The Creation Story

[SeanTom]

Please read and comment as appropriate.

Bible readers fall into two groups. For the sake of simplicity, we may split Bible readers into two primary groups: Literalists and Contextualists. Literalists, also called fundamentalists, interpret the Bible literally, saying it means exactly what it says. Contextualists interpret the Bible contextually, saying we must consider the historical, cultural and literary context in which the Bible was written. This is particularly true of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis, where the stories deal with prehistory, that twilight time between the appearance of people on earth and the telling of their story. Catholics use the Contextualist method of interpreting the Bible.

The first creation story reads like a poem. Each day of creation follows a pattern.

Day 1 God created light and SEPARATED it from the darkness.
Day 2 God SEPARATED the water above (rain) from the water below (sea).
Day 3 God SEPARATED the water below (sea) from the dry land.
Day 4 God POPULATED the sky with sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5 God POPULATED the air with birds and the sea with fish.
Day 6 God POPULATED the land with animals and people.
Day 7 God CELEBRATED; He blessed the day and rested on it.

Thee literary patterns of the Creation story suggests that we are dealing with a special kind of writing. It is not the kind found in eyewitness accounts or in science books. Rather, it is the kind found in children’s books. The authors of children’s books use simple, poetic stories to teach children about life. Such stories are easy to read and easy to remember.

The Genesis writer chose a similar approach to teach about God, because most ancient peoples could not read or write. They learned everything by word of mouth. Thus a poetic story was easy to remember, entertaining, and instructive.

The author of Genesis thought to teach three truths:

FIRST, that there is only one God. (Any other so-called Gods that were falsely worshiped could not be Gods since God, the creator, also created those so-called God’s and therefore they would be subject to God, the supreme ruler of the Universe.)

SECOND, that God planned creation. (Creation did not happen by chance or accident).

THIRD, that God created everything good.

Some readers of the Bible are surprised to discover that the Book of Genesis contains two creation stories. The second story begins in Chapter 2.

Why was this second story added? To answer this question we need to recall that the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah (“instruction”), or Penteuch (“five scrolls”), which were passed on orally for centuries. Only later were they written down. Apparently there were two oral traditions about creation. When the bible writer was inspired to record the Torah, he included both versions. They complemented one another. Both stories agree with the three truths as noted above.

(Continued on next posting)

 

[SeanTom]

The Second creation story also portrays God as working patiently over the body of the first man, much as a potter works patiently over a vase. This is important as it underscores the close relationship that exists between God and the first man.

Also the second story of creations teaches about the intimacy of marriage. God instructed the couple to be “one body” They are to have an intimacy toward one another similar to the one God has toward them. Thus God indicates that the purpose of marriage involves more than having children. It also involves an intimate relationship of love and support between husband and wife.

In summary, the second creation story complements the first one in two special ways. The second story underscores:

(1) The intimacy between God and humans, and
(2) The intimacy and equality between the sexes.

Some additional information about Genesis:

At a general audience on April 16, 1986, Pope John Paul II said that the theory of evolution is “only a probability, not a scientific certainty.” He went on to say that “the doctrine of faith, however, invariably affirms that a human’s spiritual soul is directly created by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. But the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter because it is of a spiritual nature.”

In other words, God could have fashioned the universe through an evolutionary process. But whether He did it that way or by direct creation, He still must be acknowledged as its Maker. With this basic premise established, the Church encourages scientists and scholars to continue their investigation so that someday we may know with certainty the method God used to bring human beings and the universe to their present state of development. The ultimate answer will involve no conflict between scientific and religious truth, for God is the Author of both.

However, the Genesis account of creation is not to be shunned. Nor is it to be regarded as a scientific and anthropological account of the origins of the universe and the human race. Rather, the beautiful and inspiring passages in Genesis are to be read as religious history in which the author used figurative language and popular descriptions to teach fundamental religious truths about salvation. Some of those truths are that God in His goodness created the universe out of nothing; that everything He created was good; that He created the first humans in His image and likeness; that those first humans lost their state of perfect happiness through the sins of pride and disobedience; that the whole human race suffers from the consequences of their sins; and that one day there will be a Redeemer for fallen humanity.

