Was Genesis wrong about creation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The attached is from the Pontifical Biblical Commission concerning the first three chapters of Genesis. One must read the question and answer carefully to determine what some of them are saying.

Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)
I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.

III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.

continued
 
Continued from above:

IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.

V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.

VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.

VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.

VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm

Blessings
 
theCardinalbird said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
Yea, well I meet him, I’m going to ask for mercy, not justice.
Click to expand...
I’m not following. what do you mean?
Click to expand...
Meant to say, “yea, when I meet Him, I’m going to ask for mercy, not justice.”
 
And I do not believe God created the earth in six 24 hour days as taken literally from Genesis.

Science has long put that idea to rest.

The earth is 3.8 billion years old, if I have that number correct.

Jim
 
theCardinalbird said:
I don’t know. We have to look at the time period the book was written, where there was no understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, even including astronomy.
Click to expand...
Right, but the truth of the Bible doesn’t depend on what humans understand; rather, it depends on what God wishes to reveal to humanity. The argument that creation literalists will make isn’t that the writer of Genesis knew all this stuff, but that God does, and therefore, God revealed it in a literal, historical, scientific way.
God most likely simplified creation
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn’t say that it’s a ‘simplified account’, either. That still tends toward a literalistic interpretation (albeit a ‘simplified’ one).

Rather, I think I’d assert that God inspired the writer of Scripture to present an allegorical account which presents theological truth.
Surely the description of the birth of creation would be too advanced when the book was written?
Click to expand...
Given the clues found in Genesis 1, Scripture scholars tend to conclude that it was composed fairly late in the game – at the very least, after the Babylonian Exile. So, the level of ‘knowledge’ isn’t the level of knowledge even of Abraham’s day – it was the level of knowledge a few hundred years before Christ.
 
Actually there is strong evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

If you desire to believe the earth is just a few thousands of years old, go ahead, but keep it to yourself rather than make Christianity look like a religion for fools.

Jim
 
These are some points Catholics would need to defend from Genesis:
  • God’s existence
  • God’s providential and loving care
  • That creation was intentional and no mere accident
  • That creation and matter are good
  • That humans are trans-physical and not mere matter (we have a spiritual component)
  • That the Devil is real
  • That sin is real
  • That the “Fall” was a real event. What this means depends on the person you ask, but the core doctrine is that the first humans sinned against God and lost graces and gifts meant for them to have.
  • Original Sin.
  • The origin of the human race in two true humans (with “souls”)
These are the main points emphasized in the Catechism and in recent magisterial documents, and they’re also pretty obvious to anyone familiar with Catholic doctrine. Look up “creation” or “Genesis” on Catholic Answers (main site), for example.

Notice that none of this directly touches on evolution or what may be determined by the physical sciences, for that is another method of describing creation – not a contrary method.

So if you’re asking about if Genesis is “wrong,” then I suppose you have to ask whether there are reasons to think any of the above points are wrong. Any person may object to any particular point. Naturally, atheists would start with #1 and reject most of the rest. But that’s a lot there. Any specific points in mind?
 
Last edited:
theCardinalbird said:
But when was Genesis written?
Click to expand...
This question is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter when any book of the Bible was written, as the Holy Spirit could have inspired writers hundreds or even thousands of years after the fact. Genesis didn’t have to be written immediately after the events in question in order for its account to be a truthful one. Ditto for the New Testament. Everyone gets so worked up over whether the Evangelists actually witnessed the events they narrate, or how many decades after the Crucifixion the Gospels were written, but it really doesn’t matter. Divine inspiration doesn’t always stick slavishly to a human timeline.
 
Last edited:
"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Source - Catholic Answers

Monty Python are not theologians…
 
I always liked the followin interpretation put forth by St. Augustine in Book 6 of “The Literal Meaning of Genesis.” He explains the idea that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day:

St. Augustine
There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all thing were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.
Click to expand...
I find this explanation especially compelling because it explains why there are two separate creation accounts of man. It is also compatible with the Big Bang theory (creation in an instant of all in potency, but not final form) and the theory of a long evolutionary time frame (the shaping of everything after the creation).
 
Not compelling. Too many unanswered questions. Speaking about the science only.
  1. What was the material that turned into the Big Bang?
  2. Where did it come from?
  3. Where did the Universe expand into?
  4. Scientists do not know how big the universe is. The last deep space image from the Hubble telescope shows faint galaxies in the background. This indicates that the universe is likely larger than previously determined.
 
The universe is larger and still growing.

Thanks to knowing the speed of light, scientists are able to calculate that there is empirical evidence that the earth is not just 10,000 years old

Jim
 
edwest211 said:
Not compelling. Too many unanswered questions. Speaking about the science only.
  1. What was the material that turned into the Big Bang?
  2. Where did it come from?
  3. Where did the Universe expand into?
  4. Scientists do not know how big the universe is. The last deep space image from the Hubble telescope shows faint galaxies in the background. This indicates that the universe is likely larger than previously determined.
Click to expand...
  1. God created it out of nothing as St. Augustine noted.
  2. Again, God created it out of nothing.
  3. Again, what God created out of nothing.
  4. Ok. I’m not sure how this one affects the explanation I posted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top