creation

[aarodad]

Hi
As Catholics Are We Free To Take Genesis Literaly. I Am Talking About Believing In A Literal 6 Day Creation And In A World Wide Flood In Noah’s Day, Etc. Has The Church Always Been Open To Theistic Evolution In Its Official Teaching Or Is That A Fairly New Idea. Thanks

 

[Orogeny]

aarodad:

Hi
As Catholics Are We Free To Take Genesis Literaly. I Am Talking About Believing In A Literal 6 Day Creation And In A World Wide Flood In Noah’s Day, Etc. Has The Church Always Been Open To Theistic Evolution In Its Official Teaching Or Is That A Fairly New Idea. Thanks

Yes, you are free to take Genesis literally. The Church hasn’t always been open to theistic evolution because the Church greatly pre-dates evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[edward_george]

Catholics are indeed allowed to believe in literal six-day creationism, and Church teaching also allows for a belief in theistic evolution. Whatever theory one wishes to hold, though, is subject to two conditions–Everything was created ex nihilo–out of nothing, and God was responsible. Aside from holding those two truths, Catholics are free to believe what they want on the matter of creationism/evolution.

For more, see catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp

-ACEGC

 

[Donald45]

edward_george:

Everything was created ex nihilo–out of nothing…%between%

I think your post is generally accurate, though I’d offer one clarification, particularly on the word “everything.” I’d agree that initial matter was created ex nihilo, but that subsequent creation involved the formation by God of that initial (primary) matter. (For example, God commands the earth to “bring forth” various life forms, man is formed “from the dust of the ground,” etc.) So, while everything is certainly made by God, not absolutely everything is brought into existence out of nothing.

Truly,
Don

 

[Philthy]

aarodad:

Hi
As Catholics Are We Free To Take Genesis Literaly. I Am Talking About Believing In A Literal 6 Day Creation And In A World Wide Flood In Noah’s Day, Etc. Has The Church Always Been Open To Theistic Evolution In Its Official Teaching Or Is That A Fairly New Idea. Thanks

“A Literal 6 Day Creation” is an ambiguous phrase believe it or not. When you use the word “day” what, exactly, does that mean? A day literally refers to the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate once in relation to the sun. In Genesis, the sun is not created until the fourth “day”. So how long were those first 3 days? You may choose to believe that the first 3 days were 24 hours long, but that is not a conclusion of necessity. The reality is that we have no idea how long creation took and the bible doesn’t really imply one way or the other. What is clear, however, is that God is the author of all that is, “maker of heaven and earth; of all that is seen and unseen.”

Phil

 

[SPOKENWORD]

“A Literal 6 Day Creation” is an ambiguous phrase believe it or not. When you use the word “day” what, exactly, does that mean? A day literally refers to the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate once in relation to the sun. In Genesis, the sun is not created until the fourth “day”. So how long were those first 3 days? You may choose to believe that the first 3 days were 24 hours long, but that is not a conclusion of necessity. The reality is that we have no idea how long creation took and the bible doesn’t really imply one way or the other. What is clear, however, is that God is the author of all that is, “maker of heaven and earth; of all that is seen and unseen.”

Phil

Yes,the first three days added up to millions of years. Now I see where evolution got its figures. God Bless

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

This thread reminds me that there is joke about God telling a scientist to make his own dirt, but I can’t remember the joke.

 

[aarodad]

hi
if each day represents millions of years why did God add: the evening and the morning were day 1,day 2, etc. if they were days of ages wouldn’t it result in there being perhaps a million years of darkness following a million years of light x6? i know the sun was not there in the beginning however there is no reason to believe that the earth has ever rotated at a different speed then it does now. thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut everyone and i am glad that the church allows for believing in a literal 6 day creation. i say that because it seems like whenever we move away from a literal interpretation we create more problems then we solve. the protestants started to move away from the literal interpretation of scripture in the last century. it started out small and now many do not think God meant what he said about homosexuality being sinful( after all we cannot take God literally when he calls it an abomination) and other things as well such as ordaining woman. i love the Catholic church and do not want it to open the door to trouble .

thank you,
Michael Meurett

 

[steve99]

aarodad:

hi
if each day represents millions of years why did God add: the evening and the morning were day 1,day 2, etc. if they were days of ages wouldn’t it result in there being perhaps a million years of darkness following a million years of light x6? i know the sun was not there in the beginning however there is no reason to believe that the earth has ever rotated at a different speed then it does now. thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut everyone and i am glad that the church allows for believing in a literal 6 day creation. i say that because it seems like whenever we move away from a literal interpretation we create more problems then we solve. the protestants started to move away from the literal interpretation of scripture in the last century. it started out small and now many do not think God meant what he said about homosexuality being sinful( after all we cannot take God literally when he calls it an abomination) and other things as well such as ordaining woman. i love the Catholic church and do not want it to open the door to trouble .

thank you,
Michael Meurett

I think the “Evening came and Morning came” was just a poetic way of marking the end of each stage of creation. I remember being told by an OT expert that this creation story came from the priestly tradition and would have been proclaimed from the Temple as part of a liturgical rite, hence the rhythm of it. When it is proclaimed in a poetic, rhythmic way it is wonderful to listen to.

