Genesis not to be taken literal

[DPMartin]

There was a commentary in the Torah about the understanding of the Holy Land, in which in the Jewish view it is seen that the Land of Israel as God’s Provence. And when other nations or lands outside of the Land of Israel did not receive the same treatment of the Lord God as the Land of Israel. It was (and still is) granted them to follow after their own gods and believes to be separated from the Living God. But in the Land of Israel such things were not to be entertained or tolerated.

If darwin theorists desire to prove to themselves that there is no Living God or that the Bible as written is not to be trusted, they are granted this. For they seek not to be in the Provence of God, to be in His Presence. We don’t have to understand what they don’t believe or trust about God. We must know and understand the Lord our God in Jesus Christ, for the sake of those who seek to be in the Presence of God and be with Him forever. It is not our job to be against, or condemn, or judge, it is our job to for the Kingdom of God. For it is our God who sees who would be with Him.

The fool thinks God should answer them when they see no reason to answer to God, who made them, and gave them the life they deceive themselves in. They do not understand that God made creation to accommodate the Presence of Life. But they see it the other way around, that life is because of the universe. Rather than the universe is what it is because of the Presence of God.

 

[DPMartin]

There was a commentary in the Torah about the understanding of the Holy Land, in which in the Jewish view it is seen that the Land of Israel as God’s Provence. And when other nations or lands outside of the Land of Israel did not receive the same treatment of the Lord God as the Land of Israel. It was (and still is) granted them to follow after their own gods and believes to be separated from the Living God. But in the Land of Israel such things were not to be entertained or tolerated.

If darwin theorists desire to prove to themselves that there is no Living God or that the Bible as written is not to be trusted they are granted this. For they seek not to be in the Provence of God, to be in His Presence. We don’t have to understand what they don’t believe or trust about God. We must know and understand the Lord our God in Jesus Christ, for the sake of those who seek to be in the Presence of God and be with Him forever. It is not our job to be against, or condemn, or judge, it is our job to for the Kingdom of God. For it is our God who sees who would be with Him.

The fool thinks God should answer them when they see no reason to answer to God, who made them the life they deceive themselves in. They do not understand that God made creation to accommodate the Presence of Life. But they see it the other way around, that life is because of the universe. Rather than the universe is what it is because of the Presence of God.

 

[edwest2]

There was a commentary in the Torah about the understanding of the Holy Land, in which in the Jewish view it is seen that the Land of Israel as God’s Provence. And when other nations or lands outside of the Land of Israel did not receive the same treatment of the Lord God as the Land of Israel. It was (and still is) granted them to follow after their own gods and believes to be separated from the Living God. But in the Land of Israel such things were not to be entertained or tolerated.

If darwin theorists desire to prove to themselves that there is no Living God or that the Bible as written is not to be trusted, they are granted this. For they seek not to be in the Provence of God, to be in His Presence. We don’t have to understand what they don’t believe or trust about God. We must know and understand the Lord our God in Jesus Christ, for the sake of those who seek to be in the Presence of God and be with Him forever. It is not our job to be against, or condemn, or judge, it is our job to for the Kingdom of God. For it is our God who sees who would be with Him.

The fool thinks God should answer them when they see no reason to answer to God, who made them, and gave them the life they deceive themselves in. They do not understand that God made creation to accommodate the Presence of Life. But they see it the other way around, that life is because of the universe. Rather than the universe is what it is because of the Presence of God.

Our job is to speak the truth, in season and out of season. When I see a philosophy being promoted that reduces man to a biological robot and tells students they are merely an accident - what will they think about their own identity and who other people really are? Don’t you know that hedonism and wrong living is confirmed by a distorted belief regarding man’s true identity?

If man is only an accident and only an animal, he is under no authority whatsoever. And if the scientist becomes the new priest in the mind of the student, then no greater reality exists at all.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Sheeniac]

I find it interesting that people dismiss genesis as a fantastical account that is clearly contradicted by modern science and reason, but many folks have no problem accepting that Christ magically multiplied bread, turned water to wine, raised people from the dead, and physically ascended into heaven.

They are all called miracles for a reason. It is inconsistent to believe in some and discount others.

I’ve skimmed the thread and it seems no one else has mentioned that within Genesis there are two different creation stories. I truly believe that one needs to look to literary criticism for this reason, and to consider the JEPD theory as well.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve skimmed the thread and it seems no one else has mentioned that within Genesis there are two different creation stories. I truly believe that one needs to look to literary criticism for this reason, and to consider the JEPD theory as well.

The two creation accounts are complementary. One discusses the order of creation. The other the importance of man.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I cut ahead about three pages, so take this for what its worth.

