The Vatican says Evolution is right!?!?!

[platos_cave]

And yet God never dumbs down or panders to a lesser understanding of how things work by using language that implied a flat eart. On the contrarty infact the Bible clearly mentions a circular earth, "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22). I hope you are getting the point I am trying to make here.
~Josh

A circle isn't a sphere, it's a disc. That's why he used the concept of a tent.

 

[cyberjosh]

And yet God never dumbs down or panders to a lesser understanding of how things work by using language that implied a flat eart. On the contrarty infact the Bible clearly mentions a circular earth, "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22). I hope you are getting the point I am trying to make here.
~Josh

A circle isn't a sphere, it's a disc. That's why he used the concept of a tent.

I'm fairly sure the Hebrews didn't have a word for a geometrical sphere, and the simile 'like' before "tent" is used to convey a description of a covering or even a domain of dwelling in general (quite poetically). In Psalm 19 we get this idea for a realm of the sun, "In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course" (Psalm 19:4-5). I'm not sure what your original point was but using a mix of precise language and similes the Bible quite adequately describes the earth and the heavens.

 

[dadof10]

Well, here I think it is allegorical, and the case could be made that it proves the 7th day rest in Genesis is also. "So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; 10 for whoever enters God's rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his." (Hebrews (RSV) 4)

Obviously a Spiritual Being doesn't "labor". He has nothing to labor with and He's outside of time. He does everything simply by thinking it into being in the eternal Now.

I agree with you on the essentials of the truth of creation, but let me tell you why I personally believe Genesis 1&2 are not allegorical. This may blow your mind if you've never thought of it this way, but it depends on how you take it. First of all, most people forget that Genesis is not the only place where the story of creation is told (this is important - it's what this whole post focuses on). It was "repeated" by God himself on Mt. Sinai in condensed form (but infact it was the original declaration), and God can hardly misunderstand or misrepresent Himself or His own words, and it lacks the ambiguous context that people can weasel out of Genesis by trying to interpret days (yom) in an ambiguous fashion (for example). In two places in Exodus God unequivocally stated its truth:

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:9-11).

And:

"It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed" (Exodus 31:17).

This wasn't God laying down literary allegory, or Moses detailing the story of creation in a literary fashion, but was recorded by direct dictation from the mouth of God.

Now here's the real gottcha and 'aha' to be had about this. The verse in Exodus 20 is of tantamount importance, as is the whole chapter - containing the Ten Commandments. But there is something else special about this chapter...

Trick Question: What were the first words of the Bible to be written? Answer: Exodus 20:2! This is where it all began, right at Mt. Sinai! God for the first time has openly revealed Himself to His people - in terrifying corporeal presence - and it is at Mt. Sinai that He authorized Scripture to be written by commanding Moses to write down what He speaks! The first words that came out of God's mouth at Sinai was the beginning of written Scripture! Where do you think Moses learned of the creation account from? God told him plainly at Sinai in the desert and Moses faithfully recorded it, and then later by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the complete detailed account of what actually happened at Creation, but it was established long before Moses wrote Genesis: God spoke it with authority and truth, and so terrifying, convicting, and powerful were His words that the people said, "let not God speak with us, lest we die!".

This is why I believe the literal account of Genesis: it was confirmed by the mouth of God Himself, and was spoken with authority and clarity in the very Ten Commandments of God.

God Bless,

~Josh

This is very interesting, not mind-blowing, but interesting. :P I have a few more questions before I comment (time permitting).

Do you think Noah, Abraham, Jacob, etc. recorded the major events of their lives and handed these writings on? In other words, did Moses have earlier sources to draw on which eventually lead to the Pentatuech, or do you think God "breathed" it to Moses like He did to, say, Matthew?

Do you think God gave Moses both creation accounts?

What about the rest of Genesis, like the "sun-centered universe" part? Do you think He only gave the creation account at Mt. Sinai, and Moses recieved the rest of the Book in the (for lack of a better word) normal way?

This is a very interesting topic and I'll try to get back to it sometime later this week.

God Bless, Mark

 

[dadof10]

dadof10, look you and I are way off topic here so I'm happy to continue our pointless debate, but not here so if you want to either PM me or start a new topic.

To everyone else, thank you for staying on topic. I'm sorry I got so far off my own topic.

OK, it's not that important considering your sources. :wink:

 

[MISFIT]

dadof10, look you and I are way off topic here so I'm happy to continue our pointless debate, but not here so if you want to either PM me or start a new topic.

To everyone else, thank you for staying on topic. I'm sorry I got so far off my own topic.

OK, it's not that important considering your sources. :wink:

Actually it's not important at all, denominational arguments are (IMO) why there are so many atheists.

 

[nadab]

What the Vatican outlined, that "the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible" is not recent. In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani generis (point 36), encouraged evolutionary research. During 1982, 11 scientists were invited to Vatican City for a discussion on evolution under the chairmanship of the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Afterward, the highest scientific body of the Catholic Church published a book containing the claim that “the lineages leading to man, chimpanzee and gorilla seem to have diverged from their common ancestor . . . 5 to 7 million years ago.†(Recent Advances in the Evolution of Primates, 1983)

Also in 1982, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, at a Vatican meeting, 12 scholars representing this scientific body issued a statement that said that "we are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and other primates beyond serious dispute."(Nature, "Twelve Wise Men at the Vatican", Sept 30, 1982, pg 395) And to this the New Catholic Encyclopedia adds: “General evolution, even of the body of man, seems the most probable scientific account of origins.â€Â(1967, Vol V, pg 694)

Over ten years ago, New York's Cardinal John O'Connor (1920-2000), adding to Pope John Paul’s statement (in 1996) that the theory of evolution was “more than just a hypothesis", proposed that Adam and Eve could have been “some other form,†not man and woman. As reported in the New York Daily News, Cardinal O’Connor said: ‘the Catholic Church remains open to scientific inquiry, and that’s true in the case of biological evolution.’ In a sermon given at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, the cardinal stated: “Is it possible that when the two persons that we speak of as Adam and Eve were created, it was in some other form, and God breathed life into them, breathed a soul into them-that’s a scientific question.†A headline in the conservative Italian newspaper Il Giornale pointedly said: “The Pope Says We May Descend From Monkeys.â€Â

