writing and sidestepping the meat-grinder / garbage disposer arguments which pose undue emphasis on shreds of verses, rather than taking the verses for what they were written to convey.

Sober up, hey?

Scott Hahn (ibid) points out that the sin of Adam and Eve is in their abdication of the dominion over nature (thus submitting to the serpent) - the dominion which characterizes the first parents best as being made in the image and likeness of God.

IMO this is the answer to the thread question, how to read the creation accounts in Genesis.

Thanks for the Information. Gotta love that Scott Hahn. On your final remarks you mention what Adam and Eves sin was and the termabdication. The following is dictionary.com definition:
v. ab·di·cat·ed, ab·di·cat·ing, ab·di·cates

v. tr.
To relinquish (power or responsibility) formally.
v. intr.
To relinquish formally a high office or responsibility.

I was hoping you would be so kind as too expound upon that.

 

[Crumpy]

Thanks for the Information. Gotta love that Scott Hahn. On your final remarks you mention what Adam and Eves sin was and the termabdication. The following is dictionary.com definition:
v. ab·di·cat·ed, ab·di·cat·ing, ab·di·cates

v. tr.
To relinquish (power or responsibility) formally.
v. intr.
To relinquish formally a high office or responsibility.

I was hoping you would be so kind as too expound upon that.

the simple idea is that mankind was supposed to rule over all of creation, but the abdication – the shirking of their assigned role to kingship over nature – occurred when they gave in to the temptations of the serpent. They did what the serpent said instead of doing what God said, as the story goes.

 

[catholicsuffer]

the simple idea is that mankind was supposed to rule over all of creation, but the abdication – the shirking of their assigned role to kingship over nature – occurred when they gave in to the temptations of the serpent. They did what the serpent said instead of doing what God said, as the story goes.

Thank you for your reply. I am not a Catholic but certainly see her as the Kingdom of God, unlike the invisible Kingdom of God that I was taught as a Protestant. I love studying different things in the bible and always look to the Catholic Church as the final authority on matters, most specially if the answers are by the Saints or Early Church Fathers. I can always count on the Catholic teachings for my studying and to know a little about what some of my visions or experiences are about. I do not have a lot to offer in return being most of my life has been wasted on alcohol–which I feel strongly is no more-- so I like to instead tell you one such experience which I had some years back, I know this is going to make me sound a little crazy but it happen just like this:
I was at a bar in Harvey, La drinking after work–at the time I was a hopper(the fellow you see running behind the garbage truck) and this was the hang-out that a couple of us went to because the picture beer was cheap. Any ways, I was talking and telling someone about an experience I had right after I read about a Saint that had the same experience during his life time. This guy approach me and ask what it was like, as I told him we were both in front of this great light(obviously-God) and I was tremble ling just as I was during the vision and just as the Saint describe his vision like he was going to shake into a million pieces and the fellow said to me that is the reason that I turn against him(meaning because of his power).

Thanks for the lesson on Adam and Eve. Hope the Good Lord Jesus grant you a similar experience.