Reconciling Genesis with God’s World

[John_Martin]

human interpretations of Genesis 1 are not guaranteed to be true. There are different human interpretations around, and at most one of them can be true.

The apostolic magisterial use is truth.
We know this - the bible can only be authoritatively opened by living Magisterial explanation; it is not yours to interpret, but only can be explained by its authorzer or those sent by its authorizer (Magisterium). Any other is opinion that requires recognition or renunciation by one who knows the truth.

The world, all creation, is also available for many to offer studied opinion and speculation to its quidity. But the truth of it can only be declared by its creator or his authorized representative.

Science’s definition cannot be the final or real definition if it contradicts the creator’s knowing of his creation. Impossible.

Science has not gone far enough until it affirms (probably in surprise) that you and I are literally relatives, literally having the same ancestor (one man known elsewhere to be named Adam) as if we were taken from his rib without genetic (name removed by moderator)ut from a different source.

Note: if you had understood Isaiah you would seek to find the Lord and to understand from the Catholics as did the Ethiopian Eunuch turn to Philip and let Philip explain; then you would exclaim that the trees will clap their hands in truth and you would ask to be granted participation in this Church.

The world is therefore as much from God as Genesis is,

The world is not an authority, nor is the bible - both are things having a “whatness”, a quidity.
Both require an explanation from their creator to verify we understand - but we do know they cannot contradict, and Catholics already have authority opening the Scriptures to them, so we can assert when science has not finished looking.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

What part of Genesis 1 and do you have difficulties reconciling the creation story in Gen 2, if not what is different.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

But human interpretations of Genesis 1 are not guaranteed to be true. There are different human interpretations around, and at most one of them can be true.

How about work on translations rather then interpretations, Makes more sense and is more fruitful.

 

[EndTimes]

Theologians theories are unfalsifiable which is a problem.

When a so-called ‘theologian’ is in diametrical opposition to another “theologian”
what we then know - is that at best - one is correct and the other is Wrong.

When someone Lies to us - we do not need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…

Those w/Faith - have the God-Given wherewithal to Discern the spirit yet Not Judge someone’s Soul -

 

[Alyosha1984]

Here is one example.

“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.”

“Day” and “night” can only be experienced on a planet, like Earth. 13.4 billion years ago, before any planets had formed, there wouldn’t have been “day” or “night.”

Also the reference to six days passing is fairly explicit but doesn’t line up with any available line of evidence, cosmological, geological, or biological.

 

[Alyosha1984]

What evidence does Hawking have to present such enormous assertions? He asserts that the energy of the universe is “exactly zero” but also that it is only “approximately evenly distributed”. This is a contradiction. His level of name recognition does not mean his argument is sound.

As an engineer, I tend to find it simpler to think of the First Cause / Prime Mover argument in terms of energy. There is energy in the universe and it is conserved, despite all the interactions that happen between energy and matter. This is a form of the argument. But this still leaves the question where did that energy come from? In other words, “something can’t come from nothing.”

Resorting to quantum fields doesn’t get you out of the bind, because where did the quantum field (something) come from? Did it come from nothing? How does that make sense?

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Here is one example.

“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.”

“Day” and “night” can only be experienced on a planet, like Earth. 13.4 billion years ago, before any planets had formed, there wouldn’t have been “day” or “night.”

Also the reference to six days passing is fairly explicit but doesn’t line up with any available line of evidence, cosmological, geological, or biological.

V 5 , there was evening and there was morning, the first day, 2, 3,4,5,6, days are rhythmic textual echoes of the ancient oral tradition that Genesis came out of. And God saw that it was good is another rhythmic element of the creation stories.

These verses do not equate to day and night as we know it because the sun and moon are not yet created by God. So the next question is, before God creates the sun and moon and other astronomic elements, what does this verse mean.

The verses speak about things being formless and void- chaos really. God then begins to create order out of this chaos, out of the formless and void.

If you want to parallel the evolution of the universe with these verses day and night for us relies on the rotation of a planet around the sun, and the rotation of its moons around the planet. The sun is a second generation star. It was created from pre existing elements. All planets in the universe with a rotation around a sun will experience what we know as day and night.

If we want to get fundamental in our reading, the sun , being a second generation star , came after first generation primordial stars . An argument could be made this fits with earlier forms of light for day and night.

What do these early verses prior to the creation of the sun and moon mean by day and night?

Also, nowhere in the creation stories is there any reference to a 24hr day and night.

 

[gama232]

Several Popes have weighed on the question of human origins. Reading their encyclicals should be required. Only the teaching authority of the Church matters. Only the Church can judge claims about human origins.

 

[gama232]

The Bible uses the words evening and morning followed by the first, and so on, day.

New International Version
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.

