Was the world created in 7 days?

[buffalo]

You make excellent points. However, the same argument is used against the Bible, that God would not try to trick us.

I do not believe Revelation is meant by God to be confusing. I do believe we can be confused. One should be careful to dismiss 2,000 years of Tradition as us being clueless and unenlightened.

The Holy Spirit will not let us be misled - Then and now.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So God’s Revelation is confusing to us? We are sort of gnostic because we now have unlocked the secrets in the Bible. I don’t buy it.

?

When speaking of the infancy narratives it is important to understand that at Pentecost the Apostles were infused with knowledge they didn’t have.

You know this, because…? ​

Even if that is so, it is no sort of reason for saying that the INs are meant to be accounts of historical events; the contents of the texts forbid this. Unless you know of a star which can illuminate one particular building, without destroying the country for miles around - to do what it said to have done, the star would have had to be very near the earth; & that would have been the effect. Miracles should not be multiplied without cause; that would have been a miracle, & but the text of Matt. 2 does not so much at one.

If Jesus was born at Bethlehem - why is he never called “Jesus of Bethlehem”, not as much as once ? This certainly suggests he was not in fact born in Bethlehem - that the account saying He was, is not intended to be history at all.

It is hardly “modernism” to interpret as non-historical something that is not intended to be historical. I believe in the inspiration of the NT in all its parts without exception as firmly as (I hope ) you do.

They were instructed to put down what they have heard and seen. Again the lens of modernism strikes again.

And…archaeology has verfified the Bible over and over.

I don’t recall denying that it has.​

However, it does not always do so. And thank goodness for that - for I do not want to believe a faith which does not require faith; this fondness for proof is a very bad thing. Which does not mean that every unprovable theological thesis is credible, let alone true.

You are contradicting even current Catholic teaching by your claim about our first parents.

If it’s a teaching - why is it not taught ? I have never heard it taught, though I have come across it in pre-Conciliar theology manuals. I don’t believe it is Catholic teaching; AFAICS it is a theological theory, & nothing more. If you have counter-evidence, I’m all eyes ​

They also had preternatural gifts. Eve came from Adam.

There is no reason why any Catholic has to believe this​

Your scholarship has to throw away much too much. This approach is a slippery slope.

Do you understand how it works ? I ask that, because many who say that, show no understanding of it at all.​

 

[buffalo]

?

You know this, because…? ​

Even if that is so, it is no sort of reason for saying that the INs are meant to be accounts of historical events; the contents of the texts forbid this. Unless you know of a star which can illuminate one particular building, without destroying the country for miles around - to do what it said to have done, the star would have had to be very near the earth; & that would have been the effect. Miracles should not be multiplied without cause; that would have been a miracle, & but the text of Matt. 2 does not so much at one.

If Jesus was born at Bethlehem - why is he never called “Jesus of Bethlehem”, not as much as once ? This certainly suggests he was not in fact born in Bethlehem - that the account saying He was, is not intended to be history at all.

It is hardly “modernism” to interpret as non-historical something that is not intended to be historical. I believe in the inspiration of the NT in all its parts without exception as firmly as (I hope ) you do. ## I don’t recall denying that it has.

However, it does not always do so. And thank goodness for that - for I do not want to believe a faith which does not require faith; this fondness for proof is a very bad thing. Which does not mean that every unprovable theological thesis is credible, let alone true. ## If it’s a teaching - why is it not taught ? I have never heard it taught, though I have come across it in pre-Conciliar theology manuals. I don’t believe it is Catholic teaching; AFAICS it is a theological theory, & nothing more. If you have counter-evidence, I’m all eyes ##

There is no reason why any Catholic has to believe this ## Do you understand how it works ? I ask that, because many who say that, show no understanding of it at all.​

You know this, because…? ​

It’s Biblical

Because His family traveled to Bethlehem. They were from Nazareth.

I have listed the Dogmas.

 

[patg]

It’s Biblical

Because His family traveled to Bethlehem. They were from Nazareth.

Being “biblical” has no necessary relationship to something being historical as we’ve discussed before. It is not historical because the infancy narrative literary form was never historical and the events related in the story have no historical basis.

The church is perfectly happy with this, the church teaches it in bible studies, and numerous books written by Catholic scholars and members of the PBC teach it (some even under the imprimatur).

Coupling theology too closely with science is what is really the slippery slope. As Gottle indicated, dogmas defined based in faulty knowledge are dogmas which need to be re-examined. Your scholarship has to ignore too much.

