How literal is Genesis?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is where i think you cannot take the Bible, in places as literal.

So creation is not literal because it does not jive with science or logic but water to wine is? And Transubstantiation is? How would one know what is literal and what is not? Why would God not clarify these things. He did in the New Testament with parables.

 

[grannymh]

So creation is not literal because it does not jive with science or logic but water to wine is? And Transubstantiation is? How would one know what is literal and what is not? Why would God not clarify these things. He did in the New Testament with parables.

The answer to the question “How would one know what is literal and what is not?”

is to check the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

By no means! It’s not that they are “not true” – the Scripture accounts are true, but their truth may not be found on the level of literal historical fact.

A ‘theistic evolutionist’ recognizes that the creation accounts aren’t scientific essays – in fact, the genre of Genesis 1 is ‘epic poetry’ – and therefore, the truth that’s found there uses certain forms of expression that differ from, for example, a news report.

Pretty much this. In a Scripture class I once attended, the Franciscan scholar teaching the class was fond of saying this: “Everything in Scripture is true, and some of it actually happened.” A good rule of thumb.

 

[edwest2]

Pretty much this. In a Scripture class I once attended, the Franciscan scholar teaching the class was fond of saying this: “Everything in Scripture is true, and some of it actually happened.” A good rule of thumb.

Papal encyclicals and other writings would conflict with that rule. The Magisterium of the Church has the final say on all books of the Bible, including the Old Testament in general.

“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” (1909, Pontifical Biblical Commission)

Ed

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Papal encyclicals and other writings would conflict with that rule. The Magisterium of the Church has the final say on all books of the Bible, including the Old Testament in general.

“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” (1909, Pontifical Biblical Commission)

Ed

Please remind me of the encyclical that requires Catholics to adhere to fundamentalist biblical literalism. And then there’s this: “This is the liturgy’s way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy. It is not information about the external processes by which the cosmos and man himself came into being. The Fathers of the Church were well aware of this. They did not interpret the story as an account of the process of the origins of things, but rather as a pointer towards the essential, towards the true beginning and end of our being.” – Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil homily April 23, 2011 .

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Please remind me of the encyclical that requires Catholics to adhere to fundamentalist biblical literalism. And then there’s this: “This is the liturgy’s way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy. It is not information about the external processes by which the cosmos and man himself came into being. The Fathers of the Church were well aware of this. They did not interpret the story as an account of the process of the origins of things, but rather as a pointer towards the essential, towards the true beginning and end of our being.” – Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil homily April 23, 2011 .

If we get into a pope quoting battle you might find a majority of them disagree with your position. Where is the encyclical that defies a literal interpretation? (Note I am not a literalist).

If I were president of the college, I probably would not have hired the good father in the first place…

 

[rossum]

So creation is not literal because it does not jive with science or logic but water to wine is? And Transubstantiation is? How would one know what is literal and what is not? Why would God not clarify these things. He did in the New Testament with parables.

Science cannot detect everything. Thomist Substance of not detectable by science, only the Accident is.

Science in the present cannot detect a few gallons of water changed to wine 2,000 years ago. Any effect in the present would be far too small to measure.

Science can talk about detectable things, like the effect of large floods on geology and the genetics of affected populations. Those effects would persist and be measurable in the present. Hence the scientific denial of the literal interpretation of Noah’s flood as worldwide.

rossum

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Science cannot detect everything. Thomist Substance of not detectable by science, only the Accident is.

Science in the present cannot detect a few gallons of water changed to wine 2,000 years ago. Any effect in the present would be far too small to measure.

Science can talk about detectable things, like the effect of large floods on geology and the genetics of affected populations. Those effects would persist and be measurable in the present. Hence the scientific denial of the literal interpretation of Noah’s flood as worldwide.

rossum

Science can tell you that the dead cannot rise and have perfect bodies. That people cannot move through doors, that water does not turn into wine, that a single person can stop a storm and hold back waves or that someone can walk on water. Science tells us that it’s laws must be broken to achieve our faith.

