The Contentious Views on Genesis?

[TheAtheist]

Wait…stop. I know what your thinking. “Oh dear, an Atheist asking about Genesis - i know where this is going…” Shoo shoo. Not the type of discussion i’m looking for.

Rather i’ve come to ask an interesting historical question regarding the changing views of the Book of Genesis and its importance to the religious mind and what its role might be in the current times of the Catholic Church.

Due to its subject matter, Genesis tends to be a rather contentious book as it attempts to explain both the development of the cosmos and mankind - perhaps the two largest questions facing a person of any particular religious or philosophical background.

The most popular rendition regarding how to read Genesis seems to be in the “sola scriptura” vein -

The Bible is the Divine word of God → God’s Word is Inerrant → Inerrant = Literal —> Genesis is the Literal Truth about the Creation of the world/man.

BUT - there also seems to have been an alternative rendering of how a person should take Genesis - a kind of mentality that tends to treat what’s written as Allegory.

So - which is it for you folks? Literalism or Allegory?

Now before someone jumps down my throat with the answer, i’d like to note that this question goes waaay back to how the Jews themselves interpreted Genesis:

And so we have two views:

The Literalist View

Judaism: Part of the issue in terms of the Rabbinical traditions that arose after the Diaspora seems to indicate that a literal rendition of the Torah is not necessary - as there is a split over which parts of the Torah can be considered literal.

The Seder Olam, a Midrashic work written by Rabbi Jose ben Halafta (~2nd century?) supports the literalist viewpoint by developing a rather exacting Biblical chronology that covers life from the creation of the universe to the foundation of 2nd Temple Judaism.

Stemming from this tradition, a large chunk of Orthodox Judaism has looked favorably on a more or less literal interpretation.

The Damascus School in Early Christianity:

Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianus, Ephrem the Syrian, and the celebrated John Chrysostom (whose works Thomas Aquinas would have supposedly traded the whole city of Paris for) - this is definitely the “All Star Line Up” of Eastern Christianity and happen to be Church Fathers in the Latin tradition.

And they all, in one way or another, followed the “party line” of the Damascus School of Biblical interpretation. The Bible is Literal, ergo Genesis is Literal and the Truth.

A prime example of this is a statement made by St. Basil:

“I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. ‘For I am not ashamed of the Gospel’ [Romans 1:16].”

So that’s it right? Its literal, end of story, etc.

But then…

---

The Allegorical View

Back to Judaism: And here we go again, the celebrated Rabbi Simeon Bar Yohai (also ~2nd century) wrote:

"If a man looks upon the Torah as merely a book presenting narratives and everyday matters, alas for him! Such a torah, one treating with everyday concerns, and indeed a more excellent one, we too, even we, could compile. More than that, in the possession of the rulers of the world there are books of even greater merit, and these we could emulate if we wished to compile some such torah. But the Torah, in all of its words, holds supernal truths and sublime secrets.
Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must also be contained in an outer garment. That garment is made up of the tales and stories; but we, we are bound to penetrate beyond."

This was followed up by the work of the great medieval Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, also known as Maimonides - yes that Maimonides that all the Jews name their hospitals after. Yes, also that Maimonides who Thomas Aquinas often makes reference to. In his Guide to the Perplexed, Maimonides made a very strong singular statement that if natural philosophy (and by extension science) proved a finding, than Scripture should be interpreted accordingly in regards to that finding.

The Alexandrine School of Early Christianity:

Justin Martyr, Origen of Alexandria (who was deemed a heretic at one point, but whose name seems to have been cleared by those important theologians of Vatican II - one of which is your Current Holy Father), and the Augustine of Hippo.

Again - Theological All-Stars. Again - Church Fathers. With a completely different viewpoint.

Augustine words provide the best statement on their part:

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”

 

[TheAtheist]

Ahem, so there’s obviously a bit of debate about just how to take Genesis - even from people within the same tradition.

