US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study

Aha, thank you.

I DO believe the creation of the universe is a miracle! NO question about it! Something was created from nothing. The creation of the universe is not open to scientific investigation, because it is an event prior to the emergence of space and time, and science can only investigate events that occur in space and time. However, once the creation occurred, events unfolded that can be studied empirically, and when investigated, they very much support, circumstantially, the reality of a Creator.

And this is our sticking point. What makes you think that only the first instant of Creation was outside the laws of nature? Why do you assume the laws of nature, from the very first instant, were uniform and unalterable? Because you want to? Because it's what you're used to? Because that's what your more comfortable with? Because the idea that not everything comes within the purview of science hurts your feelings?

You are going to dismiss what I say, so I wonder why I take the time to say this (maybe for the benefit of other reders): the universe as it was originally created was different from the one known to science. There were three occasions when the universe and its laws "decayed" (for want of a better term): the Sin in the Garden, the Flood, and the Dispersal at Babel. I know, you regard these as fairy tales. But they are no more incredible than your chr*stian miracles.

Furthermore when Adam and Eve were created the human gestation period was very brief. The day they were created Adam and Eve had sexual intercourse twice producing Cain and a half sister (from the first act) and Abel and two sisters (from the second). The gestation period in both cases was a matter of moments. The nine month gestation period was a punishment for the sin: "I will lengthen your conception."

Now, you dismiss all of this out of hand because it isn't "fair" for G-d to operate in this way so that every second since the "big bang" is accessible to empirical science . . . right?

Better late than never!

US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study

CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)

Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

What makes you think that only the first instant of Creation was outside the laws of nature?

Again, you put words in my mouth. Do you see why this can be annoying to a conversation partner? I never said this.

On the contrary, I DO NOT believe the first instance of Creation is the only instance outside the laws of nature. Never said it. Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, the Angels, Saints, etc. They all live outside the laws of the physical universe.

God is outside the laws of the known universe, and is the Creator of the known universe. He is infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent -- far from being just a pinhole at the first instance of time. He is OUTSIDE of time and space, yet came down into time and space through the Incarnation and continues to inhabit it in the form of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, until He returns.

Why do you assume the laws of nature, from the very first instant, were uniform and unalterable?

Again you put words in my mouth. I do not assume that laws of nature are uniform and unalterable. I told you I believe in miracles! Just the opposite. God is omnipotent; through miracles, he can intervene into the natural order. However, through the physical sciences, we find that the universe has an intrinsic order endowed by our Creator which is the same order, with the same principles, operating from one end of the universe to the other. This gives the universe predictibility and thereby enables us to exact some control over it, which is consistent with human stewardship over Creation, which is Biblical. But aside from predictable events, there are singular, unpredictable events that are of SUPER-natural origin, by which the natural order is violated for Divine ends. These events are outside the realm of the sciences, because science can only study the repeatable and predictable.

Please stop the straw man arguments, and try to listen to what I am actually saying, not your fantasies about what I am saying.

There were three occasions when the universe and its laws "decayed" (for want of a better term): the Sin in the Garden, the Flood, and the Dispersal at Babel. I know, you regard these as fairy tales. But they are no more incredible than your chr*stian miracles.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I DO NOT consider the Garden, the Flood and Babel to be "fairy tales." Come on, ZC! Can't you read what I write without projecting your straw men into my statements? I told you before, the stories in Genesis contain theological truths. They are not scientific or historical narratives. They are theological in nature, and need to be read as such.

Concerning the doctrine on creation, I agree with Ludwig Ott who in his authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma affirms the following points (De Fide are infallible dogmas "of Catholic faith"):

--All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
--God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.
--The world was created for the Glorification of God.
--The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation.
--God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.
--God has created a good world.
--The world had a beginning in time.
--God alone created the world.
--God keeps all created things in existence.
-- God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.

