Reconciling Genesis with God’s World

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alyosha1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
What version are you reading? I dont see any mention of a seventh day morning in my versions.
 
What version are you reading? I dont see any mention of a seventh day morning in my versions.
Genesis 1:31 “And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.”

The Jewish day runs from sunset to sunset. So the “evening”, i.e. the sunset, was the end of the sixth day. The “morning” will have been in the seventh day, after the sixth day had finished at the previous sunset.
 
No. sorry, that verse is about the creation on the 6th day. There are 2 acts of creation that day, it is the biggest day.

Firstly as described in a Hebrew Chiastic Structure wild animals, creeping things and livestock. These are made, brought forth from the earth. Then at the apex of creation, adam is created by God, not made or brought forth as commanded of the earth, but created by God.
There is a huge difference in the language used here in the Hebrew Bible, made vs created.

On the seventh day God rests. This is written as the seventh day.

And again, as another poster is attempting to establish, there is absolutely no longines time in the creation stories in either chapter 1 or chapter 2. There is plenty established in Hebrew. I gave an example above of make vs create. That has huge implications that translated Bibles miss , purely because it cannot be effectively translated.
 
Reconciling Genesis with God’s World - is easy via Faith

Genesis - Understood - is a Excellent Metaphor - for the World of God, Man and Satan

It can by more fully Understood - via the Lens of Jesus .

LIGHT ITSELF - is not confined to - nor does not have its origin - in Stars…

Interesting how in a famous interview by Ben Stein to Richard Dawkins the pop Atheist…

Dawkins acknowledges the possibility that life on Earth
may have been set in motion by intelligent life-force from an alien solar system.

Dawkins also admits to not being a 100% Atheist.
 
Richard Dawkins is an atheist. That he qualifies a statement or two with maybe or probably should be considered not the whole truth. He has written that he puts up a Christmas tree as a purely cultural thing, not as something religious.
 
Richard Dawkins is an atheist. That he qualifies a statement or two with maybe or probably should be considered not the whole truth. He has written that he puts up a Christmas tree as a purely cultural thing, not as something religious.
He self identifies as agnostic. I think he gave himself 7 out of 8 on a scale in reference to God’s existence
 
It’s interesting that the Big Bang theory, or as he called it, the Cosmic Egg Hypothesis, was first developed by a Catholic priest… Monsignor Lemaitre.
 
Wikipedia states: “Dawkins is known as an outspoken atheist.”

If you have a different reference, please post it.
 
Stick with the Truth of scripture:
I would agree that we need to stick with the truth in the Scriptures; but the question becomes “what truth”?

Those who profess that something written 4,000 to 5,000 years ago was meant to report scientific understanding the the 20th century are literalists.

The Catholic Church is not literalist; it is contextualist. And the context is that God created the universe, and the world, over time. Jewish thought - and pre-Jewish thought had no scientific basis as we understand it today, nor was their sense of reporting history - or genealogy - the same as today. They were not scientists nor historians; they were people of faith, trying to explain their faith in a monotheistic God. When we attempt to answer questions they never addressed, we get entirely off track.
 
Wikipedia states: “Dawkins is known as an outspoken atheist.”

If you have a different reference, please post it.
A reference, Ed? Well, the good Prof will tell you himself here:

Now was there any comment you wished to make on the punishments you said didn’t exist in the OT? The burning and the stoning for example?
 
Last edited:
I never said/wrote ‘didn’t exist.’ I wrote ‘which punishments.’ A lot of things were written and I was looking for the intent of the poster. I don’t like to assume I know what someone else is referring to.
 
I suggest you read the following:

 
1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine.
70 years later, the Pope’s work has been further nuanced.

Paragraph 337 of the CCC: “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as the succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.”

My bold. Footnotes to Dei Verbum 11, and Lumen Gentium 36, section 2.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Genesis 1 is literal, as in “science”. It does most certainly teach that God created, that He created out of nothing.

Paragraphs 279 through 412 are worth a read, to the OP.
 
Last edited:
I never said/wrote ‘didn’t exist.’ I wrote ‘which punishments.’ A lot of things were written and I was looking for the intent of the poster. I don’t like to assume I know what someone else is referring to.
So now you know, do we accept the bible in its entirety as being authored by God and should abide by what is written? Or should we reinterpret some passages.
 
In these conversations, it is important to separate what the Church actually teaches from what individual Catholics may believe (without contradicting the Church), and what some individual Catholics (including any of us) do believe.

The Church accepts the scientific consensus on the age and general history of the universe - i.e. that it is billions of years old, but has a beginning sometime in the distant past. The Church sees no conflict between science and faith on that point.

The Church allows Catholics to disagree as to the first (the age), but not the second (that there was a beginning).

Some Catholics choose to deny scientific consensus and instead believe some form (there are multiple) of the so-called Young Earth theories. Such a belief is allowed by the Church. It is not mandated by the Church. (Or, in my view, even encouraged by the Church.)

Here is a document that lays out the Church’s view in more detail, from the Vatican website:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
 
Communion and Stewardship, a very long document, should be read in its entirety before posting any conclusions. It is not possible to point only to certain parts while not mentioning others. These sorts of threads always give positive thought to science and at least partly ignore God. That cannot happen.

For example, the Church is not convinced about the age of the universe. Here, 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.
  • Catholic Answers
 
Last edited:
Communion and Stewardship, a very long document, should be read in its entirety before posting any conclusions. It is not possible to point only to certain parts while not mentioning others. These sorts of threads always give positive thought to science and at least partly ignore God. That cannot happen.
Yes, I agree that the whole document is important, which is why I posted the link. The Church has not concluded exactly how old the universe is, true, but the Church does accept the scientific explanations of the age of the universe. So the universe may be 14 billion years old, or maybe only 10 billion - that is not a question of faith. But the Church does not teach that the universe is merely thousands of years old.
 
The Church has not decided. See my post above which is from Catholic Answers.
 
The Church has not decided. See my post above which is from Catholic Answers.
OK. My document is from the Vatican and was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think we know which is more authoritative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top