Genesis ???

[anthony022071]

ANTHONY 022071–Personally I could care less about what scientists, historians, archeologists and anthropologists have to deal with. They are all fallen, sinners and are very limited by the rational mind which is inferior to the revealed Word of God. Men can have opinions all they want to but it doesn’t change anything in the Word of God. Whenever the word “day” is preceded by a number what follows is to be taken literally. God created the entire universe in 6 24 hour days and could have done it in 6 seconds. Man can question all he wants to (and man, using his fallen, depraved, limited reason) questions God all the time. But God is God and HE cannot lie. Jesus said he was the way the TRUTH and the life. Jesus, Paul and all writers of the NT held the OT scriptures in very high regard. They never, ever in one single instance, referred to the scriptures as myth or cute little stories, but quoted the scriptures with authority. The scriptures are truth as taught by the One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church: CCC #107. I always get a kick out of the footnotes in some of these bibles. It makes one wonder if those “higher critics” are even believers, or where their faith is. I don’t think it is in the Word of God, but rather placed in their false god–the god of reason. When we all stand before the judgment seat of God, I will rely on what Jesus did for me on the Cross (2 Cor 5:18-21) I just would not want to be in the place of those that stand before that judgement seat and plead the “scientic method,” or the false god of reason.

Here is a quote that is the teaching of the Church:

Pope Leo XIII stated that “it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred” and condemned “the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond” ( Providentissimus Deus 20).

The scripture-writers often used the word “day” poetically and figuratively as in “the day of the Lord”, or “in that day”.
And it was known that for God a thousand years was as a day.
So we should try to discern what is to be taken literally and what
is figural. As for reason – Jesus Christ is called by John the Logos (Word, Reason). He is Reason Incarnate. But the kind of reason that the critics use is the narrow,self-limiting kind that excludes the reality of anything metaphysical or supernatural.
As for the people who write the footnotes in certain Bibles,they may as well be agnostics.

 

[zackonattack]

The scripture-writers often used the word “day” poetically and figuratively as in “the day of the Lord”, or “in that day”.
And it was known that for God a thousand years was as a day.
So we should try to discern what is to be taken literally and what
is figural. As for reason – Jesus Christ is called by John the Logos (Word, Reason). He is Reason Incarnate. But the kind of reason that the critics use is the narrow,self-limiting kind that excludes the reality of anything metaphysical or supernatural.
As for the people who write the footnotes in certain Bibles,they may as well be agnostics.

Of course they used the word “day” in different ways, like you stated. But according to all the biblical scholars I have read, when the word day is preceeded by a number, the “day” always refers to a literal day. The day of Genesis was used as a pattern for the Jews. You work 6 days and then a “day” of rest. The Jews did not interpret that to mean I work 6 days of a million years, then I rest for a million years on the 7th day.

Right also, that a “day is AS a thousand years”. As a thousand mind you, not IS a thousand.
Jesus is called the WORD. You can add reason if you want, but I don’t add to the scripture. HE is also called TRUTH. To me, reason is inferior to REVELATION. PERIOD!!
It’s man worship of the god reason that has caused so much loss of faith in people. The “higher” criticism that started in full force in German rationalism has been a great tool of Satan. Attack, attack, the Word, make people believe the Word is full of errors, like alot of theologians (which I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for), and satan wins. Research the church documents on the Sacred Scriptures and you find a consistency throughout the ages. It’s only in “modern” times that man has found belief in the bible to be childlish. I’ll stick with the Apostle Paul (probably the most brilliant theologian that has ever lived) when he says in 1 Cor. 18-31).

This has been a long day. This is the third day of work. (see, it’s not hard to understand. The morning and the evening of the third. I grant day is used in several ways, but I do not grant that “day” as used in Genesis of the creation period, is difficult to discern. It is plain to anyone that doesn’t bring a preconceived theology and read it into the verse.

Hey, we do agree about the so-called “scholars” that write the footnotes in the modern day bibles. Actually, I think they are totally lost in unbelief and so impressed with their criticism they have no room for faith. The one bible I find that is an exception to that is the Douay-Rheims bible with a commentary by Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock, available from the EWTN bookstore. Now, THAT is a bible!!! I love it.

 

[zackonattack]

A follow up. For any people that would like to know what the Catholic Church teaches on scriptures here is the link to Pope Leo XIII “Providentissimus Deus.”

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

 

[patg]

A follow up. For any people that would like to know what the Catholic Church teaches on scriptures here is the link to Pope Leo XIII “Providentissimus Deus.”

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

On the other hand, if you really want to know what the Church teaches today, you should read the words written by popes who at least experienced the past century, such as Dei Verbum and *Divino Afflante Spiritu. *The moldy document you reference has been seriously updated.

