Days of Creation

[Poco]

I think some of what we are seeing here at CAF, is that we all have come from different points of views and cultures, and are currently in a diversity of roles and situations, all over the globe.

Now that technology allows us to confront each other verbally and with smileys…

Outstanding, Alan!

Now, if technology can figure out some way to allow us to comfort us… ouch! Without a sharp-clawed cat on your lap!

 

[seagal]

A point I made much earlier in this thread, is that there is no official opinion about the interpretation of any verse in the Hebrew Bible, in Judaism. But, there are many opinions, even contradictory opinions, in Judaism, in its ancient documents, like the Talmud (“study” i.e. talmud torah, the study of the teaching). The commentaries that I have read take the seven day creation account as a myth, which is a sacred holy way of teaching truths about God. Across the spectrum of Judaism, there is strong belief in the literal idea of six day creation. And, then there are more liberal views ranging all the way to agnosticism and atheism.

So, pretty much the same as the Christians . Thanks for all the info, sounds like you make quite a study of it.

 

[seagal]

I’m surprised nobody has commented on my challenges for us to quit being so picky at the specks in each other’s eye. I thought somebody would at least come on to say they think I’m arrogant.

See my post #42

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You are my favorite religious “opponent” I’ve encountered so far. I’m glad we met here.



There are several others who are nearly ties for first place, too! :dancing:

Alan

 

[seagal]

Where has the Church stated the bible is not a book of science?

Forgive me if this sounds snarky, but are there examples of science being taught anywhere else in the Bible?

Consider this quote from Father Warkulwiz in his book *The Doctrines of Genesis *that I have come to agree with and that addresses what Catholics have accepted without even realizing it.

“ The theistic version, which admits that God created the universe but will not admit that He has told us something about how He did it. Its adherents do not totally ignore God, they just marginalize Him by silencing Him. Their slogans are “The bible is not a science book” and “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven but not how the heavens go”. Their manner of seeking knowledge about the world differs little from that of their atheistic counterparts.
Today the Catholic Church has well developed theology of redemption and sanctification. However she has not well developed theology of creation because so many of her theologians, scholars and scientists have embraced theistic naturalism…Theistic naturalists are ignorant of, ignore, or dismiss the sound theology of creation developed by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church over the centuries, a theology based on the conviction that Genesis 1-11 speaks the literal truth.”

The “sound theology of creation developed by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church” was developed long before we had the means to find out the mysteries of our world and the universe. And not all of the early Fathers believed in literal 24 hour days. Here’s a quote from St. Augustine’s “City of God”

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

For some reason I’ve been getting lots of strange thoughts today. I think I’ll try to turn one I just had into a prayer.

I thank you, Lord, for those you have allowed to oppose me – no matter what their inner motives were for doing so – for without someone taking me down, I would not know how to crave Your building me up in a renewed way.

Alan

 

[seagal]

You are my favorite religious “opponent” I’ve encountered so far. I’m glad we met here.



There are several others who are nearly ties for first place, too! :dancing:

Alan

Thanks :curtsey:, back atcha

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Hello all!

In a discussion with my boyfriend, he revealed that he is a “creationist”- he believes that God created the world in 6 24 hour days. I, on the other hand, take more of an intelligent design approach, and my personal attitude is that God made the world, and that it doesn’t really matter how it happened, just that God did it.

He explains that, to him, if God said He made the world in 6 days, then he made it 6 days. I pointed out that to God, time has no meaning, and that 6 days could very well be 6 24-hr days or 6 one thousand+ years.

I cannot seem to remember if that Church has given a definitive teaching on the subject or not.

Thoughts on the whole matter?

I heard an argument that since God made the 7th day of rest as holy in the Ten Commandments, then He was clearly talking about 24-hour periods when concerned with “days”. That is a good argument.

The problem with that is when you take into consideration the Second Story of Creation in Genesis 2, you not only have a clear reversal of the order but you also have a contradiction between the two stories. The First Story has Man being created last. The Second Story has Man being created first. The problem with viewing it as a literal foundation of Creation is that it goes against not only science, but also itself. How could Man be created first and then last.

So, how do we fix this syntactical error? Or does it even need fixing? Or is it even an error?

If we take the Bible as we do with the rest of it, we notice that it is NOT a scientific study of the order or Creation or anything. The First Story relates God’s omnipotence in creating something from nothing:

“I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things; and in the same way the human race came into existence.” ~ 2 Maccabees 7:28

But one could object that in Genesis 1:1, God clearly had something to work with. did He really? What was the author supposed to write? “In the beginning, when there was nothing besides God.” That sounds ridiculous.

The First Story also relates to the reader the significance of Man being the last in Creation. Man is the climax of God’s Creation.

