S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
LOL I have read the Bible, the whole Bible from cover to cover. That’s not 2 creations stories, chapter 2 just goes into more detail of what was described in chapter 1.
- Status
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
I chose the first option in that I believe the authors of Genesis wrote it to accurately and not figuratively reflect what they thought was how their god created the world.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The Masoretic (Hebrew) text.What do you mean by which account? Where are the 2 creation stories?
I’m going by Douay-Rheims Bible
*
The Beginning
1In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
There’s a period there after verse 1.
I just checked other versions here and all versions have the period between verse 1 and 2 except 1 version, the International Standard Version. Which version are you going by?
But as for English versions, as I recall, the NRSV and the NAB/NABRE render the translation into English more precisely.
What you’re expounding is the so-called “gap theory” that was (and might still be) popular among some Christian fundamentalists.
B
buffalo
Guest
The two accounts are complementary. The first, seems to be from God’s perspective (and may have been told to Adam by God) and tells the order of creation, the second tells the importance of man.
B
buffalo
Guest
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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 "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
B
bsroufek
Guest
I think this poll could have been worded more precisely, but I think the gist is a literal as opposed to symbolic intepretation of The Creation Story.
Thank God I don’t have a problem believing Moses’ account from God about the Six Day of Creation being actually Six Days, not billions of years.
The symbolic idea gives people the sense of unreality I think.
Thank God I don’t have a problem believing Moses’ account from God about the Six Day of Creation being actually Six Days, not billions of years.
The symbolic idea gives people the sense of unreality I think.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
dshix, I see what you mean, but what about the parts of Genesis that are factual. I don’t like to think of the Genesis story of creation as totally symbolic, since I believe there are some facts to be taken literally, such as there being a first man and a first woman. That first man and woman may have been 50,000 years ago, or 200,000 years ago, and not 6,000 years ago, but it would seem to make sense that God either created man instantly, or infused a human soul into a humanoid creature that had been developing for thousands of years. Either way, it would seem there was a first. Also, scientists say that human DNA indicates a first parent. Also, the EO and possibly the CC consider Adam to be a saint. So there seems to be some sense of literalness to the story even if the 6 days turn out to be 6,000 or 6,000,000 years. Am I wrong about that?
F
fhansen
Guest
Both; the creation account has elements that are to be taken literally while others are symbolic or allegorical.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
read your other bible, the timing is different, man is created before or after the animals, woman was created simultaneously with, or after man. two stories. unless you are going to tell me the bible’s details aren’t important, in which case I will tell you special pleading is the mark of a failing argument.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
You’re understanding it wrong, Genesis 2 just goes into more detail of the same story. He formed man and then brought the animals to him, it didn’t say he made the animals after man, it just says after He made man then He brought the animals that He had already made to Adam so he could name them. He already made the trees in Genesis one and Genesis 2 tells how God made it rain so the trees could grow. It’s the same story it just goes into more detail in Genesis 2. Genesis 1 says He made male and female and Genesis 2 goes into more detail of how He made woman from Adam’s rib. It’s the same story chapter 2 just goes into more detail. Chapter 1 gives an overview and chapter 2 breaks it down into details.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
like the good protestants we are, we’ll interpret it as we see fit.
I
Izdaari
Guest
I believe in the Bible is the true word of God…
AND
I believe the Creation Story in Genesis is not meant to be taken as factually literal.
Though it is true, it is true in the genre of creation myth, not of historical narrative.
Cf. George MacDonald, J.R.R Tolkien and C.S. Lewis on True Myth.
AND
I believe the Creation Story in Genesis is not meant to be taken as factually literal.
Though it is true, it is true in the genre of creation myth, not of historical narrative.
Cf. George MacDonald, J.R.R Tolkien and C.S. Lewis on True Myth.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
LOL Whatever. I’m no protestant, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
I don’t feel any compulsion to always see things as inconsistencies either. It works both ways. If there were some great theological question hanging on this detail, then I could see belaboring it, but as it is, it doesn’t much matter. We have already agreed, at least I think we have, that the Bible is only necessarily faithful with respect to faith and morals. Those who want to use it as a historical document, I would exercise great caution.
B
buffalo
Guest
see post #22
F
Fairwinds
Guest
I’m all in favor of special pleading and ignoring inconvenient words.
however, it doesn’t matter here, because I understand what the Yahwist Tradition and Priestly Tradition sources are and that Genesis is not primer on evolution or history.
H
Harry1941
Guest
The Holy Bible is about the Lord and His church in heaven and on earth., It is not about the making of the natural world. This earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. There were people here on earth when the book of Genesis was written. Adam and Eve, with their two sons, were not the first people on earth. After Cain kill Able, where did Cain’s wife come from?
The meaning of six days of creation ,which means regeneration.
The first state is that which precedes, including both the state from infancy, and that immediately before regeneration. This is called a “void” “emptiness” and “thick darkness.” And the first motion, which is the Lord’s mercy, is “the Spirit of God moving upon the faces of the waters.” Man is in this first state when he knows nothing about the Lord’s good and truth
The second state is when a distinction is made between those things which are of the Lord, and those which are proper to man. The things which are of the Lord are called in the word “remains” and here are especially knowledges of faith, which have been learned from infancy, and which are stored up, and are not manifested until the man comes into this state. At the present day this state seldom exists without temptation, misfortune, or sorrow, by which the things of the body and the world, that is, such as are proper to man, are brought into quiescence, and as it were die. Thus the things which belong to the external man are separated from those which belong to the internal man. In the internal man are the remains, stored up by the Lord unto this time, and for this use.
The third state is that of repentance, in which the man, from his internal man, speaks piously and devoutly, and brings forth goods, like works of charity, but which nevertheless are inanimate, because he thinks they are from himself. These goods are called the “tender grass” and also the “herb yielding seed” and afterwards the “tree bearing fruit.”
The fourth state is when the man becomes affected with love, and illuminated by faith. He indeed previously discoursed piously, and brought forth goods, but he did so in consequence of the temptation and straitness under which he labored, and not from faith and charity; wherefore faith and charity are now enkindled in his internal man, and are called two “luminaries.”
The fifth state is when the man discourses from faith, and thereby confirms himself in truth and good: the things then produced by him are animate, and are called the “fish of the sea” and the “birds of the heavens.”
The sixth state is when, from faith, and is from love, he speaks what is true, and does what is good: the things which he then brings forth are called the “living soul” and the “beast.” And as he then begins to act at once and together from both faith and love, he becomes a spiritual man, who is called an “image.” His spiritual life is delighted and sustained by such things as belong to the knowledges of faith, and to works of charity, which are called his “food;” and his natural life is delighted and sustained by those which belong to the body and the senses; whence a combat arises, until love gains the dominion, and he becomes a celestial man.
Those who are being regenerated do not all arrive at this state. The greatest part, at this day, attain only the first state; some only the second; others the third, fourth, or fifth; few the sixth; and scarcely anyone the seventh.
Harry:wave:
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
I think the options for the poll might be creationism or evolution, I am one hundred percent behind creationism.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
which one? I’m partial to the Navajo creation myth.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
The Church as I have it is behind neither theory, but accepts both as a possibility provided that we accept that a human being does not exist until God infuses it with a human soul. The scientific evidence that human beings go back 50,000 to 200,000 years ago flies in the face of the Biblical account of some 6,000 years, so I have no problem dispensing with the notion of the Bible being historically accurate. But as to Evolution or Creationism, I find neither theory implausible.
- Status