Eitology and the story of Creation?

I am studying with Mater Dei institute Ireland, and the other day I was at the second lecture on the creation account of Genesis. The Doctor in Religious studies said that the story is an Eitology, so that it is ‘‘Kind of makey uppy’’ she said that the inspired writers told it in a ‘‘mythical’’ way to help with their understanding of how creation began. Is this inconsistent with the Catholic faith? and if so, how do we use our faith to demonstrate that it is so?

Thank you for all your goodness and replies

Pax Christi
Stephen <3

If what the good doctor meant by “kind of makey uppy” or “mythical” was that the language used in Genesis’ account of creation and the fall of mankind is “symbolic” or “figurative,” then I don’t see a conflict with Catholic teaching on the subject. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) describes the language used in those Biblical accounts as “symbolic” or “figurative.” (CCC 337, 362, 390, 396)

Todd your wrong on 337 because I sent an e-mail to Catholic apologist John Salza about that a long time ago and the following is what he had to say.

''First, it is not a dogmatic statement on the ex nihilo creation.

Second, the word “symbolically” modifies the words “work” and “rest” which
is why they both have quotations around them. “Symbolically” is not
describing the six-day creation. God symbolically “worked” and “rested,”
because God doesn’t literally labor or tire. The six-day creation is
literal, while God’s “working” and “resting” are not.

Third, the Fathers were unanimous in their interpretation of six literal
days, and the Church dogmatically declares that we are to follow the Fathers
when they are unanimous, unless their interpretation is untenable or
necessity requires otherwise, which it does not.’’

This topic is discussed at length in the article on “Hexaemeron” in the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia.

While the sequences of the creation event are told in simplistic language, science provides the mathematical, chemical and mineral evidence that the events of creation are not only correct, they are listed in the correct order.

I own a business, and I know that to systemize training programs, I must set my explaination level at the lowest common denominator. Hence as well, God tells Moses to tell the Israelites, “I AM who I AM.”

To find the proof of creation, turn to astrophysics and astronomy for the mathematical aspects of the creation events. 20 sequencial events are listed in Sacred Scripture defining creation events.

I’d suggest listening to astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ explanation.

These sites will get you started - after that google search “Dr. Hugh Ross youtube” or “Reasons to Believe Hugh Ross youtube”.

youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=Vd38yXXo3r4&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=9Kj-jHsNkwQ&feature=related

If you’re so convinced he’s wrong then why even bring the question up? It seems you’ve found your infallible answer in John Salza.

Are the fathers really unanimous in interpreting six literal days? I seem to recall some being open to the idea of six days being figurative and it taking time over a much longer period of time. Also, many recent statements from popes and other noted Catholic theologians indicate it is acceptable for Catholics to believe in evolution and not have to believe in a literal six days.

ChadS

Actually, for Ross’ explanation of accurate creation events only being found in the Judeo/Christian Bible is best found here:

il.youtube.com/watch?v=yb-m3e5E4BE&feature=related

The Torah or OT’s explanation of the creation event will start up the debate between the New Earth and Old Earth scientists.

This is a debate between “thousand and billions” with Hoven and Ross.

youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI&feature=related

The Anthropic Principle in cosmology

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

google.com/search?q=anthropic+principle+hugh+ross&rlz=1I7ADBR_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7

The doctrines of the Catholic Church are based on theological issues and not on natural science issues. The theological issue is Genesis 1: 1. The second theological issue is the creation of human nature in the “Image of God”.

Basic Catholic teaching regarding the creation of Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»[/FONT]
»[/FONT]
»[/FONT]
»[/FONT]

Then why do some insist on treating a theological story like it’s literal science? That’s what I object to.

ChadS

May I rephrase in order to present the Catholic position.

The creation of the physical earth and animals belongs to natural science which gives glory to God its Creator. Over time, there have been many theories as to how and when the universe and non-human animals came about. Some want to make parts of Genesis 1 into literal science which obviously is difficult. However, there are no scientific dogmas regarding the physical earth and universe in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Thus, young earth, old earth, middle earth and a variety of evolutionary theories regarding non-human living organisms can be studied, accepted or rejected, provided that one always remains faithful to the theological truth that God is the Creator of all.

The difficulty surrounding Adam and Eve is that there are a number of Catholic doctrines regarding the two sole parents of the human species. Please see post 10. The main difficulty is that Adam and Eve and Original Sin are real as both historical and theological truths. But, the description of their actions contains figurative language.

Thus, there are people who want to make Adam and Eve into a children’s story in order to side step the serious consequences of Original Sin. And there are people who have difficulty with the beauty of the “six days” and want to translate it into manageable science. Why? There must be a hundred guesses as to why. :frowning:

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

It has been my experience that when I ask posters, like the person you describe, to tell me what is this some kind of truth or understanding, I never get a straight-up answer which matches Catholic teaching.

I have no problem with the Catholic teaching as it relates to Adam and Eve and original sin. I’m sorry that my not interpreting “six days” as literal somehow upsets you, but I have no problem with seeing beauty in “manageable science” which to me also reveals the beauty and awesomeness of God.

ChadS

I believe you misunderstood me. I was not upset, but rather I was speaking generally. Perhaps, I wrote in too much of a hurry because of traveling with limited access to a computer. In that case, please accept my apology.

Blessings
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

It’s more likely I misunderstood you, but in any case all is well. :slight_smile:

ChadS

Another good youtube video about God and the creation of the earth.

amos37.com/2009/10/28/anthropic-constants/

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.