Posted on 01/15/2005 3:57:44 PM PST by Catholic54321
Was the world created exactly as it says in the book of Genesis, or is the theory of evolution a more accurate account? Not every faith that includes Genesis among its Scriptures feels compelled to debate the matter. For the vast majority of Jews, any discrepancy between science and faith was pretty much settled 1,100 years ago, said Rabbi Steve Vale of Congregation Ha-Makom (The Jewish Community of Solano County).
Saadia Gaon, a Babylonian rabbi who helped codify Rabbinic Judaism, resolved the conflict, Vale said.
"Saaida Gaon said that if there is scientific evidence of something and it contradicts what Torah (Scripture) says, the Torah can't be wrong and science can't be wrong. I'm wrong. I'm interpreting it wrong," the rabbi explained.
Genesis, for instance, says the world was created in seven days. "There's no compelling reason for us to say a day is 24 hours," Vale said. "There's no reason to say God could not create the world through evolution."
Nor do Jews necessarily hold that Genesis is the start of the story. "'In the beginning' really means, 'when God was beginning the world,' " Vale said. "The Bible starts the story with the beginning of life and human beings, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it was the beginning of God or his creation."
It is impossible to know whether the world evolved or was created as Genesis describes it, Vale said, but that's not the point of Scripture.
"For Jews, the Bible is a book about why we are here and how we're supposed to act, not how we're created. People are welcome to read that into it, but it's not for us," Vale said. "I'm more interested in how I'm supposed to act, how I'm supposed to treat people on the streeet, how am I supposed to connect to God through the acts in my life."
A similar philosophy guides Roman Catholic teaching.
"We say that the lessons of the Bible are lessons about God's relationship with the human race and our relationship with God - that all the stories are calculated, if you will, to elucidate something of the relationship between God and the universe and his people," said the Rev. Vincent O'Reilly of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Vacaville. "So the Bible tells us who made the world and what the responsibility of creation is to the one who created it, but we rely on science to teach us how the world developed."
In the Catholic church, science and faith collided in the 17th century, when astronomers Johannes Kepler and Galileo upended the church's teaching that the Earth was the center of the universe. In the intervening 400 years, Catholic theologians and scientists have come to a truce.
"All truth has to come from God," O'Reilly explained. "If science is telling us some truth about the development or evolution of the universe, then that's the truth as we know it today. Five hundred years from now, some scientist may come up with a slightly different version. But that won't change our position that a creator designed the universe and we're striving to understand how."
Besides, he added, how God created the world isn't the point of the creation story. "The story is ultimately that human beings are the highpoint of God's creation. And God has charged humans with responsibility for the rest of creation."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints also doesn't spend a lot of time debating the fine points of evolution or creationism. Its official teaching lies between the two points.
"We believe that God created the world, but not necessarily in seven days," said Dayton Call, a spokeman for the church in Solano County. "When it comes to evolution, we don't believe human beings evolved. We believe we were descended from Adam and Eve. But that's as far as the church's position goes on the subject. If there's evolution involved as far as the creative process, we would not argue that there's not."
Orthodox Christians also steer clear of the creation vs. evolution debate, said the Rev. Silas Ruark of St. Timothy Orthodox Church (Antiochan) in Cordelia.
"Orthodoxy basically accepts the fact that there is very much we don't know about the beginning and the end," Ruark said. "We know that in the beginning God created. And we know that in the end he will bring it to a close. But to venture into a great deal of speculation about the how or even the when is for us to assume that we can understand the mind of God."
Most Orthodox Christians accept the Genesis account as being a "true revelation of God's creation and God's interaction with humankind," Ruark said. Orthodox Christianity also teaches that the world has "gone haywire" through the disobedience of humankind.
"But the exact hows of the creation, the hows of his incarnation and the hows of his second coming are known only to God," Ruark said.
The problem comes in when it's made the State's religion and you will bow down to it, or else. That's the problem
At this point in the Word, the style is story telling. At Genesis 12, the Word switches styles to historical fact where the internal sense there is the prophecy of Jesus Christ's nativity.
He's wrong.
Look at the order of the Creation days, what came first in what order.
The two accounts differ on their order and they differ on their instructions to be fruitful and multiply.
Then God goes on to create other things. Interesting that we have "eyes" created first (that "looked" thing) and only later the animals with a need for the eyes.
It's not mine to fathom the mysteries of God's judgments, however, I do believe the brief account in Genesis is short on the details, as well as the sequences!
I love science and I love Torah. No conflict whatsoever for me.
Show me where they differ
A very excellent article, except for this line:
"In the Catholic church, science and faith collided in the 17th century, when astronomers Johannes Kepler and Galileo upended the church's teaching that the Earth was the center of the universe. In the intervening 400 years, Catholic theologians and scientists have come to a truce."
What got Galileo in trouble, of course, was not his heliocentric model (thus also bringing his incorrect* theory into disrepute), but the way he used it to refute God's Creation of the world. I am ceaselessly baffled the way creationist Protestants use this as an example of the Catholic Church misbehaving, while they reject the notion that the Earth was created more than 34 generations before David.
(*incorrect in that Galileo rejected Johannes Kepler, instead insisting on circular orbits.)
Good point. Prior to Gen. 12, the bible is pre-history. Unlike the rest of the bible, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are, on their face, not recording any memory of events. To assert that they were a literal chronology of historic events would be to assert direct revelation, which did not happen until Christ. Rather, they are true myth.
The word "myth" has been destroyed by modernists. It is now believed that "myth" means a falsely held common notion. Dictionary.com's first definition is problemmatic, but suffices: "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth."
