Days of Creation

[PatienceAndLove]

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?

 

[Third_Day]

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?

The Church Fathers that wrote on creation were unanimous that creation was completed in 6 literal days. Only Augustine differed and he believed creation was in one day.
While the word “day” can mean in scripture an indefinite time such as “in the day of the Lord” the words “evening and morning” are never used to mean anything other than 24 hours.
For example Genesis says “And there was evening and morning, a sixth day.”

We are to always take the literal interpretation of scripture first before applying any symbolic meaning to them

 

[Third_Day]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states
337 … Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.

Many misunderstand this and think it is saying the succession of six days is symbolic.What is being spoken of as symbolic is in quotation marks, “work” and “rest.” not the six days. The Catechism cannot go against the consensus of the Church Fathers.
An excellent book on this is *The Doctrines of Genesis a Compendium and Defense of Traditional Theology on Origins *by Father Victor Warkulwiz.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I personally tend to think that the Genesis accounts are meant to show that Creation was ex nihilo, ordered (in contrast to the “some god killed another god and made the world out of his guts” view that some pagans had), from God and good. I doubt that God made everything in 6 days - science tends to go against this view and the universe does tend to follow the rules God made for it - though I admit that it’s possible (God is omnipotent and we could be wrong about the science).

I do want to point out that Catholics are permitted to hold positions on both sides of the issue, so long as their positions are consistent with what is know (ex nihilo, God as root cause, etc.).

 

[Poco]

Hello all!

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

Thoughts on the whole matter?

No, the Church has not given a definitive teaching. From this page:

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.

I hope this helps!

 

[Crumpy]

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?

WOW, “the whole matter”? If the Church had an “official” interpretation to answer your question, we wouldn’t have to answer your question, right? We would just give you a link to the “official” answer. This "official"question is brought up everyday on this website.

Can you refer me to any OTHER “official” interpretation, such as the Presbyterian Church or the Orthodox Church? Let’s compare apples with apples. I’m not sure anybody has an official, finalized interpretation of scripture. I was reading some Jewish commentaries over the last couple years and Judaism has no “official” interpretation of any scripture, either.

The answer to your question is that the Church doesn’t have an official interpretation for every verse in the Bible. It does have an official interpretation for a couple verses, and I would refer you to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, for a fuller discussion of this.

No one’s answer here will be an official answer for the reasons I stated. I’m being picky – sorry – because your question is picky – it really is.

Second, your friend shouldn’t have stopped reading the Bible at Genesis 1. If he reads the second account of creation starting around Genesis 2:4, this is a different account of creation. If you glance at it, in the second account, there is no vegetation around when man is created, whereas in the first account, vegetation is created before man and woman.

So, “officially” we’re stuck until your friend reads Genesis 2 and revises his question. His question should acknowledge that there are two contradictory accounts of creation. Soooooooo? What does this say to your friend?

I’m not being sassy or trying to be, but your friend should take this up with God - the Holy Spirit and pray for help in understanding this.

A lot has been written over the centuries about the two accounts of creation and Genesis, in general. It’s complicated, isn’t it?

LOOK AT IT. Man is created in Chapter one, then he’s created again (?) in chapter two. Ask your friend to explain that.

The vast majority of Jews and Christians skip right over this 7-day stuff and don’t get stuck on it. Yes, it’s there, but it’s meaning in an absolute sense is not totally clear.

This situation is not unique. There are other stories that have two versions in the Bible. We have four gospels that are not exactly the same.

This gets very existential. Who is your friend? Who are you? What is the Church? What is the truth? What is the Bible?

What is your friend’s next question?

 

[PatienceAndLove]

WOW, “the whole matter”? If the Church had an “official” interpretation to answer your question, we wouldn’t have to answer your question, right? We would just give you a link to the “official” answer. This "official"question is brought up everyday on this website.

I know that the Church has definitely explained only a few verses/passages (ie: John 6), and I couldn’t remember if the creation was one of them. We never really touched on in in religious ed, either.

Can you refer me to any OTHER “official” interpretation, such as the Presbyterian Church or the Orthodox Church? Let’s compare apples with apples. I’m not sure anybody has an official, finalized interpretation of scripture. I was reading some Jewish commentaries over the last couple years and Judaism has no “official” interpretation of any scripture, either.

