Genesis isn't real

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cruikshank_s
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nowdays it’s quite common for liberals within the Catholic Church to accuse those who insist on the literal interpretation of many OT passages, of wanting to follow the evangelicals, conveniently ignoring the fact that Catholic literalists were around long before the birth of Protestantism.
I see something very insidious in the denial of much of Genesis and other OT books. I view it as an attempt to reduce all of Holy Scripture to one vast gray area where any belief contrary to God's clear teaching can more easily be justified.
 
FrRJBoyd said:
Then how do you account for the fact that the Jewish concept of a day is implicitly tied to the sun (evening to evening; cf Ps 104: 19), yet the sun was not made until the fourth day? It is clear that the intention of the author was not to describe six ordinary days, for he surely would have included the creation of the sun and the moon on the first day if that were his intention.
Click to expand...
I’m going to have to disagree with you father. The author certainly had this specific order in mind when he created this text. The fact that there was no sun on the first day doesn’t mean that God didn’t still have an idea of how long a day was.
I think it is for statements such as theses that Origin and his heretical teachings were condemned by an Ecumenical Council.
Click to expand...
Origen may have been condemned later, but it was for his stance on the soul and the trinity. From what I’ve read of De Principiis, his exegetical work seems pretty solid and rmbodies the Alexandrian school of thought. With regards to the specific text that i’m paraphrasing, I don’t see anything heretical in the least.
However, I think we are more or less in agreement here. I would add this, though. The infallibility of Sacred Scripture cannot be restricted only to matters of faith and morals. While the Bible is not a history text, teaching history for the sake of history, or a
science text, teaching science for the sake of science, nevertheless, when the Bible reports a matter of history (e.g., the exodus from Egypt, prophecies of the future, or the Resurrection of the Lord) or science (e.g., God created the universe from nothing, or miracles; e.g., Joshua 10:13 --the sun stood
still, or a miraculous healing from the Gospels), it does so in an infallible way. This teaching is found in the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XII. Pope Leo XIII, in his
encyclical On the Study of Sacred Scripture, stated, “There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, ‘not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known
as known.’”
Click to expand...
You’re right, we do pretty much agree but I do take exception to the whole idea that a day was some undefined period. This arguement has always seemed like its a desperate attempt to have the text match up with science.

You mentioned God’s extended day in Joshua. I think the author’s understanding of a day reveals a lot.

13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Although the concept of day is associated with the sun, how could they have an understanding of “a whole day” when the sun was not acting normally. Clearly the Israelites could still understand how long a day was, without the aid of the sun. Although their conception of a day is based off of the sun, they still have an idea of how long the sun is up and that’s why the author of Joshua 10 can still say that the sun was up for an additional day, even though the sun was doing weird things. Thus it’s quite easy to image that it is the same unit of time that the author of Joshua recognizes, that is to be found in Genesis.
 
Freshman88 said:
I’m going to have to disagree with you father. The author certainly had this specific order in mind when he created this text. The fact that there was no sun on the first day doesn’t mean that God didn’t still have an idea of how long a day was.
Click to expand...
I think there’s plenty of room for us to disagree and still be safely within orthodoxy. I just want to add, however, that is it not a modern, desperate attempt to argue that the six days of creation could mean something other than our notion of a 24-hour day; the interpretation can be traced back to Patristic times (e.g., most notably, the texts from St. Augustine that I have already posted).
Freshman88 said:
Origen may have been condemned later, but it was for his stance on the soul and the trinity. From what I’ve read of De Principiis, his exegetical work seems pretty solid and rmbodies the Alexandrian school of thought. With regards to the specific text that i’m paraphrasing, I don’t see anything heretical in the least.
Click to expand...
While I agree that it was primarily for his weird notion of the soul (especially of Christ) and the Godhead (not being infinite) that he was condemned, the exact condemnation was of “Origin and his heretical teachings” (unspecified). The quote you are paraphrasing is worse in the translation we were given in seminary: “Sometimes the literal sense is a lie, to teach a greater truth in the spiritual sense.” Since God is Truth, and everything asserted in the Bible is asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that Origin is saying God can lie. I think that qualifies for heresy.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd
 
FrRJBoyd said:
I think there’s plenty of room for us to disagree and still be safely within orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Agreed, sometimes the path of orthodoxy isn’t as nearly narrow as we may think it is.

