Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Boloki on September 26, 2013, 02:29:48 PM
-
Is it the definitive teaching of the Church, or the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, that Creation took part in 6 literal days?
I think this is very important to establish and clear out for those who believe in theistic evolution.
I read that St. Augustine didn't think it was in 6 days.
Would that rule it out as being the unanimous teaching of the Fathers?
-
Well, the theory I've heard is that, St Augustine believed the creation happened in an instant, so the Fathers are unanimous in believing that it took six days or fewer!
Something like that.
-
6 days...6 increments of time...who knows. God could create it all in 6 days if he wanted though. He could do it in 1 sec. I think he did it a certain way for whatever the reason.
-
If we said otherwise, it would be reducing the Bible to allegory, and isn't that what the protestants do?
If we do it to that one part of the bible, then why not the rest of it?
If Moses bothered to repeat that the world was made in 6 days, and on the 7th, God rested, then why would we question that, just because some "scientists" try to persuade us otherwise?
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.
And the entire Genesis Chapter one.
It's elementary, Watson. ;)
:detective:
-
I believe the world was created in six days and on the seventh day, God rested.
-
I believe the world was created in six days and on the seventh day, God rested.
That's one thing that always confused me. Why would God need or want to rest?
-
If we said otherwise, it would be reducing the Bible to allegory, and isn't that what the protestants do?
If we do it to that one part of the bible, then why not the rest of it?
If Moses bothered to repeat that the world was made in 6 days, and on the 7th, God rested, then why would we question that, just because some "scientists" try to persuade us otherwise?
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.
And the entire Genesis Chapter one.
It's elementary, Watson. ;)
:detective:
But there is also the fact that not everything in the Bible can be taken literally obviously, so theistic evolutionists can take hold of that.
But anyways science completely dispels any idea of evolution and all the evidence is in favor of Creation (of course!), so all theistic evolutionists are useful idiots.
Why would they believe in evolution? Why? Why would they be on the side of the pagan godless scientists? Why can't they see that many scientists are becoming creationists, and that even almost all Protestants are creationists? Why would they follow Darwin, the biggest atheist-maker in history, who knew nothing about biology or the cell in the first place?
When you think about these things, it is all so utterly abominable, to be a "theistic evolutionist".
-
"6 days of Creation or not?"
I say yes.
-
How many times in the bible does is say that 1000 years is as a day to God. On the first day of creation there was not a sun so how do we know it was a 24 hour day?
A couple of times when souls have appeared here on earth from purgatory they complained they had been forgotten in purgatory when in fact they had died during the night and people didn't even know they were dead yet.
I don't believe our human knowlege has any concept of time in relation to eternity and won't have until we are actually in eternity. I believe the "day" mentioned in the bible was to show us how quickly God could accomplish so much. I believe in the big ban theory.......God thought it and BANG it happened.
-
I spoke with my biology professor today for the first time about evolution, and speaking only about the scientific aspect of evolution was my main plan, but the talk turned out to be 99% about the Faith and about what is going on right now and about ecuмenism etc.
It is so unbelievable to see how the novus ordo has brainwashed these poor people. I didn't ask him but chances are he has no idea about traditionalism or the Latin Mass. It didn't look like he had any clue.
He believes that the Church can make mistakes (he said it has made "hundreds" of mistakes in the past) and that it is just a human institution; he believes one should be more devoted to Jesus than the Church etc.
I did start talking about evolution but from the theological point of view, and told him how it goes against the Bible since death came into the world because of sin but evolution requires death etc.
He then said that the Devil had not been cast out of Paradise or Heaven when he tempted Eve! He said the Devil was still in Paradise and that only later did God curse him etc.
This got me thinking, was the Garden of Eden Heaven? But it's not right? Man was not created and placed in Heaven to begin with right?
He was then arguing how original sin caused only the death of the soul, the spirit, and not of the body, and that it is not clear anyways that man was going to live forever before the Fall.
