Design

[Charlemagne_III]

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat that it was *
Not sure when ye olde Protestant KJV became the modern Catholic’s bible of choice , but sorry no they can’t.
I think you’ve proved how much the text has to be twisted to impose a modern meaning. Look instead at the writers’ Hebrew: *

Well, I think it behooves a Catholic to use a Protestant Bible to prove something to a Protestant.

 

[Vonsalza]

Why the content of Genesis should be poetics when there is the danger of misinterpretation? What is poetics about the few first verse of Genesis? We know that the Earth was formed and was not created.

The danger of misinterpretation is only present when you assume:

1. The primary mode of transmission of divine truth is from personally reading religious text (however, Christ didn’t write a book; he commissioned apostles)
2. A written version of an ancient oral tradition is meant to convey scientific facts (which is unambiguous anachronism).

Your statement of “We know that the Earth was formed and was not created.” is purely a subjective semantic in its objection. The Christian believes God created the Earth because of the Church’s teaching on Genesis. The Genesis text, however, says nothing about how God mechanically did it. Any statement to the contrary is a purely speculative attempt to pigeon-hole the text into an obvious straw-man.

God willed it into existence. That is our “why”. We are free to study the “how” of it mechanically occurring.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s not factually true though. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

According to science, in the beginning there were no heavens, no darkness, no deep, no waters, for in a singularity there is no space. The earth didn’t appear until the universe was 67% its current age (and humans didn’t appear until it was 99.998% its current age). Everything in the two verses is factually wrong, according to modern science.

But I suggest the lines weren’t written as impersonal physics, they were instead written from and for a human perspective. Ordinary mortals cannot imagine the inside of a singularity (for starters, it doesn’t have one), but we can imagine the picture painted by the verses. In the original Hebrew (previous post), the writers seem to be saying the land was formless and empty, either structure-less, mixed with liquid, or flooded by water. All was darkness. We can imagine that. The only movement, the only life, was God’s wə·rū·aḥ (Spirit, breath, wind). Some commentators say it not only indicates that only God is alive, but that he is cherishing his creation, by analogy to the same expression used in Deuteronomy 32:11 for an eagle hovering over her young. I’ll have to do some research on what modern scholarship makes of those two verses, but I suggest it will try to understand what the writers intended spiritually in the context of their own culture rather than 21st century American scientific culture.

Physicist Gerald Schroeder (also a Jewish biblical scholar) draws the necessary logical parallels between science and Genesis in his book The Science of God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Dr. Gerald Schroeder on the Days of Creation.

youtube.com/watch?v=utvFJ0v6-iU

 

[tonyrey]

The danger of misinterpretation is only present when you assume:

1. The primary mode of transmission of divine truth is from personally reading religious text (however, Christ didn’t write a book; he commissioned apostles)
2. A written version of an ancient oral tradition is meant to convey scientific facts (which is unambiguous anachronism).

Your statement of “We know that the Earth was formed and was not created.” is purely a subjective semantic in its objection. The Christian believes God created the Earth because of the Church’s teaching on Genesis. The Genesis text, however, says nothing about how God mechanically did it. Any statement to the contrary is a purely speculative attempt to pigeon-hole the text into an obvious straw-man.

God willed it into existence. That is our “why”. We are free to study the “how” of it mechanically occurring.

Excellent explanation! We could add “for the benefit of His creatures” given that life is fundamentally valuable.

 

[buffalo]

Well, I think it behooves a Catholic to use a Protestant Bible to prove something to a Protestant.

Or use the original KJV with ALL the books that is kept in a London museum.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I think it behooves a Catholic to use a Protestant Bible to prove something to a Protestant.

There have been many saintly Protestants but they lack the authority to interpret the meaning of the Bible. It has often been pointed out that first and foremost Our Lord founded a community entrusted to take the Good News to the entire world. The books in Sacred Scripture were selected by that community under the leadership of the successors of St Peter primarily but also the successors of the Apostles. The Church has never been a one- man institution!