From my understanding of the current situation: most Protestant and some Orthodox Jewish sects have sided with the former account - lock, stock, and barrel.

Orthodox Christianity seems of 2 minds in this regard - some rejecting Biblical literalism due to their reverence of the Bible as an Esoteric/Mystical book - preventing one from taking it on face value.

Conservative and Liberal Judaism have taken the allegorical viewpoint - mostly following in the path laid out by Maimonides.

Interestingly enough - many of those in the Kabbalist/Mystical tradition of Judaism also reject Genesis literalism along the same grounds of objection made by mystics in the Orthodox Christian tradition.

How did the Catholic Church resolve these tensions? Have they even been resolved at all?

 

[garysibio]

I don’t want to get involved in a big discussion of this topic - again - because they are rarely profitable but I did want to make a comment. I come at this issue from the perspective of one who takes Genesis to be literal but also acknowledging that there are parts of the Bible that are not meant to be taken literally.

Usually, when you come across a passage that is not to be taken literally, you are able to see why it should not be taken that way. For example, when the Psalms speak of “the hand of God” or “under His wing” we know it’s not literal because God is a spirit and has no body. Also, when Jesus spoke in a parable, it is obvious that this is a story designed to make a point and not a historical account.

When I look at Genesis, I see nothing that tells me that this account is not to be taken at face value. In other threads I’ve asked those who reject the first few chapters of Genesis what is it about them that separates them from the rest of the book, a metaphorical/historical dividing line. I’ve never gotten an answer.

I recently read Cardinal Schoenborn’s Chance or Purpose and was very disappointed. He starts by saying that the creation account in Genesis should not be taken literally but then uses Gen 1:1 to show that God created the universe. In other words, after dismissing it’s literalness, he takes the first verse very literally. So he compounds the problem by not only having to explain when Genesis becomes historical but also why it stops being literal between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.

Gary

 

[Tim_Taylor]

My take on Genesis, is that we must take a Spiritualists view point. Remember that GOD’s thoughts are far above our own. The Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas would tell us that there are two ways a person can discern the future. 1. By causality. That is by discerning cause effect relationships. 2. By DIVINE revelation. GOD we suppose then can see all things from the beginning to the end.

Understanding that GOD’s understanding is far above our own and that GOD can see the future, and know all things that are to come, and that GOD is SPIRIT, we must suppose that GOD in the Scripture is appointing understanding to men, who’s understanding is comparably simplistic. JESUS CHRIST spoke in parables to give understanding of the mysteries of GOD’s KINGDOM, because while such understanding was given to the Apostles it was not given to all men. And many of these JESUS CHRIST spoke to were uneducated and their understanding extended to provincial attitudes of rural farmers, and to daily subsistence living.

Now Moses was given knowledge of such mysteries, and Moses was the Law giver and the author of the Pentateuch, including Genesis. Why did Moses begin to write about the creation? Was it to show us where we came from? Was it to show us where we are going? I suggest to you that in explaining the creation GOD is imparting only a tiny bit of GOD’s awesome understanding of the Universal Cosmos. And this is to include the creation of time and of space, of that which was, and is, and what will be. And this is given in a Spiritual narrative. To which we see it as Apocalyptic, or symbolic.

Let me give you an example, we say of some in common speech, He or She is a real Gem. Now you probably understand that, to mean they are a good person, or if said sarcastically to mean they are really not very good. But in the Scripture we have this same analogy of the Saints that they are Gems, precious stones which are used to build up the KINGDOM OF GOD. Thus we could say of the Saints, they are Real Gems, sparkling and precious. This however is a concrete comparison, of a worldly understood concept of something precious, as a gem, a rock which is to be kept and prized, to a Spiritual concept of a special person, worth much to the LORD. Unlike the common stones, these are precious stones. Unlike common men, these are precious men to GOD. They are Saints.