In addition with regard to Genesis, I believe in original sin, as illustrated by the Adam and Eve narrative, and that this first sin was a result of the free will of the first human beings, who through pride chose to disobey God.

The Flood and Babel stories are the continuation of sin in the world in the children of Eve. They tell the tales of the accumulative effects of sin, and the role of the righteous in God's plan for salvation history.

I am open to the idea that the Creation story happened in a time and place other than the known universe, prior to Creation, but I can't see how one could believe this without violating both the book of Genesis and known physics. So, I seriously doubt a reasonable argument for it could be made.

I am inclined to believe that the intrinsic order of the universe is the same as it was at the beginning of time, and at the time of our first parents. But free will created the possibility for sin. And sin, once committed, has had a cumulative effect in corrupting the social and natural orders, because it introduces into the universe violations of the moral order intrinsic to the original and GOOD order of Creation at the beginning of time, and prior to the first sin.

To be honest, on reading this last post of yours, all I can see is that you have no excuse for your uniformitarianism since you agree with me that creation occurred outside the laws of nature. You apparently accept the first eleven chapters of Genesis are “theological” rather than historical for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than that you choose to do so.

Technically, if you listen to what I said, I would not call my theology and philosophy of science "uniformitarianism," because that would preclude miracles. I never referred to my beliefs as uniformitarian.

My belief, rather, is that God has created a universe in which the Truth of Creation is discoverable by man, through reason, and that universal principles--natural laws--both mechanistic and moral in nature--are in operation within the cosmos, which validate the essential, immutable truths revealed in sacred scripture and tradition. God can influence these events through either natural or supernatural intermediate means, and does so, when it is for the Good, but does not do so to the extent that it interferes with man's ability to discover and validity universal principles operating in the universe, by which we can become stewards of the natural world over which we have dominian and for which were are given responsibility for understanding and caring for it.

We know quite a bit about the known universe, including the fact that it has a beginning and that prior to the beginning, space and time as we know it did not exist -- that in fact time and space are contigent and exist on a continuum. We also have a pretty solid understanding of the age of the created universe, and the way it came into being. It does not literally conform to the Genesis story read as a science book, but as long as Genesis is not read as a science book, the basic truths revealed in Genesis are confirmed by physics, in ways that atheists cannot refute without falling down a rabbit hole of reductio ad absurdum theories about multiple universes that go on infinitely and which include every possible existence of every possibility, which is far more ridiculous than the belief in a Creator. The science of physics, when understood in terms of its theological implications, is very much in the theist's favor.

You have still not explained why you insist on interpreting Genesis 1-11 "theologically." Why are you so adamant that G-d did not create a fully functional universe (with grown trees, eg) which then began to function? Why do you reject the idea that G-d created Adam as an adult rather than relying on "natural law" to produce him when there was no natural law? Again, all I can see is that you interpret Genesis this way simply because you want to.

If I told you that G-d wrote the Torah and dictated it to Moses letter-for-letter you would only smile . . . correct?

Again, if you reject uniformitarianism then you have no logical grounds whatsoever to reject the literal/historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11. It can only be blindness or stubbornness.

You have still not explained why you insist on interpreting Genesis 1-11 "theologically." Why are you so adamant that G-d did not create a fully functional universe (with grown trees, eg) which then began to function?

Because this is incomptable with all of the scientific evidence at our disposal. The first human beings appeared on the earth around 250,000 years ago. In contrast, the physical universe began about 15 billion years ago. It didn't happen in seven literal days. Why would God give us evidence, and dispose us to discover evidence, that was completely contrary to the truth of a literal interpretation of Genesis if we were supposed to read Genesis literally? Doesn't make sense, and especially seems silly to make that choice when serious regard for scientific evidence actually supports the existence of a Creator. Do you think God is playing tricks on all of contemporary natural and social science? I don't.

Because this is incomptable with all of the scientific evidence at our disposal.

But you just said science can't critique the Creation! And now you're scientifically critiquing it!

