The True Creation Story

[Gorgias]

You should read the article.

I did… before I responded to you.

I think what’s being said is that the universe is showing a controlled evolution between chaos and order. Each day is more orderly than the previous

I’m still not buying it, then. After God created humanity, He was done with creation. That would imply that ‘chaos’ had at that point been replaced with ‘order’. And yet, in Genesis 1:31, we still see (according to the author’s translation) that “chaos came”. If the intent here is “increasing orderliness”, then the end of the sixth day – the end of creation – should be orderly. If that’s the case, then we’d expect to only see “order followed; the sixth day.” But, we don’t.

as the text said “That’s something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly.”

Not sure how this helps your case. No one here is suggesting that God wasn’t at the heart of the process, or that creation was unguided and spontaneous.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Whether one takes the first few chapters of Genesis as entirely literal and historical or entirely mythical and symbolic, what difference could it make in the actual way we lives our lives today?

 

[grannymh]

Whether one takes the first few chapters of Genesis as entirely literal and historical or entirely mythical and symbolic, what difference could it make in the actual way we lives our lives today?

If a person took Genesis 2: 15-17 seriously, she or he would do their very best not to commit a mortal sin.

The human person is worthy of profound respect. Genesis 1: 27

 

[edwest2]

Thus, evening and morning must have a different meaning than what we understand them to mean, and maybe the Creation is told from a different perspective.

Age of the Universe

This is not the Catholic understanding or interpretation.

"New International Version
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.

"New Living Translation
God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

“English Standard Version
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”

The distance and apparent speed of objects moving away from us is wrong.

electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

The ways ancient objects are dated are wrong.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Whether one takes the first few chapters of Genesis as entirely literal and historical or entirely mythical and symbolic, what difference could it make in the actual way we lives our lives today?

It makes a tremendous difference. There are those who claim there is nothing literal in Genesis as if the God who performed miracles in the Old and new Testaments could not literally place galaxies in whatever position he wanted. If the earth is a lot younger then there would be no millions of years of evolution. A theory upon which rest various belief systems, which would fall apart if we went by the Hebrew calendar, which states this is the year 5777.

Catholics are taught that God created the Universe out of nothing, literally.

Ed

 

[grannymh]

So… where, in the question “talking snake as historically accurate?”, do you see even the *hint *of an assertion that “God does not exist” or “God is not real”???

Before we can talk about a talking snake, we need to establish the reason the intelligent author introduced the amazing talking snake.

The accepted tradition was that Adam was tempted by the Devil. How does one picture the Devil? Remember that Halloween costumes had not yet been invented. The “temptation” had to be perfectly clear, without any doubts. Therefore, the tempter had to speak clearly. I can only guess why a snake was chosen to be the tempter. We are sure that the chosen devil snake was an excellent con artist in communicating with Eve and Adam. Still, Eve and Adam had the free choice to say NO.

Considering the dramatic event of a human scorning his Creator, my opinion is that author did an excellent job in getting the message across to the reader.

 

[Rau]

…Considering the dramatic event of a human scorning his Creator, my opinion is that author did an excellent job in getting the message across to the reader.

Indeed, the talking snake is (at the least) an excellent literary device!

 

[Gorgias]

The accepted tradition was that Adam was tempted by the Devil.

Oh! So… you’re admitting that this account is an allegory? Great!

Considering the dramatic event of a human scorning his Creator, my opinion is that author did an excellent job in getting the message across to the reader.

I agree. It is quite the effective allegorical narrative!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It makes a tremendous difference. There are those who claim there is nothing literal in Genesis as if the God who performed miracles in the Old and new Testaments could not literally place galaxies in whatever position he wanted. If the earth is a lot younger then there would be no millions of years of evolution. A theory upon which rest various belief systems, which would fall apart if we went by the Hebrew calendar, which states this is the year 5777.

Catholics are taught that God created the Universe out of nothing, literally.

Ed

And that changes your life how?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

If a person took Genesis 2: 15-17 seriously, she or he would do their very best not to commit a mortal sin.

The human person is worthy of profound respect. Genesis 1: 27

That can be true with either interpretation of Genesis 1:27 as well as the rest.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The accepted tradition was that Adam was tempted by the Devil.

Oh! So… you’re admitting that this account is an allegory? Great!

And what is the Devil an allegory for?

 

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The accepted tradition was that Adam was tempted by the Devil.

And what is the Devil an allegory for?

No, the point is that the serpent is traditionally understood as referring to the Devil. That’s obviously not literal language.

