C
chrisb
Guest
Peace be with you all,
I am interested on the Churches position on Genesis: literal or not?
Thank you.
Peace.
I am interested on the Churches position on Genesis: literal or not?
Thank you.
Peace.
- Status
S
Salmon
Guest
CCC: 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.
Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 3, SubSection 3, Heading 1
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.”
Genesis tells us of our origins. It is an expression of who (God and us) and why (He loves us). Anyone who battles over the “how” and “what” aspects are missing out on the more substantive foundation laid before them.
Peace in Christ…Salmon
T
turboEDvo
Guest
In light of scientific discoveries regarding science and evolution, the Pope said that Genesis need not be taken literally to understand the full meaning of the story. Rather, we must take from it, regardless of our interpretation of creation, that God is our Creator and deliberately created the world as he did.
Now, as for six-day creation versus primary causality and secondary causality (God used His power to make other factors such as the Big Bang create the universe), that’s for you to decide. One interesting bit of physics shows that the world could be created in 15 billion years and six days, because time is dependent upon point of reference and velocity. Thus, both are scientifically possible.
Eamon
Now, as for six-day creation versus primary causality and secondary causality (God used His power to make other factors such as the Big Bang create the universe), that’s for you to decide. One interesting bit of physics shows that the world could be created in 15 billion years and six days, because time is dependent upon point of reference and velocity. Thus, both are scientifically possible.
Eamon
P
PhilVaz
Guest
It is spelled out in the Catechism. The “six days” of “creation week” are symbolical (paragraphs 337-338, also 339, 342, 345), at least some of the language of early Genesis is figurative or symbolical (paragraphs 362, 369, 375, 390, 396), the Church affirms modern science (paragraphs 159, 283-284), but Adam/Eve appear to be quite historical / literal (paragraphs 359, 375-377, 379, 388, 390-392, also 355ff on creation, and 385ff on the Fall).
I wrote quite a bit here Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation
If you wanna know what John Paul II thinks, he was quite clear over 20 years ago in a letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on cosmology and fundamental physics –
“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”)
The important parts to notice here, according to John Paul II: (1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise; (2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator; (3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology); (4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made; (5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.
I assume you mean early Genesis (chapters 1-11), chapter 12 (Abraham) on are normally considered very historical by orthodox or conservative theologians. It’s those early chapters that scholars debate.
Phil P
I wrote quite a bit here Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation
If you wanna know what John Paul II thinks, he was quite clear over 20 years ago in a letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on cosmology and fundamental physics –
“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”)
The important parts to notice here, according to John Paul II: (1) the Bible is not a scientific treatise; (2) the main point of Genesis 1 is that God is our Creator; (3) the Scripture uses the cosmology in use at the time of the writer (not a modern cosmology); (4) the Bible wishes to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens were made; (5) any other teaching about the origin and nature of the universe is alien to the intentions of the original biblical authors.
I assume you mean early Genesis (chapters 1-11), chapter 12 (Abraham) on are normally considered very historical by orthodox or conservative theologians. It’s those early chapters that scholars debate.
Phil P
- Status