Genesis Question

[srferdave]

My girlfriend is a baptist who takes the bible literally. She asked if Catholics believe the creation story literally. I told her yes in the since that we try to understand what the author was trying to say. For instance, when God used Adam’s rib to make women doesn’t necessarily mean that he took Adam’s rib. If that was literal than man would have one less rib than women. Also, it says that God created water above and below and the water above he called sky. We all know that the sky is not water. But, aside from all that, my point was to say that we try to understand what the author intended to communicate. But she said how do we know what the author intended to communicate. I was stuck on that question. Does anyone know the answer to this?

 

[yellowbird]

My girlfriend is a baptist who takes the bible literally. She asked if Catholics believe the creation story literally. I told her yes in the since that we try to understand what the author was trying to say. For instance, when God used Adam’s rib to make women doesn’t necessarily mean that he took Adam’s rib. If that was literal than man would have one less rib than women. Also, it says that God created water above and below and the water above he called sky. We all know that the sky is not water. But, aside from all that, my point was to say that we try to understand what the author intended to communicate. But she said how do we know what the author intended to communicate. I was stuck on that question. Does anyone know the answer to this?

I don’t know the answer to your question - but I wanted to point out that just because God removed one of Adam’s ribs, that doesn’t mean that Adam’s DNA was changed in such a way that all of his future offspring would have 1 less rib - so you really can’t say that it’s not literal because men and women have the same # of ribs today.

 

[srferdave]

I don’t know the answer to your question - but I wanted to point out that just because God removed one of Adam’s ribs, that doesn’t mean that Adam’s DNA was changed in such a way that all of his future offspring would have 1 less rib - so you really can’t say that it’s not literal because men don’t have less ribs than women.

Yes. OK. I agree with you there. But as Catholics we don’t necessarily need to believe that God actually took a rib from Adam but we do need to understand that God made women from man, correct?

 

[Grace_Angel]

My girlfriend is a baptist who takes the bible literally. She asked if Catholics believe the creation story literally. I told her yes in the since that we try to understand what the author was trying to say. For instance, when God used Adam’s rib to make women doesn’t necessarily mean that he took Adam’s rib. If that was literal than man would have one less rib than women. Also, it says that God created water above and below and the water above he called sky. We all know that the sky is not water. But, aside from all that, my point was to say that we try to understand what the author intended to communicate. But she said how do we know what the author intended to communicate. I was stuck on that question. Does anyone know the answer to this?

How doe we know anything? How do we know that what your girlfriend believes is true. How does she know that what Baptist authors write is true?
Scripture scholarship is an ancient craft and has been studied deeply.
GraceAngel.

 

[srferdave]

How doe we know anything? How do we know that what your girlfriend believes is true. How does she know that what Baptist authors write is true?
Scripture scholarship is an ancient craft and has been studied deeply.
GraceAngel.

I’m sorry I can’t accept that. “How do we know anything?” That almost sounds like on the verge of agnosticism. And there were no Baptist authors. Authors weren’t even classified as Christians in the old testament. When I say author, I mean the original author, not the author of the translated versions.

 

[Benadam]

Catholics are upposed to believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve and that what happened to them was transmitted using language that the intended audience would understand. So there is an authentic meaning intended by the author.

We don’t have to believe that the symbols used are literal. Even if they were, the ideas and concepts attached to the reality are valid. The serpent, if literal doesn’t exclude the idea that a fallen angel the Church calls the evil one is what the author meant.

Genesis is written in mythic language. It’s mythic literature. Even if literal the various component parts and people involved are deep seated parts of every human being and manifest externally and shape our world. Every human being is made of the entirety of human history and at the deepest core of every one of us lies the genesis story literally.

We know as much about what the author intended to communicate as Christ revealed to us and the Apostles and Church have taught. Since the Catholic church has preserved what Christ taught and is the community that gathered around Him since the beginning she has the authority to teach it and apply what is known about it’s meaning.

 

[Grace_Angel]

I’m sorry I can’t accept that. “How do we know anything?” That almost sounds like on the verge of agnosticism. And there were no Baptist authors. Authors weren’t even classified as Christians in the old testament. When I say author, I mean the original author, not the author of the translated versions.

Srferdave, you can choose to believe or not believe what you like. I dont particularly care. I offered a suggestion that at times it is convenient to believe or not believe what someone wants.
This yhoung friend of the poster (Baptist) why should the poster have to “prove” anything.
The Catholic Church and its teachings have its genesis in the words of Jesus “Thou art Peter etc” The catholic church is based opn Scripture and Tradition.
The early Church Fathers e.g. Clement of Rome AD96, St Irenaeus, 180AD, St Clement of Alexandrai AD200, St Cyprian AD 254 St John Chrysostum AD 386, Council of Trent 1566 and CCC 1992. Apart from these there are the works of Jurgens bk 1, bk 2, bk 3.
All these and many others speak about what we believe and why.
As for earlier sources, We understand that there were the Yahwest, Elohist and priestly authors. The Yahwest about 900-1000BC during the time of Solomon. I believe that these writings of the story of the people of God were scribed in order not to lose the story.
Prior to the Monarchy the Hebrews met a Shechem annually, offered sacrifice, retold their story and then went off to live their lives, returning the following year to do the same.
After the Monarchy of Of Saul, David, Solomon it was thought the story no longer being told maybe lost. So Scribes wrote the story as their ancestors retold it.
The Elohist version occurred as a result of the divided kingdom This is the Northern Kingdoms version of their story. And the Priestly Version was scribed during the exile in Babylon, in order to accommodate a new reality of being in exile and how to make sense of this happening especially as God had promised that his people would never again be exiled (after Egypt) and here they were exiled, so the Priestly version was recorded to accommodate this reality.