 

[STT]

The danger of misinterpretation is only present when you assume:

1. The primary mode of transmission of divine truth is from personally reading religious text (however, Christ didn’t write a book; he commissioned apostles)
2. A written version of an ancient oral tradition is meant to convey scientific facts (which is unambiguous anachronism).

Your statement of “We know that the Earth was formed and was not created.” is purely a subjective semantic in its objection. The Christian believes God created the Earth because of the Church’s teaching on Genesis. The Genesis text, however, says nothing about how God mechanically did it. Any statement to the contrary is a purely speculative attempt to pigeon-hole the text into an obvious straw-man.

God willed it into existence. That is our “why”. We are free to study the “how” of it mechanically occurring.

Formation by definition is different from creation.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It has often been pointed out that first and foremost Our Lord founded a community entrusted to take the Good News to the entire world. The books in Sacred Scripture were selected by that community under the leadership of the successors of St Peter primarily but also the successors of the Apostles. The Church has never been a one- man institution!

Jesus Christ established a Church, a community of persons spanning millennia and the globe, journeying together, following the call of God to love. The ontological truth, beauty and goodness of God’s love for humanity and our response is revealed in its historical context within scripture, its reality in the mass and the sacraments, and ultimately through our actions within the larger community that is this poor, fallen humanity. Taking onto Himself our sins, He has saved and redeemed us all. We need only to follow along the Way that He is - becoming Christ-like.

 

[Vonsalza]

Formation by definition is different from creation.

As it pertains to allegory, no sir. It is not.

I built my house. I am equally certain God did too. I am also equally certain that my contractor did as well.

Looking at virtually any text that predates the rise of modern science with an exclusively literalist, material perspective is textbook anachronism - even if you’re resistant to internalize this fact.

They weren’t written to convey facts. They were written to convey truths. These two are different ideas - by definition.

 

[STT]

As it pertains to allegory, no sir. It is not.

I built my house. I am equally certain God did too. I am also equally certain that my contractor did as well.

Looking at virtually any text that predates the rise of modern science with an exclusively literalist, material perspective is textbook anachronism - even if you’re resistant to internalize this fact.

They weren’t written to convey facts. They were written to convey truths. These two are different ideas - by definition.

Creation: the action or process of bringing something into existence from nothing.

Formation: the action or process of bringing something into existence from something else.

 

[Aloysium]

Creation: the action or process of bringing something into existence from nothing.
Formation: the action or process of bringing something into existence from something else.

God did not create everything in one day; aka the universe did not come into being in one instantaneous Big Bang.

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

After the first instance, new creation came from nothing utilizing what had been created. The cosmos is ordered in layers ontologically and temporally.

 

[STT]

God did not create everything in one day; aka the universe did not come into being in one instantaneous Big Bang.

We are talking about creation of Earth.

After the first instance, new creation came from nothing utilizing what had been created. The cosmos is ordered in layers ontologically and temporally.

What breathing mean?

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus Christ established a Church, a community of persons spanning millennia and the globe, journeying together, following the call of God to love. The ontological truth, beauty and goodness of God’s love for humanity and our response is revealed in its historical context within scripture, its reality in the mass and the sacraments, and ultimately through our actions within the larger community that is this poor, fallen humanity. Taking onto Himself our sins, He has saved and redeemed us all. We need only to follow along the Way that He is - becoming Christ-like.

:clapping: What I find astonishing is how the prophets, particularly Isaiah, predicted with so much detail the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus centuries before He was born. What further evidence do we need that it is God’s plan that we are liberated from evil by His Son’s sublime love for us?

 

[Aloysium]

We are talking about creation of Earth.

Ok. :twocents:

The earth is not caused to be by something that was, but is no longer. Its existence here and now rests on the same here and now that always was and will be. This all is, as a hierarchy of physical processes that organize energy or whatever into subatomic, atomic, molecular, biological layers of being forming the events and interactions that characterize day-to-day experience.
These layers temporally came into being in a step-wise fashion from what was a formless plasma that had earlier not existed. The earth is not a being in itself although some people do anthropomorphize the myriad forms as one Gaia. Earth may mean this particular planet; it may mean physical reality up to the level of organic molecules, forms of being which constitute the building blocks of the next level that are biological beings.
So, if I hear about the creation of the earth, I think of the formation of a universe from which life may be created - bacteria, plants, animals, mankind.