And finally, here is a quote from St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio): He once said to a man who claimed such and such event happened by chance: “And who, do you suppose, arranged those chances?” You know, we can all keep asking the same question: “And who caused that to happen?” to all statements as to what came from where. Eventually, the answer will be either “I don’t know” or “God”. It has to be one or the other.

 

[spauline]

Very good discourse, Sean. AMEN!

And the beauty is, the meanings get deeper and deeper. There is awesome theology that the Pope drew from Genesis on the Theology of the Body. And there are truly beautiful and profound meanings in the poetic statements as progress on into Genesis 3. Indeed, there are great parallels between the serpent’s lies in the garden, and, for example, the diabolical Trinity imaged in Revelation. so much depth. What a wondrous gift God has given us in the Sacred Scriptures.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Several of us have been making these same arguments for days and weeks. No fundamentalist will agree with what you say regardless of how beautifully you put it. This is a psychological issue. Logic will not work. But thanks for a lovely explanation.

Have you ever seen “The Five Books of Moses”. They retranslated from original Hebrew again, and the poety nature is even more apparent in Genesis. Its an absolutely breathtakingly beautiful translation. Also see Brueggerman (sp) Inspiration Series “Genesis”…His pastoral insights are quite lovely.

 

[Michael_G]

Please read and comment as appropriate.

Bible readers fall into two groups. For the sake of simplicity, we may split Bible readers into two primary groups: Literalists and Contextualists. Literalists, also called fundamentalists, interpret the Bible literally, saying it means exactly what it says. Contextualists interpret the Bible contextually, saying we must consider the historical, cultural and literary context in which the Bible was written. This is particularly true of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis, where the stories deal with prehistory, that twilight time between the appearance of people on earth and the telling of their story. Catholics use the Contextualist method of interpreting the Bible.

(Continued on next posting)

The Second creation story also portrays God as working patiently over the body of the first man, much as a potter works patiently over a vase. This is important as it underscores the close relationship that exists between God and the first man.

The second creation story some people believe was a discription of creation in the garden of eden for adam to personaly see the creative hand of God.

Ya know you have some problems with dismissing the literal interpretation. The church relies heavily on the The church fathers, and you see you will now have to try to claim that the church fahters were mere fundamentalist also

Creation

Note: The word day in Hebrew is Yom. In the Jewish language Yom can mean a literal 24 hour day or an extended period of time for Scripture tells us that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to our Lord. But when morning and evening is used with the word yom then it is defined as a literal 24 hour day. In Genesis the creation account is given for a day/yom as morning and evening with each and every day of the six day creation which means it is literally written as a 24 hour day.

Augustine writes: “With this reasoning some of our scholars attack the position of those who refuse to believe that there are waters above the heavens while maintaining that the star whose path is in the height of the heavens is cold. Thus they would compel the disbeliever to admit that water is there not in a vaporous state but in the form of ice**. But whatever the nature of that water and whatever the manner of its being there, we must not doubt that it does exist in that place. The authority of Scripture in this matter is greater than all human ingenuity”** (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk 2, Ch. 5, No 9).
Aquinas said the same thing regarding the superiority of Scripture to decide such matters: “Whether, then, we understand by the firmament the starry heaven, or the cloudy region of the air, it is true to say that it divides the waters from the waters, according as we take water to denote formless matter, or any kind of transparent body, as fittingly designated under the name of waters…” (Summa Theologica, Bk. 1, Ques. 68, Art 3).
Augustine and Thomas both affirm that what Genesis recorded literally occurred, whether or not they understood then, or whether we understand today, how it could have occurred as stated.

The Fathers tell us that Moses received his knowledge about the creation directly from God.
St. Ambrose writes: “Moses 'spoke to God the Most High, not in a vision or in dreams, but mouth to mouth” (Hexaemeron 1, 2).

St. Basil add: "This man [Moses], who is made equal to the angels, being considered worthy of the sight of God face to face, reports to us those things which he heard from God (Hexaemeron 1, 1). END

370 AD Basil The Great “And there was evening and morning, one day.' Why did he say one’ and not first'? . . . He said one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day” ().