Sometimes it isn’t that science cannot detect gallons of water to wine, but rather science had to be broken to achieve it. And I am quite sure God can break science…

 

[edwest2]

Please remind me of the encyclical that requires Catholics to adhere to fundamentalist biblical literalism. And then there’s this: “This is the liturgy’s way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy. It is not information about the external processes by which the cosmos and man himself came into being. The Fathers of the Church were well aware of this. They did not interpret the story as an account of the process of the origins of things, but rather as a pointer towards the essential, towards the true beginning and end of our being.” – Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil homily April 23, 2011 .

So some Catholics can accept that God did something in the Old Testament, like create everything out of nothing, but there is this unwarranted fear that when some OT claims appear to contradict science, that we all turn into fundamentalists? In my view, that just means, in the OT at least, God actually did nothing except maybe one thing. He could perform no other miracles.

Pope Benedict is right in making clear certain essential points regarding the creation story but I’m certain he is aware of the other senses of Scripture.

“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.”

Ed

 

[grannymh]

Science cannot detect everything. Thomist Substance of not detectable by science, only the Accident is.

Science in the present cannot detect a few gallons of water changed to wine 2,000 years ago. Any effect in the present would be far too small to measure.

Science can talk about detectable things, like the effect of large floods on geology and the genetics of affected populations. Those effects would persist and be measurable in the present. Hence the scientific denial of the literal interpretation of Noah’s flood as worldwide.

rossum

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church does not demand that science detect everything.

The difficulty comes when a scientific negative universal is not warranted by the presented evidence.

 

[grannymh]

Please remind me of the encyclical that requires Catholics to adhere to fundamentalist biblical literalism. And then there’s this: “This is the liturgy’s way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy. It is not information about the external processes by which the cosmos and man himself came into being. The Fathers of the Church were well aware of this. They did not interpret the story as an account of the process of the origins of things, but rather as a pointer towards the essential, towards the true beginning and end of our being.” – Benedict XVI, Easter Vigil homily April 23, 2011 .

Interesting quote from Benedict XVI. His point opposes the natural science theory that the truth is only blood and guts, skin and bones. This same opposition was repeated by St. John Paul II who directly opposed the scientific theory of physical emergence or epiphenomenon. Sacred Scripture reference. Genesis 1: 26-27.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church does not demand that science detect everything.

The difficulty comes when a scientific negative universal is not warranted by the presented evidence.

Yes. Any Catholic worth his Faith has to see that miracles can and do contradict science. Eucharistic Miracles, the sun dancing , levitation, and biblical stories of God contradict natural science. Trying to mesh faith into science is a square peg in a round hole…

 

[Della]

Something I read just yesterday:

Saint Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo (North Africa) and Doctor of the Church
Sermon 126, 4-5

Admire God’s wonderful works ; come out of your sleep. Are you only going to admire extraordinary miracles? But are they any greater than those that daily take place before your eyes? Are people astonished because our Lord Jesus Christ satisfied several thousand persons with five loaves (Mt 14,19f) and are not surprised that a few seeds are enough to cover the ground with abundant harvests? They are filled with wonder when they see our Savior change water into wine (Jn 2,19); isn’t it the same thing when rain goes through the roots of the vine? The author of both these miracles is the same…

Our Lord worked miracles and yet many despised him… They said to themselves : « The works are divine but, as for him, he is only a man. » Therefore you see two things: divine works on the one hand and a man on the other. If those divine works can only be carried out by God, could it not be because God is hidden in this man? Yes. Be very attentive to what you see and believe what you do not see. He who calls on you to believe has not abandoned you to yourself; even if he asks you to believe what you cannot see, he has not left you without anything to see to help you believe what is unseen. Isn’t creation itself a faint sign, a faint manifestation of the Creator? In addition, look at him who comes into the world and works miracles. You were unable to see God but you were able to see a man: therefore God became man so that what you see and what you believe should be but one.

