Many years ago I set off on a mission. My mission was simple. Read the Bible from cover to cover, start to finish. What could go wrong?
Anyone who has ever attempted this probably knows what happened. Leviticus happened. And anyone who makes it through the book of Leviticus is faced with two more daunting books: Numbers and Deuteronomy. The three books are largely composed of laws, building specifications, statistics, and very few stories. Only the most driven make it through the first five books of the Bible without stopping.
But anyone who has even tried will likely find himself face to face with chapters in the Bible that have received much attention lately: The creation stories in Genesis. The first account (Gen 1) of creation describes how God created the universe and everything in it in six days. The second presents a different perspective on the creation of man and woman, along with the garden of Eden (Gen 2). Many read these stories and wonder how they square up with modern science.
After all, scientists date the age of the earth to approximately 4.54 billion years,1 with the earliest human ancestors setting the stage around six to seven million years ago.2 According to scientific discoveries, man didn’t exactly show up on day six of creation. Furthermore, the theory of evolution holds that man evolved over millions of years from apes!3
So what are we to believe? Are the Bible and science opposed to each other? Did we come from Adam and Eve or monkeys? How can we make sense of this?
Well, it depends on who you ask. Answers will vary even among devout Christians. So I’ll attempt to demonstrate the Catholic understanding of the dilemma. And as we will find out, this is no dilemma at all. In fact, many scientific discoveries were made by men of faith.4 (The Big Bang Theory came from a Priest!) As discussed in a previous post (here), faith doesn’t need to fear science. Instead, faith guides science. And in return, science enriches faith.
All that said, I don’t plan to comment on whether the theory of evolution is true or not. True or not, a Christian can rest assured that it does not contradict the Bible.
Science and Religion
Understanding Science
We first need to understand what science is. To be brief, we might say that science studies the material world through human reason and ingenuity. It’s a tool that we use to discover truths about this world. But because humans are flawed creatures, sometimes our reasoning can be incorrect, and our theories are sometimes wrong. But in general, humanity has gained much understanding of the world through science. Our advances in medicine, computing, and the like are a testament to our success through science. So at the very least, science deserves our attention when it says something.
Going forward, we need to understand two things. First, faith establishes boundaries for science. There are truths that we hold by faith that cannot budge, no matter what science tells us (for instance, God is the creator of the universe). If science opposes these truths, then science is wrong. In this way, faith guides science by making defined and objective truths.
And second, science enriches faith. When scientific discoveries appear to oppose truths of our faith, it’s often a chance to enrich and broaden our understanding of that truth. In this way, it doesn’t change our minds, so much as it clarifies our understanding.
What Can’t Change
When we consider evolution, we see both aspects at play. Let’s look at some of those things that faith affirms, which science cannot change. First, the universe had a beginning, and God was the cause of that beginning (Gen 1:1). God created everything out of nothing, and whether life developed over time or in an instant, it did so under the guidance of God.5
When it comes to mankind, there is more to consider. For starters, we must understand that man is composed of both body and soul. Unlike angels, which are pure spirit, or animals, which lack an immortal soul, mankind was created as a hybrid of body and spirit.
A Catholic may hold that man’s body developed over time, until God instilled in it an immortal soul. Consider how in the second creation story God “formed the man of dust from the ground” and then God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (Gen 2:7). Notice the distinction between God forming man’s body and breathing life into that body. This “forming”could have taken place over time, through natural biological reproduction. It isn’t until God “breathed” the breath of life into his nostrils that man is complete.
Pope Pius XII taught in his encyclical, Humani Generis, that the “Church does not forbid that… research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”. Man’s soul, however, did not evolve over time. Pope Pius XII continued, saying that “the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God”.6
But one might wonder, why must man’s soul be created in an instant? Why didn’t it evolve too?
Man isn’t just the smartest of animals. While he is similar to animals in that he possess a biological, natural body, he differs from them in his unique role in creation, and in his possession of an immortal and supernatural soul. The Second Vatican Council taught that “man was created ‘to the image of God,’ is capable of knowing and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures that he might subdue them and use them to God’s glory”.7 And similarly, the psalmist affirms that God “made him [man] a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You [God] have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:5-6).
Man’s body may have naturally evolved from animals, but this natural process cannot yield a supernatural soul. As it is written in the book of Ecclesiastes, “the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl 12:7).
What about Adam and Eve?
Finally, we must hold that Adam and Eve were real people.8 They were the first of mankind, the first humans to bear the image of God, and all of humanity descended from them. The Bible teaches that sin entered into the world, and was passed down to all of humanity through one man. St. Paul says that “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that,
“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
The details of Adam and Eve’s lives are subject to debate. But their existence as our first parents is not. With all that said, we still have to see how the creation stories can be reconciled with science. So without further delay, let’s get biblical.
Understanding the Bible
In the Beginning
In the first chapter of the Bible, we read an account of God creating the universe over the course of 6 days. With the highly quoted “Let there be light” (Gen 1:3), God began His work. On days 1, 2, and 3 He created space, sky and water, and land (Gen 1:3-13). On days 4, 5, and 6 He filled creation with planets and stars, birds and fish, and animals and humans (Gen 1:14-31). And on day 7, God took a well deserved rest (Gen 2:2).
This story tells us a lot about the origin of the cosmos, the nature of creation, and the work of the Creator. And it clashes with our modern scientific understanding. But we need to take a step back and recognize that the Bible isn’t a science textbook. It’s an ancient document, written in a different culture and different era. And if we aren’t careful, we’ll fall into the trap of thinking that everyone uses language the same as we do.
I’m not saying that the creation story isn’t true. It is. But we need to be careful what details we say are true. For example, pretend I explained to a child that Jesus is stronger than Superman. Am I lying? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean Superman is real. I’d be appealing to common knowledge of our time to convey a timeless truth. Similarly, God can convey truths through finite human knowledge and language. To this point, the Second Vatican Council taught that,
“Truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.”9
The Bible isn’t just a book. It’s a library of books, with varying genres. And each book (or portion of a book) must be interpreted according to its genre. After all, you wouldn’t interpret the Song of Songs (a love poem) the same way as you would interpret the Acts of the Apostles (early Church history). The results would be disastrous. So too, we must take caution in how we read the creation stories in Genesis.
The fact is, creation may have taken place in six 24 hour days, but we aren’t going against the Bible if we believe otherwise. In fact, a careful reading of the creation story seems to indicate that the author didn’t intend us to take him literally. Notice that God created the sun, moon, and stars on day 4, that they might be “lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth” (Gen 1:15). But God already created light on day 1. This alone should give us a hint that the author of Genesis didn’t mean to write a scientific, chronological account of creation, since there was light before there was a light source.
Similarly, we might also note that in the first creation story, God created man after animals. But in the second creation story, God created man before animals (compare Gen 1:24-26 with Gen 2:19). The point here is, these stories sought to teach us important facts about our origins, but they were never intended to be a science textbook for the beginning of the universe.
An Alternate Reading
While a Catholic may hold that God created the world in six 24 hour days, that is not our only option. Trent Horn describes what has come to be called “the framework interpretation.” He explains that the framework interpretation holds that “the six days of Creation do not consist of a literal, chronological description of the events, but instead represent the human author’s nonliteral, topical way of describing how God created the world.”10 Allow me to explain.
Notice that before God created, “the earth was without form and void” (Gen 1:2, emphasis added). It was without order, and it was empty. But then God began to create. Horn explains that “in the first three days God creates the realms where specific creatures will reside – the sky, the waters, the land and vegetation. He fills those realms in the next three days, creating the lights in the sky, the birds and fish, and land animals.”11 In the first three days, God brings order to what was formless. And in the next three days, he fills what was empty. As Scott Hahn said, “first the realms and then the rulers.” In short, this framework “shows us what and why God created.”12
Final Thoughts
This conflict between the creation story and modern science has raised many concerns among Christians. Many have been troubled at the thought that science may be disproving things in the Bible. But this simply isn’t true. When we understand each in its proper realm and context, we find no conflict. The Church affirms that “methodical research in all branches of knowledge… can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God” (CCC159).
No doubt, the findings of modern science will certainly continue to develop. And with every new development, our faith will be enriched. We discover the genius behind God’s creation as we grow in our understanding of the universe. St. Paul affirms that “ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made” (Rom 1:20).
Wanna get more content form On This Rock Apologetics? Sign up for email updates here!
Sources
1. Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com. “How Old Is Earth?” Space.com, www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html.
2. Trasancos, Stacy A. “Particles of Faith: a Catholic Guide to Navigating Science.” Particles of Faith: a Catholic Guide to Navigating Science, Ave Maria Press, 2016, p. 148.
3. Than, Ker. “What Is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution?” LiveScience. May 13, 2015. https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html.
4. Hahn, Scott. “Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith.” Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith, Doubleday, 2007, p. 16.
5. Catholic Answers, “Adam, Eve, and Evolution” (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2001)”. https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution.
6. Humani Generis (August 12, 1950) | PIUS XII. para 36 http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html.
7. Gaudium Et Spes, para 12 www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html.
8. Catholic Answers, “Adam, Eve, and Evolution” (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2001)”. https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution.
9. Dei Verbum, para 12 www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.
10. Horn, Trent. Hard Sayings: a Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties. Catholic Answers Press, 2016, p. 46-47
11. ibid
12. Hahn, Scott. A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture. Servant Books, 1998, p. 43-45
On This Rock Apologetics 
Very interesting! Coincidentally (maybe), I just listened to the part of St
Augustine’s *City of God* where he talks about the creation account in Genesis 1. He points out that since the sun didn’t exist until day 4, you couldn’t have sunrise or sunset, so you can’t have evening (which is the time during the setting of the sun). So he (in the 5th century) interpreted the days as periods of understanding and contemplation, with each “day” being an understanding of a particular aspect of creation and the praise of God in that creation. He then writes that the seventh day of rest therefore represents our eternal rest with God in Heaven.
Tangentially, I just read an excellent series of blog posts about the acceptance of Heliocentricity, with a whole section devoted to the Galileo incident. You can find them here: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html?m=0. Just another debunking of the “anti-science Church” trope.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you! That’s pretty fascinating. I need to read more of Augustine. I have only read a little by him, but he is crazy smart.
LikeLike
He is smart. But his writing is very dense and rather wordy, but definitely worth reading.
LikeLike
Your blogs are always well thought-out and presented clearly and logically.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Glad to hear all of the editing pays off. I owe a large part to my wife, who helped edit and reviewed again and again before it was posted. Thanks for the kind words!
LikeLiked by 2 people
This was such a detailed reading. I still remember when… I was about 11 or so and we were learning about evolution in school. My grandmother came to ask what I was doing (a project on evolution from apes) and when she found out – she freaked out and ran to my parents to ask if they knew what I was being taught in school. Even back then I knew enough to tell her that the science did not overrule the Bible. That they could go hand in hand, but she refused to accept it. I’m not sure what my parents told her to calm her down.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Evolution is a pretty scary theory for a lot of people (and I can understand why). But if that’s how God chose to form mankind, then He could have well done it that way. Whether it hold true with time we will see. But so far it is proving to be a very good theory. Either way, Christians don’t believe in God because of science (though it often points in His direction).
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is just no way to reconcile the story of Adam and Eve and humans coming into existence through the theory of evolution. None. All attempts are feeble efforts in confirmation bias. It so ridiculous, it hard to even start the rebuttal. I am a person of faith; thus, I can believe both in supernatural and things not proven by science. What I can’t believe, and won’t endorse, is a break in the continuity of an argument taken by a Christian apologist who supports science only to the point that suits their creed. Sorry, it’s all or none here. The Adam and Eve story does not just speak of the first humans, but of an environment that is both mythical and allegorical. If you want to say it was a parable inspired by God and written by Moses to set the groundwork for original sin that is a privilege a believer can take. But to take it as a literal interpretation of how humans came into existence, you must become a graduate of the “Ken Ham University”.
LikeLike
Hi Joseph, thank you for the comment. I’m not sure I see the disagreement. I am not taking a literal approach to the creation accounts. In fact, the only position I took was that the Bible can be reconciled with science, not exactly how humans originated. And my approach was to show that the creation story could be seen in a nonliteral way, just as you said a believer can. This method of reading scripture is not new.
In regard to my position on science, I’m not merely picking and choosing scientific facts to support my creed. Beliefs held by faith and reason are cannot be opposed to one another, for they all come from the same source, God. If they disagree with one another, then one must be wrong. But seeking to see how the Bible and science make sense together is not a compromise on either part.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eric, I think I share your passion for both truth and faith. And though your “reasoning” is not uncommon among intelligent well read Christians ( Bishop Barron, John Lennox, William Lane Craig), I think it is fundamentally flawed. You can have a reasonable faith, but you really can have faith that is reasonable. What I mean by that, is when you start with religious dogma to affirm a materialistic truth you are starting from non-scientific method whereas no rational consensus could necessarily be made among intelligent, well read, well intended, people who just don’t ascribe to that dogma. As long as one is fetter to dogma, they will never grow in faith or reason. God Bless.
LikeLike
Hi Joseph, I can see where you are coming from. I would certainly agree that we don’t let reason disprove dogma. But just because reason shows that a passage may not be literal doesn’t mean that it is contradicting the point the Bible is trying to make. I think where we differ is perhaps in the way we understand the role of reason. I see reason as something that is inherently from God, and science flows from that reason. Obviously we can reason to incorrect conclusions, but in general it leads us closer to truth. Evolution has a lot of development ahead of it, and maybe we will find that it doesn’t hold (we’ll find out later). But I don’t see it taking away from any dogmas of Christianity (though I do outline in section “What Can’t Change” in the article what dogmas we must hold to, in spite of evolution).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have a bunch of problems with this article!
First of all, you quote CCC 390, where, ““The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language”. Really? What words, pray tell, are to be taken figuratively? Neither you nor they even give a hint. We may thank the catechism for their sacred opinion, but it is rejected outright.
Second, you claim, “True or not, a Christian can rest assured that [evolution] does not contradict the Bible”. That, SIR, is false, and you implicitly admit it is false without even knowing it. You quote Romans 5:12: “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (repeated again in 1 Cor 15:21). Apparently you don’t realize the implications of that point in time wherein death entered the human race as a result of A & E deciding to have it their own way. The first death occurred when God provided A & E animal skins for clothing, period, end of story, and NOT before that. Evolution supposes the death of millions of creatures BEFORE A & E emerged on the scene. Thus, if death existed before Adam, then death is not the penalty for sin. If death is not tied to Adam’s sin in particular, then life is not tied to Christ’s death and resurrection either and the Christian faith is all in vain. Hence, evolution does indeed contradict the Bible and the statement in CCC 159 is false; namely, “The Church affirms that methodical research in all branches of knowledge… can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God”. NO. The ramifications of evolution on just that one point I brought up, prove the theory is downright satanic and did not come from the mind of God.
Third, you say, “And on day 7, God took a well deserved rest (Gen 2:2).”
Response: No. God does not need a well deserved rest. He only rested as a pattern that man follow, to rest at least one day a week, not that he, the Creator, was “tired” and needed to recover, which is what your statement implies.
Fourth, you claim that a “careful reading of the creation story seems to indicate that the author didn’t intend us to take him literally. Notice that God created the sun, moon, and stars on day 4, that they might be “lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth” (Gen 1:15). But God already created light on day 1.”
Response: The establishment of light (singular) on the first day is not the same as the establishment of the light BEARERS (plural) on day 4, and so is no implication not to take the writer literally, as you suppose. You forget that God himself izzzz “light” (as we read in James) and dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16). Thus, it is more reasonable to believe that the light spoken of in Gen 1 were simply waves of light energy that either emanated by his presence alone or spoken into being by the breath of his mouth.