Is evolution compatible with the Bible ? No. The account of creation in the book of Genesis states that "Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of the dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul."(Gen 2:7) At Proverbs 20:12, it says that "the hearing ear and the seeing eye - Jehovah himself has made even both of them." The Psalmist wrote that "the One (God) planting the ear, can he not hear ? Or the One forming the eye, can he not see ?"(Ps 94:9) The inspired writer of Psalms 104 said: "How many your works are , O Jehovah ! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."(Ps 104 :24)

And Isaiah wrote that "this is what the true God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out; the One laying out the earth and its produce, the One giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it."(Isa 42:5) Thus from the bringing forth of the necessary elements (dust) of the earth, God formed the man complete, with him then blowing into his nostrils "the breath of life" so that he was now a living soul, not possessing one.

When the Pharisees were intent on tempting Jesus concerning the matter of divorce, he straightforwardly told them: "Did you not read (at Genesis 2:24) that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female." Thus, the Bible is clear that God created life in it's complete form, seeing its formation from beginning to end, as male and female, Adam and Eve. Thus, he is rightfully called our "Grand Creator" at Ecclesiastes 12:1.

That is also why God provided a ransom (Matt 20:28), for his creation, to buy back what the first man Adam lost, the hope of living on a Paradise earth forever in perfect health.(Ps 37:11,29) If mindless evolution were able to form features of the body, then why give the glory to God ?(Gal 1:5) Can that which has no mind cause hands and feet, eyes and ears to come into existence ? Too, why not let evolution provide the ransom, if it really exists as a "cause" of us ? Why not then put our trust in this mindless entity instead of God. Can evolution save us from sin and death ? Can it give us a hope of an everlasting future ?

Those who accept evolution have placed it as a god, and the Vatican has failed to accurately represent the Bible's creation account. Such ones allows their heart to blind them to the real solution of mankind's problems, that of the Messanic kingdom, (Matt 6:9,10) which Jesus gave outstanding prominence (John 18:36) and which will "hallow" God's name and restore God's original purpose for the earth of being a Paradise with "meek" ones on it.(Matt 6:9,10; Isa 45:18)

Psalms 14:1 says that "The senseless one (Hebrew na·val´, fool, King James Bible) has said in his heart: “There is no Jehovah.†Thus, there is no recognition of a "God" that would call these to account. These though are not intellectually ignorant. Rather, the Hebrew word na·val´ points to a moral deficiency. Professor S. R. Driver, in his notes to The Parallel Psalter, says that the fault is “not weakness of reason, but moral and religious insensibility, an invincible lack of sense, or perception.â€Â

So in reality, these do not recognize God as their Maker, not as Psalms 95:6,7 says for "us (to) kneel before Jehovah our Maker. For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasturage and the sheep of his hand." At Isaiah 51:12,13, God asks: "Who are you that you should be afraid of a mortal man that will die...that you should forget Jehovah your Maker, the One stretching out the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth ?"

 

[cyberjosh]

Amen. Terrific post nadab! Thank you for the attention to detail. You get an A+ and sticker for that post. ;)

 

[francisdesales]

What the Vatican outlined, that "the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible" is not recent. In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani generis (point 36), encouraged evolutionary research. During 1982, 11 scientists were invited to Vatican City for a discussion on evolution under the chairmanship of the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Afterward, the highest scientific body of the Catholic Church published a book containing the claim that “the lineages leading to man, chimpanzee and gorilla seem to have diverged from their common ancestor . . . 5 to 7 million years ago.†(Recent Advances in the Evolution of Primates, 1983)

Also in 1982, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, at a Vatican meeting, 12 scholars representing this scientific body issued a statement that said that "we are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and other primates beyond serious dispute."(Nature, "Twelve Wise Men at the Vatican", Sept 30, 1982, pg 395) And to this the New Catholic Encyclopedia adds: “General evolution, even of the body of man, seems the most probable scientific account of origins.â€Â(1967, Vol V, pg 694)

Over ten years ago, New York's Cardinal John O'Connor (1920-2000), adding to Pope John Paul’s statement (in 1996) that the theory of evolution was “more than just a hypothesis", proposed that Adam and Eve could have been “some other form,†not man and woman. As reported in the New York Daily News, Cardinal O’Connor said: ‘the Catholic Church remains open to scientific inquiry, and that’s true in the case of biological evolution.’ In a sermon given at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, the cardinal stated: “Is it possible that when the two persons that we speak of as Adam and Eve were created, it was in some other form, and God breathed life into them, breathed a soul into them-that’s a scientific question.†A headline in the conservative Italian newspaper Il Giornale pointedly said: “The Pope Says We May Descend From Monkeys.â€Â

Is evolution compatible with the Bible ? No. The account of creation in the book of Genesis states that "Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of the dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul."(Gen 2:7) At Proverbs 20:12, it says that "the hearing ear and the seeing eye - Jehovah himself has made even both of them." The Psalmist wrote that "the One (God) planting the ear, can he not hear ? Or the One forming the eye, can he not see ?"(Ps 94:9) The inspired writer of Psalms 104 said: "How many your works are , O Jehovah ! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."(Ps 104 :24)

I believe you are not correctly stating the Catholic position. It is open to the possibility that God created man THROUGH evolution. The Catholic Church teaches infallibly that God created man. She also teaches that God created man male and female, one set, whom Scriptures call Adam and Eve. The Bible, however, does not give a scientific detail on exactly HOW God achieved this creation. By saying "God formed man from out of the dust", isn't it CONCEIVABLE that this refers to the process of evolution from beginning to end? Single cell creatures forming into man through a directed process of evolution? The Bible doesn't rule this out. And the Creator, forming the eye. Again, this can be a process that takes millions of years, for to God, a day is as a thousand years. We just cannot say the Bible rules out evolution. The Bible DOES rule out materialistic atheistic evolution. However, it is conceivable that God created through a long process called evolution.

And Isaiah wrote that "this is what the true God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out; the One laying out the earth and its produce, the One giving breath to the people on it, and spirit to those walking in it."(Isa 42:5) Thus from the bringing forth of the necessary elements (dust) of the earth, God formed the man complete, with him then blowing into his nostrils "the breath of life" so that he was now a living soul, not possessing one.

None of which denies evolution, per sec. Again, this does not necessitate an immediate "forming of man from dust" as over the course of five minutes.

When the Pharisees were intent on tempting Jesus concerning the matter of divorce, he straightforwardly told them: "Did you not read (at Genesis 2:24) that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female." Thus, the Bible is clear that God created life in it's complete form, seeing its formation from beginning to end, as male and female, Adam and Eve. Thus, he is rightfully called our "Grand Creator" at Ecclesiastes 12:1.

Again, if I take years to make something, can it not be said that I 'created it from the beginning"? This does not rule out a long process of creating by creating intermediate forms that lead to the ultimate intent - man. Note Scriptures relate God creating other creatures before man, leading up to the pinnacle of visible creation.

In addition, even taking the literal sense of the Scriptures, one cannot say God created man "from the beginning" as if to rule out evolution, because man was NOT created "in the beginning". He wasn't created until the sixth day...

I believe you are mistaking the Catholic position by saying evolution "created things itself". NO! We believe God created everything. Evolution is just a scientific process that explains how God did it - if it is even true (it is yet a theory).

That is also why God provided a ransom (Matt 20:28), for his creation, to buy back what the first man Adam lost, the hope of living on a Paradise earth forever in perfect health.(Ps 37:11,29) If mindless evolution were able to form features of the body, then why give the glory to God ?(Gal 1:5) Can that which has no mind cause hands and feet, eyes and ears to come into existence ? Too, why not let evolution provide the ransom, if it really exists as a "cause" of us ? Why not then put our trust in this mindless entity instead of God. Can evolution save us from sin and death ? Can it give us a hope of an everlasting future ?

Really, this is a huge stretch in what the Catholic position is. No one says evolution saves anything. Nor is it a hope. It is merely a theory on how God did it. It certainly is not incompatible with Scriptures, if we see the Bible as a theological treatise on how God loves man, rather than a book on every subject under the sun.

Those who accept evolution have placed it as a god, and the Vatican has failed to accurately represent the Bible's creation account. Such ones allows their heart to blind them to the real solution of mankind's problems, that of the Messanic kingdom, (Matt 6:9,10) which Jesus gave outstanding prominence (John 18:36) and which will "hallow" God's name and restore God's original purpose for the earth of being a Paradise with "meek" ones on it.(Matt 6:9,10; Isa 45:18)

You claim that because you believe the Bible account is literal. Where does the Bible make that statement? Where does the Bible say "chapter one and two of Genesis are literal. A day refers to one twenty-four hour period..." It doesn't. Thus, the writing must be read under the genre it is written. Since man did not witness creation, we cannot pretend to know the mind of God and whether God related creation "history" as literal or metaphor! That is YOUR assumption.

However, God does condescend to man's level so we can understand His Word. It is not surprising that God, then, would reveal to us metaphorical symbols of creation, rather than speak of quantum physics and microbiology...

Do you think Moses would care about the later??? Hardly.

Psalms 14:1 says that "The senseless one (Hebrew na·val´, fool, King James Bible) has said in his heart: “There is no Jehovah.†Thus, there is no recognition of a "God" that would call these to account. These though are not intellectually ignorant. Rather, the Hebrew word na·val´ points to a moral deficiency. Professor S. R. Driver, in his notes to The Parallel Psalter, says that the fault is “not weakness of reason, but moral and religious insensibility, an invincible lack of sense, or perception.â€Â

These are just low blows, now. Anyone who doesn't think like you must not believe in God. Is it possible you do not understand the Catholic position? I would say "yes", considering what you have written.

So in reality, these do not recognize God as their Maker, not as Psalms 95:6,7 says for "us (to) kneel before Jehovah our Maker. For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasturage and the sheep of his hand." At Isaiah 51:12,13, God asks: "Who are you that you should be afraid of a mortal man that will die...that you should forget Jehovah your Maker, the One stretching out the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth ?"

More non-sequitars. The more you write, the worse it gets. Nowhere does the Catholic Church reject that God created the world. I hope you are aware of what "bearing false witness" means.

Regards

 

[stranger]

Creation and evolution. . .

The decisive factor for me is this- that God not only created man but that there is good reason to believe that there is a cause and affect relation between God saying let there be and there was. Furthermore, we believe that God made man in His own image and likeness. Animals do not share that distinctive.

Getting back to the comment I made earlier about devolution ie man devolving into an animal the case of Nebuchadnezzar comes to mind. God judged him for his pride over the kindom and as a consequence he lost his throne and became 'mad' living in the field like a wild beast. That he was restored to being King after he came to his senses (repented?) when he acknowledged that it was God who gave him the kingdom, and gives kingdoms to whom He will - we see a rationalty at work that escapes the evolution arguments.

It is true that God did not reveal the 'how' of creation, but I would not be hasty in saying God could have used evolution to bring about the creation of man. It may be that science itself will debunk evolution once and for all and that would leave the Church with a white elephant. If it took millions of years for the primeval organism to crawl out of the water, and evolve into something more complex - what is the rush in accepting a theory that is bearly one hundred years old?

What the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived . . . God has revealed. Darwin was not exactly a spokesman for the Church, and as far as I know he was no prophet either.

 

[francisdesales]

Creation and evolution. . .

The decisive factor for me is this- that God not only created man but that there is good reason to believe that there is a cause and affect relation between God saying let there be and there was. Furthermore, we believe that God made man in His own image and likeness. Animals do not share that distinctive.

I agree - there is certainly a cause and effect. However, it doesn't follow that intermediate life forms LEADING to man does not remove God's "cause and effect". We COULD say that God created man by creating other creatures and guiding them to "evolve" into man. When the body of man was achieved, God certainly could have then breathed the "soul" into man. At this point, we have "Adam". The Bible does not rule out this progressive cause and effect, and the Scriptures do not necessitate an "instantaneous" formation of Adam.

Again, the Church isn't saying this is how it happened. She is open to science, as long as science stays within its own boundaries and not try to become philosophical.

It is true that God did not reveal the 'how' of creation, but I would not be hasty in saying God could have used evolution to bring about the creation of man. It may be that science itself will debunk evolution once and for all and that would leave the Church with a white elephant. If it took millions of years for the primeval organism to crawl out of the water, and evolve into something more complex - what is the rush in accepting a theory that is bearly one hundred years old?

I don't think the Catholic Church is being "hasty". THAT would be a novel accusation!!!

She is merely being open to the possibility - that one can be a theistic evolution believer and not being in contradiction with Scriptures. Yes, it is true that science may jettison the idea of evolution. The Church sees that science has strong evidence for evolution, but never can science provide empirical evidence that "nature" randomly evolved. We would say that God guided creation to what we see today. This takes nothing away from Genesis 1 and 2. Still, God creates an orderly and beautiful creation, with man at its pinnacle. The Church has not defined evolution because it is not a matter of "faith and morals". It is a scientific theory that, when properly understood, is not in contradistinction to our faith. We are open to it as a possibility. The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. So it yet remains a theory.

A few bishops expressing strong beliefs in evolution means nothing regarding what we call the "Ordinary Magesterium". They are personal opinions - granted, may influence people - but as such, one does not have to believe that evolution explains the "how" to remain Catholic. It just is not part of the deposit of faith. When evolution strays into ideas that are AGAINST the faith (such as mankind not coming from one man and woman), THEN, you will see the Church reject such:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Humani Generis, His Holiness Pope Pius XII; Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine August 12, 1950

Beautiful! The faithful are given freedom to accept or not the idea of evolution - unless it postulates theories that contradict what the Church has infallibly taught through God's Spirit.

What the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived . . . God has revealed. Darwin was not exactly a spokesman for the Church, and as far as I know he was no prophet either.

Agree. But there is no reason for a Christian to leave their brain at the door. God has given us reason, and our faith is not against reason. We are not to be afraid of the truth, whether God expresses it in Scriptures, through His Church, or in nature.

Regards

 

[nadab]

Hello francisdesales,
At Genesis 1:26, God said to his "master worker" (Prov 8:30) Son: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." Hence, us as "man", have the capacity to reflect godly qualities of love, mercy, kindness, goodness, and patience. Could evolution have created within us these qualities, being as they are a reflection of God, according to his "likeness" and not a mindless entity ?

You seek to attribute creative capability to a mindless entity that even you recognize as a theory. Can anything be shown that we use that evolved, though started by a human ? Did the razor you use, engineered by a human mind, then evolve from a one blade to two blades to three blades ? Or a simple spoon to one that is decorative ? Was there not an engineer's mind who designed the razor in it's simplistic form, then in time, made changes ? A mind was needed to alter the razor's original design. Has a builder of a house brought it up to a point of almost completion, then went home and came back to see that it was now finished without the aid of human hands, that evolution took over and finalized it, making sure all the details were properly done ?

If evolution were true, then why has God not spoke of it in his word the Bible ? Is not the Bible a book of accurate knowledge from God ?(John 17:17) He spoke of his Son as his "master worker" and of the angels as "mighty in power, carrying out his word" (Ps 103:20) and of his holy spirit as his active force that was used in the creation of the universe and earth,(Gen 1:2) but nothing of evolution.

Really though, would God be Almighty (Gen 17:1) if he did not bring to completion his own creative work but allowed a theoretical mindless entity to finalize it ? Of course, evolution has to be a fact for it even to be considered. Is it ? The evidence shows that evolution is not a fact but is a product of an imaginative mind.(yes, it took a mind to even conceive of this theory). To further put up theoretical evolution as assisting God in his handiwork, is equal to it being a god in itself, on the same level as God Almighty, capable of bringing life into existence, for it must have the precision know-how to accomplish this, though mindless. Is this reasonable ? Isaiah 42:8 says: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images (or evolution)."

It is the same as God said of the nation of Israel, that "they have left me, the source of living water, in order to hew out for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that cannot contain the water."(Jer 2:13) The religions of Christendom have fallen prey to this distorted thinking, hewing out for themselves "broken cisterns", by accepting this theory as fact and linking it with God, because of their religious leaders advancement of it. Rather than stepping up to the plate and batting for our Creator, many of the "flock" have capitulated to this line of reasoning. And why ? Because, as Jesus said, that these are fed spiritual "crumbs" from the "table of the rich man", the religious leaders.(Luke 16:21)

Italian nuclear physicist, Antonino Zichichi, said of Pope John Paul's statement concerning evolution in 1996, that John Paul "recognizes science as a depository of values that are on the same plane as those of the faith." Though Catholicism accepts evolution, can theoretical evolution be on the "same plane" as the Bible ? No ! Many in the scientific field accepts evolution as fact, but the scientific field has had to make changes in several areas of "expertise", such as from the geocentric (earth-centered) view that the earth was the center of the universe and of which the Catholic church firmly believed, to the more accurate heliocentric (sun-centered) of view that Galileo provided, that the earth revolved around the sun, but was threatened with torture by Pope Urban VIII in 1632 if he did not recant.

