I'm wondering about Genesis

[theCardinalbird]

How do we reconcile Genesis (creation story) with science?
Who wrote Genesis?
Did God create Dinosaurs? If so why isn’t it in Genesis?

 

[jaisonjose241]

not fully with evolution but ya God created creatures and made them grow according to the internal laws of nature that sounds like evolution…like pope said read his statement on God is not magician with magic wand…
believed to be written by Moses…
yes God did create …it come under the category of animals …but after flood they died…

hope so i am correct if not help me…
thank you

 

[redbetta]

The thing to remember is that the Bible is not a book, but a collection of books with different genres. Not everything needs to be read literally, like Genesis.

As for your other questions, I don’t know who wrote Genesis and it is probably not known. God is most definitely the creator of life, but, whether that life evolved or not is up for debate. The dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, so there is no way that the author or authors of Genesis would have know about them.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Moses wrote all 5 books of the Penetauch.

What parts of “science” do you feel need reconciling with Genesis? (Remember that Scripture is Truth, therefore any disparity must be the fault of “science”)

God created the wombat too, but that isn’t mentioned either. Moses wasn’t writing a bestiary.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Not so much the creation story because we got science to help prove that (quantum physics) but it’s more the genealogy. For example, in Genesis 4:17 it speaks of Cain’s wife. Where did she come from? They had a son (4:18) named Henoch who then begot Irad. Where did Henoch get his wife?

I mean no offense and I hold scripture in high regard but I got confused by this, can you shed light on this?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Where is @grannymh when you need her.

No, but seriously, the CCC talks about these different literary forms that are in Genesis, and it gives guidance on how to read them.

 

[grannymh]

I am here, but I think I am not suppose to be here. So I reply to posts and hope
for the best.

What can I do for you? Actually, I have not read CCC 109-111 in depth. Tonight,
the first thing I noticed is that these paragraphs refers to Sacred Scripture as
a whole. Am I right? The first three sacred chapters in Genesis are unique when
it comes to basic Catholic doctrines.

If “The Senses of Scripture” is in small print, then we have to go to CCC 20-21
to learn the function of small print.

Fortunately, a lot of what is said in CCC 109-119 regarding literary forms
refers to common sense and we can deal with that. It may be difficult to
substitute the first three exciting chapters of
Genesis in some places. “Difficult” is an invitation to use creative thinking.
As you know, I will not have “tampering” of doctrines.

Let’s discuss…
Hopefully, I will not disappear. I think my problem is that I need a new
computer. One of my sons will help with that when he can.

 

[grannymh]

Someone needs to check if my post appears. The bad thing is that I am extremely
tired and I forgot to make a copy. If you want to contact me, my e-mail is
grannymh@ureach.com My general impression is that there are a lot of good
points in CCC 109-119. The trick is to put the good points into English.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

My general impression is that there are a lot of good
points in CCC 109-119. The trick is to put the good points into English.

Yes those parts. And n. 282-421 talk about the first three chapters of Genesis. I know the OP has a question regarding chapter 4, but, close enough ehh?

P.S. Your posts here are coming in just fine.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Cain’s wife was his sister. His sons wives were either his (Cain’s) daughters or Seth’s daughters (their cousins).

Or, I suppose it is possible by process of elimination to say that their wives could have been their aunts (Cain’s sisters).

 

[grannymh]

When there is small print, we need to review CCC
20-21

**CCC 20 **

The use of small print in certain passages
indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary
doctrinal explanations.

CCC 21

The
quotations, also in small print, from patristic, liturgical, magisterial
or hagiographical sources, are intended to enrich the doctrinal presentations.
These texts have often been chosen with a view to direct catechetical
use.

In my humble literary opinion, the
Cain and Able chapter 4 is not related or connected with the first three
informative chapters in Genesis. Cain sinned, but that was not the
Original Sin. Cain and Able are descendants of the founders of the human
species in the same manner that we are descendants of Adam and Eve.
Chapter 4 is very important because it details the human family tree. Adam
and Eve are the roots of the tree. There is a difference.

 

[Vico]

but that was not the Original Sin.

