Genesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pete_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pete_1

Guest
There is something i don’t understand in Genesis, i am possibly interpreting it wrong it says God made plants before the Sun
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Click to expand...
I was thinking abouit this and it could be that gods Glory was the light,
Revelation 21:23

  1. *] The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
    *]Revelation 22:5
    There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
    Has anyone got any other interpretations?

    thanks,
 
Perhaps what you don’t understand about Genesis is that it is not a science text book on how God created the universe. Genesis is a revelation from God to man about His relationship to His created and our [the created] relationship to our Creator.

Do plants require the sun [not too little, not to much and appropirate amounts of water and other nutrients] yes…is that the purpose of the writings we call Genesis, no…
 
Genesis is an accurate account of how God made the earth. When comparing God to science, it is inaccurate to diminish God’s creative power by comparing it to scientific texts.

God bless,
Ed
 
You should notice that he didn’t create vegetation before he created light, he created it before the sun. There is no problem thinking that God caused light to propagate across space without an independent physical cause. Think of it this way, billiard balls typically roll after being struck, but God could create a ball that began to exist in motion. Particles or waves of light could be created in a similar way, without the sun being the source of the light’s movement. And as long as there is light, plants can grow.
 
edwest2 said:
Genesis is an accurate account of how God made the earth. When comparing God to science, it is inaccurate to diminish God’s creative power by comparing it to scientific texts.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
I was not comparing God to Science nor diminishing God’s creative power to a science book. I said the purpose of Genesis is Relational…God to the created and the created to their God…

Of course the book of Genesis accurately discusses creation…but the discussion is not scientific nor is it meant to answer the questions of science…“how do plants get created before the sun [which plants need to sustain life]” that was the OP question…

and I repeat, IMHO that is not the purpose for which we [the created] were given the scriptures…
 
Well, there was light, even prior to the creation of the sun.🙂

God bless,
Ed
 
I also don’t understand the fact that there was day and night before the sun.
 
Pete…

Do you believe that God was inspiring a science book? That the purpose of Genesis [or at a minimum the first chapter or two] was tyo answer the question of creation in scientific terms?

Can you invision a different purpose for the writings we call Genesis?

If some beings unfamiliar with humans opened a garbage can and found a book of illustrations of the cartoon Calvin and Hobbs, would they be posting about how stuffed tigers could talk? Or how humans believed that stuffed tigers walk, play practical jokes and talk? Do you believe Hobbs can talk?

We [the universe, animals, plants and man] are created by God, at the time and in the order that He specified. We are created for a purpose an with free will. The world around us is as it is based upon the laws put in place by God and as a result of our sin…relationships…God to His creation and His creation to God…

IIn Numbers 22 there is the talking ***…I do not believe the purpose of the story is that donkeys talk nor do I believe that the original audience believed that donkeys talk…The purpose of the story is that we are to listen and respond properly to God…that message can be told in story form [even with humor as in Numbers]

In stead of clinically testing the scriptures for adherance to science read them in light of the Christian teaching and for the meanings they have in your spiritual life…

Faith does not demand that you give up reason…

check out the encyclical Fide Et Ratio [On Faith and Reason]
 
40.png
Pete:
I also don’t understand the fact that there was day and night before the sun.
Click to expand...
All that’s needed for day and night is a source of light (already created in day one) and a rotating earth.
 
I am not a literalist. I believe Genesis was the work of at least 4 different authors, and thereafter it was cut and pasted together to form a text, a copy of which we have today. It is, in the opinion of many scholars, the expression of the writer’s understanding of how God created his world. Therefore, given their rather primitive understanding of science, they got things a bit mixed up. Actually they did quite well, but as you have pointed out, there are bits that seem out of place, as we now understand the evolution of the planet. Both JPII and Benedict V has noted that the bible is not meant as an scientific document.
 
Dear Pete: In addition to what you’ve already heard, you might consider this: In the first three days as described, God created the “realms” of existence; in the second three days, God populated those realms. Notice how they match up:

Day 1: Light. Day 4: Sun, moon, stars.
Day 2: Sky, water. Day 5: Flying creatures and swimming creatures.
Day 3: Land. Day 6: Land animals, humans.

In other words, the arrangement of days is a poetic device summarizing all of creation. It’s not supposed to be a day-by-day account; it’s just saying “God created everything that exists.”
 
It is, in the opinion of many scholars, the expression of the writer’s understanding of how God created his world. Therefore, given their rather primitive understanding of science, they got things a bit mixed up.
Click to expand...
The Church allows for a wide range of interpretations, just as long as it does not contradict her clearly defined teachings regarding the bible.

One of these teachings is that the author were inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way that they were protected from error not just in matters of faith, but also in matters of when they related certain historical accounts:

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as ‘obiter dicta’ and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1.)

So as a Catholic one can hold that Genesis is of a different literary genre which is not absolutely literal; but one cannot claim that the inspired authors erred when they did intend to convey actual events.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top