What in the world?! Isn't bodily death a punishment of sin? Wasn't there the tree of eternal life in the Garden?
We agreed to have another session because we could only speak for an hour, and i didn't even speak about evolution at all, so there is probably a little hope.
It's amazing how completely deluded the Novus Ordo has these people to the point that they have no clue what a REAL Catholic is.
He called me too judgmental and a pharisee and too severe; he said i was like St. Paul before he converted but without the sword, in other words typical liberal drivel.
I went easy on him. I kept my composure the whole time. And already he thought i was extreme.
Ha!
-
I believe the world was created in six days and on the seventh day, God rested.
That's one thing that always confused me. Why would God need or want to rest?
As an example for us to follow.
Exodus 31:15
Six days shall you do work: in the seventh day is the sabbath, the rest holy to the Lord. Every one that shall do any work on this day, shall die.
-
It is the unanimous teachings of the Fathers that the accounts in Genesis are historical accounts and that Catholics must believe that what is written in Genesis (as all historical books) is to be taken as actual events.
It is not, however, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that the creation accounts are necessarily to be taken literally in accord with current understandings of various terms. The term "day" may not be precisely 24 hour periods of day and night since the sun was not created until the fourth day.
However, the Church has always leaned towards a more literal understanding of the creation account in Genesis but has never declared that to be dogma. One may hold a less literal interpretation and not be an heretic. What is heretical is the Conciliar understanding that the first 11 chapters of Genesis (the history before Abraham) are fables designed to teach moral lessons and not actual history.
Personally, I believe in a more or less literal interpretation of Genesis. This believe has evolved (pardon the pun) over time as I've learned more and more of the actual science behind the "old earth theory" is built upon a great number of assumptions that simply cannot be demonstrated to be true while many assumptions can absolutely be demonstrated to be built on data that doesn't add up.
-
If we said otherwise, it would be reducing the Bible to allegory, and isn't that what the protestants do?
If we do it to that one part of the bible, then why not the rest of it?
If Moses bothered to repeat that the world was made in 6 days, and on the 7th, God rested, then why would we question that, just because some "scientists" try to persuade us otherwise?
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.
And the entire Genesis Chapter one.
It's elementary, Watson. ;)
:detective:
Actually, most Protestants take the bible quite literally. Sometimes too literally. I know a Protestant woman who keeps her head covered all of the time. The reason? St. Paul says that women should keep their heads covered when praying. But, he also says that we should be praying always. So.....yeah.
-
It is the unanimous teachings of the Fathers that the accounts in Genesis are historical accounts and that Catholics must believe that what is written in Genesis (as all historical books) is to be taken as actual events.
It is not, however, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that the creation accounts are necessarily to be taken literally in accord with current understandings of various terms. The term "day" may not be precisely 24 hour periods of day and night since the sun was not created until the fourth day.
However, the Church has always leaned towards a more literal understanding of the creation account in Genesis but has never declared that to be dogma. One may hold a less literal interpretation and not be an heretic. What is heretical is the Conciliar understanding that the first 11 chapters of Genesis (the history before Abraham) are fables designed to teach moral lessons and not actual history.
Personally, I believe in a more or less literal interpretation of Genesis. This believe has evolved (pardon the pun) over time as I've learned more and more of the actual science behind the "old earth theory" is built upon a great number of assumptions that simply cannot be demonstrated to be true while many assumptions can absolutely be demonstrated to be built on data that doesn't add up.
Evolution is tricky. It's difficult, if not impossible, to prove biological evolution of current species (especially humans), mainly due to the lack of readily identifiable transitional forms.
Evolutionary biology can't even agree on the exact definition of a species, for crying out loud. The entire discipline is a chaotic mess of wildly conflicting theories, ranging from strict Darwinians to the directed panspermia nutjobs (in a nutshell: aliens created life on earth).
That being said, there are certain aspects of "evolution" that are true. Natural selection is a real phenomenon, and can influence the development of a species. What has not been truly demonstrated is that it can cause a species to evolve into a completely different species (i.e. dinosaurs to birds).
