The Genisis Account

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcarlsen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcarlsen

Guest
As A confirmed Catholic am I at liberty to take the Genisis account as a literal historical document or must I accept it as an allegory. I have several issues with taking it as an allegory because it would be unclear as to which portions of the written word are allegory and which are historical. Jesus refers to the “Days of Noah” not the “Tale of Noah”. he also references"Just as Jonah spent three days in the belly of the great fish so must the Son of Man spend three days in the earth". are we to assume that Jesus’ death and resurection are symbolic or are they historical as Jesus taught Jonah to be? What is the Church’s official stance? is a literal interpretation acceptable or is it allegory only? I read the response to the creation account and it said that a six day creation belief is acceptable but it went on to only defend the cosmolgical symbolic view as if it were the only real acceptable view. I feel the scientific evidence and scriptural evidence point to a historical view of the first five books of the Bible. Does this make me a “Fundamentalist”? Am I outside the fellowship of the Church? Please respond as this is of great importance to my family and I.
 
Hi mcarlsen,

The Church follows the principle of St. Augustine according to which we must read the Bible as is, unless it goes against reason or known facts.

The Bible seems to say that the sun goes around the earth. Christians had a right to believe that until the contrary was proven beyond a doubt.

The same goes for Genesis. It raises many questions, and the Church has stated many times that it is legitimate for Catholics to investigate them. You must however accept these truths, that will never change:
  1. God is the creator of all things
  2. the human soul is created directly by God
  3. all humans are descended from one man and one woman
Beyond that, you are free to investigate. Everything the Bible says is true, but it is true in the sense that the original authors meant it. In order to delve into their meaning, we must understand the literary conventions of their day, the history of the times, the customs of the various peoples and so forth.

But you can abstract from all that and read the Bible with the purpose for which it was intended, that is lead you to heaven.

Verbum
 
Dear Mcarisen

An approach to interprete Gensis 1:1-31 as a sampler, Dr Scott Hahn and his Team explains it this way,

To Moses and those for whom he wrote, the process of creation and the scientific nature of things were shrouded in mystery too deep for man to comprehend.(1) It was the fact that God created everything, and that (2)He made man in His image that was important.

How He went about doing it was His business, as Job was to discover. (see Job 38-39).

If we approach Genesis 1 as though it is God’s revelation of scientific truth, we stumble immediately upon difficulties:
  • How was there “evening and. morning, one day” (vs. 5) when the sun had yet to be created?
    -How did the fruit trees grow and bear fruit before there were days and nights or seasons? And
    -how do we reconcile creation in six literal, 24-hour days with modern geological science?
Approach Genesis 1 as divine revelation of spiritual truth, and these troubles evaporate.
-Genesis is more like a hymn than a treatise. It uses poetic language, with symbols and images,to relate the history of the created universe.As such it concerns itself not with how created beings developed over time, but
-how they came to exist to begin with,
-by whose decree and to what purpose.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us, “.the first three chapters of Genesis .express in their solemn language the truths of creation-its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation” (CCC 289).

Like all good poetry, the language of Genesis is packed with layers of meaning. Only a slow, careful reading will reveal the depths and riches of truth it has to offer. We are therefore going to approach chapter 1 (and chapters 2and 3) differently from the way we approach later chapters.

In a nutshell, the Genesis account tells us
-who God is,
-what and why He created,
who we are and
our purpose on earth.

God has given to us the Magisterium to interprete under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand the meaning of the the Sacred Scriptures. - So search for the truth of the message in Scriptures and don’t do “self interpretation” and start a }New-Reformed Church"-we have too many of these around. We must be united in one mind and spirit.

God Bless
God Bless
 
Thank you very much for your response. I can’t logically accept the symbolic view although I know others can. I do not think it is an issue to divide over. We can discuss and leave the table as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Mike
 
richardeekw

What book or books of Hahn could I read on Genesis first chapters?

Thanks!!!
 
Dear Jim
I extracted it from the websit CSS some years ago when the teaching on the Book of Genesis was shared.

God Bless
 
Jim_Baur said:
richardeekw

What book or books of Hahn could I read on Genesis first chapters?

Thanks!!!
Click to expand...
Hello friends on this Catholic Discussion board, I am new to this place, so please forgive any blunders on my part. I am still trying to find my way around. (not computer savvy yet). To the question which books of Scott Hahn to read? I love A Father who keeps his promises, but also St. Augustine On Genesis, this is long and heavy, whereas Scott Hahn is easy to understand and friendly. But more fabulous than these two (if possible) is The Holy Father’s Pope Benedict XVI, “In the Beginning” fabulous, and not difficult to understand.
God Bless.
 
