Does What Some Catholics Believe About Genesis Keep You From Converting?

[Pinkyyy]

well, some have a middle ground kind of thinking and believe God created life and let it evolve on it’s own. I think that maybe some things God does is too complex for the writers of the Bible to understand and maybe things were “dumbed down” a little (don’t bash me here!). I don’t know what i believe on Genesis - to tell you the truth I haven’t thought about it too much, but maybe I should.

let me ask you, it would be interesting to hear from you Catholics - (since i don’t know), do you believe the Creation happened 6 thousand years ago and what do you think about life before that time?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Salvation means loving the Lord our God with our hearts and with our minds. Loving God with our minds means that we pursue the truth about the universe God has made. So yes, all of this has a lot to do with salvation. (This doesn’t mean that people who are wrong on one side or the other will go to hell. None of us are fully “saved” until we enjoy the Beatific Vision, which excludes all error.)

Edwin

Yes and as East Anglican says the truth is God created the universe. My point is whether or not it happened in 6 modern calendar days is totally irrelevant.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[rossum]

I am glad that you added the “in principle” to the last line. Some of Einstine’s Theories could not be disproven for years. Some of them have failed in the end, or had to be modified. Can we test the Theory of relativity? E=mcc?

The energy for nuclear reactions, both for bombs and power generation comes from the conversion of a small bit of mass into energy, that is a direct test of E = mc[sup]2[/sup]. When you split a uranium atom into two pieces the two fragments weigh slightly less than the original, the difference is released as energy.

So, if someone can come with a hypothesis that cannot be tested, it must be thrown out as bad? Or can it sit until some testing can be done?

If it is not testable then it has to be set aside as untestable. Much of string theory is currently untestable. Theoreticians are still working on it, trying to find ways to test it.

There were those who thought there was a tenth body in orbit around the sun, on the scale of another planet. Was that tested?

Yes, perturbations in the orbits of the other planets were looked for.

Was it disproven or proven?

Disproven IIRC, though I cannot provide a reference.

If this had been the hypothesis 150 years ago, would it have been thrown out only to be brought back?

There is a difference between untestable and undisprovable. String theory is currently untestable because we cannot measure accurately enough at the scales required - strings are very small. If we could measure that accurately then we could in principle disprove string theory. If something cannot be tested even in principle, as with Last Thursdayism, then it is not science.

String theory is still within science, but is provisional (it would be better to call it string hypothesis) and still controversial.

rossum

 

[rossum]

well, some have a middle ground kind of thinking and believe God created life and let it evolve on it’s own. I think that maybe some things God does is too complex for the writers of the Bible to understand and maybe things were “dumbed down” a little (don’t bash me here!). I don’t know what i believe on Genesis - to tell you the truth I haven’t thought about it too much, but maybe I should.

Of course things in the Bible were “dumbed down”. Ancient Hebrew did not have words for “Deoxyribonucleic acid” or “electron”. God worked within the language of the people he was speaking to - He does not mention television, the motor car or flurblesnertz (we won’t discover that until 2412) either.

The Bible is not a science textbook.

rossum

 

[ralphinal]

We don’t believe that scripture teaches any of those things. Remember that we have additional scripture that complements and clarifies what is in the Bible.

zerinus

Ok. I did not know that the Mormon books or prophets clarified the science in the Bible.

 

[zerinus]

Ok. I did not know that the Mormon books or prophets clarified the science in the Bible.

I am puzzled by that. Have you actually read the modern scriptures of the Church?

Okay, where in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat, is the center of the universe, or that there is water above the earth?

zerinus

 

[Trinitarian]

Ok. I did not know that the Mormon books or prophets clarified the science in the Bible.

I did not know that either and I have been slowly reading the BoM. Z could you send me some pointers on studying your book. Thanks.

 

[ralphinal]

I am puzzled by that. Have you actually read the modern scriptures of the Church?

Okay, where in the Bible does it say that the earth is flat, is the center of the universe, or that there is water above the earth?

zerinus

Well, there is a firmament called heaven and above it is water (Gen 1:6-7). The sun, moon, and stars were fixed in positions above the earth (Gen 1:14-19).