Things get even weirder when you start talking about the origin of the Earth, pre-life....
I see no reason to get all hung up on how precise the account of creation in Genesis was. The Bible is not a science textbook. But, it is the Word of God. So one, at a minimum, would have to accept that God created humans, life, earth, the universe, and everything. Whether He did it in precisely six days or not is not relevant.
-
If we said otherwise, it would be reducing the Bible to allegory, and isn't that what the protestants do?
If we do it to that one part of the bible, then why not the rest of it?
:detective:
Looking at what might be the most clear example of allegorical teaching in the bible, the story of Jonas, could help answer the question you've posed parentsfortruth. http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=37&ch=2&l=1#x
Does anyone believe that this man was actually swallowed by a sea creature?
Doesn't the truth of the story lay in the lessons of the futility of resisting the will of God?
-
Why would they be on the side of the pagan godless scientists?
One may be a pagan godless scientist and still develop a valid theory and discover truths. For example, Francis Crick was an atheist and yet I do not doubt in any way his discovery of the structure of DNA. The double helix, the base pairing, and everything else is pretty well accepted and proven. I'm pretty certain Thomas Cech is also a pagan godless scientist but he discovered ribozymes, RNA molecules that possess catalytic function, and these are being worked with today in the hopes of fighting viruses. Examples abound.
-
If we said otherwise, it would be reducing the Bible to allegory, and isn't that what the protestants do?
If we do it to that one part of the bible, then why not the rest of it?
:detective:
Does anyone believe that this man was actually swallowed by a sea creature?
Doesn't the truth of the story lay in the lessons of the futility of resisting the will of God?
I believe he was. It says God prepared the fish. Must have been a very special fish.
And yes it does demonstrate the futility of resisting God.
Marsha
-
It is the unanimous teachings of the Fathers that the accounts in Genesis are historical accounts and that Catholics must believe that what is written in Genesis (as all historical books) is to be taken as actual events.
It is not, however, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that the creation accounts are necessarily to be taken literally in accord with current understandings of various terms. The term "day" may not be precisely 24 hour periods of day and night since the sun was not created until the fourth day.
However, the Church has always leaned towards a more literal understanding of the creation account in Genesis but has never declared that to be dogma. One may hold a less literal interpretation and not be an heretic. What is heretical is the Conciliar understanding that the first 11 chapters of Genesis (the history before Abraham) are fables designed to teach moral lessons and not actual history.
Personally, I believe in a more or less literal interpretation of Genesis. This believe has evolved (pardon the pun) over time as I've learned more and more of the actual science behind the "old earth theory" is built upon a great number of assumptions that simply cannot be demonstrated to be true while many assumptions can absolutely be demonstrated to be built on data that doesn't add up.
I think i'm going to correct my original statement in this thread and go with 6 days.
When considering the creation story, I think God created a number of things before he actually created the earth. When we think of one day, we use the amount of time that it takes to the earth to revolve around its axis one time. Here on earth, one day is 24 hours. Whereas on jupiter and other planets, one day is longer or shorter than 24 hours. So basically, one day is subjective based on where you are.
At the same time, I imagine that Genesis was using the earth as a reference since we are pretty much the center of God's focus. So everything in the Bible is probably spoken/written from the planet earth point of view.
I'm sticking to 6 days 24 hours each.
-
It is the unanimous teachings of the Fathers that the accounts in Genesis are historical accounts and that Catholics must believe that what is written in Genesis (as all historical books) is to be taken as actual events.
It is not, however, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that the creation accounts are necessarily to be taken literally in accord with current understandings of various terms. The term "day" may not be precisely 24 hour periods of day and night since the sun was not created until the fourth day.
However, the Church has always leaned towards a more literal understanding of the creation account in Genesis but has never declared that to be dogma. One may hold a less literal interpretation and not be an heretic. What is heretical is the Conciliar understanding that the first 11 chapters of Genesis (the history before Abraham) are fables designed to teach moral lessons and not actual history.