What breathing mean?

Breathing i understand as the mechanical activity of the body that brings air into proximity to blood vessels where oxygen is transported into and carbon dioxide out of the blood stream, which carries them to and from the cells that comprise the body.
Respiration includes all this and the biochemical processes that occur within the cells and keep them alive, functional and reproducing.
Breath is life. We can know who and what is other, and also goodness, beauty and truth. We are made in God’s image, our soul having the capacity to love, which is the essence of the Triune Godhead. God’s breathing into the nostril of the dust He had moulded, created a new being - us.

 

[buffalo]

:clapping: What I find astonishing is how the prophets, particularly Isaiah, predicted with so much detail the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus centuries before He was born. What further evidence do we need that it is God’s plan that we are liberated from evil by His Son’s sublime love for us?

Prophecy is overlooked. I saw odds calculated that all the OT prophesies to be realized in one individual is like going into the Sahara blindfolded and picking up on the first try the only red grain of sand.

 

[tonyrey]

Ok. :twocents:

The earth is not caused to be by something that was, but is no longer. Its existence here and now rests on the same here and now that always was and will be. This all is, as a hierarchy of physical processes that organize energy or whatever into subatomic, atomic, molecular, biological layers of being forming the events and interactions that characterize day-to-day experience.
These layers temporally came into being in a step-wise fashion from what was a formless plasma that had earlier not existed. The earth is not a being in itself although some people do anthropomorphize the myriad forms as one Gaia. Earth may mean this particular planet; it may mean physical reality up to the level of organic molecules, forms of being which constitute the building blocks of the next level that are biological beings.
So, if I hear about the creation of the earth, I think of the formation of a universe from which life may be created - bacteria, plants, animals, mankind.

Breathing i understand as the mechanical activity of the body that brings air into proximity to blood vessels where oxygen is transported into and carbon dioxide out of the blood stream, which carries them to and from the cells that comprise the body.
Respiration includes all this and the biochemical processes that occur within the cells and keep them alive, functional and reproducing.
Breath is life. We can know who and what is other, and also goodness, beauty and truth. We are made in God’s image, our soul having the capacity to love, which is the essence of the Triune Godhead. God’s breathing into the nostril of the dust He had moulded, created a new being - us.

:clapping: Life remains scientifically inexplicable because it is purposeful unlike inorganic structures. Even monocellular organisms are unique with their plasticity and urge to survive.

 

[tonyrey]

What I find astonishing is how the prophets, particularly Isaiah, predicted with so much detail the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus centuries before He was born. What further evidence do we need that it is God’s plan that we are liberated from evil by His Son’s sublime love for us?

:clapping: Psalm 21 alone has astonishing detail of the Crucifixion:

1 Unto the end, for the morning protection, a psalm for David. 2 O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me? Far from my salvation are the words of my sins. 3 O my God, I shall cry by day, and thou wilt not hear: and by night, and it shall not be reputed as folly in me. 4 But thou dwellest in the holy place, the praise of Israel. 5 In thee have our fathers hoped: they have hoped, and thou hast delivered them.

2 “The words of my sins”: That is, the sins of the world, which I have taken upon myself, cry out against me, and are the cause of all my sufferings.

6 They cried to thee, and they were saved: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. 7 But I am a worm, and no man: the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people. 8 All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn: they have spoken with the lips, and wagged the head. 9 He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him: let him save him, seeing he delighteth in him. 10 For thou art he that hast drawn me out of the womb: my hope from the breasts of my mother.

11 I was cast upon thee from the womb. From my mother’s womb thou art my God, 12 Depart not from me. For tribulation is very near: for there is none to help me. 13 Many calves have surrounded me: fat bulls have besieged me. 14 They have opened their mouths against me, as a lion ravening and roaring. 15 I am poured out like water; and all my bones are scattered. My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels.

