Was Genesis wrong about creation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
40.png
BlueMaxx:
So calling someone mentally ill seems like an appropriate response, eh?

You nor I were there…who are YOU to call someone mentally ill for simply believing what God has said…for having faith…or are you saying God is not capable of something? Are you denying His omnipotence?

All I am trying to say is that we can have it both ways without being insulting…
Click to expand...
Show me one shred of evidence for a young Earth!! It makes absolutely no sense at all. As I said the people who simply add up the generations in the Bible are living in fantasyland if that it what they call evidence.
Click to expand...
I will not engage you on this any further as I find your tone and demeanor unacceptable and insulting.
Calling people mentally addled, telling them they live in a fantasy world…these are not characteristics of a loving Catholic.

If you cannot find in your heart the ability to share fellowship with another Catholic whose views differ from yours, yet both are in line with Catholic doctrine then I really feel sorry for you…
 
Last edited:
And I feel sorry that you’d go against the science and propagate ideas that would hold us back.

How would it be if a peer I wrote go dismissed because the reader of it during per review felt as you do and didn’t give it credit because the church allows your belief instead of backing it up with solid science?

I’ve seen it happen and its soul crushing.
 
I am not at odds with science…I also am in line with Church teachings.

Good day,

M
 
BlueMaxx said:
I will not engage you on this any further as I find your tone and demeanor unacceptable and insulting.
Calling people mentally addled, telling them they live in a fantasy world…these are not characteristics of a loving Catholic.

If you cannot find in your heart the ability to share fellowship with another Catholic whose views differ from yours, yet both are in line with Catholic doctrine then I really feel sorry for you…
Click to expand...
In short you have no answer to my question which is why you are being defensive. Show us one piece of evidence that supports a young Earth, i.e. around 10,000 years old.
 
The first 5 Books are written as a story in ways to inform,of a God of Creation & how Creation was explained. There were more than 1 Adam & Eve.
I found this article.

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis are readings of the biblical Book of Genesis that treat elements of the narrative as symbols or types, rather than viewing them literally as historical events. Either way, Genesis is canonical scripture for Judaism and most sects of Christianity, and believers generally regard it as being of spiritual significance.
The opening chapter of Genesis tells a story of God’s creation of the universe and humankind as being accomplished over the course of six successive days. Some Christian and Jewish schools of thought (such as Christian Fundamentalism) read these biblical passages literally, that each day of creation was 24 hours in duration. Others (such as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestant denominations) read the story allegorically, and hold that the intent of the biblical account is to describe humankind’s relationship to creation and the creator, that it does not describe an actual historical event, and that the six days of creation can simply represent a long period of time.
Genesis 2 records a second account of creation. In chapter 3 a talking serpent is introduced, which many Christians understand to be Satan in disguise. This symbolism is accepted even by Christians who believe the story as a whole is based on an actual historical event.[citation needed] Many Christians in ancient times regarded the early chapters of Genesis to be true as both history and allegory.[1]
Other Jews and Christians have long considered the creation account of Genesis as an allegory even prior to the development of modern science and the scientific account based on the scientific method. Two notable examples are Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo who in the 4th century, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require;[2] and the even earlier 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.[3]

Christian Bible reference to an Old Testament story as allegorical[edit]
In the King James version of the Bible, Galatians 4:21-31, Paul describes the Genesis story of Abraham’s sons as an allegory.

Hope this helps
 
Bible ,including Genesis, was written to be read and understood by ordinary people of the relevant time in its plain and literal meaning.Creation of earth in 6 days, separating waters above and below by a firmament( water kept above was considered as coming down by rain),four corners of earth(earth considered as plane ) ,creating two great lights one big and another small ( moon also considered at par with sun except less light )etc described were all believable and went well for centuries till it is found that they are not actually correct.But since it is considered that bible is God’s words and can’t go wrong ,the theory that what is stated in Genesis is all allegorical and not to be taken in its literal meaning,is then floated which obviously find immediate support though it is absolutely a wrong approach which will eventually backfire.

God has given wisdom and knowledge to humans to understand why the descriptions of creation etc were given in that manner and to reconcile the apparent error. But instead of admitting this , unnecessary attempts are made to justify the descriptions saying that what is meant is not to be taken in its literal meaning etc.which won’t succeed.
In short my view is that, it would have really taken 4.5 billion years to create earth (as found scientifically now) and man may have been born by evolution but God put these in the Bible in a manner that could be easily understood by the readers of that time with their limited knowledge.
So the issue such as whether literal or allegorical etc.does not arise.
 
Early interpretations of Genesis were missing too much history, and that was still the case until the mid-19th century, when archaeologists first started digging into anatopic mounds of dirt in what should have been a flat alluvial plane in Mesopotamia, and pulled up tablets in languages long since forgotten.

Today we know, or those who’ve been reading what those who’ve studied this have told us, that the Genesis stories, in some form, were common throughout Mesopotamia. They were neither novel nor original to the Hebrews.

Certainly, there are novelties in Genesis. The preceding gods didn’t create the heavens and the earth; they separated the heavens from the earth to create a living space for humans. Arguably, a distinction without a difference.

The Hebrews’ stories in Genesis were learned from the people from whom they split off, and carried off with them, like the priestly roles from their religious forebears in Ugarit. When Noah followed the dictates of his God in building an ark, he was retracing the footsteps of the Akkadian Utnapishtim and his forerunner, the Sumerian Ziusudra.