I think if you go for a literal 24 hours for each “day” you are in deep trouble with the scientific record. The fossil record, and many other aging techniques, show that the world is many millions of years older than mankind. How would you explain all the dinosaur bones that have been found layer upon layer? The only explanation would be that God created them all in-situ – thus deceiving us and this makes God out to be a liar.

You can believe that all the animals evolved over time, or that God created each species at the appropriate time over a long time period, but I can’t see how you could reconcile an instant creation of animals, living and extinct in one literal day.

 

[asquared]

as Catholics we may, but are not required to accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, as long as we believe that the human race is descended from one man and one woman created by God at a certain point in history. However, we are not free to ignore the 4 senses of scripture in reading and interpreting the Bible, or to interpret it outside “the mind of the Church.” If we rely solely on the literal sense of the Bible, without taking into account the spiritual sense, we are not reading with the mind of the Church. Please read Dei Verbum, then come back for a discussion.

 

[javelin]

edward_george:

Catholics are indeed allowed to believe in literal six-day creationism, and Church teaching also allows for a belief in theistic evolution. Whatever theory one wishes to hold, though, is subject to two conditions–Everything was created ex nihilo–out of nothing, and God was responsible. Aside from holding those two truths, Catholics are free to believe what they want on the matter of creationism/evolution.

For more, see catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp

-ACEGC

I believe that it is also Catholic dogma that all of the human race came from a single male and a single female, Adam and Eve. This seems necessary in order for the sin of the one to promulgate to the entire human race.

But I agree with other posters who argue that a literal 6 24-hour day creation is very difficult to reconcile with the scientific knowledge we have of the planet’s history.

The hardest part I have with theistic evolution is at what point is man infused with a soul? And if there was a race of homo-whatevers that at some point evolved into homo-sapiens, how probable is it that there was only one male and female homo-sapien initially, from which the entire human race was spawned? Unlikely, and possibly scientifically disproven, although I have no idea. I don’t see right now another explanation for the origins of humanity from a single male and fenale if theistic evolution is aligned with Catholic dogma.

There is one aspect of the Adam and Eve dogma that I’m not sure of, though. Is it necessarily dogma that we are all offspring of Adam and Eve together? What if there were, say 10 homo-erectus in existence when Adam was born with the genetic mutation that made him human, and was the first to be infused with a soul. Then Eve was likewise born, possibly as an offspring of Adam, inheriting his human genetic trait (his “rib”). Is it dogma that from only these two mating together, the entire human race is formed, or could Adam have his own genetic line, and Eve her own, but not necessarily together? After all, if they each carried the dominant genetic trait making them human, they would bear only human children if they mated with *homo-erectus *partners, correct? This would also help alleviate the scientific criticism of the “single couple spawning the entire race” theory because of the genetic problems that often occur with genetically related people producing offspring.

Does anyone know more on this?

Peace,
javelin

 

[thistle]

javelin:

I believe that it is also Catholic dogma that all of the human race came from a single male and a single female, Adam and Eve. This seems necessary in order for the sin of the one to promulgate to the entire human race.

But I agree with other posters who argue that a literal 6 24-hour day creation is very difficult to reconcile with the scientific knowledge we have of the planet’s history.

The hardest part I have with theistic evolution is at what point is man infused with a soul? And if there was a race of homo-whatevers that at some point evolved into homo-sapiens, how probable is it that there was only one male and female homo-sapien initially, from which the entire human race was spawned? Unlikely, and possibly scientifically disproven, although I have no idea. I don’t see right now another explanation for the origins of humanity from a single male and fenale if theistic evolution is aligned with Catholic dogma.

There is one aspect of the Adam and Eve dogma that I’m not sure of, though. Is it necessarily dogma that we are all offspring of Adam and Eve together? What if there were, say 10 homo-erectus in existence when Adam was born with the genetic mutation that made him human, and was the first to be infused with a soul. Then Eve was likewise born, possibly as an offspring of Adam, inheriting his human genetic trait (his “rib”). Is it dogma that from only these two mating together, the entire human race is formed, or could Adam have his own genetic line, and Eve her own, but not necessarily together? After all, if they each carried the dominant genetic trait making them human, they would bear only human children if they mated with *homo-erectus *partners, correct? This would also help alleviate the scientific criticism of the “single couple spawning the entire race” theory because of the genetic problems that often occur with genetically related people producing offspring.

Does anyone know more on this?

Peace,
javelin

I can’t remember where I saw it but I believe the Church has not ruled out that there were other humans living at the same time as Adam and Eve.

 

[javelin]

thistle:

I can’t remember where I saw it but I believe the Church has not ruled out that there were other humans living at the same time as Adam and Eve.

Thanks, thistle.

Can anyone else verify or counter this?

