Genesis to Jews: Myth?

[JHow]

The OP doesn’t seem to know that in academic vocabulary “myth” and “fact” are NOT mutually exclusive terms…

Thank you! I wanted make this point when I read the first post. I’m glad I read all the posts and got to this one.

 

[edhicks79]

First, ask yourself what sort of book (or books) is the Bible. Is the Bible a book of science? Is it a history book? I feel that there is more history than science in the Bible. I taught high school science in a Catholic school and never had a difficulty in explaining evolution as an attempt to find out exactly how it came about that we have such a marvelous diversity in the world. The theory of evolution does not concern itself with the Bible, and the Bible does not concern itself with evolution.

 

[Iotaunum]

Genesis is not a myth at all. I think evolution is the myth, and regarding the Jews; I think that there are some who will be “theistic evolutionists” and “evolutionists” as well as those who hold the traditional interpretation - just like Catholics.

 

[Sufjon]

I found out that in Vatican Council II, Genesis is a myth. But how about to Jews? Is Genesis myth to them or a fact?

The term myth does not imply that the story is not true. It just indicates that it is a traditional story whose basis in fact cannot be proven one way or the other.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[campeador]

I am a Creationist, a Young Earth Creationist to boot

Then you’ll have a hard time squaring your beliefs with mainstream Catholic understanding.

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since.”

link

 

[Iotaunum]

Then you’ll have a hard time squaring your beliefs with mainstream Catholic understanding.
link

I too believe that the earth is thousands, not millions of years old and for a “traditionalist” like myself the “hard time squaring your beliefs with mainstream Catholic understanding” is the norm. However, it seems the modern mainstream has a hard time reconciling their beliefs with the exegesis of the Fathers and doctors of the Church.

 

[cath4alltime]

Then you’ll have a hard time squaring your beliefs with mainstream Catholic understanding.
link

As a Catholic one can believe in Creation

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

However, it seems the modern mainstream has a hard time reconciling their beliefs with the exegesis of the Fathers and doctors of the Church.

I don’t need to be an atheist to say that I’d rather believe science than superstition. Catholic creationists can kick and cry all they want, their dogma will never be integrated into the Deposit of Faith.

As a Catholic one can believe in Creation

One can also believe the earth is flat as a Catholic. The right to believe does not make said belief either doctrine or scientific truth.

 

[meltzerboy]

Given what I’ve read of Jewish material on the matter, it would likely depend on the exact group of Jews you ask and their Torah study/knowledge.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews typically reject evolution as they hold Torah to be an eternal truth. Other Orthodox Jews are more accepting of evolution, along with Conservative and Reform Jewish congregations.

Belief in Torah does not necessarily contradict evolution even for so-called Ultra-Orthodox Jews. True, some do not believe in evolution and take a strict young-earth creationist view. But others interpret the “days” of creation in a non-literal sense. The Traditional and Modern Orthodox (non-Hasidic, non-Karaite, non-Haredi), for the most part, believe in evolution, just as you state, as do the Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jews. But, you know, two Jews in discussion means three opinions.

 

[Iotaunum]

I don’t need to be an atheist to say that I’d rather believe science than superstition. Catholic creationists can kick and cry all they want, their dogma will never be integrated into the Deposit of Faith.
.

You are assuming that a young earth (view of the Fathers) and an older earth is a choice between science and superstition. It is not. This is the same as the old Science/Religion false dichotomy.Some people really do believe the literal interpretation of Genesis, as odd as that may seem to “old earthers” and evolutionists. There are many scientists who hold a creationist view - based on Science not religion. It is not a fact that the earth is billions of years old, or that evolution is true. It does not matter how many think one way or another.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You are assuming that a young earth (view of the Fathers) and an older earth is a choice between science and superstition. It is not. This is the same as the old Science/Religion false dichotomy.Some people really do believe the literal interpretation of Genesis, as odd as that may seem to “old earthers” and evolutionists. There are many scientists who hold a creationist view - based on Science not religion. It is not a fact that the earth is billions of years old, or that evolution is true. It does not matter how many think one way or another.

Your speech has been spoken before. The truth though is plenty of creationists try to use what they think is ‘science’ when in fact, it’s quackery. Among them include the alleged ‘man footprints next to dinos’ and the ridiculous ‘dragons existed and they had methane breath sacs theory’.

I could go on but it’s already enough that the Holy See does not waste its time validating such nonsense.

