Original sin and death of other creatures

[joseie]

Hi, Joseie!
Genesis is not scientific information… it is a revelation that answers how and by whom?

The Catholic Church does not teach a six-twenty-four-hour period of Creation.

Scriptures hint at this in Genesis 1:

The scene is set: God is the Creator & He Created Heaven and Earth.

Yep, the Big Bang! Angels are creatures of light (spirit) the universe is populated by stars/planets–both of these (creatures of light) could have been Created at this juncture.

Now we have within Creation a placement of order… on day four (the fourth period) the system was set up with sun, moon, and earth–we can surmise that the sun dial was now in place (we would come to designate it as a solar day, the rotation of the earth around the sun).

So while Creation had began on day one (1st period) the planetary system (sun, planets, moons) was not created (formatted, if you will) till day four (4th period).

The description of Creation is not dissimilar to scientific findings that man was the last of Creation (6th period)!

Maran atha!

Angel

Even if there is a simple and direct meaning for a word or verse in the scripture meant to be understood by the people of the times when it was written, the tendency is to import new meanings and interpretations when some apparent inconsistency is found now based on irrefutable scientific evidence.Typical is the case of the ‘day’ mentioned in the early part of the Genesis.I am sure that there was absolutely no doubt till a couple of centuries back that it is the normal day as understood by humans.Since when" the catholic church does not teach a six - twenty- four period" ?Trying to import and fit words such as Big bang,solar system, rotation of earth around the sun etc. to explain the Genesis will no longer work now as such tendencies stand exposed.

 

[jcrichton]

1.Not clear what is sought to be conveyed from the Ecclesiastes verses.Beasts also have spirits ?
2.No dispute that man would have immortality if not sinned;man is quite different from other creatures etc.

Hi, Joseie!

…sorry, I was trying to convey that man has searched for answers and that, at times, even when Inspired by the Holy Spirit there’s no clear answer; only some hinting… that can later be tethered with new insights: Life (our toil) revolves around God and in God receives completeness–only man is given of God’s Spirit so only man actually dies (spiritually) as the consequence of sin. All of the other creatures die a natural (physical) death–they do not rise to God since they do not possess God’s Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Not clear whether you are holding the view that the death mentioned in the Genesis was only spiritual death or physical death or both.

Hi, Joseie!
The death that God warns about is that of their spiritual life; their transgression against God’s Command would cause them to sin and therefore create a rift between themselves and God. Since Adam and Ever did not instantly (or at God’s call to judgment) die a physical death we can conclude that that was what God meant (spiritual death).

Could God have Created us to be immortal, we may never know–but sequestering of the “tree of Life” seem to offer a “what if…”

The other stuff was about what I perceived as a concern for overpopulation… you can totally disregard that!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Even if there is a simple and direct meaning for a word or verse in the scripture meant to be understood by the people of the times when it was written, the tendency is to import new meanings and interpretations when some apparent inconsistency is found now based on irrefutable scientific evidence.Typical is the case of the ‘day’ mentioned in the early part of the Genesis.I am sure that there was absolutely no doubt till a couple of centuries back that it is the normal day as understood by humans.Since when" the catholic church does not teach a six - twenty- four period" ?Trying to import and fit words such as Big bang,solar system, rotation of earth around the sun etc. to explain the Genesis will no longer work now as such tendencies stand exposed.

Hi, Joseie!
20/20 hindsight is always good–which can be said of most science and studies; the fact remains that given the lack of information people believed various theories–we are still working out evolution, big bang, etc.

I’ve just visited one site (if you want me to do further research, I am willing):

Catholic concern about evolution has always been very largely concerned with the implications of evolutionary theory for the origin of the human species; even by 1859, a literal reading of the Book of Genesis had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields.[12] No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species.[13]

Even before the development of modern scientific method, Catholic theology had allowed for biblical text to be read as allegorical, rather than literal, where it appeared to contradict that which could be established by science or reason. Thus Catholicism has been able to refine its understanding of scripture in light of scientific discovery.[14][15] Among the early Church Fathers there was debate over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[16] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[17] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century.[18] However modern literal creationism has had little support among the higher levels of the Church. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution)

If it is the actual function, how can it be an import?

Could you be arguing from a position of atheism?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Hi, Joseie!
20/20 hindsight is always good–which can be said of most science and studies; the fact remains that given the lack of information people believed various theories–we are still working out evolution, big bang, etc.