Now in Genesis, GOD explains that GOD spoke the WORD, and said, “Let there be light, and there was light.” Am i to take that literally, figuratively, Apocalyptically? I would take it as a Spiritual literalism. That is that this is imparting a Spiritual concept, far above the understanding of men, in a concept which is understood by men. It is literal, it is Spiritual, it is to be discerned.

Amen
LOVE your neighbor as yourself.
GOD bless you all.

 

[tyson_anthony]

I read Genesis for the first time (since graduating from college) about a year ago. Now, I am no biblical scholar and know little to nothing about ancient languages, so what I can understand about the book is based on a secondary document. That being said, I have noticed that there is a strikingly different style between the first eleven chapters and the rest of the book. Beginning with chapter 12, the story of Abraham and his descendants begins, and the book takes on the tone of a historical narrative. In the first eleven chapters, there seems to be a more mythological style. I base this in part on the language used, in part on the sporadic nature of the timeline, and in part on the fact that each of the stories told in these chapters have corresponding myths in neighbering cultures. The story of the fall of humanity, for example, is very similar to Pandora’s box, and many cultures have flood stories. I find the best approach for understanding these chapters is to compare them with the corresponding myths and see the different perspective that the Jews have on the great philisophical questions from their neighbors. There appears, to me, to be a focus on God’s efforts towards redeeming humanity in all of these stories, as opposed to just an effort to explain the unexplainable while teaching a moral and ethical lesson. That is my take on it, for what it’s worth, but I’m no expert in theology. It is an excellent question, though, TheAtheist, and I appreciate the charitable manner with which you introduced the discussion.

 

[garysibio]

I read Genesis for the first time (since graduating from college) about a year ago. Now, I am no biblical scholar and know little to nothing about ancient languages, so what I can understand about the book is based on a secondary document. That being said, I have noticed that there is a strikingly different style between the first eleven chapters and the rest of the book. Beginning with chapter 12, the story of Abraham and his descendants begins, and the book takes on the tone of a historical narrative. In the first eleven chapters, there seems to be a more mythological style. I base this in part on the language used, in part on the sporadic nature of the timeline, and in part on the fact that each of the stories told in these chapters have corresponding myths in neighbering cultures. The story of the fall of humanity, for example, is very similar to Pandora’s box, and many cultures have flood stories. I find the best approach for understanding these chapters is to compare them with the corresponding myths and see the different perspective that the Jews have on the great philisophical questions from their neighbors. There appears, to me, to be a focus on God’s efforts towards redeeming humanity in all of these stories, as opposed to just an effort to explain the unexplainable while teaching a moral and ethical lesson. That is my take on it, for what it’s worth, but I’m no expert in theology. It is an excellent question, though, TheAtheist, and I appreciate the charitable manner with which you introduced the discussion.

The problem is that, when you say there are two different styles, that’s very subjective. I don’t see a difference in style. When you say it seems more mythological, could it be possible that you are reading that into the text because you don’t believe it is literal. I know I could be just as guilty of doing this as you or, more accurately, the opposite, which is why I am looking for objective evidence that says “up to here is symbolic, from here on it’s history.” I just don’t see anything like that.

Gary

 

[TheAtheist]

It is an excellent question, though, TheAtheist, and I appreciate the charitable manner with which you introduced the discussion.

:blackeye: <–Well there is much to be said about approaching a topic systematically and with a level of seriousness. Or we can end up like that.

That and i find it to be an interesting historical mystery.

I know I could be just as guilty of doing this as you or, more accurately, the opposite, which is why I am looking for objective evidence that says “up to here is symbolic, from here on it’s history.” I just don’t see anything like that.

I’m not even sure that’s possible Gary. I mean, what would constitute objective evidence?

---

Some for instance, follow the line that Genesis (although not necessarily the rest of the Torah/Pentatuch) must have grown out of the experience of the Babylonian Captivity - when the Kingdom of Judah was overrun by the Babylonians.

