How Do We Interpret the Genesis Creation Accounts? (Aquinas 101)

[@ThomisticInstitute]

More from Fr. Jordan Schmidt, O.P.'s Aquinas 101 creation series: -Does Science Contradict the Bible? - kzbin.info/www/bejne/o4nckJJpYqiKo5Y -Biblical Accounts of Creation Through God's Power - kzbin.info/www/bejne/rXq7fWCrjt5sm9E -Biblical Accounts of Creation With God's Wisdom - kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHWWc4l6itqlppY

[@anthonypuccetti8779]

"Does Science Contradict the Bible?" The scientific theories of origins contradict scripture, Church doctrine and reason. They are naturalistic, and so they attribute powers to nature that nature does not have, and thus make illogical claims of causality in which the supposed causes and effects do not correspond.

[@MillionthUsername]

@@anthonypuccetti8779 Exactly. All supposed "scientific" theories of origins deny rational causation. That's how we know they are false. In those paradigms, not only is God not allowed to exist or to act but no intelligent agent is allowed either. Ridiculously, in their theories, one can only account for intelligence and reason via non-intelligent non-rational causes!

[@anthonypuccetti8779]

@@MillionthUsername Right.

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

Why did God create Space soooo Dangerous to tiny little living things, like people ? :-O ! It's too hot, or too cold, and no air and water, and well - it's empty space! And soooo big, how can humans ever travel to other planets to go visit them or colonize them ? Everything is Sooo far away... Even fun places like the Orion Nebula, which would be fun to visit all the new stars and new planets, well it's 1500 light years away... It would be nice if God left us the design for a warp drive engine, so we can get around the Milky Way and visit many other worlds.

[@notdonaldst]

@@anthonypuccetti8779Hi Anthony. I haven’t watched the video yet (I will later today), but I hope you will try to be clear in your language. Science does not contradict the Bible. Scientism does. Scientism is an irrational claim which can be considered a type of religion because it is a system of beliefs based on faith in some conclusions drawn by some scientists, physicists, mathematicians, etc. But it is a bad religion because it is irrational. It is no better than Creationism - just the other end of the spectrum.

[@existential_o]

As a Protestant beginning to look into the Catholic Church, one thing I love about the Church is it's rich tradition of critically analyzing in the realms of both philosophy and theology through figures like St. Irenaeus, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.

[@DrownedinDesigner]

We believe that reason is a gift from God and can equally aid us in doing Gods will.

[@lughnacide9778]

One of the most fascinating things for my wife and I when we started RCIA was learning how the Church actively tries to debunk miracles through the use of secular scientific institutes before it will declare any of them valid. It makes sense too, imagine how much damage you can do to the faith by proclaiming something as truth, and the science very easily saying "nope". This is why quantum and astrophysics fascinate me. The scientific community is full of uncertainty itself.

[@williamcurt7204]

@@lughnacide9778 That was fascinating to me as-well. I had just assumed that the miracles attested to the saints were mostly just pious myths designed to enrich the faith when, in fact, all miracles attested to the saints (at least in the modern period) have to meet a incredibly strict criteria. If it's a medical miracles, the chance, as determined by medical experts, that the person could have naturally recovered has to be zero (which used to be agreed to by simple majority of an independent board of experts before Francis, but now a 2/3 majority during his pontificate), or the miracle can't be confirmed.

[@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81]

I'll jump the gun a bit, but welcome home!

[@existential_o]

@@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81 lol, (perhaps YT isn't the best place to reveal this, but whatever) right now I'm a sophomore in high school, and I definitely plan on pursing a future (hopefully PhD, but I'll probably transfer for grad school) in philosophy at UMary. I really have no doubt that the fruits of that environment and the brilliant students/teachers that I've already encountered will definitely provide some strong arguments for Catholicism! I definitely see a future in Catholicism, but I know that I certainly need the guidance of God and that I can't convert myself.

[@youtubecommenter2]

I absolutely love the aesthetics in these videos, the colour combinations and animation style are fantastic.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Glad to hear it! Thanks for watching. God bless you.

[@BrendanSmith-vy4he]

Cool huh just thought u would find it cool that my school had an annexe st Thomas then at 13 or 12 after two years st James same school nw London but our badge was same design had veritas written on it ,, Dominican sisters school

[@BrendanSmith-vy4he]

It's all one building now in London nw9 near raf museum am sure they would send u a blazer patch , I am 60 now and gonna go in and do a talk , god love U

[@xrisc131]

I have never, until just now, understood why God needed “rest” after creation. I just accepted it as one more of the great mysteries I was not meant to know… but deep down inside, I knew then and I know now, that God isn’t hiding anything. He wants us to know. Thank you for doing His work.

[@anthonypuccetti8779]

The word rested in this case means God ceased doing the initial acts of creation. Its like the sabbath rest, which just meant no working, not relaxing because of weariness.

[@russellmiles2861]

Well this is because God is omnipresent. So technically he rest beforehand as well. Well god rested and did things and time kinda doesn’t matter. The big question is why would a God which by definition none which can be greater (Quoting Thomas Aquinas) need a Universe. God is complete and perfect so doesn’t actually need a cheer squad (well, object to share love). But don’t think on that too much as it takes one down a Gnostic rabbit hole and that isn’t pretty

[@xrisc131]

@@russellmiles2861 it’s a good thought. I don’t think God needed to create in the human sense of need but rather He is create - simultaneously a noun and a verb. Truthfully, I do not understand what I just wrote but I feel it is true(ish).

[@trans-octopusspacealien8883]

It established the narrative for the sabbath day which becomes important during the days of Moses.

[@annakareninacamara6580]

@@russellmiles2861 kinda late here but I once heard/read somewhere (I'm never gonna remember where, sorry) that God really didn't need to create the Universe (or us), but he made it out of love for Himself. He wanted someone with to share His glory. I think that, in another of TI's videos, they explain that we are 'contingent' beings (we could very well not exist, the world would still turn around) and God is the only One 'necessary' being, without whom nothing could ever exist.

[@st.saturninia9179]

Thank you, Father, for serving us all with your clear teaching.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

It's a joy! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@samanthatoweel-moore4593]

Beautiful. How magnificent is Our God. So loving ❤ and generous

[@sdjohnston67]

Wonderful! So important to produce this sort of work.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you.

[@michaelocampo1558]

Thank you father.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video .

[@al1665]

I enjoy both Peter Gabriel's and Phil Collins' interpretations

[@markb3786]

That's great for you but I sometimes doubt the sincerity of the Collins' interpretations.

[@dermotoneill7115]

Is the repeated seal appearance one of approval😮

[@patchalmers6645]

Noetic considerations come easily in my secular Franciscan musings. So, this idea, of age, is both rational as St. Thomas of Aquinas pointed out, and voluntary as Bl John Duns Scotus might have suggested. By voluntary, I mean the will of the spirit would turn, perhaps, to the Word that tells us - one day is like a thousand years to our Creator. Phenomenologically speaking 😇.

[@TH-cz2uz]

Bravo

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you.

[@davidthehermit7813]

If Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, as you said represents the world (Earth), where is it they were cast into since the Garden of Eden represents the world (Earth), that they were cast out of?

[@stormcrow1970]

I'd say it's important to remember that the point of the video is that the world was created as a place for God's presence and where he has an interpersonal communion with man. Hence our first parents being cast out of the Garden should be seen as illustrations of the Fall's effect on humanity's relationship with God, viz. the communion between man and God is broken due to man's sin. God is still present in the world since he is omnipresent, but man's experience of this presence has been radically changed.

[@antoniomoyal]

The part of the earth that is ugly and sinful.

[@russellmiles2861]

And who did Steph marry?

[@maydarcy8974]

@@stormcrow1970 there are 2 different creation stories. Who was Cain afraid would kill him? N who did Cain marry if Adam And Eve were the only humans alive? They were not and the creation story in Genesis 1 states males and females were created at the same time on day 6.. Jesus points to this when he says do you not know the scriptures! His father created males and females on the same day.. day 6.. he also talks of the children of Satan the father of lies.. we are not all the same we have different fathers.. the creator in Genesis chapter 2 is Satan.. he creates backwards. He plants temptation he does like to do tempt it’s in his nature. So is creating jealousy between brothers.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

Since Adam and Eve are completely imaginary nothing happened to them. Best thing about Genesis is that its made up.

[@MillionthUsername]

You say that the creation narrative is not intended to be "...disinterested descriptions of the physical processes by which the universe came to be," but there are no physical processes by the which the universe came to be, so the statement is irrelevant for being impossible anyway. And just before that you said that it describes the "manner" in which God created - which is clearly without any intermediaries and without "processes"! The Church teaches that God created the universe "ex nihilo," out of nothing. There are no physical processes necessary, and none mentioned, except that it is understood that after the creation events the world continues according to how God made nature to function. So there are secondary causes in play after creation, but not before. We are told that God spoke the world into existence, so this is a matter of revelation. I'm not sure how you can say both that God spoke things into being and also that there were physical processes which the text "does not intend" to describe.

[@dalelerette206]

7:44 The seven fold pattern of Creation seems to also be reflected when Jesus talks to Saint Peter when Jesus tells Peter to forgive 77 times. Matthew 18: 21-22 reads, Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times. Is this the 10 Commandments reflected along the Seven Catholic Sacraments? In Summa Theologica II.II, Thomas Aquinas asserts the following correspondences between the seven Capital Virtues and the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit: The gift of wisdom corresponds to the virtue of charity. The gift of understanding corresponds to the virtue of faith. The gift of counsel (right judgement) corresponds to the virtue of prudence. The gift of courage corresponds to the virtue of fortitude. The gift of knowledge corresponds to the virtue of hope. The gift of reverence corresponds to the virtue of justice. The gift of wonder and awe corresponds to the virtue of temperance.

[@leonardovieira4445]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church establishes four keys for reading the Holy Scriptures: a) Literal key, precedent and first over the others: b) Spiritual key, divided into "allegorical", "moral" and "anagogical". It is important to say that such reading keys are not mutually exclusive, so that the spiritual meaning abstracted from a text or reality narrated in the Scriptures does not, per se, eliminate the possibility of the occurrence of the literal reality of the facts narrated in the text. The discernment of the interpretation of each verse under these four keys rests with the Magisterium of the Church. Specifically on the account of the creation of Genesis, there isn't, unless I am mistaken, a definitive conclusion of the Magisterium due to the concrete non-occurrence of the facts narrated there.

[@leonardovieira4445]

Despite all the spiritual meaning that can be abstracted from this text, as very well exposed in the video, I believe that the facts took place literally as narrated in Genesis. The creative act of God took place as it is written, although the temporal horizon of these events originated in eternity, does not keep the proportion of the duration of days, for us. Specifically regarding the account of the creation of Adam and Eve (and the later fall), I believe that everything happened literally, in the time and manner, as described in Genesis.

[@russellmiles2861]

Oh I understood that Lumen gentium from 2nd Vatican Council held that scripture includes myths, legend, truth and history and one must look to church leadership to understand these varying ideals which can change over time and events.

[@christinecooke1638]

Yes!

[@tonyhayes9827]

Yeah but we are still required to believe hat we came from one single pair of parents through whom we inherited original sin. Science has trouble with this and the genesis story does seem to be pretty historical about it

[@ciscodealmeida8541]

There are two different accounts of creation and few people understand this, but there were more.

[@george5120]

He reads a lot into Genesis that is not in Genesis. It is only in his creative imagination. All we know about Genesis is what the author say, and they don't say any of this stuff.

[@hitman5782]

That is something that has always impressed me about Christians. They have always been able to interpret absolutely everything into some primitive verses, even if it's the direct opposite of what the text actually says. Best example Lk14,24-26 / Mt10,34-39 "Hate your family" is interpreted as "love your family".

[@mjcsandboxgames4021]

​@@hitman5782can you point out where it says to hate your family?

[@hitman5782]

@@mjcsandboxgames4021 Luke 14:26 “ If any man comes to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” If that is not pure madness, what is?

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

​​@@hitman5782That is utterly absurd, and you can't be taken seriously on such a silly point. That is how human language works, from beginning to end. If two thousand years archeologists find my personal journal and it says "today, I played my brother in basketball and I literally destroyed him", a brilliant thinker, such as today's atheist would clearly figure out the "obvious" meaning of the text and they'd realize that "the two brothers were involved in a bitter sport, and one brother clearly dismembered the other. The text says absolutely nothing about how many times a ball was thrown into a basket or the brother 'winning' a game, and to make sure there was absolutely no doubt about this, he stated that he 'LITERALLY' destroyed him". Sorry contrast IS NOT some made up excuse, only an ignorant person would think so, and no, Jesus did not think that one should hate their family. That's just a simple, silly example, but this is found in almost every aspect of language. To understand the real meaning you'd have to study how the ancient language of that time was used, and to know that, the more corroborating examples the better. It could be that it's so far removed it can never be fully understood. If one joins the US Marine Corps, they refer to themselves as "brothers,", and they use this language, even in formal creeds, and refer to each other such. If you found such literature would you immediately assume that it literally means all the people in that group of military soldiers are like related or something? LOL Jesus is clearly saying that what they (the apostles) were going to do things, such as following Him, going from place to place, eventually all dying, meant that they would NOT be doing things like caring for their family, their wives or their children. Sorry, the idea that you're obligated to ignore the entire subjects of textual criticism, historical context, intent etc etc when interpreting text, or it's some sort of cop out is just lame. Nobody does that (except a very ignorant person), that just isn't how rational people work. Good try, I guess...

[@cradlecap123]

Why not read 'Clues to Creation in Genesis' by PJ Wiseman. He was professor of Assyriology at the British Museum. Out of print, but you can find it. It will set you free of a young earth point of view. End of.

[@hitman5782]

I never understood this young earth nonsense. When in the well-documented history of china was the universe created in your point of view? Ming dynasty? You creationists are nuts.

[@cradlecap123]

@@hitman5782 Thanks for comment. I never thought about history of china etc.. good point. My point of view on the creation of the universe? It's very old, there's always revisions on timelines but it's very old. 'Clues to Creation in Genesis' is about Yahweh's demonstration to Adam over 6 days about what HE had done in the past. The literary forms support this. Google the book.

[@LordsDaggermen]

Anyone notice the triguetra in the thumbnail?

[@obscuranox]

LITERALLY !!!

[@NephilimFree]

Hebrew scholar Dr. Steven Boyd has conducted a statistical analysis of 522 Old Testament passages. He found that poetic and narrative passages could be categorized with a better than 99% accuracy based on the verb usage alone. Dr. Boyd’s analysis showed conclusively that Genesis 1 is narrative history, not poetry. This means the only way to interpret it properly is as history, looking for its straightforward, historical meaning. ‘… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’ - James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson April 23, 1984. By the way, Dr. Barr is a hostile witness who does not believe the Genesis creation account took place as described by scripture. The word yom is used 410 times in relation to a number. Every time it means an ordinary day. "evening and morning" are used 38 times in the Old Testament and each time it means an ordinary day. "evening and morning" are used 23 times without the word yom and each time it means an ordinary day. "night" is used 52 times without yom and each time it means an ordinary day. Because of the context of the creation days, "evening and morning", if these days represented vast periods of time, the either God is a untrustworthy idiot because he has conveyed something untrue, or he is a liar because he has conveyed that the length of the days is equal to the coming and going of the sun, while they were in fact vast periods of time. If the days of creation in Genesis 1 represent thousands to millions of years,and Adam and Ever were created during day 6, then one would have to believe they were thousands to millions of years old by day 7 unless you believe God created them at the last moment before sunrise on day 6. Moreover, since the passages describe the coming and going of the sun, one would have to believe the earth orbited the sun at a rate exponentially slower during the days of creation than immediately after. If you don't hold to that idea, then you have to explain why the days of creation represent vast ages of time and an exponentially slower moving earth than for day 7 and all days afterward. In the context, the word day in Genesis 1 refers to six 24-hour days. Every time it appears with “evening and morning” or with a number like “sixth day,” which is over 200 times, it refers to a 24-hour day. If the days represent cast periods of time, then God would have had to supernaturally placed all plants into a frozen state of stasis to wait for the sun to arrive the next "day" so that they would have sunlight. Plants can survive a couple of literal days without sunlight, but they cannot survive hundreds, thousands, or millions of days without light. If the days represent vast periods of time, the sun would have charred the earth into a dessert on each day that the earth rotated. Otherwise, one would have to believe each day represents millions of actual days, but this contradicts the statements of "and the evening and the morning were the X day". Because of the statements regarding the workweek and sabbath in Exodus, the creation days cannot be longer than 24 hour. Since death entered the world because of sin (Romans 5:12), all of the animals God created would have had to live for vast ages of time until Adam sinned. This forces Day-Age theorists to arbitrarily decide how long the creation days must be to fit their concept. Furthermore, Jesus and the New Testament apostles read Genesis 1-11 as straightforward historical narrative. "The idea that humans lived before Adam was first put forth by a Roman Catholic named Isaich la Perere in a book titled Apologie de la Peyrere (Men before Adam) in 1655. He claimed that scientific data from Greenland and China proved humans lived as long ago as 50,000 B.C. This book was very influencial to Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic educated by the Jesuits, who is considered the father of textual criticism. Simon attacked protestant Christianity, saying, "The great changes that have taken palce in the manuscripts of the Bible since the first originals were lost completely destroy the principle of the protestants. If tradition joined not to scripture, there is hardly anything in religion that one can confidently affirm." - Boyd, specialist in biblical Hebrew, Semitic languages, and Old Testament studies. He has a BS and MS in Physics from Drexel University, a ThM in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a PhD in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. The idea that the earth is older than the Bible tells us it is came into the modern era from the 18th century from Comte de Buffon, who thought the earth was at least 75,000 years old, and from Pièrre LaPlace, and from Jean Lamarck. The idea of millions of years came into being from secular geology through men like Abraham Werner, James Hutton, William Smith, Georges Cuvier, and Charles Lyell. Their ideas were in defiance of scripture and based upon uniformitarian, false interpretations of the physical characteristics of the lithosphere of the earth.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

't Genesis 1 is narrative history, not poetry. This means the only way to interpret it properly is as history, looking for its straightforward, historical meaning.' Well its silly disproved nonsense. Live with reality because that is all there is. And take a geology class you don't know jack on the subject.

[@NephilimFree]

@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yvI love debating geology. It supports the Bible thoroughly. Find out why!

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@NephilimFree Take a real geology class. There are 3 to 5, geologists that LIE that geology supports the Bible and the Flood that never happened. All the rest ignore those blatant lies. Find out why they lie. They have to or they get fired from the YEC sites they get paid by. Unless you are claiming that the Bible is clearly just making up silly stories, which is true, at best.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@NephilimFree Oh of course we are free of Nephilim, they are imaginary.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@NephilimFree Oh dear, you like Standing for Lies, Donnie the used car dealer is the least incompetent YEC on his channel. Let me know when he can show that Gutsick Gibbon or Dr. Dan are wrong. I know he claim that but the evidence never supports him. Or you.

[@donharris8846]

At 5:52 I would ask - how do you know what type of rest God needed? The language in the Bible is very clear for all of us to read and it doesn’t add any of the flavor that is added in this video. What is the basis for suggesting that God did not “need” to rest in the way that we did? It is this human twisting of the Bible in 1,000 different places that actually creates atheists. The Bible only says that god rested and that is all that anyone CAN know, to expand on that is just lying.

[@luxither7354]

Its a narrative piece essentially to show Sabbath importance, in that even God himself rested on the Sabbat, and so so should we.

