The True Creation Story

[grannymh]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Adam Naming the Animals in the Garden of Eden -
Creation Museum, Petersburg, Kentucky

In order to know and understand The True Creation Story, one needs to accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/e7/65/bf/creation-museum.jpg
Adam Naming the Animals in the Garden of Eden -
Creation Museum, Petersburg, Kentucky

In order to know and understand The True Creation Story, one needs to accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

I understand, and you’re right. Still, sometimes I think some things that have been taken as allegory might have been literally true. For example the following:

"there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man* to till the ground,
6
but a stream* was welling up out of the earth and watering all the surface of the ground— "

Now, there was almost certainly a time in the earth’s history when there were no shrub or grass and there was no rain on the earth. Literally.

Where did the water come from that could well up out of the ground? Well, there are different theories. Some think from comets, but the theory seems to be gaining some support that it (or most of it anyway) was there all the time, chemically locked within the rocky crust of the earth. As that binding began to break down, water would have literally welled up from the ground. I don’t think there is any serious doubt that there’s still a lot more water bound up in the rocky crust. Whether it will remain that way or not, I don’t think anyone knows. But I think many, if not most, scientists now think it’s there.

Anyway, it’s fun to think about all of that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I like this one:

“And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness…”

Now, remembering what I said about string theory and the big bang and all. The state before the big bang, physicists tell us, is a “singularity”. In other words, physics as we now know it, can’t penetrate past the bang and all rules of physics would have changed with it.

And when the bang happened, it was possible to have light because energy was able to spread out and form in wavelengths, some of which are “light”. But what of the darkness? Physicists tell us that immediately after the big bang, there was no separation of dark from light or much of anything from much of anything else. It was all a disorganized blast of energy and primitive atomic particles that had not yet coalesced into atoms and then discernible matter.

But it did coalesce, and luminescent material objects became distinct, with darkness between them. I’m way out of my league here, scientifically, and I know it, but some physicists do not consider space “nothing”. It’s a “thing”, just as what we know as “things” are “things”. At minimum, it’s a medium through which things can pass, and without which they could not pass. True “nothing” is an absolute. Space is a “something”.

But wait! The appearance of stars in the heavens appeared later, didn’t they. Well, perhaps they only “appeared” later because earlier on they were not visible from the earth. And earth did go through a period like that, we’re informed, when the atmosphere was so befouled by dust and chemical emanations that stars would not be visible to one standing on the earth. (not that anyone was, at that point)

I do not have one particle of the talent physicists have. Wish I did. But the more I read about astrophysics and the development of the earth, the less allegorical I think Genesis might just be.

I don’t think the Church says a “string” somehow exploded in the big bang or it didn’t. But one thing is for sure. A hundred years ago, nobody in the Church had any idea that “strings” even existed, let alone a big bang. But it’s of at least passing interest that the originator of the big bang theory was Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest.

Imagine for just a moment what it would have been like to get inside Fr. Lemaitre’s head for just a little bit. He would not have resisted the impulse to mesh together the Genesis story and what he demonstrated mathematically about the origins of the universe.

Neat stuff.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I need to leave now. I do want to say that I am not a fundamentalist who insists on taking everything in the bible literally. Not at all.

However, I really am intrigued that some things like the Genesis story seems more and more to be spot on with astrophysics; something that was discounted to the point of derision not so terribly long ago.

And what is even more intriguing is the question how on earth did the originators of the Genesis story manage to come up with an account that seems increasingly to match with scientific theories they could not possibly have known a thing about.

To me, at least, it speaks favorably of the revelatory nature of the bible. They knew it, albeit in their own way of expressing it, because God told them something they otherwise had no means of knowing.

And, getting back to Adam, are there two ways of “knowing”; one being the “knowing” that God simply gives us or imprints in us or tells us directly through revelation, and the other being the “truth” we decide upon ourselves, the latter being the “knowledge of good and evil”. Is the “knowledge of good and evil” different from “knowing good from evil” or is it having within us both objective truth and subjective judgments or inclinations about what is “true”?