They point to the manner in which Genesis starts vs. say the Babylonian Enuma Elish or other creation stories that are strikingly similar to each other in the middle east - to show how the ancient Jews wished to establish a sense of identity vis-a-vis their conquerors.

So Genesis starts off as “When in the Beginning.” and the Creation account ends with God resting on the 7th day.

The Enuma Elsih starts “When on high…” and ends with Marduk the God of Babylon establishing his city and the Temple of Babylon.

The Jews - a people in exile who cannot access their temple - sacralize Time. After all, while you can’t pray in your temple - you can still keep shabbath.

The Babylonians (and the other flood accounts) - sacralize Space

The Act of Creation in Genesis is by Words alone. Marduk on the other hand has to slay the Water Titan Tiamat and use her body to make the world. The parallel between the two comes not by their methodology ( i mean, speaking vs. violent death is as pretty far apart as it gets) - but in the order of creation which mirrors each other quite well.

Although interestingly enough, the “tool” to accomplish this task is breathe/wind in both cases is the same. The Jewish God blows upon the waters, while Marduk directs the winds to tear the Water Titan Tiamat apart. Taming of the waters is an obvious benefit for those living in such an arid climate.

Human beings are made in both accounts, but for the Enuma Elish - humans are but the slaves of Marduk (Makes sense for a Conqueror Culture right?)

In Genesis, Humans are beloved children (Makes sense for a Nomadic Culture right?)

---

So yeah, pretty compelling theory about how Genesis might have arisen from cultural interactions between the Jews in captivity and the alien culture they were held captive too.

But objective?

 

[Tim_Taylor]

The problem is that, when you say there are two different styles, that’s very subjective. I don’t see a difference in style. When you say it seems more mythological, could it be possible that you are reading that into the text because you don’t believe it is literal. I know I could be just as guilty of doing this as you or, more accurately, the opposite, which is why I am looking for objective evidence that says “up to here is symbolic, from here on it’s history.” I just don’t see anything like that.

Gary

Actually, Gary, you should read some Bible Commentaries, such as teh New Jerome Bible Commentaries. Bible Scholars, would, i’m sure all agree there is a clear division between the 11th and 12th Chapters of Genesis. And there is clearly notable similarities from Gilgamesh, and other myths which correspond to Genesis, which Bible Commentaries have always made comparisons. That’s an astute observation about Genesis actually.

LOVE your neighbor as yourself.
GOD bless you all.

 

[bullfrog654]

I know I could be just as guilty of doing this as you or, more accurately, the opposite, which is why I am looking for objective evidence that says “up to here is symbolic, from here on it’s history.” I just don’t see anything like that.

perahaps my poem yesterday inspired doubt. or my essay on faith. i keen practice in me drinking coffee i usually remember a form of faith.

the bible preaches to me prepare. so i prepare fro judgement day as most global churchs believe is in these days. so i prepare and have faith in my local church to understand my concerns and if judgement day becomes repetitive who knows perhaps most all sin can be abbolished and we travel the stars introducing judgement day there or the bible to each his own.

which ever case i belive this my master is the government as welfare tells me how to eat and where to live snd the church is where inner peace is. when i have dobt i send emails to people. my father sais inspiration is alive all we have to do is talk to the top person in a business or firm. no society hasnt given me a fair handshake but oh well mabby battle my way through to peace.

in any case i learn from the past dejavue and live for know and leave the future up to my higher power even if its reading the bible alone…

 

[Crumpy]

I would agree with Dr. Scott Hahn that commentaries on scripture usually focus on the Hebrew Scripture or on the New Testament, but few cover the entire Bible end to end.

So, explaining Genesis is difficult for a number of reasons, one of which are the varying opinions over time. from the outside of the Church looking in, this is suspicious at the very least.

One avenue of explanation is to just look at Genesis itself, ignoring the rest of the Bible. Benedict XVI, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, speaks of the need to employ the canonical method of exegesis, is to look at Genesis in its place along with the other writings. We can get a lot of useful information by studying these extremes and by looking at everything else that falls in-between, like historical analysis, literary analysis, etc, including the patristic (early church) commentaries.