The first human beings appeared on the earth around 250,000 years ago. In contrast, the physical universe began about 15 billion years ago.

And how do you know this? Because it "looks that old?" Adam looked liked he was about twenty when he was created! FCOL man, you're not making any sense at all! I have explained to you over and over that the universe was created in a completed state and then began to function! The vegetation created on Day Three sprang forth on Day Six after the rain fell that Adam had prayed for, and they looked "old!" Adam and Eve's first five children "looked like" they had developed for nine months in Eve's womb even though their gestation was only the matter of a few moments!

May I ask you what you think the universe would "look like" if it had been created complete and fully functional 5769 years ago?

It didn't happen in seven literal days. Why would God give us evidence, and dispose us to discover evidence, that was completely contrary to the truth of a literal interpretation of Genesis if we were supposed to read Genesis literally?

So you're saying that G-d could not have created the Grand Canyon in situ instead of allowing it to form naturally over millions of years because this would be "deception" on His part? May I point out that it is only "deception" if one insists on retrojecting today's natural laws and processes into the Creation itself and that in this case it is you who are creating a "straw man?" I suppose you don't see that there is a similar problem with interpreting Genesis "non-literally" (ie, making G-d a "deceiver," chas veshalom!)? No, you prefer science so G-d's non-literal truths are all confined to the Bible for you.

Doesn't make sense, and especially seems silly to make that choice when serious regard for scientific evidence actually supports the existence of a Creator.

I'm not interested in your theoretical abstract "creator." I'm interested in HaShem, the Biblical G-d.

Do you think God is playing tricks on all of contemporary natural and social science? I don't.

So? You think G-d "played tricks" on mankind for three thousand years, from the time the Torah was given on Mt. Sinai, until the nineteenth century--you even think your church fathers didn't know what they were talking about! So how is this any nobler than "playing tricks on natural scientists?" And again, on what grounds do "natural and social(???) scientists" have to reject the idea that a fully formed universe was created in the beginning that only then began to function "normally" (and that there were changes in "natual law" even after this)?

It strikes me that you believe what you do simply because you want to. You're a scientist and for the glory of your profession you turn the Bible into mythology and reject all traditional commentaries as pre-modern ignorance. And perhaps also you have an aversion to that culture that interprets the Bible literally ("those awful people").

Empiricism and "reason" give only an indirect knowledge of G-d. The Holy Torah gives direct knowledge of G-d. After all, every human being's name and all that happens to him is encoded in the text. You think the "documentary hypothesis" could produce that?

I said science does not have empirical access to that which is prior to the beginning of the universe. After that, we do have empirical evidence of the genesis of the universe from that point forward. Have you ever taken a physics class? Have you studied astronomy? Do you deny the reality represented by these sciences?

I said science does not have empirical access to that which is prior to the beginning of the universe. After that, we do have empirical evidence of the genesis of the universe from that point forward. Have you ever taken a physics class? Have you studied astronomy? Do you deny the reality represented by these sciences? Humans did not appear on the scene until very recently, within the relative age of the cosmos. Billions of years passed from the moment of time at the beginning of the universe until the first Homo sapiens walked the earth, around 250,000 years ago. To speak of these timelines as occurring within a literal seven days is ludicrous from my perspective. In fact, the concept of a day, as in 24 hours, is based upon the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to the sun, and has no meaning outside of that context, and so obviously doesn't pertain to God, who is not bound by time as we know it in these terms.

I said science does not have empirical access to that which is prior to the beginning of the universe. After that, we do have empirical evidence of the genesis of the universe from that point forward. Have you ever taken a physics class? Have you studied astronomy? Do you deny the reality represented by these sciences?

