Statement: The Church needs to stand firm on Sacred Scripture, particularly the creation account.

[Jason27]

I would like to make a brief statement…

The Catholic Church needs to stand firm on its faith regarding Sacred Scripture. I’m particularly referring to the Genesis creation account.

It clearly states that God made the Heavens and the Earth is 6 literal 24 hour days - and every living thing within them! (inc. dinosaurs)

Death entered the world after the Fall - to all living beings - not just humans. For all animals were made for mankind. Read the text in Genesis…it is not symbolic or coded. It is simple…but literal!

If the Catholic Church has authority over Christianity, it must stand firm on what is written by God. (not man) It is popular belief that evolution is FACT and so the Catholic Church, although I am aware has not actually ruled out a 6 day Creation, has allowed beliefs regarding the Genesis account to become ‘flexible’ and so to coincide whith ‘Man’s’ theories.

I would urge the Cathloic Church to look into the evidence and realise that the Genesis account on Creation is both logical, and in fact backed up by Science.

Check out this website - it is a Genesis apologetics (defending) network with loads of information and resources to help people understand that God’s Word is literal, and should, and CAN be defended.

Answers in Genesis

God Bless.

Jason

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301bt.asp

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#IV

 

[Dorothy]

The Church does not require us to believe that the six days of Genesis were 6 24-hour days.

Genesis is all about that God created from nothing, , He created man, the fall from grace happened, and the promise of a Saviour.

That is what we are required to believe.

“A thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years”. A “thousand years” can be symbolic of a very long time.

We are free to believe in a literal 24 hour six day creation, and we are free to believe that much more time passed than that.

What we should not do is argue about the issue, and think that only one answer is right.

We do need to believe in the essentials.

 

[I_Fortuna]

Hi there, what a great statement!

Here is something you may find interesting Jason.

I have posted this for curiosity sake and comparitve relgious info. One of the creation myths of the Ancient Egyptians that predates Christianity follows:

God was self-created as symbolized by a goose egg in hieroglyph. He then created the earth, the sky and the waters through the spoken word and these are symbolized by other people and creatures through hieroglyph. His image as a potter on the Nile created the humans on the potter’s wheel with mud from the NIle. Ancient Egyptians practiced a monolatry with belief in a one God with many faces much like the Hindus. Because they had no bible and most people did not read, they used the pictures or hieroglyph to communicate to the people.
This was a very imprecise way to communicate to the populace and only aristocrats and royalty were allowed in the temples for the most part. A few people knew some of the hieroglyph and priviledged children were encouraged to become scribes,

Other accounts are similar. I would suggest you read them and Gilgamesh for perspective.

In addition and most of all, I would suggest you get Jeff Cavins dvds the first few of which covers Genesis, Gilgamesh and creation. He is a Catholic and a former Protestant minister who speaks, reads, and writes Hebrew and also Greek I believe. I would suggest that if you can not get them, that you get your priest to offer a bible study using these dvds as a learning tool. Our priest who has been a preist for 25 years has found very much useful info from them as well.

Anyway, he will put into perspective how we and the Catholic Church view Genesis and the creation. It is remarkable and faith building. Cavins also covers the 12 narrative books of the bible in total. It is a very enlightening series.

 

[Jason27]

Thanks for your replies…

It is not my intention to argue this issue. But I will defend…

It is very common to think that this issue is not important, as long as we believe in the ‘essentials’. But if you interpret a passage in the Bible as symbolic, or a parable…then surely this can be applied to ANY passage, including the Gospel itself! Whenever God speaks a parable, he makes it very clear that he is doing so.

God cannot lie, and God does not deceive. The book of Genesis makes it clear that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days…this is also re-affirmed in Exodus when God commands the Israelites to keep the Sabbath holy.

The reason why it is important to affirm the literal account of Genesis, is because many people fall from faith because of Science. People are led to believe that it is either Science, or God! And because the ‘old earth’ theory and evolution are apparently backed up and proved by science (notice I use the word ‘apparently’), many Christians try to fit the account of Genesis with what science says about the world.

But what Genesis apologetics groups (such as Answersingenesis.org) do is show that really, science in fact clearly demonstrates that Creation took place around 6000 years ago, which the geneaoligies in the Bible from Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to David, David to Jesus Christ clearly show.