Certain churches require belief in creationism to be members- mostly evangelical and non-denominational churches. This would be considered an “official” interpretation.

The answer to your question is that the Church doesn’t have an official interpretation for every verse in the Bible.

Well thank you for finally answering my question.

It does have an official interpretation for a couple verses, and I would refer you to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, for a fuller discussion of this.

Wouldn’t it have been easier and kinder to say this rather than your diatribe?

No one’s answer here will be an official answer for the reasons I stated. I’m being picky – sorry – because your question is picky – it really is.

“Does the Church have an official teaching on creation” is a picky question? It seems like it is a simple “yes” or “no” question.

Second, your friend shouldn’t have stopped reading the Bible at Genesis 1. If he reads the second account of creation starting around Genesis 2:4, this is a different account of creation. If you glance at it, in the second account, there is no vegetation around when man is created, whereas in the first account, vegetation is created before man and woman.

So, “officially” we’re stuck until your friend reads Genesis 2 and revises his question. His question should acknowledge that there are two contradictory accounts of creation. Soooooooo? What does this say to your friend?

I will mention this to him.

I’m not being sassy or trying to be, but your friend should take this up with God - the Holy Spirit and pray for help in understanding this.

Your whole post has been exceptionally sassy.

A lot has been written over the centuries about the two accounts of creation and Genesis, in general. It’s complicated, isn’t it?

LOOK AT IT. Man is created in Chapter one, then he’s created again (?) in chapter two. Ask your friend to explain that.

Again, might have been easier for you to mention this earlier, instead of burying it.

The vast majority of Jews and Christians skip right over this 7-day stuff and don’t get stuck on it. Yes, it’s there, but it’s meaning in an absolute sense is not totally clear.

But avast majority of Christians do find it to be a very important part of their faith.

This situation is not unique. There are other stories that have two versions in the Bible. We have four gospels that are not exactly the same.

Which is explained by the fact that they were written for different audiences, thus the emphasis on certain events over others.

This gets very existential. Who is your friend? Who are you? What is the Church? What is the truth? What is the Bible?

I think you are being overly dramatic with that one.

What is your friend’s next question?

If you will be answering, I don’t think I would like to share, as it would only be an a post filled with snark.

 

[Crumpy]

This question about a literal interpretation of Genesis comes up every other day, if not every day on this website. You can find a lot of discussion of this in other threads.

I asked direct questions because your question is so large, I think you need to trim it down. Why is your friend “invested” in a seven-day creation account?

For his salvation, I put some snap into my answer to jolt him up a bit. You wanted to convince him, right? You wanted somebody here to get to the point, didn’t you?

Well, use that patience and love to help save his soul.

A lot of people are stuck on this seven-day creation issue and we have more important things to do, to do God’s work and to save the world. People can be stuck on this question and issue for a lifetime.

I didn’t answer the question that I posed, why are there two differing accounts in Genesis? Judaism notes that different scribes were inspired to write different accounts. And, when all the fragments of stories were being compiled into Genesis (which is like a patchwork quilt of writing) the editor didn’t make a choice between the two versions, but put them both in there to reflect a respect for the very inspiration of the writings.

I am not a scholar, but simply a reader. And,what I read is that there is no absolute, final answer to the question of these two accounts. My personal feeling is that they are there to make us think and to establish our faith, right from the beginning.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” There it is. The Bible demands faith from us, right from the beginning. The Bible is pushy, right from the start. You might even say, it’s snarky.

 

[FCCopleston]

I personally find the evidence for evolution to be both scientifically sound and convincing.

However, I also believe that it is more than possible for God to have created the world in six literal days, and to have created the world a relatively short time ago.

As Christians we are at liberty to form our own opinions on the precise “how” of creation. But the precise “what” (namely, that God is the perfect and good Creator of the universe and all that exists within it, and that man has inherited the sin of our first parents and desperately needs the forgiveness of Jesus Christ) is to be believed without doubting.

As long as none of the “what” of Creation is being denied, one is free to hold that position; so long as he/she does not pretend it to be any more certain than another position which does the same.

