Creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter cargau
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cargau

Guest
Was the world really created in 7 days or does the number 7 carry some symbolic connotation. Could God have created the world in say 10, 1,000 or 10,000 years?

Also, could the Biblical account of creation be reconciled with our modern understanding of evolution, big bang, etc?

I am embroiled in as conversastion with a Lutheran who insists that the Bible is literal in every respect including historical facts.

I told him that the Bible is the inspired word of God but that he gave the writers the freedom to use various literary styles to convey a deeper, underlying message…

Am I all wet???
 
Was the world really created in 7 days or does the number 7 carry some symbolic connotation. Could God have created the world in say 10, 1,000 or 10,000 years?

Also, could the Biblical account of creation be reconciled with our modern understanding of evolution, big bang, etc?

I am embroiled in as conversastion with a Lutheran who insists that the Bible is literal in every respect including historical facts.

I told him that the Bible is the inspired word of God but that he gave the writers the freedom to use various literary styles to convey a deeper, underlying message…

Am I all wet???
Evolution v Creation seems to be highly controversial topic but thats not a reason to stop searching for the truth.
The Bible tells us that God spoke and it came into being. God’s power [omnipotence] and his intelligence[omniscience] is beyond what any human being can fathom.

You ask whether the Biblical account could be reconciled with our modern understanding of evolution and the big bang. Perhaps you should turn the question around and ask whether our modern [so called ]understanding of evolution and the big bang can be reconciled with the Word of God.

The word used in the account of creation is Yom . In the thousands of times the word Yom is used in the Bible it invariably means a 24hour period. 🙂
 
The Bible is always the starting point. What some call science is sometimes used to say: “That’s impossible!” as if God is incapable of doing the impossible. As Catholics, we are allowed to believe in a short Creation period or long ages, but, and this is very important, if we see anything in favor of long ages, we must realize that God directed the process, whatever it was, infallibly. We are not haphazard mistakes. Humans didn’t just happen to appear. We were willed by God. The Church recognizes Adam and Eve as two individuals and our first parents.

Hope this helps,
Ed
 
Was the world really created in 7 days or does the number 7 carry some symbolic connotation. Could God have created the world in say 10, 1,000 or 10,000 years?

Also, could the Biblical account of creation be reconciled with our modern understanding of evolution, big bang, etc?

I am embroiled in as conversastion with a Lutheran who insists that the Bible is literal in every respect including historical facts.

I told him that the Bible is the inspired word of God but that he gave the writers the freedom to use various literary styles to convey a deeper, underlying message…

Am I all wet???
Numbers have many metaphorical meanings and are not to be taken literally(especially numbers you’ve seen in the Bible a zillion times-such as 7,40 12-etc) there are even books on the numerology of the bible.7 in the bible means “universal” and /or (completion).Since God had created the world and rested on the seventh day- you can say that the bible was giving you a clue that creation of the universe was completed.
as far as literally-literally and literalistically
The Church fathers saw scripture in different ways
The literal sense and the spiritual sense. St. Thomas Aquinas defines the four senses of Sacred Scripture in his Summa Theologiae (part I, quest. 1, art. 10). First he distinguishes between the literal sense and the spiritual sense in general, where he says that “the first meaning, according to which the words signify things, pertains to the first sense, which is the historical or literal sense, while (the other) meaning, according to which the things signified by the words again signify other things, is called the spiritual sense, which is based upon the literal sense and presupposes it.” Thus, he points out, the Bible is a special kind of book like no other book, inasmuch as it has two senses expressed in the very same words. Here the most obvious aspect of the spiritual sense is the typical sense, which pertains to the allegorical sense. Msgr. John E. Steinmueller, in his well-known Companion to Scripture Studies (vol. 1, pp. 256-257) remarks: “Hence, the literal sense would be the meaning expressed immediately and directly by the words of the sacred writers,” while the typical sense “is based only indirectly upon the words and directly upon things, events, or persons (either individually or collectively) used to express something else on a higher level and to foreshadow some great truth.” And Msgr. Steinmueller gives as an example the expression in Osee (Hosea) 11:1: “I called my son out of Egypt,” which refers literally to the descendants of Jacob brought out of Egypt under Moses, and which refers typically to the Infant Jesus returning to Palestine from Egypt. In this study we are going to seek to identify clearly the literal sense and to distinguish it from possible spiritual senses contained under the same words. We are going to look for three different kinds of spiritual sense, namely, the allegorical sense, the tropological, or moral, sense, and the anagogical, or final, sense. ’
 