And no, people, even then, didn’t literally believe these stories, any more than the Greeks literally believed the gods lived on top of Olympus. These were religious stories, from long ago and far away. From once upon a time. They have always been allegorical, no doubt nestled around a core of true believers, but in essence, stories about the gods and the gods’ interactions with humans, and hence, by definition, myths.

They’re actually much more interesting stories when we instead choose to see them as written by humans, no different from ourselves.
 
theCardinalbird said:
Ok. Genesis 1:1-31 speak of creation in a 24 hour day period (it seems). My question is, does a literal or even figurative understanding of this creation story fit in with what modern science has concluded about the origins of the universe? Or our planet?
Click to expand...
MY REPLY WILL BE ON 3 Consecutive POST
REPLY #1

Ok. Genesis 1:1-31 speak of creation in a 24 hour day period (it seems). My question is, does a literal or even figurative understanding of this creation story fit in with what modern science has concluded about the origins of the universe? Or our planet?

Thanks for being specific; NOW we can began our discussion.

The two most difficult books in the bible to read and understand are the books of Genesis; the first book, and the book Revelation, the last book; bookends with a hidden message.

That hidden message I suspect has something to do with our natural propensity to apply our own wisdom; human logic in trying to wrestle with the usually profound messages being shared therein. Certainly there is a place for logic in faith belief examinations; that is why exegesis is a field of scientific study of the bible with their being many such experts.

But we need not be literal experts to be knowledgeable of the bible if we are versed in the Catholic Faith.
Here are some critical points we need to be aware of in reading this important and somewhat fabricated historical account

[1] Time does not exist for God, for whom everything is “present.” The past, the present and even the future are all “present” to God all of the “time.” Still “seven days” is the presumed, or at least recorded in the Bible as being the length of time for creation. Genesis 2: 2

[2] Secondly is the important point you allude to; the various literary styles employed in this one book, including metaphor, allegory, fable, parable and literacy; with one not easily knowing where one form ends and the next form begins.

[3] There is the need to carefully read each word; seeking its possible significance in unraveling this puzzle.

SEE NEXT POST
 
REPLY PT 2

Note for example verses 3 and 9: {Douay Bible}

[3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

[9] God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done.

[4] This puzzle is further complicated by trying to grasp the incomprehensible; God’s UNLIMITED powers.
To “create” here means to “make something out of nothing” this being both an explanation and a further hint. It is powerful manifestation of the POWER of God; while it is also teaching us that the universe was not “hand-fashioned” {***}, but rather was thought into existence; that is to say; actually God-“Willed” into existence.

[5] In considering all of the above, we can state that the period of time for the creation of the universe could have been a day. A week, 700 years, or thousands; maybe even many thousands of years; or even perhaps 24 seconds? … The length of time has almost NO bearing on the account. This we can be assured of as numbers in the bible in Jewish Tradition hold meanings separate from {but most often, still alluding to} the matter at hand.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The Significance of Numbers in Scripture.htm
For example; the number seven means; “complete”, “full”, and or. “Perfect.” So biblically speaking the seven days {whatever the actual times was} was ideally; perfectly adequate and sufficient to get the job done right.

SEE PT 3
 
REPLY PT 3 OF 3

[6] As to fitting in with what science assumes to be THE story of Creation.

Personally {ME HERE}, I don’t place a lot of merit in their hypothesis as being more than speculation from an atheistic perspective. There HAD TO BE a “first cause”; which if not denied, is at least overlooked in their pontifications.

The practice of religions is commonly referred to as “faith.” No coincidence that, as it is precisely FAITH that God seeks from us; because God is by all human means is totality incomprehensible, directing us to seek Him and trust Him, so that we can, could and should Glorify and Worship Him. Isaiah 43: 7 & 21
I hope my new friend that the above address’ your immediate concerns? If not please be specific and we can continue our discussion.

Had you noticed something that I overlooked {failed to grasp the significance of} in several readings of the Bible in regards to Creation? In chapter two we discover an amazing aberration to the first chapters account.

[6] “But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth. [7] And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”
Here are some critical points that argue against some scientific theories:

[1] God created the entire Universe out of “nothing”; it was “Willed” into existence, with its stars, galaxies, animals and plants. But man {humanity” was actually made out of something {Gen 2:7 & Gen 3:19}
[2] God breathed His very life into humanity; hence in all of creation; in the heavens and on earth only man; only humanity is claimed to have been gifted a “living soul.”

WHY is this signifient? Because it explains Genesis 1: 26-27 which teaches that man was and IS created in the very “Image and likeness of GOD.” On planet earth, as far as can be scientifically verified; and also in the entire Universe, only man is rational, as is God.

What an AMAZING God we have.

Blessings,
Patrick
 
How Good Is The Evidence For Evolution? How Many Darwinists Overstate Their Case

scottmsullivan.com

How Good Is The Evidence For Evolution? How Many Darwinists Overstate Their Case - Scott M. Sullivan

Many secular minded biologists claim there is a “mountain” of evidence for evolution. But is this really true? And if it is true, what does it really mean? The truth is that many Darwinists overstate their case. What I mean is this. Often times, Darwinists will use evidence that supports...
scottmsullivan.com
 
According to Dr. David Anders, Catholics are not required to take the Genesis creation story literally. He himself refers to it as an allegory.
 
CelticWarlord said:
According to Dr. David Anders, Catholics are not required to take the Genesis creation story literally. He himself refers to it as an allegory.
Click to expand...
Yes, you will find that some apologists will go the “allegory” way and neglect what the Catechism says.
 
The Catechism tells us to take the Genesis account of creation literally ?

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The Catechism tells us to take the Genesis account of creation literally ?

Jim
Click to expand...
The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
Code: 
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top