To the OP:

There is a mountain of statistics (lies, damn lies, and statistics) but literally NO evidence.

There is lots of archeological “proof” that goes something like “Wow, Birds look an awful lot like dinosaurs so they must have evolved” and “Wow, we look an awful lot like gorillas and share LOTS of DNA, so we must have evolved from apes”. I could make that very same argument regarding Modern flight helmets and the design for Alienware computer cases. But I would be incorrect.

There are NO proof cases for evolution. No discernible, visible, testable cases where something evolves into something else. Heck, even the way we define some things as different species presently doesnt make sense. Wolves, dogs, and coyotes can all interbreed but are considered separate species. That is quite nonsensical when you think about it since different species by definition cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. A horse and a cat, for instance. Or a dog and a cat.

 

[Sheeniac]

The two creation accounts are complementary. One discusses the order of creation. The other the importance of man.

That’s one way of interpreting it. Where did you learn this? (I’m not trying to be snide, but can’t really word the question the right way…) This is not the ‘current Biblical scholar’ view, FWIW.- not saying it’s not correct.

 

[Cruxis117]

I cut ahead about three pages, so take this for what its worth.

To the OP:

There is a mountain of statistics (lies, damn lies, and statistics) but literally NO evidence.

There is lots of archeological “proof” that goes something like “Wow, Birds look an awful lot like dinosaurs so they must have evolved” and “Wow, we look an awful lot like gorillas and share LOTS of DNA, so we must have evolved from apes”. I could make that very same argument regarding Modern flight helmets and the design for Alienware computer cases. But I would be incorrect.

There are NO proof cases for evolution. No discernible, visible, testable cases where something evolves into something else. Heck, even the way we define some things as different species presently doesnt make sense. Wolves, dogs, and coyotes can all interbreed but are considered separate species. **That is quite nonsensical when you think about it since different species by definition cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. A horse and a cat, for instance. Or a dog and a cat./**QUOTE]

This isn’t what evolution is. So, of course you haven’t found any evidence, you don’t even understand the basic concept.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

FidesSpesCarita;7204202:

I cut ahead about three pages, so take this for what its worth.

To the OP:

There is a mountain of statistics (lies, damn lies, and statistics) but literally NO evidence.

There is lots of archeological “proof” that goes something like “Wow, Birds look an awful lot like dinosaurs so they must have evolved” and “Wow, we look an awful lot like gorillas and share LOTS of DNA, so we must have evolved from apes”. I could make that very same argument regarding Modern flight helmets and the design for Alienware computer cases. But I would be incorrect.

There are NO proof cases for evolution. No discernible, visible, testable cases where something evolves into something else. Heck, even the way we define some things as different species presently doesnt make sense. Wolves, dogs, and coyotes can all interbreed but are considered separate species. That is quite nonsensical when you think about it since different species by definition cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring. A horse and a cat, for instance. Or a dog and a cat.

This isn’t what evolution is. So, of course you haven’t found any evidence, you don’t even understand the basic concept.

I wish you understood how laughable it is that you would tell me I dont understand evolution.

Lets just go with the textbook definition on this one, shall we?

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

So, if evolution in biology is as defined above, then we must define the difference between micro and macro evolution…

You know what, this has been discussed too much already…

You tell ME what you think evolution is, how I am wrong to say that there is no evidence of it having occured anywhere in 3000 years of recorded history, and what YOUR evidence for the theory of evolution would be.

FSC

 

[DPMartin]

Our job is to speak the truth, in season and out of season. When I see a philosophy being promoted that reduces man to a biological robot and tells students they are merely an accident - what will they think about their own identity and who other people really are? Don’t you know that hedonism and wrong living is confirmed by a distorted belief regarding man’s true identity?

If man is only an accident and only an animal, he is under no authority whatsoever. And if the scientist becomes the new priest in the mind of the student, then no greater reality exists at all.

God bless,
Ed

Ed

thanks for the reply

There is certainly no disagreement in the concern of what you have said here. But there is a saying that has some significance here. The nations go as the Churches therein go. Words are words, but what are the acts? Are they of God? If a Church has no Presence of God in it’s people, then there is no revelation of God in that Church. That the world around it can recognize as “of the Living God”.

Jer:9:24: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

In also in respect to…

Jer:51:15: He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

If God’s Children live under and in respect to science, and the philosophies, and theories thereof, then what would you expect the world, (who sees the Church), to do? There is such a thing as participating in the world without letting the world participate in you.

