Was the world created in 7 days?

[carol_marie]

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 I’ve said what I intended to say. No point in going round and round.

Chapter 1 is the chronological telling of events. Chapter 2 is all about Adam - it provides details specific to him. Both are literal and true.

Why is that difficult for you to understand.

I don’t think you WANT to see it. How sad.

 

[carol_marie]

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. That’s not wrong - just acknowledge that this is what you are doing.

Wrong. Chapter 2 is not sequential order. It tells Adam’s relationship with God, the animals & Eve.

Chapter 2 does not mention God creating light & darkness - or the Heaven’s & the Earth - it doesn’t mention the fish or the oceans or the landforms. Do you think that means that God didn’t create those things - since they are left out of Chapter 2? Of course not - the emphasis isn’t on the CREATION - it’s all about Adam.

V. 19 talks about Adam’s job of naming the animals - it’s not about God creating them.

Get it now?

 

[Jeff_B]

So… if the seven days creation is considered a myth… then what about the fall of man with Adam and Eve?

Once you discount creation in the literal sense, you then poke holes in most of Genesis. Without a literal interpretation of Original Sin, you now have taken the relevence of not only the Word of God in the Bible, but the Gospel message as well.

Slippery slope indeed.

Not true. There is a distinction between interpreting holy scripture in a literal vs. literalist fashion.
If I were to say to you it was ‘raining cats and dogs’. If you were to take it in a literalist fashion, you would think there was an onslaught of collies and calicos or something.

To apply the literal understanding would be to know I was musing about the severity of the rainstorm.
In any event, it is my understanding that the church teaches that one can believe in spontaneous creation if we wish, or that our Father has and does work through secondary forces and events, but no matter what we need to hold that all things come from God, we are all descendants of 2 parents (Adam and Eve), and yes, all things are ordained and come because of and from Him.

Nothing at all wrong with holding to evolutionist development, as long as you hold to the above.

The danger with misunderstanding the concept of biblical inerrancy leads people to think that everything was written before hand, fell from the sky, and lo, the church was able to form its theology, and here we are today.

Thus, the problems that resulted from what is called Sola Scriptura.

Jeff

 

[carol_marie]

The Church has teaching authority even when not making infallible statements. Are you rejecting that authority?

Peace

Tim

What about this authority?

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23).

Gosh I love that guy.

 

[carol_marie]

Well thank you for that. I will be sure to mention it at my next confession. I have been using an unapproved text.

THAT changes everything. I guess we did climb out of the slime up onto the shore, eventually turn into apes and at some point God decided to give one a soul. The Bible is a bunch of myths and rather than reading it - I’ll stock up on science books.

I wonder how will I know which are approved by my Church?

 

[melensdad]

I wonder how will I know which are approved by my Church?

I was just talking with our parish Priest as I was recently looking for a new Bible. I was very confused on how many versions there are in publication today. Certainly many Catholics know there are Protestant and Catholic versions of the Bible, but many do not. The Catholic version has more books in it, while the Protestants chose to omit many books from the Bible. So the Catholic Bible is thicker! The King James version is not considered a Catholic Bible, but I also have a copy of it in my house (and a couple other versions too).

All that said, there are then several versions of the Catholic Bible. Accordingly, there is now one authorized Bible for use in reading the scriptures during mass, that version is the NAB or New American Bible and it is authorized by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The other versions of the Catholic Bible are acceptable versions for study, prayer, personal reflection, etc. But the NAB is the standard for readings during mass.

usccb.org/nab/bible/

Anyway, I didn’t learn all this stuff about the authorized version until about a month ago when I couldn’t figure out what to buy and I did a whole bunch of searching.

 

[LJN21]

Can’t go wrong with the Douay-Rheims

Personally I’m not too crazy about the New American translation. Just my opinion tho.

 

[Orogeny]

What about this authority?

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23).

Gosh I love that guy.

From the same encyclical:
Humani Generis:

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, 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 – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

This encyclical was published in 1950. Science has advanced a great deal since then and the evidence supporting evolution has increased greatly to the point that it is clear from a scientific standpoint that evolution is a fact. Scientists are still debating how evolution works, but the fact that things evolve is not in dispute in the science community.

From our current Pope:
"In the Beginning...."A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall:

One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time – from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world.

Peace

Tim

 

[patg]

THAT changes everything. I guess we did climb out of the slime up onto the shore, eventually turn into apes and at some point God decided to give one a soul. The Bible is a bunch of myths and rather than reading it - I’ll stock up on science books.

I wonder how will I know which are approved by my Church?

Your statements above are certainly are approved by the Catholic church. If you are interested in practical Catholic teachings on this subject, take a look at “And God Said What?” by Maragret Ralph and “Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know” by Ronald Witherup. These are inexpensive books used in many Catholic adult education classes.

 

[Returnee]

Wow, long thread. Seems that some want to take the Creation account literally, as in literal truth, not literary truth. Which is fine, we Catholics are allowed to do so.

However I see no reason to do so. Why fight science when there’s no reason? As we all know as Catholics, Scripture isn’t intended to be a literal record of exact instructions to Mankind, all the time. We have the Church to tell us what is vitally important, and what is not; we aren’t bound to sola scriptura like the Protestants.

However if anyone is still unconvinced, then read Matt 5:30 and then tell me the Bible should be taken literally, all the time.