Fifth, since you admit that “Adam and Eve were real people”, you cannot believe in evolution. The creation of Eve, out of Adam’s rib, renders the slow, millions-of-years evolution theory, impossible. Even if someone did think the Genesis account was allegorical, figurative, whatever, the formation of Eve out of Adam’s “side” cannot be reconciled with the theory of evolution. Eve was created whole and entire, ON THE SPOT, as was Adam, and for that matter, so was Christ in the womb of Mary.
Sixth, you inform us that the Big Bang theory came from a priest. Big deal. The point is, the priest is wrong because every textbook in the world on evolution posits ***some*** sort of matter at the beginning of the universe, however small it might be, that eventually exploded into what we now call the universe. But that is a direct contradiction to Hebrews 11:3, which demands NOTHING be in existence: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that the things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear.”
Finally, you quote the Pope: “The Church does not forbid that… research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”.
If the Pope knew the Bible, he would know that even the THOUGHT of God creating from pre-existing, living matter is NOT an option. Or, as you put it, he should have known that, “there are truths that we hold by faith that cannot budge, no matter what science tells us.” The Pope did not do this, but instead opened the door for discussion, As already mentioned, Hebrews 11:3 could not be more clear: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that the things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear.”
Your article agrees that God created out of nothing, but you have no words of condemnation for the Pope, who endorses the coming together of two opposing parties to discuss creation out of preexistent and living matter contrary to Hebrews 11.
NO!
When God made the universe, he did NOT need any pre-existent material to bring things into existence. It was enough for him to “speak and it was done” (Ps 33:9) his word alone having enough force to bring into existence a universe, “not made of things which do appear”.
LikeLike
First: You’re entitled to your opinion on whether or not Genesis 1-3 are figurative. And you’re right that the Catechism doesn’t really delve into the reasons for that assertion (of course, as a summary, I wouldn’t expect it to do so, perhaps checking the documents in the footnotes of the cited passage would be in order?). However, you simply assert without any evidence the opposite. So, thank you for your profane opinion, but it is rejected outright.
Second: Your entire premise rests on the assumption that Romans is talking about physical death, and physical death for all creatures, not just human beings. There are other ways of reading that passage. Paul could be referring to spiritual death, which has no contradiction whatsoever with there being physical death before the first sin. A second reading is that it refers to physical death, but only human death. Indeed, when you write, “Apparently you don’t realize the implications of that point in time wherein death entered the human race as a result of A & E deciding to have it their own way.”, you seem to implicitly give the nod to this interpretation. However, you contradict in the next sentence where you claim that the first death was the animals that God apparently killed to give Adam and Eve clothing. So this would be the third way of looking at it: that all physical death came from the sin of Adam. This last interpretation is the only one inconsistent with evolution, but (other than it being a common interpretation through the ages), I don’t find it any more or less compelling than the first two, which do not contradict other knowledge that we have. Personally, I think the second interpretation (that sin brought physical death to humans only) is a pretty good possibility. Regardless, all three interpretations have death as the penalty of sin, and life as is due to Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross and Resurrection, regardless of whether that “life” means physical life or spiritual life or both.
Third: I think you’re reading far to much into a humorous quip. We anthropomorphize God all the time, what’s wrong with this particular anthropomorphization?
Fourth: Here, you anthropomorphize God yourself. You say He has a mouth, but as a pure spirit, He has no such thing. That said, you’re entirely correct that God *could* have done it as you describe. But it’s also possible that Eric is right as well. Without other evidence, we can’t really tell.
Fifth: Ummm, says who? If you grant a figurative reading of Genesis 1/2, then there is no reason why Adam and Eve would have to be created whole and entire on the spot. After all, there are two accounts of Eve’s creation. In Genesis 1, she is created along with Adam, and there is no mention of a rib. In Genesis 2, we get the rib story. So which is it? Were they created simultaneously or one after the other? Once you have a figurative account that is more oriented towards theological truths instead of historical reality, these seeming contradictions become irrelevant and are just artifacts of the different points being made. Also, where do you get the idea that Christ was formed whole and entire in Mary’s womb? It’s pretty obvious from the Bible that Mary went through a normal pregnancy, which would mean Christ gestated as a normal baby, which implies that he started as a single cell like any other human person.