Hey Guys. I’m new here but i’ve done a fair ammount of research on genesis and i’m pretty passionate about what i believe. I’d just like to start by replying to the stuff Richard said. Firstly in relation to evening, morning, day.

The excistance of the day and night is of course just due to the earth spinning, changing the face of the earth facing the sun (light). Therefore since God created the light on the first day of creation evening and night were possible. Simple due to the roation of the earth in relation to this “light”. Genesis 1:3-5 even describes the seperation between light and dark. If we read this anywhere else we wouldn’t question what it ment!

Also with the plants all they need is light.

What geological problems are you refering too? Isn’t God’s eye-witness revelation of creation more reliable than mans falliable theorys? see answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp for specific questions.

Also genesis sounds like crappy poetry to me! it’s descriptive yes! but i think its a very hard case to argue that it is poetry. No-one says the rest of genesis is poetry. In fact it’s quite clearly intended as history. God must have seen the confusion about the litteral day thing coming. So over and over and over he emphasises evening, morning, day. The Hebrew word for day, Yom, when used in conjunction with evening or morning or a number (eg. sixth day) always means a litteral 24 hour time period.

I choose to take genesis litterally for many reasons, but the foremost being i truely believe that is what the author, under god’s guidance, intended. We choose to believe it means something else because we have been influenced by man’s failable opinions. However these theorys and oppinions will be different in 50 years, God’s word however has always stated the truth and always will.
 
Dear all,

Fortunately or unfortunately, I am a great fan of Dr Scott Hahn and his ideas. I recall listening to his tapes on “How to study the Bible” he proposed the following

Dr Scott suggested that we observe in the creation account
-God created light on the first day (i.e. day and night) while the sun and moon were created on the fourth day.

He asked “What was God doing before He began on creation?” - I was puzzled.

It took me some time to ponder and I think his answer is valid.
Answer “He had No Time” (I believe he quoted St Augustine)
Yes, God is beyond the finite human creatures and God has No Time-He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is outside of “Limited Time”.
Thus when God decided to share his divine life with creatures like us, He created TIME for our use and to our benefit. I ike this approach.

God Bless
 
I have read Hahn and like his writings.

Can you recall the book where he explains St.Augustine’s works on creation?

Thanks!!!
 
Hi Jim

rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html
Living Tradition - ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM

Dr Scott Hahn in one of his talks posted in
mindspring.com/~jdarcy/files/drhahn.html
(within mindspring.com/~jdarcy/)

“In The Beginning…”
What was God Doing Before He Created?

Let’s consider creation a little more closely now. We’ve considered what in general the six and seven day pattern might refer to, but let’s take a quick look at that phrase, “in the beginning.” It’s one of my favorite passages in the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now we could tear that apart and spend I think hours and hours on it, but let me just ask you a question. This is what came to me over and over again when I used to read this: “In the beginning God created.” What was God doing before he created? Did you ever wonder that? How many people have ever wondered, "What was God doing with the billions and trillions and quadrillions of years that he had on his hands before he created? Just sitting around,twirling his thumbs, waiting, wondering what it would be like, planning, and so on?

It’s a hard question. Now there are two approaches to answering it. One was taken by a great reformer, a great Protestant reformer, John Calvin said that he was preparing hell for people who ask such impertinent questions. There might be a certain propriety in such a response. But I prefer what St. Augustine said and many others as well. Augustine, I think might have been trying to be a little bit humorous. Certainly he was trying to be subtle and ironic when he said, “What was God doing before he created?” He answered, “Nothing. He didn’t have the time.” Now you’ve got to think about that for a second. It kind of gives you a charley horse between the ears. What does he mean, “Nothing. He didn’t have the time.” Well, for Augustine, time and space are relative properties for creatures but not the creator.

We speak of God, for instance, as being “omnipresent,” that he is present everywhere. A corollary of that is that God cannot move. Is that because he is just some static, frozen deity? No. In order to move from here to there, you’ve got to be here but not there and then you’ve got to be there and not here. Figure it out. Can God move? No, because where isn’t he? Where could he move to that he isn’t already present? Poor God, stuck in one place, but that one place is every place! So we don’t speak of God as being spaceless, so much as filling space to overflowing. Space can’t contain the infinite glory of God…

God Bless
 
Jez4 said:
Hey Guys. I’m new here but i’ve done a fair ammount of research on genesis and i’m pretty passionate about what i believe. I’d just like to start by replying to the stuff Richard said. Firstly in relation to evening, morning, day.

The excistance of the day and night is of course just due to the earth spinning, changing the face of the earth facing the sun (light). Therefore since God created the light on the first day of creation evening and night were possible. Simple due to the roation of the earth in relation to this “light”. Genesis 1:3-5 even describes the seperation between light and dark. If we read this anywhere else we wouldn’t question what it ment!