 

[grannymh]

From the opening post.

However, in light of the growing acceptance (granted, not by all), of this theory, how can one square it with the Genesis account of creation?
For instance details in Genesis like the creation of woman from Adam’s rib: how does this make any sense? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
I can’t accept that God’s inspired word contains accounts that are not true, so how do theistic evolutionists square that view with Genesis?

The first example of Adam’s rib.

The human nature (body and soul) of Adam’s spouse Genesis 2: 23, opposes the scientific theory of a “physical emergence” of a “human spirit” physically similar to the Catholic doctrine of an immaterial immortal soul. This purely biological material/physical similarity is also referred as a physical epiphenomena. In Catholicism, Eve is immediately recognized as a fully-complete human being. While theistic evolutionists may claim that the human body evolved over centuries, Catholicism emphasizes that Eve’s unique unification of a rational spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy was immediate. Genesis 2: 21-22; CCC 365.

In strong language, St. John Paul says in paragraph 5 of his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
Apparently, theistic evolutionists try to ignore the specific Catholic doctrines of the spiritual soul found in paragraphs 355-357 and 362-366 of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Their mantra is that God set everything in motion. Obviously, the Catholic Church is more precise considering that human nature, with a spiritual soul, Genesis 1: 26-27, is a fundamental Catholic doctrine.

In the above link, paragraph 6 contains very interesting deep observations of when life, charted by science, divides into the separate area of human’s life.

Information source. *CCC *1730-1732; *CCC *396; *CCC *382; CCC 374-375; CCC 355-357; CCC 362-366

Continuing with Adam’s rib, Catholics need to recognize its connection with Moral Theology.

A simplified observation is that morality is based on the objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect. For theistic evolutionists, the main principle is that God set life in motion and then let it develop biologically and morally through the centuries going thousands of years backwards. Catholic doctrines are more precise. Genesis 2: 20-23 does not even hint of a [scientific] hominin time line. Human nature is not only immediately complete in the first human Adam, it is also complete in the second human being Eve. This means that Adam is worthy of my profound respect even though I will slap him upside the head if I ever meet him.

*CCC *396 refers to man (beginning with Adam) as being subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. In order for Adam to retain humanity’s “friendship” relationship with Divinity, he had to live in free submission to God. Genesis 2: 15-17 and Genesis 3: 11.

Both Adam and Eve immediately suffered the consequences of Original Sin. CCC 399. Whereas the evolution model proposes that an awareness of evil was part of the cultural development in human societies. Communities determined what actions would benefit them. In Catholicism, Adam and Eve are a “community” of two who immediately knew right from wrong.

I cannot speak for you, but my older than dirt brain is exhausted from gathering the above information. I will revive since I am preparing for a granny field trip with my grannykids which will be tomorrow.

I assume that there will be comments and questions about the above. Please post.

Regarding the popular issues of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, *CCC *396, I would like to finish with Adam’s rib before starting that. Naturally, I would like to see opinions regarding forbidden organic fruit.

Until we meet again, does anyone remember the story about God talking to Adam about the arm and leg price?

 

[ajecphotos]

Something I read just yesterday:

Saint Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo (North Africa) and Doctor of the Church
Sermon 126, 4-5

Admire God’s wonderful works ; come out of your sleep. Are you only going to admire extraordinary miracles? But are they any greater than those that daily take place before your eyes? Are people astonished because our Lord Jesus Christ satisfied several thousand persons with five loaves (Mt 14,19f) and are not surprised that a few seeds are enough to cover the ground with abundant harvests? They are filled with wonder when they see our Savior change water into wine (Jn 2,19); isn’t it the same thing when rain goes through the roots of the vine? The author of both these miracles is the same…

Our Lord worked miracles and yet many despised him… They said to themselves : « The works are divine but, as for him, he is only a man. » Therefore you see two things: divine works on the one hand and a man on the other. If those divine works can only be carried out by God, could it not be because God is hidden in this man? Yes. Be very attentive to what you see and believe what you do not see. He who calls on you to believe has not abandoned you to yourself; even if he asks you to believe what you cannot see, he has not left you without anything to see to help you believe what is unseen. Isn’t creation itself a faint sign, a faint manifestation of the Creator? In addition, look at him who comes into the world and works miracles. You were unable to see God but you were able to see a man: therefore God became man so that what you see and what you believe should be but one.

