Creation CCC 337, 338, 390

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus is true God and True Man.

The two nature never mix, as far as I know.

Please do not miss, as far as I know.

There are quadrillion upon quadrillion of thing that I do not know. I am nor sure of the spelling of that word.

I am here to learn.
 
God said, let there be light and this was said on the first day.

There was night and day the first day.

Psalm 139: 5 Behind me and before me You encircle me and rest Your hand upon me. 6 Such KNOWLEDGE is beyond me, for too LOFTY for me to reach.
…12 Darkness is not dark for You, and night shines as the day, darkness and light are but one.
 
St. John 1: 3 All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through Him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (NAB).

In The Beginning and Word
Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters (NAB). [Hebrew for in the beginning “be-re-shiyt******”;* *and the Septuagint and New Testament Greek for in the beginning “en ar-kay]

Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (KJV).

St. John" 1: 1 In the beginning (archē) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through Him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (NAB).
[N. B. The Septuagint uses the same word in Genesis 1: 1 as St. John 1: 1, that is, “archē”.]
 
Jim_Baur said:
As far as I know, a literal meaning in the Creation Accounts that is never said, God is all-powerful.
Click to expand...
I posted this.

It is poorly stated.

I meant to say: In the Creation Account it never says that God is all-powerful.

However, it is a traditional interpretation of the text. It is a literal meaning of the text.
 
Important note: The Church teaches that we must build from the literal meaning before we can see the Christological/allegorical, moral or anagogical meanings.

In my opinion, the author of Genesis did not write about the science of it. He could not have written about the science of it. It still is not know or comprehended. Thus we would not have as of yet the literal sense or meaning of the Creation Account. And as the Church teaches, we must first recognize the literal meaning or sense of the passage first.
 
This is the idea that I am suggesting.

The Beginning: The Beginning’s literal meaning is the Word.

Here are a couple of the passages that lead me to this suggestion.

Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters (NAB). [Hebrew for in the beginning “be-re-shiyt******”;* *and the Septuagint and New Testament Greek for in the beginning “en ar-kay]

Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (KJV).

St. John" 1: 1 In the beginning (archē) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through Him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (NAB).
[N. B. The Septuagint uses the same word in Genesis 1: 1 as St. John 1: 1, that is, “archē”.]
 
Jim_Baur said:
Important note: The Church teaches that we must build from the literal meaning before we can see the Christological/allegorical, moral or anagogical meanings.

In my opinion, the author of Genesis did not write about the science of it. He could not have written about the science of it. It still is not know or comprehended. Thus we would not have as of yet the literal sense or meaning of the Creation Account. And as the Church teaches, we must first recognize the literal meaning or sense of the passage first.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for sharing this teaching! Would you please share where the teaching can be found?

Also, please consider the following:
Who do you believe the author of Genesis is?
What definition of science are you using?
 
The literal sense as the primary sense is found throughout Tradition.

It is in the CCC.

It is safe and sound.

It is in Origen. Origen was said to be the best of the East in at least one Papal encyclical

Augustine says so.

It is also found in the Summa. The First Part, Question 1. I believe it is said in Article 10, that is, I, 1, 10.

Concerning science, one can use all eras of science. To say it in the general and common way–physics, chemistry, biology, and even math.
 
Also, you asked about my opinion on the author of Torah.

Thomas Aquinas, and I would guess many other doctors and saints, says that there are some things in our faith that are needed. There are some things that are not needed. I think that name of the author falls into the category that we do not need to know who the human author was.

We do need to know that God inspired the authors of Scripture.

How He did it, we have some ideas but still do not know.

I like this one: just as we are inspired to do good, God in a similar way revealed Himself to Moses and inspired Moses.

Back to the authors and dates–they seem unnecessary–or it would be really, really, really explicit.

Talmud dealt with the authorship of Torah and the problems in the text that point to Moses not being the author. They address the passages that talk about Moses not going into the promise land, where Moses was to be buried and is buried.