Sixth: Who says the priest posited that the matter from which the Big Bang came was eternal? Why on earth would it not be possible for God to create the singularity *ex nihilo* and then make it explode? There is no contradiction between this and Hebrews. Thus, there is no contradiction in the Papal statements on the matter.
LikeLike
Seo: You simply assert without any evidence, the opposite. So, thank you for your profane opinion, but it is rejected outright.
E.A. There is much evidence to take Genesis at face value and literally, for FAR too many reasons to list here, not the least of which is the word for “day” (“yom”) which cannot possibly mean anything else other than a 24 hour period of time, with possibly one exception, in the over 350 places it is used. If that isn’t enough to convince you, then I must leave you in your delusion. Evolution is indeed, “science falsely so-called” (1 Tim 6:20), I am convinced beyond all doubt. CREATION.COM has over 20,000 articles which technically refutes the Pope’s endorsement of Evo at every juncture. Yes, each and every one of those 20,000 articles cast a black cloud over papal pretentions. For example, we read:
“The strongest structural parallel of Genesis 1 is Numbers 7:10–84. Both are structured accounts, both contain the Hebrew word for “day” (yôm) with a numeric; indeed both are numbered sequences in conjunction with “yom”. In Numbers 7, each of the 12 tribes brought an offering on the different days:
The one who brought his offering on the first day was Nahshon…
On the second day Nethanel… brought his offering …
On the third day, Eliab… brought his offering. …
On the twelfth day Ahira… brought his offering. …
The parallel is even stronger when we note that Numbers 7 not only has each day (יֹום yôm) numbered, but also opens and closes with ‘in the day that’ to refer collectively to all the ordinary days of the sequence. In spite of the use of ‘in the day that’ in verses 10 and 84, no one doubts that the numbered day sequence in Numbers 7 (verses 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 78) involves anything but ordinary-length days, because these days lack a preposition like ‘in’. This REFUTES the claim that ‘in the day that’ (ביום beyôm) from Genesis 2:4 (summarizing Creation Week) and supposing that the Genesis 1 days are not normal-length. THEY ARE. This is simply a Hebrew idiom for ‘when’ (see NASB, NIV Genesis 2:4 cf. Numbers 7:10, 84).
In this structured narrative (Numbers 7) with a sequence of numbered days, no one claims that it is merely a poetic framework for teaching something theological and that it is not history. No one doubts that the days in Numbers 7 are ordinary days, so there is no grammatical basis for denying the same for the Genesis 1 days. That is, Genesis 1 is straightforward history. Hebrew has special grammatical forms for recording history, and Genesis 1–11 uses those. It has the same structure as Genesis 12 onwards and most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc. It is not poetry or allegory.”
Seo: Your entire premise rests on the assumption that Romans is talking about physical death, and physical death for ***all*** creatures, not just human beings. There are other ways of reading that passage.
E.A.: No there is not…unless you wish to be assigned to the category of the mentally bereft.
Seo: I think the interpretation (that sin brought physical death to humans only) is a pretty good possibility.
E.A. No it isn’t, because you are forgetting one vitally gargantuan point, comprised of only 2 words: “VERY GOOD”. What I mean is, while people like you propose that death existed BEFORE Adam (in an effort to support millions of years of life and death via evolution before A & E came on the scene), we say the polar opposite. We say the Text is clear that there was no death before sin entered the world…AT ALL… because the finished creation was said to be “VERY GOOD”, with an abundance of food and all other provisions for every creature which was perfectly formed…ON THE SPOT… and immediately and abruptly fit for their own environment. Hence, It simply would not be logical to utter “VERY GOOD” and then proceed with the the death-riddled concept of evolution before creating A & E as his crowning achievement. In any case, Evo is a myth simply because it is not possible for any creature to function in any capacity if they are only slightly formed, half formed, or on its way to being formed. The entire biological structure MUST be in place at the get-go, and all sound reasoning tells us that is so. Hence, when A & E sinned, God brought the curse of decay and death upon them… AND ALSO upon his dominion as explicitly stated in Gen 3:17-19; 8:21 & 1 Cor 15:21-22.
