Creation or Evolution

[ricmat]

Nope - the pagan myths are distortions of Revelation.

Since the pagan myths in this case are many centuries older than Genesis, that would be quite a trick.

Today, one can look at both Genesis and the pagan myths, side by side. I hope we can agree that Genesis is true revelation. And I hope we can agree that the pagan myths, albeit similar to Genesis, and although they may contain some elements of truth, are not true revelation.

On the contrary, it suggests to intelligent students that science is immutable but human concepts of God vary enormously, and in a free society, freedom of religion must be protected.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your post above.

Are you saying that you personally believe that science is immutable?

Are you saying that because human concepts of God vary enormously, that there is no correct human concept of God?

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**

You are wrong on two counts - at least .

Oh well, I’m already quite fond that you red it.

Firstly, Genesis does not identify the serpent as the devil or as any sort of supernatural entity whatever, only as ‘the most cunning beast in the garden’. The identification of the serpent with SATAN, not Lucifer, is merely an afterthought, the concept of Satan being Exilic in origin.

I wouldn’t stick to this. Of course you are right, when you say Genesis doesn’t say, that this snake was the serpent himself. But never in the bible any animal spoke. So, this was supernatural for a start.
The beast in the Garden Eden, the Paradise, wasn’t simply „a snake“. What snake would such supernatural thing, nd why and what for?! That „snake“ was named the devil himself. more often than not e.g. later in the revel 6:1
ation (the old snake 12:9+20:2)

Secondly, the name ‘Lucifer’ refers not to the devil but to the planet Venus, the morning star, as personified by the king of Babylon, who may have been a devilish individual, but a mere human nonetheless.

Here too, you are of course right again, but again a huge BUT:

Lucifer means in Latin Light-Carrier. In the old days, people called indeed the planet Venus so „the Morningstar“. In a later translation of Jes 14:12 into Latin (where the King of Babylon was drawn as Satan), a combination with Luke 10:18 ("I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven“) and Revelation 9:1 „ The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.“ and 12:9 „The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him“ was the creation of the Word Lucifer. Match also Isaiah 14:12-15

The truth about Lucifer had told us Jesus Christ very often; e.g. Matthew 4:10 – 12:26 and many more.

But however: Wouldn’t it be a lot better to stick to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, than slay each other with words about opinions of Genesis. Our bretherens who see Genesis as allegory for great and inunderstandable happenings, are no worse than those, who take Genesis word by word.
Wouldn’t it be better to reach hands and wait ‘til we see?!
**

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

1. The chapter suggests that Adam was created in a barren place.

1. It says God put him in the Garden. Perhaps picked him up and put him there, or perhaps led him there. It doesn’t say that man was created before the Garden itself.

1. And yes, while it says that man was initially alone, Genesis 1’s statement, “he created them,” does not contradict this.

1. Vatican II created some confusion of this kind, when it said that the Bible was inerrant in “faith and morals,” and didn’t mention science or history. Prior to that council, which was pastoral and non-infallible, the teaching of the Catholic Church throughout its history was that the Bible was entirely accurate, in faith, morals, history, science, “in every part.”

1. I do not agree with you that “there are many errors of fact.” It may be that a few errors slipped into the texts due to the mistakes of copyists or translators, but I don’t buy that there are many, and I can get you quotes from scholars to confirm that.

beeliner:

1. No, it doesn’t.

If he’d been in a perfectly agreeable environment, why move him to the Garden? Note also that I used the word “suggests.” Anyway, this matter is irrelevant, as it doesn’t involve a possible contradiction.

beeliner:

1. I can’t let you get away with that, Liefster, you are just like all the other fundamentalists, you cry Bible, Bible, Bible and then distort every page to fit your own agenda.

Of course it says that man was created before the Garden!

Here are three translations (with MY emphasis), take your pick:
Quote:
KJV: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he HAD formed.
Quote:
NAV: The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. THEN the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and the placed there the man whom he HAD formed.
Quote:
GNB: Then the Lord God took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it; he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live. THEN the Lord planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he put the man he HAD formed.

Here’s another. The New Revised Standard Version says, “AND the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”

The word “then” would prove that the Garden was supposed to be made after the man. There are multiple other translations that use the word “and” instead, though.

The word “had” really proves nothing, if you think about it grammatically. It could be interpreted as, “the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed [before he made the Garden].” Or it could be interpreted, “the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed [a few decades after he planted the Garden].” It doesn’t say when he had formed the man or when he had formed the Garden. Only that he had formed them both. The word “had” can be interpreted in this sentence as revealing chronology, but on the other hand, it could just a way of saying that God made the man.