**Basil **(329-379):
“Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night…If it therefore says ‘one day,’ it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one day – we mean of a day and of a night” (Hexameron 2, 8).
As Catholic doctrine teaches, no man can do anything good without God’s grace (cf., Lv 26:36; Dt 28:28, 65f; 1Sm 16:14; 26:12; Jb 12:24; Pr 21:1; Is 6:9-10; 29:10,14; 44:18; Jr 6:21; Ez 7:26; 14:9; Zc 12:4; Mt 11:25; Jn 12:40; Rm 1:24-28; 2Th 2:11).
Psalm 139 (138 in some versions) says: “Thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb” (v. 13), and similar expressions are used elsewhere, including in Isaiah and Job.

 

[Michael_G]

Originally Posted by SeanTom forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Please read and comment as appropriate.

Bible readers fall into two groups. For the sake of simplicity, we may split Bible readers into two primary groups: Literalists and Contextualists. Literalists, also called fundamentalists, interpret the Bible literally, saying it means exactly what it says. Contextualists interpret the Bible contextually, saying we must consider the historical, cultural and literary context in which the Bible was written. This is particularly true of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis, where the stories deal with prehistory, that twilight time between the appearance of people on earth and the telling of their story. Catholics use the Contextualist method of interpreting the Bible.

(Continued on next posting)

*The Second creation story also portrays God as working patiently over the body of the first man, much as a potter works patiently over a vase. This is important as it underscores the close relationship that exists between God and the first man. *

More Problems:

Council of Cologne condemned the idea of human evolution in very straightforward words:"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that…those who…assert…man…emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith."
Ten years later, Vatican Council I in 1870"If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema." { ex nihilo creation.}
Pope Leo XIII, in his 1880 encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, stated this about Creation:"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."
170-215 AD Mark Felix “Some men deny the existence of any Divine power. Others inquire daily as to whether or not one exists. Still others would construct the whole fabric of the universe by chance accidents and by random collision, fashioning it by the movement of atoms of different shapes.” (M. Felix Octavius chap. 30 [Notice the term “atom” isn’t a twentieth century invention, but a term coined by Greek philosophers.])

234 AD Origen “The text said that there was evening and there was morning'; it did not say the first day,’ but said `one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days” (Homilies on Genesis).

234 AD Origen “And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the days of creation' ground of accusation--as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: `This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’” (Against Celsus 6:51).

234 AD Origen “And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world” (ibid., 6:60).

The Fathers who wrote about Creation taught that God made the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing, in six literal days,.
2 Maccabees 7:28: "I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them** Basil** (329-379):

“And there was evening and morning, one day.” Why did he say “one” and not “first”? . . .** He said “one” because he was defining the measure of day and night** . . . , since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day.(Basil, On the Hexameron, 1.1.2, The Fathers of the Church, 46:4,5. Ibid., 2.8, p. 34. )

 

[Michael_G]

Originally Posted by SeanTom forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Please read and comment as appropriate.

Bible readers fall into two groups. For the sake of simplicity, we may split Bible readers into two primary groups: Literalists and Contextualists. Literalists, also called fundamentalists, interpret the Bible literally, saying it means exactly what it says. Contextualists interpret the Bible contextually, saying we must consider the historical, cultural and literary context in which the Bible was written. This is particularly true of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis, where the stories deal with prehistory, that twilight time between the appearance of people on earth and the telling of their story. Catholics use the Contextualist method of interpreting the Bible.

(Continued on next posting)

*The Second creation story also portrays God as working patiently over the body of the first man, much as a potter works patiently over a vase. This is important as it underscores the close relationship that exists between God and the first man. *

More Problems:

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394):
“Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed. They should suffice and alone take second place to the divinely inspired Testament. Let anyone who hearkens to our attempts through a leisurely reading be not dismayed if they agree with our words. We do not propose a dogma which gives occasion for calumny; rather, we wish to express only our own insights so that what we offer does not detract from the following instruction. Thus let no one demand from me questions which seem to fall in line with common opinion, either from holy Scripture or explained by our teacher. My task is not to fathom those matters before us which appear contradictory; rather, permit me to employ my own resources to understand the text’s objective. With God’s help we can fathom what the text means which follows a certain defined order regarding creation**. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ [Gen 1.1**], and the rest which pertains to the cosmogenesis which the six days encompass.” (Hexaemeron, PG 44:68-69, translated by Richard McCambly).
**Eustathius (270-337), Bishop of Antioch, called Basil’s commentary on Genesis 1 an “overall great commentary” (PG 18, 705-707).
Ambrose (340-397):
“But Scripture established a law of twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent.” (Hexameron 1:37, FC 42:42).
“In the beginning of time, therefore God created heaven and earth. Time proceeds from this world, not before the world. And the day is a division of time, not its beginning.” (Hexameron 1:20, FC 42:19).
"But now we seem to have reached the end of our discourse, since the 6th day is completed and the sum total of the work has been concluded." (Hexameron 6:75, FC 42:282).
370 AD Ambrose of Milan “Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts ofthe days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself. Hence, Scripture appeals at times of an age of the world” (The Six Days Work 1:1-2).
Victorinus (c 355-361):
“The Creation of the World: In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night, for this reason, doubtless, that day might bring over the night as an occasion of rest for men’s labours; that, again, day might overcome, and thus that labour might be refreshed with this alternate change of rest, and that repose again might be tempered by the exercise of day. “On the fourth day He made two lights in the heaven, the greater and the lesser, that the one might rule over the day, the other over the night… (cf. (NPNF1, vol. 7, pp. 341-343).”
Ephrem the Syrian (306-373):
"‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic.” (Commentary on Genesis,1:1, FC 91:74)

 

[Michael_G]

Sorry but I need to make sure all are getting the big picture hear, it has only been in modern times calling or challenging of the literal interpretation, because throughout the church History by all of the ancient fathers the literal 6 day creation and a recent creation has always been taught.

**Theophilus (**c 185):
“**Of this six days’ work **no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts…on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days’ work above narrated” (Autolycus 2,12).

181 AD Theophilus of Antioch “On the f**ourth day the luminaries came into existence. **Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it” (To Autolycus 2:15).

181 AD Theophilus of Antioch "All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’s day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" (To Autolycus, 3:28-29)

Irenaeus, (140-202):
“For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded…For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year” (Against Heresies 5, 28, 3).
Lactantius (250-317):
“God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day…For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up…Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years…For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day.” …And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years… (Institutes 7, 14).
Methodius (c 311):
**For you seem to me, O Theophila, to have discussed those words of the Scripture amply and clearly, and to have set them forth as they are without mistake. For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition. But, since it is not fitting to leave the demonstration of the argument unexamined – and, so to speak, half-lame – come let us, as it were completing our pair, bring forth the analogical sense, looking more deeply into the Scripture; for Paul is not to be despised when he passed over the literal meaning, and showed that the word extended to Christ and the Church. (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, Ch 2).
**

 

[Michael_G]

Last set quotes:
I Rest my case

Clement of Alexandria (150-216):
“From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days” (ANF, Vol. 2, p. 332).
Epiphanius (315-403):
"Adam, who was fashioned from the earth on the sixth day and received breath, became a living being (for he was not, as some suppose, begun on the fifth day, and completed on the sixth; those who say have the wrong idea), and was simple and innocent, without any other name." (Panarion 1:1, translated by Phillip R. Amidon).
****Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386):
"In six days God made the world…The sun, however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment…The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God’s hands" (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5).
“…but the earth is from the waters: and before the whole six days’ formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world…” (Catechetical Lectures, 3, 5).
Hippolytus (160-235):
“But it was right to speak not of the ‘first day,’ but of ‘one day,’ in order that by saying ‘one,’ he might show that it returns on its orbit, and, while it remains one, makes up the week…On the first day God made what He made out of nothing.” (Genesis 1:5, 1:6; ANF, vol. 5, p. 163).
“When, therefore, Moses has spoken of ‘the six days in which God made heaven and earth’…Simon, in a manner already specified, giving these and other passages of Scripture a different application from the one intended by the holy writers, deifies himself. When, therefore, the followers of Simon affirm that there are three days begotten before sun and moon, they speak enigmatically…”(Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI, Ch IX).
Hippolytus, as did some of the other Fathers who believed that the world would end in 6,000 years, He writes: "Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled."
Chrysostom (344-407): “Acknowledging that God could have created the world ‘in a single day, nay in a single moment,’ he chose ‘a sort of succession and established things by parts’…so that, accurately interpreted by that blessed prophet Moses, we do not fall in with those who are guided by human reasonings” (PG, Homily 3, col 35).