In our own time, in which the acceptance of truth as objective gained through discovery of a natural law that’s imprinted within us plus revelation, is being increasingly rejected in favor of subjectivism, are we teetering on the edge of the precipice between good and evil?

Nietszche wrote about being “beyond good and evil”; a total rejection of the very idea of “principles” (the objectively true) in favor of 'values" (subjective truth), and the end result is terrifying.

One reminds oneself of MacBeth. What is “true” in MacBeth? MacBeth is fatally deceived and wants to be deceived because it supports his “values”. He departs from his objectively “true” state (Thane of Glamis and Thane of Cawdor…servant to the king, who initially accepts what is true and what comes of it.) because he is deceived as to what is “good” and becomes a participant in the deception.

And when MacDuff tells him what he must do in order to return to “truth” and be saved, MacBeth rejects penitence and Providence and cries: "Then lay on MacDuff, and damned be him who first cries “hold”, “enough”. Final impenitence. Chilling. And when the final time comes for us to accept penitence and Providence, what will be our cry?

Got to go. Be of good cheer!

 

[grannymh]

And, getting back to Adam, are there two ways of “knowing”; one being the “knowing” that God simply gives us or imprints in us or tells us directly through revelation, and the other being the “truth” we decide upon ourselves, the latter being the “knowledge of good and evil”. Is the “knowledge of good and evil” different from “knowing good from evil” or is it having within us both objective truth and subjective judgments or inclinations about what is “true”?

My apology. I do not have an answer either from the personal/psychology position or from the philosophical position. What I can do is to present Genesis 2: 15-17 as the source for the term “knowledge of good and evil.”

Genesis, chapter 2. usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.

Because misunderstandings about the basic Catholic truths in this valuable citation are found on CAF, I am going to pause a bit in case someone wants to present her or his preference for interpretations.

 

[grannymh]

I need to leave now. I do want to say that I am not a fundamentalist who insists on taking everything in the bible literally. Not at all.

And, getting back to Adam, are there two ways of “knowing”; one being the “knowing” that God simply gives us or imprints in us or tells us directly through revelation, and the other being the “truth” we decide upon ourselves, the latter being the “knowledge of good and evil”. Is the “knowledge of good and evil” different from “knowing good from evil” or is it having within us both objective truth and subjective judgments or inclinations about what is “true”?

I do not see a connection to “both objective truth and subjective judgments or inclinations about what is “true”?” Definitely there is objective truth. Sometimes objective truth is called universal truth. Objective truth exists independently.

As far as I know, the “knowledge of good and evil” dates to Genesis 2:15-17.

Genesis chapter 2 usccb.org/bible/genesis/2
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die

There have been so many versions or explanations for that tree with organic fruit that my brain yells help! Consequently, this is my preferred explanation.
**CCC 396 **
God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

The scary part of The True Creation Story is Original Sin. The above paragraph from the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *has a more reasonable approach because the tree refers to the insurmountable difference between the human creature Adam and his Divine Creator God. Instead of yelling “Why did God allow that awful tree?” We can quietly step back and examine the insurmountable difference.

We may be the first persons to question the insurmountable difference.

 

[grannymh]

Genesis chapter 2 usccb.org/bible/genesis/2
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die
**CCC 396 **
God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
We may be the first persons to question the insurmountable difference.

What I see is that people are so hung up on the tree, that they miss Genesis 2: 15. Here is a Divine Being making sure that a human critter has enough to eat. There is definitely an insurmountable difference between a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit Divinity without material limitations and a very hungry Adam. God loves Adam and all his future descendants who will have Adam’s human nature.

We cannot walk by God’s love which is Genesis 1:27. Because we are in the image of God, we can share in His life. We, and Adam, are given the amazing choice of freely choosing to be in God’s friendship or rejecting God’s friendship. Adam’s choice is described by the commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Seriously, there is no other knowledge besides good and evil. The tree’s name reminds us of omniscience which belongs to God. Which leads us to the “insurmountable limits” between human Adam and his Divine Creator God.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

It might help the discussion to check out the replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on historicity of Genesis, given in 1909 under St Pius X. Read them carefully, they are nuanced.