Theologians of the Roman Inquisition labeled the heliocentric thesis “philosophically foolish and absurd and formally heretical, since in many places it expressly contradicts the sentences of the Holy Scriptures according to their literal meaning, the common exposition, and the sense of the Holy Fathers and doctors of theology.†It had further ruled that "the view that the earth is not the center of the universe and even has a daily rotation is . . . at least an erroneous belief.â€Â

The Bible, on the other hand, has been shown repeatedly to be accurate. The Bible and evolution are diametrically opposed, for these can never be reconciled. Proverbs 3:19,20 says that "Jehovah himself in wisdom founded the earth. He solidly fixed the heavens in discernment. By his knowledge the watery deeps themselves were split apart, and the cloudy skies keep dripping down light rain." What does it mean for God to have "in wisdom founded the earth" ? That God himself created the earth and heavens and all life by his "wisdom...discernment...knowledge", and only with his "only-begotten Son" as his "master worker".(Col 1:16)

 

[stranger]

stranger wrote:The decisive factor for me is this- that God not only created man but that there is good reason to believe that there is a cause and affect relation between God saying let there be and there was. Furthermore, we believe that God made man in His own image and likeness. Animals do not share that distinctive.

francisdesales wrote:

I agree - there is certainly a cause and effect. However, it doesn't follow that intermediate life forms LEADING to man does not remove God's "cause and effect". We COULD say that God created man by creating other creatures and guiding them to "evolve" into man. When the body of man was achieved, God certainly could have then breathed the "soul" into man. At this point, we have "Adam". The Bible does not rule out this progressive cause and effect, and the Scriptures do not necessitate an "instantaneous" formation of Adam.

The account of the creation of man in Genesis is not from existing life forms but inanimate matter depicted as 'clay'. God also breaths into man the breath of life. . . while animals are not created in that way ie God does not breathe into animals the breath of life.

As I have said already - God made man in His own image after His own likeness. If God created something less than man and then used evolution - what does this say about 'His image and likeness?' The evolving of a lifeform is not an act of Creation but one of change or at best manipulation of something that is already alive! cf with 'clay' that is not alive.

Let us think about the incarnation. The Word became flesh or 'truly man' - isn't this what the Church confesses? As 'truly man' Jesus bears the very stamp of God's nature in being 'begotten but not created'. Since Jesus is the begotten Son of God in whose image man (Adam) is created - then it follows that man was created as man (and not as something that later evolved into man) unless of course the image and likeness of God could evolve. Since you, as a Catholic, would affirm the incarnation of the Word as truly man (Jesus' humanity) bearing the image and likeness of God - then why wrest from man (in your thinking) the image and likeness of God which never changes (for God does not change) by suggesting something can evolve into that image but was not created in that image?

Again, the Church isn't saying this is how it happened. She is open to science, as long as science stays within its own boundaries and not try to become philosophical.

Indeed, the apologetic that 'all truth is God's truth wherever it may be found' (Holmes) is not a threat to faith since God's truth rightly understood by science will not contradict what is revealed. Not sure about 'miracles' though - what do you think?

It is true that God did not reveal the 'how' of creation, but I would not be hasty in saying God could have used evolution to bring about the creation of man. It may be that science itself will debunk evolution once and for all and that would leave the Church with a white elephant. If it took millions of years for the primeval organism to crawl out of the water, and evolve into something more complex - what is the rush in accepting a theory that is bearly one hundred years old?

I don't think the Catholic Church is being "hasty". THAT would be a novel accusation!!!

She is merely being open to the possibility - that one can be a theistic evolution believer and not being in contradiction with Scriptures. Yes, it is true that science may jettison the idea of evolution. The Church sees that science has strong evidence for evolution, but never can science provide empirical evidence that "nature" randomly evolved. We would say that God guided creation to what we see today. This takes nothing away from Genesis 1 and 2. Still, God creates an orderly and beautiful creation, with man at its pinnacle. The Church has not defined evolution because it is not a matter of "faith and morals". It is a scientific theory that, when properly understood, is not in contradistinction to our faith. We are open to it as a possibility. The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. So it yet remains a theory.

in bold - we have the same argument as my quote from 'Holmes' - all truth is God's truth.

A few bishops expressing strong beliefs in evolution means nothing regarding what we call the "Ordinary Magesterium". They are personal opinions - granted, may influence people - but as such, one does not have to believe that evolution explains the "how" to remain Catholic. It just is not part of the deposit of faith. When evolution strays into ideas that are AGAINST the faith (such as mankind not coming from one man and woman), THEN, you will see the Church reject such:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. .

Humani Generis, His Holiness Pope Pius XII; Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine August 12, 1950

Beautiful! The faithful are given freedom to accept or not the idea of evolution - unless it postulates theories that contradict what the Church has infallibly taught through God's Spirit.

Yes, it is clear that Adam (who can be substituted for man in my opening agument, is central to the debate - I think that he could be called 'truly man' before the fall. Your quote deals with and shuts out the propect of man evolving or appearing simultaneously in different parts of the world without necessarily being related.

What the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived . . . God has revealed. Darwin was not exactly a spokesman for the Church, and as far as I know he was no prophet either.

Agree. But there is no reason for a Christian to leave their brain at the door. God has given us reason, and our faith is not against reason. We are not to be afraid of the truth, whether God expresses it in Scriptures, through His Church, or in nature.

Regards

Tell me francis - before you were a Catholic what did you leave at the door in regard to the faith? What measure of trust would you now place in the reason of the man that you were formerly?

Greetings.

 

[francisdesales]

At Genesis 1:26, God said to his "master worker" (Prov 8:30) Son: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." Hence, us as "man", have the capacity to reflect godly qualities of love, mercy, kindness, goodness, and patience. Could evolution have created within us these qualities, being as they are a reflection of God, according to his "likeness" and not a mindless entity ?

Again, none of this proves that God created man entirely from dirt in one minute. It matters not to me, one way or the other, if God created Adam in one minute, or if God guided the process over billions of years, and when the time was right, infused "pre-man" with a soul and called this one man "Adam". To me, a Neanderthal is not a man, but a creature leading to man. You cannot deny the existence of such creatures. Where would they fit in to your scheme of things, since the Bible doesn't mention such beings?

