Literal Creation Story

You force that "understanding" upon him, because it conveniently lets you hold the correct understanding. What a sly way to tell the real truth, right?

Let's look at the verses:

Genesis 2:4-7
"In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..." Okay, so we have the day that the Lord made the earth and the Heavens. "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground;" So, let's assume that what you say is true. "but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground" This obiously speaks of a future event. "then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." This is one continuous thought, and on the SAME DAY the Heavens and the earth were created, man was created.

But look at Genesis 1:11-13
"Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day."

Looks to me like "EVERY KIND" of plant was made by God on the third day. And that is what the Word of God says.

False assumption again. I know that God knew what he was talking about. He was presenting the creation of the universe, from nothing, in a poetic form so that man could easily understand and see His goodness in it all. I do not believe there is a contradiction, as you assume; I realize that this is not a literal story, and so that doesn't even really matter if there are "contradictions." It is you, who take it literally, who must address the contradictions. And you have not done so.

Oh really? That's not what the Word of God says.

Genesis 2:18-19
"Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them..."

Hmm, seems that God formed every animal after He had created Adam.

False assumption. I approach the Bible believing, as has been the faith of the Church established by Jesus Christ, that it is is God's Word and that it is inerrant. So when it is obvious that a story is written in a particular form popular to the mesopotamian culture, that God wished to share a Truth with His people in a way that they would instantly recognize. The Genesis account is true and inerrant without being literally interpreted.

Amazing how you simply state it must be 24-hour days, when the Word of God does not say so, and you bypass my repeated question regarding the lack of a sun for the first three days of creation, as well as not answering honestly why the animals were created after man in Genesis 2, which IS clear from the text.

 

I didn't force any understanding on him. I simply reacted to what he said. Having studied this passage in depth, I am confident that Genesis uses different words here.

Already did, but I will humor you and do it again

The word "YOM" here is different than used in chapter one. (Get our your Hebrew and look it up if you doubt me.) So it is referring to the "day-of-the-making." This difference is vital to recognizing a mistake that you make later in your post.

Okay ...

Why is this obvious (I assume that is what you meant by obiously)? It is a qal imperfect form, meaning a going up. We would use a similar turn of the phrase by talking about history saying something like, "In the days of the Civil War, they would use muskets and march on foot from battle to battle." There is nothing future about that clause.

Reference what I said above about your misunderstanding of the form of YOM here.

Actually that is not what the word of God says. The word "every" is not found in the text. Get our your Hebrew. The use of "kind" is "after" or "according to its kind." It refers to trees that reproduce themselves from the seed they themselves bear. Apparently you are using the NAB here. For some reason, they have changed the words. Who knows why. You should compare some other translations and the Hebrew on this verse. The mistake here will become apparent.

I know you read my post so I have no idea why you would have the audacity to say that I haven't addressed teh contradictions. You know that is not true. You may not agree with me, but it is simply false to say that I have not addressed them.

Secondly, there is no reason to assume this is poetry. There is no indication in the text of such. There is no reason to assume that he was not speaking literally, aside from your necessity to contradict the text as it stands. "Poetry" becomes an excuse for "It really doesn't mean what it sounds like."

Here again, a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew along with comparison of translations would show the fallacy. The qal preterist vayazer can be translated "had formed" (cf NIV). In light of the text of Scripture, that is clearly how it should be translated. That is, after all, exactly what Genesis 1 says. We should not expect a contradiction.

Simply not possible to reconcile your first and last parts of this paragraph. Either you take it for what it says (as I do), or you change it (as you have done). I don't buy for one minute the mesopotamian link because there is no evidence for it. There is no reason that God would have adopted such a means to communicate his truth. Why not simply assume that the text means what it says? There is no reason to take it as anything else unless you are trying to find errors in it. You say it is inerrant and then say that it contradicts itself. That makes no sense.

The word form of the word YOM used in chapter 1 only ever means 24 hour days. It never means anything else. The form of YOM used in 2:4 can mean longer periods of time. I assert that it means 24 hour days because that it what the word means. The exegesis on this point is solidly against you. Hebrew scholar Bruce Waltke who agrees that Gen 1 refers to long periods of time, nevertheless asserts that the structure used here only refers to 24 hour days. So I assert 24 hour days with very good reason--it is what God said.

