Was Genesis wrong about creation?

[Gorgias]

thistle:

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.

Source a specific magisterial document that backs your claim.

“The Church does not forbid that … research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.” – Pope Pius XII, Humani generis

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.” – St John Paul II, affirming the magisterial teaching of Pius XII in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 10/22/96

 

[thistle]

Source a specific magisterial document that backs your claim.

I’m claiming the negative so obviously there would not be a document. You are claiming the positive so where are your documents that supports your assertion on a young Earth and a literal six 24 hour periods.
There is no Church document/teaching that says Catholics must believe in a literal 6 24 hour periods, just like there is no Church/document that says Catholics must believe in a young Earth.

Catholics are FREE to believe either but a young Earth makes absolutely no sense in view of the overwhelming evidence for an Earth around 4.8 billion years old and ZERO evidence for a young Earth. Those people who just add up the generations in the Bible and claim that is evidence are fools.

 

[buffalo]

No. The catechism talks about the “literal sense” of Scripture, which is distinct from literalism. The two are not the same thing.

You are correct.

 

[buffalo]

overwhelming evidence

Hardly. …

 

[buffalo]

regarding man and his vocation

This is a key point.

 

[buffalo]

Always boils down to this.

Provisional science claims__________________________, Revelation is wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

Always boils down to this.

Provisional science claims__________________________, Revelation is wrong.

Science, properly considered, always makes the first claim – and never makes the second claim. Some – who wish to rail against claims of the first type – attempt to claim that they’re really claims of the second type. They’re not. (And, where scientists do make claims about theology, they’re making an error of category, and should be smiled at, patted on the head, and invited to run along and play in their own sandbox. )

 

[buffalo]

Science, properly considered, always makes the first claim – and never makes the second claim. Some – who wish to rail against claims of the first type – attempt to claim that they’re really claims of the second type. They’re not. (And, where scientists do make claims about theology, they’re making an error of category, and should be smiled at, patted on the head, and invited to run along and play in their own sandbox. )

Many here, and our own sons and daughters have swallowed the science narrative hook, line and sinker. As in, who believes that silly book nowadays anymore? Science has made it obsolete.

You do not see this?

 

[Gorgias]

Many here, and our own sons and daughters have swallowed the science narrative hook, line and sinker. As in, who believes that silly book nowadays anymore? Science has made it obsolete.

You do not see this?

That there are many who are mistaken about science, just as there are many who are mistaken about what the Church teaches? Yes, I see that quite clearly, especially in this thread.

 

[buffalo]

That there are many who are mistaken about science, just as there are many who are mistaken about what the Church teaches? Yes, I see that quite clearly, especially in this thread.

What has the church consistently taught about Genesis until say a few hundred years ago?

 

[Gorgias]

What has the church consistently taught about Genesis until say a few hundred years ago?

I’ve pointed you to what Augustine and Bellarmine said. Why do you insist on claiming that the Church is stridently literalistic in its approach to Scripture?

 

[thistle]

Hardly. …

Despite asking you several times where is your evidence for a young Earth. There is ZERO evidence.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve pointed you to what Augustine and Bellarmine said. Why do you insist on claiming that the Church is stridently literalistic in its approach to Scripture?

It is what the inspired author intended to convey.

 

[buffalo]

What has the church consistently taught about Genesis until say a few hundred years ago?

“What has the church consistently taught about Genesis until say a few hundred years ago?”

I am waiting?

 

[thistle]

I am waiting?

While you are waiting for someone else to respond I am still waiting for your evidence of a young Earth and 6 literal 24 hour periods.

 

[Gorgias]

It is what the inspired author intended to convey.

Outstanding. And, pray tell, when the Church tells you that it’s OK to believe that the inspired author did not intend to teach historical, scientific fact… why do you rail against that?

 

[angel12]

It is what the inspired author intended to convey.

You know better than the Church about that?

 

[buffalo]

Outstanding. And, pray tell, when the Church tells you that it’s OK to believe that the inspired author did not intend to teach historical, scientific fact … why do you rail against that?

Produce the magisterial document that rejects a historic Adam and Eve as our first parents, and creation was not immediate as described in Genesis.

 

[buffalo]

You know better than the Church about that?

I am using Church teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

Produce the magisterial document that rejects a historic Adam and Eve as our first parents

You’ve pretty much just quoted what the Church teaches.

Anyway, I’m not sure why you think this is controversial. The claim of theistic evolutionists would be that our first human parents became such when God ensouled them.

and creation was not immediate as described in Genesis.

C’mon… you know better than that, dontcha? The Church doesn’t reject it – it allows people to hold either belief. So, asking for a ‘rejection’ is fruitless – and pointless.