Many people imagine Satan possessing a snake, which allows there to be a literal talking snake. But even so, by inserting the Devil into the story at all you’re going beyond any meaningful concept of “literal” that I can think of.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

All this is a great reason for starting first with Catholic fundamental Dawn of Human History doctrines. The second step is to verify the fundamental doctrines as events listed in the first three informative chapters of Genesis. Starting with the verses in the first three informative chapters of Genesis is like having the tail wag the dog on certain week days.

Start with the basic doctrine, does God exist? If not, please go to the Apologetics Forum. Seriously, if God does not exist, that eliminates a lot of verses especially the annoying ones like Original Sin.

If I were a teacher, heaven forbid, I would have an open book test. I would ask my darling students to list the verses where God is real.

That seems like a rather bizarre and pointless exercise. Isn’t it self-evident that the Bible assumes that God is real?

What exactly would you accomplish by such an exercise?

 

[Contarini]

Whether one takes the first few chapters of Genesis as entirely literal and historical or entirely mythical and symbolic, what difference could it make in the actual way we lives our lives today?

All kinds of differences.

If the story is “entirely literal” then faith is fundamentally at odds with science, and one is likely to have less confidence in science and reason in one’s day to day life. People who hold to literal interpretation tend to see God’s intervention in the world in a fairly arbitrary way. It’s part of a whole set of assumptions about who God is and how God works.

On the other hand, blithely saying “it’s a myth” without thinking through the theological meaning of the story carefully goes with a cavalier attitude to Scripture, a skepticism about God’s action in the world, and an uncritical acceptance of scientific “orthodoxy.” all of which have implications for our faith as well.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

All kinds of differences.

If the story is “entirely literal” then faith is fundamentally at odds with science, and one is likely to have less confidence in science and reason in one’s day to day life. People who hold to literal interpretation tend to see God’s intervention in the world in a fairly arbitrary way. It’s part of a whole set of assumptions about who God is and how God works.

On the other hand, blithely saying “it’s a myth” without thinking through the theological meaning of the story carefully goes with a cavalier attitude to Scripture, a skepticism about God’s action in the world, and an uncritical acceptance of scientific “orthodoxy.” all of which have implications for our faith as well.

Those are two good points, I must admit. It comes down to a fundamental view of life and how God and the universe work.

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t know if this has already been said - forgive me if it has and I have missed it.

Recently I googled Lilith. I did so as it was an answer to a quiz my unbelievable smart friend knew and I didn’t. He also knew the story of Lilith, I was interested and wanted to know a bit more - hence the googling.

In the process of googling I learned scholars came across what they saw as a discrepancy in the Genesis accounts of creation in that first chapter says God created humankind that they understood to mean the human race in general, yet chapter 2 says he created one man and one woman. Lilith was apparently some way to address this.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I don’t know if this has already been said - forgive me if it has and I have missed it.

Recently I googled Lilith. I did so as it was an answer to a quiz my unbelievable smart friend knew and I didn’t. He also knew the story of Lilith, I was interested and wanted to know a bit more - hence the googling.

In the process of googling I learned scholars came across what they saw as a discrepancy in the Genesis accounts of creation in that first chapter says God created humankind that they understood to mean the human race in general, yet chapter 2 says he created one man and one woman. Lilith was apparently some way to address this.

I dont see how such a character could function in addressing the discrepancy.

 

[minkymurph]

I dont see how such a character could function in addressing the discrepancy.

Neither do I - thought someone else could expand.

 

[grannymh]

Returning to the topic of this thread, The True Creation Story.

One tool to use when looking for The True Creation Story is this list of basic axioms.

Truths taught by the Catholic Church

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

I may be wrong…These three fundamental Catholic teachings are not an allegory for something.

However, this rather old media story does use allegorical Adam and Eve. In an article about the first couple, a prominent Catholic teacher said that Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?” For him, the answer to that question is a definite yes.

Here is his explanation of the allegorical Adam and Eve.

"We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”

 

[grannymh]

Note for Post 116.

Below is the link for the 2011 article quoted in post 116.

The True Creation Story is contained in specific chapters and verses which, by the way, lead to actual real Catholic doctrines. One of the interesting points in the article’s “traditional views of Genesis” are the references to Galileo etc. Definitely, Catholics should be familiar with how “Darwin’s theory of evolution” works in the Science of Human Evolution.

And, just as important, Catholics should understand the shift from the material world to the spiritual world. Genesis 1:25-27

Link to the newspaper which printed this.
catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve