Author Topic: 6 days of Creation or not (Read 2235 times)

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?

clare · « **Reply #1 on:** September 26, 2013, 02:35:57 PM »

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.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #2 on:** September 26, 2013, 06:52:23 PM »

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.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #3 on:** September 26, 2013, 07:00:39 PM »

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:

Matto · « **Reply #4 on:** September 26, 2013, 07:05:58 PM »

I believe the world was created in six days and on the seventh day, God rested.

Timothy · « **Reply #5 on:** September 26, 2013, 07:17:02 PM »

Quote from: Matto

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?

Boloki · « **Reply #6 on:** September 26, 2013, 07:48:03 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

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".

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #7 on:** September 26, 2013, 07:48:49 PM »

"6 days of Creation or not?"

I say yes.

Miseremini · « **Reply #8 on:** September 26, 2013, 08:02:49 PM »

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.

Boloki · « **Reply #9 on:** September 26, 2013, 08:34:50 PM »

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!

Nadir · « **Reply #10 on:** September 27, 2013, 05:37:54 AM »

Quote from: Timothy

Quote from: Matto
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

Quote

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.

TKGS · « **Reply #11 on:** September 27, 2013, 06:40:46 AM »

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.

bg2 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 27, 2013, 06:51:17 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

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.

bg2 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 27, 2013, 07:02:32 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

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.

Himagain · « **Reply #14 on:** September 27, 2013, 07:47:55 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

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?