What distinguishes the Creation myth from pagan myths is not that it is historical, while pagan myths are not. It is that the Creation myth is wholly true, while pagan myths are not.
The fall of Adam describes our own fall, and the essence of our broken relationship with God. It is myth, but it is true myth.
"[I]n the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul"
(Genesis 2:4b-7)
What is described as taking place over six days in Genesis 1 takes place in a single day in Genesis 2. This is not because Genesis is false, but because "day," here, is not literal. I.e., it does not occur in 24 hours. Rather, "day" is used mythically, to represent a time of work.
But also note, that Genesis 2 says that Man was created in the day that he created the Heavens and Earth, and this was BEFORE he plants had grown from the earth. In the first account, the Earth brought forth every kind of plant and vegetation on the fourth day, and man was created on the sixth day.
Read as facts, these stories contradict. Read as myth, they simply describe two different sets of relationships.
You need not fear a slippery slope leading from a recognition of how to read a myth to the apostasy of the modernists who read everything as myth and deny the resurrection of Christ: There are passages of the bible to assert what is not only myth, but what is also history: Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25; 1st John 1:1-4; 1 Cor 15: 15-29; 2 Tim 2:18.
(The New Testament is written entrely by witnesses; but there are other portions of the Old Testament which depict events which no-one could witness, such as in the book of Job.)
If the days were not LITERAL DAYS, then there was no reason for GOD HIMSELF to use the word DAY here, was there? You are calling God a liar when you do that...
We believe that Adam and Noah represent Churches.
I used to say 'think of the creation story like a parable' but I'm changing the meaning of language to avoid using a perfectly good word:
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)" Myth Myth, n. Written also mythe. Gr. my^qos myth, fable, tale, talk, speech: cf. F. mythe.
1. A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical.
Not to jump in here, but Jesus taught using parables... which are stories.
I wouldn't say the literal sense of the Word is wrong - or a lie - but I would say in different contexts it means different things. Both externally and internally. And every word is important in meaning i.e. why would evening and morning describe a day other than it being a state change.
I think of it this way: it is important that our children know and understand the creation story. Genesis 1 describes like a parable how we are born again... something every Christian must know and face.
What's interesting is that the 7th day is what starts off Genesis 2. After which the creation is repeated but out of sequence. Wouldn't think that it would be that hard to remember what was on the previous page.
Arcana Coelestia (Elliott) n. 81
THE INTERNAL SENSE The subject in this chapter is the celestial man; in the previous chapter it was the spiritual man who progressed to being spiritual from having been a dead man. But since people nowadays do not know what the celestial man is, and scarcely know what the spiritual man is or what the dead man is, let the nature of each one be presented briefly, in order that it may be known how they differ. First. The dead man acknowledges no other truth or good than that belonging to the body and the world. This he also worships. The spiritual man acknowledges spiritual and celestial truth and good. But he does so not so much from love as from faith, which is also the basis of his actions. The celestial man believes and perceives spiritual and celestial truth and good, and does not acknowledge any other faith than that which stems from love, which is also the basis of his actions. Second. The dead man has solely the life of the body and of the world as his ends in view. He does not know what eternal life is, or what the Lord is. Or if he does know, he does not believe. The spiritual man has eternal life, and therefore the Lord, as his ends in view. The celestial man has the Lord and therefore His kingdom and eternal life as his ends in view. Third. The dead man when involved in conflict nearly always gives in. And when there is no conflict evils and falsities reign supreme within him, making him their slave. His bonds are external ones, such as fear of the law, loss of life, wealth, profits, and reputation on account of these. The spiritual man is involved in conflict, but he always conquers. The bonds which restrain him are internal, and are called the bonds of conscience. The celestial man is not involved in conflict. If evils and falsities assail him, he treats them with contempt, and is therefore called a conqueror. No visible bonds restrict him, for he is a free man. His bonds, which are not visible, are perceptions of good and truth.
Think of Angels as 'celestial man'.
Not sure what your point is, but whatever.
From the article: "But the exact hows of the creation, the hows of his incarnation and the hows of his second coming are known only to God," What I am saying is that we believe that it was revealed to Swedenborg by the Lord the detailed internal sense of Genesis, Exodus and the Book of Revelation - and he compiled volumes on it in Latin. We have a small church (read: not main stream religion/MSR) which teaches Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that specific Writing of Swedenborg are the Word of the Lord. Further of the New Testament, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Book of Revelation are the Word. The epistles are not.
As for the days/day meaning, AC89 states:
'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when He created them, on the day in which Jehovah God made the earth and the heavens. 'The generations of the heavens and the earth' are stages in the formation of the celestial man. The fact that the formation of that man is now the subject is also quite clear from the details that follow, for example 'no plant had yet sprung up', 'there was no man to till the ground', then 'Jehovah God formed the man', and after that 'every beast and bird of the air'.* According to the previous chapter, man, beast, and bird have been formed already, which means that a different man is the subject here. This is further evident from the fact that 'Jehovah God' is now mentioned for the first time, whereas previously, when the subject has been the spiritual man, He is called simply 'God'. Also 'ground and field' are referred to now, whereas previously it was merely 'the earth'. And in the present verse 'heaven' is first of all mentioned before 'earth' and then 'earth' before 'heaven'. This is because 'earth' means the external man and 'heaven' the internal. With the spiritual man, in whom reformation is taking place, the starting point is the earth or external man; but here, where the subject is celestial man, the starting point is the internal man or heaven. * lit. bird of the heavens (or the skies)
Oh yeah, I get it now. All the implications and inferences of what is NOT explicitly stated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.