Talmud made up this explanation: Moses wrote those things down and cried.
 
Jim_Baur said:
The literal sense as the primary sense is found throughout Tradition.

It is in the CCC.

It is safe and sound.

It is in Origen. Origen was said to be the best of the East in at least one Papal encyclical

Augustine says so.

It is also found in the Summa. The First Part, Question 1. I believe it is said in Article 10, that is, I, 1, 10.

Concerning science, one can use all eras of science. To say it in the general and common way–physics, chemistry, biology, and even math.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for sharing where the teachings can be found.

Regarding Science
What are your thoughts on the following: Since the author is describing the process of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural aspects of Creation, He is writing about the science of Creation.
Jim_Baur said:
Also, you asked about my opinion on the author of Torah.

Thomas Aquinas, and I would guess many other doctors and saints, says that there are some things in our faith that are needed. There are some things that are not needed. I think that name of the author falls into the category that we do not need to know who the human author was.

We do need to know that God inspired the authors of Scripture.

How He did it, we have some ideas but still do not know.

I like this one: just as we are inspired to do good, God in a similar way revealed Himself to Moses and inspired Moses.

Back to the authors and dates–they seem unnecessary–or it would be really, really, really explicit.

Talmud dealt with the authorship of Torah and the problems in the text that point to Moses not being the author. They address the passages that talk about Moses not going into the promise land, where Moses was to be buried and is buried.

Talmud made up this explanation: Moses wrote those things down and cried.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on the following concept:
Since the Bible is God’s Word, and is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit/God is the author of the Bible.Therefore, the author knew the literal sense and science of it.
 
jochoa said:
Thank you very much for sharing where the teachings can be found.

Regarding Science
What are your thoughts on the following: Since the author is describing the process of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural aspects of Creation, He is writing about the science of Creation.

.
Click to expand...
God, in my opinion, God’s intention was to reveal His providential love, infinite power, absolute beauty and eternal happiness. He informs us of His creation and His gift to us. On the Seventh Day He made an oath and Loving Covenant with us. This was a most blessed gift.

He has let us have all the enjoyment of the developing of the physical sciences.

He did not reveal the science of creation–in my opinion!

God knows the science.

We did not know nor do we know now.

In addition: in my** opinion**, creation is beyond our ability to comprehend. Human reason and science cannot get it. It is “supra-science.” It is “supra-reasonable,” in my opinion.

Concerning from where I got the information that I am using, I think that it is all traditional.

I might be pushing that the passages do not teach science. I might be pushing the ideas too far. You will have to make your own judgment. You should consult theologians that you trust. If you are not a theologian, contact your local university or seminary.

I have tried to underline “my thoughts and OPINIONS.” If what I am saying is false or heretical I hope to change immediately.
 
Jim_Baur said:
God, in my opinion, God’s intention was to reveal His providential love, infinite power, absolute beauty and eternal happiness. He informs us of His creation and His gift to us. On the Seventh Day He made an oath and Loving Covenant with us. This was a most blessed gift.

He has let us have all the enjoyment of the developing of the physical sciences.

He did not reveal the science of creation–in my opinion!

God knows the science.

We did not know nor do we know now.

In addition: in my** opinion**, creation is beyond our ability to comprehend. Human reason and science cannot get it. It is “supra-science.” It is “supra-reasonable,” in my opinion.

Concerning from where I got the information that I am using, I think that it is all traditional.

I might be pushing that the passages do not teach science. I might be pushing the ideas too far. You will have to make your own judgment. You should consult theologians that you trust. If you are not a theologian, contact your local university or seminary.