[@dermotoneill7115]

This will guarantee a stampede of new teenage recruits😊

[@donhaddix3770]

LIiterally.

[@weyjosh5213]

no

[@josephscala6707]

Not sure why the bible would need to be "interpreted" instead of being written clearly and concisely.

[@David-lq4tq]

Genesis is literal.

[@David-lq4tq]

Man was not the first thing created. The heaven and earth were first.

[@veilofreality]

Interesting that in this attempt to reconcile the Holy book of Genesis with the false doctrine of evolutionism, the fact that the Sun is created on day 4 is conveniently omitted.

[@AlphaCatholic]

I'm sorry. That is not what the Bible teaches. Man is not created first. Genesis 2: These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

[@EinSofVirtuoso]

I find it interesting that the second day doesn't end with God saying it was good.

[@SKF358]

Good videos! But that intro ding dong music is awful.

[@lynobird9197]

I’m sorry but this just confuses me…anyone else?

[@dermotoneill7115]

He looks a laugh😅

[@ciscodealmeida8541]

God created this World so Souls that were misfits in Heaven could come here for therapy.

[@hitman5782]

I never heard of this idea before. So how does this therapy work? Let´s take Hitler as an example or deadborn babys.

[@ciscodealmeida8541]

@@hitman5782 Hitler and his cronies were Evil Souls, God did not intervene with his Angels in a big scale, so that leaves the question open. deadborn, the soul changed his mind.

[@hitman5782]

@@ciscodealmeida8541 Thx for the clarification, so hitlers soul had a therapy in being evil by killing millions of other souls who came to earth for a "gas therapy." And i guess the about 30.000 helpless children that die every day in horror and pain came to earth to have a little theapry in starvation and desease. You haven´t given your idea a second thought EVER, right?

[@ciscodealmeida8541]

@@hitman5782 every one reaps what they sowed, thats the law in the universe.

[@ciscodealmeida8541]

@@hitman5782Many of us are aware of the suffering in the World and why people are born blind,deformed, stupid etc, this is why i believe in God, in his mercy we are given many chances to do it right. What would Mary and Joseph say about God when they did what they did to her Son and yet, there was no God intervention..When you understand life and have such unconditional love .there is no pain.

[@RodMartinJr]

Interesting, but flawed, interpretation. God "resting" was not a form of "delight," but one of completion, for without His divine, spiritual "rest," we would not have the dimension we characterize by the word "time." This is one bookend to creation, just as Christ's statement that the "truth" will set you free is the opposing bookend. And Genesis 3 is one bookend while Christ's discussion with Nicodemus in John 3 is the other bookend to the broad arc of our story -- from spiritual death in the Garden of Heaven to the spiritual rebirth from following Christ's commandments. Genesis 2 is NOT merely a repeating of creation from an anthropocentric viewpoint, but an entirely new activity, for the *_image_* of God is definitely NOT one of *_"dust."_* And God is most definitely NOT _Homo sapiens (dust)._ Look to Genesis 6:3 for a reaffirmation of this dual nature of man, particularly in the word "also." This is, in fact, reaffirmed by Christ in John 3. References: *_The Logical Christian_* *_Trinity Treason: How the church betrayed its flock with the only unforgivable sin_*

[@russellmiles2861]

As God is omnipresent they technically don’t test. Well technically they rest and do stuff and tense doesn’t come into it.

[@RodMartinJr]

@@russellmiles2861 "Don't Test?" "Tense doesn't come into it?" Are we talking about the same topic?

[@russellmiles2861]

@@RodMartinJr yes, there is no tense for god as past present and future- god is timeless

[@kelechukwuanozyk7605]

Always protesting and arguing like Martin Luther

[@RodMartinJr]

@@kelechukwuanozyk7605 Or perhaps humble to God and wanting to get it *_Right_* in God's estimation. Since none of us will be omniscient, we will *_always_* have more to learn. Many Christians have gained certainty, destroying the humility required to learn.

[@midlander4]

Why should there even be any discussion about how to interpret the infallible word of God? Because it's all garbage, of course.

[@Adam-lw8lv]

Reddit moment

[@Mauvenotebook]

​@@Adam-lw8lvR/atheism has breached containment.

[@anthonyw2931]

I have to say, because of unfortunate circumstances, I've been to mass far less. But I feel far more 'awake', it seems I crave for these treasures of knowledge and understanding far beyond I thought possible. attending mass and praying feels different when one understands. My heartfelt gratitude to TI for these FREE😳 videos

[@johnwake1001]

Wow... This is an amazing mini-series of videos on creation, and this one is especially illuminating.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you.

