H
Hellisreal
Guest
That is my understanding too.
- Status
B
bethndanny
Guest
You will find even more differences from church to church in non Catholic denominations. And like you said you agree with so much of Catholicism, and this isnāt even something you *need *to believe in, your beliefs are valid within the Church! Pray, pray, pray. I will pray for you, that you may find peace in coming home to the Church.
B
buffalo
Guest
Genesis 1 gives the order, Gen 2 gives the details about the creation of humans.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genesis2.php
V
VociMike
Guest
But a literal reading makes it quite clear that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present two different orders of creation. I donāt understand how that can be avoided. What I am asking is how literalists deal with this plain contradiction.
Gen 1:
21: So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
ā¦
25: And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
ā¦
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 2:
7: then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
ā¦
18: Then the LORD God said, āIt is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.ā
19: So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
C
carol_marie
Guest
Agreed. And both man & beasts were created on the sixth āday.ā
Chapter 2 is just a retelling - it provides the details.
Itās like this:
#1 Yesterday I woke up, went to work, drove to the grocery store & shopped, came home, cooked dinner, took a bath and went to bed at 10pm.
vs.
#2 Yesterday I had to go to work. My boss drives me crazy. I was busy all day. I made hamburgers on the grill for dinner which my kids just loved. Hamburger was on sale at the grocery store. went to bed and slept well beccause I had a relaxing bath.
Sames stories. And in #2 no one would suggest I bought hamburger AFTER I grilled - right?
V
VociMike
Guest
Youāre still disregarding the plain discrepancy in the ordering in the two accounts. One account has animals and birds created before man, the other account has them created after man. You are making a choice as to just how literally the text should be read. Donāt just react to my comment, consider it.
And birds were created on the 5th day in Gen 1, and on the 6th day (after man) in Gen 2.
C
carol_marie
Guest
Sorry - edited the post above yours. (got a phone call inbetween)
C
carol_marie
Guest
C
carol_marie
Guest
Gen 2 starts with the 7th day - there arenāt any more mention of ādaysā in the rest of the Chapter. So where do you get that there is a discrepency? Chapter 2 is just a retelling of events - not necessarly in order with more details. Chapter 2 is all about Man - his relationship with the animals and with Eve. It isnāt about the timeline of creation - that was already covered in Chapter 1.
In my previous post I gave an example of a retelling of one day. I suppose a more accuate example would be a retelling of an entire week. Reading someoneās diary of their vacation would be different from hearing someone recount what they did. The order of the retelling may be different depending on what was most important to them. For example on day 1 of the Diary it may say: visited with Aunt Flo. On day 2: Went to the beach. Day 3: Went to Disney World. etc. When they tell you about their vacation they might say: We went to Disney - had an awesome timeā¦ went on all the rides!!! We also spent time hunting for shells at the beach and I got to see my Aunt Flo.
Do you see any contradictions there?
V
VociMike
Guest
When a text says āA then B then Cā and another text says āC then B then Aā there is contradiction, plain and simple.
And yes, Gen 2 starts with the 7th day, but in Gen 2:4 it seems to step back. But from that point it lays out a sequential order, in which man is created before the animals and the birds, which is not the order in Gen 1. And a literalist has to deal with that discrepancy. What you are doing is rejecting a literal understanding of Gen 2 for another understanding of it. Thatās not wrong - just acknowledge that this is what you are doing.
C
carol_marie
Guest
Also, I donāt know why this version says, "THEN the Lordā¦ "
My Bible (KJV) says, "And the Lordā¦ " v. 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25.
Which changes the meaning - I can see why the āthenā would throw someone. I think the KJV is more accuarate which is why I use it.
C
carol_marie
Guest
Please see above post. That is not what I am doing.
āAndā is different from āThen.ā wouldnāt you agree?
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
Politically correct Catholics who accept naturalistic explanations for such supernatural events as creation, the origin of life & c, are in danger of losing their faith, which I believe is the case when we hear some to the Modernist pronouncements of some who claim to speak for the Church. If the universe could come into existence by the āBig Bangā, life began naturally by the right combination of chemicals, and humanity evolved from some sort of ape-like creature, why would we need to belive in God? If you are gullible enough to accept naturalistic explanations that seem to defy scientific observation, of what significance is a Creator?
One of the contributors mentioned āmicro evolutionā. I believe that there is no such thing as micro evolution, or macro evolution. What is being called micro evolution is actually the survival of the fittest. In any organism, there is variation. When an antibiotic is developed for an influenza, the next year a different strain is prevalent. Has the virus mutated? No, it is merely a variation of the virus that has become dominant. How could a virus evolve a defense against something that could kill it?
In my opinion, it makes more sense to either believe the Biblical account, or reject it entirely. To try to have it both way is illogical. Either the Genesis account is a lie, or God made a few mistakes, or it is true. The idea of no death before the first sin is quite clear, as is man being made out of the dust of the Earth. Also, the Bible states that each species reproduced its own kind. Why would these statements be in the Bible if they are outright lies?