In Christ,
JCCopleston

 

[AlanFromWichita]

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?

Hi. I’ve read the other replies, and some of them I find pretty compelling.

First, as a 52-year-old cradle Catholic, I never realized there were conflicting versions of creation within Genesis until I read this thread. I think this is a powerful key that directly addresses your situation. I don’t know, of course, if your boyfriend is in any way open to hearing anything that may possibly be different than what he already believes, because most people just aren’t able to be that open. Check this out, anyway, and see if it doesn’t give you an answer, personally, regardless of whether it is productive to try to tell your boyfriend this or anything else. If he already believes the Church is in error, then I’m not sure anything but the black-and-white verses of the Bible is going to even have a chance at getting his attention. IMO, that is. Basically, I’m guessing – though I may be wrong – that he is also sola scriptura, rendering any teachings of the Church outside the Bible irrelevant.

It’s extraordinarily simple. First, we establish on what principle he bases his belief on a literal view of creationism? Is it because every word in the Bible is God breathed, and every one is true in a literal sense? If it is, then we have something to work with.

Genesis is very clear. In one place it clearly states that the vegetation was made a few days before man was made. In another place, just a few verses after that, it states specifically that at the time man was made, there were no trees or shrubs. Then, AFTER man was made, God planted vegetation.

So which is it; did God create man first, or vegetation first? If every word in Genesis is true, the we must be able to claim that both accounts are literally true, and consequently we would have a direct answer to the question.

If he cannot explain how, in a literal sense, both accounts are true at the same time, then you have shown that he is unable to substantiate the claim the EVERY word in Scripture is LITERALLY true… all it takes is on word that is not correct, or is an estimate or example rather than literally what actually happened, to disprove that claim.

So I contend that to maintain his position, he has to be able to answer that question of which came first, and has to be able to explain how two seemingly different opposite accounts are true at the same time. He cannot say, “well we just don’t understand God,” because I would then counter with, “then how do we know what we mean when we say something is literally true, if it is above our heads so that it doesn’t make any sense?”

Alan

 

[Poco]

If you will be answering, I don’t think I would like to share, as it would only be an a post filled with snark.

I would be happy to try and answer it politely and with charity!

This may be a little off topic from the OP but…

Hi. I’ve read the other replies, and some of them I find pretty compelling.

First, as a 52-year-old cradle Catholic, I never realized there were conflicting versions of creation within Genesis until I read this thread.

Alan

From this page here is a brief explanation of why the are not really “conflicting versions”:

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren’t even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn’t need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

 

[Luke65]

He explains that, to him, if God said He made the world in 6 days, then he made it 6 days.

From a Catholic video on the Holy Eucharist:

“God said it, and I believe it, and that’s the end of it.”

Catholics need not be hypocrites. We can and should believe everything that God says to us in His Word. You should say to your boyfriend (assuming this is true): Well, I believe that the earth is billions of years old because that is what I was always taught. But I’m willing to listen to the other side because, after all, God did say He created everything in six days. But will you consider that perhaps Our Lord Jesus was being literal when He said that the bread and wine become His Body and Blood?

God bless.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I would be happy to try and answer it politely and with charity!

This may be a little off topic from the OP but…

From this page here is a brief explanation of why the are not really “conflicting versions”:

Actually, I believe it is right on topic in a very close way to the question of the OP.

The question is, is one particular fact guaranteed to be not only a literal description of what actually happened, but also that it happened in a way compatible with what we would experience today using that same terminology?

I don’t have to go to God, or outside the universe, or even outside the solar system to find alternate meaning of the word “day” that are just as valid from a physical, mechanical standpoint at least as a concept, the description which would involve describing it with different numbers of what we define as “seconds” or “minutes” or “hours.”

That is, if you say “day” when you’ve spent the last hour discussing life on the planet Mars, you’re no longer talking about 24 hours but some other number of hours.

So I wonder, "where was God when He did all this? Was He standing on the earth? If he wasn’t standing on the earth – like as far as I know didn’t happen until the Adams were incarnated, then when He was giving us Divine Insight as to how the world was created (I use the word “insight” because it is information that cannot be discovered directly in any way we can know from direct observation, experientially, or even in our limited imaginations – if we weren’t told this by a source with intelligence beyond our imagination, we would otherwise never have known it … but I digress) then did the concept of “24 hours” even exist before the earth was created? If He had told us how long something took prior to the creation of the earth, the unit “days” didn’t even exist in the time period He’s describing – essentially God’s time prior to time as we conventionally experience it began with the creation of the universe.