Personally, I believe in a more or less literal interpretation of Genesis. This believe has evolved (pardon the pun) over time as I've learned more and more of the actual science behind the "old earth theory" is built upon a great number of assumptions that simply cannot be demonstrated to be true while many assumptions can absolutely be demonstrated to be built on data that doesn't add up.
I think i'm going to correct my original statement in this thread and go with 6 days.
When considering the creation story, I think God created a number of things before he actually created the earth. So there was no measure of a day at one point since earth did not exist.
When we think of one day, we use the amount of time that it takes the earth to revolve around its axis one time. Here on earth, one day is 24 hours. Whereas on jupiter and other planets, one day is longer or shorter than 24 hours. So basically, one day is subjective based on where you are.
At the same time, I imagine that Genesis was using the earth as a reference since we are pretty much the center of God's focus. So everything in the Bible is probably spoken/written from the planet earth point of view.
I'm sticking to 6 days 24 hours each.
-
I believe the world was created in six days and on the seventh day, God rested.
That's one thing that always confused me. Why would God need or want to rest?
As an example for us to follow.
Exodus 31:15
Six days shall you do work: in the seventh day is the sabbath, the rest holy to the Lord. Every one that shall do any work on this day, shall die.
So I suppose, according to some in this thread, we wouln't have to go to Mass for 6,000 years before we finally have the obligation to go, since "a day is like 1,000 years to God."
Do you see why this doesn't make any sense? :laugh1:
-
If we said otherwise, it would be reducing the Bible to allegory, and isn't that what the protestants do?
If we do it to that one part of the bible, then why not the rest of it?
:detective:
Looking at what might be the most clear example of allegorical teaching in the bible, the story of Jonas, could help answer the question you've posed parentsfortruth. http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=37&ch=2&l=1#x
Does anyone believe that this man was actually swallowed by a sea creature?
Doesn't the truth of the story lay in the lessons of the futility of resisting the will of God?
Why would I not believe that Jonas was actually swallowed by a whale? :stare: It's conceivable that he could have survived inside a whale for 3 days, if GOD ALLOWED IT to happen!
-
What about things in Genesis that we now know are not true? For instance:
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
We know that the sky (the "Heavens") is not made up of water behind a firmament.
-
What about things in Genesis that we now know are not true? For instance:
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
We know that the sky (the "Heavens") is not made up of water behind a firmament.
Simply a reference to the moisture in the sky, the clouds. See "A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture" by Bishop Frederick Justus Knecht for the answer to this and other questions.
-
If we said otherwise, it would be reducing the Bible to allegory, and isn't that what the protestants do?
If we do it to that one part of the bible, then why not the rest of it?
:detective:
Looking at what might be the most clear example of allegorical teaching in the bible, the story of Jonas, could help answer the question you've posed parentsfortruth. http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=37&ch=2&l=1#x
Does anyone believe that this man was actually swallowed by a sea creature?
Doesn't the truth of the story lay in the lessons of the futility of resisting the will of God?
Why would I not believe that Jonas was actually swallowed by a whale? :stare: It's conceivable that he could have survived inside a whale for 3 days, if GOD ALLOWED IT to happen!
I know that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. The 3 days and 3 nights that he spent inside the whale foreshadowed the 3 days that Christ spent in His tomb. Jonah was later spat up on land, and this was to foreshadow Christ resurrecting from His tomb.
Jonah and the actions of others throughout the Old Testament foreshadowed the Messiah.
-
Does anyone believe that this man was actually swallowed by a sea creature?
Yes, I believe he was swallowed by a great fish, or maybe a whale and that God miraculously preserved him alive inside the animal until he was vomited up on the beach.
-
It takes God more "energy" to forgive a mortal sin than it did for Him to create the world.
-
What about things in Genesis that we now know are not true? For instance:
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
We know that the sky (the "Heavens") is not made up of water behind a firmament.
That's where you're wrong.