[@cadenorris4009]

Thank you for this. I got into a pretty intense theological debate over whether evolution is problematic to faith or not. I emphatically said it is not, because they aren't attempting to answer the same questions. Science asks "how did we get here" while the Bible asks "Why are we here, what is our place in the cosmos, and who put us here?". If you take everything in Genesis 1 and 2 to be scientific and literal, then obviously there will be conflict. If you think that days in Genesis 1 is a literal period of 24 hours. And you assume the lineage of Genesis is complete and doesn't skip any generations... I could (and did) talk about this for hours, and it was extremely frustrating. This man just rejects all science, adopts an extremely fundamental baptist view, and thinks the world is 6000 years old. Me? I think it doesn't matter to my faith. He kept trying to convince me basically that I couldn't be a Christian and believe in evolution. I kept saying that God very likely could have divinely ordered and guided evolution to it's finality. He was trying to extract philosophy and morality out of science by saying that "science says humans are nothing more than evolved apes" but I kept telling him that science cannot extract a higher truth out of the physical world. Any science that claims otherwise is pseudo-science, and is in itself a religion. I told him that whether evolution is true or not, doesn't matter. My faith will be the same regardless. I said that right science and right interpretation of scripture will never conflict, and any supposed contradiction is only the result of insufficient analysis.

[@ianb483]

It depends on what is meant by evolution. In a broad sense of common ancestry or modern species having biological ancestors of different species, it's compatible with the faith. But Darwin specifically was trying to account for the appearance of purpose, function, and intendedness of life in a way that lacks any intent and reduces entirely to blind mechanism. Taken to its logical conclusion, that idea entails a denial of God's providence in the development of life and renders us a cosmic accident, and also entails that living things are mere mechanistic aggregates of parts rather than substances with natural ends that we can perceive, and so also entails a denial of Natural Law. That view of evolution is incompatible with the faith, but it's also ultimately incoherent and incompatible with the existence of reason, knowable objective truth, and hence with science itself, and so fatally undermines itself.

[@anthonypuccetti8779]

Evolution theory does contradict Church doctrine. It is a naturalistic explanation and naturalism is a false view to begin with, in science as well as philosophy. Naturalism leads to illogical notions of causality. The assumption that similar traits between species that can't procreate together must have a common ancestry is illogical. There is no law of nature or logic that prevents different species with many genetic and structural traits in common from having separate origins. And the supposed historical causes and effects of evolution theory do not correspond. Natural selection doesn't produce anything. The concept is that of a process of elimination, not creation. To say that natural selection produced something is the scientific way of saying "shit happens". It abolishes causality. And genetic mutation occurs with only a few traits whereas evolution theory illogically assumes that all traits of species are the result of mutation. "Science asks "how did we get here" while the Bible asks "Why are we here, what is our place in the cosmos, and who put us here?"." No, that is a stupid cliche. The bible doesn't ask that. And science is methodology, not a conscious being that asks questions. How and why both have to do with a cause. Scripture and the Church give the answer to how all things came to be. The gospel of John and the Nicene creed say that God created all things through his Son and Logos, Jesus Christ, and the 4th Lateran council says that God created all things out of nothing, at once and by his own power. That answers how all things came to be. How does not mean by what natural process. There was no natural process in God's acts of creation.

[@cadenorris4009]

@@ianb483 yeah the problem is trying to project objective truths onto scientific observation

[@MillionthUsername]

Evolution is absolutely problematic in all respects and should be rejected completely. It is NOT science in any sense. It is just a godless worldview based on materialism.

[@kostancijadegutyte184]

@@ianb483 The secret of combining modern scientific knowledge with the teachings of the Bible without any conflict is to place the creation of Adam in its rightful place in Genesis 1, which is the third day of Creation. The theory of evolution would be turned upside down in a revolutionary manner the way the world went from believing in a geocentric model of our world to a heliocentric one. There would be no more need to try to explain away the more obscure verses in the Bible by resorting to making up myths. Why wouldn’t dedicated seekers of Truth dare combining Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together? Following the story of Creation to the letter, it puts the creation of Adam and Eve on the third day as described in Genesis 1, shortly after the dry land appeared. The Garden of Eden could have been a domed enclosure with its own source of light where God Created Adam first and then all the specimen of other species by simply manipulating Adam’s DNA slightly. That’s why all living creatures have similar genetic blueprint: corals, plants and all living things, even those that have been long extinct. Now, to create Eve, God could not manipulate Adams DNA the same way he did when creating the lesser beings. God had to take a piece of Adams flesh and make her genetic code the same way as Adam’s. It is intriguing, how man’s genetic code is XY and the woman’s code is XX. Perhaps, Adam’s original code was XX?! The missing biblical Adam’s “RIB” most likely is the missing limb in the Y. It’s a scientific fact that all fetuses have the XX chromosomes and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female until the sixth week of gestation. It is interesting to realize that the Earth was still void when the Garden of Eden was established and God had made all the specimen of the living creatures there. It must have be at this point that God created Eve from Adam’s “rib”. It is from the Garden of Eden that the four rivers carried water to the rest of the world behind the walls. We know that there were walls as the Bible says there was a gate. God spread all the creatures over the earth when the conditions got ripe for them. On the sixth day, God instructed the Earth to bring forth all the animals and also created the beings, in the image of MAN (Adam and God), called humans. Those humans were to populate the Earth and subdue it, yet, it has never been spoken of them as immortal. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden to live a harsh life and eventually to die like the rest of the living beings on the wide earth, they brought their knowledge of good and evil to the rest of the earthly humanity. Genesis 6:6. …5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them.”… This passage reveals that Adam was the foundation upon which God had modeled the rest of the living creatures. If God destroyed the foundation of the living world, no living thing would remain in creation. It would become totally void of animate matter. All kinds of questions arise while trying to blot out the importance of the Creation of Adam as the first living being and separate from the humans made on the sixth day. If there were no other earthly humans on Earth when Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden, then how does one answer the question, who Cain was running from not to be killed? Who did Adam and Eve’s sons marry? [6:1] When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, [6:2] the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Since Eve declared that she had produced a man, her first born son with help of the Lord, is it wrong to think that perhaps they were the ones called the Sons of God in the Bible? 1 The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have produced a man with the help of the LORD." It is no secret, that certain Jewish religious groups consider non-Jews goyim, which means “cattle”. What is it that gives them the right to say that? Why do gentiles, turned Christians, call themselves “the adopted children of God (through Christ)? Bad feeling aside if one doesn’t fall into the category of being Adam’s descendant; at this point all people are equal through the Blood of Jesus that he shed on the Cross. Everyone has been offered salvation and possibility to live an eternal life in Heaven thereafter.