One might protest, “but God is infinite.” He has existed for all time prior to now, and exists for all time in the future.

I dare conjecture that if I wish to attribute “omniscience” to my belief about God, I must at least consider the concept of how to experience or communicate what the absence of time was like. As far as our minds can grasp, “eternal” just means before we can imagine lasting until after we can imagine. We imagine that if our imaginations were super-human, that we would still only be able to discuss “infinite” as “somewhere beyond our imagination.” Basically, I call this the Cloud of the Unknowing, and that’s where we can find God – at the limits of our imagination. Anything we can imagine is a subset of God. God is all that is both within and beyond our imagination, including the concept of “time.” Either that, or God isn’t truly omniscient. If we want to take it to the next step, how do I know what “imagination” means, other than our ability to consider things that we don’t recognize as having been learned from any particular source.

Gosh, what am I trying to say? How can I tie this all back in with the topic?

Like this: we all agree that God is, at any point in time. That applies to a time farther back so that no limited imagination can truly consider, lasting until a time in the future that is also beyond our imagination.

Thus, we say the God exists eternally, meaning anywhere along an infinite time scale. Infinite means that however far we count, we’ll not only never get there, but we can’t even fathom a time when we are there – so as far as we’re concerned we will never see the edge of time, even in our imagination.

But what about the mind of God? If we had the English words to describe it, could God communicate what it is like to live outside of time completely, such that the concept of “before” and “after” even exist? If God can’t live outside of time, then who invented time? If God invented time, then whenever he says “this happens first, and that next” in order to communicate some message to us, he is only condescending to our level of understanding of time because none of us know what the world would be like without time anymore a fish knows what it’s like to be outside the water.

So if God wants to describe things to which time doesn’t apply, then I can imagine that if He takes an aspect of that He thinks we’re capable of grasping – chosen as His message for us on whatever basis, such as, for example, that He kindly indulges our desire to know where we came from such that we can better understand our inner selves and motives – and presents a verbal description, in our language, of some representation of the concept He’s trying to get across. Essentially, when He thinks of things, it is in infinitely more dimensions than us so uncountable, that the whole concept of dividing His “reality” into dimensions is ludicrous – he is beyond dimensions. In our world of three dimensions, He can essentially only cast a shadow of any Divine Truth He wishes to convey.
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

Through what media does God speak to us? Well, as far as conveying knowledge of those parts of the Divine Truth that God wills us to have, some think it is limited to the Bible. That would be sola scriptura. We all agree, at least in theory, that the Bible is not, in fact God. It is not any one of the persons of God. It is information God has given us, expressed as human thoughts – in several senses – to which Sola Scriptura would confine to those thoughts that can be conveyed by presenting a sequence of human words, the essential storage/communication media of the Bible itself.

So to the question of “is Genesis literal,” or more specifically, “did God really create the world in 6 24 hour days?” It is impossible for me to give a direct answer in all honesty and without conditions and/or assumptions, until you clarify what you mean by “literal” and “really.” By “literal” do you mean it’s the Absolute Truth – something so much of the nature or “understanding” of God or His creations that it’s more true than any axiom we can describe or even imagine?

OK, so cutting the abstractions for a minute, I don’t think at all that we actually mean “literal” in the sense that it’s absolutely true, with no exceptions, not even any known to God if you want to take it that far. After all, if God can imagine the opposite of something, than can’t He consider thoughts that are outside of all absolute truth? Can God consider a world that is not even yet parsed into “truth” and “non-truth?” To say “God is truth” then is in a way limiting Him to only the part of the world we are even capable of understanding.

In case it isn’t obvious, that raises the question, “which came first, God or Truth.” To say they are one and the same is to say that God was synonymous with Truth. Could we rather say that God invented Truth? If God didn’t invent Truth, then where did Truth come from, and where did we get the idea that God is the uncaused cause of all, if Truth itself does not flow from the very consciousness of God?

