Genesis

[bookofjohn]

Hey guys!

I have heard many that have said, we should not take Genesis literally rather take it metaphorically. And of course I have heard others(especially among our Evangelical brothers and sisters) that what is written in Genesis should be taken literally.

I would love to hear and discuss the opinions of everyone on this board, especially on areas concerning: 1)Adam & Eve(real people?) 2)The fruit(is a real fruit or a representation of sin?) 3)The Flood(Did it happened?) and of course 4)6 Days of creation?(or was it just a representation?)

Ready! Get set... GO! :cheer:

[Bruce S]

We had this conversation in my men's prayer breakfast this last Saturday. The literalists, those that EVERY word is true NEED to have it all exactly as set forth.

Why?

Who cares?

It isn't the story either OF, the Old Testament, NOR the New Testament.

It simply sets forth certain truths, and a sequence to BEGIN the story.

The world WAS CREATED, right? All the elements discussed IN the creation story are basically correct, and the sequencing is close enough to begin this novel. The book then proceeds to tell what the REAL story is.

Man's relationship with God.

So, for those who want to hang it all on the least provable part, and I have many friends inside of Fundieland who seem to, they are keeping honest folks from coming INSIDE the real story, the redemption of man and the role that Jesus played in that.

If a day were a day, or million years....

It all happened, and Abraham found God, and Jesus did something.

I'm a pragmatic sort, and really tend to hate snippet clipping that CAN invalidate the big picture.

[Paladin D]

I (at this time) honestly don't have a stance on Gensis (the Creation story), wether or not it should be taken literally. Maybe, or maybe not.

But the main message of the Creation, is that it shows that God made everything and is responsible for all the beauty in this world. Did he create the Universe in six-24 hour days? Or six-24 million years? Who knows?

There is some convincing evidence from both "Evolutionists" (in regards to the age of the Earth), and "Creationists". I currently own a Creation Science book, and unlike most other Creation Science books (which usually quote Bible verses and all that), this one actually features REAL studies and theories.

But this is the question that always comes to mind, if the Earth is millions of years old: What happened during those millions of years? I honestly don't believe it was humans evolving from apes.

[Circle_Master]

if it is day age, how do plants survive for an 'age' before the sun and moon are created?

if it is literal, why in Genesis 2:18-29 are animals created after man - but in the Genesis chapter 1 account man is created first.

I have concluded, for numerous reasons, this passage merely signifies two things.

1) God. He is. He was. He will be.

2) God's power. It is over everything - His hand has touched all things.

[DojoGrant]

As to #1, the CCC says that we came from our original parents, Adam and Eve. From a Catholic POV, there is no leeway on that one. :)

[M.SIGGA]

i don't understand why so many people get so drawn out about the creation story and whether or not to take it literally or metophorically. Mostly because there are 2 different stories! The Bible doesn't say anything about an entrance exam at the pearly gates with an Evolution Question so every needs to just have faith in the message and believe, and quit the arguments on how carbon dating is nonsense and how dinosaur bones and fossils were created by the devil (yes, I was taught this as a young child in my Bible class by an ultra fundamentalist preacher's wife).

[Ash Wednesday]

I don't have a really strong opinion about whether or not we actually evolved from apes. Though when I first heard of it, it kinda wierded me out.

The hangups and questions I would have with the evolutionary process would be theology ones: the concept of original sin -- the where, when, and how that came about -- and when God decided we were "good", fully human and created in his image, and infused us with an immortal soul.

On the other hand, I've never been able to fully comprehend how we came to be cursed with original sin because Adam and Eve picked an apple off a tree and ate it because "the devil made them do it."

Genesis doesn't really seem to elaborate on their intentions in a way I quite understand -- it doesn't seem nearly as wicked of an act as things like rape and murder, if you get my drift. They picked an apple off a tree and ate it, and because of it we have disease, death, and a pretty miserable world.

I'm not saying I reject it. I certainly accept that original sin, satan, and all that is a reality. Somewhere along the lines, humanity just really screwed up. I just don't entirely understand it all. Maybe God will fill me in on some of that when we sit down at the pearly gates.

But if anyone else has any better understandings than I (which I'm sure they do) I'm all ears.

What I do know, and what TRUE science teaches us, is that we should be open to things. It's mind boggling how some atheistic scientists are really adamant about not acknowledging any creation theories, and insist that evolution is true, when in fact, it is a theory. Theories are educated guesses. Even scientific LAWS have been proven to be false (this was in fact in the news recently.)

A true scientist would be open to our understanding of the universe as being constantly changing. Even if, YES, that means exploring the possibility that indeed, we can trace our roots back to an Adam, and an Eve.

For the record, when God created in a matter of "days" -- we forget that our idea of a day is one rotation of the earth in 24 hours. It seems a little silly for us to think that God's calendar coincides with the rotation of our little planet. :alien:

Edited January 6, 2004 by Ash Wednesday

[Circle_Master]

For the record, when God created in a matter of "days" -- we forget that our idea of a day is one rotation of the earth in 24 hours. It seems a little silly for us to think that God's calendar coincides with the rotation of our little planet.

well, it does say after that "and then there was evening and morning, the xth day"

evening and morning are definately what we see are a day

[Ash Wednesday]

*scratches head and shrugs* :D

I should probably just get some sleep.

Though as I was writing my little musings on Original Sin -- a thought did come to mind about the fall in the garden. I guess my notion is that the whole apple business, if it literally happened, perhaps did not seem so harmful in the beginning, but sin grew like a cancer and snowballed into more gruesome things. A disease starts off as a seemingly small thing, but in its nature it grows and becomes increasingly cruel and devastating with time.

If you people only knew some of the strange things I wonder about -- like my late night thoughts about God and time in the universe not being such a linear thing -- I likened it to a person standing over a hot tub -- anyway don't ask. I really should get some sleep! :lol:

Edited January 6, 2004 by Ash Wednesday

[Laudate_Dominum]

It would seem that with Adam and Eve's state of original justice, the preternatural gifts, etc. and the fact that they were in a paradise and saw God face to face increases the gravity of their sin beyond what we are capable of because we are blind and fallen.

My opinion on the literal vs. symbolic thing is basically that I think the Genesis account was not intended to be a historical narrative like we have today but is a theological story, which expresses truth in a way that includes historical realities but describes them in a way that gets at the higher meaning of what took place. In other words I believe that Adam and Eve really existed, our first parents, I don't think it's important whether they were actually named Adam and Eve and all the details that people usually argue about.

The creation accounts are written in an ancient literary form and are inspired by the Holy Spirit so to approach the texts as you would a historical narrative of today is, I think, a mistake. But I do think the content is true, I'm not saying it's just a symbolic story. It is simultaneously an expression of real historical and metaphysical realities. It is meant to be read in prayer, I believe, to attain mystical insight and wisdom, not modern scientific knowledge of the world’s creation. The most meaningful concepts are rooted in the convergence of different modes of expression (literal, symbolic, metaphorical) and discourse (narrative, prophecy, proverbs, hymns). It is in this convergence that mind is able to ascend beyond finite categories of limited substances and intuit a relationality, which constitutes Being at an essential level (the height of this is the interior vision of the Trinity which some mystics have received, or so I hold). So I believe that when God speaks through the various writings in the Bible, the texts always have dimensions which go beyond our categories of textual analysis and in this way the Scriptures are inexhaustible. But to have access to the deeper dimensions of Scripture one must be illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

To get back to Genesis, I believe that the realities of creation and the fall ultimately have elements that we cannot understand, and having a scientific description of material events would still not be understanding. So to understand (in a sense) the mystery of creation and the fall one must enter into the text, spiritually, and assimilate the symbolic content in such a way that it becomes a part of the texture of one's inner-mind, when this is done the story can be more fruitfully objectified and analyzed cognitively, though still in a limited manner.

I hope this made some sense.

[cmotherofpirl]

As to #1, the CCC says that we came from our original parents, Adam and Eve. From a Catholic POV, there is no leeway on that one.

Yes but we are not required to believe in the literal teaching story of Genesis, only the truths contained within.

[Sojourner]

OK, a while back in my RCIA classes, the nun leading our group said that there are certain parts of the Bible (Genesis, Esther, Jonah, etc.) that are known as "didactic fiction," that is, fiction created in order to teach a specific idea. When I asked a knowledgeable Catholic friend about this, he told me that this is indeed the view of some church scholars, but not of the "official" church. Does anyone know anything about this?

Sojourner

[Bruce S]

"didactic fiction," that is, fiction created in order to teach a specific idea.

I think that position is a good one, I'm adopting it for me too.

Now I have a fancy word to explain that position.

Oh, by the way, regarding Jonah, there was a REAL documented case in the late 1880's where the London papers reported upon a man who really was swallowed by a large fish [Great white shark?] and lived inside the fish for one and a half days. This was printed and was investigated found true.

So, it might not be too much of a stretch to extend that a few more hours...

Just something to mull over.

[Sojourner]

Oh, by the way, regarding Jonah, there was a REAL documented case in the late 1880's where the London papers reported upon a man who really was swallowed by a large fish [Great white shark?] and lived inside the fish for one and a half days. This was printed and was investigated found true.

So, it might not be too much of a stretch to extend that a few more hours...

Just something to mull over.

Well, my thought on this was/is that we do, after all, accept that a virgin gave birth, and that's not something we see every day. Why is it so hard to also believe that the earth and everything in it was created in six days, or that Jonah lived inside the belly of a big fish for a few days? Why would these things outside the province of God's power and be unreasonable, but a virgin birth is not? I don't get that.

[Bruce S]

Hey, God can do what God wants to do.

It is just nice to see things supported in real life to show detractors that the Bible can be supported with observable events that support events contained within. Things like cities that were "fake" now are known to be real, groups of people that were ... not even known ... now are, that sort of thing.