NOw, the earth being flat is not as easy to show. First, it was never said that it was or wasn’t. However, the description of the land and sea in Genesis leads one to think it is a piece of land surrounded by water, almost like Pangea under modern contenintal drift theory. You can also see Prov 8:27b, speaking of creation, says that Wisdom was present “When he (God) inscribed a circle on the face of the Deep”. Job 26:10 similarly says, “He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters as a boundary of light and darkness” Now, none of these specifically says one way or another. It is not like the Muslim view that the Earth is supported by four pillars.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Ok. I did not know that the Mormon books or prophets clarified the science in the Bible.

They don’t clarify anything. Mormon books are works of fiction and plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith.

Before you read them, you might learn about their origins. The source and translation of these “texts” is so outlandish that you may decide it is not worth your time to study them. These are things that are hidden from people being proselytized into the Mormon faith. You might want to learn about the magic rocks, for example.

 

[Trinitarian]

Before you read them, you might learn about their origins. The source and translation of these “texts” is so outlandish that you may decide it is not worth your time to study them. These are things that are hidden from people being proselytized into the Mormon faith. You might want to learn about the magic rocks, for example.

MelanieAnne, I agree with your opinion of the “modern scriptures” but it is foolish to not know what claims they make. I have read little of the Book of Mormon and already it has fallen well short of reasonable believability even if I were open to the possibility of the Roman Church being wrong, which I am not.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’ve read the “modern scriptures”. I saw no scientific information contained therein. Maybe I missed something, and of course you are free to do your own study, but considering the source of the “scriptures” to begin with, it is my opinion that it is a waste of anyone’s precious time to read them for any reason. They’re a fabrication. Just my 2 cents.

 

[zerinus]

Well, there is a firmament called heaven and above it is water (Gen 1:6-7).

Yes, sure there is. We know that molecules of all elements are to be found in space, or in the heavens, as the Bible might put it, including water. Nothing unusual about that. The amount of water that is here on earth is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount that is in space.

The sun, moon, and stars were fixed in positions above the earth (Gen 1:14-19).

It says nothing about “fixed positions”. You are making that up. It simply says that He created them in the firmament of the heavens, which can be understood to mean space. It says the purpose of Sun and Moon was to “give light upon the earth,” which they certainly do. No problem with that.

NOw, the earth being flat is not as easy to show. First, it was never said that it was or wasn’t. However, the description of the land and sea in Genesis leads one to think it is a piece of land surrounded by water, almost like Pangea under modern contenintal drift theory. You can also see Prov 8:27b, speaking of creation, says that Wisdom was present “When he (God) inscribed a circle on the face of the Deep”. Job 26:10 similarly says, “He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters as a boundary of light and darkness” Now, none of these specifically says one way or another. It is not like the Muslim view that the Earth is supported by four pillars.

So we conclude that the Bible does not say that the earth is flat, or is the center of the universe either. You can read that into it if you are crazy enough to. Luckily I am not crazy, so I don’t. So that part of your comment was a bit of a wash as well. Any more “science” from the Bible?

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, sure there is. We know that molecules of all elements are to be found in space, or in the heavens, as the Bible might put it, including water. Nothing unusual about that. The amount of water that is here on earth is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount that is in space.

But that is not even close to how it reads. It says that heaven split the water below from the water above.

It says nothing about “fixed positions”. You are making that up. It simply says that He created them in the firmament of the heavens, which can be understood to mean space. It says the purpose of Sun and Moon was to “give light upon the earth,” which they certainly do. No problem with that.

But they were put into place relative to the earth. The earth is the center of creation if you just look at the way it was created.

So we conclude that the Bible does not say that the earth is flat, or is the center of the universe either. You can read that into it if you are crazy enough to. Luckily I am not crazy, so I don’t. So that part of your comment was a bit of a wash as well. Any more “science” from the Bible?

zerinus

I will concede that the earth is not flat in the Bible.

I did not even mention the “storehouses of hail” in Job. The language in the Bible is not supposed to be scientific. If it was, it would be 100% correct on every point.

 

[zerinus]

But that is not even close to how it reads. It says that heaven split the water below from the water above.

