Creation Story Poll

[Skye_Ariel]

Genesis 2
7 Then the Lord God formed a manc] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I take Genesis to mean that Adam did not evolve from an ape, so I have a huge problem with evolution

Evolutionists assume life started from no life three and a half billion years ago single cell to fish to mammals to man with all the intermediate stages, and without God; I have problems with this

Are you saying I should agree with evolution; in order not to mislead anyone, I do wish to discuss this honestly, this does not mean I have to agree with other conclusions.

Blessings

Eric

Exactly! I definitely don’t believe in evolution and I don’t see how anyone can, Catholic or non Catholic.

I see the same possibility. How do you explain that he took Eve from Adam? Were we asexual at one point in time? A friend and I were discussing that a few days ago. And why are there not parallel lines of evolution evident; ie, different stages of evolution to humans still happening and observable? And does that mean that God infused a human soul in just two of the evolved humanoids? Or many at the same time? And how are all charged with original sin? Was it Adam as “Mankind” not Adam as a single man? So many things to speculate.

As far as Eve coming out of Adam, when you think about it, all women have a tiny amount of male hormones and all males have a tiny amount of female hormones. So that just proves Genesis and God taking Eve out of Adam. As far as parallel evolving of species, God formed animals out of the dirt the same way He formed man out of the dirt, so of course humans will be similar to animals in some ways, we are made out of the same material. The missing link of evolution where supposedly humans and apes came from a common ancestor is wrong, the “common ancestor” is the dirt we were all formed from. Humans and animals were made from the same material by the same creator so of course we will be similar in a lot of ways, the same way that a writer has his style of writing and all of his books have the same style, or an aritist’s paintings will have the same style. We all come from one Creator made from the same material, dirt. God made humans and animals to adapt and evolve to their environment. It all makes sense till people try to remove God from the equation and that’s when things don’t make sense.

And as far as the big bang theory, it makes no sense because who made the bang happen? Who made the microscopic elements that supposedly evolved into a big bang? No matter how you put it, things don’t just appear or happen from nothing. And there is too much order in this planet among plants, animals, humans and sea life for everything to just happen by some random chance. It makes no sense.

 

[expounder]

Just out of curiosity
Do you:
1)Believe the Bible is the word of God and the whole account in Gesis part 1 is an exact description on how the world was made in exactly 6 days
2)I don’t believe the Genesis was intended to give us a factual account but was instead given to us in order to help us make sense of the world around us not a factual account of creation.

 

[Fairwinds]

The “faces of the deep” a…

do you want to cite your source?

 

[loramaca]

I’m creationist because I don’t see reason for evolution and evidence for evolution. How is it possible that God can do everything, but he can’t make people without evolution. It’s OK to be Darwinist, but it is illogical to me.

 

[ffg]

Just out of curiosity
Do you:
1)Believe the Bible is the word of God and the whole account in Gesis part 1 is an exact description on how the world was made in exactly 6 days
2)I don’t believe the Genesis was intended to give us a factual account but was instead given to us in order to help us make sense of the world around us a factual account of creation.

There are many genre’s in the bible. The Bible is many books. Some books have real literal intent, some are poems, some are guides, some are history lessons, etc.

 

[buffalo]

you could say that, if you believe God is playing parlor tricks with planted evidence. this makes no sense since He gave us inquiring minds and the tools to discover His creation. science shows that creation is much more fantastic than the folklore account in Genesis. why He’d want to fool us, I can’t imagine… since there’s no way to prove or disprove that kind of claim, however, so I regard it as not very useful.

The deceiver God argument is bogus. Through science we can only see a few parts of a huge jig saw puzzle.

 

[Harry1941]

By the “Spirit of God” was brooding upon the faces of the waters is meant the Lord’s mercy, which is said to “move” or “brood” as a hen broods over her eggs. The things over which it moves are such as the Lord has hidden and treasured up in man, which in the Word throughout are called remains or a remnant, consisting of the knowledges of the true and of the good, which never come into light or day, until external things are vastated. These knowledges are here called “the faces of the waters.”