You seek to attribute creative capability to a mindless entity that even you recognize as a theory.

More mistakes on what I "attribute". You are confusing me with an atheist who believes that nature just, by itself, randomly evolves life into what we see today. I have not said this, nor has the Church, as I have already related. If you intend on discussing with me such things, try to argue against what I actually believe and hold to.

If evolution were true, then why has God not spoke of it in his word the Bible ? Is not the Bible a book of accurate knowledge from God ?

The Bible is a theological work, not a scientific work. Do you see anything in there about gravity? How about the first Law of Thermodynamics? Relativity? Quantum Mechanics? Really. Why would you expect to find such things in the bible? The Bible relates to us how God loves us, our relationship with Him. It is not an ancient "wikipedia"... Such mindsets make Christians look daft to the rest of the world, when this is not necessary. The Laws of nature were established by God, and it is not heretical to note and observe nature and God's design in it.

What is at stake is NOT God. It is your view of God.

Really though, would God be Almighty (Gen 17:1) if he did not bring to completion his own creative work but allowed a theoretical mindless entity to finalize it ?

Again, you are having a difficult time following an argument. I have already said, on several occasions, that God created the universe. I am open to HOW He did it. Evolution is not "MINDLESS". God COULD have created THROUGH the PROCESS of gradual evolution. Science shows this is a distinct POSSIBILITY. Is this sinking in yet? No matter what scientific name you attach to how God did it, God still did it. Science can never disprove that. The Church defends that position, not your strawman.

Of course, evolution has to be a fact for it even to be considered. Is it ? The evidence shows that evolution is not a fact but is a product of an imaginative mind.(yes, it took a mind to even conceive of this theory). To further put up theoretical evolution as assisting God in his handiwork, is equal to it being a god in itself, on the same level as God Almighty, capable of bringing life into existence, for it must have the precision know-how to accomplish this, though mindless. Is this reasonable ?

More strawman arguments. I think you need to re-evaluate what I am saying. You seem to think that I believe evolution is a force in of itself. I have not said this, nor has the Church. You are confusing theistic evolution with materialistic evolution.

Many in the scientific field accepts evolution as fact, but the scientific field has had to make changes in several areas of "expertise", such as from the geocentric (earth-centered) view that the earth was the center of the universe and of which the Catholic church firmly believed, to the more accurate heliocentric (sun-centered) of view that Galileo provided, that the earth revolved around the sun, but was threatened with torture by Pope Urban VIII in 1632 if he did not recant.

Are you trying to tell me that theologians, both Protestant and Catholic, view ALL matters of faith the exact same way over the last 500 years??? No one ever looked at a matter of theology with a different angle or point of view??? No one ever "changed their view"? How about Protestantism and contraception??? Up to 1930, every Protestant sect regarded contraception as against the laws of nature and revealed law from God. All of a sudden, practically every Protestant now believes it is OK to use contraception.

Look to yourself and the log in your own eye before you start making such accusations... Whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versus is inconsequential to our faith. Those who believes our faith is shattered by it are enslaved to a literal interpretation of Scriptures. People should realize that every author did not INTEND to write literal history...

The Bible, on the other hand, has been shown repeatedly to be accurate.

I never said the bible is not accurate. It is inerrant in every subject it speaks about. The problem is man's interpretation of Scriptures, not the writers. You have decided that the bible ALWAYS speaks literally - when the bible clearly does not always speak literally. Even you admit that, such as your take on John 6:51. Why the sudden change there?

Regards

 

[one_lost_coin]

I dare say everyone posting on this thread accepts some of the tenents of evolutionary theory.

For example the mutation of organisms. Anyone who works in a hospital can attest to the valid fears of the mutation of bacteria to antibiotics. It is an obvious truth and a part of evolutionary theory that has been observed and verified. It also hardly challenges the truth of God as our creator. Truth is Truth

 

[francisdesales]

The account of creation of man in Genesis is not from existing life forms but inanimate matter depicted as 'clay'. God also breaths into man the breath of life. . . while animals are not created in that way ie God does not breathe into animals the breath of life.

Yes, we believe that God created out of nothing - and again, this can refer to the ultimate beginning. Not individual creatures. I do not see how Genesis rules out the evolving of creatures. The bible doesn't say that God created birds out of nothing. It says He created the birds of the air - perhaps by taking what He had already created. This is true of man: in essence, if God created man directly from dirt, isn't this pre-existing matter, as well? God didn't create man directly from nothing. He created the universe from nothing. The Bible doesn't detail the HOW. It merely ensures us that God ordered creation.

As I have said already - God made man in His own image after His own likeness. If God created something less than man and then used evolution - what does this say about His image and likeness?

Perhaps God created (by evolution) the Neanderthal, and took one of them and infused within this one Neanderthal His breath, and calling this new creation "Adam". Again, I do not know the scientific procedure, nor do I think it is instrumental for our faith to know such things. I know and believe that God created "man", Adam, as one man. Whether God took a pre-existing "pre-man" to do it or took a pile of dirt and created man as I would build a chair, I do not know. Science clearly does show various pre-men that suggest some sort of evolving being. We posit that God guided this evolution.

The evolving of a lifeform is not an act of Creation but one of change or at best manipulation of something that is already alive! cf with 'clay' that is not alive. Therefore when God made man and it is reasonable to interpret 'made' as 'created' - this sort of distinction is important in revelation.

I do not believe that "evolution" is a force that creates, nor do I believe that random mutations can make IMPROVED NEW species. Reptile cells do not get together and decide one day that it would be more advantageous to have wings and so they grow them...Only an intelligent designer can do this change.

If we think about the incarnation - the Word became flesh - and if I say the Word became 'truly man' I am sure that you will understand the reference to what the Church confesses. This true man - bears the very stamp of God's nature ie Jesus is truly man 'begotten but not created. If Jesus is begotten, and He is the Son of God in whose image man is created - then it also follows that man was created as man (and not as something that later evolved into man) unless of course the image and likeness of God is not a true reflection of man, or God in the first instance.