Great post

 

[grannymh]

Clarification of this paragraph in post 34

Apparently, theistic evolutionists try to ignore the specific Catholic doctrines of the spiritual soul found in paragraphs 355-357 and 362-366 of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Their mantra is that God set everything in motion. Obviously, the Catholic Church is more precise considering that human nature, with a spiritual soul, Genesis 1: 26-27, is a fundamental Catholic doctrine.

Because, in reality, there are many versions of theistic evolution, the first sentence above should add the words “some, not all,” so that the sentence begins with “Apparently, some, not all, theistic evolutionists try to ignore …”

Ignoring the immediate presence of the spiritual soul in the first two sole founders of humanity leads to the concept that “morality” depended on the evolving culture of populations being humanized where the community decides what kinds of actions will fit with their own personal goals. With that method, genocide could possibly be considered a proper action until a stronger community puts a stop to it. In brief, morality does not evolve as some, not all, people propose.

 

[grannymh]

I’m going to try keep this question as far from an Evolution one and as close to a discussion of Scripture one as I can. If it is a banned topic I do apologise in advance, but I have to ask this question somewhere.
It’s this:
In recent times it seems as though more Catholics seem to be accepting the “theistic evolution” theory as an explanation for the origins of human life. Fair enough, the Church teaches that this is not against faith and morals (as far as I am aware).

However, in light of the growing acceptance (granted, not by all), of this theory, how can one square it with the Genesis account of creation?
For instance details in Genesis like the creation of woman from Adam’s rib: how does this make any sense? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
I can’t accept that God’s inspired word contains accounts that are not true, so how do theistic evolutionists square that view with Genesis?

Again, I know this is an evolution related question but I don’t know where else to ask this and I want answers so I am willing to risk being banned. Hopefully we can keep the focus more on a discussion of the literalness of the Genesis account of creation.

Thanks and God bless.

The second example of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from the opening post.

The reason that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is complicated is because many people have not completely understood human nature according to Genesis 1: 26-27 and Genesis 2: 15-17. Ignoring the immediate presence of the spiritual soul in the first two sole founders of humanity leads to the concept that Adam was some naïve innocent or he was simply dumb. In other words, the human intellect and ability to freely make decisions, which belong to the spiritual soul, did not exist.

If Adam could not recognize right from wrong before he sinned, then we, who inherited his human nature, could commit any of the wonderful Mortal Sins that are currently available. This is probably one of the reasons, some, not all, people prefer to remove the very knowledgeable Adam from the list of major historical characters.

Paragraphs 396 and 1730, in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition, explain the real nature of the first rational human person far better than I can.
**396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

**1730 **God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
​

 

[philv]

I started a page (below) that goes over Genesis chapter by chapter. There’s a lot of theology in Genesis, especially in chapters 1-11. It was (and is) a great teaching tool for the Israelite religion and today.

 

[grannymh]

I started a page (below) that goes over Genesis chapter by chapter. There’s a lot of theology in Genesis, especially in chapters 1-11. It was (and is) a great teaching tool for the Israelite religion and today.

Sorry. I do not do Facebook. Yet, I am curious about the Catholic doctrines you found in the first three chapters of Genesis. I have a beginning list and am wondering about your list.

Obviously, Genesis 1: 1 is a Catholic doctrine. What is the theology that you find in Genesis 1: 26-28?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I started a page (below) that goes over Genesis chapter by chapter. There’s a lot of theology in Genesis, especially in chapters 1-11. It was (and is) a great teaching tool for the Israelite religion and today.

I do not have facebook either. Is there another way to access your information?