Shall I go on!!!

GraceAngel

 

[srferdave]

Srferdave, you can choose to believe or not believe what you like. I dont particularly care. I offered a suggestion that at times it is convenient to believe or not believe what someone wants.
This yhoung friend of the poster (Baptist) why should the poster have to “prove” anything.
The Catholic Church and its teachings have its genesis in the words of Jesus “Thou art Peter etc” The catholic church is based opn Scripture and Tradition.
The early Church Fathers e.g. Clement of Rome AD96, St Irenaeus, 180AD, St Clement of Alexandrai AD200, St Cyprian AD 254 St John Chrysostum AD 386, Council of Trent 1566 and CCC 1992. Apart from these there are the works of Jurgens bk 1, bk 2, bk 3.
All these and many others speak about what we believe and why.
As for earlier sources, We understand that there were the Yahwest, Elohist and priestly authors. The Yahwest about 900-1000BC during the time of Solomon. I believe that these writings of the story of the people of God were scribed in order not to lose the story.
Prior to the Monarchy the Hebrews met a Shechem annually, offered sacrifice, retold their story and then went off to live their lives, returning the following year to do the same.
After the Monarchy of Of Saul, David, Solomon it was thought the story no longer being told maybe lost. So Scribes wrote the story as their ancestors retold it.
The Elohist version occurred as a result of the divided kingdom This is the Northern Kingdoms version of their story. And the Priestly Version was scribed during the exile in Babylon, in order to accommodate a new reality of being in exile and how to make sense of this happening especially as God had promised that his people would never again be exiled (after Egypt) and here they were exiled, so the Priestly version was recorded to accommodate this reality.

Shall I go on!!!

GraceAngel

Thanks, thats what i was looking for. To tell my girlfriend “I don’t need to prove anything to you” would not be very convincing. I want to give her reasons to believe in the Catholic Church. So thank you for this explanation.

 

[Joe_5859]

The Bible utilizes many different forms of literature. It is analagous to a newspaper. You don’t read the comics section in the same way you read the international news section. It helps to know what type of literature you are reading in order to get to the meaning. Some parts of the Bible are historical narratives, but others are not.

Catholics always interpret the Bible literally, but not literalistically. Here’s an example of the difference:

Take the phrase: “It’s raining cats and dogs”

A literal interpretation of this phrase is that it is raining very heavily. The literal meaning of a given passage is the meaning the author wishes to convey.

A literalistic interpretation of this phrase would be that felines and canines are falling from the sky.

Literalistic interpretations would exculde the use of any sort of metaphors or hyperbole whatsoever. It’s not a great method of interpretation.

To interpret the Creation story literally, we do not say that creation happened precisely as described. The use of images such as the dome in the sky to separate the water above from that below is not intended to describe the science of creation, but only our observations. If I say, “the sun will set today at 8:30pm”, should people accuse me of being some pre-Copernican ignoramus who hasn’t yet come to terms with the fact that the sun does not revolve around the earth (and therefore does not “set”)? No, of course not. It is simply a popular phrase that describes our experience of how things look.

Here are the basic truths being proposed in the Creation story, taken from Scott Hahn’s Understanding the Scriptures (Midwest Theological Forum, 2005), p. 60:

• That matter was created out of nothing by God at the beginning of time.
• That the creation of human beings – however humans arose in history – was an act of special creation by God. God breathed a human soul into Adam.
• That woman is formed from the body of man, from his very self.
• That all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve.
• That Adam and Eve were created without sin.
• That Adam and Eve were commanded to be obedient to God.
• That Adam and Eve sinned against this command.
• That, as a result of that sin, our ancestors fell from their state of sinless innocence.
• That, even at the time of the Fall, God made clear the promise of a future Redeemer.

I recommend this book for some great insight into the literary structure of the creation account. You might also check out Hahn’s online Bible study Genesis to Jesus which goes over some of this as well.

 

[yellowbird]

srferdave,
I think it’s wonderful that you want to share your faith with your girlfriend. As a convert to the Catholic Church, may I suggest you begin with the Eucharist rather than Creation? In John chapter 6 Jesus says again and again THIS IS MY BODY. After reading/praying about that & reading what the early Christians (Church Fathers) believed about the Eucharist, it became so obvious that my previous beliefs were wrong & the Catholic Church was right.

It seems there are lots of differing opinions about Genesis even within the Church.

 

[srferdave]

srferdave,
I think it’s wonderful that you want to share your faith with your girlfriend. As a convert to the Catholic Church, may I suggest you begin with the Eucharist rather than Creation? In John chapter 6 Jesus says again and again THIS IS MY BODY. After reading/praying about that & reading what the early Christians (Church Fathers) believed about the Eucharist, it became so obvious that my previous beliefs were wrong & the Catholic Church was right.

It seems there are lots of differing opinions about Genesis even within the Church.

Thanks for the advise.

We got on this topic because I had her listen to a debate between a Catholic and Protestant on the issue of “sola fida”. The debate comes from the Bible Christian Society website, biblechristiansociety.com
I forgot how, but we got to the subject of the creation story.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. OK. I agree with you there. But as Catholics we don’t necessarily need to believe that God actually took a rib from Adam but we do need to understand that God made women from man, correct?

But it is really cool that they found one of the best places to harvest adult stem cells has been the rib.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Thanks, thats what i was looking for. To tell my girlfriend “I don’t need to prove anything to you” would not be very convincing. I want to give her reasons to believe in the Catholic Church. So thank you for this explanation.

My pleasure if I helped a little. And I apologise humbly if I sounded curt. Of course you need to honour your girlfriends questions.
GraceAngel.