Man is defined as a being with our body AND a soul. The soul cannot "evolve" from non-existence. The soul is given to us freely and completely by God. At that point, we are called "man", in the image and likeness of God. Thus, a Neanderthal, though nearly having the body of "man", is not or cannot be "man", because he has no soul, nor can he get one through evolutional processes. It is given whole and entirely by God, since the soul does not have parts that can evolve, being a spiritual essence.

Since you, as a Catholic would affirm the incarnation of the Word as truely man bearing the very stamp of God's nature - then you will also not 'take from man' (in your thinking) the image and likeness of God whose Being and Person never changes.

Yes, and I think I have explained my point better above.

Indeed, the apolegetic that 'all truth is God's truth wherever it may be found' (Holmes) is not a threat to faith since God's truth rightly understood by science will not contradict what is revealed. Not sure about 'miracles' though - what do you think?

Science can only observe, and even when it witnesses a "miracle", can never say "God did it", since that would be poor science. Science cannot attribute to a Being it cannot measure or see. That is a matter of philosophy or metaphysics. Miracles are always a matter of faith, in my opinion. Naturally, they are very convincing to those who witness them!

It is true that God did not reveal the 'how' of creation, but I would not be hasty in saying God could have used evolution to bring about the creation of man. It may be that science itself will debunk evolution once and for all and that would leave the Church with a white elephant.

I think the Church says it is a good possibility, not that it is part of the "Ordinary Magesterium" infallibly declared. I think she learned her lesson with Galileo. You are correct, future science may debunk evolution.

If it took millions of years for the primeval organism to crawl out of the water, and evolve into something more complex - what is the rush in accepting a theory that is bearly one hundred years old?

It has become part of the teachings in school Biology classes. There really is no need to come down on the "6 day creation scheme" in the literal sense when even the ancients questioned that. People like Augustine and Aquinas (no doubt, other ancient scientists) noted that animals evolved at least at some micro level and that Genesis might not be literal science.

all truth is God's truth.

Yes. That is why, IF science OBSERVES evolution, we should not be afraid to admit that we may be misinterpreting Sacred Scriptures. Naturally, we may conclude later that evolution is a farce. But I do not believe either effects our faith handed down from the Apostles. As long as we remember God created the universe and that one man who fell into sin, we have not damaged the faith with scientific theories of the day.

Tell me francis - before you were a Catholic what did you leave at the door in regard to the faith? What measure of trust would you now place in the reason of the man that you were formerly?

I was born and raised Catholic. However, as a teen, I questioned my faith handed to me. I fell away, because God was not evident to me, expecting some sort of experience similar to one I would have with another human relationship. As such, I wasn't religious at all during the middle 20 years of my life. At that point, I would disregard things that were not scientifically proven or had a reasonable chance of happening based upon past occurences. To me, evil was a good foil vs. God's "care" He provided to mankind. I had faith my car would start in the morning, and I had faith that Washington was the first president. To me, God was more difficult to prove (and scientifically, can we prove God, even as believers?). But that changed when I began to experience and believe in God's existence - by faith. That is why FAITH in God is so important. Ultimately, God is not proveable by scientific observation. It does take a "leap of faith", although this leap is not independent from reason.

Now, when I look back at my past "level of trust", I see that my eyes were closed to God's presence. I understand why I was who I was and am thankful that God has chosen to reveal Himself to me in a way that I could believe without kidding myself... I cannot believe in a God if I must "fool" myself. I must be convinced in my heart AND mind.

Brother in Christ

 

[stranger]

I dare say everyone posting on this thread accepts some of the tenents of evolutionary theory.

For example the mutation of organisms. Anyone who works in a hospital can attest to the valid fears of the mutation of bacteria to antibiotics. It is an obvious truth and a part of evolutionary theory that has been observed and verified. It also hardly challenges the truth of God as our creator. Truth is Truth

Hi one_lost_coin,

Mutations don't survive and if they do they tend to be weaker and infertile and then they die. I would say that resistent bacteria is still bacteria and doesn't evolve into a species of another 'kind'.

 

[one_lost_coin]

Hi one_lost_coin,

Mutations don't survive and if they do they tend to be weaker and infertile and then they die. I would say that resistent bacteria is still bacteria and doesn't evolve into a species of another 'kind'.

I wasn't trying to account for the entire versions of some of the theories of evolution (as there are many differing varieties).

Merely pointing out that there are elements in these theories that are accurate and can be observed and accepted as truth by everyone.

 

[Rick W]

Resistance to penicillin was once considered evolution, a mutation, since there really wasn't a better explanation. But recently a little known or reported breakthrough has emerged that shows the mechanism to resist the attack of penicillin already exists. The protein responsible has been identified and really has nothing to do with mutation but rather a naturally triggered response. Things aren't always as they appear.

Breakthrough may restore penicillin's effectiveness against resistant bacteria

March 14, 2008, 2:00 PM

Big news from the bacterial world today, as a new study by researchers in the U.K., Canada and U.S. could return penicillin to the front lines of the battle against antibiotic-resistant superbugs that kill millions.

The team uncovered how the bacteria builds its immunity to penicillin, illuminating new avenues to disrupt that process and restore penicillin's effectiveness against these bacteria.

They found that the protein acted as an enzyme, playing a key role in the formation of structures within the peptidoglycan which build up its strength.

 

[one_lost_coin]

Praise God for that discovery. I had not heard of it. Thanks for sharing that.

The point however is still very valid. The examples are all around us such as the mutation in humans that makes one prone to sickle cell anemia also has the positive aspect of being resistant to malaria. I also take it we have noticed human beings exist in different and distinct races yet we all came from the same two parents.

Seeing that everything that has been made comes from God can be explored, comprehended and appreciated for the beauty in which God has made it and through which God reveals aspects of Himself through can only lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation of our Lord. Their is no reason we should feel threatened by true science. Bad science and science with an agenda will always be exposed for what it is eventually.