There’s so much to say, but so little space and time.

The book of Genesis has a purpose, to explain the origins of things, and in particular the emergence of the Jewish people. The way that it does this, which a lot of us moderns don’t like, is to express religious belief contrasted with the beliefs of surrounding people and often in the terms that Jews would be familiar with, from surrounding pagan belief systems.

It’s not at all enough to say that it is **another **creation myth, anotherr flood story, etc. Genesis transforms those other myths and stories to express the monotheistic faith that Judaism introduced to the world. Genesis is saying that **God **created the world, this God is not in the world, but He created the world. God is not the sun; God created the sun. God is not a tree (or vice versa), God created the trees. God is not an animal, God created the animals. etc. God is not nature, God created nature.

This early and unique writing was chipping and carving Judaism away from and distinct from the surrounding pagan belief systems.

Is it literal? It’s literal as far as Jews and Christians believe that God created x, y, and z, God is not the sun, not a tree, not a snake,

Genesis is a literary work (does anybody disagree?), and there’s a lot of discussion of the pieces of the book that you can find, but in its final version, is was worked over and finished by a “redactor” who polished the pieces and put them together to explain what we believe to know about God and the origins of mankind and God’s relationship to mankind, and the relation of various groups of mankind with each other.

So, there are literary devices such as the book being divided into twelve sections (which are somewhat hard to see, until somebody points it out to you where the transitions are).

So, creation is described as having taken place in seven days. There are other “sevens” such as form of “God said [x]” and “it was so” and God saw that it was “good.”

The narrator of Genesis was not even alive to witness the events that are described in Gen 1:1 to 2:3, so we cannot take as literal that which it does not state to begin with, that “I saw God create the heavens and the earth” etc. We know, logically, that could not have happened.

If you jamb Genesis into the requirement that it be a history book or a science book that is unfair, as it does not purport to be either. Neither can we hide from the fact that a lot of people have taken Genesis to be such a science book or history book. We are now more equipped to describe what it is and what it is not.

To a believer, it fits together. To a non-believer, it may be absurd.

Jews and Catholics independently believe that the scriptures are an inexhaustible source of inspiration. It is no coincidence that there are many things that they agree on, and they notoriously disagree on some essential things.

 

[garysibio]

I’m not even sure that’s possible Gary. I mean, what would constitute objective evidence?

Just to give one example, a switch between a poetic style and prose.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Actually, Gary, you should read some Bible Commentaries, such as teh New Jerome Bible Commentaries. Bible Scholars, would, i’m sure all agree there is a clear division between the 11th and 12th Chapters of Genesis. And there is clearly notable similarities from Gilgamesh, and other myths which correspond to Genesis, which Bible Commentaries have always made comparisons. That’s an astute observation about Genesis actually.

LOVE your neighbor as yourself.
GOD bless you all.

I don’t need commentaries. If it’s there, it should be apparent.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

So, explaining Genesis is difficult for a number of reasons, one of which are the varying opinions over time. from the outside of the Church looking in, this is suspicious at the very least.

That’s because we make it difficult. We have so convinced ourselves that evolution occurred that we feel the need to twist the Scriptures to fit it.

Gary

 

[bullfrog654]

we always talk abou the catholic church and perusual no ones saved out side the church as i recall jesus is the church and the church is the body of christ.

correct me if im wrong im new as per usuall

ive also read no one is saved outside of church not meaning you need to attend church but still accpt jesus. ive also read the cc concerns itself with those ignorant of the light of jesus.

know outside of church is an inclosion that demonstrated in atlantis. ive got several poems on this. similar to i suppose the speed of light reaching our big ball metal world we call earth. mind you these poems come from a person who baught dirt on mars for nothing without paying taxes oh what a few beer will do…