Please just answer one question. Could or could not G-d have created a fully formed, fully functional universe when only then began to operate along the lines of the "natural law" you believe in? Could or could not the laws of nature as they existed prior to the sin, the flood, and the dispersion have been very, very different from the natural laws we know today? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Are you saying that if G-d had created a fully grown man, or a fully grown tree, or the Grand Canyon by fiat rather than by allowing them all to develop "naturally" that He would then be a deceiver because such is "unfair to scientists?" Is this why you adamantly reject the idea of a completed universe created swiftly a relatively short time ago? Why should G-d be any more fair to scientists than He has been to theologians for the past three thousand plus years?

Could G-d have created the Grand Canyon? Answer yes or no. Why are you so certain that after an initial instant of creation everything began to function naturally? Can you answer me at all?

Humans did not appear on the scene until very recently, within the relative age of the cosmos. Billions of years passed from the moment of time at the beginning of the universe until the first Homo sapiens walked the earth, around 250,000 years ago. To speak of these timelines as occurring within a literal seven days is ludicrous from my perspective. In fact, the concept of a day, as in 24 hours, is based upon the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to the sun, and has no meaning outside of that context, and so obviously doesn't pertain to God, who is not bound by time as we know it in these terms.

First of all, a Vatican scientist some time ago wouldn't even state with certitude that the earth rotates (and I'm not talking about four hundred years ago, either). Second of all, a night consists of twelve hours and a day consists of twelve hours. These hours are relative, meaning merely 1/12 of the night or day. Right now daytime hours are longer than nighttime hours. The situation will be reversed in the winter.

You know, the fact that you and I continue to talk past each other simply illustrates that our two sides will never understand one another. You speak of "straw men," yet what you fail to realize is that I also agree that there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally--however--these parts are determined not by "modern scholarship" but by ancient tradition.

Similarly, you are focused so narrowly on creation in "six 23 hour days" (which of course they were) but you are missing the point, which is not that those 24 hours were the same as our 24 hours (indeed, they may have been even shorter!) but that the universe, the earth, and life did not develop naturally. You want G-d to start the whole ball rolling (like an eighteenth century deist) and then let "natural law" do its work. And that's the problem! There was no natural law!!! And when there was it wasn't at all like ours (I keep mentioning the short gestation period, and you keep ignoring me).

I give up. The Catholic "gxd" is indeed the "gxd" of the philosophers and intellectuals and not at all the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who according to you probably didn't exist, unless you want to engage in more hypocrisy and inconsistency).

Could or could not G-d have created a fully formed, fully functional universe when only then began to operate along the lines of the "natural law" you believe in?

He could have. But He didn't.

Could or could not the laws of nature as they existed prior to the sin, the flood, and the dispersion have been very, very different from the natural laws we know today?

I have no reason to believe so.

Are you saying that if G-d had created a fully grown man, or a fully grown tree, or the Grand Canyon by fiat rather than by allowing them all to develop "naturally" that He would then be a deceiver because such is "unfair to scientists?"

Nope, never said that. I said I do not believe God would create human beings and give them a position in the universe perfectly situated as to discover the universal laws of physics, just to play games with them, when in fact He had actually created a universe that operates under completely separate principles. That's not the God I know intimately through prayer and study of the sacred scripture and tradition.

Could G-d have created the Grand Canyon?

He did create it. He just decided to do so in a way that can be measured in terms of billions of revolutions of the earth around the sun. We call these "years."

Why are you so certain that after an initial instant of creation everything began to function naturally?

Mountains of empirical evidence in physics. What makes you so certain it didn't?

Could or could not G-d have created a fully formed, fully functional universe when only then began to operate along the lines of the "natural law" you believe in?

He could have. But He didn't.

And you know this how? Because you choose to believe it?

Could or could not the laws of nature as they existed prior to the sin, the flood, and the dispersion have been very, very different from the natural laws we know today?

I have no reason to believe so.

So you utterly reject all ancient tradition that conflicts with "modern science?"

I said I do not believe God would create human beings and give them a position in the universe perfectly situated as to discover the universal laws of physics, just to play games with them, when in fact He had actually created a universe that operates under completely separate principles.