 

[utunumsint]

Catholics are free to believe that the world was created in seven days (or not). Catholics are free to believe that the infancy narratives are hirtorically accurate (or not). Heck! As far as I can tell, Catholics are free to believe that there will be a dragon with seven heads and ten horns come to eat up the womam and her child in Rev 12 (or not).

The historians can tell us much about the ancient world, but they do not have a special charism of infallibility where it comes to what is historically true or not. What was an established myth ten years ago is now a historical truth.

You can believe what you want to believe.

Ut

 

[Deacon_James]

I am Catholic and I take a literal interpretation of Scripture as it pertains to Genesis. Anything less IMHO, begins a process to reduce the authority and sovereignty of God.

Without the event of Original Sin- just like it is stated in the Bible, you then open the door to negate everything about God’s Word and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Christ is Risen ! Indeed He is Risen.

Yes the world was created in 7 days, but in Hebrew day only means a “PERIOD of TIME”. A period time does not necessarily mean7/ 24hour periods.
It could mean 7 billion years or 7 million. God reveals to us “TRUTH or HIMSELF,” when we need to know the Truth. We need to allow God to let the seekers of truth come up with proof positive, so we can grow in our own knowledge of the truth. Caution it has to be proven BEYOND a DOUBT, before we accept it.
Keep seeking God who is the Truth.

God Bless and Keep You.
Deacon Jim

 

[buffalo]

Being “biblical” has no necessary relationship to something being historical as we’ve discussed before. It is not historical because the infancy narrative literary form was never historical and the events related in the story have no historical basis.

The church is perfectly happy with this, the church teaches it in bible studies, and numerous books written by Catholic scholars and members of the PBC teach it (some even under the imprimatur).

Coupling theology too closely with science is what is really the slippery slope. As Gottle indicated, dogmas defined based in faulty knowledge are dogmas which need to be re-examined. Your scholarship has to ignore too much.

There is historical proof of Herod’s census.

What events in the narrative have no historic basis?

Uncoupling theology too much from science is also wrong. Contained in the truth of God is everything including science. The key is to unlock it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You make excellent points. However, the same argument is used against the Bible, that God would not try to trick us.

I do not believe Revelation is meant by God to be confusing.

Nor do I That does not mean it cannot have unexpected meanings​

I do believe we can be confused.

As do I​

One should be careful to dismiss 2,000 years of Tradition

I’m not​

as us being clueless and unenlightened.

That does not need to be said, & is not being said. It is in any case untrue - to benefit from the things the Fathers could for all sorts of reasons not use, does not imply that that one must choose between them in all things, & modern scholars, in all things. This false alternative is not set up by anything in modern scholarship.​

BTW - Modernism (as it is called) is not modernity (people seem to confuse the two); how many people who makes accusations of “modernism” (which they need to capitalise, or, if they mean something else, define) can define what Pius X meant by it, one has to wonder). There is a big difference between fidelity, & fossilised Traditionalism.

Because you are right to say “[one] should be careful to dismiss 2,000 years of Tradition” - in British English we say “…careful of dismissing”; it* looks* as if you are suggesting the very opposite of what you mean - that the scholarship of the last few centuries cannot be ignored either; it is as much part of Tradition as is anything earlier.

There is plenty of room for error, contradiction, & incompleteness in the writers of the past, however eminent for holiness, virtue, wisdom & learning. This is not an attack, but a simple fact. If they did not consider themselves bound to agree with their predecessors, contemporaries, or themselves, why should the moderns be bound in this way ? All learning, however ancient or modern, is incomplete. And sometimes we can see further than those before us; because we stand on their shoulders.

However much we may respect the past, this cannot make conclusions which were wrong in 500 or 1500 true - if they are wrong, then so be it. And exactly the same is true of the conclusions of today: what matters is the true meaning of the Bible - old opinions cannot be held if they mistaken, even if they are those of the Fathers. “Truth stands on its own bottom” - a mistake by St. Augustine, & a true insight by Martin Luther, are mistaken or true regardless of their source. And the CC is supposed to be very zealous what is true.

The Holy Spirit will not let us be misled - Then and now.

