Was the world created in 7 days?

[7777777Now]

The Holy Spirit is the revealer of truth. The bible is a manual of instruction. There are many version made to try to clarify what may seem to be a better truth. But unless the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to see, we will remain blinded.

Now if some would venture out of the norm and research, study the manual with the intent to get at the better truth, the Holy Spirit will take notice of us and will lead one to where one may learn and understand what the real truth is.

God is a hidden God and reveals Himself to them that seek Him, for then is the effort made and faith becomes an action.

Always remembering, that God is not ignorant of any of our feelings, and or difficulties, but is ever very gentle and compassionate.

As long as one is taking steps to learn more about Him, there will never be a bad choice of bibles, books or other materials.

For God knows your heart and deals accordingly, lovingly and is kind and patient.

Hope this helps>>>AJ:heart:

That was beautiful…Thanks for your words.

Peace be with you. I’ll pray you come home to the Catholic Church where you will find so much truth. More truth than you thought was possible.

 

[7777777Now]

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,

I would call the apologist line that Catholic Answers live has. I’m not really sure of the phone number. Does anyone have this number?

God Bless You!
James

 

[jasmine]

As a Catholic are you required to believe the world was created in 7 days as it says in Genesis?

If not, how do we know, when reading the bible, whether we take its words literally?

Thanks!

I studied in Catholic Schools since kindergarten until high school. We were taught the evolution in Science. And the Genesis and Adam and Eve in Religion Class. I dont believe there is a contradiction. In fact the evolution theory made me more in awe of God’s creation and design. It is perfect up to the minute electrons and chemistry and genes and viruses etc.

Evolution increases my awe with the greatness of God.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I studied in Catholic Schools since kindergarten until high school. We were taught the evolution in Science. And the Genesis and Adam and Eve in Religion Class. I dont believe there is a contradiction. In fact the evolution theory made me more in awe of God’s creation and design. It is perfect up to the minute electrons and chemistry and genes and viruses etc.

Evolution increases my awe with the greatness of God.

I only attended a couple of years of Catholic school, but I had much the same experience. Evolution, with all its myriads of paths and variegations and splendor of details, is a more stupendous symphony than any ever penned by man. Its author? God, of course!

 

[dondman2]

I think it was 6 days, not seven

Very Good 1, and HE rested on the seventh day!

I sure wish everyone would give this subject a rest.

Thanks,
God bless,
dondman2

 

[CarlosG]

I’m getting a glimmer here of what may be the problem. I’m going to start a new thread on myth and miracles so we can all discuss it as believing Catholic brothers and sisters.

I think the actual problem is how unwilling people are to let one of God’s revelations (nature) influence another (the Bible). In this sense, protestantism is a lose lose situation because on one hand you have scientists which are obviously fallible, and preachers of this or that denomination who contradict each other constantly so they are also very fallible, how would you make sense of ANYTHING? Truth does not contradict truth.

I hear people screaming of a slippery slope and “How do we know if any of it is literalistic or mythical!!?!?” What they don’t realize is the question is staring them right in the face, not yelling back hysterically, but patiently waiting for them to try and answer it, because it is not going anywhere and its not a race to answer it by midnight or your faith turns into a pumpkin.

I once read that one of St. Augustine’s BEST qualities was his ability, when confronted with a very tough question, to just sit there with the question, talk to it, examine it and to NOT BE BURRIED BY IT. I believe God let me hear that on the brink of agnosticism/deism, and it transformed me.

 

[buffalo]

The creation story is true and false. There was an adam and eve, but the fall didn’t happen in the literal way story is presenting it. It is a physical representation of a spiritual reality. The writer of the story was not there to see the fall. Plus, the wirter has included a talking snake in the story. I think its pretty obvoius that its a myth.

God could not make a snake talk? HMMMMM? In itself I wouldn’t disqualify this, for nothing is impossible with God. God inspired the author, that means what is written is true. The fact that Genesis uses figurative language does not mean we know exactly what is literal and what is not.

Now I will turn the tables? Did God purposely write Genesis to confuse us? Or are we missing something?

 

[buffalo]

I thought it was what God wanted of me. I didn’t want to be Catholic. I begged Him not to ask me become Catholic. But I believed it was what HE wanted. At least I thought that’s what He wanted. I’m honestly no longer certain.

And NO that is not said to make anyone feel guilty so don’t you dare accuse me of that. And no doubt Orogeny will find some post I made in 2004 where I questioned previously if it was what God wanted of me. I’ll agree to that - so don’t bother with the search.

The process of discernment will make you a stronger Catholic.

 

[TylerAlex]

I think the actual problem is how unwilling people are to let one of God’s revelations (nature) influence another (the Bible). In this sense, protestantism is a lose lose situation because on one hand you have scientists which are obviously fallible, and preachers of this or that denomination who contradict each other constantly so they are also very fallible, how would you make sense of ANYTHING? Truth does not contradict truth.