Also with the plants all they need is light.

What geological problems are you refering too? Isn’t God’s eye-witness revelation of creation more reliable than mans falliable theorys? see answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp for specific questions.

Also genesis sounds like ****** poetry to me! it’s descriptive yes! but i think its a very hard case to argue that it is poetry. No-one says the rest of genesis is poetry. In fact it’s quite clearly intended as history. God must have seen the confusion about the litteral day thing coming. So over and over and over he emphasises evening, morning, day. The Hebrew word for day, Yom, when used in conjunction with evening or morning or a number (eg. sixth day) always means a litteral 24 hour time period.

I choose to take genesis litterally for many reasons, but the foremost being i truely believe that is what the author, under god’s guidance, intended. We choose to believe it means something else because we have been influenced by man’s failable opinions. However these theorys and oppinions will be different in 50 years, God’s word however has always stated the truth and always will.
Click to expand...
 
The Toledoths of Genesis

This article is all about the true structure of the Book of Genesis; a structure that is so simple and straightforward - as the reader is going to discover - that even a child would have no trouble understanding it in its basic form. The chief credit for having laid bare this structure in all its profound simplicity belongs to the British scholar, P. J. Wiseman(1), upon whose thesis the following article will be based.

…In the following pages I shall try to bring home to the reader the full significance of these literary indicators, colophon and catch-line, that reveal the Book of Genesis to be a most ancient document - much older than the documentists would have it. My explanation will lead naturally into a special consideration of the controversial and famous first chapter of Genesis. A grasp of the proper and true structure of the Book of Genesis will enable the reader to understand why, for example, biblical commentators have proposed the so-called “two accounts of Creation” theory (Genesis 1 and 2), and how this theory ought to be modified.
 
A better, clearer understanding of Genesis might begin with Jewish scriptural exegesis. The Talmud stated explicitly that the opening chapter of Genesis, all 31 verses, is presented in a manner that conceals information. (cf. Babylonian Talmud Hagigah, 11b, 12a, circa 500 AD).

The ‘night’ and ‘day’ conundrum is best understood in the light of the other connotations those Hebrew/Aramaic words have in CONTEXT with the passage.

Contra to what you have posted, according to Genesis the Sun was not created until the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-16), so instead of going through philosophical (and sometimes outright silly) notions of the light from the Big Bang causing the first three ‘days’ of “and there was evening and there was morning,” I think we should look beyond a simple reading of the text.

The traditional Jewish view of this passage dovetails with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In fact, all of God’s creation as outlined in Genesis, from the Big Bang (“Let there be Light…”) to the abundance and diversity of life has been a moving upstream against the tendency of nature to proceed from order to disorder. The 2nd Law tells us that all nonmanaged, or random, systems always pass to a state of greater disorder. Like my non-fat, no-foam Latte sitting on this desk here: it’s getting cooler!

Unless order is imposed on a system, it will fall into that immense expanse we call disorder. Order out of chaos is such an unusual and improbable trend that Genesis mentions it SIX TIMES.

Yes, the seemingly simple language of “And there was evening (erev) and there was morning (boker)” marks the closing of each of the six days of Genesis.

So why use erev and boker for three days before the creation of our Sun?

The root of *erev *is disorder, mixture, chaos. The root of boker
is orderly, able to be discerned (you see clearly in daylight, morning!). Thus the inspired author of Genesis is showing how with each biblical ‘day’ (not our day, the universe’s day) the cosmos is getting more and more orderly: from the plasma of the Big Bang (only agreed to by the scientific community in 1971) to the harmony of life.

If there is an interest out there in this thread, I would be happy to discuss the creation of dinosaurs, “taninim gedolim” of Gen. 1:21 and the reference to pterodactyl on Day 5 (‘oaf’ in Hebrew) in later replies.

“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Eternal God made earth and heavens.” (Gen. 2:4)

“This is the book of the generations of Adam in the day that God created Adam.” (Gen. 5:1)

Remember the words of our Jewish brother of the 12th century: “We must form a conception of the existence of the Creator according to our capacities; that is, we must have a knowledge of metaphysics (the science of God), which can only be acquired after the study of physics (the science of nature); for the science of physics is closely connected with metaphysics and must even precede it in the course of studies. Therefore the Almightly commenced the Bible with the description of the creation, that is, with physical science.”
(Guide of the Perplexed by Moises Maimonides)

Pax Christi fellow Catholics and Separated Brethren!
 
Good Friend, I refer you to our Catechism, paragraph 289. This specifically addresses your question as to the literal versus the allegorical reading of Genesis. Paragraph 283 supports scientific inquiry into the nature of God’s creation (for example, specific laws and structures inherent in the running or the world).

See my thread, #17, for information on the “evening then day” phrase repeated at the end of each ‘day.’