I have a religious and none religious version of the concept of atlantis poetry. I made these five years ago at metrotown on the mainland and find several copies of it, it is alot of spiritual pressure, in the future i am going to write a third middle ground copy to include it as a poem
The six sences:
the six sences are a deep meaningful thing to alot
of people but normality takes the spiritual sences
for granted within the stsutes upon greed in
humanity they surpass the essence of thought and
proclaim justice in the spiritual law of life. it
has it’s own law within us all onto existence.
through greed surpasses judgement analises.
everything in life but when it incloses in on
itself from multitude it then colapses and condemed
in hell upon existence. and can never be overturned
unless the law of the universe shows favor upon
one that dwells in darkness for only then a positive
flow can then continue.​

unality of the tree of life:
the natural way of unity to exist onto
the land perceives to portray upon the tests brought
forth to them from that which spreads from the word
first thought of portraying onto it’s gift producing
the tree of life for what a tree bears
it then ends up not knowing. for if a tree then
never finds the means to produce from it’s
consumption it then changes from entity onto itself
from the know level onto an inclosion within a future
level of exceptence in existence​

faith healers advice jacket
the little things in life are the best because i find i can only transport little things from point a to point b
I take pills for my schizophrenia dont believe in witchcraft but am intreged at it mainly dont play games i am wordy on accassion but dont mean to be. most schizophrenic find the only way to help their illness is reling on medications i find i like to stand on my own two feet at times and consontrate on the stuff below by directing the turns accordingly towards the voices

 

[diggerdomer]

Wait…stop. I know what your thinking. “Oh dear, an Atheist asking about Genesis - i know where this is going…” Shoo shoo. Not the type of discussion i’m looking for.

Rather i’ve come to ask an interesting historical question regarding the changing views of the Book of Genesis and its importance to the religious mind and what its role might be in the current times of the Catholic Church.

Due to its subject matter, Genesis tends to be a rather contentious book as it attempts to explain both the development of the cosmos and mankind - perhaps the two largest questions facing a person of any particular religious or philosophical background.

The most popular rendition regarding how to read Genesis seems to be in the “sola scriptura” vein -

The Bible is the Divine word of God → God’s Word is Inerrant → Inerrant = Literal —> Genesis is the Literal Truth about the Creation of the world/man.

BUT - there also seems to have been an alternative rendering of how a person should take Genesis - a kind of mentality that tends to treat what’s written as Allegory.

So - which is it for you folks? Literalism or Allegory?

Now before someone jumps down my throat with the answer, i’d like to note that this question goes waaay back to how the Jews themselves interpreted Genesis:

And so we have two views:

The Literalist View

Judaism: Part of the issue in terms of the Rabbinical traditions that arose after the Diaspora seems to indicate that a literal rendition of the Torah is not necessary - as there is a split over which parts of the Torah can be considered literal.

The Seder Olam, a Midrashic work written by Rabbi Jose ben Halafta (~2nd century?) supports the literalist viewpoint by developing a rather exacting Biblical chronology that covers life from the creation of the universe to the foundation of 2nd Temple Judaism.

Stemming from this tradition, a large chunk of Orthodox Judaism has looked favorably on a more or less literal interpretation.

The Damascus School in Early Christianity:

Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianus, Ephrem the Syrian, and the celebrated John Chrysostom (whose works Thomas Aquinas would have supposedly traded the whole city of Paris for) - this is definitely the “All Star Line Up” of Eastern Christianity and happen to be Church Fathers in the Latin tradition.

And they all, in one way or another, followed the “party line” of the Damascus School of Biblical interpretation. The Bible is Literal, ergo Genesis is Literal and the Truth.

A prime example of this is a statement made by St. Basil:

So that’s it right? Its literal, end of story, etc.