I didn't see your question about a lack of sun. Why is that a question? The Bible says that the sun was created on Day 4. Do you not believe that?

 

You stated that he approached the text with the assumption that there must be a problem. That is forcing an understanding on him that he has not revealed. If it is a reaction, you sure spoke it with much confidence, calling it a "failure" and saying he "must" have had this assumption.

The word "YOM" here is different than used in chapter one. (Get our your Hebrew and look it up if you doubt me.) So it is referring to the "day-of-the-making." This difference is vital to recognizing a mistake that you make later in your post.</font>[/QUOTE]That is not my point. My point is that this is one stream of thought, and it essentially says "in this day...then God made man." It does not assume a time lapse.

Why is this obvious (I assume that is what you meant by obiously)? It is a qal imperfect form, meaning a going up. We would use a similar turn of the phrase by talking about history saying something like, "In the days of the Civil War, they would use muskets and march on foot from battle to battle." There is nothing future about that clause.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you arguing just to be arguing? Just before this, it says that God had not watered the earth yet, which is why these plants have not grown. So while it may speak of it in the past tense, this is only because this is a comment being made in the future, after the event had occurred. God DID water the earth, this happened in the past, but at this point in time, he had not yet. He would do that later, just as verse 5 states. The tense doesn't matter when we know that God brought rain AFTER this fact.

Actually that is not what the word of God says. The word "every" is not found in the text. Get our your Hebrew. The use of "kind" is "after" or "according to its kind." It refers to trees that reproduce themselves from the seed they themselves bear. Apparently you are using the NAB here. For some reason, they have changed the words. Who knows why. You should compare some other translations and the Hebrew on this verse. The mistake here will become apparent.</font>[/QUOTE]I was using the NRSV, but the KJV seems to indicate a similar translation. But your response doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that the plants God refers to in Genesis 2, that man will have to toil, are not seed bearing plants? And beyond that, if God made plants before man, why did God go back to creating after man left the Garden and make more plants for him? I thought creation was done on the sixth day?

My word usage was not the best. You addressed the issues, but not directly, which I have indicated by showing further discrepencies. I apologize if you took it to mean that you had not answered anything.

No, no, and no. There is perfect reason to assume that it is mythopoeic because it closely resembles the creation stories of other Mesopotamian cultures (not necessarily in the content, but in the style). Phrases such as "In the beginning" continue to be used in our own culture, like "Once upon a time." A talking creature, paradice, trees with mystical powers, God walking through the Garden; these are story elements familiar to the people of the times. Frankly, you have not shown any reason why it NEEDS to be interpreted literally, as if not being literally it loses its meaning. Your last sentence is just a blanket attack without any backing.

Here again, a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew along with comparison of translations would show the fallacy. The qal preterist vayazer can be translated "had formed" (cf NIV). In light of the text of Scripture, that is clearly how it should be translated. That is, after all, exactly what Genesis 1 says. We should not expect a contradiction.</font>[/QUOTE]Two things. You say it "can be translated as 'had formed.'" That means it doesn't have to be. Secondly, God says He "will make" a partner for Adam. And He doesn't jump right in there making Eve; He first tries the creatures of the earth. God spoke of a future creative act and then followed it immediately by telling of a past act, and then brought those creatures created in the past to see if it would satisfy His statement of a future creation of a partner?

Simply not possible to reconcile your first and last parts of this paragraph. Either you take it for what it says (as I do), or you change it (as you have done).</font>[/QUOTE]I have changed nothing. I have recognized that it need not be understood literally to derive the Truth from it.

Based on what? Have you studied Mesopotamian history or literature? It is from northern Mesopotamia that the civilization first flourished, so why would it be so wrong for God to have His people tell of Him in a literature style that was familiar to them?

There are contradictions when you interpret it literally. These disappear when you realize that it is not meant to be read literally.

My point is exactly that since the sun was not created until the fourth day that days one through three could not have been 24-hour periods, because 24-hour days are relative to the earth's position to the sun.

 

I have not read all the posts, but it is interesting to note that the word translated "any" with regards to plants can just as well be "every." Also, the word translated "formed" with regards to animals can just as well be "had formed." Also, as to the name change of God, could it be because in chapter two the focus begins to shift to the relationship between God and man? Thus the use of the covenantal name?