16 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws: and thou hast brought me down into the dust of death. 17 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet. 18 They have numbered all my bones. And they have looked and stared upon me. 19 They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots. 20 But thou, O Lord, remove not thy help to a distance from me; look towards my defence.

21 Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword: my only one from the hand of the dog. 22 Save me from the lion’s mouth; and my lowness from the horns of the unicorns. 23 I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I praise thee. 24 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him: all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him. 25 Let all the seed of Israel fear him: because he hath not slighted nor despised the supplication of the poor man. Neither hath he turned away his face from me: and when I cried to him he heard me.

26 With thee is my praise in a great church: I will pay my vows in the sight of them that fear him. 27 The poor shall eat and shall be filled: and they shall praise the Lord that seek him: their hearts shall live for ever and ever. 28 All the ends of the earth shall remember, and shall be converted to the Lord: And all the kindreds of the Gentiles shall adore in his sight. 29 For the kingdom is the Lord’s; and he shall have dominion over the nations. 30 All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored: all they that go down to the earth shall fall before him.

31 And to him my soul shall live: and my seed shall serve him. 32 There shall be declared to the Lord a generation to come: and the heavens shall shew forth his justice to a people that shall be born, which the Lord hath made.

 

[inocente]

Well, I think it behooves a Catholic to use a Protestant Bible to prove something to a Protestant.

You did indeed prove something, that you were mightily wrong. Perhaps, according to post #575, you’ve been Protestantized. Get well soon.

Tony says (#604) “There have been many saintly Protestants but they lack the authority to interpret the meaning of the Bible” and “The Church has never been a one- man institution!”

Doesn’t seem to have stopped Catholics on this thread making personal interpretations of Genesis. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger also made his own interpretation of Genesis. He dismisses those who think it is science by pointing out that was exactly the mistake of those who put Galileo on trial.

He interprets Genesis 1 as the reworking of “the great Babylonian creation account of Enuma Elish”.

“There it is said that the world was produced out of a struggle between opposing powers and that it assumed its form when Marduk, the god of light, appeared and split in two the body of the primordial dragon. From this sundered body heaven and earth came to be. Thus the “firmament” and the earth were produced from the sundered body of the dead dragon, but from its blood Marduk fashioned human beings. It is a foreboding picture of the world and of humankind that we encounter here: The world is a dragon’s body, and human beings have dragon’s blood in them.”

But the scriptural account dispenses with the dragon. *"The whole tale of these sinister powers melts away in a few words: “The earth was without form and void.” (Gen 1:2) Behind these Hebrew words lie the dragon and the demonic powers that are spoken of elsewhere. Now it is the void that alone remains and that stands as the sole power against God.

And in the face of any fear of these demonic forces we are told that God alone, who is the eternal Reason that is eternal love, created the world, and that it rests in his hands. Only with this in mind can we appreciate the dramatic confrontation implicit in this biblical text, in which all these confused myths were rejected and the world was given its origin in God’s Reason and in his Word.*"

Note Marduk was the god of light. The Genesis writers tell those who worshiped Marduk that God says let there be light. It’s telling them that they no longer need their puny god of light, nor their dragons, they only need God.

Of course, people are free to decide that Ratzinger’s interpretation of the bible is superficial and misguided compared to the revered institution linked in the OP, yon Discovery Institute in downtown Seattle.

 

[Vonsalza]

Creation: the action or process of bringing something into existence from nothing.

Formation: the action or process of bringing something into existence from something else.

I’m having difficulty in determining if your appeal to semantic is occurring because you genuinely don’t understand the terms in play or if you’re just being obtuse.

As gently as I can, in “formation”, the objects from which the formation is formed still had to be created. Additionally, Genesis does not comment in any way on the process of formation.

The insistence that Genesis must be read as a scientific text that comments on “how” the universe was created is an anachronistic view that demands a subjective and incorrect conclusion demanded by the shaky views of the presenter (STT).

Not much else I can say on that. Folks don’t have to interpret the text in the same hyper-literalist way you do. In fact, most folks with PhDs in related fields don’t.