Arcana Coelestia Genesis 1
Verse 3. And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. The first state is when the man begins to understand that the good and the true are something higher. Men who are altogether external do not even know what good and truth are; for they fancy all things to be good that belong to the love of self and the love of the world; and all things to be true that favor these loves; not being aware that such goods are evils, and such truths falsities. But when man is conceived anew, he then begins for the first time to understand that his goods are not goods, and also, as he comes more into the light, that the Lord is, and that He is good and truth itself. That men ought to know that the Lord is, He Himself teaches in John: Except ye believe that I am, ye shall die in your sins (John 8:24). Also, that the Lord is good itself, or life, and truth itself, or light, and consequently that there is neither good nor truth except from the Lord, is thus declared: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness. He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (John 1:1, 3-4, 9).

Harry:wave:

 

[JamesCaruso]

I think this question is a little bit superfluous. I, for example, do not believe the Genesis account to be at all literal… in any way, shape, or form. For you to then ask “Well how do you explain that [God] took Eve from Adam?” I’d respond: "I do not believe the Genesis account to be at all literal. I actually do not believe God fashioned Eve from Adam’s rib, literally, and there’s no hidden meaning to deduce from that. I believe that Adam and Eve came to being the same way that all human beings throughout history have come into being.

.

So what would you think the allegorical meaning behind God taking Eve from Adam is? I don’t for a minute believe that it was just an unfortunate phrasing. Perhaps it was to indicate a pecking order as in the notion that Eve’s sin would not have caused the fall of mankind, it was Adam’s sin as he was the father of mankind. I’m not trying to be cute or argumentative or a creationist as someone else tried to label me-- I’m just trying to see what other people who have studied genesis more than I have concluded or speculated. That’s all.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

So what would you think the allegorical meaning behind God taking Eve from Adam is? I don’t for a minute believe that it was just an unfortunate phrasing. Perhaps it was to indicate a pecking order as in the notion that Eve’s sin would not have caused the fall of mankind, it was Adam’s sin as he was the father of mankind. I’m not trying to be cute or argumentative or a creationist as someone else tried to label me-- I’m just trying to see what other people who have studied genesis more than I have concluded or speculated. That’s all.

I think it has to do with when a man and a woman marry, the Bible says they become one flesh. So taking Eve out of Adam signifies they are one flesh and Adam said this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. So the two were as one in marriage. I think it was to signify the marriage union of man and woman. I also think that as head of the marriage union that maybe mankind would not have fallen if Adam didn’t eat the fruit. God told Adam directly not to eat of the tree, and then **Adam **told Eve. I don’t think God told Eve directly. She knew it was wrong but I think it was Adam’s choice to eat the fruit that sealed it.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I think it has to do with when a man and a woman marry, the Bible says they become one flesh. So taking Eve out of Adam signifies they are one flesh and Adam said this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. So the two were as one in marriage. I think it was to signify the marriage union of man and woman. I also think that as head of the marriage union that maybe mankind would not have fallen if Adam didn’t eat the fruit. God told Adam directly not to eat of the tree, and then **Adam **told Eve. I don’t think God told Eve directly. She knew it was wrong but I think it was Adam’s choice to eat the fruit that sealed it.

Thanks. Good thoughts! I really need to study Genesis. It has some most interesting messages.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Thanks. Good thoughts! I really need to study Genesis. It has some most interesting messages.

Cool! No problem thanks!

 

[Harry1941]

Arcana Coelestia
Genesis 1;4-5
Verses 4, 5. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God distinguished between the light and the darkness. And God called the light day, and the dark He called night. Light is called “good” because it is from the Lord, who is good itself, The “darkness” means all those things which, before man is conceived and born anew, have appeared like light, because evil has appeared like good, and the false like the true; yet they are darkness, consisting merely of the things proper to man himself, which still remain. Whatsoever is of the Lord is compared to “day” because it is of the light; and whatsoever is man’s own is compared to “night” because it is of darkness. These comparisons frequently occur in the Word.

Verse 5. And the evening and the morning were the first day. What is meant by “evening” and what by “morning” can now be discerned. “Evening” means every preceding state, because it is a state of shade, or of falsity and of no faith; “morning” is every subsequent state, being one of light, or of truth and of the knowledges of faith, “Evening” in a general sense, signifies all things that are of man’s own; but “morning” whatever is of the Lord, as is said through David: The spirit of Jehovah spake in me, and His word was on my tongue; the God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me. He is as the light of the morning, when the sun ariseth, even a morning without clouds, when from brightness, from rain, the tender herb springeth out of the earth (2 Sam. 23:2-4).