I hear people screaming of a slippery slope and “How do we know if any of it is literalistic or mythical!!?!?” What they don’t realize is the question is staring them right in the face, not yelling back hysterically, but patiently waiting for them to try and answer it, because it is not going anywhere and its not a race to answer it by midnight or your faith turns into a pumpkin.

I once read that one of St. Augustine’s BEST qualities was his ability, when confronted with a very tough question, to just sit there with the question, talk to it, examine it and to NOT BE BURRIED BY IT. I believe God let me hear that on the brink of agnosticism/deism, and it transformed me.

I disagree. I think the problem stems from when there is conflcit between God’s Word and science/nature, that people try to rationalize their way out of it by decreeing that the parts they have a conflict with to then be mythical or a story.

Can’t rationalize a literal six day creation… myth or symbollic. Can’t rationalize Moses and Scripture about Exodus… myth. Can’t rationalize a Great, global Flood… myth too. You see, it is never ending. It is a slippery slope.

My point is that when you start to pick apart the Bible and put the events God has written into boxes of “not literal” and “literal” because human minds can/wll not accept the rationality behind it… you end up with a big book of fables.

 

[Orogeny]

I disagree. I think the problem stems from when there is conflcit between God’s Word and science/nature, that people try to rationalize their way out of it by decreeing that the parts they have a conflict with to then be mythical or a story.

Can’t rationalize a literal six day creation… myth or symbollic. Can’t rationalize Moses and Scripture about Exodus… myth. Can’t rationalize a Great, global Flood… myth too. You see, it is never ending. It is a slippery slope.

My point is that when you start to pick apart the Bible and put the events God has written into boxes of “not literal” and “literal” because human minds can/wll not accept the rationality behind it… you end up with a big book of fables.

You keep saying that but it is demonstratively not true. I will give myself as evidence that you are wrong. I see Genesis as a story that God gave us to tell us that we are created by Him because He loves us. I am allowed by the Church to accept the scientific evidence that shows that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old and that life evolved from a common ancestor. I am still as Catholic as you are.

I follow the teaching of the Chruch when it comes to scripture. The Church says that I can take the story of creation as a moral story rather than a historical story. That is what I do. The stories in Genesis were written for a people who had creation legends already in place in their culture.

As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

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.

I would strongly urge you to read "In the Beginning…"
**A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall **by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The above quote was found here:bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm
which has some exerpts from that book. It addresses your concerns directly.

Peace

Tim

 

[SemperFidelis]

I disagree. I think the problem stems from when there is conflcit between God’s Word and science/nature, that people try to rationalize their way out of it by decreeing that the parts they have a conflict with to then be mythical or a story.

Can’t rationalize a literal six day creation… myth or symbollic. Can’t rationalize Moses and Scripture about Exodus… myth. Can’t rationalize a Great, global Flood… myth too. You see, it is never ending. It is a slippery slope.

My point is that when you start to pick apart the Bible and put the events God has written into boxes of “not literal” and “literal” because human minds can/wll not accept the rationality behind it… you end up with a big book of fables.

I agree 100%. Good Post. I tried to say this on several posts earlier, but people just ignored it. This thread has only caused a lot of conflict between good Catholics on both sides. This is why the Church should’ve never gotten involved. Darwin wrote his first book in what the 1840’s. The Church didn’t even comment on evolution until 1950. Almost all Churches were against evolution during the 1800’s and early 1900’s, then later decided it was okay. The Catholic Church should’ve either made a stand right there and stuck with it, or said they were staying out of it forever. The Church is so worried about being labeled “anti-science”, that it won’t go against a science that contradicts what she has always taught. It all started with the whole Galileo thing. Whether the Church was right or wrong there, at least they stood up for their beliefs instead of giving in to the whims of science. Evolution has only caused mass confusion, and that is not good at all.

 

[TylerAlex]

You keep saying that but it is demonstratively not true. I will give myself as evidence that you are wrong. I see Genesis as a story that God gave us to tell us that we are created by Him because He loves us. I am allowed by the Church to accept the scientific evidence that shows that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old and that life evolved from a common ancestor. I am still as Catholic as you are.

I follow the teaching of the Church when it comes to scripture. The Church says that I can take the story of creation as a moral story rather than a historical story. That is what I do. The stories in Genesis were written for a people who had creation legends already in place in their culture.

As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

I would strongly urge you to read "In the Beginning…"
**A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall **by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The above quote was found here:bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm
which has some exerpts from that book. It addresses your concerns directly.

Peace

Tim

Tim:

I am addressing you personally. The Megestrium has declared that you do have the right to decide whether to take Genesis literally or not. I grant you that. My point was to illustrate the problem when you do not take it literally.