It depends what you have in mind - the Holy Spirit does not mislead, no; it does not follow that we are always receptive, as individuals or as churches or as the Church. We have no universal immunity from the consequences of our mistakes: otherwise, the Church would be infallible without restriction: which goes far beyond, & against, the dogma. As well as being very poor history God is faithful to us, certainly - but how does that translate into a declaration that we are faithful to Him ? ​

 

[buffalo]

Nor do I That does not mean it cannot have unexpected meanings ## As do I ## I’m not ## That does not need to be said, & is not being said. It is in any case untrue - to benefit from the things the Fathers could for all sorts of reasons not use, does not imply that that one must choose between them in all things, & modern scholars, in all things. This false alternative is not set up by anything in modern scholarship.​

BTW - Modernism (as it is called) is not modernity (people seem to confuse the two); how many people who makes accusations of “modernism” (which they need to capitalise, or, if they mean something else, define) can define what Pius X meant by it, one has to wonder). There is a big difference between fidelity, & fossilised Traditionalism.

Because you are right to say “[one] should be careful to dismiss 2,000 years of Tradition” - in British English we say “…careful of dismissing”; it* looks* as if you are suggesting the very opposite of what you mean - that the scholarship of the last few centuries cannot be ignored either; it is as much part of Tradition as is anything earlier.

There is plenty of room for error, contradiction, & incompleteness in the writers of the past, however eminent for holiness, virtue, wisdom & learning. This is not an attack, but a simple fact. If they did not consider themselves bound to agree with their predecessors, contemporaries, or themselves, why should the moderns be bound in this way ? All learning, however ancient or modern, is incomplete. And sometimes we can see further than those before us; because we stand on their shoulders.

However much we may respect the past, this cannot make conclusions which were wrong in 500 or 1500 true - if they are wrong, then so be it. And exactly the same is true of the conclusions of today: what matters is the true meaning of the Bible - old opinions cannot be held if they mistaken, even if they are those of the Fathers. “Truth stands on its own bottom” - a mistake by St. Augustine, & a true insight by Martin Luther, are mistaken or true regardless of their source. And the CC is supposed to be very zealous what is true.

It depends what you have in mind - the Holy Spirit does not mislead, no; it does not follow that we are always receptive, as individuals or as churches or as the Church. We have no universal immunity from the consequences of our mistakes: otherwise, the Church would be infallible without restriction: which goes far beyond, & against, the dogma. As well as being very poor history God is faithful to us, certainly - but how does that translate into a declaration that we are faithful to Him ? ​

In general we are in agreement. I suspect protestant scholarship, the scholarship I see the media depict as authorative.

Despite the musing of current theologians and scholars I stand by the current official teaching of the Church as cited in the Catechism. I would need to see an official infallible article that we are not descended from an original pair or the infancy narratives are made up…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You know this, because…? ​

It’s Biblical

Because His family traveled to Bethlehem. They were from Nazareth.

I have listed the Dogmas.

What has the Holy Family to do with infused knowledge granted to the Apostles ? The only thing that could be called infused knowledge in the details of Pentecost, that I can see, is the gift of tongues. But that is irrelevant to the identification of the birthplace of Jesus. Or isn’t it ?​

 

[buffalo]

What has the Holy Family to do with infused knowledge granted to the Apostles ? The only thing that could be called infused knowledge in the details of Pentecost, that I can see, is the gift of tongues. But that is irrelevant to the identification of the birthplace of Jesus. Or isn’t it ?​

Whoa - first off Jesus himself could have told the Apostles the infancy story. John tells us Jesus did and said much more than is written.

Second - in addition to the gift of tongues they were given an understanding of Scriptures
Luke 24
45 Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

 

[Sixtus]

Gottle of Geer

Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus
What’s a haggis got to do with 'the world being created in 7-days? Have I lost the plot?

LOL - no. That was just an example of something the Magisterium does not pronounce upon, as there is no need for it do so.​

Do those who constitute “the Teaching Church” ever eat haggises ? I hope so - it might do them a power of good.

Actually, a haggis would be a very good “world-egg” - there ought to be a creation myth about how all things came from within the Primeval Haggis. ##

 

[utunumsint]

From Dei Verbum 19

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and contnues to maintain, that the four Gospels just names, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up (cf. Acts 1:1-2). For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the grlorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed. The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form, others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus. Whether they relied on their own memory and recollections or on the testimony of those who “from the beginning were eyewitnessess and ministers of the Word,” their purpose in writing was that we might know the “truth” concerning the things of which we have been informed (cf. Lk. 1:2-4).

Would anyone care to comment on this quote with regard to the nativity stories and the resurrection?