For example, suppose I built a desk and then built the shovel yesterday. I could now say to you, correctly, “I built the desk and after a while put on it the shovel I had made.” My use of “I had made” in this sentence does not denote chronology. It does not have to. It just reveals, the way I say it in this example, that I made the shovel, not when I had made it.

Besides, even if your interpretation of correct, it is physically possible, without a miracle, that God could have created Adam in some barren place and he grew into adulthood, spending maybe 50 years (or, considering how long the Bible says he lived, maybe 400 or 500 years) outside the Garden, and during his lifetime the Lord planted the Garden and it grew, and then after it was flourishing beautifully he put into it the man he had made. The Bible doesn’t say how long Adam had been alive when the Lord moved him.

Neither of these interpretations is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible, and either can work validly within the word choice of the passage and the other Bible passages.

beeliner:

1. By itself, that is correct, but you are ignoring the fact that Genesis 1 says clearly that they were created male and female on the SIXTH day, and Genesis 2 has man (male) created BEFORE the plants and trees which Genesis 1 assures us were created on the THIRD day.

Not so, it specifically and repeatedly refers, in Genesis 2, to the plants of the fields. Not the trees or bushes. Which is important in view of the later part of the story, where God tells Adam that he shall hereby have to work the fields and scratch out his own living from them as punishment, because he disobeyed God.

Here’s what it says (NAB version): “At the time when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens – while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the Lord God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground- the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into hiss nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.”

The reference to the fact that there were none of these field shrubs because “there was no man to till the soil,” shows that it is specifically referring there to plants that men grow for themselves.

beeliner:

1. Nonsense! I will take your word, while doubtful, that that was ‘on the books’ until Vatican II. The concept of literal truth in matters unrelated to religion was abandoned about the time of Kant or earlier. The Catholic Church certainly did not deny the heliocentric nature of the solar system until Vatican II!

I’m not sure what you mean by “the concept of literal truth in matters unrelated to religion,” and I’m not sure what you’re referring to when describing Kant.

beeliner:

1. Factual errors in scripture are beyond the scope of this thread, but claiming that there are none apart from copyists’ errors is the very opposite of scholarship. Name one or two ‘scholars’ who make such a claim. Any error can be explained away if no limit is put on how ridiculous the explanation can be.

I don’t find the explanations ridiculous at all, but the vast majority of the claims of error are. For instance, most of the claims of error are places where one Gospel reports something that another doesn’t mention, so people assume that the fact that the other Gospel doesn’t mention it means that the Gospel is denying its ever having occurred. Which is absurd. Omission does not equal denial. Other batches of supposed errors people cite include places where the word order in a sentence is different between one translation and other translations. This is not actually an error, because in Jewish writing, the order of words wasn’t that important to the meaning. Other misunderstandings like these combine to make up the vast majority of supposed errors.

There are lots of Christian scholars who find the perspective that there are no errors beyond those of copyists very valid. Many of them are true experts. Non-Christian scholars, of course, operate on different assumptions, so they might assume error where a Christian would want it proven.

beeliner:

The Bible is a book of faith, not of fact.

That’s one point of view, and there are vast numbers of people who believe it to be both.

 

[historyb]

Duh indeed. They are prevented by our country’s constitution from doing so, and if it weren’t for the vigilance of those who diligently monitor the separation of church and state, one can only imagine what sort of tripe public school students would be fed by proselytising teachers and administrators.

Imagine a Catholic child, in an area where a parochial school is not available, at the mercy of a rabid Southern Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness or other religious kook for a teacher.

The first amendment is there not to suppress religion but to ensure freedom of religion for all.

And by the way, shame on the school that allowed yourself and several other losers to be put in a sham biology class. Talk about ‘dumbing down’ students.

Good for that School Evilution is poop. Evilution is a religion not science, if you can’t teach what really happened (Creation) than don’t teach a stupid myth. (evilution) misspelling on purpose and I am done!

 

[NoelFitz]

Today, the feast of St Bonaventure, the priest at Mass siad that Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas had a disagreement.

Bonaventure claimed that by reason alone one could prove that the world had a beginning in time. Thomas disagreed.

Does this add to the current debate?

 

[beeliner]

Here is the top link - Pagan Mythology and the Bible

I’m not sure which key words you googled, but here is part of the website’s mission statement:

What We Believe

The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:

God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.

