Why Did Christ Wait So Long to Come Into the World When Men Had Been in the World For 200,000 Years? A Catholic Article About This

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**Early Church Father pseudo-science.

I’m afraid the Evangelicals might have got something right at last.
 
The important lesson to take from Genesis isn’t necessarily the cosmology. It’s the inversion and how it used a well known model from the time and turned it on it’s head. The original Mesopotamian myths are very similar, except in the details. For one, it was multiple gods. Secondly, they created the garden of Eden for their own pleasure. Then created humans as mere slaves/stewards to watch this garden for them.

Genesis turns it around and the garden becomes a paradise for humans… and humans are allowed dominion over everything to boot. And it’s not for the gods’ pleasure, but only God’s pleasure to give things life and to tell them to be fruitful. And to be concerned enough about the Man that he didn’t want him to be alone (first by letting him name the animals, then by creating a woman). Lastly, it goes into detail why paradise was lost, and the whole story from that point is about God working to fix it.

So we can argue about the details all we want, but I think this is the most important thing to get out of it (and also ties into the OP’s original question. Why did it take so long? It’s not easy to enact a rescue mission, while also respecting our free will).
 
Last edited:
You have it backwards, without the cosmos first and the creation, then you wouldnt have the fall of man and the multiple gods crap people like to believe.
 
Both the Mesopotamian and Genesis account talk about creation. That’s about the only thing similar. The difference is Genesis talks about one God, and actually cares about his creation… rather than making them slaves for his own personal pleasure garden.

I’m not sure what’s wrong about that. Nor do I disagree that creation is the most important thing. But I’m talking to Christians. I can assume we already agree on that. I hope.
 
On a sidenote, I kind of like to imagine that Abraham gave us this story (not Moses). Or someone keen enough on Mesopotamia (any number of patriarchs, I guess). There’s an interesting meaning to his father’s name (Terah - Tihru - “Oracle Priest” in Sumerian). While Jewish Midrash has a story of a young Abraham who rebelled against the world he lived in and one day smashed the idols in their home.

So who better to twist the Sumerian tales into something that reflected the caring God that he knew?

Maybe the point isn’t all the science we modern people get caught up in… but that ultimately the Jews were a breakaway civilization from the dominate themes of the time.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
It’s all Theories. None of what you’re describing as “irrefutable” is 100% certain.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what else I can say. It’s mostly deduced from Terah’s name in Sumerian (Oracle Priest).

As for Abraham and the idols, Midrash was ancient commentary Jews had gathered up over the years, and collected.

Abraham and the Idol Shop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

It’s old enough that even Muslims tapped into it for the Quran and have their own story of Abraham smashing the idols.
 
The whole universe was created in 6000 years. Again it doesnt take a rocket scoentist to figure it out
 
Are you talking to me? Because I’m mostly just talking about the background and world the story came from. It’s interesting to me, as a sort of “spoof” on the original Sumerian stuff. And when I look at that old Rabbinic story of Abraham, I could see someone like that retelling the old Sumerian tales he grew up with, but shaping them in a new way.
 
This isn’t a matter of faith, it’s a matter of science. I need to know WHAT we’re talking about it order to talk about it.
 
semper_catholicus said:
This isn’t a matter of faith, it’s a matter of science. I need to know WHAT we’re talking about it order to talk about it.
Click to expand...
The Church makes no claims that the two accounts of creation have anything to do with science…You might want to dwell on the Catechism (about 110-118) and learn the differences between the Literal Sense, and the Spiritual Sense of Sacred Scripture.

Genesis (and the bible) is no a science text, nor a social studies text, but only the story of God’s plan of Salvation.
 
The Early Church Fathers and Doctors pretty much all agreed that Genesis 1-11 was to be taken literally, so I’ll stick with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top