Evolution
#91
(10-31-2010, 05:34 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-31-2010, 10:13 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Nic, you probably know this, what's the name of that book about the Flood - written by a Protestant - that Bishop Williamson was praising in a homily posted here in FE a few weeks ago?

Vetus Ordo -- I'm actually not sure which book you are referring to.  The book that I personally think is an eye-opener is the 8th Edition of Dr. Walt Brown's "In the Beginning:  Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood."  This book is without a doubt the BEST book I have ever read on the subject.

Okay. I'll try to check it out, thanks.
Reply
#92
(10-31-2010, 10:26 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation...enesis.asp

"Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period."

But Nic has told us that the Church Fathers were unanimous in their teaching that the only possible interpretation of the Genesis creation account involved literal, 24-hour days!  How could Nic be so confused, and so completely wrong?  Or was he being dishonest?  (Probably not.)

Creationist authors used to remind me of Democratic politicians (or, Ok, all politicians): they lie.  They simply make things up because they know that most of their reader base is ignorant of the full scope of the data and the arguments of the "other side".

I have the massive, three-volume "Faith of Our Fathers" series and while I haven't read it all, and while some Fathers who taught 24-hour days, I doubt there was even a single one who made this an important article of the faith at all.  They were simply speaking what they assumed to be the case based on the facts of nature they had available to them at the time.  When Augustine, and others, declared that there were probably no "24-hour days", it was not treated as an article of faith ; he was not attacked by anyone in the Church.  It is only in modern times, with the Fundamentalist influence, that this occurs.

Remember that there are issues that even a majority of the Fathers were wrong about: for example, many, if not most, believed the Lord's return to be imminent.  They are infallible only when speaking in unison.  Nic's assertion that this was the case with 24-hour creation days is absolute bunk, as I said initially.

Also: http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve...lution.asp

Then let's give several examples, some REAL examples, of these early Church Fathers (and not modern day scientists posing as Catholics) that believe in an old earth - or even remotely show any support of it.   You state that you doubt any of the Church Fathers thought that the Creation was that important.  You are dead wrong - so many of them wouldn't have commented on it if it wasn't VERY important.  The Creation account of Genesis represents the basis of our Faith.  This is why the atheists attack this fundamental foundation of Christianity.  Now why would any "thinking" Christian give any sort of support to that!

"Creationist authors lie."  O this guy is cracking me up!  Let's look at evolutionists and modern scientists.  THEY LIE.  They have lied to us more times then there are stars in the sky - withholding evidence that destroys their theories and fabricating evidence to support them.
Reply
#93
(10-30-2010, 04:55 PM)Nic Wrote: Catholic Thinker,

You clearly state that you don't hold to molecules-to-man macro evolution, and you also clearly state that you hold to an old earth, some billions of years old.  My only conclusion from your remarks is that you believe that God created man, as he is today, some billions of years ago.

I'm not the "Catholic Thinker", and I can't read his mind, but I would be willing to bet a large amount of money that the above statement does not accurately reflect his beliefs. Nobody believes that man, as he is today, has existed for billions of years, and that belief is not necessary unless you also insist on believing that the "6 days" of creation were 6 literal 24-hour days. And no self-respecting scientist believes that either. Such a literal reading of Genesis is untenable even without recourse to science. If you insist that everything in Genesis happened exactly as it says, down to every last detail, how do you reconcile the two different creation accounts? Did God create plants first (on the third day), then some of the animals (on the fifth day), then the rest of the animals, and finally, man and woman (on the sixth day), as in Genesis 1:9-31? Or did He create man first, and then the plants, and then the animals, and then woman, as in Genesis 2:4-22? You can't have it both ways. The two accounts contradict each other. The only way to reconcile this is to admit, as the Church does, that "in order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of speaking, feeling, and narrating then current" (Catchism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 110). The author(s) of Genesis were not writing to modern standards of historical and scientific accuracy.

It is possible for me to believe that God suspended or superceded the laws of science as we know them, in the process of creation, but I can't bring myself to believe that He did it, then started over and did it again in a different order -- which is what a literal reading of Genesis requires. And that's just one example -- I could come up with dozens more. But I'm not here to pick apart the Bible -- just to plead for some sense of sanity in reading it. It is possible for it to be "inerrant" in some sense without requiring literal accuracy of every detail. Because that would require you to tie your mind in knots and believe numerous mutually contradictory statements. And I'm not willing to do that. I will leave that to Protestant fundamentalists. Catholics are supposed to be more intelligent.
Reply
#94
(11-01-2010, 04:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(10-30-2010, 04:55 PM)Nic Wrote: Catholic Thinker,

You clearly state that you don't hold to molecules-to-man macro evolution, and you also clearly state that you hold to an old earth, some billions of years old.  My only conclusion from your remarks is that you believe that God created man, as he is today, some billions of years ago.