An unregenerated man is like the evening, He has no faith.He is void and emptiness, He has no good and truth in him.

As it is “evening” when there is no faith, and “morning” when there is faith, therefore the coming of the Lord into the world is called “morning;” and the time when He comes, because then there is no faith, is called “evening” as in Daniel: The Holy One said unto me, Even unto evening when it becomes morning, two thousand and three hundred (Dan. 8:14, 26). In like manner “morning” is used in the Word to denote every coming of the Lord, consequently it is an expression of new creation.

Harry:wave:

 

[Harry1941]

Arcana Coelestia
Genesis 1;4-5
Verses 4, 5. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God distinguished between the light and the darkness. And God called the light day, and the dark He called night. Light is called “good” because it is from the Lord, who is good itself, The “darkness” means all those things which, before man is conceived and born anew, have appeared like light, because evil has appeared like good, and the false like the true; yet they are darkness, consisting merely of the things proper to man himself, which still remain. Whatsoever is of the Lord is compared to “day” because it is of the light; and whatsoever is man’s own is compared to “night” because it is of darkness. These comparisons frequently occur in the Word.

Verse 5. And the evening and the morning were the first day. What is meant by “evening” and what by “morning” can now be discerned. “Evening” means every preceding state, because it is a state of shade, or of falsity and of no faith; “morning” is every subsequent state, being one of light, or of truth and of the knowledges of faith, “Evening” in a general sense, signifies all things that are of man’s own; but “morning” whatever is of the Lord, as is said through David: The spirit of Jehovah spake in me, and His word was on my tongue; the God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me. He is as the light of the morning, when the sun ariseth, even a morning without clouds, when from brightness, from rain, the tender herb springeth out of the earth (2 Sam. 23:2-4).

An unregenerated man is like the evening, He has no faith.He is void and emptiness, He has no good and truth in him.

As it is “evening” when there is no faith, and “morning” when there is faith, therefore the coming of the Lord into the world is called “morning;” and the time when He comes, because then there is no faith, is called “evening” as in Daniel: The Holy One said unto me, Even unto evening when it becomes morning, two thousand and three hundred (Dan. 8:14, 26). In like manner “morning” is used in the Word to denote every coming of the Lord, consequently it is an expression of new creation.

Harry:wave:

Arcana Coelestia
From Genesis 1: 4 and 5
Nothing is more common in the Word than for the word “day” to be used to denote time itself. As in Isaiah: The day of Jehovah is at hand. Behold, the day of Jehovah cometh. I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall be shaken out of her place: in the day of the wrath of Mine anger. Her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged (Isaiah. 13:6, 9, 13, 22). And in the same Prophet: Her antiquity is of ancient days. And it shall come to pass in that day that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king (Isaiah. 23:7, 15). As “day” is used to denote time, it is also used to denote the state of that time, as in Jeremiah: Woe unto us, for the day is gone down, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out (Jerrmiah. 6:4). And again: If ye shall make vain My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, so that there be not day and night in their season (Jeremiah. 23:20, also 25). And again: Renew our days, as of old (Lam. 5:21).

Harry:wave:

 

[BklynTony]

Just out of curiosity
Do you:
1)Believe the Bible is the word of God and the whole account in Gesis part 1 is an exact description on how the world was made in exactly 6 days
2)I don’t believe the Genesis was intended to give us a factual account but was instead given to us in order to help us make sense of the world around us a factual account of creation.

Seems Like a question to cause chaos as the questioner laughs

 

[lynnvinc]

I believe Genesis was intended to give the actual account of creation, but because scientific understanding back then was limited (they didn’t even know the earth goes around the sun, rather than vice versa…but their knowledge was based on good observations ), the Genesis story most closely represented an actual account of creation to them…both from their own knowledge and observations and from God’s indications, communications, revelations and inspirations.

I’m not sure if God simply gave them a story they could understand (tho I doubt God would lie), or they were not able to understand God and his revelations to them, but just did the best they could. (Also it should be noted that Genesis is extremely rich in wisdom and symbolism and is more than just an ancient scientific account.)