Oh Children of God why don’t you associate true Knowledge to the Knowledge of God why don’t you associate Understanding and Wisdom to God’s Understanding Wisdom. What Knowledge did Peter have when souls were diving in his shadow to be healed? What scientist can do that? Can a man walk upright and bless without science? Then science serves man, and man is to serve God. For a man cannot walk upright and blessed without the Presence of God. But a man can walk upright and blessed without knowing a thing about science or the philosophies, and theories thereof.

Do you not yet know that it is the Presence of God, in the name of Jesus Christ that changes the condition of mankind, from within the man. Don’t you understand that what is in men’s hearts they with seek the fulfillment of, but if they know God (not know of God), in the Presence of God then that is what would be in their hearts and seek fulfillment of. Their desire needs to be with God, not with out God. Today’s science teaches to not acknowledge God in their work, therefore the result of their work is godless, lifeless. You can’t give Life with that which is lifeless.

If the People of God do not associate Knowledge Wisdom, and Understanding to God, but to science, then how do you expect the world around them to associate Knowledge Wisdom, and Understanding to the Living God?

Consider how many times the Lord told Israel to not allow or entertain, beliefs that which was not of God, before, and after they crossed the Jordan. And He told them why. For everything of any significance in their daily lives was associated to the Lord their God, of which the Lord God Himself taught them to do.

 

[scimitar60]

I accept faith, but i don’t want to fall into the pitfall which Richard Dawkins describes:
“The process of non-thinking called faith”

I laughed out loud. Oh yes, I hope I don’t fall into the category Richard describes as “The process of non-thinking called faith”!
I will try my best in future to please Richard Dawkins’ view on faith, because that is much more important than what God thinks of us.

(Note the Sarcasm)

 

[TMC]

Well, whenver I see the statement: Evolution is a fact, I consider that statement to be incorrect. Further, I see no reason to use the statements of any religious authority to prove or disprove any scientific claim. However, the Pope, well aware of attempts to reduce man to some cosmic accident, has seen fit to make clear and unambiguous remarks about scientific claims to ensure that the faithful are not led away from true facts held by the Church.

God bless,
Ed

Ed, surely you aren’t suggesting that Pope Benedict has said that evolution is inconsistent with Catholicism?

 

[edwest2]

Ed, surely you aren’t suggesting that Pope Benedict has said that evolution is inconsistent with Catholicism?

First, I am amazed at how often this is brought up here. Second, why is it so important that some religious leader speak for or against it? Certainly, facts are facts, right? However, the Church has issued very nuanced and detailed statements. Here is an article that gives Pope Benedict’s viewpoint:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

I do hope you understand the unnecessary tension being created here by people who are convinced of something they call scientific and what God can do. I also hope you have a full understanding of what the Church has declared about the creation of man. Today, this issue is being used to divide man into two camps. One decription is that man is simply an accidental development. The other description requires something that is not accidental at all. In this combination of reason and revelation is the correct answer. Science certainly cannot do the job alone.

I am convinced that is why Genesis is such a big threat to one ideology that assigns man to the accident machine which simply spits out organisms for no particular reason.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Ed, surely you aren’t suggesting that Pope Benedict has said that evolution is inconsistent with Catholicism?

This is a general comment pertaining to hundreds of CAF posts which pose similar puzzles. Broad statements/questions like that are actually meaningless. One needs to know which evolutionary theory and which Catholic teaching before starting any kind of discussion.

 

[steph_86]

The theory of evolution is the idea that we are all begotten of some kind of single-celled organism that somehow either generated itself or was generated by God.

This single-celled organism became the ancestor of every variety of plant and animal on earth, over a period of millions of years, by means of each generation mutating into something else, so, algae giving birth to plants, which in turn gave birth to small animals, which in turn gave birth to larger animals, etc.

I am very intrigued by the theory of evolution. On the one hand, the Church seems to favorably consider it. On the other hand however, she seems to make all indications that she still sees the theory as not more than a hypothesis and in needing to be completed further.

On the side of Catholics, however, the Church is clear. Catholics are at liberty to speculate on this subject, in fact, acceptance of the theory is not a required article of the faith. At the same time, all Catholic believers are to admit to the historical existence of the First Parents, Adam and Eve, they are thus, to reject the scientific postulate of polygenism. At the same time, they are to affirm the Creator’s omnipotence and the truth that he is the Creator and Originator of the human soul directly and immediately (Cf Humani Generis)00.

Still, the issue will not go away. I, for one, am of the conviction that evolution did not happen. It is true that Faith and Reason go hand and hand and cannot in the last analysis contradict each other. But we must always keep in mind that, a reason that is not illuminated by the grace and the light of God is prone to make mistakes, since, human reason is not infallible. As such, our excessive reliance on science to explain to us passages of the Holy Writ is dangerous since it is better to rely on the one that truly is inerrant and infallible, and that is, the Holy Scriptures.