I could go on all day. In an effort to provide a context for my answer to the question, "can we know with absolute certainty that God created the world in 6 24 hour days – assuming we’re only talking about the physical world and excluding, for example, the spirit world – then I can begin to describe under what conditions we humans can actually “know” that to be the case, absolutely within an agreed upon universe of thought known as “literal.”

I go on these tangents, to try to illustrate how limited our thinking is – at least the thoughts we typically share using words, deeds, images, etc. – compared to the knowledge of God. When we think we know something and there is nothing beyond that, then we are saying that our profess “Truth” cannot be transcended even by God. In essence, I need to show how close to our every word, thought, and deed God truly is. In fact, He is not separable from us and our thoughts. At least for purposes of this discussion.

Given all of this, next we need to define “literal” in such a way that both the question and the answer make some sort of sense to our minds.

I submit that it is philosophical and at this point, not particularly useful in any tangible way I can think of, to make the claim that anything at all is “absolute” truth.

OK, time for a breather and a reality check. I offer this verse from scripture to illustrate my point that we cannot adequately describe, much less guarantee, that any thoughts we put into words are capable of representing some Absolute Truth, exception to which are not even fathomable to God. If you want to get sticky about the word “literal” and “absolute” then you must be willing to accept all these limitations or conditions, or claim to be omniscient yourself so that you can even contemplate the meaning of “absolute Truth.”

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)
1 Cor 8:

2
If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.
3
But if one loves God, one is known by him.

OK. So if we suppose we “know” the world was created in 6 24 hour periods, then we really don’t know. I threw in verse 3 to comfort us from the effects of having pondered the significance of verse 2.

If we ponder verse 2, which God has given us in our own language, then it is ludicrous for you, me, or anybody to say that in an ABSOLUTE SENSE, beyond any doubt, beyond pain of all human and spiritual suffering, that we know the world was created in 6 24 hour periods. Verse 2, or any other verse, is but a shadow of the complete meaning, knowable only to God.

So does that mean we cannot say anything with absolute certainty? Not at all, but to convey these things we wish to say in truth, we must at least agree to the same ground rules of understanding, as words are but symbols that we are trained to consciously or unconsciously translate into thoughts. That is, we can never know anything ABSOLUTELY, except perhaps that God is. That is not to say that our words and thoughts are not of value or that they can never be expressed and communicated through words, body language, images, symbols, through empathy, etc.

So our words are only capable of capturing and communicating “absolute truth” to the degree that we humans can comprehend and agree upon them. That’s how words work. Like I alluded to before, words are but symbols that trigger stored thoughts we learned when we learned the language. If we didn’t have this agreement in advance about what any given words mean, and in any particular sequence, we are calling upon the rules of language that we think we have all agreed upon. Obviously that is never quite the case, or there would never be any errors in ideas communicated through words, and that’s not the case as far as we know.

So the real question is not: was the world created in 6 24 hour periods, and if so, can we claim to know that with absolute certainty?

To answer that question in the affirmative would be arrogant, and contrary to the scripture passage I quoted above.

So I’ll propose a workable question that we can actually kick around: was the world created in 6 24 hour periods, and if so, can we claim to know that within our ability to comprehend what 6 24 periods even are?

Or more simply: was the world created in 6 24 hour periods, in the way we conventionally measure time, and if so, can we know that with certainty beyond our ability to apply reasonable doubt?

OK, not much simpler, but I’m an engineer, not a poet.

Thus far I have laid the foundation from which I am willing to offer an initial answer to the question I’m trying to put into words.

My answer, at least for the moment as far as I know, is this: give me the assumptions under which we are communicated, and if I can agree to and abide by those assumptions, then I’ll give you an answer I’d stake my mortal and immortal life on, given conventional understanding of the language and within the imaginary confines of those assumptions.

So I hope I have demonstrated that it is complicated at best, and impossible according to scripture, to claim that with absolute certainty, the world was created in 6 24 hour periods. That is so ludicrous it should not even be allowed into the discussion.

So, in an absolute sense, the only honest answer even available to us, is “we don’t know” and in fact, “we can’t know.”