Not the personal original sin, however Romans 5:

12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. 13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you. Scripture affirmation is important.

I was taught that Romans 5: 12-21 and 1Corinthians 15: 20-22 explained Adam and
Original Sin. In addition, there is the necessary Incarnation.

In grade school we went straight from Original Sin to the Incarnation. Catholic
history to the Reformation was taught in high school. Our teacher loved the
battles over doctrine so we went from the Incarnation to Arianism.

I have heard some whispering that there is a modern form of Arianism. That is
possible because the first three fundamental chapters of Genesis are denied or
are tampered starting with Adam and Original Sin, Genesis 2: 15-17.
and Father Rohr’s Fly in the Ointment,
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...ssing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

but that was not the Original Sin.

Not the personal original sin, however Romans 5:

12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and
so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. 13 For until the law sin
was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. 14 But death
reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the
similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Not so much the creation story because we got science to help prove that (quantum physics) but it’s more the genealogy. For example, in Genesis 4:17 it speaks of Cain’s wife. Where did she come from? They had a son (4:18) named Henoch who then begot Irad. Where did Henoch get his wife?

I mean no offense and I hold scripture in high regard but I got confused by this, can you shed light on this?

Joe, it’s allegorical. It’s not something taken from a census. It’s meant to convey, “the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation.” CCC n.289

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Read Humani Generis, an encyclycal of Pius XII in 1950. It available at the Vatican web site: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...ts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html1

John Paul II also covered evolution in a letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

John Paul clearly says in his letter that “In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.”

The short answer is that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and Catholic doctrine. Having said that, you could add elements to the actual theory of evolution which would put it in conflict with Catholic doctrine: for example, if you argued that the spirit or soul was was formed by natural rather than supernatural means or if you argued that mankind was descended from more than one pair of original humans. But these are not basic elements of the theory of evolution.

The only people who have a problem with the theory of evolution are people who interpret the Bible literally. And yes, there are some on this forum. And no, I don’t want to enter into some pointless argument with those people. You are entitled to your opinions. Just be aware that you are opposing both science and the Church. Good luck with that!

 

[ChunkMonk]

It is not entirely allegorical. I believe the Catholic Church considers Abel a saint. It would be difficult for an allegorical, fictional character to be a living saint in heaven.

 

[ericc]

Genesis 4:17 it speaks of Cain’s wife. Where did she come from?

Gen 5:4 says he had other sons and daughters.

 

[Vico]

…

In Baltimore Catechism after the chapter on Our First Parents and the Fall comes the chapter Sin and Its Kinds followed by Chapter on The Incarnation and Redemption. I was taught using the Baltimore Catechisms before receiving the eastern catechisms Light for Life series.
The link refers to Pelagianism. So Arianism is characterized by a denial of the Divinity of Jesus, whereas Pelagianism has the tollowing beliefs:

• Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
• Adam’s sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
• Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
• The whole human race neither dies through Adam’s sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
• The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
• Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

Pohle, J. (1911). Pelagius and Pelagianism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It is not entirely allegorical. I believe the Catholic Church considers Abel a saint. It would be difficult for an allegorical, fictional character to be a living saint in heaven.

There is a St. Abel, an Archbishop, who died in 751, but I don’t think that Genesis’ Abel is a canonized saint.

 

[Gorgias]

Moses wrote all 5 books of the Penetauch.

You have to be careful how you make that claim, and what you mean by it. After all, in Deuteronomy, we read:
Deuteronomy 34:5-9:

So there, in the land of Moab, Moses, the servant of the LORD, died as the LORD had said; and he was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; to this day no one knows the place of his burial.

Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated. The Israelites wept for Moses in the plains of Moab for thirty days, till they had completed the period of grief and mourning for Moses.

Now Joshua, son of Nun, was filled with the spirit of wisdom, since Moses had laid his hands upon him; and so the Israelites gave him their obedience, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

I’m guessing that Moses would’ve had a hard time writing about his own death, let alone his burial and the actions of the Israelites following his death.

If, on the other hand, by “Moses wrote the Pentateuch”, you mean “Moses was integral to the retention of the oral traditions that later were written down and become the Pentateuch”, then you’re making a more defensible statement.