But remember, the opening chapter of Genesis acts like a camera’s zoom lens in focusing (‘day’ by cosmic ‘day’) with increasing detail on less and less time and space. The first day of Genesis encompasses the entire universe; by the third day only the Earth is discussed. After the sixth day, only that line of humanity leading to the patriarch Abraham is in biblical view.

Also, the Bible has no problem (as so many evolutionary materialists and fundamentalists do!) with life evolving out of what God had created: “And the Earth brought forth” life (Gen 1:12). In biblical language we are being told that the Earth itself had within it the properties to encourage the emergence of life. There is NO biblical mention of a special creation for the origin of life. God created the universe, He thus created us through his laws of nature and special acts (what we call miracles, such as speech, our divine soul-the neshama, our sense of the natural law).

Let’s look at the structure of the six days and see how it fits with current scientific theory (in parentheses). Note: dates in parentheses are from Dr Gerald Schroeder’s work.

Day One:The creation of the universe (the Big Bang,beginning of Time and Space); light separating from dark (light literally breaks free as electrons bond to atomic nuclei; galaxies start to form) (15.7 billion years to 7.75 billion years ago-in our time).

Day Two: The heavenly firmament forms (the disk of the Milky Way forms; our Sun, a main sequence star, forms) (7.76 billion years to 3.75 billion years ago)

Day Three: The seas and the dry lands appear; the first life, plants, appears (the Earth has cooled and liquid water appears followed almost immediately by the first forms of life: bacteria and photosynthetic algae) Jewish mystics (the kabalah) state this day only marked the start of plant life, which continued to develop during the following days. From 1100 AD) (3.75 billion to 1.75 billion years ago)

Day Four: Sun, Moon and stars become visible in heavens (Earth’s atmosphere becomes transparent; photosynthesis produces oxygen-rich atmosphere) (1.75 billion to 750,000 years ago)

Day Five: First animal life swarms abundantly in waters; followed by reptiles [including the dinosaurs!] and winged animals (first multicellular animals, waters swarm with animal life having the basic body plans [phyla] of all future animals, also, winged insects appear) (750,000 years to 250,000 years ago)

Day Six: Land animals; mammals and humankind (massive extinction destroys over 90% of life. Land is repopulated: hominids then humans (250,000 years to approximately 6,000 years ago)

Day Seven: God ‘rested’ from active creation and the universe is in motion according to His laws and His will. (I would personally add, His Love and Grace as per Julianne of Norwich circa 1400) By setting aside this ‘day’ as holy, kodesh in Hebrew, he made it ‘separate, set apart.’ We misunderstand holy to be ‘intrinsically better.’ A better understanding would be that it means ‘being made visible as a symbol.’

We are living in Day Seven!

To the Greater Glory of God!
 
Dear. JonathanKinsman

I can certainly sense you passion on the “Days of creation” since you have d done quite a bit of research. I also admire your “scientific & geographical” approaches.
To summarise my thoushts and some other postings

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church,which you referred to – don’t miss the "Bracket text ( ) only are added by me
  1. CCC 289t…ruths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. ( Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.)
An Interesting Consideration

2 catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/jepd1.htm
The Toledoths of Genesis

The thoughts of St Augustine is worth considering.
  1. rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html
    Living Tradition - ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM
    St. Augustine - on the first 4 days of Creation
The Genre of Genesis – qoerh ewSINF (Chapter 11)

4 catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216
The MOST Theological Collection
Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars

An Anti-Catholic – now a Catholic – A Scholar and Theologian of our 21st Century

5 mindspring.com/~jdarcy/files/drhahn.html
(within mindspring.com/~jdarcy/)
Salvation History- Dr Scott Hahn in one of his talks.

This is worth thinking about – I trust that you are aware of this Hypothesis

5 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Documentary hypothesis of the P,J,E & D Traditions

Many Scripture Scholars seem to agree that
Gn. 1:1-2:4a Creation – Priestly Tradition (P) and
Gn. 2:4b-3:24 Paradise and the Fall –Yahwist Tradition (J)

The Priestly authors writings tend to be “orderly and “Poetic”)

From “eligious Tolerance”
Who wrote the book of Genesis?
religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm

An analysis of the first ten chapters of Genesis, identifying
the contributions of J, E P, D and R.
religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm

Geology Questions and Answers
6 answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp

The Answers Book".
Also check out www.answersingenesis.com
7 answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

Happy reflecting aand God Bless
 
I found this in another thread - On Creation which might be of interest to all.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p100.htm
Catholic Dogma on CreationThe document is the Pontifical Biblical Commission from 1909.
Type these in Google:Catholic Dogma on CreationOR1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission

Peace in Christ our Lord
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top