Now, if you claim to be an absolutist, I invite you to show me how you can transcend the logical limitation that clearly must be incorporated into my ideas that in my prideful way of thinking represent open-minded thinking. If you can’t, then you’re no more of an absolutist than I am, and I make know claim whatsoever to know anything absolutely. If you do think you can, you are again at odds with Scripture.

I’m reminded of a joke about an engineer and a farmer. (Can you tell I am an engineer?)

A farmer is driving a pickup truck with an engineer as a passenger. The farmer is getting increasingly frustrated trying to get the engineer to make any statement without explanation of qualifier. When he was just about to burst, they drove by a field where cattle were grazing.

The farmer pointed at one of the cows, and asked the engineer, “there! What I’m pointing at! Can you even say to me, that is a cow?”

The engineer replied, “well, it does look like a cow … from this side.”

******Finally…

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

******Finally…

I never really answered the OP question in the context it was probably intended, though I am only assuming that context at this point because I have not been given it.

Can we know anything with absolute certainty? Scripture says we can’t.

Is there any basis on which we can claim that Genesis is the absolute and literal truth? Yes, if you want to confine the discussion to, for example, a starting point where we can agree on the meaning of the word “then” and the concept of sequencing.

In Genesis chapter one, it says that one thing happened, and then another thing happened. I can only suppose this implies that the one happened before the second, in the way we normally measure and discuss time. If that isn’t the case, and we can’t depend on the meaning of the word “then” meaning temporal sequencing, then to claim we know what “day” means is ridiculous.

The only conclusion we can make that has any meaning, is that is some sense, limited by human understanding and disregarding time travel, might be this.

** According to Genesis 1, God created vegetation, THEN God created man. With no reasonable ambiguity, that mean vegetation came before man, in our world of immutable time.

** According to Genesis 2, God created man, THEN he created vegetation. Does not the word THEN imply that the one happened before the other?

I think the true answer to the question, as intended to be posed, should be obvious by now. We cannot claim to know at all what is meant by “day” or “evening” and “night” in the mind of God. If we could be 100% certain on our understanding of those terms, then we should also be able to understand what the word THEN means, and that would be to indicate a temporal sequencing of two events.

If we assume all that, then we can say that within our understanding, the sequencing described in chapter 1 directly contradicts the sequencing in chapter 2. If you are not willing to say that, then I claim you are unwilling to attribute any meaning to the word THEN as in this happened, THEN that.

If you cannot attribute any meaning to the word THEN, then I refuse to claim any absolute knowledge I know what God’s really talking about when He says “day,” “morning,” or “evening.”

So no, we cannot know for certain that Genesis is describing 6 24 hour periods. We have an example within the same story, regarding the timeline of the story, where we have a direct conflict – in any reasonable interpretation of the word “then.” This is to say that when one thing happens before another, it cannot be described that the opposite is the case. The only way we can get past that is to surrender to the fact that we cannot know the mind of God, even to the extent that we claim to understand His word literally. To us, it is literally impossible to interchange past and future – we don’t yet have willful time travel. So either it is figurative, or is of a level of complexity sufficiently beyond our understanding that we can only speculate about, but never be certain, whether God intended to tell us it was 6 24 hour periods or not.

To insist on such an interpretation is, if given full understand of the logical consequences of the various assumptions and claims, the height of arrogance.

If you still think you can understand anything about the mind of God for certain, then not only is it against scripture and reasonable understanding, it is naive. I cannot go any further at this point, due to time limitations so I’ll wrap this up for now and get it posted.

If what I say doesn’t make sense and you honestly believe you know anything absolutely – including how many 24 hour periods corresponded to the creation of the world, then I suggest you do this exercise: read Job 37-40.

My final answer, at least for now: God may have created the world in 6 24 hour periods.but there is no way we can absolutely know that.

I rest my case.

Alan

PS. I Apologize for the length of my comments, but I do not have time to rewrite it more succinctly right now. I went ahead and posted them as is, in case anyone wishes to read them. If not, we all know how to scroll on by.

 

[seagal]

Why is your friend “invested” in a seven-day creation account?

For his salvation, I put some snap into my answer to jolt him up a bit. You wanted to convince him, right? You wanted somebody here to get to the point, didn’t you?

