Did God Create the World in Six Days?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fms
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MaxRosen said:
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.
Click to expand...
The idea of a deceiver God is a bogus one.

Imagine walking down the beach and all one can see is left footprints as far as can be seen. Should the conclusion be a deceiver was at work?
 
itullian said:
the Bible says 6 days

we know it’s billions of years.

Bible is wrong, face it.

one of the reasons i’ve lost my faith. 😦
Click to expand...
:hmmm: We know it’s billions? There are a number of underlying assumptions to that position.
 
buffalo said:
So Genesis did not mean the work of creation was finished when God rested? What has been created since then?
Click to expand...
Minutia, God is not subject to time…ergo your desire for your mind to grasp God seems to be the issue. The fullness of creation is in the Incarnation. So yes, your understanding of genesis one is incorrect.

pax et Bonum
 
BrJuniper said:
Minutia, God is not subject to time…ergo your desire for your mind to grasp God seems to be the issue. The fullness of creation is in the Incarnation. So yes, your understanding of genesis one is incorrect.

pax et Bonum
Click to expand...
Right, God is not subject to time.

drbo.org/chapter/01002.htm

God resteth on the seventh day and blesseth it. The earthly paradise, in which God placeth man. He commandeth him not to eat of the tree of knowledge. And formeth a woman of his rib.
[1] So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. [2] And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. [3] And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. [4] These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.
[2] He rested: That is, he ceased to make or create any new kinds of things. Though, as our Lord tells us, John 5. 17,"He still worketh", viz., by conserving and governing all things, and creating souls.
 
buffalo said:
Right, God is not subject to time.

drbo.org/chapter/01002.htm

God resteth on the seventh day and blesseth it. The earthly paradise, in which God placeth man. He commandeth him not to eat of the tree of knowledge. And formeth a woman of his rib.
[1] So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. [2] And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. [3] And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. [4] These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.
Code: 
				[2] He rested: That is, he ceased to make or create  any new kinds of things. Though, as our Lord tells us, John 5. 17,"He  still worketh", viz., by conserving and governing all things, and  creating souls.
Click to expand...
Your post indicates I should recommend an OT Scripture course, thus I do. Most RC Universities offer excellent courses in the subject.

Pax et Bonum
 
buffalo said:
Is your claim the commentary is wrong?
Click to expand...
It is my position that your quote is incomplete and if accepted as complete contrary to the teachings of the RCC re. Scripture. I choose not to go into the many redations of the ancient text or the impotance of the revelation consistant in ALL the creation narratives of Genesis. I think it best if you just take a course taught by an instructor at your local University. I think you will benefit greatly. This is a theology board, which presumes a basic understanding I thought.

pax et bonum
 
itullian said:
really good try Nat, but in reading the Bible it seems obvious to me it means regular days, like when in Exodus it says, for in 6 days God made the world and on the 7th he rested.
to tell us to keep the 7th day holy.

besides, if you go the long day route you get into animal death and all kinds of weird stuff.
Click to expand...
What is a regular day? God is not subject to time. Also the earth wasn’t made till day 3 so how could there be ‘regular’ days?

When creation was complete God rested on the 7th of His day. We commemorate this action with keeping OUR 7th day holy.
 
BrJuniper said:
It is my position that your quote is incomplete and if accepted as complete contrary to the teachings of the RCC re. Scripture. I choose not to go into the many redations of the ancient text or the impotance of the revelation consistant in ALL the creation narratives of Genesis. I think it best if you just take a course taught by an instructor at your local University. I think you will benefit greatly. This is a theology board, which presumes a basic understanding I thought.

pax et bonum
Click to expand...
I am wary of taking a University Course on the OT. I would rather find a good orthodox Catholic reference that supports your claim. Got one?
 
buffalo said:
I am wary of taking a University Course on the OT. I would rather find a good orthodox Catholic reference that supports your claim. Got one?
Click to expand...
No one citation is going to explain all the errors in your understanding. hence, i suggest a course. This isn’t about orthodoxy it is about basic knowledge. You lack the basics regarding Scripture which is dangerous.