The Second Story relates to us the significance of Creation FOR Man, meaning that He created the world FOR us, not us for it. It might be useful to know this one is older than the First Story of Creation. But, it makes more sense that First be first in the Bible because of its logical consequences and the way it starts the Bible story: “In the beginning…”

If we read them both as legitimate scientific texts of Creation, then the Bible is useless. Atheists use this to shoot down the Bible. Fortunately, there are people who actually care to know what it means.

But, why could God not use the Second Story instead of the first or vice-versa? This next part is pure speculation on my part. The Second Story by itself would sufficiently fail to show that we are the climax and reason God created the world in the first place. The First Story by itself would fail to show that the world was created for us.

So, what is the Church’s position “on the whole matter”? Let science figure it out. Science is for the How’s. The Church is for the Who’s and Why’s.

I hope this helps!

God bless!

Gregg

 

[buffalo]

I heard an argument that since God made the 7th day of rest as holy in the Ten Commandments, then He was clearly talking about 24-hour periods when concerned with “days”. That is a good argument.

The problem with that is when you take into consideration the Second Story of Creation in Genesis 2, you not only have a clear reversal of the order but you also have a contradiction between the two stories. The First Story has Man being created last. The Second Story has Man being created first. The problem with viewing it as a literal foundation of Creation is that it goes against not only science, but also itself. How could Man be created first and then last.

So, how do we fix this syntactical error? Or does it even need fixing? Or is it even an error?

If we take the Bible as we do with the rest of it, we notice that it is NOT a scientific study of the order or Creation or anything. The First Story relates God’s omnipotence in creating something from nothing:

“I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things; and in the same way the human race came into existence.” ~ 2 Maccabees 7:28

But one could object that in Genesis 1:1, God clearly had something to work with. did He really? What was the author supposed to write? “In the beginning, when there was nothing besides God.” That sounds ridiculous.

The First Story also relates to the reader the significance of Man being the last in Creation. Man is the climax of God’s Creation.

The Second Story relates to us the significance of Creation FOR Man, meaning that He created the world FOR us, not us for it. It might be useful to know this one is older than the First Story of Creation. But, it makes more sense that First be first in the Bible because of its logical consequences and the way it starts the Bible story: “In the beginning…”

If we read them both as legitimate scientific texts of Creation, then the Bible is useless. Atheists use this to shoot down the Bible. Fortunately, there are people who actually care to know what it means.

But, why could God not use the Second Story instead of the first or vice-versa? This next part is pure speculation on my part. The Second Story by itself would sufficiently fail to show that we are the climax and reason God created the world in the first place. The First Story by itself would fail to show that the world was created for us.

So, what is the Church’s position “on the whole matter”? Let science figure it out. Science is for the How’s. The Church is for the Who’s and Why’s.

I hope this helps!

God bless!

Gregg

When properly understood there is no contradiction between Gen 1 and 2. One speaks to the order of creation, the other the importance of man.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

When properly understood there is no contradiction between Gen 1 and 2. One speaks to the order of creation, the other the importance of man.

I agree with that. Depending on what version you read, you can reconcile seeming contradictions more or less easily. For example, the NAB has the word “then” to contend with. Either that version of the Bible, that Catholics use for Mass all over the country, is a lie because it’s worded in a way that differs from DR version, or we have to accept that the word “then” used going both ways in time makes sense to God, who is outside of time.

If I’m willing to allow time to go forward and backwards at the same time to reconcile an apparent contradiction in sequencing, then I’d say we can trust that God can explain how two Good People can read the same story, come to a different conclusion, and somehow that would be disturbing to God.

The Word of God, in any sense other than the literal, is where IMO the great majority of the good that it does, is done. It takes us beyond what literalist human reasoning can comprehend into new heights, if we would let it.

If I am to trust the Holy Spirit, then I should be able to calmly allow you to believe in 6 24 hour days. If it bothers anyone that I don’t believe it at all, unless I’m going to harm you physically or something, then I submit that it is your own ego, not my belief and not God, who gives you the anxiety you experience.

Alan

 

[seagal]

It might be useful to know this one is older than the First Story of Creation. But, it makes more sense that First be first in the Bible because of its logical consequences and the way it starts the Bible story: “In the beginning…”

What do you mean when you say that the 2nd story is older than the 1st? How do we know which story came first if the Jewish tradition of history is oral?

 

[seagal]

If I’m willing to allow time to go forward and backwards at the same time to reconcile an apparent contradiction in sequencing, then I’d say we can trust that God can explain how two Good People can read the same story, come to a different conclusion, and somehow that would be disturbing to God.

