Was Genesis wrong about creation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Far better to doubt yourself first and foremost.

You do realize that your personal doubts raise questions about the very nature of material existence?

Sounds to me like you are experiencing an existential crisis.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Far better to doubt yourself first and foremost.

You do realize that your personal doubts raise questions about the every nature of existence?

Sounds to me like you are experiencing an existential crisis.
Click to expand...
Me?

(10 characters)
 
po18guy said:
Yes - if this expressed doubt is yours alone. If not, then simply disregard.
Click to expand...
I do believe God created me and i do believe in his existence. I just wanted a way to accurately defend the Genesis account of creation in anyway possible. I may believe it, but i didn’t know how to defend it
 
Opps. I was thinking books of the Pentateuch.

I meant the Chapters of Genesis.

Jim
 
edwest211 said:
Then why do some treat the Genesis account in the Bible as if it was a scientific textbook?
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t it your church that states its members are “allowed” to accept Genesis as literal or not?
 
Well, science cannot explain it. Like with Ghostbusters, who ya’ gonna call? The creation narrative is 100% consistent with everything that legitimate science has discovered. You know the “Big Bang” theory?

No, not the show. The theory. It was developed into the most satisfying explanation for the origin of the universe that a really smart German guy (Einstein) had ever seen. But, who worked it up? A certain brilliant astrophysicist. Well, yeah, but so what? Well, it was…

Jesuit Fr. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Priest.

Oh, and you know all the theories about the end of the universe? One of them is a theory which postulates that, due to free thermodynamic energy, the universe and its elements will super-heat until they melt and vaporize. Have we seen that written about somewhere? Well, yes, we have. 2,000 years ago.
2 Peter 3:10-12 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) 10 But
the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will
pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with
fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening[a]
the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be
kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire!
Click to expand...
In short, we have 100% valid reasons, and many of them, to believe in the faith. The faith is not a blind faith. Neither is it pure rationalism. It is faith and reason combined. The left and right hands of creation and salvation history.

You know what? Buzz on over to https://www.magiscenter.com/ and peruse some of Fr. Robert Spitzer’s stuff. He is also brilliant, a physicist, and has zero doubt in the faith and the Sacraments. I think you’ll find it a very good fit and a comfort to know that it is all a perfect synthesis of our beginning, our present state as well as our eternity.
 
Last edited:
That’s true. But these sorts of threads mainly consist of posters who insist none of it is literal for various reasons.
 
The problem I have with the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 is not that they could be allegorical, it’s that both have the order of creation in the wrong order. In fact, each narrative has them in different orders with neither one being correct. There is no reason for an allegorical story to add false elements that are neither literally true not figuratively true.
 
al·le·go·ry
ˈaləˌɡôrē/Submit

noun
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

///////

This is the intent, not literal or historical accuracy

Jim
 
Jim, I understand what allegory is. The issue is that it has elements in the wrong order, and they are wholly unnecessarily to the story. How much of a Bible passage can be outright false (whether literally or allegorically) and still be considered true? 20%? 50%?
 
edwest211 said:
Then why do some treat the Genesis account in the Bible as if it was a scientific textbook?
Click to expand...
Because their entire belief structure is inextricably bound up with the literal translation and acceptance of every word of Scripture being factually true, and any deviation cannot, under any circumstance, be tolerated???
 
Last edited:
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. God most likely simplified creation because of all the advanced knowledge of the event. Surely the description of the birth of creation would be too advanced when the book was written?
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve were created with preternatural gifts including infused knowledge.
 
The two accounts are complementary. One tells the order of creation, the other the importance of man.
 
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:

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 judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment 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
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The two accounts are complementary. One tells the order of creation, the other the importance of man.
Click to expand...
Which is which? I think you’ll find neither of them describe the order in which things came into existence.
 
Gen 1 may actually may have been written by God Himself and passed down on tablets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top