So that's why you believe the "laws of nature" have been exactly as they are now from the very first fiat lux. It would be "unfair" for you scientists if they had ever been different at any time. So I guess this means you reject the idea that Adam and Eve were originally immortal as well. Why you think G-d should have greater respect for uniformitarian physical scientists than theologians is something you have chosen not to share.

That's not the God I know intimately through prayer and study of the sacred scripture and tradition.

What "tradition?" The perennial Tradition we have had since the days of Adam (for your sake I'll say Moses), or the measly "tradition" of Charles Darwin and Julius Wellhausen? Which of your church fathers taught "higher criticism?" St. Jerome, perhaps?

He did create it [the Grand Canyon]. He just decided to do so in a way that can be measured in terms of billions of revolutions of the earth around the sun. We call these "years."

And again, you know this how, since whether it was created in situ or as you describe it would look exactly the same? Are you saying it all comes down to personal preference as to what one chooses to believe?

Why are you so certain that after an initial instant of creation everything began to function naturally?

Mountains of empirical evidence in physics.

What "mountains of evidence?" As I said, whether the universe was created the way you or I believe it would still look and function exactly as it does. One way the laws of physics as we know them go all the back to fiat lux, the other they go all the way back to a time when they were changed from a previous state, and before that to a time when they began to function on a fully-assembled universe. You are basically admitting that you believe what you do merely because that is what you prefer to believe--again, because "G-d wouldn't lie to scientists" even though you believe he "lied" to theologians and scholars for three thousand years!

What makes you so certain it didn't?

I don't suppose your mind is the slightest bit open to the direct Divine authorship of the Torah, as in "written by G-d Himself and then dictated to Moses letter-for-letter at Mt. Sinai?" Do you have any grounds for your fanatical embrace of the "documentary hypothesis" other than that is what you enjoy believing?

And you know this how? Because you choose to believe it?

Faith and reason.

So you utterly reject all ancient tradition that conflicts with "modern science?"

No, I don't. Scientific reasoning is only one kind of reasoning, and it has its limits.

Why you think G-d should have greater respect for uniformitarian physical scientists than theologians is something you have chosen not to share.

I think God has more respect for genuinely objective scientists than a lot of theologians. Good science requires genuine humility, a quality typically lacking in many theologians, and the Lord adores humility.

What "tradition?"

Church tradition. The teachings of the Magisterium.

And again, you know this how, since whether it was created in situ or as you describe it would look exactly the same?

By the examination of the evidence through faith and through reason. I am aware of no valid reason to believe the grand canyon just appeared a few thousand years ago.

Are you saying it all comes down to personal preference as to what one chooses to believe?

It seems that's about all you have to go on. But in my case, no. On the contrary, it is about putting aside personal preferences and examining the facts that God allowed us to discover and the faculty of reason he blessed us with, to arrive at the truth.

What "mountains of evidence?"

Go to a university nearby where you live, and visit their library. Go to the section of the library where they house academic journals, and you will find floors and floors of empirical studies, and review articles, that have been peer-reviewed, with literally mountains of evidence in quantum physics, astronomy, anthropology, biology, etc. etc. You could not read it all in a lifetime.

As I said, whether the universe was created the way you or I believe it would still look and function exactly as it does.

No, I reject that premise. We started to investigate our universe in complete ignorance, and the more we investigate, the more it becomes apparent that human beings, and our sensory and cognitive capacities just happen to be perfectly equipped to discover universal principles operating in the universe and are able to apply this knowledge to predict and control the future. That's amazing. No other creature can do that with anything close to the precision of humans. Then, as we begin to investigate the universe, it just so happens that if even a minor change in a wide variety of variables would have turned out differently -- e.g., if there had been a thicker atmosphere with non-translucent gases; if we had been situated in a part of the galaxy that blocked our ability to see beyond our galaxy; etc -- we would not be able to discover what we now know today, including the big bang and the rate of expansion of the known universe, just to give one example. It just happens that our universe is built, and we are situation inside of it, so that we are precisely and amazingly able to discover fundamental, basic and universal principles by which it operates and which, examined with the eye toward the infinite, wonderfully validates and supports the belief in a Creator.

