Did God Create the World in Six Days?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fms
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looking to the bible for answers on science is like looking to science for answers on morality.
Think of the Old Testament stories of creation, and other things, as metaphors. God the Son spoke in metaphors constantly, all to make a moral.
But consider this: the order in which creation pans out is remarkable in Genesis. The contemporary “scientific” view at the time was that the Earth was always there. Genesis saying that it was in six days is only a metaphor for His infinite power.
 
May I quote Augustine of Hippo on the literal interpretation of Genesis:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
Click to expand...
Anyway I thought Catholics rejected “sciptura sola” so you should look at Church tradition as well as the literal word of the Bible.
 
DWGarvin said:
…
But consider this: the order in which creation pans out is remarkable in Genesis…
Click to expand...
This is what I was getting at.

It is said that Moses wrote Genesis. There is the Divine inspiration and then there is Moses himself who is writing what he has been shown and for what purpose he is writing.

For an analogy, think of a poet and a scientist describing a sunset…

Obviously creation days cannot understood of as a 24-hr period since earth comes on ‘day 3’.
 
I cannot vouch for the validity of this, but I once heard an interesting point made on this subject. A preacher said that the original term used in the Bible could be for a normal day or it could be used for an indefinite period of time. If the latter applied, the Bible would be talking about six periods of time, not 24 hour days, for the creation texts.
 
Well, the bible describes Jesus’ genealogy from Adam. So I don’t believe Genesis was symbolic.

Simple logic dictates that if a premise is false even a true conclusion does not validate it. Science assumes only the existence of the natural. If we only believed in the natural the bible is nonsense. But if the supernatural exists, then there is room for error in what we deduce by our assumptions.

If God possibly created a full-grown man instantaneously, there is no reason He cannot create a full grown universe instantaneously. Eucharists turning into heart tissue makes no sense, but through God all things are possible.
 
InJesusItrust said:
Well, the bible describes Jesus’ genealogy from Adam. So I don’t believe Genesis was symbolic.

Simple logic dictates that if a premise is false even a true conclusion does not validate it. Science assumes only the existence of the natural. If we only believed in the natural the bible is nonsense. But if the supernatural exists, then there is room for error in what we deduce by our assumptions.

If God possibly created a full-grown man instantaneously, there is no reason He cannot create a full grown universe instantaneously. Eucharists turning into heart tissue makes no sense, but through God all things are possible.
Click to expand...
InJesusItrust

If you believe that God created the universe 6,000 years ago and made it look as if it was around 13.6 billion years old along with a planet, complete with fossil record, that looks around 4 billion years old I cannot argue with you. Obviously an omnipotent God could do that.

I think it unlikely He would. But I cannot prove He didn’t.

But if you take the physical evidence as it is the universe sure does not look 6,000 years old. Nor does the Earth.

And if you look at what we have learned in the last decade and a half about evolution at the molecular level it sure looks as if we and other living creatures including chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Our understanding of evolution is growing literally by the day.

Again, I cannot argue if you assert God only made it look that way. But to me it seems unlikely. I rather incline to think that what you see is what you get.
 
Well, then there would be an equally disturbing position to defend: that God revealed Himself to some tribe in the Middle East and that He did not bother to warn everyone else and will send you to hell for not believing despite having no warning or naturalistic sign that shows which religion is true.

After experiencing the reality of the spiritual myself I no longer think we can freely assume naturalistic explanation. For instance the Universe WOULD be billions of years old unless some unnatural force was in play to accelerate the effects of time. We assume no invisible variables in science and yet at the same time we religiously profess the supernatural exists. I can’t understand the gospel without Adam and Eve, and I cannot understand how we inherited their sin if we evolved side by side with other species.

I just think that our theories presume naturalism but if reality includes the supernatural then there is a great chance that we get invalid results.
 
InJesusItrust said:
Well, then there would be an equally disturbing position to defend: that God revealed Himself to some tribe in the Middle East and that He did not bother to warn everyone else and will send you to hell for not believing despite having no warning or naturalistic sign that shows which religion is true.

After experiencing the reality of the spiritual myself I no longer think we can freely assume naturalistic explanation. For instance the Universe WOULD be billions of years old unless some unnatural force was in play to accelerate the effects of time. We assume no invisible variables in science and yet at the same time we religiously profess the supernatural exists. I can’t understand the gospel without Adam and Eve, and I cannot understand how we inherited their sin if we evolved side by side with other species.

I just think that our theories presume naturalism but if reality includes the supernatural then there is a great chance that we get invalid results.
Click to expand...
Clarification regarding Catholic doctrine.

The Catholic doctrine is that God created the universe. The exact recipe for how God created the universe is not a Catholic doctrine. Thus, there will continue to be speculations regarding the mechanics of the world.

The Catholic doctrine is that all of humanity descended from two, real, sole, human parents biblically known as Adam and Eve. You are right in that the Gospels are directly connected to Adam as the first human who freely committed Original Sin.

My suggestion is to get a paperback copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. It is worth the small cost, especially since it has an Index of Citations. Read the Catechism’s initial paragraphs for the practical guidelines about the structure of the Catechism. It is important to understand the meaning when something is in small print. The story of man begins with paragraph 355.

Please note that there is a ban on evolution discussion.

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
 
“The world being 6,000 years old” posters, do you mind starting another thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top