The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24- hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.

Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.

Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earth’s features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).

All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.

Of course, all of those are matters of faith being falsely presented as matters of fact; in other words, their minds are already made up - don’t bother them with reality.

While there are many really good websites that can be accessed on this subject, and we are talking here not about opinions nor prejudices but the current concensus of scholarship on the origins of BOTH Genesis and its pagan antecedents, I should have added that the both the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Genesis volume of the Anchor Bible comment on this subject in detail. The latter contains 76 pages of introduction and the footnotes, if separated from the text, would fill a couple of hundred pages at least. Everything most laymen could ever wish to know about Genesis can be found in those two sources, both of which are the products of the best interdenominational scholarship available.

The choice between the Anchor and a fundamentalist Protestant propaganda mill is not a difficult choice.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure which key words you googled, but here is part of the website’s mission statement:Of course, all of those are matters of faith being falsely presented as matters of fact; in other words, their minds are already made up - don’t bother them with reality.

While there are many really good websites that can be accessed on this subject, and we are talking here not about opinions nor prejudices but the current concensus of scholarship on the origins of BOTH Genesis and its pagan antecedents, I should have added that the both the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Genesis volume of the Anchor Bible comment on this subject in detail. The latter contains 76 pages of introduction and the footnotes, if separated from the text, would fill a couple of hundred pages at least. Everything most laymen could ever wish to know about Genesis can be found in those two sources, both of which are the products of the best interdenominational scholarship available.

The choice between the Anchor and a fundamentalist Protestant propaganda mill is not a difficult choice.

Unfortunately much of the interdenominational scholarship is the documentary hypothesis.

I believe the Catholic Church is distancing itself from this and the misuse of historical critical methods.

 

[beeliner]

Unfortunately much of the interdenominational scholarship is the documentary hypothesis.

I believe the Catholic Church is distancing itself from this and the misuse of historical critical methods.

Back to the Dark Ages, eh? Wow! Just what the Church needs!

 

[buffalo]

Back to the Dark Ages, eh? Wow! Just what the Church needs!

It only needs the truth. What do you think it needs?

 

[buffalo]

Are Catholic Defenders of Special Creation “Fundamentalists”?

 

[NoelFitz]

Today, the feast of St Bonaventure, the priest at Mass told us about a dispute beween Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas.

Bonaventure claimed that reason alone could prove the earth had a beginning in time. Thomas disagreed.

Does this add to our current debate?

 

[rossum]

Not so, it specifically and repeatedly refers, in Genesis 2, to the plants of the fields. Not the trees or bushes.

And Genesis 2 also specifically refers to “all the birds of the air”, which Genesis 1 says were created on day 5, being created between Adam and Eve which Genesis 1 assigns to day six. Do day five and day six overlap?

rossum

 

[Lief_Erikson]

And Genesis 2 also specifically refers to “all the birds of the air”, which Genesis 1 says were created on day 5, being created between Adam and Eve which Genesis 1 assigns to day six. Do day five and day six overlap?

rossum

I already responded to this argument much further back in the thread . . . I think it got lost in the shuffle. Basically, the verse where it says God created all the birds of the air in Genesis 2 does not have to be read as taking place chronologically after Adam was made. It says that God did not want man to be alone, “So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air . . .” (Note, the word is not “all” but “various”- “all” is only referred to in verse 20, when man named all the animals, including the birds, but not necessarily when they were made)

When the passage above says, “So the Lord God formed . . . birds of the air,” the “so” refers to the previous sentence that God did not want Adam to be alone. Of course, God, being eternal, knew from before creation that it would be less than ideal for Adam to be alone. So it’s not like God just realized it at that moment. Therefore we have that God from eternity decided it was wrong for Adam to be alone, “So the Lord God formed . . . birds of the air.” When he made the birds of the air is not specifically described in the passage. It could have been after the creation of Adam, but God knew from eternity that Adam should have companionship, so reading the passage as God realizing Adam needed companionship only after making him and therefore making the birds then is clearly a theologically unsound reading. He could have made the birds after making Adam, according to the passage, or maybe, foreknowing Adam’s need for companionship, he made birds millions or billions of years earlier. The passage does not specifically say which of these scenarios is the case, but as Genesis 2 and Genesis 1 were both written by God, and God does not make mistakes or contradict Himself, and Genesis 1 says very clearly that birds were made before Adam was, we should believe the perfectly reasonable interpretation of Genesis 2 that God foreknew Adam’s need and “so the Lord God formed . . . birds of the air,” millions or billions of years ago.