It's not any MORE, but it certainly was before the Flood.
There used to be a massive water canopy enveloping the earth, blocking 99.999% of the UV rays, causing MUCH higher barometric pressure and allowing for larger creatures. The higher pressure, as well as the higher oxygen levels in the air, made man EXTREMELY vigorous to the point that he lived 800-900+ years.
If you look at the human body, and its regenerative abilities, one would conclude that it was designed to last virtually forever. Certainly longer than 60-80 years. We're practically dying in our infancy now.
Just when a man finishes his education and fully "grows up" in every department (around 50), his body begins falling apart and he's dead within 2 decades. Tragic, really.
-
What about things in Genesis that we now know are not true? For instance:
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
We know that the sky (the "Heavens") is not made up of water behind a firmament.
That's where you're wrong.
It's not any MORE, but it certainly was before the Flood.
There used to be a massive water canopy enveloping the earth, blocking 99.999% of the UV rays, causing MUCH higher barometric pressure and allowing for larger creatures. The higher pressure, as well as the higher oxygen levels in the air, made man EXTREMELY vigorous to the point that he lived 800-900+ years.
This is interesting. Where did you read this?
-
Yes, according to the nearly unanimous consensus of the Fathers and practically all of Tradition, the world is no more than 10,000 odd years old.
-
I'm just an average, simple layman who believes what the Bible says and what the Holy Fathers and Holy Church say what the bible says. I believe God created everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh. Whether 1 day to God is a million or a billion years or just one 24 hour cycle, I wouldn't dare to contemplate. I trust in God. My feeble human mind can only contemplate what a day means to me. I couldn't even fathom what God deems a day to be to Him.
-
If I may weigh in on this. I think a critical principle is that contained within Provendentissimum Deus of Pp. Leo XIII (blessing with Papal charism a teaching of Augustine).
In it, he states that we are to hold to the literal meaning of scripture unless compelled to depart from it by reason:
15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.
From this, I think it is important, not to try to draw some universal conclusion about the age of the Earth or the details of creation, but rather to see that, since this is taught infallibly to be a matter of reason, it is possible that we, having imperfect faculties of reason might not reach the same conclusion as each other. Further, reason must operate upon knowledge, and so I, or you, possessing different knowledge than another person of good will, might not reach the same conclusion as they.
I, personally, see no issue (My reason does not protest) with God doing any good miracle, therefore my reason does not compel me to question whether Jonah spent time in a whale stomach. Scripture presents it as miraculous, miracles are possible, miracles are part of recorded history, and belief in (continuing) miracles is an element of the faith. Ergo, according to the principle in PD, I believe the Jonah story.
On the matter of the age of the universe, data exists which points to a very old age. It seems internally consistent, for the most part. Therefore, if a Catholic applied his or her reason to it, and determined that it was compelling, they would be obliged to depart from the literal and obvious sense in this and only this area. If a Catholic applied his or her reason to the question and came to the opposite conclusion, they would be bound to hold to the literal sense. As the good Pope said, we have to be strict about this.
And, as I'm sure everyone knows, this principle is limited in PD and later docuмents, to (at most) the most ancient books of the Old Testament, with a brick wall of dogma surrounding the historicity of both the New Testament and the majority of the Old Testament giving contemporaneous Jєωιѕн history. Personally, I find the Abraham narrative of such remarkable harmony with secular archaeology and history that there seems no reason to question it, so I'd say that, for me, I find no reason to want this principle for anything in scripture starting with Abraham. Except perhaps for the multiple accounts of disguising wives as sisters. I'm thinking that probably happened only once. But, people are funny.
-
If I may weigh in on this.
...and weigh you did! Thank you for that well considered, informative, and thought provoking response. You've given me something to look into and think about.
I believe the Jonah story too, Only I believe it (for the time being, at least) differently than you do. I believe the allegorically conveyed truths. Nevertheless, you certainly provoked me to read some new material I've not heard of before, and re-read something I've not read for some time now.
Thanks again!