That God’s hand was surely in the Genesis stories is evident in so many things that they did get right (that we’ve only recently come to understand scientifically). For instance, that the shift to agriculture was (at first) a big step backwards (people having to work harder for their sustenance, by the sweat of their brow), rather than a step forwards as most creation myths and even modern science until mid-1900s had it.

If we understand that creation itself is also a bible, so to speak, written directly by God, then what the scientists discover is God’s ways and laws, and modern science should not be dismissed out of hand bec it seems to contradict something in Genesis. Rather, it should be respected, even tho its “truths” are provisional and subject to change based on better evidence and theories.

I think it was JPII who accepted evolution, stating the Truth cannot deny truth.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Maybe I’m naive, or stupid…but I have no problem at all reconciling evolution with creationism. Just because scientists don’t factor God into their equations does not mean that the theories themselves lack merit from a Christian standpoint. An atheist mathematician can say 1+1=2*, just because he doesn’t add the caveat “because God says so” does not render it wrong.

Science tries to explain the mechanics of the universe. They have an idea of how big it is, how old it is, and what it’s more or less made up of. God, especially as we Catholics understand Him, is unproveable and unfalsifiable, so does not figure into the calculations. So be it. The scientists tell me how the universe works, the Church tells me Who’s responsible.

So there was a Big Bang. What was there before the Big Bang? A friend of mine who is a physicist said that there is no “before” the BB: since time started with the BB, the concept of there being a “before” the BB is nonsensical. Which seems to me to fit completely with the idea of a God Who exists outside of time.

Sure, God could have made the universe-and-all-that-in-it-is in the span of six literal days, and rested on a seventh, and made man literally out of dirt, and stole a rib and made a woman, etc etc, and did all that 6000 or so years ago, and put fossils and stuff that seem to be older because He likes to punk us humans.

But I believe this universe is huge, and complicated, and inherently logical, and intricate, and all that impressively synonymy stuff (words fail me, sorry). Take all the texts of all the most brilliant minds and all the discoveries of the world and space and planets and crickets and coelecanths and whatever – put it all in one volume, and I’ll say, “Is this how everything works?” And they’ll say, “These are our Theories, with supporting proofs, evidence, observations, deductions, etc – this is it so far, barring any new data.” And I go , I can accept that as scientific truth, and say, “Way to go, God!”

Sorry if I haven’t explained this well.

*I’ve also heard “1+1=1 for sufficiently small values of 1”, but that’s apparently an in-joke among mathematicians.

 

[lynnvinc]

Maybe I’m naive, or stupid…but I have no problem at all reconciling evolution with creationism. Just because scientists don’t factor God into their equations does not mean that the theories themselves lack merit from a Christian standpoint. An atheist mathematician can say 1+1=2*, just because he doesn’t add the caveat “because God says so” does not render it wrong.

Science tries to explain the mechanics of the universe. They have an idea of how big it is, how old it is, and what it’s more or less made up of. God, especially as we Catholics understand Him, is unproveable and unfalsifiable, so does not figure into the calculations. So be it. The scientists tell me how the universe works, the Church tells me Who’s responsible.

So there was a Big Bang. What was there before the Big Bang? A friend of mine who is a physicist said that there is no “before” the BB: since time started with the BB, the concept of there being a “before” the BB is nonsensical. Which seems to me to fit completely with the idea of a God Who exists outside of time.

Sure, God could have made the universe-and-all-that-in-it-is in the span of six literal days, and rested on a seventh, and made man literally out of dirt, and stole a rib and made a woman, etc etc, and did all that 6000 or so years ago, and put fossils and stuff that seem to be older because He likes to punk us humans.

But I believe this universe is huge, and complicated, and inherently logical, and intricate, and all that impressively synonymy stuff (words fail me, sorry). Take all the texts of all the most brilliant minds and all the discoveries of the world and space and planets and crickets and coelecanths and whatever – put it all in one volume, and I’ll say, “Is this how everything works?” And they’ll say, “These are our Theories, with supporting proofs, evidence, observations, deductions, etc – this is it so far, barring any new data.” And I go , I can accept that as scientific truth, and say, “Way to go, God!”

Sorry if I haven’t explained this well.

*I’ve also heard “1+1=1 for sufficiently small values of 1”, but that’s apparently an in-joke among mathematicians.

You are so right.

