Was Genesis wrong about creation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But this doesn’t say Genesis is to be taken literally as written.

Note the bold part
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.”
Click to expand...
This means that as we learn, the rules of sound interpretation reside.

The creation story in Genesis is part of this.

When it was written, the author had no idea about the solar system, the speed of light to measure distances in space etc.

So, it’s more in the allegorical and not the literal.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
But this doesn’t say Genesis is to be taken literally as written.

Note the bold part
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.”
Click to expand...
Standing alone, you may have a case. But we have Jesus Himself affirming Genesis. The OT and NT passages and almost 2000 years of teaching and constant understanding support the original authors conveyance.

The Catechism is speaking of layers. It does not say throw out the literal when convenient. It means allegory builds upon the literal, not replace it.

All of a sudden we now have Genesis figured out? The Holy Spirit was sleeping on the job? Jesus was wrong? Provisional science claims are stronger than Revelation?

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit knew all this science in the beginning, since they created it all.

Genesis stands.

What magisterial document overturned all this?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jesus affirmed Genesis as the people he was teaching understood it.

Jesus wasn’t going to begin teaching them about science and the solar system, it wasn’t his mission.

The first five chapters of Genesis weren’t written for five hundred years after the remaining books of the Pentateuch. Genesis was taught through oral tradition beforehand, of which the author, most likely Moses, had the other five books committed to memory before he wrote the creation story.

Jim
 
Last edited:
JimR-OCDS said:
The first five chapters of Genesis weren’t written for five hundred years after the remaining books of the Pentateuch. Genesis was taught through oral tradition beforehand, of which the author, most likely Moses, had the other five books committed to memory before he wrote the creation story.
Click to expand...
or he compiled them from tablets he had in his possession.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Jesus wasn’t going to begin teaching them about science and the solar system, it wasn’t his mission.
Click to expand...
How do you know this? St John said Jesus said and did many things, so much they could fille volumes more.
 
He didn’t have the tablets.

If you recall, he smashed them on the golden calf the Israelites were worshiping when he came down from Mt Sinai.

Jim
 
Because if Jesus taught science to the Apostles, we would’ve learned from Him, that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth.

Jim
 
Yes. Physics talks about inflation after the big bang. We could consider this creation inflation. Very much happened in a very short time.
 
buffalo said:
Yes. Physics talks about inflation after the big bang. We could consider this creation inflation. Very much happened in a very short time.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You tell us we have to believe that creation was done in 6 literal 24 hour periods but the Church does not tell us to believe that! In fact we are allowed by the Church NOT to believe that.
Oh wait. I forgot. You also actually believe in a young Earth or am I wrong and its someone else I am thinking of.
 
So which tablets ?

The one God wrote the Ten Commandments on with his finger, was destroyed when Moses smashed them against the golden calf statue the Israelites were worshiping.

JIm
 
Science isn’t a worldview choice, but a system which discovers facts.

The Church doesn’t throw out science and follow just theology. Both reason and faith go hand in hand, or it ends up being open to deceit.

Jim
 
thistle said:
Interesting. You tell us we have to believe that creation was done in 6 literal 24 hour periods but the Church does not tell us to believe that! In fact we are allowed by the Church NOT to believe that.
Oh wait. I forgot. You also actually believe in a young Earth or am I wrong and its someone else I am thinking of.
Click to expand...
Source a specific magisterial document that backs your claim.
 
Who is Curt Sewell ?

Is he a Scripture Scholar recognized by the Catholic Church ?

I don’t believe so.

In fact, he has a profile at Linkedin which says he works in a warehouse.

Jim
 
So you’re opposition to science is based on your own ideas that scientists exclude God ?

How about Teilhard De Chardin SJ, he was both a scientist and a Jesuit Priest.

His writings once censured, are not being pulled from the Vatican Archives and accepted as solid science combined with theology.

Jim
 
buffalo said:
Absolutely wrong. I hold a literal interpretation as the Catechism says, and the longheld teaching and understanding of the Church.
Click to expand...
No. The catechism talks about the “literal sense” of Scripture, which is distinct from literalism. The two are not the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top