Seo: Here, you anthropomorphize God yourself. You say He has a mouth, but as a pure spirit, He has no such thing.
E.A.: I already know that, but take it up with him on Judgment Day because those are his own words,
“By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33).
Seo: Who says the priest posited that the matter from which the Big Bang came was eternal?
E.A. It is a fact that every theory of evolution (and there are several), posit SOME form of matter at the get-go, which eventually exploded, and that would include whatever form of the theory Fr. George held to. Face it: Explosions naturally bring chaos, not eventual order, harmony and beauty, so the priest’s big bang proposition is a failure. But oh yes…Scripture does support the big bang in a certain sense. He commanded and…BANG…it was done.
Seo: Why on earth would it not be possible for God to create the singularity *ex nihilo* and then make it explode?
E.A. Now you’re just being foolish, using the worst apologetic known to man: the old, “God can do anything” trick, used by religious folk to sell whatever it is they have. NO. The fact that God can do anything is no PROOF. There must be something more beyond that simple truth to set it apart from a religious snake salesman. As for you, you are adding to Scripture the possibility that “out of nothing” God formed some glob of whatever, and then made it expand and explode to accommodate the fairy tale of evolution. But that contradicts Hebrews 11.
Seo: There is no contradiction between this and Hebrews.
E.A. Yes there is! Hebrews clearly indicates he does not need a THING to get the ball rolling, and Psalm 33:9 confirms, “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast”. IOW, creation on the spot, and oh yes…”by the breath of his mouth”.
Seo: Thus, there is no contradiction in the Papal statements on the matter.
E.A. There most certainly is, and it is a grave contradiction indeed. As a side not, we are told to recognize false teachers by two of their doctrines in particular. We should look for a false show of spirituality or appearance of piety and self-denial; in this case, “forbidding to marry” and commanding to abstain from meat (1 Tim 4:3). Two items that no other religion other than Catholicism is famous for to this very day, forbidding their clergy to marry, resulting in their perverted priesthood on the 6:00 news every night for the last 40 years, let alone the pious order to abstain from meat during Lent, “which God [on the other hand] has created to be received with thanksgiving by them which believe and know the truth” (ibid). Hence, I am not about to give the Pope ONE INCH by his trying to sneak evolution in through the back door because the Bible clearly prophecied that he is a member of a society that is not to be trusted.
LikeLike
Your side note confirms what I suspected: you are not arguing in good faith. You have repeatedly read statements in the worst light instead of trying to understand what the author is conveying. And your final paragraph is a foolish, insulting, ad hominem, and besides the point attack on the faith that I and Eric both share. As such, I don’t really see any further point in this discussion.
LikeLike
Your reply was lame, and worse than expected. To suppose that I am not arguing in “good faith” is ludicrous, since I back up everything I say with common sense and reason. You then sink further in the mud and opine I am “not trying to understand what the author is saying”.
Huh?
Open minds are meant to eventually close, just like a person’s mouth when it’s satisfied. I have examined the evidence for and against Evo and have now closed my mind with the glorious conclusion it is a fairy tale for adults, utterly opposed to Scripture and the majestic character of God. The only reason you want to justify it is so that you can sit on the fence between two positions, content to be blissfully ignorant and making sure you don’t offend any of your friends. The Catholic motto to, “Believe whatever you want, as long as you give God the credit” is quite laughable coming from an infallible church. They say it makes sense for God to reveal infallible intimate details about the reproductive cycle of Mary, and make those details “necessary for salvation”, but no infallible decree to settle the matter on whether or not he used evolution ???????? Such illogic makes any papal proclamation– suspect at the get-go.
LikeLike