Athanasius (295-373):
“For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; thus too has the race made after God’s Image come to be, namely men; for though Adam was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole race” (Discourse Against the Arians, Discourse II, 48; NPNF2, vol. 4, pp. 374-375).
“We begin the holy fast on the fifth day…and adding to it according to the number of those six holy and great days, which are the symbol of the creation of the world, let us rest and cease from fasting on the tenth day of the same…on the holy sabbath of the week” (Easter Letter, 10). END
Basil
**"Some had recourse to material principles and attributed the origin of the Universe to the elements of the world. Others imagined that atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules…by their union formed the nature of the visible world. Atoms reuniting or separating, produce births and deaths and the most durable bodies owing their consistency to the strength of their mutual adhesion…Deceived by their inherent atheism it appeared to them that nothing governed or ruled the universe, and that all was given up to chance." (The Hexameron, Homily 3, 2).
**

 

[spauline]

Michael G,

leaving aside the question of the science of Genesis, which it is not really, the mystical meaning of the Fathers is profound. I utterly believe the Father’s tradition that associates the days of Creation with the entire history of man’s REmaking, that is, his redemption, is highly plausible. As I wrote in another thread, the Beast has seven heads that are extended to eight, as if to symbolize the eight periods of spiritual “darkness” from the Fall to the End of the World, that is, the eight darknesses of the days of creation, partitioned by the great “mornings” of God’s greater Redemptive actions in human history.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The second creation story some people believe was a discription of creation in the garden of eden for adam to personaly see the creative hand of God.

Ya know you have some problems with dismissing the literal interpretation. The church relies heavily on the The church fathers, and you see you will now have to try to claim that the church fahters were mere fundamentalist also

Creation

Note: The word day in Hebrew is Yom. In the Jewish language Yom can mean a literal 24 hour day or an extended period of time for Scripture tells us that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to our Lord. But when morning and evening is used with the word yom then it is defined as a literal 24 hour day. In Genesis the creation account is given for a day/yom as morning and evening with each and every day of the six day creation which means it is literally written as a 24 hour day.

Augustine writes: “With this reasoning some of our scholars attack the position of those who refuse to believe that there are waters above the heavens while maintaining that the star whose path is in the height of the heavens is cold. Thus they would compel the disbeliever to admit that water is there not in a vaporous state but in the form of ice**. But whatever the nature of that water and whatever the manner of its being there, we must not doubt that it does exist in that place. The authority of Scripture in this matter is greater than all human ingenuity”** (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk 2, Ch. 5, No 9).
Aquinas said the same thing regarding the superiority of Scripture to decide such matters: “Whether, then, we understand by the firmament the starry heaven, or the cloudy region of the air, it is true to say that it divides the waters from the waters, according as we take water to denote formless matter, or any kind of transparent body, as fittingly designated under the name of waters…” (Summa Theologica, Bk. 1, Ques. 68, Art 3).
Augustine and Thomas both affirm that what Genesis recorded literally occurred, whether or not they understood then, or whether we understand today, how it could have occurred as stated.

The Fathers tell us that Moses received his knowledge about the creation directly from God.
St. Ambrose writes: “Moses 'spoke to God the Most High, not in a vision or in dreams, but mouth to mouth” (Hexaemeron 1, 2).

St. Basil add: "This man [Moses], who is made equal to the angels, being considered worthy of the sight of God face to face, reports to us those things which he heard from God (Hexaemeron 1, 1). END

370 AD Basil The Great “And there was evening and morning, one day.' Why did he say one’ and not first'? . . . He said one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day” ().

**Basil **(329-379):
“Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night…If it therefore says ‘one day,’ it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one day – we mean of a day and of a night” (Hexameron 2, 8).
As Catholic doctrine teaches, no man can do anything good without God’s grace (cf., Lv 26:36; Dt 28:28, 65f; 1Sm 16:14; 26:12; Jb 12:24; Pr 21:1; Is 6:9-10; 29:10,14; 44:18; Jr 6:21; Ez 7:26; 14:9; Zc 12:4; Mt 11:25; Jn 12:40; Rm 1:24-28; 2Th 2:11).
Psalm 139 (138 in some versions) says: “Thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb” (v. 13), and similar expressions are used elsewhere, including in Isaiah and Job.