I would be interested for Thessalonian, Try2Understand, or GraceSaves to share their understandings of Genesis 1 and 2 (honestly, I wonder what you guys believe about it). I am not here to argue, so you don't have to worry about that. However, creation is a big deal to me, so I would like to understand general Catholic understanding.

In Christ,
Neal

 

The best exposition I have read so far is in Dr. Scott Hahn's A Father Who Keeps His Promises. I also suggest Cardinal Ratzinger's homilies, which are compiled in the text entitled In the Beginning.

 

I invite you to read my post rather than make this kind of statement. I clearly answered this from 1) the grammar and 2) the sequence of the text. Chapter 2 does not clearly say that God created Adam then animals. It may say that, but only if you assert a contradiction between chapter 1 and 2. There is a reasonable explanation that 1) violates no grammar or exegesis and 2) harmonizes the text. Tell us why you would not accept that.

 

Heya Neal,

I agree that their is the personal name of God present in Chapter 2 because its a different type of story, in which God establishes His relationship with mandkind. I think its also interesting to note who we are given God's personal name (although it is hidden in the text) in Genesis 2, before God actually gives it to Moses for the first time. God's personal name is used even though it was not revealed until much later in human history. I just think that's a neat side note, and lends credence to the multiple source theory of authorship (since it jumps back and forth throughout the Pentateuch). Its mostly the priestly writings that do not use the personal name of the Lord, which seems to make sense with Genesis 1 with its focus on a seven-day cycle.

My view is that people get overly hung up on this, as if, if its NOT literally true, then somehow, the system breaks down.

I've read enough creation accounts to see that there is a common writing style being employed here, and how the story of creation and the fall of man is written in a distinct style, different even from much of the rest of Genesis. I think this story is a perfect way for us to come to understand the awesome power of our Creator God, His goodness, our betryal of God, and our promise of future salvation. I know that all of these events actually occurred. In what time frame they occur has what importance to our faith?

I believe that the act of creation was perfectly simple for God, yet its results are infinitely complex. No matter how far science digs and uncovers, there's always another layer, because our universe is perfect. I see God's hand in nature, in life, and especially in the life of man and woman together, and this is all perfectly realized in Genesis 1, which is extremely deep and yet ultimately simple to understand.

Perhaps that wasn't what you were looking for. I'm better with specific questions.

 

I invite you to read my post rather than make this kind of statement. I clearly answered this from 1) the grammar and 2) the sequence of the text. Chapter 2 does not clearly say that God created Adam then animals. It may say that, but only if you assert a contradiction between chapter 1 and 2. There is a reasonable explanation that 1) violates no grammar or exegesis and 2) harmonizes the text. Tell us why you would not accept that. </font>[/QUOTE]What a contradiction. I thought Scripture was supposed to be easy to understand, and we don't need anyone to guide us but the Holy Spirit. Now it takes the exact correct English translation, comparison of translations, and a grasp of Hebrew to get the REAL meaning behind it. Based on what you've been saying, most versions of Genesis 1 are false. I need to be a Biblical scholar to NOT find problems, all because I have to interpret it literally.

 

What? Ambiguity in the text of the Bible? You have to go to the Greek? How is a illiterate peasant to know the truth. After all the evangelical Christians on the air around here have all the evolutionists damned to hell. No need of a Church though. We'll just hand him a Bible anyway. He can use it for a pillow and it will all magically flow in to his skull.

I give a thumbs up to Carson's first post on this thread. I am not an evolutionist. It's a nice theory but has lots of holes.
I am a creationist, though not strictly a 7 day one, though I do know that God could have done it in that time frame if he so desired.

Blessings

 

Pastor Larry,

Although I hope you'll respond to my last in depth response, I want to ask this, too.

If the creation account is not literal, will that affect your faith in God? Would it change anything, and if so, what?

 

So which do you believe? I am honestly curious. It sounds as if you are trying hard to show contradictions in the Scriptures and to lessen the Creation story. Please note, it "sounds" that way, I am not saying you believe it. I understand the nine points Carson put up. But how do you reconcile those nine points with what you are doing? How do they fit with a contradicting first two chapters of Genesis? Are these two chapters somehow misleading or confusing by God? I really want to understand what you believe about it, because from you lack of sharing it, I am probably developing wrong ideas about you.