Check out answersingenesis.org - even if you think its unimportant, seeing the evidence only strengthens faith…

God Bless,

Jason

 

[NHInsider]

Unfortunately, Jason, you are asking the Church to “stand firm” on a doctrine it does not teach.

The Church teaches infallibly on faith and morals. It is de fide that God created the universe ex nihilo, and that He personally created human beings and gave them/us immortal souls.

How God did that is something that is within the realm of science and open to exploration and discussion, and as has been pointed out, Catholics are free to believe in a literal six-day creation and remain faithful to the Church.

I would say, however (and I hope I’m not violating the moratorium on evolution/creation discussion) that just as you observed

many people fall from faith because of Science. People are led to believe that it is either Science, or God! And because the ‘old earth’ theory and evolution are apparently backed up and proved by science (notice I use the word ‘apparently’), many Christians try to fit the account of Genesis with what science says about the world.

As a person of faith I find it troubling to try and explain why God would create the world in 6000 terrestial years and make it appear to be billions of years old. Does that not suggest the blasphemy that Almighty God is capable of deceit, and desires to deceive us? To me that’s a theological challenge far more difficult than to say that Genesis is literally true but not literalistically true - following the Church’s teaching that the literal truth of a passage of Scripture must incorporate the context and genre of the text.

But what Genesis apologetics groups (such as Answersingenesis.org) do is show that really, science in fact clearly demonstrates that Creation took place around 6000 years ago, which the geneaoligies in the Bible from Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to David, David to Jesus Christ clearly show.

Answers in Genesis is explicitly NOT in accord with Catholic teaching. Read their Statement of Faith. First of all, they are sola scriptura and hold the 66 book canon as de fide. If you dig a little in the archives you can find the articles where they “prove” that the Catholic canon is wrong. Secondly, their soteriology (theology of salvation) is seriously deficient. If you want to read Catholic creationist material, it’s out there. Don’t hitch your wagon to this misguided train.

 

[puzzleannie]

I would like to make a brief statement…

The Catholic Church needs to stand firm on its faith regarding Sacred Scripture. I’m particularly referring to the Genesis creation account.

It clearly states that God made the Heavens and the Earth is 6 literal 24 hour days - and every living thing within them! (inc. dinosaurs)

Jason

no genesis does not state that creation took 6 literal 24 hour days in earth time, it clearly says the order of creation happened exactly in the order described, in created time, in “days” or definite discrete elapsed time periods in God’s time. Since it describes the creation of the entire universe, not merely the planet earth, obviously the days are not earth days described in earth time as it revolves on its axis, but on “universe” time in periods we are only know beginning to discover and understand. To insist on a literal earth day is to ignore the rest of creation and to limit God to man’s understand of time, a fatal error and a gateway to possible heresy. To limit understanding of scripture in general to human understanding of the literal meaning is furthermore to ignore the spiritual, deeper meaning of God’s revelation, and to refuse to read his Word in the Spirit, another even more dangerous error. Both attitudes are arrogant in that they make limited human understanding the benchmark for hearing and understanding God’s Word.

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

I have several translation of the bible none mention “6 literal 24 hour periods”.
Also please note that the light which as to denotes day, years etc. didn’t happen until the fourth day.
Thanks

 

[kepha1]

"…One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it.

Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time – from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world.

The world is not, as people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces; nor is it the dwelling of demonic powers from which human beings must protect themselves. The sun and the moon are not deities that rule over them, and the sky that stretches over their heads is not full of mysterious and adversary divinities. Rather, all of this comes from one power, from God’s eternal Reason, which became – in the Word – the power of creation.

All of this comes from the same Word of God that we meet in the act of faith. Thus, insofar as human beings realized that the world came from the Word, they ceased to care about the gods and demons. In addition, the world was freed so that reason might lift itself up to God and so that human beings might approach this God fearlessly. In this Word they experienced the true enlightenment that does away with the gods and the mysterious powers and that reveals to them that there is only one power everywhere and that we are in his hands. This is the living God, and this same power (which created the earth and the stars and which bears the whole universe) is the very one whom we meet in the Word of Holy Scripture. In this Word we come into contact with the real primordial force of the world and with the power that is above all powers…"

A commentary on Genesis 1-3 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Jason, please don’t criticise what you have been told what we believe about Genesis; first try and understand what is really taught.

 

[Jason27]

Thanks for your comments,

discussion and reasoning is indeed better than arguing and disputing.