This WAS NOT abitrary, nor an accident. God made the universe and placed us within it, with the intent that we would discover his handiwork for ourselves. There is no other reasonable explanation that makes any sense to me--at least not that I have yet to encounter.

So you utterly reject all ancient tradition that conflicts with "modern science?"

No, I don't. Scientific reasoning is only one kind of reasoning, and it has its limits.

You reject the following traditions: when first created Adam had the body of what we would call a twenty year old man; the human gestation period was very brief until the first sin; G-d wrote the Torah and dictated it to Moses. How can science critique any of this? How would the world be different if the first man had been created 5769 years ago with the body of an adult? Really, how would things be any different at all?

By the examination of the evidence through faith and through reason. I am aware of no valid reason to believe the grand canyon just appeared a few thousand years ago.

In what way is the uniformitarian assumption scientific or even "reasonable?"

I think God has more respect for genuinely objective scientists than a lot of theologians. Good science requires genuine humility, a quality typically lacking in many theologians

LOL! Good one!

Oh wait . . . you were serious, weren't you?

Church tradition. The teachings of the Magisterium.

Then why do you reject the idea that Adam and Eve were created immortal? Isn't that part of your "church tradition," or was that just more "prideful theologians" shooting off their bazoos before the "humble scientists" proved what jackasses they were?

It seems that's about all you have to go on. But in my case, no. On the contrary, it is about putting aside personal preferences and examining the facts that God allowed us to discover and the faculty of reason he blessed us with, to arrive at the truth.

How can the fact that all humans today begin life as zygotes tell us anything about how the first man who ever existed came into being? How can the fact that the human gestation period is now some nine months tell us anything about the original gestation period? How can the fact that all plant life needs sunlight tell us anything about the period before this law kicked in, when all things (including this law) were still in the process of being created?

As I said, whether the universe was created the way you or I believe it would still look and function exactly as it does.

No, I reject that premise.

Why? As I asked before, how does watching the operation of the universe now tell us the first thing about its creation? So far all I'm hearing is "G-d wouldn't do that to us." And you still refuse to address the fact that turning the Torah into didactic mythology raises the same problem.

I am aware of no valid reason to believe the grand canyon just appeared a few thousand years ago.

Please forgive me for revisiting this issue, but if you reject your church's tradition about Adam and Eve being originally immortal then on what grounds do you justify arbitrarily accepting your church's tradition with regard to the virgin birth? What's the difference? How is the scientific worldview threatened by an immortal Adam created with a "20 year old" body (because "things like that just don't happen") but not by a human being born without a father? Or what's the difference between insisting that the human gestation period has always been nine months and insisting that a human birth always requires a human father? If you're going to defer to tradition with regard to the latter, on what grounds do you critique tradition with regard to the former?

Do you care to explain this?

You reject the following traditions: when first created Adam had the body of what we would call a twenty year old man;

Genesis tells us that Adam was formed from dust. It doesn't tell us exactly how he was formed from dust. Science teaches us that, indeed, humans are created from dust -- we emerge from the lowliest creatures, and our earliest ancestors enjoyed life in the primordial soup of primeval mud. God breathed a soul into the human being at the moment of human evolution, which I take to be the emergence of consciousness and language.

I see no reason, based on Scripture alone, to conclude he somehow must have been 20-years-old at the time of his creation by God.

the human gestation period was very brief until the first sin;

Huh? Please elaborate.

Eve did not have the same labor pains -- which can possibly be explained, as it suggested by early human skull fossils, on the basis of a smaller skull to pelvis ratio, as was the case before the cerebral cortex grew to its current proportions. We can only speculate.

At the very least, I would say original sin simply introduced suffering into the world that was not previously known to our first parents. How exactly that happened is a mystery we can only speculate about, because we are not given a scientific account of it in the Bible.