I’ve just visited one site (if you want me to do further research, I am willing):

Catholic concern about evolution has always been very largely concerned with the implications of evolutionary theory for the origin of the human species; even by 1859, a literal reading of the Book of Genesis had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields.[12] No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species.[13]

If it is the actual function, how can it be an import?

Could you be arguing from a position of atheism?

Maran atha!

Angel

Thanks . The above information show that the church is aware that there could be some genuine problem if we go by the literal meaning of the creation verses.Admitting this frankly and and conceding that the actual period involved could be very very long- even millions of years - instead of few days as given, is one option.The other option is justify what is written at any cost and bring all sorts of funny and possible arguments such as ,Genesis should not to be taken as an accurate historical account;what is written should not be taken literally; ‘day’ was not translated correctly;in the beginning due to big bang the speed of rotation was very less and hence a day at that time could be a million years duration;the period of day before creation of sun and moon can’t be estimated etc.I am for the first option.
(No atheism pl. I am a devoted catholic and we are one among very few couples in our parish attending daily mass.)

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks . The above information show that the church is aware that there could be some genuine problem if we go by the literal meaning of the creation verses.Admitting this frankly and and conceding that the actual period involved could be very very long- even millions of years - instead of few days as given, is one option.The other option is justify what is written at any cost and bring all sorts of funny and possible arguments such as ,Genesis should not to be taken as an accurate historical account;what is written should not be taken literally; ‘day’ was not translated correctly;in the beginning due to big bang the speed of rotation was very less and hence a day at that time could be a million years duration;the period of day before creation of sun and moon can’t be estimated etc.I am for the first option.
(No atheism pl. I am a devoted catholic and we are one among very few couples in our parish attending daily mass.)

Hi, Joseie!
Please accept my apologies.

I merely wanted to nudge you into my perspective (atheists are pit bullish in their argument, refusing to accept even other atheists’ comments/understandings); you continued to come back to the same argument (the Church’s up to her old tricks of fabrication and dissembling) in spite of anything presented to you.

People were simple way back when… Revelations and revelations are not the same. Spiritual Revelation deal with God and His Plan; while, revelations about the mechanisms of the world/universe generally move within the sciences–yet, both are revelations nonetheless! I suspect that it is Yahweh’s will to have a double spectrum in the real of knowledge revealed.

Way back when, before knowledge became specialized, people were simple; arguably, I suspect, people are still simple today–we just have been catching up with the sciences hidden in nature.

Faith existed prior to proven science (observable science is always changing according to technological advancements, record of actual experiments on the various theories and hypothesis, etc.). From that perspective we would find that Faith will always be defended against the abstracts of science. However, reasoning from discoveries and applied sciences should not be a reason to condemn the Church specially when science has gotten so many things wrong and is still considering so many things from so many theoretical assumptions. (One of these was the aging universe which was folding upon itself–never really researched it but I guess we were heading into the ultimate singularity; the puff effect, I surmised. After the Hubble Telescope–hey, the universe continues to expand! …well, the universe didn’t change… what actually changed was our understanding due to the new discoveries).

Now, you may have a scientific background (or are well-versed in the various arguments), do you think that simple people would understand the latest advancements in the sciences (for my argument I include math as part of “sciences”)? Would it be more prudent for Revelation to use simple understandable language to engage man or a hyper sophisticated speak?

If Scriptures would Reveal the ultra complex existence and plans of God, would ultra thinkers not be required to begin to dissect what has been Revealed?

Now, consider this… what if God embedded ultra complexities into a simple format as His Revelations?

Ever played in the snow as a child (sorry, I’m presuming that you have had that experience)? What made it a wonder, was it the geometrical complexities of its construction or was it something much more simple? I’m going with “simple is the thing!” But to me, after the findings, snow is double wonderful–the soft cool almost spongy ultra white-feather-weight snowflake is composed of simple to complex geometry… what’s more, it was discovered that no two snowflakes are alike… what a marvel of Creation (Romans 1:17-21)

Another such marvel is the atom which took birth in the mind of man before scientific and technological advancements made it possible to ascertain its existence… should the Bible have recorded this marvel beyond Creation, Nature, Reveals God’s Existence? The fact that there are revelations of things before science and technology can verify their existence should be ponder by those who seek the Truth.

…as for the evolving world of knowledge, why is it that we still express the beginning and ending of the day as “sun up” and “sun down?” Is it not because before science and technology could better inform us a simple understanding attempted to address the issue (dusk to dawn)?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Hi, Joseie!
Please accept my apologies.