I'm not the "Catholic Thinker", and I can't read his mind, but I would be willing to bet a large amount of money that the above statement does not accurately reflect his beliefs. Nobody believes that man, as he is today, has existed for billions of years, and that belief is not necessary unless you also insist on believing that the "6 days" of creation were 6 literal 24-hour days. And no self-respecting scientist believes that either. Such a literal reading of Genesis is untenable even without recourse to science. If you insist that everything in Genesis happened exactly as it says, down to every last detail, how do you reconcile the two different creation accounts? Did God create plants first (on the third day), then some of the animals (on the fifth day), then the rest of the animals, and finally, man and woman (on the sixth day), as in Genesis 1:9-31? Or did He create man first, and then the plants, and then the animals, and then woman, as in Genesis 2:4-22? You can't have it both ways. The two accounts contradict each other.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think these are not two separate accounts. The second account of which (I think) you speak treats of the creation of the Garden of Eden in the world but after the creation of the world, though it was "planted" at the creation of the world.

Genesis I Wrote:[11] And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. [12] And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

. . .

[20] God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

[21] And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

Genesis II Wrote:[6] But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth. [7] And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. [8] And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed. [9] And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [10] And a river went out of the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads.

[11] The name of the one is Phison: that is it which compasseth all the land of Hevilath, where gold groweth. [12] And the gold of that land is very good: there is found bdellium, and the onyx stone. [13] And the name of the second river is Gehon: the same is it that compasseth all the land of Ethiopia. [14] And the name of the third river is Tigris: the same passeth along by the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates. [15] And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it.

So God created the world and "planted" the trees of paradise. He then takes Adam and places Him in the garden.

The following speaks of the animals in the past tense referring to their original creation:

Genesis II Wrote:[19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

So it is saying that these were not new animals necessarily; they were already created. God simply brought those animals that He had already created before Adam.


Reply
#95
(11-01-2010, 04:58 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 04:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: If you insist that everything in Genesis happened exactly as it says, down to every last detail, how do you reconcile the two different creation accounts? Did God create plants first (on the third day), then some of the animals (on the fifth day), then the rest of the animals, and finally, man and woman (on the sixth day), as in Genesis 1:9-31? Or did He create man first, and then the plants, and then the animals, and then woman, as in Genesis 2:4-22? You can't have it both ways. The two accounts contradict each other.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think these are not two separate accounts. The second account of which (I think) you speak treats of the creation of the Garden of Eden in the world but after the creation of the world, though it was "planted" at the creation of the world.

The following speaks of the animals in the past tense referring to their original creation:

Genesis II Wrote:[19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

So it is saying that these were not new animals necessarily; they were already created. God simply brought those animals that He had already created before Adam.

Maybe this is just a difference in translations (I am using the RSV Catholic Edition), but mine reads a bit differently, especially if you include verse 18:

18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, ..."

In this translation, it is clear that God created the animals after He had created man. In any case, the very fact that different translations can be read differently should cause some alarm bells to go off -- we are not reading the original book in its original language. Given the difficulties we have reading and interpreting even something as recent as Shakespeare (which is in our own language), it's extremely risky to attempt a literal reading of a translation of something that was written thousands of years ago, in a culture totally different from ours, and in a language that is no longer spoken.

Anyway, I haven't seen any translation that does not contain numerous contradictions of this sort.
Reply
#96
(11-01-2010, 05:25 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 04:58 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 04:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: If you insist that everything in Genesis happened exactly as it says, down to every last detail, how do you reconcile the two different creation accounts? Did God create plants first (on the third day), then some of the animals (on the fifth day), then the rest of the animals, and finally, man and woman (on the sixth day), as in Genesis 1:9-31? Or did He create man first, and then the plants, and then the animals, and then woman, as in Genesis 2:4-22? You can't have it both ways. The two accounts contradict each other.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think these are not two separate accounts. The second account of which (I think) you speak treats of the creation of the Garden of Eden in the world but after the creation of the world, though it was "planted" at the creation of the world.