New Living Translation
God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

English Standard Version
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Genesis 1:5

God has the ability to create light without needing the Sun. Jesus calmed the waves and the storm which ceased immediately.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

The Bible uses the words evening and morning followed by the first, and so on, day.

As I said earlier on this or another thread, translations must be considered for these early chapters. Translation, ancient oral tradition and culture.

Quoting the English interpretations of translations doesnt count for a good exegesis of these early chapters.

Here is one example , the names Eve, Adam, Cain, Abel.
Eve, for example has very different meanings in Hebrew and Greek.

God has the ability to create light without needing the Sun. Jesus calmed the waves and the storm which ceased immediately.

This in no way answers the question of what day and night and light and darkness is, before God created the sun and moon.

 

[gama232]

The Bible text is literal. God is outside of time and created time. At some point, time will end. That is also in the Bible.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

The Bible text is literal. God is outside of time and created time. At some point, time will end. That is also in the Bible.

Ok so you quoted

Several Popes have weighed on the question of human origins. Reading their encyclicals should be required. Only the teaching authority of the Church matters. Only the Church can judge claims about human origins.

Where does the Church state the first 11 chapters of Genesis is literal and we must take them literally?

Be specific in answering please, something in writing that is clear and concrete where the church states the first 11 chapters are literal and we must read them literally and fundamentally.

 

[gama232]

I can only post portions because I am limited to a certain number of words. All of this comes from Catholic Answers.

The Time Question​

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

 

[gama232]

The Topical Reading​

This leads us to the possibility that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was “formless and empty” (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

 

[gama232]

Real History​

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did. It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

I can only post portions because I am limited to a certain number of words. All of this comes from Catholic Answers.

The Time Question​

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

I asked you

Where does the Church state the first 11 chapters of Genesis is literal and we must take them literally?

Be specific in answering please, something in writing that is clear and concrete where the church states the first 11 chapters are literal and we must read them literally and fundamentally.

Please answer my specific question. You claim the Bible is literal, including the ‘7’ days of creation. It is not 6, it is 7 because the rest day is a creation day too.

Answering with finite vs infinite in NO way answers the question.

A Concrete answer from a formal and official church teaching please as asked.

 

[gama232]

1880 – Pope Leo XIII writes his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae in which he states: “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.” Pope Leo’s interpretation of Genesis suggests a literal six day creation. This is because he says Eve was “miraculously” created. Since miracles happen instantaneously, Pope Leo is saying Eve was created instantaneously, on the sixth day. It is thus logical to assume Pope Leo believed Adam was also created instantaneously, like Eve, on the sixth day. There is no methodological distinction between Adam and Eve, and nothing to suggest that their creation was from an evolutionary process that took millions of years. Pope Leo’s encyclical is in line with the infallible teachings of Lateran Council IV, Vatican Council I, and the early Church Fathers. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII issued this teaching only about 20 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution came on the scene.

 

[gama232]

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24). The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions…with regard to evolution,” but warns that “divine revelation demands the greatest moderation and caution” when so discussing, and says we must ultimately “submit to the judgment of the Church” (no. 36). The pope further condemned “polygenism,” the heretical belief that the human race is not the product of a single set of parents (Adam and Eve), but multiple parents, as evolutionary theory maintains.

 

[rossum]

The Bible text is literal.

Then the days in Genesis 1 are not 24-hour days. The seventh day has a morning but not an evening. Read literally, the seventh day is still ongoing. This shows that in Genesis 1, the word, yom (יום‎), does not mean a period of 24 hours.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Pope Leo’s interpretation of Genesis suggests a literal six day creation. This is because he says Eve was “miraculously” created. Since miracles happen instantaneously, Pope Leo is saying Eve was created instantaneously, on the sixth day. It is thus logical to assume Pope Leo believed Adam was also created instantaneously, like Eve, on the sixth day. There is no methodological distinction between Adam and Eve, and nothing to suggest that their creation was from an evolutionary process that took millions of years. Pope Leo’s encyclical is in line with the infallible teachings of Lateran Council IV, Vatican Council I, and the early Church Fathers. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII issued this teaching only about 20 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution came on the scene.

Who wrote this commentary?

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24). The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions…with regard to evolution,” but warns that “divine revelation demands the greatest moderation and caution” when so discussing, and says we must ultimately “submit to the judgment of the Church” (no. 36). The pope further condemned “polygenism,” the heretical belief that the human race is not the product of a single set of parents (Adam and Eve), but multiple parents, as evolutionary theory maintains.

Did you accidentally omit in your cut and paste here the part that states in concrete absolute terms exactly what time period constitutes a 24hr period?

We are not discussing evolution or exegesis here. We are discussing what the word ‘day’ means according to Longines in the creation stories