Revelation is symbology. It is said to be a vision, not history. Genesis is presented as history. There is no confusing the two. If we decide what is true and what is just a good story, we end up with private interpretation. How can we rely on Church leaders, when they canāt seem to agree amongst themselves? Church leaders have been wrong in the past. Let a pope speak Ex Cathedra and say that evolution is a fact.
Ų§ŲØŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ
One of the contributors mentioned āmicro evolutionā. I believe that there is no such thing as micro evolution, or macro evolution. What is being called micro evolution is actually the survival of the fittest. In any organism, there is variation. When an antibiotic is developed for an influenza, the next year a different strain is prevalent. Has the virus mutated? No, it is merely a variation of the virus that has become dominant. How could a virus evolve a defense against something that could kill it?
In my opinion, it makes more sense to either believe the Biblical account, or reject it entirely. To try to have it both way is illogical. Either the Genesis account is a lie, or God made a few mistakes, or it is true. The idea of no death before the first sin is quite clear, as is man being made out of the dust of the Earth. Also, the Bible states that each species reproduced its own kind. Why would these statements be in the Bible if they are outright lies?
Revelation is symbology. It is said to be a vision, not history. Genesis is presented as history. There is no confusing the two. If we decide what is true and what is just a good story, we end up with private interpretation. How can we rely on Church leaders, when they canāt seem to agree amongst themselves? Church leaders have been wrong in the past. Let a pope speak Ex Cathedra and say that evolution is a fact.
Ų§ŲØŁ ŁŁ ŁŁ
V
VociMike
Guest
So you are saying that God said āIt is not good for the man to be aloneā and made animals and birds before he made man? Even though earlier in the chapter we already see God talking to man?
Note God didnāt say āIt will not be goodā but āIt is not goodā. That tells us that man already existed when God spoke, not that he would exist some time in the future.
Anyway, it is clear that even literalists will find ways to avoid a literal reading when they find a conflict. That is only reasonable. But then those same literalists really have no basis to complain when other people do the exact same thing, within the bounds allowed by the Church, when they find a similar conflict (with objective scientific evidence, in this case).
F
Fuerza
Guest
Iām just posting my thoughts here. Although not aimed at anyone in particular, I am somewhat offended by some of the implications that Catholics who do not take the creation story literally are weaker in faith despite the fact that the Church allows us to do so. I myself believe the creation story (actually, both of them) to be symbolic of evolution. For all we know the six days could stand for billions of years. I also have no problem reconciling Adam and Eve with this view. Even if God designed it so that we evolved from apes, one of those apes was the first to be given a soul and elevated to human status.
Let me also say that I have no problem with those who take creation literally. For all we know they may turn out to be right, and I would have no problem admitting that I was wrong. I just donāt see why this has to be such a bone of contention. Creation and Limbo, two areas in which the Church allows for some difference of opinion, cause otherwise faithful Catholics to go at each otherās throats like rabid animals. Since belief either way on these subjects does not impact our salvation, letās keep it civil and avoid questioning the faith of others.
Let me also say that I have no problem with those who take creation literally. For all we know they may turn out to be right, and I would have no problem admitting that I was wrong. I just donāt see why this has to be such a bone of contention. Creation and Limbo, two areas in which the Church allows for some difference of opinion, cause otherwise faithful Catholics to go at each otherās throats like rabid animals. Since belief either way on these subjects does not impact our salvation, letās keep it civil and avoid questioning the faith of others.
L
LJN21
Guest
I for one agree with you.
BTW the (accredited) Catholic School my kids go to does not teach we evolved from apes.
C
carol_marie
Guest
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are retelling the SAME story in different ways.
Chapter 1 is a literal chronological telling. Day 1 , Day 2 , Day 3ā¦ etc.
Chapter 2 is the retelling with the emphasis on Adam -
v. 7 tells again how he formed ADAM out of the ground.
v. 18 tells how ADAM needed a helpmate.
v. 19 tells how after God formed every animal & bird, he told ADAM to name them.
v. 20 tells how Adam named them all & noticed there wasnāt a helpmate for him.
v. 21 Adam falls alseep
v. 22 God makes helpmate for Adam.
v. 23 Adam meets Eve.
I guess your problem is with v. 19 - YOU think it is saying that God created the animals after Adam?? Again, Chapter 2 is NOT a list of chronological events. Itās a retelling - v. 19 is about how Adamās job was to name the animals - not Godās creating of the animals.
I think you are looking for conflict where none exists.
C
carol_marie
Guest
rabid animals? oh pluleeez.
V
VociMike
Guest
No, I am pointing out that even people who claim to be reading literally cease to read literally when something (the text, in this case) seems to require that they cease to read literally. There is no question that a literal reading of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 presents two different orders of creation. That much is simply beyond dispute.
But Iāve said what I intended to say. No point in going round and round.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Which Catholics are you referring to? The Pope? Which catholics on this forum deny God is the Creator?
Iām sorry, but if you want to argue the science, you need to understand it. Your re-defining scientific terms because they donāt fit your understanding is fine, but you shouldnāt expect anyone with any science education to take you seriously.
The Church would disagree with you.
It is true, just not literal.
Strawman.
The Church has teaching authority even when not making infallible statements. Are you rejecting that authority?
Peace
Tim
- Status