does the number 7 carry some symbolic connotation.
Yes. Among other things, the number is associated with swearing covenant oaths.
could the Biblical account of creation be reconciled with our modern understanding of evolution, big bang, etc?
Pope Pius XII, among other popes, has said that the Catholic faith has no problem with evolution as a possible explanation of the origin of the human body, but we must remember that human souls are specially created by God. You might find this article helpful.
I told him that the Bible is the inspired word of God but that he gave the writers the freedom to use various literary styles to convey a deeper, underlying message.
You are correct: “For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.”
 
Yes. Among other things, the number is associated with swearing covenant oaths.

Pope Pius XII, among other popes, has said that the Catholic faith has no problem with evolution as a possible explanation of the origin of the human body, but we must remember that human souls are specially created by God. You might find this article helpful.

You are correct: “For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.”
“no problem with” is used often here and is false and misleading.

See Communion and Stewardship, Parts 64 and 69. Please read them carefully since each brings up valid reasons for caution.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Peace,
Ed
 
COLOR=“Navy”]63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.]
64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.65. We have seen human persons are created in the image of God in order to become partakers of the divine nature (cf. 2 Pet 1:3-4) and thus to share in the communion of trinitarian life and in the divine dominion over visible creation. At the heart of the divine act of creation is the divine desire to make room for created persons in the communion of the uncreated Persons of the Blessed Trinity through adoptive participation in Christ. What is more, the common ancestry and natural unity of the human race are the basis for a unity in grace of redeemed human persons under the headship of the New Adam in the ecclesial communion of human persons united with one another and with the uncreated Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The gift of natural life is the basis for the gift of the life of grace. It follows that, where the central truth concerns a person acting freely, it is impossible to speak of a necessity or an imperative to create, and it is, in the end, inappropriate to speak of the Creator as a force, or energy, or ground. Creation ex nihilo is the action of a transcendent personal agent, acting freely and intentionally, with a view toward the all-encompassing purposes of personal engagement. In Catholic tradition, the doctrine of the origin of human beings articulates the revealed truth of this fundamentally relational or personalist understanding of God and of human nature. The exclusion of pantheism and emanationism in the doctrine of creation can be interpreted at root as a way of protecting this revealed truth. The doctrine of the immediate or special creation of each human soul not only addresses the ontological discontinuity between matter and spirit, but also establishes the basis for a divine intimacy which embraces every single human person from the first moment of his or her existence.
 
  1. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is thus a singular affirmation of the truly personal character of creation and its order toward a personal creature who is fashioned as the imago Dei and who responds not to a ground, force or energy, but to a personal creator. The doctrines of the imago Dei and the creatio ex nihilo teach us that the existing universe is the setting for a radically personal drama, in which the triune Creator calls out of nothingness those to whom He then calls out in love. Here lies the profound meaning of the words of Gaudium et Spes: “Man is the only creature on earth that God willed for his own sake” (24). Created in God’s image, human beings assume a place of responsible stewardship in the physical universe. Under the guidance of divine providence and acknowledging the sacred character of visible creation, the human race reshapes the natural order, and becomes an agent in the evolution of the universe itself. In exercising their stewardship of knowledge, theologians have the responsibility to locate modern scientific understandings within a Christian vision of the created universe.
  2. With respect to the creatio ex nihilo, theologians can note that the Big Bang theory does not contradict this doctrine insofar as it can be said that the supposition of an absolute beginning is not scientifically inadmissible. Since the Big Bang theory does not in fact exclude the possibility of an antecedent stage of matter, it can be noted that the theory appears to provide merely indirect support for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo which as such can only be known by faith.68. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
 
“no problem with” is used often here and is false and misleading.
If you think that Communion and Stewardship conflicts with my post, you must not have bothered to read the linked material.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top