I am wondering if the following is heresy:



In The Book of Jeremiah, we read around the fourth Chapter that The LORD shows him the future.

Here are Jeremiah's words (chapter 4, 23-26):

"I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void;
And the heavens, they had no light.
I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled,
And all the hills moved back and forth.
I beheld, and indeed there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were broken down
At the presence of the LORD,
By His fierce anger."



Now, if you read Genesis, it is clearly evident that there are in fact two separate creation accounts.

The first begins at Genesis 1:1 and the second begins at Genesis 2:4.

They are so different, that if you compare the two, there are some small contradictions between them (mainly the order in which things are created).

Saint Augustine even commented on this comparison between Genesis 1 and 2.



Now, is the following interpretation of Scripture heretical?:

Is it possible that the first creation account is not the creation of our current world, but is in fact the telling of the creation of the world AFTER the Resurrection?

In other words, is it possible that Genesis 1 tells of events yet to happen, events that will happen when the LORD returns the second time?

It's heretical.  The Church teaches that Genesis already happened.

The two stories in Genesis are two facets of the same event.  There is apocrypha that relates other facets as well, but those facets are not necessary for salvation and are not infallible (e.g., the Book of Enoch).

"without form and void" is not the same without form and void in Genesis.  If it were, there would be no mountains, etc.  If you use a better translation, you get a better understanding of the meaning.

Douay-Rhiems:

23 I beheld the earth, and lo it was void, and nothing: and the heavens, and there was no light in them.

He doesn't go on to create in Jeremiah.  But, it is possible that the wording used was to reflect that the earth would be as desolate as it was before God populated it with life.

In any case, Boniface is right.  We should rather read and study the Fathers' and theologians' interpretations of Scripture that the Church has approved before we engage in speculation.  In this case, doing so shows that the two accounts in Genesis are held to be of the same event.