The theory of evolution is in reality based on ignorance. There are many mysteries in creation, many things which puzzle man and stir his curiosity. At the same time, there is the realization that man is utterly and completely dependent on God for his very existence and his natural life. This realization ought to always remind us that in all matters concerning the truths pertaining to the human nature, Revelation ought to be our measuring stick and Tradition ought to help us illuminate truths which in reality would seem to contradict the Faith.

And so, I rest on Revelation as the true source and authority as things pertaining not only to the Faith but also to science. Everything is in the Bible, all the most fundamental truths concerning humanity are contained therein and Tradition has shown that many of the interpretations that the Catholic body used to hold have now fallen out of favor.

Out of a desire to explain everything using the light of human reason alone, many men of science have made the mistake of discarding the truths contained in the sacred deposit, relegating Faith to the realm of the unknowable and religion, to the realm of the experiential and the emotional. But our Catholic faith is other than that. It is essentially one that rests on the complementary contributions of Faith and Reason. Too often we forget this, and neglect to realize that our easy reliance on the works of secular and atheist scientists is prone to lead us to conclusions that will in the end upset the foundations of the Faith itself.

(Continued)

 

[steph_86]

(Continued)

The theory of evolution as expounded by Charles Darwin, rests on the metaphysical position that only natural causes are necessary to explain the whole of man, his history, his constitution and his existence on the plane of earthly reality. This error, that of naturalism, is well spread. Before wholly ascribing to this theory, thus, it is necessary to examine its philosophical underpinnings and realize that in the last analysis the theory of evolution in its true and authentic expression denies any involvement whatsoever of the Divine Intellect in the creation of the world and the emergence of life. This is crucial when examining the data of fossil records presented before men as evidence of the transitional forms that have existed in the progression towards the production of the human species.

To put it simply, scientists look at this body of data as though it had not been produced out of the hands of the Creator and based on the similarities in the genetic, biochemical and morphological features of the different fossils, posit a relatedness and a chronological succession in time in the different species in question. But what if God had truly created man and all the different species that exist on the face of the planet? Would we expect Him to use the laws inherent to matter in order to produce the different species or would He perhaps, create them directly? In reality, a world in which God is admitted as the Creator involves consequences for science which radically put into question our interpretation of the data available to us and the theories which are produced out of it.

But in order to eliminate erroneous interpretations and needless speculations, it is necessary to turn to the Revelation that God has made of his Creative act. The book of Genesis, which I think, ought to be taken more seriously, should be seen as a book important for its historical and as well, scientific contributions. The literal interpretation, which has been part of Catholic Tradition for centuries, has now fallen out of favor. Today, out of an excessive respect for scientific knowledge, we have accepted the questionable truth that the original humans have proceeded from an original line of human-apes. Discarding the wisdom of the Scriptures, we have attempted to interpret the mysterious clues of the past on our own, revealing thus, our inability to subject our reason to God’s timeless Wisdom. But the passages of Holy Writ are in reality, quite clear and as such, quite literal. The Lord, our God, created the world in six successive epochs of time, six original days, and rested on the seventh; a reality that serves as a template for our seven day week.

On the sixth day, He created man: male and female. Using the dust of the earth, he fashioned his body and then inserted a part of himself, his divine breath, into him, to breathe life into the human being. A composite of body and soul, man emerged as a son to the Divinity. Woman, who is man’s companion, was created from his rib and presented to him as a complementary part of his self. Following these facts of original history, it is an important fact to point that, the original creation was good and perfect. That is, there was no trace of sin, of death and of corruption. This, in reality, is a serious point of contention for the theory of evolution and even for the cosmological theories of science since they posit that, chaos, disorder, struggle and death have been the characteristics of all life even before the arrival of man. How then, could death have entered the original creation following the sin of the man-beast if it had already been part of the reality of all life? On this Original Sin, in reality, stands the whole economy of Redemption and of the Incarnation and without its historical truth, Christianity is a series of contradictory truths and is ultimately pointless.

As such, I am of the conviction that the theory of evolution cannot be in accordance with the truths of Scripture. In fact, it denies the eminent singularity and uniqueness of man, who ought to be seen as a creature who exhibits a sonship to God and a kingship of sensible creation. The theory of evolution denies this sonship and this kingship as it creates man into a man-beast. In addition, I am convinced that the evidence of the hominid fossil record should actually reveal that, the latter were actually human and not a transitional form of humanity. But the question in this case, thus remains, how can this be reconciled with the history of humanity?

Seeing this thread, I wanted to contribute of my own perspective on this issue and hope that, it will help sustain the discussion on this very debated topic.