 

[zackonattack]

On the other hand, if you really want to know what the Church teaches today, you should read the words written by popes who at least experienced the past century, such as Dei Verbum and *Divino Afflante Spiritu. *The moldy document you reference has been seriously updated.

Are you saying that Pope Leo was in error? What does “experiencing the past century” have to do with TRUTH? That “moldy” document is not outdated, or do you believe that truth changes based on your experiences?

Where does Dei Verhum and Divino Afflante Spiritu disagree? Neither of those documents overrules or outdates Pope Leo. And, by the way, why would you, as a believing christian, have a problem with the bible being the Word of God and inerrant? Do you actually think God’s revelation to man contained errors? Are you putting man’s puny reason above Revelation? If so, we have nothing more to discuss. Do you disagree with CCC *107. If so, we really have nothing to discuss. I don’t mean this personally. I just totally reject your idea that Pope Leo’s writings are “moldly and out of date.” Personal experience has nothing to do with ABSOLUTE TRUTH, which the LIVING WORD OF GOD IS. Thank you very much!!!

 

[zackonattack]

From paragraph 5 of Divino Afflante Spiritu:

“so in the last year of his life he provided yet another way, by which these same studies, so warmly commended in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus”

Now, I haven’t studied both of the documents you mention, but I will and I doubt seriously that they contradict each other. If they did and the church changed their theology every other day based on the “modern experience” of fallen man, then the Church would have no more claim to have a teaching authority than any of the 30,000 protestant denominations. Let me know where the three documents contradict each other. I need to log off for a few hours and work Thursday, Friday and Saturday 12 hours each day so may not have time to respond, if there is a reason to respond, until the weekend.

 

[zackonattack]

From paragraph 5 of Divino Afflante Spiritu:

“so in the last year of his life he provided yet another way, by which these same studies, so warmly commended in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus”

Now, I haven’t studied both of the documents you mention, but I will and I doubt seriously that they contradict each other. If they did and the church changed their theology every other day based on the “modern experience” of fallen man, then the Church would have no more claim to have a teaching authority than any of the 30,000 protestant denominations. Let me know where the three documents contradict each other. I need to log off for a few hours and work Thursday, Friday and Saturday 12 hours each day so may not have time to respond, if there is a reason to respond, until the weekend.

 

[trth_skr]

A nice quote from Divino Afflante Spiritu:

“…Later on, this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, which claims for these books in their entirety and with all parts a divine authority such as must enjoy immunity from any error whatsoever, was contradicted by certain Catholic writers who dared to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture to matters of faith and morals alone, and to consider the remainder, touching matters of the physical or historical order as obiter dicta and having (according to them) no connection whatsoever with faith. Those errors found their condemnation in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus…”

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[zackonattack]

A nice quote from Divino Afflante Spiritu:

“…Later on, this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, which claims for these books in their entirety and with all parts a divine authority such as must enjoy immunity from any error whatsoever, was contradicted by certain Catholic writers who dared to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture to matters of faith and morals alone, and to consider the remainder, touching matters of the physical or historical order as obiter dicta and having (according to them) no connection whatsoever with faith. Those errors found their condemnation in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus…”

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

AMEN TO THAT!! Like I said, the church has been very consistent through the ages that the Sacred Scriptures are just that! Sacred. None of the three documents mentioned contradict each other. It’s the ultra-liberal “theologians” that contradict the church, each other, and in many cases themselves, depending on speech you read. I have no faith in “scholars” or theologians but much faith in the Magisterium of the Church and God’s REVELATION TO MAN. No one on this forum disputed the CCC #107. They just ignored it and went on with their personal opinions. By the way, CCC #107:

"The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

 

[JimG]

Please refer to paragraph 107 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). To me that settles it.

CCC:

Par. 107: The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

The CCC here quotes from Dei Verbum. There is nothing in the above that requires a literalist interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. Paragraphs 295 through 301 treat more fully of creation.

If we are to take the creation account in a literal manner, then we must believe that God made a transparent firmament or dome, like an upside down glass bowl, to separate the waters above from the waters below.

Now, lying in a Kansas field on a clear day looking at a blue sky, one can easily imagine the transparent dome of the sky filled with blue water above. (Here, it would be harder to make sense of the waters below the firmament!) But I really don’t see that the Holy Spirit was intending to convey this particular cosmology as an everlasting truth.

 

[zackonattack]

The CCC here quotes from Dei Verbum. There is nothing in the above that requires a literalist interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. Paragraphs 295 through 301 treat more fully of creation.

If we are to take the creation account in a literal manner, then we must believe that God made a transparent firmament or dome, like an upside down glass bowl, to separate the waters above from the waters below.