Grant,

Thanks for your sharing. That was exactly what I was looking for.

In Christ,
Neal

 

I invite you to read my post rather than make this kind of statement. I clearly answered this from 1) the grammar and 2) the sequence of the text. Chapter 2 does not clearly say that God created Adam then animals. It may say that, but only if you assert a contradiction between chapter 1 and 2. There is a reasonable explanation that 1) violates no grammar or exegesis and 2) harmonizes the text. Tell us why you would not accept that. </font>[/QUOTE]What a contradiction. I thought Scripture was supposed to be easy to understand, and we don't need anyone to guide us but the Holy Spirit. Now it takes the exact correct English translation, comparison of translations, and a grasp of Hebrew to get the REAL meaning behind it. Based on what you've been saying, most versions of Genesis 1 are false. I need to be a Biblical scholar to NOT find problems, all because I have to interpret it literally. </font>[/QUOTE]Not to mention the Pastor Larry Translation is head and shoulders above the KJV, translated by no less than 70 scholars as I recall. The most perfect translation ever until today of course.

 

Because I think he meant what he said. I don't see this is a big problem.

[qb]It is a stream of thought to be sure, but there is obviously a time lapse unless you think chapter 1 is a lie. Why do you assume the worst possible interpretation when there is clearly a better option?

Did you read the text????? It says that a mist rose from the earth and watered the surface. The fact that there was no rain does not mean that there was not water. The text is clear. Why not sit down and study it in depth before shooting from the hip like this.

This is clearly a false statement. I hope that it is the result of your not being careful with the text, rather than blatant denial of what the text says.

No, I am referring to plants that require cultivation to grow. We have both kinds today.

 

It is the Hebrew, not the Greek.

You have a golden opportunity here, Thessalonian. I am taking you post as a bit of fun sarcasm, not necessarily poking fun at me. If you read a few of the other threads, you will see that I am honestly looking at some things, so you have a golden opportunity to show some love and help me understand Catholic beliefs.

By the way, thank-you for sharing your viewpoint in light of the nine points Carson posted. That was exactly what I was looking for. See, I honestly would have thought you were an evolutionist if you had just left it unclear. But you set me straight, and I thank-you for that.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

I can't answer for him specifically, of course, but maybe I can tackle a few of the issues.

I don't think Genesis 1 or 2 are misleading at all. And I don't think they have contradictions. I think they ARE misleading and DO have contradictions when you confine them to a certain interpretation OR ELSE. There seems to be a "this is the only way it could have happened" about it when history testifies to varying interpretations. And frankly, as long as the revealed Truths are understood (basically those things Carson listed), the rest is just story. God created the heavens and the earth and all life FROM NOTHING. He made man and woman in His image to rule the earth. We see the covenantal relationship. We have man disobeying God by wanting to be like God (self-idolatry), we see that God cares for us even though we tried to break away. We see that He will save us in spite of ourselves. Whether or not a snake really talked, they literally ate from a tree, or it was seven literal days, these do not effect the Truth that we get out of the story.

 

Thanks, Grant. You hit the nail on the head of what I was trying to understand (no pun intended).

God Bless,
Neal

 

As for evolution, it seems that most six-day literalists simply cringe at the word, like it is the spawn of Satan.

First off, evolution does not negate the existence or necessity of God. If we someone discovered that all things come back to one tiny particle, that particle still had to be put there by someone, and that someone is God. And because God is all powerful and all knowing, whatever we have existing today is because of God's design. God spoke, and the universe came into existence. Maybe it all came together slowly or super duper fast; either way, these terms are RELATIVE to us, but not to God, who is, as stated earlier, the God of time. Maybe God thought it would be neat to watch the universe grow and stuff.

If evolution was proven (in some form or another), it would not disprove God, because evolution is a theory of, DUH, evolution, not origin.

Further, as Carson states and Catholics believe, whether humans evolved from other life forms or not, humanity was the GOAL that God foresaw when he created, and the first HUMANS, Adam and Eve, were specifically given souls, by God.

All of it is God's work and God's design. How He did it is His business; we're here, and here to serve and praise God. I'm just glad He decided to make me.