G-d wrote the Torah and dictated it to Moses.

Moses wrote it; the Lord inspired it, and protected it from error.

How can science critique any of this?

My point is not that science is a critique of Genesis; but that Genesis is not a science book. It teaches spiritual truth, not lessons in physics, geology, comparative biology, anthropology, etc.

How would the world be different if the first man had been created 5769 years ago with the body of an adult? Really, how would things be any different at all?

The question is moot, because the universe simply was not created a mere 5769 years ago. Ever heard of carbon dating?

I don’t reject my Church’s tradition about Adam and Eve being originally immortal. I never said I did. Their souls were immortal, as are those who are justified and sanctified in Christ.

Genesis tells us that Adam was formed from dust. It doesn't tell us exactly how he was formed from dust. Science teaches us that, indeed, humans are created from dust -- we emerge from the lowliest creatures, and our earliest ancestors enjoyed life in the primordial soup of primeval mud. God breathed a soul into the human being at the moment of human evolution, which I take to be the emergence of consciousness and language.

You have not yet explained how the world would look for function differently if the universe had been created fully formed 5769 years ago. All I get is that you subject the formation of the universe to the physical laws that exist today because you wish to do so.

I see no reason, based on Scripture alone, to conclude he somehow must have been 20-years-old at the time of his creation by God.

First, I didn't say Adam was created twenty years old, which is an absurdity. I said he was created with the body of what we today would consider an adult of approximately twenty years old. Are you perhaps incapable of seeing the difference? Next thing you know you'll be invoking the "false memories" fairy tale.

Second, I said absolutely nothing about "scripture alone." You evidently have not been reading my posts. I have said from the beginning that it is immemorial tradition that Adam was created with the body of what we would call an adult of about twenty years age. The text says no such thing. Looks like you're the "protestant" here.

the human gestation period was very brief until the first sin;

Huh? Please elaborate.

I have elaborated on this time and time again, evidently to be conveniently ignored by you because it goes against your prejudices. According to the Talmud Adam and Eve on the day they were created "went down as two and rose as seven." They had two acts of sexual intercourse, the first of which produced Cain and a twin sister and the second of which produced Abel and two "triplet" sisters. G-d told Eve "Harbah 'arbeh `itztzevonekh veheronekh" ("I will multiply your pain and your conception"), meaning that the gestation period was increased to nine months. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Moses wrote it; the Lord inspired it, and protected it from error.

Don't you mean J, E, P, and D wrote it and that it was later "attributed" to Moses?

My point is not that science is a critique of Genesis; but that Genesis is not a science book. It teaches spiritual truth, not lessons in physics, geology, comparative biology, anthropology, etc.

The creation of the universe and its formation prior to when the laws of nature began to function is not a legitimate field of scientific endeavor. It is altogether outside the purview of science. Cosmogony is theology. Science has nothing to say about it.

How would the world be different if the first man had been created 5769 years ago with the body of an adult? Really, how would things be any different at all?

The question is moot, because the universe simply was not created a mere 5769 years ago.

Wow. What circular reasoning. The universe couldn't have been created fully formed 5769 years ago because of the evidence of the physical sciences. I ask you how that evidence would be the slightest bit different, and you say the point is moot because the universe wasn't created fully formed 5769 years ago because of the evidence of the physicl sciences. You're gonna win a Nobel Prize before it's over.

Ever heard of carbon dating?

Yes I have. I've also heard how unreliable it can be.

I don’t reject my Church’s tradition about Adam and Eve being originally immortal. I never said I did. Their souls were immortal, as are those who are justified and sanctified in Christ.

Ah, so they weren't created physically immortal at all and the Council of Trent were a bunch of yahoos who didn't know what they were talking about. Thank you for clearing that up. (Actually, from my perspective, Adam and Eve may have been created mortal. But then, I don't have to ignore the Council of Trent to believe that.)