Now, lying in a Kansas field on a clear day looking at a blue sky, one can easily imagine the transparent dome of the sky filled with blue water above. (Here, it would be harder to make sense of the waters below the firmament!) But I really don’t see that the Holy Spirit was intending to convey this particular cosmology as an everlasting truth.

You can take Genesis anyway you want to. I take it literally and I take the “higher critics” not at all.

Truly your statement: "If we are to take the creation account in a literal manner, then we must believe that God made a transparent firmament or dome, like an upside down glass bowl, to separate the waters above from the waters below. " is beyond the pale. I take the creation account as stated–exactly and I don’t have to believe God made a transparent firmament blah, blah, blah. Not at all. I believe as stated in Holy Writ that on the first day, the second day etc.
Some say life had to evolve in water, of course God knew there would be people coming along that would say that, so he created man from DUST, on land to show He doesn’t need water to create life. I never will understand why people (you included, I guess) that have to put their fallen human reason into the picture and tell God what he HAD to do. I don’t know, but refer to 1 Cor 1:18-31. I’ve heard it all, all the criticism of the bible, criticism of the church, criticism from athiests, from agnostics, from pagans, etc., and it doesn’t have any effect whatsoever, other than to reinforce my faith and beliefs in the written Revelation of God, Holy Writ, and the teachings of the church down through the ages. I have never found a Father of the church or a “SAINT” that thought Genesis was not to be taken literally and that "the morning of day one and the evening of day one, meant a million years, or a trillion years, or that death was going on for millions of years before Adam and Eve, since death did not come into the world until Adam sinned and man fell. Of course, alot of people don’t even believe that man fell or in Original Sin, or redemption, or the Cross, but I can’t do anything about that. The Holy Spirit is the one that convicts a person and turns his/her heart from stone to a living faith. Yup!! God created the entire universe in six 24-hour days. I don’t care if I’m the only one left on earth that believes that. A minority of one is good. Although, I know many people agree with me and take the Word of God seriously and with great respect. Like I’ve said in other posts, there is nothing to debate so I’m not going to keep answering the same thing. I rest my case, and like all the church Fathers and Saints, feel great assurance in believing Holy Writ.

 

[patg]

By the way, CCC #107:

"The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”[72

Please notice that there is not a word in this statement which states that a necessary result of inspiration is historicity or which states that the teaching of truth requires literalistic history.
[/quote]

 

[patg]

You can take Genesis anyway you want to. I take it literally and I take the “higher critics” not at all.

The Church is quite willing to allow you to do that just as the Church is also quite comfortable with those of us who believe the opposite of you.

Truly your statement: "If we are to take the creation account in a literal manner, then we must believe that God made a transparent firmament or dome, like an upside down glass bowl, to separate the waters above from the waters below. " is beyond the pale.

Then you deny the "truth"of the Old Testament which consistently describes that type of universe.

 

[JimG]

Truly your statement: "If we are to take the creation account in a literal manner, then we must believe that God made a transparent firmament or dome, like an upside down glass bowl, to separate the waters above from the waters below. " is beyond the pale. I take the creation account as stated–exactly and I don’t have to believe God made a transparent firmament. . .

Genesis 1:6-8: Then God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.” And so it happened: God made the dome, and separated the water above the dome from the water below it. God called the dome “the sky.” Evening came, and morning followed–the second day.
I am not quarreling with the inspiration or inerrancy of the book of Genesis. I just don’t think that God intended to teach in the creation accounts a particular physical cosmology.

 

[zackonattack]

The Church is quite willing to allow you to do that just as the Church is also quite comfortable with those of us who believe the opposite of you.

Then you deny the "truth"of the Old Testament which consistently describes that type of universe.

I don’t deny anything in the OT. The point is that God created the universe and everything in it, visible and invisible as the Creed says. I rest on the literal account of Genesis. Period.

 

[patg]

Are you saying that Pope Leo was in error?

Not in error - he was a part of the development in Catholic scriptural study BUT he was not the final answer. Like most church teachings, the understanding of scripture is a developing process which has evolved and been advanced in stages by the documents you mention and I mentioned. Mine merely represent a more fully developed teaching than Pope Leo.

Where does Dei Verhum and Divino Afflante Spiritu disagree? Neither of those documents overrules or outdates Pope Leo.

Yes they do - they much more fully endorse the historical-critical method and the study of literary forms. It is only by understanding the literary form that you can understand Genesis.

And, by the way, why would you, as a believing christian, have a problem with the bible being the Word of God and inerrant?

No, but that has nothing to do with historicity.

Do you actually think God’s revelation to man contained errors?

God wasn’t revealing history, math, or science.

Are you putting man’s puny reason above Revelation? If so, we have nothing more to discuss.