I often find that many non-Catholics have problems with this specific rationalization. I think the position I hold offers another safe route for explaining the seven-day creation story.
While I agree that it was primarily for his weird notion of the soul (especially of Christ) and the Godhead (not being infinite) that he was condemned, the exact condemnation was of “Origin and his heretical teachings” (unspecified). The quote you are paraphrasing is worse in the translation we were given in seminary: “Sometimes the literal sense is a lie, to teach a greater truth in the spiritual sense.” Since God is Truth, and everything asserted in the Bible is asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that Origin is saying God can lie. I think that qualifies for heresy.
Click to expand...
God bless,
Click to expand...
Fr. Boyd
Click to expand...
I wish I could dig up the quote I have, but I left all my textbooks at my dorm and I’m back home for the holidays. Anyway, I wasn’t paraphrasing that specific quote but one where he writes something like “when the scriptures present a road block, its a call to take us to a higher road of interpretation”. Obviously I would disagree strongly with what the quote you have provided.

Origen still is a very interesting read, and was certainly a great theologian and thinker of his time. There’s a lot to learn from both his heretical and orthodox stances and I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. If anything, I find I always have a better understanding of orthodoxy by looking to the great heretics, we can learn a lot from their mistakes.

Anyway, thanks for the internet blessing, Father 🙂 :signofcross:
 
FrRJBoyd said:
Then how do you account for the fact that the Jewish concept of a day is implicitly tied to the sun (evening to evening; cf Ps 104: 19), yet the sun was not made until the fourth day?
Click to expand...

Easily 🙂​

The author of that chapter is very interested in dating, & the creation week is the prototype of all succeeding weeks. It is a Divine exemplar of the human activity of the covenant people (see Exodus). Because of what happens during it, is a rather rum sort of week, as day four shows: what we have here is a collision between the narrative framework, & part of the content of it. The creation could have been told of in a different way - as a fight between JHWH & the Rahab-monster (mentioned elsewhere in the OT): but the author of Gen. 1 chose to tell of the creation as a six-day project.

Both sorts of telling occur outside Israel, but the one chosen may have been chosen because it is easier to “disinfect” of undesirable ideas: the moon is the moon, functioning as a “lesser light”; it is not the moon good Sin. The sun is the greater light, but it is not Shamash, sun-god & god of justice, nor even the goddess Shapsh, his Ugaritic counterpart. The stars are heavenly luminaries - not “the writing of the gods”, nor the “sons of the gods” (they come in chapter 6). The composer has demythologised the natural world, & the words used for its parts, & made it safe for a Hebrew creation myth, in which the God of Israel is the only God. The problem of day four is a result of this.
It is clear that the intention of the author was not to describe six ordinary days, for he surely would have included the creation of the sun and the moon on the first day if that were his intention.
Click to expand...

That presupposes that logical consequentiality was as important for him as for us, & that it would have been shown in the same way. The Babylonian “Creation myth” has no creation of the sun at all: its hero, the god Marduk, is called “son of the the sun”, but that’s it. The order of elements in a narrative need not be logical - it can be arranged in some other way: a thematic or dramatic one, say: those have their own logic. It depends what the author is doing as a narrator, as well as on the subject matter. Unless the text is disordered - which is possible; this has happened to other passages, as in the first few chapters of Isaiah - the text of Genesis 1 is in that order because that is what suited its composer’s intentions 🙂​

I think it is for statements such as theses that Origin and his heretical teachings were condemned by an Ecumenical Council.

However, I think we are more or less in agreement here. I would add this, though. The infallibility of Sacred Scripture cannot be restricted only to matters of faith and morals. While the Bible is not a history text, teaching history for the sake of history, or a science text, teaching science for the sake of science, nevertheless, when the Bible reports a matter of history (e.g., the exodus from Egypt, prophecies of the future, or the Resurrection of the Lord) or science (e.g., God created the universe from nothing, or miracles; e.g., Joshua 10:13 --the sun stood still, or a miraculous healing from the Gospels), it does so in an infallible way.
Click to expand...