The whole webpage is worth looking at.

 

[goout]

It might help the discussion to check out the replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on historicity of Genesis, given in 1909 under St Pius X. Read them carefully, they are nuanced.

The whole webpage is worth looking at.

How do you read this in context of the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church? (that’s the only context you have as a Catholic )
That would include all the reflections of JP2 including Theology of the Body, his address to the Sciences, anything P Benedict had to say.
I’m not going to quote all that again, it’s out there.

How do you see all this in the full Catholic context?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Ludwig Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - gives the following dogmatic criteria relating to the first 3 chapters of Genesis:

Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :

• God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
• The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
• The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
• God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
• God has created a good world. (De Fide)
• The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
• God alone created the world. (De Fide)
• God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
• God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
• The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
• Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
• Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
• The * donum immortalitatis*, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
• Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
• Through the [original sin (Original Sin Explained and Defended: Reply to an Assemblies of God Pastor) our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
• Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

“De fide” means defined Catholic doctrine.

 

[goout]

Ludwig Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - gives the following dogmatic criteria relating to the first 3 chapters of Genesis:

Dogmas and teachings on Creation and the Fall from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (TAN Books, 1974), pages 79-122 on “The Divine Act of Creation” and “The Divine Work of Creation” :

• God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
• The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
• The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
• God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
• God has created a good world. (De Fide)
• The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
• God alone created the world. (De Fide)
• God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
• God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
• The first man was created by God. (De Fide)
• Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
• Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
• The * donum immortalitatis*, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
• Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
• Through the [original sin (Original Sin Explained and Defended: Reply to an Assemblies of God Pastor) our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
• Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

“De fide” means defined Catholic doctrine.

Good stuff.
The only thing I would quibble with is his formulation of body and soul in essential parts. The body and soul are an inseparable unity.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
…
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

 

[Justin_Swanton]

How do you read this in context of the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church? (that’s the only context you have as a Catholic )
That would include all the reflections of JP2 including Theology of the Body, his address to the Sciences, anything P Benedict had to say.
I’m not going to quote all that again, it’s out there.

How do you see all this in the full Catholic context?

“Living Magisterium” only has meaning in the sense that it involves official and binding pronouncements from the highest authority in the Church (i.e. Pope and/or Ecumenical Council) that concerns Faith and Morals and does not in any way contradict previous affirmations by the perennial Magisterium of the Church.

So, as a Catholic one must believe:

1. that Adam was the first human being, i.e. he really existed and we all descend from him,
2. that Eve was created from Adam, i.e. she really existed too (and we all descend from her too),
3. that Eve was subjected to a real temptation by the real devil,
4. that Eve got Adam to sin,
5. that they lost their original justice, which means integrity, impassibility, immortality and sanctifying grace.
6. that we all inherit their sin with its consequences.

When Popes discuss any topic not in the field of Faith or Morals or directly and necessarily connected with a defined teaching of Faith and Morals (such as Adam being the first man and falling into sin) then they are giving an opinion. Not part of the ‘living Magisterium’.

 

[goout]

“Living Magisterium” only has meaning in the sense that it involves official and binding pronouncements from the highest authority in the Church (i.e. Pope and/or Ecumenical Council) that concerns Faith and Morals and does not in any way contradict previous affirmations by the perennial Magisterium of the Church.

So, as a Catholic one must believe:

1. that Adam was the first human being, i.e. he really existed and we all descend from him,
2. that Eve was created from Adam, i.e. she really existed too (and we all descend from her too),
3. that Eve was subjected to a real temptation by the real devil,
4. that Eve got Adam to sin,
5. that they lost their original justice, which means integrity, impassibility, immortality and sanctifying grace.
6. that we all inherit their sin with its consequences.

When Popes discuss any topic not in the field of Faith or Morals or directly and necessarily connected with a defined teaching of Faith and Morals (such as Adam being the first man and falling into sin) then they are giving an opinion. Not part of the ‘living Magisterium’.