As I read that line it came to me that God probably doesn’t care on whit if we believe in a literal interpretation of creation or an allegorical one. All he (probably) cares about is that we recognize Him as the Creator and that all he created is good. In the long run, it’s not going to affect our relationship with God how we choose to read it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

As I read that line it came to me that God probably doesn’t care on whit if we believe in a literal interpretation of creation or an allegorical one. All he (probably) cares about is that we recognize Him as the Creator and that all he created is good. In the long run, it’s not going to affect our relationship with God how we choose to read it.

I agree with you on this.

If one absolutely must believe in anything the scripture says literally, then how were people saved before we had widely distributed Bibles, and a generally literate population?

How is it that the Bible is used now as a tool to divide into those who are worthy and faithful, from those who are not, based on our different takes on a non-essential passage? The sword cuts both ways. Just because you quote the scripture during an argument doesn’t mean that doing so is a loving thing to do for the other.

OK, I’ll try to let go of the meta-argument for a while.

Alan

 

[buffalo]

What do you mean when you say that the 2nd story is older than the 1st? How do we know which story came first if the Jewish tradition of history is oral?

Gen 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective and deals with first things.

 

[redneck22]

Hello all!

In a discussion with my boyfriend, he revealed that he is a “creationist”- he believes that God created the world in 6 24 hour days. I, on the other hand, take more of an intelligent design approach, and my personal attitude is that God made the world, and that it doesn’t really matter how it happened, just that God did it.

Miss Kristen,

Sounds like your boyfriend is a fine man and a good catch, he seems like the kind of guy that is willing to stand up for God and be counted, he will make a good husband some day.

Thoughts on the whole matter?

I agree with him 100%

 

[Poco]

As I read that line it came to me that God probably doesn’t care on whit if we believe in a literal interpretation of creation or an allegorical one. All he (probably) cares about is that we recognize Him as the Creator and that all he created is good. In the long run, it’s not going to affect our relationship with God how we choose to read it.

I agree with you on this.

If one absolutely must believe in anything the scripture says literally, then how were people saved before we had widely distributed Bibles, and a generally literate population?

How is it that the Bible is used now as a tool to divide into those who are worthy and faithful, from those who are not, based on our different takes on a non-essential passage? The sword cuts both ways. Just because you quote the scripture during an argument doesn’t mean that doing so is a loving thing to do for the other.

OK, I’ll try to let go of the meta-argument for a while.

Alan

The Priest who was leading my RCIA class basically said this about Genesis:

It teaches us that…

1. There is only one God
2. He created everything
3. Man was tested
4. Man failed the test

I think there may have been a fifth, but it would have been somewhere between 1 and 4. In any case, I think this is a good summary of, at least the first couple chapters, Genesis.

 

[buffalo]

The Priest who was leading my RCIA class basically said this about Genesis:

It teaches us that…

1. There is only one God
2. He created everything
3. Man was tested
4. Man failed the test

I think there may have been a fifth, but it would have been somewhere between 1 and 4. In any case, I think this is a good summary of, at least the first couple chapters, Genesis.

All true, but certainly a reductionist rendering.

 

[Third_Day]

=seagal;7658860]Forgive me if this sounds snarky, but are there examples of science being taught anywhere else in the Bible?

Not that I am aware of

The “sound theology of creation developed by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church” was developed long before we had the means to find out the mysteries of our world and the universe.

I wouldn’t depend on science to explain the mysteries of the universe. They have no idea how old the universe is or if there was a big bang. It 's all theory. They are still arguing over how the moon was created. What moon creation theory do you hold to?

And not all of the early Fathers believed in literal 24 hour days. Here’s a quote from St. Augustine’s “City of God”

Augustine was famous for symbolizing everything he read in scripture. He believed creation occured in one day not six. He is the exception among the Fathers.

Augustine City of God XI Chapter 9
The angels therefore existed before the stars; and the stars were made the fourth day. Shall we then say that they were made the third day? Far from it; for we know what was made that day. The earth was separated from the water, and each element took its own distinct form, and the earth produced all that grows on it. On the second day, then? Not even on this; for on it the firmament was made between the waters above and beneath, and was called “Heaven,” in which firmament the stars were made on the fourth day. There is no question, then, that if the angels are included in the works of God during these six days, they are that light which was called “Day,” and whose unity Scripture signalizes by calling that day not the “first day,” but “one day.” For the second day, the third, and the rest are not other days; **but the same “one” day is repeated to complete the number six or seven, **so that there should be knowledge both of God’s works and of His rest. For when God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels,

 

[Poco]

All true, but certainly a reductionist rendering.

Well, is there more to get out of it other than the devil is bad?

 

[Evrlsting_Gospl]

Creation, I love it!

A vast resource of Biblical information, use it, share it, freely you have received, freely give:
Pearl Trees Of Life:
www.pearltrees.com/awhn