[@thebyzantinescotist7081]

I mean I agree with all the theology put forward here. But it does not follow from anything said in this video that these accounts are not also literal. You have to actually demonstrate that these account are meant to not be taken literally. The opposition of theological accounts to historical accounts is a nominalist hermenutic as it seperates the natural world from intelligible meaning. The same God who created the world and creates all of history is the God who wrote the scriptures. Scripture gives a literally true account of the creation of the world and that literal activity has theological meaning to it.

[@williamcurt7204]

Here's a simple demonstration: P1: True statements can be derived outside of statements in the Bible. P2: All physical evidence in the history of physics points to either an eternal universe, or one that's billions of years old. P3: P2 is a true statement. C1: Interpreting genesis as a description of physics is false.

[@requiem7204]

So true

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@williamcurt7204 not an eternal universe at all since space-time is an emergent phenomenon...

[@williamcurt7204]

@@Tzimiskes3506 I don't think there's an eternal universe, I'm just offering that as an alternative explanation because some people, when presented with undeniable evidence of the old universe as understood with modern cosmological physics, will dismiss it as false. The eternal universe is really the only explanation that's available at that point, as the discovery of CMBR simply, flatly, falsifies a young universe hypothesis. Unless, of-course, you accept that God is inconsistent and unreasonable.

[@iBringDaLULZ]

I was wondering if I'd see you in the comments! Always glad to see your insight into this topic 👍

[@jaspermay5813]

Now please feature Hugh Owen et al., as much as you have featured evolutionists.

[@anthonypuccetti8779]

The creation account doesn't need to be interpreted. It is written plainly, not figuratively. That is how the Church Fathers read it, even though some of them also attributed metaphorical meanings to some of the verses. The Pontifical Biblical Commission said in 1909 that the historical literal sense may not be called into doubt. Read the creation account according to Church doctrine on creation and what the Church Fathers and later saints said. Don't read it according to the opinions of modern scholars who ignore Church doctrine and what the Church Fathers and later saints said.

[@russellmiles2861]

Well aside from getting flowers before fish, and whales after land critters.

[@leonardu6094]

"It is written plainly, not figuratively" What an absurd comment. What do you imagine a figurative account would look like? Since you apparently think all of genesis is to be taken strictly literal.

[@russellmiles2861]

@@leonardu6094 aside one chap being all damp and about water; and the other somewhat dry. One might think god was visiting a couple of different place before writing their travel review. And whales never come before flowers. That is just silly.

[@anthonypuccetti8779]

@@russellmiles2861 What are you talking about?

[@russellmiles2861]

@@anthonypuccetti8779 Gen 1 and Gen 2 are two different stories of the creation. One uses water metaphors and the other water: reflecting the environment of the authors And God creates Adam and then all the critters that crawl about the land in ch 2. But in Chp 1 God creates the critters and then man The two Chp are seperate stories.

[@Ioannes_Solis]

Hi fellow Catholics! I'm a Filipino, And I'm here just to ask for a simple petition, and that is if you can pray for our country the Philippines? Our Election day would be on May 9 and the election season have been messy, especially since the son of the former dictaror Ferdinand Marcos is running for presidancy; and on recent election surveys he is always getting the majority of the votes. A prayer would be indeed a great help for a country in fear of being stripped away of its democracy. Your prayer would be deeply appreciated!

[@victorbrongel2038]

Awesome video, Fr. Jordan Schmidt. Very rich interpretation and explanation about the accounts of Genesis! Unfortunately, some christians and traditions don't interprete that way. They would'nt realize questions more deep about what really the authors intended to show. God bless you!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We're happy you found this helpful! Thanks for watching!

[@JohnR.T.B.]