This issue clearly touches on the age old division between Catholic and Protestant faith - authority of the Church / authority of Scripture.

It has been difficult for me to get involved with a church. Although I was baptized a Catholic and went to Catholic schools, I have found my faith in God and our Lord Jesus Christ has been strengthened not by any Church, but by the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is what reveals the truth about God.

I believe in unity between all Christians. Just as no human being is perfect , so no church denomination is perfect.

I consider myself a Christian - not a Catholic Christian, not a Protestant Christian, not a Baptist Christian, but a Christian. And the issue I have raised here is non Christian and Christian alike have come to believe the old earth theory and even evolution. The point I am trying to say is that many people have attempted to ‘put words in God’s mouth’
The point I really want to stress, is that there is over-whelming scientific, geological, biological and archeological evidence for a young Earth, the Genesis flood etc which all point to what the Bible makes clear…a literal 6 day Creation.

We must not dismiss information that can strenghten faith and even help others turn to faith in our Lord. And if it is demonstrating to people that the Bible (WORD OF GOD) can be trusted, despite the CLAIMS of man- which forever changes and adapts - therefore has no stability or rock to stand on (like we have with our Lord Jesus Christ) we should embrace it.

The Lord will judge each of us not on which Church denomination we belong to , but by our hearts. Is to trust what the Word says, not to trust the one who says the Word? Mankind is who came up with and old earth, origin of species, NATURAL selection. These theories do not walk hand in hand with God’s Word.

God bless,

Jason

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

Perhaps I have miss it but I don’t see one piece of good evidence you have put forward to support you case.

 

[kepha1]

Jason, do you apply this same literalism to John 6 as you do to Genesis?

 

[edwest2]

The Church does not require us to believe that the six days of Genesis were 6 24-hour days.

Genesis is all about that God created from nothing, , He created man, the fall from grace happened, and the promise of a Saviour.

That is what we are required to believe.

“A thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years”. A “thousand years” can be symbolic of a very long time.

We are free to believe in a literal 24 hour six day creation, and we are free to believe that much more time passed than that.

What we should not do is argue about the issue, and think that only one answer is right.

We do need to believe in the essentials.

What we do need to do as Catholics is realize to what degree the outside world wishes to align a purely non-God evolutionary explanation with a Bible based explanation. They could care less abot an invisible soul and an invisible God. All they want is acceptance. All they want is to come here and say, Well your Pope accepts it, so why don’t you?

Some post here as if science needs to confirm the work of God. Divine revelation comes from God, not Moses or any of the prophets. Scripture was not written through the will of man but the will of God. Scripture is not called Sacred to honor men but to recognize and honor God.

The moment people post here that “science says that thing in your Bible never happened,” we need to realize science can say no such thing. There are no peer reviewed, scientific papers analyzing Genesis.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Verbum]

For those of us who care what the Church really thinks, here is a 1948 response from the Pontifical Biblical Commission to a letter from Cardinal Sluhard, Archbishop of Paris ;

The question of the literary forms of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is far more obscure and complex. These literary forms do not correspond to any of our classical categories and cannot be judged in the light of the Greco-Latin or modern literary types. It is therefore impossible to deny or to affirm their historicity as a whole without unduly applying to them norms of a literary type under which they cannot be classed.

If it is agreed not to see in these chapters history in the classical and modern sense, it must be admitted also that known scientific facts do not allow a positive solution of all the problems which they present. The first duty in this matter incumbent on scientific exegesis consists in the careful study of all the problems literary, scientific, historical, cultural, and religious connected with these chapters; in the next place is required a close examination of the literary methods of the ancient oriental peoples, their psychology, their manner of expressing themselves and even their notion of historical truth the requisite, in a word, is to assemble without preformed judgements all the material of the palaeontological and historical, epigraphical and literary sciences. It is only in this way that there is hope of attaining a clearer view of the true nature of certain narratives in the first chapters of Genesis. To declare a priori that these narratives do not contain history in the modern sense of the word might easily be understood to mean that they do not contain history in any sense, whereas they relate in simple and figurative language, adapted to the understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development, the fundamental truths underlying the divine scheme of salvation, as well as a popular description of the origins of the human race and of the chosen people. In the meantime it is necessary to practise patience which is part of prudence and the wisdom of life. This also is inculcated by the Holy Father in the Encyclical already quoted: “No one”, he says, “should be surprised that all the difficulties have not yet been clarified or solved. But that is no reason for losing courage or forgetting that in the branches of human study it cannot be otherwise than in nature, where beginnings grow little by little, where the produce of the soil is not gathered except after prolonged labour. There is ground, therefore, for hoping that (these difficulties) which today appear most complicated and arduous, will eventually, thanks to constant effort, admit of complete clarification” (AAS [1943] 318)
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/pbc.htm

