Genesis and Dinosaurs

[Michael_Mayo]

But then in the story of “the fall” what is figurative and what is primeval event? It sounds as if the Church is sticking with literal “event”.

 

[edwest2]

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

I understand. Just remember, we are body and spirit. Our soul survives the death of our body, and each of us is judged fairly by God. That is why it is so important to accept the teachings given in the Bible and what the Church teaches, and do them.

Regarding science, we must be careful since science can show “Here are the bones of dinosaurs.” I have no problem with that. But the Church tells us that certain things cannot be demonstrated as true using current scientific methods. Our faith should not be based on whether or not we believe certain scientific statements are true. God became flesh, created a New Covenant and founded the Church. He lived, died and rose again, bodily. He performed many miracles and even raised the dead.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Jon_S_1]

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

I do not disagree with any of this.

There can be a literal Single pair of humans named Adam and Eve from which we all came, and there can be evolutionary theory coinciding with that.

They are not at all mutually exclusive.

I am free to believe that God set an evolutionary process in place, and that from this process hominids came to exist in an animal like state, at which point God set aside two of them, breathed a soul into them, and showed them the earth that he created and how they were unique to creation. These two “new creations” the first Human Parents, were set apart from the animal world at this point, the non ensouled hominids eventually dying off, and human beings being exclusive to the world. These human beings sinned and fell, and here we are now.

There is nothing in that that is contrary to your posts or what the church teaches.

 

[edwest2]

That’s not what the Bible or Church tells us. Why was God, in the form of Jesus Christ, born into the world? Why was He sent to die as a sacrifice for all men? Those without souls died off? There is no peer reviewed paper that analyzes the claims made in Genesis. However, this strange idea that we “know” God ensouled two people? Where is the evidence for that?

best,
Ed

 

[Jon_S_1]

That’s not what the Bible or Church tells us. Why was God, in the form of Jesus Christ, born into the world? Why was He sent to die as a sacrifice for all men? Those without souls died off? There is no peer reviewed paper that analyzes the claims made in Genesis. However, this strange idea that we “know” God ensouled two people? Where is the evidence for that?

best,
Ed

So you do not believe that God gave a soul to two people?

I don’t see how asking why Jesus came has anything to do with this discussion.

We know there were Neandertahals and other hominids that were not homo sapiens. Why could they not be what Adam and Eve were like before God made them a special creation?

There is tons of controversy of who the Nephilim were, but why could they not be soulless humans? (I personally don’t think that is what its referring too, but bring it up as a possibility and an example of a world that we really don’t know much about thousands of years ago)

 

[edwest2]

So you do not believe that God gave a soul to two people?

I don’t see how asking why Jesus came has anything to do with this discussion.

We know there were Neandertahals and other hominids that were not homo sapiens. Why could they not be what Adam and Eve were like before God made them a special creation?

There is tons of controversy of who the Nephilim were, but why could they not be soulless humans? (I personally don’t think that is what its referring too, but bring it up as a possibility and an example of a world that we really don’t know much about thousands of years ago)

You misread what I wrote. There is zero evidence that God gave souls to two random people. What are hominids? Are they just animals, like apes or monkeys, that resemble humans but were not? And we carry Neanderthal DNA. So Neanderthals were fully human. There are two birds alive today that look almost identical but they can’t breed. They are classified as separate species.

God created Adam and Eve was created by God from a part of Adam after God cast him into a deep sleep. This we know.

Best,
Ed

 

[Jon_S_1]

You misread what I wrote. There is zero evidence that God gave souls to two random people. What are hominids? Are they just animals, like apes or monkeys, that resemble humans but were not? And we carry Neanderthal DNA. So Neanderthals were fully human. There are two birds alive today that look almost identical but they can’t breed. They are classified as separate species.

God created Adam and Eve was created by God from a part of Adam after God cast him into a deep sleep. This we know.

Best,
Ed

If Neanderthals and humans interbread it would have been before the fall. The fact that human and Neanderthal DNA is different should cause a conundrum for your world view.

For me, DNA is physical and shows nothing but biology. The soul is separate from biology. It is eternal and it is a special gift given to us by God.

There is no reason we have to believe that God walked around and said boom a frog boom a cat boom a man.

Could he have, sure. He also could have built a world where we are angels or fairies or something.