Both light of faith and reason are needed, together with the Spirit's guidance in the Church, to read Scripture accordingly, especially the ones more difficult to understand such as Genesis. Not everything can be read literally, such as this from Genesis 2: 24, "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh." It's not like a husband and a wife will combine and become one person literally, but once a marriage has been sealed by God it cannot be separated like we're not supposed to tear apart our own bodies. Jesus explains this clearly how to read Scripture when the Pharisees challenged Him on divorce, the same is to be applied when reading creation account, because Scripture, being Word of God, tells relationships between God and His creation, especially with human beings.

[@josephzammit8483]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqKymmuAi86Jm9U

[@kostancijadegutyte184]

I was pleasantly surprised to hear that you put Adam as the first living being Created by God. Heve you ever thought of combine Genesis 1 and 2 into one sequence of events? Why wouldn’t dedicated seekers of Truth dare combining Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together? Following the story of Creation to the letter, it puts the creation of Adam and Eve on the third day as described in Genesis 1, shortly after the dry land appeared. The Garden of Eden could have been a domed enclosure with its own source of light where God Created Adam first and then all the specimen of other species by simply manipulating Adam’s DNA slightly. That’s why all living creatures have similar genetic blueprint: corals, plants and all living things, even those that have been long extinct. Now, to create Eve, God could not manipulate Adams DNA the same way he did when creating the lesser beings. God had to take a piece of Adams flesh and make her genetic code the same way as Adam’s. It is intriguing, how man’s genetic code is XY and the woman’s code is XX. Perhaps, Adam’s original code was XX?! The missing biblical Adam’s “RIB” most likely is the missing limb in the Y. It’s a scientific fact that all fetuses have the XX chromosomes and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female until the sixth week of gestation. It is interesting to realize that the Earth was still void when the Garden of Eden was established and God had made all the specimen of the living creatures there. It must have be at this point that God created Eve from Adam’s “rib”. It is from the Garden of Eden that the four rivers carried water to the rest of the world behind the walls. We know that there were walls as the Bible says there was a gate. God spread all the creatures over the earth when the conditions got ripe for them. On the sixth day, God instructed the Earth to bring forth all the animals and also created the beings, in the image of MAN (Adam and God), called humans. Those humans were to populate the Earth and subdue it, yet, it has never been spoken of them as immortal. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden to live a harsh life and eventually to die like the rest of the living beings on the wide earth, they brought their knowledge of good and evil to the rest of the earthly humanity. Genesis 6:6. …5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them.”… This passage reveals that Adam was the foundation upon which God had modeled the rest of the living creatures. If God destroyed the foundation of the living world, no living thing would remain in creation. It would become totally void of animate matter. All kinds of questions arise while trying to blot out the importance of the Creation of Adam as the first living being and separate from the humans made on the sixth day. If there were no other earthly humans on Earth when Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden, then how does one answer the question, who Cain was running from not to be killed? Who did Adam and Eve’s sons marry? [6:1] When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, [6:2] the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Since Eve declared that she had produced a man, her first born son with help of the Lord, is it wrong to think that perhaps they were the ones called the Sons of God in the Bible? 1 The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have produced a man with the help of the LORD." It is no secret, that certain Jewish religious groups consider non-Jews goyim, which means “cattle”. What is it that gives them the right to say that? Why do gentiles, turned Christians, call themselves “the adopted children of God (through Christ)? Bad feeling aside if one doesn’t fall into the category of being Adam’s descendant; at this point all people are equal through the Blood of Jesus that he shed on the Cross. Everyone has been offered salvation and possibility to live an eternal life in Heaven thereafter.

[@spg77777]

"I Am...." What is That? (underline) All the rest is noise. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within (not 'upon') you."

[@JacksonD0716]

Brilliant

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for your kind feedback, and for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@SevenDeMagnus]

Interesting

[@dave1370]

Imagine thinking that Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, even St Augustine, and other Fathers basically got all other doctrines correct, but for some reason they couldn't exegete Genesis properly.

[@jesseshaver2262]

I’m drawn to Catholicism but Jay Dyer is influencing me towards Orthodoxy. He makes super strong arguments IMO

[@jakelivingstone5747]

Watch some of Erik Ybarra and Joe Heschmeyer on the Papacy. I was looking at Orthodoxy and found Jay, but the case for Catholicism prevailed.

[@brucebarber4104]

Dr. Brant Pitre is a good source. He wrote a book, "The Jewish Roots of the Papacy" and has videos on the Catholic Productions KZbin channel.

[@thebyzantinescotist7081]

I’d recommend taking a look at the work of Jared Goff. He isn’t focused on polemics, but does great scholarship on the metaphysical issues dividing East and West. Erick Ybarra is also great.

[@thebyzantinescotist7081]

A lot of Catholic apologists are focused on responding to American evangelicals and so don’t have great material responding to Orthodoxy. But good material is out there.

[@sneakybeaver8866]

@@jakelivingstone5747 jay dyer makes Erik ybarra look like a clown.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

There is nothing to interpret when it is man made fiction.

[@vecturhoff7502]

Goofy 4ss take, even man made fiction can have interpretations, get out of youtube and go to r/atheism