Ut

 

[utunumsint]

As far as I can tell, the Nativity stories and the resurrection stories are part of the Gospels, and the church has never made such a pronouncement for the Genesis story…

Would anyone still like to claim that the nativity stories and the resurrection stories are not historical, or is the church just teaching this as a matter of faith?

Ut

 

[patg]

As far as I can tell, the Nativity stories and the resurrection stories are part of the Gospels, and the church has never made such a pronouncement for the Genesis story…

Would anyone still like to claim that the nativity stories and the resurrection stories are not historical, or is the church just teaching this as a matter of faith?

Ut

I just saw this and have already answered in the other thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=156051&page=2
post #62

 

[abu_kamoon]

As I have said before, I think that the real problem is Church leaders who have lost their faith. Evolution is NOT compatible with the Catholic faith. Either death came after sin, or death had occured for millions of years before the first man “evolved”. Either God created man out of the dust of the Earth, or he “evolved” from some ape-like creature. Either the Bible is correct and each kind reproduces after its kind, or Darwin is correct and reproduction leads to evolution of new species. Ether one or the other is correct; you can’t have it both ways.

For almost two thousand years Christians have believed that the human race was created by God. Now, Charles Darwin is showing us our error?

I am embarassed when I hear people in chat rooms say that mmost Christians reject evolution, except for the Catholics. I am quick to point out that THIS Catholic certainly does not accept evolution. I don’t need the Church to tell me whether or not evolution is true.

Evolution is heresey since it directly contradicts the Bible. We know that Revelation is symbology, since it speaks of a vision. We don’t expect to see beasts with multiple heads. We understand terms like the hand of God to be metaphorical. But what would be the reason for including a myth about Creation in the Bible that people have believed for thousands of years? Why would God include a myth in the Bible that would only be used to discredit the entire Bible once it was discovered?

The most obvious answer to me is that the Creation account is accurate. I personally find it much easier to believe than the idea of a single cell life form “evolving” magically over millions of years into all the species that we see today (and many that are extinct), and culminating in the human race. That is totally unbelievable! No one has ever seen it happen. No one can repeat it in the laboratory. It is not science. It is just an explanation for creation without a creator.

ابو كمون

 

[steveandersen]

As I have said before, I think that the real problem is Church leaders who have lost their faith.

Whom exactly are you accusing of loosing faith?

Evolution is NOT compatible with the Catholic faith.

sez you

Either death came after sin, or death had occured for millions of years before the first man “evolved”.

Well we are up to our elbows in the remains of things that died over a period of millions of years
We run our cars on it.
Coral islands are made of it.

So obviously sin causes spiritual death

Regular plain old vanilla death is just a by product of life and has been around as long as there has been life.

Either God created man out of the dust of the Earth, or he “evolved” from some ape-like creature.

Why can’t they both be true?
Why push God to a human time scale? The substance of your body was assembled from the food you eat which ultimately came from plants in the dirt. When you die you will decay and go back to the soil.

Either the Bible is correct and each kind reproduces after its kind, or Darwin is correct and reproduction leads to evolution of new species. Ether one or the other is correct; you can’t have it both ways.

Yes you can
Animals beget animals
Primates beget primates

For almost two thousand years Christians have believed that the human race was created by God. Now, Charles Darwin is showing us our error?

No, he is just showing us HOW God created us using the talents and skills God gave him.

I am embarassed when I hear people in chat rooms say that mmost Christians reject evolution, except for the Catholics.

I am embarrassed by Catholics who try to divorce faith and reason.

I am quick to point out that THIS Catholic certainly does not accept evolution.

You are perfectly free to do so but please don’t paint the rest of us with the same brush

I don’t need the Church to tell me whether or not evolution is true.

The Church is not a scientific organization. It is not Her place to comment on such matters.

……The most obvious answer to me is that the Creation account is accurate. I personally find it much easier to believe than the idea of a single cell life form “evolving” magically over millions of years into all the species that we see today (and many that are extinct), and culminating in the human race. That is totally unbelievable!

Oh yea of little faith.
You don’t think God could have evolved you any way He willed?

No one has ever seen it happen.

Observed instances of speciation

No one can repeat it in the laboratory. It is not science.

Very few sciences are repeatable in a laboratory
Most of them like climatologic, astronomy, etc have to rely on observed data

That being said if you read the list above, there have been observed instances of speciation in laboratory conditions

Your notion that evolution could be “repeated” indicates you don’t have a good grasp as to what evolution is.