And in fact I think science was even able to arise from our Judeo-Christian understanding of God as Transcendent (as well as immanent). In other words, from the beginning, including Genesis, they did not attribute say the motions of the sun or moon to these bodies being some anthropomorphic deities.

Also I feel that evolution is a really complex and awesome method, and that people really could not have imagined it (or it would have been in some creation myth somewhere), but could only have discovered it. And my God is an awesome God, not some anthropomorphic David Copperfield on a white cloud, pointing his figure in a presto-chango way. To me that is making God in the image of man, rather than struggling with how we humans are somehow (beyond our comprehension) in the image of God. We have to let God be God, let His ways be His ways.

Another thing I delight in is the parallels: big bang from an infinitesimally small tiny particle; life from a molecular string that started replicating…all the way up to elephants, whales, and us; God as a tiny babe in a manger to the greatest person we could ever know; God as a tiny waffer – our delight and our salvation.

Who knew? Who could ever ever have known?

 

[migueltojose]

You are so right.

And in fact I think science was even able to arise from our Judeo-Christian understanding of God as Transcendent (as well as immanent). In other words, from the beginning, including Genesis, they did not attribute say the motions of the sun or moon to these bodies being some anthropomorphic deities.

Also I feel that evolution is a really complex and awesome method, and that people really could not have imagined it (or it would have been in some creation myth somewhere), but could only have discovered it. And my God is an awesome God, not some anthropomorphic David Copperfield on a white cloud, pointing his figure in a presto-chango way. To me that is making God in the image of man, rather than struggling with how we humans are somehow (beyond our comprehension) in the image of God. We have to let God be God, let His ways be His ways.

Another thing I delight in is the parallels: big bang from an infinitesimally small tiny particle; life from a molecular string that started replicating…all the way up to elephants, whales, and us; God as a tiny babe in a manger to the greatest person we could ever know; God as a tiny waffer – our delight and our salvation.

Who knew? Who could ever ever have known?

Kinda puts a new twist on… “The Truth is stranger than fiction…”

Check out the book “Radical Amazement”: judycannato.com/books.html

 

[BklynTony]

The only problem with this theory is that you’re working with a translation that’s been fudged a bit to make some particular theological assumptions work: “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void…” The verse describes the nature of the world when God began his creative activity: formless and void, darkness covering the face of the deep, etc.

magisreasonfaith.org/ask_spitzer.html

 

[lynnvinc]

Kinda puts a new twist on… “The Truth is stranger than fiction…”

Check out the book “Radical Amazement”: judycannato.com/books.html

Sounds interesting, and I’ll look into it.

My only problem (from reading the blurb) is that while I accept biological evolution – I have since they taught it to us in Presbyterian Sunday school in the 1950s (thinking we’d be learning about it in school & wanting to put a religious twist on it) – and even became an anthropologist, I have serious problems with “cultural evolution.” Like St. Augustine I can acknowledge that the “city of man” has progressed in many ways, but the “city of God,” which is not of this world, should be our main focus. I think human nature is much the same as it has always been since Adam ate that ole apple, despite great improvements in the “city of man” – that is, our human nature is still as ever pretty much fallen & still in need of redemption. Oh happy fall

So I would hesitate to be in the tradition of Teilhard de Chardin and Thomas Berry.

Yes, we have progressed greatly in the material sense and now we can nuke the world into annihilation 7 times over, or cause global warming to destroy most of life on earth, but spiritually we’re still at square one, deciding whether or not to eat that apple, whether or not to kill Cain, or whether or not to turn away from the city of man to find a dwelling place in the city of God.

The 20th century was the worst of all centuries in terms of genocide; can’t imagine what the 21st century might bring.

Imagine babies with matches in a dynamite factory

This progress in our destructive capabilities is very worrisome. However, it also presents a terrific opportunity. To finally grow up spiritually, actually put Catholic teachings into practice for once. I think that’s what Pope Francis is calling us to do.

I have great hope in God and His promises of heaven and salvation, but I have less hope in humankind (to whom God gave free will – what was He thinking ??), but I still have hope. Where there is life, there is hope. And Jesus said, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

God’s ways are not our ways, they are mysterious and more wonderful than we (including Teilhard de Chardin and Thomas Berry) could ever imagine – in regards to the beginnings, our current situations, and the endings.

Trust in God always, and one will never be disappointed To whom else shall we go; He has the words of everlasting life.