 

[The_Barbarian]

**Today, the feast of St Bonaventure, the priest at Mass told us about a dispute beween Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas.

Bonaventure claimed that reason alone could prove the earth had a beginning in time. Thomas disagreed.

Does this add to our current debate?**

It illuminates an important issue when it comes to the interface between theology and science. Theology is deductive, assuming a number of basic principles, and then deducing particulars from that. Reason therefor, is queen of theology.

Science in inductive, collecting particulars, and inferring basic principles from them. Evidence is what counts in science. Bonaventure seems to have been the theologian and Aquinas the scientist in this issue.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure which key words you googled, but here is part of the website’s mission statement:Of course, all of those are matters of faith being falsely presented as matters of fact; in other words, their minds are already made up - don’t bother them with reality.

While there are many really good websites that can be accessed on this subject, and we are talking here not about opinions nor prejudices but the current concensus of scholarship on the origins of BOTH Genesis and its pagan antecedents, I should have added that the both the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Genesis volume of the Anchor Bible comment on this subject in detail. The latter contains 76 pages of introduction and the footnotes, if separated from the text, would fill a couple of hundred pages at least. Everything most laymen could ever wish to know about Genesis can be found in those two sources, both of which are the products of the best interdenominational scholarship available.

The choice between the Anchor and a fundamentalist Protestant propaganda mill is not a difficult choice.

“fundamentalist Protestant propaganda mill”?

Why are you bringing up Protestants on a Catholic forum? I was raised Catholic and have had no contact, along with my Catholic friends, with any Protestant teaching, yet you have brought it up here on more than one occasion. What is the problem?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Back to the Dark Ages, eh? Wow! Just what the Church needs!

“dark ages” This is precisely the same thing I see on the forum I moderate. A small number of secularists try to set the tone by using the same talking points over and over. This is not the political action committeee forum, this is Catholic Answers.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Any that deny divine providence. Don’t know of any like that, but if there are any, they are not acceptable. Not acceptable to the Church, and not acceptable to science, since a scientific theory can’t say anything about the supernatural.

Yep. Such “theories” aren’t acceptable to the Church or to science. I don’t actually know of any like that, but there must be some, somewhere.

And this nonsense reply serves what purpose? I think Cardinal Schoenborn said it correctly in the New York Times Op-Ed: The Pope is not a satisfied evolutionist.

Oh well,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Any that deny divine providence. Don’t know of any like that, but if there are any, they are not acceptable. Not acceptable to the Church, and not acceptable to science, since a scientific theory can’t say anything about the supernatural.

Yep. Such “theories” aren’t acceptable to the Church or to science. I don’t actually know of any like that, but there must be some, somewhere.

Well, how about we start asking scientific questions about God? There really is no reason not to that I can see.

Maybe the first question ought to be something like, show the evidence of God, and confine it to scientific method which must include refutability.

You and I and lots of others can show evidence of no god of any sort. Science is just chock full of evidence that does not need any god to be very useful and reasonably complete.

So why not ask for evidence of the Christian God?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, how about we start asking scientific questions about God? There really is no reason not to that I can see.

Maybe the first question ought to be something like, show the evidence of God, and confine it to scientific method which must include refutability.

The scientific method has no way to check the supernatural. But since the Church already has tools to do that, why would you want to? It’s O.K. to be unscientific, when that’s appropriate.

You and I and lots of others can show evidence of no god of any sort.

How do you show evidence of absence? You can only show that God cannot be found by inductive investigation. That hardly means He doesn’t exist.

Science is just chock full of evidence that does not need any god to be very useful and reasonably complete.

So why not ask for evidence of the Christian God?

Plumbing can work just fine without invoking God, too. But plumbing doesn’t disprove God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that the Pope and scientists agree that any theory that denies divine providence is outside the effective bounds of science)

And this nonsense reply serves what purpose?

A lot of people don’t realize this. For a time, you didn’t.

I think Cardinal Schoenborn said it correctly in the New York Times Op-Ed: The Pope is not a satisfied evolutionist.

Neither are evolutionists. There are dozens of journals dedicated to working on problems in evolution, just as there are dozens of journals dedicated to working on problems in Chemistry.

Lots of work yet to do. If you (or Shoenborn) mean that he doesn’t think evolution is a fact, that would contradict his statement that it’s virtually certain, and that there is a huge body of evidence to support it.

My guess is that it’s you, not the Cardinal who has it wrong.