Ratzinger wrote that piece as his opinion, and should not be construed as Magestrium and infallible. Just like many other prior Popes and theologans have done. Personally, I am not going to get into a debate of whether “my theologan is better than your theologan” type of argument. We both could come up with compelling authoritative works to support our positions.

If you follow the Church on other matters of supernatural events in the Bible- where evidence in a scientific nature is not provided and faith primarily is expected, the question becomes why not accept the literal account of Genesis as well?

My opinion holds no authority, but I do think it is worthy of consideration.

 

[Seagirt]

This is not a requirement. Moreover, the use of seven days in the Book of Genesis is most likely associated with the meaning of the number “seven” as it is used in scripture. The number “seven” is associated with completeness and perfection. It is also associated with covenants. The day of rest is the seventh day. God rested on the seventh day, and God wants man to rest from his labors on the seventh day to worship God. Much more can be said about all of this, but this information will give you a start in that direction.

EXACTLY SO. The Ignatius Bible or some other Catholic Study Bibles offer good commentary on Genesis. THe Sacred Writers seemed to use Mytho- Poetic language to communicate the origins of Salvation History in the Book of Genesis, ( which means beginning in Hebrew ). Read , read read, good catholic books and you will learn.

 

[Orogeny]

If you follow the Church on other matters of supernatural events in the Bible- where evidence in a scientific nature is not provided and faith primarily is expected, the question becomes why not accept the literal account of Genesis as well?

Because there are reasons not to accept it literally. There is no way to test the feeding of 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes or the raising of Lazarus or the resurrection. I know the evidence for evolution and an old earth. Therefore, I can either reject that evidence and accept a literal reading of Genesis or I can accept the evidence and, like Cardinal Ratzinger, accept that Genesis tells a true story but not a literal history or scientific account of events.

My opinion holds no authority, but I do think it is worthy of consideration.

I absolutely, 100% agree that your opinion is worthy of consideration. I don’t have any problem with you having that opinion.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

The stories in Genesis were written for a people who had creation legends already in place in their culture.

Hey mountain builder,

Did you ever read this link? The “Toledoths” of Genesis What are your thoughts specifically on the authors?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Hey mountain builder,

Did you ever read this link? The “Toledoths” of Genesis What are your thoughts specifically on the authors?

This is a great website. Dr. Sungenis’ dialogue with a Priest who stood up for theistic evolution- the Dr. completely tore him a new one (pardon the expression). It’s apologetic websites like this one and www.scripturecatholic.com that give me more strength to become Catholic in the end, despite my disagreements with evolution.

 

[TylerAlex]

Because there are reasons not to accept it literally. There is no way to test the feeding of 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes or the raising of Lazarus or the resurrection. I know the evidence for evolution and an old earth. Therefore, I can either reject that evidence and accept a literal reading of Genesis or I can accept the evidence and, like Cardinal Ratzinger, accept that Genesis tells a true story but not a literal history or scientific account of events.I absolutely, 100% agree that your opinion is worthy of consideration. I don’t have any problem with you having that opinion.

Peace

Tim

There are reasons not to accept many of what Scripture says if you use that argument. There is a way to test the loaves and fishes…and, scientifically, they CANNOT account for it. It just so happens that there is no device to measure or explain the process… does that make it a myth?

Regarding the evidence you speak about on evolution and an old earth- the jury is still out. There is no definitive answer yet… and ten years from now, the current theories will have changed and “new discoveries will be made.”

Science changes it’s mind all the time. They conveniently add a “few extra billion years here or there” to the creation theory when “new information” makes their opinion irrelevent. The pieces don’t add up.

So… when you trust science over God- when there is a conflict like this one, you have chosen a side. Human understanding (excluding Magestrium) has decided that the Bible is to be broken up in literal and non-literal interpretations, not God.

Why is it so important to prove God is right, and not just accept that He is?

 

[TylerAlex]

This is a great website. Dr. Sungenis’ dialogue with a Priest who stood up for theistic evolution- the Dr. completely tore him a new one (pardon the expression). It’s apologetic websites like this one and www.scripturecatholic.com that give me more strength to become Catholic in the end, despite my disagreements with evolution.

Thank you. One of the best, most concise I have read.

 

[buffalo]

] is that I tend not to read material by an avowed anti-semite who has been publicly rebuked by Carl Keating and who is now a persona nongrata with EWTN.

Sorry, I was referring to the authors of Genesis.

 

[Orogeny]

Hey mountain builder,

Did you ever read this link? The “Toledoths” of Genesis What are your thoughts specifically on the authors?

Hi, Buffalo.

No, I haven’t read that, but I will take a look at it. I am not a biblical scholar so I might not get much out of it.

My thoughts on the author? Well, I don’t have any real opinion of him (or any other author on CAI) other than I tend to discount anything written that is lauded by Robert Sungenis.

Peace

Tim