But he didn’t, science indicates he worked in a far more complex, majestic, and detailed and ordered way than that.

 

[edwest2]

If Neanderthals and humans interbread it would have been before the fall. The fact that human and Neanderthal DNA is different should cause a conundrum for your world view.

For me, DNA is physical and shows nothing but biology. The soul is separate from biology. It is eternal and it is a special gift given to us by God.

There is no reason we have to believe that God walked around and said boom a frog boom a cat boom a man.

Could he have, sure. He also could have built a world where we are angels or fairies or something.

But he didn’t, science indicates he worked in a far more complex, majestic, and detailed and ordered way than that.

Science is very limited. Divine revelation is the only valid starting point. I trust science less and less with each post like this. The word scientism comes to mind.

Science tells us nothing about God. There are no peer reviewed papers about God or the soul.

Ed

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I understand. Just remember, we are body and spirit. Our soul survives the death of our body, and each of us is judged fairly by God. That is why it is so important to accept the teachings given in the Bible and what the Church teaches, and do them.

Regarding science, we must be careful since science can show “Here are the bones of dinosaurs.” I have no problem with that. But the Church tells us that certain things cannot be demonstrated as true using current scientific methods. Our faith should not be based on whether or not we believe certain scientific statements are true. God became flesh, created a New Covenant and founded the Church. He lived, died and rose again, bodily. He performed many miracles and even raised the dead.

God bless,
Ed

I realize I am the Devil’s advocate here, but asking questions trying to manage this. It just seems to me that the Church is clinging to a literal interpretation of what, even the Church says, is figurative. I don’t think believing the authenticity of our Christology requires that literal parent and literal fall. So again I ask, if we take those as literal what is left to be taken as figurative? But the presence of Christ does bring us to also ask about theories of redemption. The Church has emphasized penal substitution. I also struggle with that. The Moral-Example Theory makes more sense to me. But that is another thread.

theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ

 

[Jon_S_1]

I realize I am the Devil’s advocate here, but asking questions trying to manage this. It just seems to me that the Church is clinging to a literal interpretation of what, even the Church says, is figurative. I don’t think believing the authenticity of our Christology requires that literal parent and literal fall. So again I ask, if we take those as literal what is left to be taken as figurative? But the presence of Christ does bring us to also ask about theories of redemption. The Church has emphasized penal substitution. I also struggle with that. The Moral-Example Theory makes more sense to me. But that is another thread.

theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ

It seems to me that it is a dogma, and necessary to believe in a literal fall and literal first parents.

The reason being, that if there was not a literal fall, it would indicate that God created a fallen world, or that there were some sinners and some non sinners coexisting. It really unravels the whole theology of us needing a savior and replaces it with naturalism that has a moral example.

This is problematic of course.

As to your more basic question, what is left to be more figurative…Everything!

Eve being made from a literal rib bone, the earth being made in a literal six days, God literally sculpting man out of clay, a literal Garden, a literal tree, etc…

Really the only literal thing you are required to believe is that we had first parents made in God’s image that sinned… the rest is up to interpretation.

The reason this part must be held is because it was revealed to us as literal from God through the prophets and Christ.

 

[ericc]

I realize I am the Devil’s advocate here, but asking questions trying to manage this. It just seems to me that the Church is clinging to a literal interpretation of what, even the Church says, is figurative. I don’t think believing the authenticity of our Christology requires that literal parent and literal fall. So again I ask, if we take those as literal what is left to be taken as figurative? But the presence of Christ does bring us to also ask about theories of redemption. The Church has emphasized penal substitution. I also struggle with that. The Moral-Example Theory makes more sense to me. But that is another thread.

theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ

But the Church has declared although the language used is figurative, she has affirmed the Fall is literal. The First Parents are also literal. Will you accept Church teaching? If not, why make an exception here on this point only? The Church has wisely insist on obedience to its teachings because the alternative is free-for-all. We end up either cafeteria Catholics or Protestant.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Science is very limited. Divine revelation is the only valid starting point. I trust science less and less with each post like this. The word scientism comes to mind.

Science tells us nothing about God. There are no peer reviewed papers about God or the soul.