 

[Iotaunum]

Your speech has been spoken before. The truth though is plenty of creationists try to use what they think is ‘science’ when in fact, it’s quackery. Among them include the alleged ‘man footprints next to dinos’ and the ridiculous ‘dragons existed and they had methane breath sacs theory’.

I could go on but it’s already enough that the Holy See does not waste its time validating such nonsense.

Well I can see you have made your mind up, but yours is only a theory - doesn’t matter how many/little accept it. As for the Vatican, there is a whole lot of new ideas there which I as a Catholic do not accept, so makes no difference if one Cardinal/Pope believes in creation and another in evolution: it is only their opinion. As for accusing the Scientists who actually believe the earth is younger than evolutionists would need it to be of quackery - that is a joke. Science is not twisted in any way to fit the Biblical model of creation, unlike the evolutionist model.

Lets not turn this thread into a creation/evolution, young earth/old earth debate, but feel free to PM me with any proof of an old earth becuase I am always open to being proven wrong, as has happend in the past. I used to believe in an older earth, and felt comfortable exegeting the scriptures in such a way as to confrom with that view - however after much research of my own, I have changed my mind: not becuase of Scripture (which I always believed in) but science. I only later discovered the exegesis of the Fathers and doctors of the Church which supported this view.

 

[cath4alltime]

I don’t need to be an atheist to say that I’d rather believe science than superstition. Catholic creationists can kick and cry all they want, their dogma will never be integrated into the Deposit of Faith.

One can also believe the earth is flat as a Catholic. The right to believe does not make said belief either doctrine or scientific truth.

I take the truth of God over so called “science”

 

[cath4alltime]

I am thoroughly opposed to evolution

 

[Moro_Rock]

Then you’ll have a hard time squaring your beliefs with mainstream Catholic understanding.
link

Truth is not decided by a democratic vote…Truth would still be the truth even if no one believed in it.
Why do evolutionists always talk about flat earthers to make a point. No one believes in flat earth . Its a ridiculous comment.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Truth is not decided by a democratic vote…Truth would still be the truth even if no one believed in it.
Why do evolutionists always talk about flat earthers to make a point. No one believes in flat earth . Its a ridiculous comment.

Yet not as ridiculous to believe we’re only thousands of years old and dragons roamed the earth?

 

[Iotaunum]

Yet not as ridiculous to believe we’re only thousands of years old and dragons roamed the earth?

There is nothing ridiculous at all about an earth which is thousands, not millions of years old. It is not an established fact by any means. You seem to assume that scientists who have come to the conclusion that the earth is younger than the evolutionists claim are somehow delusional or are biased becuase of their faith. This is simply not true. There are a lot of problems with the results of the radiometric dating and the geologic column which are grounds for rejecting the old earth theory. There is a lot of fudging of figures and assumptions based on circular reasoning.

As to dragons roaming the earth - most people don’t think of fire breathing fairy tale creatures, but simply giant lizzards - i.e. dinosaurs, which were known in many cultures as dragons before the word dinosaur was applied in the 1800’s.

The above poster said; ***“No one believes in flat earth . Its a ridiculous comment” ***- well I agree. You can’t put “flat earth” theories on the same level as dating methods which show the earth is younger than we are told. And frankly, to say a “young earth” is more ridiculous than a “flat earth” demonstrates that you are not open to being proven wrong. As I said before, feel free to PM me with proof for an earth older than the Bliblcal account and I am open to changing my mind.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

As to dragons roaming the earth - most people don’t think of fire breathing fairy tale creatures, but simply giant lizzards - i.e. dinosaurs, which were known in many cultures as dragons before the word dinosaur was applied in the 1800’s.

Nope. That’s not what these people are saying.

 

[Iotaunum]

Nope. That’s not what these people are saying.

Well that’s fine for them, but most creationists do not share that view. I could link to the Flat Earth Society (yes it actually exists and has members), but this group is not representative of creationists either. You are trying to put all Scientists who believe the earth is younger into this category.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Well that’s fine for them, but most creationists do not share that view. I could link to the Flat Earth Society (yes it actually exists and has members), but this group is not representative of creationists either. You are trying to put all Scientists who believe the earth is younger into this category.

The problem with that is that you’re already on the path of buying evolution and the old earth theory because that’s what happens the less literal you interpret Genesis. It’s a slippery slope where you will not stop sliding.