The following speaks of the animals in the past tense referring to their original creation:

Genesis II Wrote:[19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

So it is saying that these were not new animals necessarily; they were already created. God simply brought those animals that He had already created before Adam.

Maybe this is just a difference in translations (I am using the RSV Catholic Edition), but mine reads a bit differently, especially if you include verse 18:

18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, ..."

In this translation, it is clear that God created the animals after He had created man. In any case, the very fact that different translations can be read differently should cause some alarm bells to go off -- we are not reading the original book in its original language. Given the difficulties we have reading and interpreting even something as recent as Shakespeare (which is in our own language), it's extremely risky to attempt a literal reading of a translation of something that was written thousands of years ago, in a culture totally different from ours, and in a language that is no longer spoken.

Anyway, I haven't seen any translation that does not contain numerous contradictions of this sort.

Understood.

But this must be read in context.

Genesis II Wrote:[16] And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. [18] And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

The two bold parts complement each other. Now read the next passage that explains that when God was speaking of making a helper to Adam, He fixes this by creating Eve, not animals.

Quote:[21] Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. [22] And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. [23] And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. [24] Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. [25] And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.

So what it is saying is that God brought the animals to Adam to be named, for they are helpers unto each other: they can reproduce because of their multiplicity. However, there was no helper for Adam who could satisfy God's command to "increase and multiply." In order to provide Adam with a "helper" to fulfill this command, He created Eve "of man."

I agree that the statement is placed in a spot that seems to indicate it is talking about the animals as man's helpers, but if you read on we see that the helper is Eve, not the animals. The only word that seems to indicate the animals were the not the "helpers" from just those two verses alone is the word "having." If God had already made the animals and was only calling them to Adam, then He wouldn't be "making" Adam a helper because the animals were already made.
Reply
#97
(11-01-2010, 05:37 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 05:25 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 04:58 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 04:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: If you insist that everything in Genesis happened exactly as it says, down to every last detail, how do you reconcile the two different creation accounts? Did God create plants first (on the third day), then some of the animals (on the fifth day), then the rest of the animals, and finally, man and woman (on the sixth day), as in Genesis 1:9-31? Or did He create man first, and then the plants, and then the animals, and then woman, as in Genesis 2:4-22? You can't have it both ways. The two accounts contradict each other.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think these are not two separate accounts. The second account of which (I think) you speak treats of the creation of the Garden of Eden in the world but after the creation of the world, though it was "planted" at the creation of the world.

The following speaks of the animals in the past tense referring to their original creation:

Genesis II Wrote:[19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

So it is saying that these were not new animals necessarily; they were already created. God simply brought those animals that He had already created before Adam.

Maybe this is just a difference in translations (I am using the RSV Catholic Edition), but mine reads a bit differently, especially if you include verse 18:

18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, ..."

In this translation, it is clear that God created the animals after He had created man. In any case, the very fact that different translations can be read differently should cause some alarm bells to go off -- we are not reading the original book in its original language. Given the difficulties we have reading and interpreting even something as recent as Shakespeare (which is in our own language), it's extremely risky to attempt a literal reading of a translation of something that was written thousands of years ago, in a culture totally different from ours, and in a language that is no longer spoken.

Anyway, I haven't seen any translation that does not contain numerous contradictions of this sort.

Understood.

But this must be read in context.

Genesis II Wrote:[16] And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. [18] And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

The two bold parts complement each other. Now read the next passage that explains that when God was speaking of making a helper to Adam, He fixes this by creating Eve, not animals.

Quote:[21] Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. [22] And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. [23] And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. [24] Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. [25] And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.

So what it is saying is that God brought the animals to Adam to be named, for they are helpers unto each other: they can reproduce because of their multiplicity. However, there was no helper for Adam who could satisfy God's command to "increase and multiply." In order to provide Adam with a "helper" to fulfill this command, He created Eve "of man."

I agree that the statement is placed in a spot that seems to indicate it is talking about the animals as man's helpers, but if you read on we see that the helper is Eve, not the animals. The only word that seems to indicate the animals were the not the "helpers" from just those two verses alone is the word "having." If God had already made the animals and was only calling them to Adam, then He wouldn't be "making" Adam a helper because the animals were already made.

Well, you're doing some interpretation here, which only reinforces my point -- that you can't take the Bible in the extreme literal sense. And your interpretation depends, among other things, on a particular translation (the Douay/Rheims/Challoner, I believe) that renders the beginning of verse 19 as "And the Lord God having formed...". I've looked at four other Catholic-approved translations:

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (1961): "When the Lord God had formed..."

RSV, Catholic Edition (1952, 1965, 1966): "So out of the ground the Lord God formed..."

The Jerusalem Bible (1966): "So from the soil Yahweh God fashioned..."

New American Bible (1970): "So the Lord God formed..."

Three of the five use the ordinary past tense ("formed" or "fashioned"), along with the introductory word "So" -- implying that this is a consequence of the previous statement ("It is not good for man to be alone"). And in all five translations, the sequence is the same: (1) It is not good for the man to be alone -- he needs a helper; (2) God creates (or "has created") the animals and brings them before Adam to be named; (3) Adam does not find a helper among the animals; (4) God creates Eve from Adam's rib. The natural way to read this is that each step in the sequence follows from the previous step: God creates the animals because Adam needs a helper; He then creates Eve because Adam did not find a helper among the animals. So the sequence is Adam, then the animals, then Eve. In the original account (Chapter 1), it is animals, and then Adam & Eve as the final crowning step in the creation.

Now, I don't see this as an eartshaking difference, and it doesn't shake my faith in the Bible as a whole. But I think it (and the numerous other contradictions like it) are fatal to an exact, literal, word-for-word interpretation of the Bible. Either every word is literally true (a position which I find absurd), or some interpretation is required. And once you start interpreting, you are not required to believe in 6 literal days -- the Church certainly does not require that belief, and neither did all of the Fathers (as Nic claimed a few posts back). In particular, St. Augustine, one of the most illustrious of the Fathers, did not accept it -- although he went in the other direction, believing that it was all created simultaneously, in an instant. But the point is, he warned against interpreting it too literally, as The Catholic Thinker has pointed out several times.

Now I'm not going to claim, as some Protestants do, that each man is free to interpret the Bible as he likes -- I believe some guidance is important. But when it comes to guidance, with all due respect, I will trust St. Augustine and the Popes ahead of anyone on this forum. And they say it's OK, and maybe even necessary, to adjust the interpretation of scripture to harmonize with the findings of science (see paragraph 159 of the current catechism).
Reply
#98
(11-01-2010, 11:38 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 05:37 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 05:25 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 04:58 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-01-2010, 04:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: If you insist that everything in Genesis happened exactly as it says, down to every last detail, how do you reconcile the two different creation accounts? Did God create plants first (on the third day), then some of the animals (on the fifth day), then the rest of the animals, and finally, man and woman (on the sixth day), as in Genesis 1:9-31? Or did He create man first, and then the plants, and then the animals, and then woman, as in Genesis 2:4-22? You can't have it both ways. The two accounts contradict each other.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think these are not two separate accounts. The second account of which (I think) you speak treats of the creation of the Garden of Eden in the world but after the creation of the world, though it was "planted" at the creation of the world.

The following speaks of the animals in the past tense referring to their original creation:

Genesis II Wrote:[19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

So it is saying that these were not new animals necessarily; they were already created. God simply brought those animals that He had already created before Adam.

Maybe this is just a difference in translations (I am using the RSV Catholic Edition), but mine reads a bit differently, especially if you include verse 18:

18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, ..."

In this translation, it is clear that God created the animals after He had created man. In any case, the very fact that different translations can be read differently should cause some alarm bells to go off -- we are not reading the original book in its original language. Given the difficulties we have reading and interpreting even something as recent as Shakespeare (which is in our own language), it's extremely risky to attempt a literal reading of a translation of something that was written thousands of years ago, in a culture totally different from ours, and in a language that is no longer spoken.

Anyway, I haven't seen any translation that does not contain numerous contradictions of this sort.

Understood.

But this must be read in context.

Genesis II Wrote:[16] And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. [18] And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

The two bold parts complement each other. Now read the next passage that explains that when God was speaking of making a helper to Adam, He fixes this by creating Eve, not animals.

Quote:[21] Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. [22] And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. [23] And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. [24] Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. [25] And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.

So what it is saying is that God brought the animals to Adam to be named, for they are helpers unto each other: they can reproduce because of their multiplicity. However, there was no helper for Adam who could satisfy God's command to "increase and multiply." In order to provide Adam with a "helper" to fulfill this command, He created Eve "of man."

