[quote="James1990, post:1, topic:326123"]
Hi guys... heres my question. I know that Genesis can be taken not literally.. and I have done that in my interpretation of it for while. But.. this thought has come into my mind. Genesis order of events was as follows right?
Light was formed on DAY 1
Followed by the sky DAY 2
Earth and Vegetation DAY3
Greater and smaller light. Which I assume to be Sun and Moon DAY 4
So, my question is ... from science we know that the order is more like
2nd... Sun and moon (stars)....
3rd... Sky and
4th.... Earth and vegetation?
So... based on this... For those who believe that science and church teaching can be linked.. Can you tell me what u make of this?
There are several ways of interpreting the days of Genesis in a way that is compatible with the Big Bang theory. Here are three of them:
1) “The framework interpretation.” Under this interpretation, the "days" are viewed as a symbolic way of expressing the doctrine that God created all things and gave them order and beauty. Under this interpretation, the author of Genesis used the first three days to show that God created three “domains” and the fourth, fifth, and sixth days to show that God created inhabitants for each of these domains.
[table="head"]First Triad | | | Second Triad
Day 1 | Day and night (1:3-5). | Sun for the day, moon and stars for the night (1:14). | Day 4
Day 2 | The sky and the sea (1:7-8). | Birds for the sky and fish for the sea (1:20). | Day 5
Day 3 | Dry land (1:9) and vegetation (1:11) | Beasts and men to walk on the land (1:25-26) and eat the vegetation (1:29-30) | Day 6
From this perspective, the “days” aren’t the focus but the arrangement of the domains to their inhabitants, and the days only serve as an image to help us see order in this. It’s not the daily sequence that we should focus on so much as the part of creation spoken of under each day, so that we see that they are made to complement and complete each other. If the author intended the days and the sequence to be symbolic, to serve the purpose of pointing to the orderliness in each thing being created for its respective domain, then there is nothing in this text that is incompatible with the Big Bang theory.
2) “The day-age hypothesis.” Under this interpretation, the “days” of Genesis 1 are meant to refer to “ages” of indefinite lengths, and they include each other with significant overlap. Its supporters note that Genesis 1:14-18 says that the stars, sun and moon were created on day four, "to separate the light from the darkness," yet it was on day one that God "separated the light from the darkness" -- Genesis 1:4-5. Thus the “day-ages” overlapped each other significantly, they say. If Genesis 1 allows for long ages of formation and overlap in the sequence of formation, then there is nothing in it that is incompatible with the Big Bang theory.
3) “Advanced-earth creationism.” Advanced-earth creationists see the creation of the world and interpret it literally, but say that it included a built-in degree of advancement, so that it appears to be older than it is. Geological strata, fossils of prehistoric animals, and starlight that is billions of years old all came as part of the package, they say, so that man could investigate the earth and make discoveries that would prove beneficial in the scientific age. Advanced-earth creationists note that the plants created in Gen. 1:11-12 were already advanced in form, with the seeds of the next generation already prepared for planting. The rest of the world, they say, was like that: it came with age built-in, and that is what science discovers in its experiments.
Although the Big Bang theory is not incompatible with the Book of Genesis, it is not necessary for a Catholic to believe in the Big Bang. A Catholic who is a young-earth creationist should be prepared to explain why he believes the scientific evidence has been misinterpreted by those who believe in billions of years, and thus he should have a finely-developed understanding of the issues. But for those who do not see the wisdom of challenging the scientists on the issues of cosmology and astronomy, it is perfectly fine to interpret Genesis 1 in a way that leaves room in the doctrine of creation for modern scientific discoveries.
Anyway I hope that helps. God bless!