No - Dei Verbum requires that we use our reason. You can’t understand any of the bible without reason.

Do you disagree with CCC *107. If so, we really have nothing to discuss. I don’t mean this personally. I just totally reject your idea that Pope Leo’s writings are “moldly and out of date.” Personal experience has nothing to do with ABSOLUTE TRUTH, which the LIVING WORD OF GOD IS. Thank you very much!!!

You really need to read what the church actually teaches. Please find a copy of:

“Biblical Fundamentalism - What Every Catholic Should Know” by Ronald Witherup (*imprimatur *and nihil obstat).
and

“And God Said What?” by Margaret Ralph (Paulist Press).

I think you are that you need more than this type of discussion can provide.

 

[trth_skr]

The CCC here quotes from Dei Verbum. There is nothing in the above that requires a literalist interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. Paragraphs 295 through 301 treat more fully of creation.

If we are to take the creation account in a literal manner, then we must believe that God made a transparent firmament or dome, like an upside down glass bowl, to separate the waters above from the waters below.

Now, lying in a Kansas field on a clear day looking at a blue sky, one can easily imagine the transparent dome of the sky filled with blue water above. (Here, it would be harder to make sense of the waters below the firmament!) But I really don’t see that the Holy Spirit was intending to convey this particular cosmology as an everlasting truth.

Please see this post for an explanation of the firmament:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1253792&postcount=74

The aether has been described as an ultradense, yet flexible substance. Maybe the fact that it was “beaten out” or “stretched out” is related to redshift?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-actholic.blogspot.com

 

[patg]

I don’t deny anything in the OT. The point is that God created the universe and everything in it, visible and invisible as the Creed says.

And that is the truth which matters. The literary form used to convey that truth can be any form God chooses to use - and it is evident to me that the form we call myth was what God chose.

I rest on the literal account of Genesis. Period.

As I said, the Church has no problem with you doing that. The Church also has no problem with those of us who believe otherwise.

 

[zackonattack]

Please notice that there is not a word in this statement which states that a necessary result of inspiration is historicity or which states that the teaching of truth requires literalistic history.

What other kind of history is there but “literal history”? Like I said before, why inject your human reason (fallen as it is) into the Word of God. You seem to think that Jesus, the Apostles, the Church and the Saints were all idiots for believing in Revelation. Like I said, believe what you want, think what you want, make the bible into a collection of myths and poetry or whatever. That’s fine by me. The Apostle Paul had it just right:

" 18For the word of the cross is (A)foolishness to (B)those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is (C)the power of God.
19For it is written,
“(D)I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”

20(E)Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of (F)this age? Has not God (G)made foolish the wisdom of (H)the world?

21For since in the wisdom of God (I)the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, (J)God was well-pleased through the (K)foolishness of the message preached to (L)save those who believe.

22For indeed (M)Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

23but we preach aChrist crucified, (O)to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles (P)foolishness,

24but to those who are (Q)the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ (R)the power of God and (S)the wisdom of God.

25Because the (T)foolishness of God is wiser than men, and (U)the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For consider your (V)calling, brethren, that there were (W)not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

27but (X)God has chosen the foolish things of (Y)the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of (Z)the world to shame the things which are strong,

28and the base things of (AA)the world and the despised God has chosen, (AB)the things that are not, so that He may (AC)nullify the things that are,

29so that (AD)no man may boast before God.

30But by His doing you are in (AE)Christ Jesus, who became to us (AF)wisdom from God, and (AG)righteousness and (AH)sanctification, and (AI)redemption,

31so that, just as it is written, “(AJ)LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

1 cor. 1:18-31.

Not a jot or tittle of Holy Writ is in error.

 

[zackonattack]

And that is the truth which matters. The literary form used to convey that truth can be any form God chooses to use - and it is evident to me that the form we call myth was what God chose.

As I said, the Church has no problem with you doing that. The Church also has no problem with those of us who believe otherwise.

I’m sorry that you think God used myths to convey His TRUTH, instead of plain language that the ordinary reader would understand. I have no problem whatsoever on what you believe. I just flat don’t understand why anyone would want to believe God would transmit his Truth to man in a language that everyone can understand instead of using myths or hidden meanings only to be understood by the really “spritual.” Nope, don’t get it.

And of course there is symbolism in the bible and allegory etc. But the bible is clear when it is using that type of illustration or language. For example, “heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool.” No one would expect to see a big foot resting on the earth. However, when taking about the creation story there is no reason whatsoever to make up a bunch of theories about what is meant. The text is plain as can be. And no one answered by statements about the literal days being a pattern for the Jews and the sabbath etc. It’s just talked over, but once again, that’s fine. Enough said on this. We agree to disagree.