Why do you presume that his salvation is at stake? There was nothing in the OP to indicate that. If “Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence”, then he is not in any danger as far as the Church is concerned.

 

[JaredM]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

the Church’s unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins.

Genesis is symbolic and not to be taken literally. The universe has been estimated to be 13.75 billion years old.

The ability of organisms to evolve by design may have been the very reason God was able to curse the creation due to sin and then destroy it completely by flood/disasters, and know that life would still survive and flourish. The beauty and sledder of evolution really show God had a plan for everything.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Funny thing … I blabbed all the diatribe in a massive brain dump that helped me solidify my own thoughts on the matter in question.

I usually proofread and correct the things I post, but in this case I didn’t have time. Now I don’t even care enough to go reread it. AFA I’m concerned, it was a tool to help me through some thoughts that I tried to make sense out of, and its purpose is over – bat least for me, for now.

After I thought about it some, I realized I could describe it this way:

“Today’s masterpiece is tomorrow’s scratch pad.”

I put that as my facebook status this morning, and received the following comment: “and vice versa.”

Anyway, without all the brain dump, the result is still that I cannot accept that we must believe the 6 24 hour periods or that we are in denial or at least in error.

If someone believes that, they are at liberty to do so. I disagree.

Is it possible that it was really 6 24 hour periods? Yes.

Can we know that for certain? No way.

To claim to know it for certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever, is to claim one knows the mind of God. That’s because if you claim to be that certain, it’s like a double-dog-dare to God, to challenge Him that He cannot in any way explain how you might possibly be anything but 100% correct. If God can think of any exception or loophole in what you claim to believe, then it wasn’t an “absolute” truth at all. It may be true for all intents and purposes as far as you’re concerned. Believing it is likely to be true, and living your life on that basis is not a problem, because whether you believe in the literal story of creation or that it is figurative, is not an issue of morality or necessary for salvation.

Then we can say that not only are we making a claim that even God cannot instruct or correct or complete our thoughts on a matter, but that we are investing our faith energy and our evangelistic energy and energy we could spend doing something, well, more useful, that has little actual impact other than intellectual curiosity.

If that sounds harsh, ask yourself, "if I told God that I know for a fact that He agrees with me 100% on a matter, so much so that He cannot possibly add anything, take anything away, or redirect any or all of my claim, would God be able to meet that challenge? I say “yes,” because He’s omniscient and there are ALWAYS more than one way to interpret any combination of human words.

So we’re left with “maybe” God created the world in 6 24, but maybe not. I don’t know and frankly, I don’t really care. It’s interesting as an intellectual debate, and as an experiment in interpersonal dynamics when discussing these issues which some people consider extremely important and have a lot of emotional capital invested in it.

IMO, if you believe that you MUST believe either way – that God did or didn’t do any given thing in a certain way – then you are clinging.

Like Rich Mullins said in his song “Screen Door” (based on James 2), “you gotta take a leap off of a ship before you claim to walk on water.”

I like that image, because when we are out on the ocean, away from the anchored rock, the ship becomes your lifeline and effectively your foundation. If you are not willing to let go of the ship, you’ll never find out if you can truly walk on water. If you try to walk on water and get fearful or start to sink, you always have the option of going back and clinging to something – anything – that you trust will get you through this moment. Later, when you get the courage back to try again, then you may, having rested from experiencing the fear when you started sinking the last time. If you really want to walk with Jesus, though, you must never give up completely. Rest, yes, but then get back on your own two feet. If you feel you are falling, you have at least two choices, either grab something at hand that you can cling to and help steady yourself, or continue into the Cloud of the Unknowing, with the faith that God has you in His hands. Don’t be afraid to let go of whatever mindset you’re using for comfort, that can prevent you from walking out in faith.

If you insist that all of your faith logically leads to the conclusion that the 6 24 story must be absolutely true – because you have connected all the dots and there is absolutely no way it can be wrong – then that belief becomes an idol to which you are clinging. If you refuse to even consider “what if I’m wrong,” then you have closed yourself off for any significant spiritual growth.

My :twocents: , anyway.

Alan

 

[edwest2]

From the Catholic Answers Library:

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed