Genesis and Dinosaurs

[Jon_S_1]

Why?

Ed

Why not?

 

[adawgj]

Maybe not. Recent soft tissue findings and carbon dating of dino bones returned dates between 28000 and 32000 years ago.

28000-32000 years ago? You gotta be kidding me!

I take it that the Egyptians used T Rexes to help build the pyramids.

Buffalo Bill you might need some sort of citation to go with the recent studies show thing.

 

[Moro_Rock]

I often wonder why ardent supporters of evolution THEORY find it necessary to make personal insults against fellow Christians who hold a
more Biblical point of view . I have not noticed Creationists being rude about
views which differ from them. On the contrary most creationists are pleasant
and articulate

 

[Jon_S_1]

I often wonder why ardent supporters of evolution THEORY find it necessary to make personal insults against fellow Christians who hold a
more Biblical point of view . I have not noticed Creationists being rude about
views which differ from them. On the contrary most creationists are pleasant
and articulate

Perhaps it is because we see science as part of Gods creation/ gift to us.

Perhaps it is because we don’t constrain God to a book?

Perhaps it is because it is not truly a “biblical view” to be oppossed to evolution.

Perhaps it is because it cheapens our religion to not be open to scientific advancement and understand how to reconcile it with Christianity. It used to be “a more biblical view” to say the sun rotated around the earth. Imagine if the church still held such a claim?

As for creationists are pleasant and articulate, I think you should open your eyes a bit because that is certainly not always the case. It’s a major generalization.

 

[PJM]

=PMVCatholic;12591958]I have a question about the Church’s interpretation of Genesis that I have been struggling with. The CCC states that after the fall of man “harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.” But the thing that troubles me is: creatures such as dinosaurs were already subject to decay long before man even existed. Furthermore, the world was also a hostile place long before man, with meteors and volcanoes causing mass extinctions.

So my question is, how should I go about reconciling this teaching of the Church with accepted scientific facts? I know that the Church is not an advocate of Biblical fundamentalism, but the Church still holds true that decay and natural disasters are consequences of Original Sin. Any answers would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you and God bless,
-Phil

to “death”
Death and decay are a part of God’s plan. Then and now.

How Do we KNOW there was death and decay prior to Adam and Eve?

The Genesis account in parts is allegorical. and its reference to “death”

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it,** thou shalt die the death.
**

Genesis 3:4
And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death

Both of these references are speaking of a SPIRITUAL DEATH, mortal sin; & hell as it’s consequences.

They are the only two relevant references in Genesis, so I’m not clear on your w\quotes

God Bless you,

Patrick.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Death entered man, which was a new and special creature that walked with God and was supposed to live forever. Hominids and Apes before had died, dinosaurs, everything. But the ensouled man was different…unique…special… and set apart until we sinned.

It was this sin that not only broke us, but caused all of creation to suffer due to the changed nature of man and how we interact with the world.

I don’t think so, Jon. Remember that God cast them out of Eden so they would not eat of the Tree of life and live for ever. They were mortal to begin with.

And the Etrenal God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree Of Life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Eternal God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. [Genesis 3:22-23]

And other creatures were supposed to be fruitful and multiply before the fall.

Anyway, I think we put too much stock in the “primordial event” and not enough on the “figurative langaugae”.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t think so, Jon. Remember that God cast them out of Eden so they would not eat of the Tree of life and live for ever. They were mortal to begin with.

And the Etrenal God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree Of Life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Eternal God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. [Genesis 3:22-23]

And other creatures were supposed to be fruitful and multiply before the fall.

Anyway, I think we put too much stock in the “primordial event” and not enough on the “figurative langaugae”.

I guess I had always read that as saying that Adam and Eve were supposed to live forever but that it was a bad thing for them to have the knowledge of good and evil AND live forever.

I don’t think any of my arguments truly rest on that distinction, and I am not clear enough on that point to take any sort of hard line. Whether they would have died before the fall or not, does not seem to make a huge difference and I am willing to say they could have died before the fall like every other creature had … that actually probably makes more sense.

 

[moondawg]

Since I do not take Genesis literally, I am not concerned about any supposed conflicts.

Do you not take Genesis literally because science has proven it wrong or would have even not taken it literally irrespective of scientific knowledge?

 

[PMVCatholic]

to “death”
Death and decay are a part of God’s plan. Then and now.

How Do we KNOW there was death and decay prior to Adam and Eve?

The Genesis account in parts is allegorical. and its reference to “death”

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it,** thou shalt die the death.
**

Genesis 3:4
And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death

Both of these references are speaking of a SPIRITUAL DEATH, mortal sin; & hell as it’s consequences.