I merely wanted to nudge you into my perspective (atheists are pit bullish in their argument, refusing to accept even other atheists’ comments/understandings); you continued to come back to the same argument (the Church’s up to her old tricks of fabrication and dissembling) in spite of anything presented to you.

People were simple way back when… Revelations and revelations are not the same. Spiritual Revelation deal with God and His Plan; while, revelations about the mechanisms of the world/universe generally move within the sciences–yet, both are revelations nonetheless! I suspect that it is Yahweh’s will to have a double spectrum in the real of knowledge revealed.

Way back when, before knowledge became specialized, people were simple; arguably, I suspect, people are still simple today–we just have been catching up with the sciences hidden in nature.

Faith existed prior to proven science (observable science is always changing according to technological advancements, record of actual experiments on the various theories and hypothesis, etc.). From that perspective we would find that Faith will always be defended against the abstracts of science. However, reasoning from discoveries and applied sciences should not be a reason to condemn the Church specially when science has gotten so many things wrong and is still considering so many things from so many theoretical assumptions. (One of these was the aging universe which was folding upon itself–never really researched it but I guess we were heading into the ultimate singularity; the puff effect, I surmised. After the Hubble Telescope–hey, the universe continues to expand! …well, the universe didn’t change… what actually changed was our understanding due to the new discoveries).

Now, you may have a scientific background (or are well-versed in the various arguments), do you think that simple people would understand the latest advancements in the sciences (for my argument I include math as part of “sciences”)? Would it be more prudent for Revelation to use simple understandable language to engage man or a hyper sophisticated speak?

If Scriptures would Reveal the ultra complex existence and plans of God, would ultra thinkers not be required to begin to dissect what has been Revealed?

Now, consider this… what if God embedded ultra complexities into a simple format as His Revelations?

Ever played in the snow as a child (sorry, I’m presuming that you have had that experience)? What made it a wonder, was it the geometrical complexities of its construction or was it something much more simple? I’m going with “simple is the thing!” But to me, after the findings, snow is double wonderful–the soft cool almost spongy ultra white-feather-weight snowflake is composed of simple to complex geometry… what’s more, it was discovered that no two snowflakes are alike… what a marvel of Creation (Romans 1:17-21)

Another such marvel is the atom which took birth in the mind of man before scientific and technological advancements made it possible to ascertain its existence… should the Bible have recorded this marvel beyond Creation, Nature, Reveals God’s Existence? The fact that there are revelations of things before science and technology can verify their existence should be ponder by those who seek the Truth.

…as for the evolving world of knowledge, why is it that we still express the beginning and ending of the day as “sun up” and “sun down?” Is it not because before science and technology could better inform us a simple understanding attempted to address the issue (dusk to dawn)?

Maran atha!
Or
Angel

Thanks for the enlightening post. There is no doubt that the complexities of nature and it’s matter,from the smallest Quarks to the billion galaxies contained Universe confirms the marvellousness of its creator,our God.Be it as it is.
My O.P was simply about the death of other creatures.Only in response to some posts in the thread(expressing the view that it is not a 24 hr.day ;evolution, bing bang etc.fit in the Genesis story;don’t take the literal meaning etc.) did I say that there is a (wrong) tendency to ignore the simple and direct meaning of the words and verses if they are found’ uncomfortable 'based on scientific facts discovered later. I did not mean that the church is doing any tricks etc.
Frankly I(and many more ,I am sure) am least bothered whether the creation took 6 days or 60 million days but only wish that it is better not put arguments such as that the days mentioned are not the normal days etc.

 

[jcrichton]

Thanks for the enlightening post. There is no doubt that the complexities of nature and it’s matter,from the smallest Quarks to the billion galaxies contained Universe confirms the marvellousness of its creator,our God.Be it as it is.
My O.P was simply about the death of other creatures.Only in response to some posts in the thread(expressing the view that it is not a 24 hr.day ;evolution, bing bang etc.fit in the Genesis story;don’t take the literal meaning etc.) did I say that there is a (wrong) tendency to ignore the simple and direct meaning of the words and verses if they are found’ uncomfortable 'based on scientific facts discovered later. I did not mean that the church is doing any tricks etc.
Frankly I(and many more ,I am sure) am least bothered whether the creation took 6 days or 60 million days but only wish that it is better not put arguments such as that the days mentioned are not the normal days etc.