It is just an explanation for creation without a creator.

ابو كمون

It is an explanation for a mechanism of Creation. No more no less. As a natural science it cannot mention God because He is outside science’s limits. Physics doesn’t mention God either does that make it “bridge building with out a Creator”?

 

[antimon]

I thought God was omnipotent, and now many say that evolution is too difficult or ‘magical’ for Him to create…

also, CCC claims:

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

 

[buffalo]

sez you

sez me too and continuous Catholic teaching:

Three dogmas that the evolution of man must harmonize:

Preternatural gifts
Eve coming from Adam
Adam and Eve (or whatever name one gives them) are our first and only parents.

 

[nerfherder]

I believe that Genesis is part of a creation myth: a story that tells how the Semites became what they were, where they were, when they had no historical evidence. Every culture has a creation myth. This is NOT a myth in the sense usually used, but a story that satisfactorily (at the time) tells the community ‘history’.

I believe the Adam and Eve story is an attempt by Semites et al to explain where sin came from. It is a story. I believe that what the Semites were really trying to understand was the nature of God, within their creation story.

My observation suggests that God Creator has made the rules for the way the universe works but, because he is wise, chooses to allow those rules to work as they were meant to work. He does not intervene: changing tsunamis, eathquakes, volcanoes, tornados etc. He set up rules for physics, for chemistry and biology, and thank God, we can depend they will remain stable, not anarchic. They would be very unpredictable if God kept intervening; none of us would actually know anything because everything would depend on an unknowable God’s preference.

I believe very strongly that God does intervene randomly in the social aspects of our lives - in answer to prayer, or at his will. Mostly however, he expects us to work out his will, and make it happen on earth: he gave us the skills and brains to do that.

However, I also believe that we have not evolved sufficiently so that our brains can understand all that we need to understand about God’s universe. Look at the confusion in this discussion. Look at the way we run God’s earth (setting up communities elsewhere in the universe? we are a disaster area right here!). Look at the war and corruption that abound in our world. Look at the poverty and disease that are rampant among God’s people. Look at how little we understand about physics and chemistry, about how things work - we only learned about black holes, quasars etc very recently. I think our brains are very underevolved for the job we have to do for Him. He is waiting.

The problem for the Catholic Church however, lies in two major areas: where original sin came from, and how the soul of each individual developed out of the primordial slime. When did humankind get ‘souls’ (define)?

The Church, in various documents including CCC, goes back to the idea of monogenesis - that the concept of evolution and intelligent creation are not incompatible, and that it is necessary to postulate that there was in fact an ancestor couple - Adam and Eve for want of better names - who were imbued with a soul, and in whom original sin began.

I found an interesting note on the concept:

Evolution continues to be contentious because so many aspects are scientifically questionable (e.g., development of species through blind chance and natural selection). Within the Catholic community the centre of attack is usually the reality of God’s creation of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve sinned, thereby opening the door to evil which in turn required the need for man’s redemption brought about by Our Lord’s passion, death and resurrection.

If Adam and Eve never existed, then Christianity is nothing more than a fable, useful perhaps for little children but to be rejected by adults. Some Catholics have become captive to the materialist interpretation, and feel they must go along with this attack on Adam and Eve.

Over the past year the New York Jesuit weekly magazine America has published two articles concerning the Catholic faith: “Creationism and the Catechism” by Sr. Joan Acker (Dec. 16, 2000) and “Evolution, Evil and Original Sin” by Daryl P. Domning (Nov. 12, 2001). Sister Acker teaches sociology at the University of Oregon and has been involved in feminist activities since the late 1960’s. Daryl Domning is a professor of Marine Mammal Science at Howard University, Washington, D.C. He is an expert in the evolution of land animals from sea animals. These two authors raise complex issues which require careful analysis and discussion.

The major problematic statements made in these papers are summarized as follows:

• That the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Bible is that of a biblical fundamentalism, which is based on a simplistic notion of creationism in which evolution is rejected (ref. 1).

• That the teaching that Adam and Eve were created in a state of holiness and justice from which they fell because they disobeyed God is a myth (ref. 2).

• Also, the descent of all nations from one human ancestor is denied, as are also both the original sin of that ancestor and its consequences, death, suffering and man’s inclination towards evil. Despite the highly controversial nature of these articles, no Catholic magazine that I know of has taken note of this attack upon essentials of the Church’s theology and faith.

We seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place!