 

[bradwill911]

Scripture also says that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day (2 Pet 3:8). Now this also is not to be taken literally that every time the Bible or God refers to a day it translates into a thousand years, but I think it shows that God is not limited or confined to time. One cannot measure eternity.

 

[TylerAlex]

Not true. There is a distinction between interpreting holy scripture in a literal vs. literalist fashion.
If I were to say to you it was ‘raining cats and dogs’. If you were to take it in a literalist fashion, you would think there was an onslaught of collies and calicos or something.

The problem is that we are talking about the Word of God… not what you, or anyone else for that matter, says. God didn’t say “let there be something like light…” or “let the earth bring forth something like vegetation… .”

Unless told otherwise (infallibly) that we are to not interpret scripture literally, then anything you decide to add- whether it be new information or new perspective (that is not already there) becomes suspect. I am well aware that we have Tradition and the Magestrium beyond Scripture, but it is accepted as dogma and officially approved.

I stated in the beginning of this thread that it was my opinion that when people begin to doubt or question the literal meaning of God’s Word- specifically in Genesis, you open the door to undermine is supreme authority- you box Him in in what he can and cannot do.

If you can accept the literal concept of Heaven and resurrection- which scientifically do not make sense, why can you not accept the literal interpretation of the events in Genesis?

 

[melensdad]

If you can accept the literal concept of Heaven and resurrection- which scientifically do not make sense. . .

Is it that they do not make “sense” or that the existence of Heaven, resurrection, Hell, etc cannot be scientifically PROVEN and therefore rely on the concept of faith.

 

[carol_marie]

That’s it for me folks - I’m calling it quits - literally.

Sorry to get all emotional on you - this probably isn’t appropriate for the “Apologetics” forum - but I’m crying as I type this. I don’t know how one thread can totally make me question my decision to become Catholic but it really has.

Well done fellow posters. Well done.

 

[VociMike]

That’s it for me folks - I’m calling it quits - literally.

Sorry to get all emotional on you - this probably isn’t appropriate for the “Apologetics” forum - but I’m crying as I type this. I don’t know how one thread can totally make me question my decision to become Catholic but it really has.

Well done fellow posters. Well done.

That’s extremely unfair.

 

[buffalo]

That’s it for me folks - I’m calling it quits - literally.

Sorry to get all emotional on you - this probably isn’t appropriate for the “Apologetics” forum - but I’m crying as I type this. I don’t know how one thread can totally make me question my decision to become Catholic but it really has.

Well done fellow posters. Well done.

Carol Marie - don’t give up - search for the truth. The fullness of truth is found in Catholicism.

 

[LJN21]

I’m sure that’s really what the Church wants someone to question there faith because of a bunch of people on a forum telling someone there view of Genesis which ** is** in keeping with the view of the church, is nothing more than Myth and wrong.

Truth is immutable and science doesn’t always have the answers At one point in science they believe that maggots were made form rotting meat.

 

[TylerAlex]

Who are you referring to?

My post implied directly, and indirectly, that I fully support the Magestrium.

And… you are being uncharitable. Pray for yourself.

 

[carol_marie]

I was not being uncharitable - I was being honest. This thread makes me - a Bible loving former Evangelical, question whether I made the right decision in becoming Catholic. And maybe it’s not this thead - maybe it’s been a long time coming - so there you go - no need to feel guilty at all.

It seems that Catholics do not view the Bible in the same way I do. The Bible has always been my lifeline to God. I GET IT that for Catholics the life line is the Church - not the bible. But that was not my experience.

So I thought when I converted that I could still hold to my love for the Bible - I can’t explain what the Bible means to an Evangelical - I can only liken it to a Catholics feel toward Mary. You love her - you respect her - and be damned the person who disregards her or disrespects. That is how I feel about the Bible.

So when I’m confronted with posters who call the Bible a “myth” and a “literary device” and something to be disregarded since modern science has proved it false and those views are apprently supported by the Church - it makes me think OHMYGOSH… what have I done? And in my head I hear those who said, “THEY don’t really believe in the Bible.”

And then I begin to question - if Genesis is symbolic or mythical - why is John 6 literal? Who says? Church Fathers? And so what? By far, most Chruch Fathers said up until 1950 that Genesis was literal - now these new & modern ones disagree. So maybe they’ll disagree about John 6? And then it makes me think what the heck am I even doing here? With all the liturgical abuses, millions of dollars in lawsuits due to perverted Priests, wayward Bishops doing their own thing, disunity up the ying yang - WHY am I here having a conversation about whether or not the BIBLE for God sake’s is a myth???

And it make me want to take my bible and Go Home.
If that makes me a “sissy” (name removed by moderator) - go ahead - call me a sissy. Call me whatever you want. I don’t really care at all.

 

[Orogeny]

I don’t know how one thread can totally make me question my decision to become Catholic but it really has.

Well done fellow posters. Well done.

I don’t know how this thread made you question becoming Catholic, either, but don’t blame us if it did. You have a very strong opinion about the way things MUST be done that doesn’t jive with the Church. If this is the first time you have encountered that (and I seem to recall this happening before a long time ago although it may have been someone else and if so, please forgive me), then perhaps it should be a lesson learned rather than a reason to give up on the Church.

Peace

Tim