One example; There are two creation narratives in genesis. The RCC is many things, but we are not stupid and we know that understanding the message of the Scripture is not as simple as reading the text. There was a time when only priests were permitted to read Scripture.

The message in the creation narrative is that God created, how he did it is irrelevant, that He did it is a sine qua non of our Faith Tradition.
 
BrJuniper said:
No one citation is going to explain all the errors in your understanding. hence, i suggest a course. This isn’t about orthodoxy it is about basic knowledge. You lack the basics regarding Scripture which is dangerous.

One example; There are two creation narratives in genesis. The RCC is many things, but we are not stupid and we know that understanding the message of the Scripture is not as simple as reading the text. There was a time when only priests were permitted to read Scripture.

The message in the creation narrative is that God created, how he did it is irrelevant, that He did it is a sine qua non of our Faith Tradition.
Click to expand...
Correct - the Genesis accounts are complementary. The first is the order of creation, the second the importance of man.

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
    118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
    The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
    The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
    But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
You - The message in the creation narrative is that God created, how he did it is irrelevant, that He did it is a sine qua non of our Faith Tradition. - how he did it is irrelevant? :hmmm: So we should abandon science?
 
buffalo said:
Correct - the Genesis accounts are complementary. The first is the order of creation, the second the importance of man.

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
    118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
    The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
    The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
    But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
You - The message in the creation narrative is that God created, how he did it is irrelevant, that He did it is a sine qua non of our Faith Tradition. - how he did it is irrelevant? :hmmm: So we should abandon science?
Click to expand...
Take a class. Your understandings are in error, at the very least consider refraining from posting about Scripture.

Science is very relevant. When it comes in conflict with your belief you probably must change your belief.
 
BrJuniper said:
Take a class. Your understandings are in error, at the very least consider refraining from posting about Scripture.

Science is very relevant. When it comes in conflict with your belief you probably must change your belief.
Click to expand...
I guess you don’t really want to engage and expose yourself.

Your claim is that human reasoning of our observations limited by our 5 senses, time and 3 dimensions is superior to Revelation?

Maybe I will take a class in the OT if you take one in philosophy. 😉
 
itullian said:
the Bible says 6 days

we know it’s billions of years.

Bible is wrong, face it.

one of the reasons i’ve lost my faith. 😦
Click to expand...
Maybe the problem is that the “faith” was not correctly known in the first place. For example. The key point in Catholicism is Genesis 1:1. Not scientific info about material/physical details.
 
buffalo said:
I guess you don’t really want to engage and expose yourself.

Your claim is that human reasoning of our observations limited by our 5 senses, time and 3 dimensions is superior to Revelation?

Maybe I will take a class in the OT if you take one in philosophy. 😉
Click to expand...
Already have…The core requirements included them. I particularly enjoy the use of Plato by a Doctor of the Church as a proof of a First Principle as opposed to Aristotle as a proof of that which probably was, but that’s just a preference. Methinks your unknown unknowns might be a difficulty.
 
BrJuniper said:
Already have…The core requirements included them. I particularly enjoy the use of Plato by a Doctor of the Church as a proof of a First Principle as opposed to Aristotle as a proof of that which probably was, but that’s just a preference. Methinks your unknown unknowns might be a difficulty.
Click to expand...
You did not answer - Your claim is that human reasoning of our observations limited by our 5 senses, time and 3 dimensions is superior to Revelation?
 
buffalo said:
You did not answer - Your claim is that human reasoning of our observations limited by our 5 senses, time and 3 dimensions is superior to Revelation?
Click to expand...
I write what I mean and mean what I write. I have reviewed my post and was unable to locate the statement you reference. Please Cite?

God does not contradict. I did see where I claimed God was not subject to time.
 
BrJuniper said:
I write what I mean and mean what I write. I have reviewed my post and was unable to locate the statement you reference. Please Cite?

God does not contradict. I did see where I claimed God was not subject to time.
Click to expand...
I am asking the question based on our dialogue? I want to know your position.

me - Your claim is that human reasoning of our observations limited by our 5 senses, time and 3 dimensions is superior to Revelation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top