What I am asking about specifically is your use of the word “historicity” in regard to Genesis.
The Church holds Genesis to be literal, and historical, not literalist history.
There is a difference. Genesis holds a dome over the sky. That is obviously not a literalist scientific fact.
Genesis also holds a creation of “6 days”. That is not literalist history or science.

All the de fide items are de fide, independent of literalist historical details.
(The word historicity is not present in the 1909 PBC document.)

 

[grannymh]

The easy way to find the basic truth in the first three blazing chapters of Sacred Scripture is to find a Catholic doctrine, for example, the historic presence of Adam as the first sole fully-complete human person with a complete human nature, body and soul, and then look at the literal (it really happened folks) Genesis 1:27.

And Adam really committed a real Original Sin. We do not need to fool around. One cannot miss the literal message in Genesis 3:11

The True Creation Story has a bunch of facts about the dawn of human history.

Science belongs in the material world. The major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils have declared the Divine Revelation that God is the Creator. Genesis 1:1

 

[Justin_Swanton]

What I am asking about specifically is your use of the word “historicity” in regard to Genesis.
The Church holds Genesis to be literal, and historical, not literalist history.
There is a difference. Genesis holds a dome over the sky. That is obviously not a literalist scientific fact.
Genesis also holds a creation of “6 days”. That is not literalist history or science.

All the de fide items are de fide, independent of literalist historical details.
(The word historicity is not present in the 1909 PBC document.)

My own take on historicity is to take a biblical passage literally unless it gives clear indications it is metaphorical or poetical. So the 7 days creation is not literal since evening and morning occur before the creation of the sun. But the garden of Eden is described as a real place, where 4 rivers come together, two of which are historically established to have existed, so there is no reason to assume it is a metaphor.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

On the subject of Evolution one needs to keep in mind it is a theory, ***not ***a scientifically established fact. It is also a theory that has increasingly been leaking sawdust as the study of genetics has developed our understanding of the prescriptive symbolic language in DNA. The odds of a double helix strand of DNA with its 1GB of coded instructions coming together by chance (or random genetic mutation if you prefer long words) are effectively zero.

I have documentation on this for anyone interested.

 

[grannymh]

On the subject of Evolution Science.

The basic Evolution Model is that species evolve as large populations from large populations over time.

There are two areas or realms of Evolution Science.

The first basic fundamental realm of Evolution Science is within the material world. The Catholic Church does not declare evolution doctrines solely based in the material world.

The second area or realm of Evolution Science is the Science of Human Evolution. When it comes to human nature, the Catholic Church does not accept the Evolution Model. This is because the basic Evolution Model describes the origin of the human species as a large random breeding population (polygenism) evolving from large indiscriminate humanizing random breeding populations over time.

The Catholic Church teaches that the human species descended from one original population of two, Adam and his spouse Eve.

 

[Rau]

My own take on historicity is to take a biblical passage literally unless it gives clear indications it is metaphorical or poetical. So the 7 days creation is not literal since evening and morning occur before the creation of the sun. But the garden of Eden is described as a real place, where 4 rivers come together, two of which are historically established to have existed, so there is no reason to assume it is a metaphor.

Though, since geography is not the lesson served by the Scripture, literalist or not may not matter.

 

[Rau]

On the subject of Evolution one needs to keep in mind it is a theory, ***not ***a scientifically established fact. It is also a theory that has increasingly been leaking sawdust as the study of genetics has developed our understanding of the prescriptive symbolic language in DNA. The odds of a double helix strand of DNA with its 1GB of coded instructions coming together by chance (or random genetic mutation if you prefer long words) are effectively zero.

I have documentation on this for anyone interested.

But then, we are part of that statistical “process”, not standing aside watching the dice roll. We are oxygen breathing creatures on a planet with oxygen. Where else could we be?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

But then, we are part of that statistical “process”, not standing aside watching the dice roll. We are oxygen breathing creatures on a planet with oxygen. Where else could we be?

To see what odds are involved, check this out.