Hi, Joseie!
I truly am sorry for my part in the running with the bulls (Spanish idiocy, from my perspective); I am quick to pick up the atheist/“agnostic” chatter and press against it…

Though I have not researched the phenomenon, the issue of six-twenty-four-hour day periods of Creation surfaced as some Christian group/s intent on fighting the evolution theory (though now a days it seems that the enlightened accept it as fact/proven and not what it actually is: a theory) introduced the “Intelligent Design” where it is held as “fact” that the universe was Created in 6/24.

My import to you is not Catholic Church Teaching; it is my own understanding of what Genesis states. Since the angels and stars and planets are creatures of light and since the sun and moon were not set in function till the fourth day, I surmised that in day one, an unspecified time period (not a solar day which is the 24 hours that takes the earth to revolve on its axis), the Big Bang (everything came into existence) is that “let there be light.”

Since the Church is about Worship not “running the show,” in all but theology she remains on the sidelines. Though through millennia she has championed science, art, philosophy, education, serving… she would take under consideration the theories and hypothesis offered by both religious and nonreligious thinkers. Her main goal is not to silence the minds of man nor change with the times but to stay true to Divine Writ (check: The Catholic Church Builder of Civilization–EWTN).

The Church is wise enough to understand that we (man) do not posses God’s Mind and even Scriptural Revelation may be far from our grasp. She studies the theories against Scriptures and only when discoveries or scientific evidence brings forth an unknown factor does she seek to understand Revelations through the new found evidential factors.

If we read the Creation Revelation in Genesis as literal, we cannot, due to fossils’ findings, reconciliate the universe being created in 6 days (6 twenty-four-hour-day periods). So the Church, which has never Taught that we must read and interpret the Bible in only the literal form, must not agree with the understanding of 6/24; yet, wisely, she abstains from fully embracing evolution (or as I sometimes call it evil-ution–as oozing evil …and no, I don’t mean that evolution is evil, just that it lends itself to being used for evil purposes: removing God from Creation) as it is a theory which is riddled with suppositions and gaps.

Still, facts remain facts and we cannot, other than Divine Prerogative, fit what is known (old earth) into an understanding of a new earth based on (not error) finite understanding of Revelation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Still, facts remain facts and we cannot, other than Divine Prerogative, fit what is known (old earth) into an understanding of a new earth based on (not error) finite understanding of Revelation.

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes.Incidently it may be pointed out that there surprisingly a very large no.of churches/groups/sects who hold the view that it has to be only the normal 24hr.day.Anyhow its relevance to the issue started in this thread will be this:If it is the normal day, other creatures also would have died after Adam’s sin.Their death can be explained as the natural consequence because even their master has become susceptible to death due to sin.If it is a very long duration it means death ,reproduction etc. were already there before Adam,ie. their death has got nothing to do with the original sin.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes.Incidently it may be pointed out that there surprisingly a very large no.of churches/groups/sects who hold the view that it has to be only the normal 24hr.day.Anyhow its relevance to the issue started in this thread will be this:If it is the normal day, other creatures also would have died after Adam’s sin.Their death can be explained as the natural consequence because even their master has become susceptible to death due to sin.If it is a very long duration it means death ,reproduction etc. were already there before Adam,ie. their death has got nothing to do with the original sin.

Hi, Joseie!
I think I’m beginning to better follow you… it seems that you are seeking to reconcile the warning of “death” as the inception (introduction) of death into the universe.

There are so many mysteries in the universe… and in Scriptures… notice how some people seem to hold one to some particular verses and almost squeeze them for all they’re worth? Yet, sometimes we can’t see the forest for the trees… I’ve heard it be quoted that “there’s nothing new under the sun…” Many take this to be extremely literal–meaning that when the Holy Spirit Inspired the Writer the Writer was speaking about what he knew and what man knew… many point to that passage as proof of lacking since so many new things have developed since the verse was put to ink… yet, both miss the Person of God Who Inspired the Writer: God actually stated that there’s is nothing new under the sun (now my surmising) ‘because everything has been contained in Creation–all the sciences (including math) and all the mysteries have been placed with their respective revelations…’ We are Created in the Image and Likeness of God, hence, His Spirit Resides in us and we retain God’s characteristics: we are creative and cognitive beings (mini-mes to God).

The greatest problem we have is that when faced with the complexities of mysteries we tend to be of narrow mind and see things, mostly, from the human perspective. We will even demote God’s Omnipotence and Omniscience to our level in order to better fit the pieces together.

It is difficult to determine, from our limited perspective, if physical death entered the universe only through Adam’s disobedience (sin). There are so many variants and so many things we still do not know or have discovered that we struggle with our day to day existence. Yet, what is fully Revealed about Adam and Eve is that their rejection of God’s Authority is sin and that that sin caused them to Fall–die spiritually.

Nature did not sin; yet, nature was not Created in the image and likeness of God. But if you ever notice nature at work you would find that it maintains God’s Command to fill the earth–only through our abuse and exploitation does that Command ceases to function as set by God. So, from the mechanisms in nature we can surmise that even if physical death was part of the built-in system nature would be continuously replenished. Adam’s sin could have affected the outcome (nature’s) in ways other than physical death, yet prove to be just as detrimental: ie: abuse, exploitation, pollution, poor stewardship…

I hope this helps!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

Hi, Joseie!​

Adam’s sin could have affected the outcome (nature’s) in ways other than physical death, yet prove to be just as detrimental: ie: abuse, exploitation, pollution, poor stewardship…

I hope this helps!

Maran atha!

Angel

Yes,I can follow you. In short you are telling that the physical death of man and other creatures has got nothing to do with the original sin and that only man’s spiritual death happened due to the original sin ? In other words Adam would have anyway died even if he did not commit the sin? A bit difficult to digest because the traditional view is that death,decease, suffering etc.entered the world due to the original sin.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes,I can follow you. In short you are telling that the physical death of man and other creatures has got nothing to do with the original sin and that only man’s spiritual death happened due to the original sin ? In other words Adam would have anyway died even if he did not commit the sin? A bit difficult to digest because the traditional view is that death,decease, suffering etc.entered the world due to the original sin.

Hi, Joseie!
You are correct. I view/understand these two to be separate issues. Though it could well be that Adam’s sin may have frustrated the natural order in nature–as observed by tradition.

I am well versed in researching Scriptures not in Church Teachings so I do not fully know the exactness of that traditional view. What is understood from Scriptures is that spiritual death and hardship entered the world through Adam’s sin. How decease enters into this equation I truly do not know. But it is conceivable that, through personal Revelation or in depth soul searching, a notable Saint may have made this connection.

Though I’ve never bodily (being present at the time) witnessed the birth of any animal, those that I’ve seen on tv have not seem as traumatic for the animal kingdom mothers than that of the human mothers by whose stories I’ve been impacted (the number of hours in labor; the extreme difficulty; the intense pain; the false labors, etc.)–this, in my view, is an excellent example of what Eve’s wages (sin) portion is. The fact that the earth fights man (animal, plant, weather, water, desert…) seems equally linked to Adam’s portion of his wages. Man’s constant struggle with himself, his insatiable hunger for power, wealth, disordered ego and goals seem also to be applicable to both Adam’s and Eve’s wages… perhaps this is why tradition views death, decease, and hardship as entering Creation due to Adam’s sin.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joseie]

I have noticed another point in this connection.G3-21 says that God made garments of skin and clothed them.This shows that there was already death of other creatures or their death has got nothing to do with the sin.Now if their physical constitution was already liable to aging and death,man’s also would have been so liable as we know that human physical constitution is comparable in respect of aging and death to that of animals.That is ,he would have any way died physically. Does this support the view that what God warned was only about spiritual death,physical death being anyhow unavoidable? But poor Adam ,could he have understood the difference and the full implication of God’s warning ?

 

[jcrichton]

I have noticed another point in this connection.G3-21 says that God made garments of skin and clothed them.This shows that there was already death of other creatures or their death has got nothing to do with the sin.Now if their physical constitution was already liable to aging and death,man’s also would have been so liable as we know that human physical constitution is comparable in respect of aging and death to that of animals.That is ,he would have any way died physically. Does this support the view that what God warned was only about spiritual death,physical death being anyhow unavoidable? But poor Adam ,could he have understood the difference and the full implication of God’s warning ?

Hi, Joseie!
…again… we are working from the “if” factor:

Had Adam not sinned he would not have died; ergo, the death of the animals would not have occurred since Adam and Eve would not have been ashamed to be in God’s presence…

I think that the problem you are having is that you want to find a clear cut point: death or immortality?

As we were Created ceased to exist once Adam sinned. Does that mean that there would not be any death… I do not know. But it is clear that all of nature was Created for a function and that there would be plant life that would have to yield its life to sustain Adam and Eve, their offsprings, and the animals:

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:28-30)

Other than what is Revealed, we may never know… does not knowing if we were Created for Immortality or not diminishes us?

Maran atha!

Angel