Ed

Here’s the deal Ed…

We should all be open to the idea that we know virtually nothing about how the earth was created, the time frames, the method, etc…

As such I am open to whatever becomes revealed to us. Right now Science is proposing ideas that I can not just reconcile with my faith, but actually brings my faith to life.

I get that you disagree.

The problem so often with Young Earth Creationist is they take a fundamentalist approach that is erroneous. They also are not open to any other options. In short, they make their own dogma where the church has pronounced no dogma.

It would be nice if young earth creationist shared their opinions while equally respecting the opinion of theistic evolution.

The two can coexist as valid postulations of what occurred.

 

[ericc]

The Catechism states that “Because of man, creation is now subject to its bondage to decay.” This implies that before original sin, creation was not subject to death and decay, which are effects of original sin. But good scientific evidence tells us that creation has been subject to decay millions of years before man even existed. Now, the question remains; how do we reconcile this established teaching of the Church with scientific evidence?

If you are scientifically inclined, then do you think the Garden of Eden is in a state of stasis or in a state of nature of growth and renewal for plants and animals? Imagine a garden where leaves don’t die and fall, animals reproduce and nothing dies (or nothing gets reproduced and die), plants, molds, lichens, amoeba, bacteria etc with known short lives don’t ever die and decay and replenish the soil, plants grow and absorbed nutrients from the ground from an unending supply. Adam and Eve eats from the fruits of the plants. What happens to uneaten fruits? Do they just remain in a state of perfect ripeness waiting for them to consume or drops off and new and fresher fruits grow in their place? If they garden is in a state of perfection, why would God task Adam to till it and keep it Gen 2:15? Like any gardener, one has to keep the weeds away from your desired trees. You will have to kill them. Yes death and destruction to weeds! There goes your deathless and non-decay world. Leaves dropped to the ground, decay and replenish the soil. Perhaps Adam sweeps the leaves and leave them in a heap and he invents compost which is decay. Not to do otherwise means the Garden of Eden will be a jungle in no time and I don’t think God’s instruction to Adam to keep it means do nothing and just eat the fruits.

I don’t think that’s what the Catechism means.

 

[edwest2]

Here’s the deal Ed…

We should all be open to the idea that we know virtually nothing about how the earth was created, the time frames, the method, etc…

As such I am open to whatever becomes revealed to us. Right now Science is proposing ideas that I can not just reconcile with my faith, but actually brings my faith to life.

I get that you disagree.

The problem so often with Young Earth Creationist is they take a fundamentalist approach that is erroneous. They also are not open to any other options. In short, they make their own dogma where the church has pronounced no dogma.

It would be nice if young earth creationist shared their opinions while equally respecting the opinion of theistic evolution.

The two can coexist as valid postulations of what occurred.

Opinions don’t matter. Revealed truth does. Options are inconsistent with the truth. A statement is either true or not. One cannot blend science with religion, which is attempted very often here. The Church has made statements regarding science and cannot ignore certain fixed points.

This is not a matter of respecting anyone in particular. The truth is meant for all, including those who disagree. Speaking generally, some of those who disagree with the Church must post here in endless ways to win over who they can. As I’ve written elsewhere, why does anyone need the approval of a religious leader or a religious group for anything scientific? Research goes on and I’m certain it will continue. The Vatican is not called for permission to do science, and threads like this are only evidence of obfuscation, which I think is unnecessary.

The Bible and Biology textbook are two separate books. And while science has done admirable work, there are no peer reviewed papers about any book in the Bible.

Ed

 

[Jon_S_1]

Opinions don’t matter. Revealed truth does. Options are inconsistent with the truth. A statement is either true or not. One cannot blend science with religion, which is attempted very often here. The Church has made statements regarding science and cannot ignore certain fixed points.

This is not a matter of respecting anyone in particular. The truth is meant for all, including those who disagree. Speaking generally, some of those who disagree with the Church must post here in endless ways to win over who they can. As I’ve written elsewhere, why does anyone need the approval of a religious leader or a religious group for anything scientific? Research goes on and I’m certain it will continue. The Vatican is not called for permission to do science, and threads like this are only evidence of obfuscation, which I think is unnecessary.

The Bible and Biology textbook are two separate books. And while science has done admirable work, there are no peer reviewed papers about any book in the Bible.

Ed

You seem to either completely misunderstand or are unbelievably arrogant. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstand.