But then…

---

The Allegorical View

Back to Judaism: And here we go again, the celebrated Rabbi Simeon Bar Yohai (also ~2nd century) wrote:

This was followed up by the work of the great medieval Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, also known as Maimonides - yes that Maimonides that all the Jews name their hospitals after. Yes, also that Maimonides who Thomas Aquinas often makes reference to. In his Guide to the Perplexed, Maimonides made a very strong singular statement that if natural philosophy (and by extension science) proved a finding, than Scripture should be interpreted accordingly in regards to that finding.

The Alexandrine School of Early Christianity:

Justin Martyr, Origen of Alexandria (who was deemed a heretic at one point, but whose name seems to have been cleared by those important theologians of Vatican II - one of which is your Current Holy Father), and the Augustine of Hippo.

Again - Theological All-Stars. Again - Church Fathers. With a completely different viewpoint.

Augustine words provide the best statement on their part:

If you are sincerely interested in learning the Catholic approach to Scripture, please read and reflect upon the Catholic Church’s teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 50-141. If, after reading and reflecting on those, you have substantive questions to ask, please continue to share them. Best wishes.

 

[TheAtheist]

If you are sincerely interested in learning the Catholic approach to Scripture, please read and reflect upon the Catholic Church’s teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 50-141. If, after reading and reflecting on those, you have substantive questions to ask, please continue to share them. Best wishes.

Already did that - however the current Catechism is reflective of the theological opinions of Vatican II. Or to be more precise - the theologians who won the debate during Vatican II.

To avoid the simple dilemma of “winner’s victory” - i’m trying to unearth a more historical viewpoint from the beginnings of your Church onward. However, as (name removed by moderator) has pointed out - either viewpoint seems to be in good standing at the present time.

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).

Moreover - there doesn’t seem to have ever really been a unified Viewpoint in the manner there is say for your belief in the Resurrection.

 

[Crumpy]

Ahem, so there’s obviously a bit of debate about just how to take Genesis - even from people within the same tradition.

From my understanding of the current situation: most Protestant and some Orthodox Jewish sects have sided with the former account - lock, stock, and barrel.

Orthodox Christianity seems of 2 minds in this regard - some rejecting Biblical literalism due to their reverence of the Bible as an Esoteric/Mystical book - preventing one from taking it on face value.

Conservative and Liberal Judaism have taken the allegorical viewpoint - mostly following in the path laid out by Maimonides.

Interestingly enough - many of those in the Kabbalist/Mystical tradition of Judaism also reject Genesis literalism along the same grounds of objection made by mystics in the Orthodox Christian tradition.

How did the Catholic Church resolve these tensions? Have they even been resolved at all?

The Bible is always an interesting subject to a believer,so I’m jumping in a second time.

The official position of the Catholic Church is in its Catechism, which states that the events of Genesis are factual, but presented in symbolic language.

In the scientific community, there is a division of thought, that life originated on earth and the other camp, that says that life on earth originated from an extra-terrestrial source.

So, to be intellectually honest and complete, any answer would have to accomodate both of those positions, but wouldn’t that be a contradiction, since they rather exclude each other?

The account of creation in Genesis is very small, it’s thought to be of later writing than the patriarchal accounts, and its purpose is to put down in writing the monotheistic views, compared to the prevailing polytheistic views of its day. That was the controversy then.

It might be easier for believers to respond, if the scientific community made up its own mind about life on earth.

The BIG story in Genesis is that ONE GOD created everything. This was explained in a way that people of the time would understand and accept it. It was not a once-for-all-time explanation, for example, of the creation of life on earth in a scientific way. In fact, the scientific view of our day is pure speculation, too, right? How do you apply the scientific method, except with a lot of --OH, there’s the f-word again - FAITH, when you can never go back there and prove it?

Within its own context, why would the writers require that God took six days to create everything, instead of doing it all at once, of which God is surely capable? The “documentary theory” of Genesis deals with the “evolution” of the text itself, which is surely a testimony to the open-mindedness of the writers and believers. This thread could go on forever, but there’s no need for it. It siimply depends on what answer a person is willing to accept.