But - however truthful what it says may be, that does not by itself ensure that its truth is historiographical. A highly schematised text can be true, & can be about an event that really occurred: but that does not mean it is to be read as a straightforward narrative of “what actually happened”. An historiographical text that can be read in that way - pretty well, anyway - is the account of what Rameses II called a victory over the Hittite King at Kadesh in 1275 or so. It’s very self-serving, because it is propagandistic, to exalt the Pharaoh - the battle was in fact a draw. It does however give plenty of facts.​

The Bible contains a good deal of historiography - but no matter how factually correct it might be, it would be no more relevant to the purpose of God’s revelation than the Battle of Kadesh if it were not given meaning by its purpose. There is no salvation in events as such, nor in accounts of them as such: it is God Who saves, through the Bible: it does not save, nor is there salvation in history - history convicts of sin, & brings only condemnation, like the Law; it doesn’t save. The God of Grace Who is not confined by history but is its Purpose & its Lord can alone do that.
This teaching is found in the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, and Pope Pius XII. Pope Leo XIII, in his
encyclical On the Study of Sacred Scripture, stated, “There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, ‘not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.’”
Click to expand...
 
FrRJBoyd said:
“Sometimes the literal sense is a lie, to teach a greater truth in the spiritual sense.” Since God is Truth, and everything asserted in the Bible is asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that Origin is saying God can lie. I think that qualifies for heresy.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd
Click to expand...

That quotation is perfectly defensible 🙂 When God is said to​

  • be angry
  • be grieved
  • repent
  • speak
  • laugh
  • mock
  • smell a sweet savour
  • rest
  • go
  • stay
  • knock
  • roar
  • use a net
  • have - eyes
  • ears
  • dwell in a tent
  • stretch out the heavens
  • appear
  • move
  • be a - rock
  • shepherd
  • king
  • judge
  • lion
  • lamb
    & the like, He is said to be or do or have what men are or do or have or are otherwise familiar with. God is described as particular beings, because the effects of God are like the effects of those beings. He is the Ancient of Days with a white beard, not because He has a beard, white or otherwise, but because to Him belongs, in a supereminent manner, the wisdom which ought to go with old age on earth. The “vehicle” of the comparison, is the beard - it “carries” the association of age with wisdom. Taken in itself, it is not true of God - for God is Spirit: He does not have facial hair. What is signified by it, is the truth in the comparison. If God Who is ineffable is not to stay unspoken of, our woefully inadequate & halting language & ideas have to be used to speak of Him - & even without sin, we would be incapable of speaking rightly of Him, as He is Infinite & Incomparable & utterly unlike all creatures. God always far exceeds all created knowledge, words, & ideas of Him - or rather, they always fall short of Who He is.
All that “God says” is a lie, in that nothing created can receive it aright - what we do perceive or hear, has to be watered down, lessened, made little, if our littleness is to be able to receive it. Only God can see God - our almost-nothingness cannot. God can speak to what we are without this lessening, only by a Word that is God & is man. Only Jesus Christ is the Really True Word of God for man. God’s Word is not a word at all - this Word is a Person. He is not less a word than the words we use - He is infinitely more; He is a word, by being a Divine Person: He is the Archetype & Exemplar-Cause of all created being - words included

So Origen is absolutely orthodox here. 🙂
 
Genesis isn’t real
Click to expand...
Don’t tell Phil Collins!😃

Seriously, one is free to believe in a literal 6 twenty-four hour day creation or one is free to believe in a mythical reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. And to reiterate what others have written before, mythical doesn’t mean false, pretend, or make-believe. Mythic language is metaphorical, uses similes, and anthropomorphisms.

I believe that St. Augustine wrote that the light was separated from the darkness on the first day while the sun, moon, and stars were created on the 4th day shows that the actions on the first day were the separation of the good angels (light) from the bad angels (darkness.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top