They are the only two relevant references in Genesis, so I’m not clear on your w\quotes

God Bless you,

Patrick.

Very great points; I had someone explain this to me once, but it was quite some time ago. It definitely refers to spiritual death in regards to Adam and Eve.

Thank you,
-Phil

 

[on_the_hill]

How about this as a simplistic compromise position? Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens to have been ensouled by God. So there had been death and decay and dinosaurs prior to Adam and Eve, but with their ensoulment came the promise of eternal Eden. Then they ate ate the apple and killed the deal.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

How about this as a simplistic compromise position? Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens to have been ensouled by God. So there had been death and decay and dinosaurs prior to Adam and Eve, but with their ensoulment came the promise of eternal Eden. Then they ate ate the apple and killed the deal.

Even that is too literal for me. How about at some point beings evolved who began to have a sense of right and wrong, good an devil. They began to see in terms greater than thier own personal survival, wants and needs. But the habit was hard to break and so for the first tiem a full awarenes of choosing wrong over right occurred. And with that came guilt and the need for redemption.

 

[Jon_S_1]

How about this as a simplistic compromise position? Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens to have been ensouled by God. So there had been death and decay and dinosaurs prior to Adam and Eve, but with their ensoulment came the promise of eternal Eden. Then they ate ate the apple and killed the deal.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Even that is too literal for me. How about at some point beings evolved who began to have a sense of right and wrong, good an devil. They began to see in terms greater than thier own personal survival, wants and needs. But the habit was hard to break and so for the first tiem a full awarenes of choosing wrong over right occurred. And with that came guilt and the need for redemption.

The only thing problematic about this is that the Church requires that we believe as a rule of faith that Adam and Eve were our first parents. That there was one man and one woman made in the image of God from which we all descend.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The only thing problematic about this is that the Church requires that we believe as a rule of faith that Adam and Eve were our first parents. That there was one man and one woman made in the image of God from which we all descend.

And yet in order for that to stay theology rather than science I think we need to have some flexibility on how to define “first parents”. Can we not stick with metaphor or do we have to accept genetics?

 

[Jon_S_1]

And yet in order for that to stay theology rather than science I think we need to have some flexibility on how to define “first parents”. Can we not stick with metaphor or do we have to accept genetics?

It seems to break theology to deny a single set of first parents. I mean if there were hundreds or thousands of Adams and eves walking around it changes the “metaphor” it changes the message from mankind sinning to one out of thousands sinning that we now are somehow subject to.

This is why the idea that Adam and Eve were the only two hominids with a soul is a good balance between evolutionary theory and theology.

I mean at some point we must break out of naturalism for the supernatural. If we believe Jesus can rise from the dead, why not believe God can pull aside a couple creatures and transform them into humans as we know them.

 

[edwest2]

How about this as a simplistic compromise position? Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens to have been ensouled by God. So there had been death and decay and dinosaurs prior to Adam and Eve, but with their ensoulment came the promise of eternal Eden. Then they ate ate the apple and killed the deal.

There is no scientific or Biblical support for the idea that God picked a random almost human couple and gave them a soul. It also tells us that there were true humans around who didn’t get one. That is not Church teaching.

Best,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Even that is too literal for me. How about at some point beings evolved who began to have a sense of right and wrong, good an devil. They began to see in terms greater than thier own personal survival, wants and needs. But the habit was hard to break and so for the first tiem a full awarenes of choosing wrong over right occurred. And with that came guilt and the need for redemption.

That contradicts clear Church teaching:

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Source: Humani Generis

Best,
Ed

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That contradicts clear Church teaching:

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Source: Humani Generis

Best,
Ed

Thanks for that Ed. But it is a hard teaching for me to accept.

 

[Jon_S_1]

There is no scientific or Biblical support for the idea that God picked a random almost human couple and gave them a soul. It also tells us that there were true humans around who didn’t get one. That is not Church teaching.

Best,
Ed

There is no evidence that it did not happen that way either ed.

The fundamental difference between us and animals is our soul. It is what makes us human.

I certainly don’t want to say that God cannot take two “human like animals” and infuse a soul in them.

Why would we constrain God in that way?

 

[edwest2]

There is no evidence that it did not happen that way either ed.

The fundamental difference between us and animals is our soul. It is what makes us human.

I certainly don’t want to say that God cannot take two “human like animals” and infuse a soul in them.

Why would we constrain God in that way?

The sin of an individual Adam and individual Eve broke our relationship with God and affected all of Creation. That is why Jesus Christ was born: to restore our connection in a New Covenant which He defined.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “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” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Source: Catholic Answers tract.

Ed