 

[cyberjosh]

This is very interesting, not mind-blowing, but interesting. :P I have a few more questions before I comment (time permitting).

Do you think Noah, Abraham, Jacob, etc. recorded the major events of their lives and handed these writings on? In other words, did Moses have earlier sources to draw on which eventually lead to the Pentateuch, or do you think God "breathed" it to Moses like He did to, say, Matthew?

This is a good question, and the short answer is I think it was a little of both, but let me clarify a bit about how I meant Exodus 20:2 was the first Scripture to be written. Now, yes I believe there were some records (probably not pre-flood records though) that were penned down of the Patriarch's times (among other things like the list of Edom's kings, etc.), and thus you could say there were earlier sources that went into Scripture, but such simple recording by itself does not constitute the holy and inspired Scriptural content from God. It was at Mt. Sinai where Scripture was authorized to be written, and without that event I would dare to say we might not even have an Old Testament. So many things happened at Sinai that were incredibly important (which I have buzzing in the back of my mind - which is the "exciting" and/or mind blowing part I mentioned) that even the future ministry of Jesus was authorized because of what happened at Sinai (Deuteronomy 18:18-19) because they said to not have God speak to them any longer lest they die and thus a mediator between God and the Israelites was appointed, not to mention that also the institution/authorization of the Israelite Kingship, the ministry of the prophets, and the priesthood were all given in the law instituted at Sinai.

It is there that God told Moses to write those things down, and from that grew the Pentateuch, Genesis being a special historical revealing of Israel's pre-history and God's grand plan. And no doubt for, the pre-flood era especially, Moses had to be given divine inspiration from God to write what he did, and especially for the creation accounts - for which no one but God was present to "record".

Do you think God gave Moses both creation accounts?

Absolutely, I do. And the two have their own individual focuses which nonetheless tie into and compliment one another - the first chapter being on God's creation of all things and Him being Elohim (implies a 'covenant God') and blessing them saying "be fruitful and multiply", whereas Genesis 2 focuses much more on God's interaction with man, and also where we first see the divine name of Yahweh. And also in chapter 2, instead of seeing Him only as 'Elohim', in gracious covenant relationship to His creatures, blessing them to be fruitful and multiply, we see God here as Yahweh (used most often to convey the righteous, just character of God - often who demands purity of his creatures) where the first thing He says to man is not a benediction (like in chapter 1) but rather commands the man to do something "The LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] commanded the man, saying, ..." (Genesis 2:16). The first thing God (as Elohim) is shown as doing in chapter 1 is blessing the creature, whereas the first thing He (as Yahweh) is seen as doing in chapter 2 is commanding the creature to do something. An excellent book to read more about this point and subject is The Names of God - by Andrew Jukes (you can see my review of the book on that page).

But I think the two creation accounts compliment each other nicely and fit the intended purpose for which they were written to show the complex nature and reasons for which "God created..." in the first place. We see his dual purpose and nature in Him being shown as a blessing, covenant God (Elohim) who blesses His creatures despite (or inspite) of their present situation, and also in being a righteous God Yahweh who at the same times demands righteousness and responsibility from his creatures. In a way it is the picture of salvation in Christ: in Christ we are secure by way of covenant by no merit of our own (God blessed His creatures without precondition in Genesis 1), while at the same time God demands righteousness of us as manifested in works. Faith (and therefore satisfying the simple covenant requirements of being saved), and works (working and demonsrating that faith outwardly) side by side. I think that is the coherent and intentional construction of the "two creation accounts" in Genesis.

Although while I'm at it, to clarify, there is an underlying harmony between the two accounts (in more than one way) even where people seek to delineate them separately. Those who like to distinguish them sharply point to Genesis 2:4 as the dividing line between the first and second accounts, making '4a' the conclusion of the first account, and '4b' the introduction of the second account. But you cannot arbitrarily divide the verse like this because there is a beautiful and intentional Hebrew symmetry and parallelism in the form of what is called a chiasmus in Genesis 2:4 - a chiasmus being a repetition of something in reverse order (or mirrored) in a sentance. And infact it is not only a chiasmus, but a double chiasmus. "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven" (Genesis 2:4). Not only is there a first-last, last-first construction for the heavens & earth, and made/created parts, but the same for the order of created/made in relation to heavens & earth (last/after for "created", first/before for "made"). So instead of dividing the two accounts, that verse rather concatenates them together, saying/showing in effect that one is a continuation and further expansion of the other.

What about the rest of Genesis, like the "sun-centered universe" part?

Can you give an example?

Do you think He only gave the creation account at Mt. Sinai, and Moses recieved the rest of the Book in the (for lack of a better word) normal way?

No I believe it was all at the hand of Moses. And one interesting, yet subtle, thread I noticed - and one I hadn't noticed until recently until I started reading Exodus again - is the constant rementioning of Joseph all the way up till even the book of Joshua, and as you read the end of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus you can see how the two flow into one another since Joseph's family came down to Egypt in Genesis and were later enslaved in Exodus, using language ties like "for Joseph was in Egypt already" (Exodus 1:5). And Joseph's prophecy in Genesis 50:24-25 that God would visit the Israelites that they would carry up his bones from Egypt is noted in Exodus 13:19, and again all the way at the end of Joshua 24:32, which tells me that Moses' and Joshua's generation had seen the carry over and continuity from the Patriarch's lives up until their times and noted it in their writings, as it becomes a theme of sorts.

Also an interesting note for those interested in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, Exodus through Deuteronomy all start their first word with vav the prefix for "and", which shows that it is a continuation of the previous book (in a chain), whereas Genesis (called Be'reshit in Hebrew & in the Jewish Bible) starts with the letter "bet", Be'reshit, a prefix meaning 'in' - Be'reshit meaning (in just one word) "In the beginning". So the subtle Hebrew behind it is lost in translation, because the first word of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is technically "and". 8-)

This is a very interesting topic and I'll try to get back to it sometime later this week.

Look forward to it.

God Bless,

~Josh