That is how God is trying to explain the story of creation to people with very limited scientific comprehension. If your five year old asked you how airplanes fly, how would you explain it to them? Would you start writing complex formulae in aerodynamics and particle physics?

But they were put into place relative to the earth. The earth is the center of creation if you just look at the way it was created.

I don’t read any of that into it. This is what is says:

Genesis 1:

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

I read nothing in here about “fixed positions,” or something being “relative” to another. You can as much think of the earth “relative” to the sun and moon and stars, as you can put them relative to the earth.

I will concede that the earth is not flat in the Bible.

Agreed.

I did not even mention the “storehouses of hail” in Job. The language in the Bible is not supposed to be scientific. If it was, it would be 100% correct on every point.

Job is pure poetry. In poetry, anything is admissible.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

That is how God is trying to explain the story of creation to people with very limited scientific comprehension. If your five year old asked you how airplanes fly, how would you explain it to them? Would you start writing complex formulae in aerodynamics and particle physics?

And that is what I was waiting for you to say. It was the best way God could explain it to the primitive people. If that is the case, why do we HAVE to accept the other parts of it as actual fact? Why does it HAVE to be 6 24 hour periods? Leaving out the fact that God does not measure time as we do. Why can it not entirely be an explanation that Moses and them could understand?

 

[MelanieAnne]

And that is what I was waiting for you to say. It was the best way God could explain it to the primitive people. If that is the case, why do we HAVE to accept the other parts of it as actual fact? Why does it HAVE to be 6 24 hour periods? Leaving out the fact that God does not measure time as we do. Why can it not entirely be an explanation that Moses and them could understand?

I’m not sure what the argument is here. It is my understanding that neither Catholic nor Mormon doctrine specifies that the world was created in 6 24 hour segments.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m not sure what the argument is here. It is my understanding that neither Catholic nor Mormon doctrine specifies that the world was created in 6 24 hour segments.

Actually, that was the point of the thread. The OP was stating that Catholics need to hold to a literal view of creation. The truth is that it is not required. You can if you want, or you can hold that it is alegory as long as you accept God created everythign from nothing, Adam and Eve were made in His likeness with an immortal soul, and they sinned against God.

zerinus and I usually get along better than this. I must be being difficult about it.

 

[zerinus]

Actually, that was the point of the thread. The OP was stating that Catholics need to hold to a literal view of creation. The truth is that it is not required.

Just because some parts of the Bible need not be taken literally, that does not mean that nothing in it can be taken literally. Sure, God did not crate the world in 6 24 hour periods (neither does it in fact say that He did); but that does not mean that the story of Adam and Eve should not be taken literally either. That is where the advantage of modern scripture comes in. We know from modern LDS scripture categorically that Adam and Eve were two real individuals through whom God started the human race. They did not evolve from lower life forms. The references would be too many to quote. The following link is the search result for Adam in the LDS Topical Guide:

scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/a/51

There is plenty of material there for you to explore.

You can if you want, or you can hold that it is alegory as long as you accept God created everythign from nothing, . . .

Actually, we don’t accept that God created everything out of nothing.

. . . Adam and Eve were made in His likeness with an immortal soul, and they sinned against God.

But did not evolve from lower life forms.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

Just because some parts of the Bible need not be taken literally, that does not mean that nothing in it can be taken literally. Sure, God did not crate the world in 6 24 hour periods (neither does it in fact say that He did); but that does not mean that the story of Adam and Eve should not be taken literally either. That is where the advantage of modern scripture comes in. We know from modern LDS scripture categorically that Adam and Eve were two real individuals through whom God started the human race. They did not evolve from lower life forms. The references would be too many to quote. The following link is the search result for Adam in the LDS Topical Guide:

scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/a/51

There is plenty of material there for you to explore.

And Catholics are to accept them as real people. I am going to look all of this over later today. Thanks.

Actually, we don’t accept that God created everything out of nothing.

I knew that. I had forgotten.

But did not evolve from lower life forms.

zerinus

ok

 

[Trinitarian]

Actually, we don’t accept that God created everything out of nothing.

How then? Out of what, does God create?