I doubt we have to claim the church fathers were fundamentalists. They were wrong about many things. As times change and we learn more, we adjust, and the Church does as well. Three popes have addressed evolution and found it not in conflict with church teaching. Books that were banned are no longer, theology that was banned is no longer. Such has always been the Church.

 

[JoaoMachado]

The fact of the matter is that the first story of Genesis could have been a literal account or it could have been symbolic, to GOD a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day!
But, that is not the point of the story.

I have always understood it from the Church teaching that the First account was to show the importance and order of Creation, with Man being the final or last creation, because God rested on the Seventh day. The meaning of God resting on the Seventh day, as if God needs to rest, was to show that man was his great creation, a creation so great that there was no reason to continue to create! You see, man was created in the “image and likeness” of God.

In Christ,
Joao

 

[TMC]

SeanTom,

Thanks for this great explaination of this topic area which, as SpiritMeadow mentioned, has been in heated discussion on a couple of threads. In particular, I agree with this:

The ultimate answer will involve no conflict between scientific and religious truth, for God is the Author of both.

I believe that our understanding of God continues to grow and deepen. Christ was the final revelation, but we were not given to understand all things instantly. Everyone knows that our understanding of Christ grew through the first several centuries of Christianity, why would the Holy Spirit stop that work now?

I believe that scientific study and growth is also part of God’s plan, and that as we better understand both theology and science we will learn that they are, and must be, fully compatible.

That the early Church fathers did not know of evolution is no more remarkable than that they did not understand cosmology. I’m sure that Clement, Origen, and Basil believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, (assuming they knew the Earth was round, not sure when that because commonly understood). This is no slight of them, they worked to understand God in the light of all the best information available to them. We are charged with doing no less.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The fact of the matter is that the first story of Genesis could have been a literal account or it could have been symbolic, to GOD a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day!

**It seems to me that that argument causes more problems. How can one be certain of any date in the bible then? Did Jesus rise after 3 days? I think it leads to fuzzy thinking. **
But, that is not the point of the story.

I have always understood it from the Church teaching that the First account was to show the importance and order of Creation, with Man being the final or last creation, because God rested on the Seventh day. The meaning of God resting on the Seventh day, as if God needs to rest, was to show that man was his great creation, a creation so great that there was no reason to continue to create! You see, man was created in the “image and likeness” of God.

In Christ,
Joao

I think indeed that is the best argument advanced to meet the problem However, one could as well argue, that the original redactor, faced with two ancient and well known stories of creation before him, chose to include both, recognizing that their each spoke beautifully but in different ways about our relation to God as Creator, yet being in “likeness of”. I can easily see why each powerful story was included albeit they were not exactly in agreement. I can imagine the awe of the redactor as he intertwined the two oldest stories known to his people.

 

[wildleafblower]

God speaks to our soul. In the Old Testament God’s promise of a redeemer. The New Testament is the story of the coming of the Redeemer and of the Chruch He founded to carry out His work. Pope Benedict XV sounds an ardent note of appeal: “Our one desire for all the Church’s children is that, being saturated with the Bible, they may arrive at the all-surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ.” Such is truly the power of the Bible. In its pages the Prince of Peace reveals the law of grace that alone brings peace to the heart of man. Here, too, a loving Father speaks words that have power to illumine with the light of truth and to vitalize every spirit with the hope of peace and salvation.

 

[inthecloud]

The mystical mesage of Genesis still stand as interpreted by the ECF.
But remember folks, the Catholic Church is the church that produced someone like Monsignor Georges Lemaitre, who formulated the Big Bang Theory. So while the moral and theological message of Genesis remains, Genesis is not a science book. And look one you read Genesis in a symbolic way, the message start fitting with modern science. Remenber Lemaitre’s idea of creation in the Big Bang was looked with suspicion by secular scientists because implies that the Universe, enegy, time, space, matter, started out of a single particle. Too much like the judeo-cristian idea of creation but in a huge timescale, like ST Agustine’s concept of God’s days.