I have tried to underline “my thoughts and OPINIONS.” If what I am saying is false or heretical I hope to change immediately.
Click to expand...
My friend, I perceive your understandings to be well-aligned with Church Teaching, which is definitely the Truth. And I have never doubted your alignment with Her Teachings. I asked because I personally wanted to read more in-depth information. Here is more analysis on what I am trying to share:

We know that if we want to understand the Christological/allegorical, moral or anagogical meanings, we must first understand the literal meaning.
Therefore, if Creation is truly beyond our ability to understand the literal meaning, then we will never be able to understand the Christological…meanings. If this is truly the case, then studying the Bible would be absolutely purposeless because there would be no way to understand its meaning.

I propose recognizing that, although human-reason alone cannot understand the literal meaning, human-reason is capable of using supra-reasoning to overcome the challenge of not being able to understand something that is “supra-reasonable”:
We know:
-Supra-reason has spoken through the prophets.
-Supra-reason has taught the Church.
-Therefore, human-reason can use the Supra-reasoned writings of the Church and prophets to understand the literal meaning.

In Brief
Creation is definitely beyond human ability to comprehend, however, human reason can use the Teachings of God (Catechisms, Doctrines, Prayers, and Scripture) to piece together and comprehend the literal meaning.

Thanks for the excellent discussion! I have been thoroughly enjoying pondering your writings!
 
jochoa:

We are both working to solve these issues in our minds!

I am totally convinced that the literal meaning is within the humans ability to believe and then understand.

I do not believe that God’s intention was to teach the physical science of Moses’ day or of 3010 A. D. or of 4010 A. D.

I believe that the lights of the Heavens are both the angels and stars. The angels are not stated with the word angels, but the Account clearly says that it includes all that God created. Then in the Second Account we hear of Satan.

In St. Paul we hear that all things were made in the Word.

Again, I believe that the literal is easily reached by faith.

In addition: I like to use the Bible to explain the Bible. One tool is “intertextuality.” It really helps.
 
I like the method called canonical exegesis.

Benedict mentions it in Jesus of Nazareth p. xviii.

I am sure one can find tons of information on it.

I mention it because it is a better term than “intertextuality.”
 
jochoa

I am sorry for being so slow.

I have always felt comfortable talking with you.

I never felt worried, concerned or insulted.

Again, I have always enjoyed the exchange of ideas with you.

Blessings!!!
 
Col 1: 16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, orprincipalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him…

It was the Word that became flesh.

All things were created in the Word, before the Word became flesh.

Thus the angels were created by the Word, before the Word became flesh.
 
Genesis 1: 1 ff
In the beginning (Word), when God (Father) created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind (Spirit/ruah) swept over the waters.

Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

Thus evening came, and morning followed–the first day.

This passage seems to have a literal meaning: the Father, the Word and the Spirit are all involved in creation. Here are the passages:

The Father
Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning **God **created.

The Word
Colossians 1: 16 For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.

The Spirit
Isaiah 40: 13 Who hath directed the Spirit(ruah) of the LORD, or [being] his counsellor hath taught him?
 
Jim_Baur said:
Thus evening came, and morning followed–the first day.
Click to expand...
You may find this of interest.

aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
Nachmanides says the text uses the words “Vayehi Erev” ― but it doesn’t mean “there was evening.” He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet ― the root of “erev” ― is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That’s why evening is called “erev”, because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is “there was disorder.” The Torah’s word for “morning” ― “boker” ― is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes “bikoret”, orderly, able to be discerned. That’s why the sun needn’t be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That’s something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly. Order always degrades to chaos unless the environment recognizes the order and locks it in to preserve it. There must be a guide to the system. That’s an unequivocal statement.

The Torah wants us to be amazed by this flow, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It’s pure thermodynamics. And it’s stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.
Click to expand...
 
JM3

Thanks!

I will read the site you suggest.

It looks really interesting.

Thanks!
 
Concerning the creation of the heaven(s), there are seven heavens in the Scriptures.

Concerning the authors’ intention, God and Moses, for God I would think His intention was to include all seven. Concerning Moses, I would think that is true also, especially after the vision of Exodus 25: 40 and Moses’ constant walking and talking with God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top