I agree that the statement is placed in a spot that seems to indicate it is talking about the animals as man's helpers, but if you read on we see that the helper is Eve, not the animals. The only word that seems to indicate the animals were the not the "helpers" from just those two verses alone is the word "having." If God had already made the animals and was only calling them to Adam, then He wouldn't be "making" Adam a helper because the animals were already made.

Well, you're doing some interpretation here, which only reinforces my point -- that you can't take the Bible in the extreme literal sense. And your interpretation depends, among other things, on a particular translation (the Douay/Rheims/Challoner, I believe) that renders the beginning of verse 19 as "And the Lord God having formed...". I've looked at four other Catholic-approved translations:

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (1961): "When the Lord God had formed..."

RSV, Catholic Edition (1952, 1965, 1966): "So out of the ground the Lord God formed..."

The Jerusalem Bible (1966): "So from the soil Yahweh God fashioned..."

New American Bible (1970): "So the Lord God formed..."

Three of the five use the ordinary past tense ("formed" or "fashioned"), along with the introductory word "So" -- implying that this is a consequence of the previous statement ("It is not good for man to be alone"). And in all five translations, the sequence is the same: (1) It is not good for the man to be alone -- he needs a helper; (2) God creates (or "has created") the animals and brings them before Adam to be named; (3) Adam does not find a helper among the animals; (4) God creates Eve from Adam's rib. The natural way to read this is that each step in the sequence follows from the previous step: God creates the animals because Adam needs a helper; He then creates Eve because Adam did not find a helper among the animals. So the sequence is Adam, then the animals, then Eve. In the original account (Chapter 1), it is animals, and then Adam & Eve as the final crowning step in the creation.

Now, I don't see this as an eartshaking difference, and it doesn't shake my faith in the Bible as a whole. But I think it (and the numerous other contradictions like it) are fatal to an exact, literal, word-for-word interpretation of the Bible. Either every word is literally true (a position which I find absurd), or some interpretation is required. And once you start interpreting, you are not required to believe in 6 literal days -- the Church certainly does not require that belief, and neither did all of the Fathers (as Nic claimed a few posts back). In particular, St. Augustine, one of the most illustrious of the Fathers, did not accept it -- although he went in the other direction, believing that it was all created simultaneously, in an instant. But the point is, he warned against interpreting it too literally, as The Catholic Thinker has pointed out several times.

Now I'm not going to claim, as some Protestants do, that each man is free to interpret the Bible as he likes -- I believe some guidance is important. But when it comes to guidance, with all due respect, I will trust St. Augustine and the Popes ahead of anyone on this forum. And they say it's OK, and maybe even necessary, to adjust the interpretation of scripture to harmonize with the findings of science (see paragraph 159 of the current catechism).

1) The Douay Rheims, the Latin Vulgate, is the oldest Latin translation we have translated directly from the Septuagint by S. Jerome, an expert linguist and translator of the 4th century. There is no reason to forsake its literal word-for-word translation in favor of the smoothed-out, revised, and more fluid versions of subsequent translations. This is one of the reasons that I discourage use of these newer translations: they surface questions like this which, to the weak of faith, could plant a seed of doubt that could eventually culminate in apostasy. Ultimately, however, there is no reason for the confusion.

2) It does not matter if the word "having" is used or not if the Sciptures must be read in context. "Having" only implies that it is referring to the animals that had already been created. One cannot take two lines out of their context and then state that it is a contradiction. Clearly, the Church has already interpreted the Scriptures in context, and in context the "helper" of man referred to was not the animals but Eve. It plainly says this a few pasages later. As I said in my former post, God says that He is going to make a helper for man. The animals were already created, so they couldn't be made all over again. Eve, however, is said to "then" be created by God. This is the helper that Scipture says was "like unto" Adam.

I think you are overlooking the context in favor of the sequential order of those two statements. I'm afraid you aren't reading past the second verse because you are convinced it is a contradiction. We may have to appeal to non-literal interpretations when necessary, but this, I don't think, is one of those cases.
Reply
#99
Vulgate:

Formatis igitur Dominus Deus de humo cunctis animantibus terræ, et universis volatilibus cæli, adduxit ea ad Adam ...

"Therefore the Lord God, with all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the sky having been formed from the ground, led them to Adam ..."

Formatis ... animantibus ... volatilibus

Ablative absolute -- formatis = having been formed.
Reply
Well, you guys have been busy.

I have too many threads to keep up with.  I need to quit my job - is there any demand for professional Fish Eaters poster, I wonder?  I can get by with $60K/year.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)