Peace,
javelin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

aarodad:

hi
if each day represents millions of years why did God add: the evening and the morning were day 1,day 2, etc. if they were days of ages wouldn’t it result in there being perhaps a million years of darkness following a million years of light x6? i know the sun was not there in the beginning however there is no reason to believe that the earth has ever rotated at a different speed then it does now. thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut everyone and i am glad that the church allows for believing in a literal 6 day creation. i say that because it seems like whenever we move away from a literal interpretation we create more problems then we solve. the protestants started to move away from the literal interpretation of scripture in the last century. it started out small and now many do not think God meant what he said about homosexuality being sinful( after all we cannot take God literally when he calls it an abomination) and other things as well such as ordaining woman. i love the Catholic church and do not want it to open the door to trouble .

thank you,
Michael Meurett

Yes,I,m also glad that the Church allows for believing in creation.It should,its Gods Word.All scripture is useful and suffucient to equip us to understand Gods creation. Who will we believe God or man? God Bless

 

[adnauseum]

If you believe in the historical fact of Jesus Christ, I personally don’t understand how any other concrete historical fact is worth fretting over.

I mean, face it; where this is going is “no literal creation, therefore bible is fraud, if bible fraud, no Jesus.”

Why not start at the right hand side of the equation and affirm: Yes, Jesus Christ.

Literal creation is NOT the hill to die on when you are evangelizing, nor any other particular historical fact. Contrary to what protestants claim, the bible as a book is not what confronts each and every man. What confronts each and every man is the incarnation of Christ; it confronts you at the deepest core of your being, not in Times Roman font in a Zondervan binding.

What matters is to focus like a lazer beam on the concrete fact of the incarnation. Anything more leads others AWAY from redemption.

 

[JimG]

javelin:

What if there were, say 10 homo-erectus in existence when Adam was born with the genetic mutation that made him human, and was the first to be infused with a soul.

Keep in mind that it is not the genetic mutation that makes him human, but the infusing of a supernatural soul. There could be ten or more genetically identical ‘men’ of the species that anthropologists would call “homo sapiens” but only the one infused with a soul would be truly human. And the soul is infused directly by God.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think that not taking every part of the Book of Genesis literally in any way endangers doctrines which may be found in other parts of scripture, such as the Ten Commandments, salvation history, or the New Testament.

The books of the Bible cover a wide range of literary forms, ranging from the ‘primeval history’ of Genesis, to actual history, instructions for ritual, moral instruction, poetry, prayer, exhortation, and advanced theology such as is found in the writings of Paul.

The Gospels and the Epistles were written thousands of years after the Book of Genesis, and had very different purposes, and were written from a different perspective and background.

Treating one part of the bible literally doesn’t mean that we must treat every part of the bible literally.

As an analogy, suppose a human author writes science fact articles, some science fiction stories, some historical fiction, some technical history, some novels, some poetry. Do we treat all his writings in the same way just because they have the same author?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

JimG:

I don’t think that not taking every part of the Book of Genesis literally in any way endangers doctrines which may be found in other parts of scripture, such as the Ten Commandments, salvation history, or the New Testament.

The books of the Bible cover a wide range of literary forms, ranging from the ‘primeval history’ of Genesis, to actual history, instructions for ritual, moral instruction, poetry, prayer, exhortation, and advanced theology such as is found in the writings of Paul.

The Gospels and the Epistles were written thousands of years after the Book of Genesis, and had very different purposes, and were written from a different perspective and background.

Treating one part of the bible literally doesn’t mean that we must treat every part of the bible literally.

As an analogy, suppose a human author writes science fact articles, some science fiction stories, some historical fiction, some technical history, some novels, some poetry. Do we treat all his writings in the same way just because they have the same author?

The Book of Genesis explains to us that God created the universe.These writings are God breathed.Will we ever understand how He did it is another question.If you careful read the Word you will see that the creation story is true. God Bless

 

[estesbob]

edward_george:

Catholics are indeed allowed to believe in literal six-day creationism, and Church teaching also allows for a belief in theistic evolution. Whatever theory one wishes to hold, though, is subject to two conditions–Everything was created ex nihilo–out of nothing, and God was responsible. Aside from holding those two truths, Catholics are free to believe what they want on the matter of creationism/evolution.

For more, see catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp

-ACEGC

I have always felt that the God did not create the world in 6 days BUT he sure could have if he wanted to.

 

[javelin]

SPOKENWORD:

The Book of Genesis explains to us that God created the universe.These writings are God breathed.Will we ever understand how He did it is another question.If you careful read the Word you will see that the creation story is true. God Bless

Of course it is ture – it is Inspired of God, and God does not lie.

The question is in what way is it true?

Do you believe God inspired Genesis as a historical scientific treatice on the origins of the world, or as the first chapter of a love story between the God of all creation and His people?

If you read with eyes of faith, you will see it is the latter. God says “I made the Heavens and the Earth for you, for My love cannot be contained, and though you spurned me, I bore the punishment and await you still, if only you would turn back to Me…”

Peace,
javelin