Yes there is one truth. The one truth is far grander than what’s been revealed.

Or is it that you know all truth Ed?

Where opinions and options come into play is on what we don’t know.

Things like how the earth was created in detail, things like the nuances of gravity, atomic theories, etc… And yes evolution.

There are even Christian “theories” Ed. Lots of them, lots of things that haven’t been revealed to us.

God gave us brains, he gave us a world that can be observed and measured and tested and predicted. He did that Ed and for you to deny it or take it from him by saying “science can’t be blended with religion” is completely ludicrous and frankly laughable if you weren’t do serious.

Science and religion should flow seamlessly for religion explains why we are here and science describes what “here” is.

Perhaps you deny the “science” that might save your life when your sick, or the “science” that gives you a car, or the computer you are using.

Perhaps you see those things as things that God has nothing to do with…seeing as science and God are mutually exclusive to you.

How sad.

 

[PMVCatholic]

You seem to either completely misunderstand or are unbelievably arrogant. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstand.

Yes there is one truth. The one truth is far grander than what’s been revealed.

Or is it that you know all truth Ed?

Where opinions and options come into play is on what we don’t know.

Things like how the earth was created in detail, things like the nuances of gravity, atomic theories, etc… And yes evolution.

There are even Christian “theories” Ed. Lots of them, lots of things that haven’t been revealed to us.

God gave us brains, he gave us a world that can be observed and measured and tested and predicted. He did that Ed and for you to deny it or take it from him by saying “science can’t be blended with religion” is completely ludicrous and frankly laughable if you weren’t do serious.

Science and religion should flow seamlessly for religion explains why we are here and science describes what “here” is.

Perhaps you deny the “science” that might save your life when your sick, or the “science” that gives you a car, or the computer you are using.

Perhaps you see those things as things that God has nothing to do with…seeing as science and God are mutually exclusive to you.

How sad.

I think this quote from the Catechism sums it up nicely:

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

I agree with this. I started this thread in the hope that we can reconcile this important event in Scripture with our scientific understanding. Surely, truth cannot contradict truth.

-Phil

 

[on_the_hill]

I always get stuck with the point that Neanderthals were human because we have their DNA in us. I don’t see how having a fragment in us makes them human.

Suppose the Neanderthals were human. Did they have souls? Why did they die out? Why would God allow a type of human to go extinct while another type of human survived? Could there have been more than one type of human?

 

[on_the_hill]

The Bible and Biology textbook are two separate books. And while science has done admirable work, there are no peer reviewed papers about any book in the Bible.

Ed

The Bible can’t be peer reviewed because there is no peer to review it. Fundamentally, Biblical truth is based on faith. I can measure acceleration due to gravity. I can measure air temperature. I can observe the migratory patterns of snow geese. But I can’t run an experiment to prove the existence of the body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist. I have to believe and know that on faith.

Aside from that, scientific articles that attempt to prove New Earth theory or Creationism are not well-regarded by scientific community.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It seems to me that it is a dogma, and necessary to believe in a literal fall and literal first parents.

The reason being, that if there was not a literal fall, it would indicate that God created a fallen world, or that there were some sinners and some non sinners coexisting. It really unravels the whole theology of us needing a savior and replaces it with naturalism that has a moral example.

This is problematic of course.

As to your more basic question, what is left to be more figurative…Everything!

Eve being made from a literal rib bone, the earth being made in a literal six days, God literally sculpting man out of clay, a literal Garden, a literal tree, etc…

Really the only literal thing you are required to believe is that we had first parents made in God’s image that sinned… the rest is up to interpretation.

The reason this part must be held is because it was revealed to us as literal from God through the prophets and Christ.

But why extract that as literal? I do not see it revealed as literal form God through the prophets nor Jesus. They spoke in parable and images all the time. But I agree with you that it does seem to be dogma… antiquated in my view. It is a struggle for me to accept it.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

But the Church has declared although the language used is figurative, she has affirmed the Fall is literal. The First Parents are also literal. Will you accept Church teaching? If not, why make an exception here on this point only? The Church has wisely insist on obedience to its teachings because the alternative is free-for-all. We end up either cafeteria Catholics or Protestant.

Simply because it makes no sense to me, an intruson into science. Even the Jews do not take it literal. As I said, it is a struggle for me to accept.