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for your replies…

It is not my intention to argue this issue. But I will defend…

It is very common to think that this issue is not important, as long as we believe in the ‘essentials’. But if you interpret a passage in the Bible as symbolic, or a parable…then surely this can be applied to ANY passage, including the Gospel itself! Whenever God speaks a parable, he makes it very clear that he is doing so.

God cannot lie, and God does not deceive. The book of Genesis makes it clear that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days…this is also re-affirmed in Exodus when God commands the Israelites to keep the Sabbath holy.

The reason why it is important to affirm the literal account of Genesis, is because many people fall from faith because of Science. People are led to believe that it is either Science, or God! And because the ‘old earth’ theory and evolution are apparently backed up and proved by science (notice I use the word ‘apparently’), many Christians try to fit the account of Genesis with what science says about the world.

But what Genesis apologetics groups (such as Answersingenesis.org) do is show that really, science in fact clearly demonstrates that Creation took place around 6000 years ago, which the geneaoligies in the Bible from Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to David, David to Jesus Christ clearly show.

Check out answersingenesis.org - even if you think its unimportant, seeing the evidence only strengthens faith…

God Bless,

Jason

Thank you, Jason. An attempt is being made here to perform social engineering. To change how people perceive themselves and others. Examples:

You are just an animal. Nothing more. Chimps have been called our ‘evolutionary cousins,’ though they do not build cities or use advanced forms of technology. The clear implication is that they are simply a more primitive form of us.

God can do nothing. A self-starting mechanism called evolution began spitting out organisms. If one happened to be in the right environment at the right time, it might get selected to survive. What is somehow missed is premature death by predators, disease, fire and so on. The issue of passing on genes becomes a far less simple proposition.

As an animal that can speak, invent and create advanced tools, we are still only another animal and our behavior is beholden to nothing. Whatever may be functional or convenient is our perogative. All belief systems are fictions, imposed on us by our primitive, at the time, genetic material. Now that our brains have self-upgraded, we can discard all that God/gods/belief nonsense.

A recent billboard spelled this out: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

What is the value of a human being that thinks of itself as just another animal? Who views his fellow creatures as animals as well?

What is the value of a child of God who knows his origin, who knows he is loved and who knows his neighbor was willed by God as he was?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Unfortunately, Jason, you are asking the Church to “stand firm” on a doctrine it does not teach.

The Church teaches infallibly on faith and morals. It is de fide that God created the universe ex nihilo, and that He personally created human beings and gave them/us immortal souls.

How God did that is something that is within the realm of science and open to exploration and discussion, and as has been pointed out, Catholics are free to believe in a literal six-day creation and remain faithful to the Church.

I would say, however (and I hope I’m not violating the moratorium on evolution/creation discussion) that just as you observed

As a person of faith I find it troubling to try and explain why God would create the world in 6000 terrestial years and make it appear to be billions of years old. Does that not suggest the blasphemy that Almighty God is capable of deceit, and desires to deceive us? To me that’s a theological challenge far more difficult than to say that Genesis is literally true but not literalistically true - following the Church’s teaching that the literal truth of a passage of Scripture must incorporate the context and genre of the text.

Answers in Genesis is explicitly NOT in accord with Catholic teaching. Read their Statement of Faith. First of all, they are sola scriptura and hold the 66 book canon as de fide. If you dig a little in the archives you can find the articles where they “prove” that the Catholic canon is wrong. Secondly, their soteriology (theology of salvation) is seriously deficient. If you want to read Catholic creationist material, it’s out there. Don’t hitch your wagon to this misguided train.

What Catholics need to understand is that Science cannot explain Scripture. This is not a case of Science is right and Scripture is wrong and it is completely false to portray God as any kind of deceiver. I find it hard to believe that Catholics think Science matters so much when it cannot comment on the work of God.

Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes twice. No one seems to bother to mention that the extra loaves and fishes came out of thin air. Nobody bothers to realize that everything was created from nothing (de fide) but the moment life appears on earth, God has to get out of the way and let some totally non-God process get to work. Was Jesus walking on the water and commanding the wind and waves to calm down some sort of trick? Once Science sticks its nose in, what else will it say about the Bible?

I am for reasonable science but I am 100% against the kind of ideology I see posted here all the time. “Hey. Yous Katliks. Science sez here dat your creation story didn’t happen like dat. Wise up! Science got you beat.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Martin_Le_Fay]

Isn’t this kinda silly? I mean, Psalm 114 says that mountains skipped like rams and hills like lambs. Are we supposed to believe that’s literally true? When the Bible talks about things like “the arm of the Lord” are we supposed to believe that it’s a real, physical arm, even in the Old Testament? If your a Protestant, doesn’t that mean when Jesus says “this is my body” that you would have to agree that catholics are right about what the eucharist really is?

If you say that those things can be interpereted symbolically, then what’s the difference when someone does the same thing in Genesis?

 

[edwest2]

no genesis does not state that creation took 6 literal 24 hour days in earth time, it clearly says the order of creation happened exactly in the order described, in created time, in “days” or definite discrete elapsed time periods in God’s time. Since it describes the creation of the entire universe, not merely the planet earth, obviously the days are not earth days described in earth time as it revolves on its axis, but on “universe” time in periods we are only know beginning to discover and understand. To insist on a literal earth day is to ignore the rest of creation and to limit God to man’s understand of time, a fatal error and a gateway to possible heresy. To limit understanding of scripture in general to human understanding of the literal meaning is furthermore to ignore the spiritual, deeper meaning of God’s revelation, and to refuse to read his Word in the Spirit, another even more dangerous error. Both attitudes are arrogant in that they make limited human understanding the benchmark for hearing and understanding God’s Word.

God is being limited here all the time. My Bible states “the evening and the morning were the third day” etc.

The writer is writing to human beings that know a day as evening and morning or 24 hours. I could care less if science is offended by that.

I see gateways to possible heresy posted here all the time. I know, and have known, about the spiritual meanings for a long time, but I was taught a literal Noah and the Ark in Catholic school as well.

What is truly arrogant is people posting here about how science can be applied to the Bible when the fact is there are zero scientific, peer reviewed studies that focus on the claims made in the Bible.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Isn’t this kinda silly? I mean, Psalm 114 says that mountains skipped like rams and hills like lambs. Are we supposed to believe that’s literally true? When the Bible talks about things like “the arm of the Lord” are we supposed to believe that it’s a real, physical arm, even in the Old Testament? If your a Protestant, doesn’t that mean when Jesus says “this is my body” that you would have to agree that catholics are right about what the eucharist really is?

If you say that those things can be interpereted symbolically, then what’s the difference when someone does the same thing in Genesis?

What’s the difference? Who did Jesus die for and why?

Would you like the entire Bible to be symbolically symbolic?

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Unfortunately, Jason, you are asking the Church to “stand firm” on a doctrine it does not teach.

The Church teaches infallibly on faith and morals. It is de fide that God created the universe ex nihilo, and that He personally created human beings and gave them/us immortal souls.

How God did that is something that is within the realm of science and open to exploration and discussion, and as has been pointed out, Catholics are free to believe in a literal six-day creation and remain faithful to the Church.

I would say, however (and I hope I’m not violating the moratorium on evolution/creation discussion) that just as you observed

As a person of faith I find it troubling to try and explain why God would create the world in 6000 terrestial years and make it appear to be billions of years old. Does that not suggest the blasphemy that Almighty God is capable of deceit, and desires to deceive us? To me that’s a theological challenge far more difficult than to say that Genesis is literally true but not literalistically true - following the Church’s teaching that the literal truth of a passage of Scripture must incorporate the context and genre of the text.

Answers in Genesis is explicitly NOT in accord with Catholic teaching. Read their Statement of Faith. First of all, they are sola scriptura and hold the 66 book canon as de fide. If you dig a little in the archives you can find the articles where they “prove” that the Catholic canon is wrong. Secondly, their soteriology (theology of salvation) is seriously deficient. If you want to read Catholic creationist material, it’s out there. Don’t hitch your wagon to this misguided train.

What has been the constant understanding and teaching of the Catholic Church?

Do you have a Magisterial document and date that it changed?