Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« The Doctor and the Good | Main | For those who thought the sexual abuse of minors... »

Monday, October 22, 2007


Ed Peters

I couldn't decide whether to take the time to read this, so I flipped a coin.

Carl Olson

"Take a chance, take a chance, take a chance..." — ABBA

J.C. Cooke

I cannot understand why so many Christians, including Cardinal Schonborn, feel they are required to allegorize the "days" of Genesis Chapter One. Do they do this with any other mention of the word "day" in the Bible? Did Joshua march around Jerico for seven days or seven thousand days or seven million days? Was Johah in the belly of the sea creature three days or three thousand days? It is very arrogant , foolish, and dangerous to claim that any poriton of the Word of God can be manipulated to mean something else just to conform to the opinions of fallible, anti-religious "scientists."

Mark Brumley

It is not "arrogant" or "foolish" to understand the term 'day" to have different meanings in the Bible. It's a matter of how the word in variously used in the Bible. If you don't like it, you should take it up with the Bible and its author, not Cardinal Schoenborn or those Christians who acknowledge the fact.

Furthermore, the fact that one part of a particular book of the Bible uses a figurative genre to communicate certain truths does not mean other parts of that book or other books of the Bible must be interpreted as using the same genre. The fact that Jesus taught in parables doesn't mean everything Jesus ever said, he said in parables.

The "days" of Genesis 1 are often interpreted as figurative, not literal, because the people who so interpret them believe that is the best way to make sense out of the text, which describes the creation of the world as if God were a workman proceeding to construct a building. But God is not a workman and the universe is not a building, nor did God get tired and need to take a nap on day seven. These are figurative ways of speaking. Likewise, the "days" in which God created.

Interestingly enough, the days of creation are often thought today to pose a problem because it is held, on scientific grounds, that the universe came to be over a very long period of time, not a week. However, some of the early Church Fathers had the opposite problem: they thought a week was too long. God, they rightly observed, does not need a week or any period of time to create. He could have created everything instantaneously. Why, then, does Genesis describe him taking a week, as if, to recall the point I just made, he were a workman who could accomplish his task only by a succession of work days? Once again, we are forced to see the figurative manner of describing the creation of the world.


JC, If the days are taken literally and not allegorcially, which account of Genesis should we hold to? Genesis 1 uses seven days, Genesis 2 states creation happened in one day. In addition, we know that creation is still continuing because the universe is still expanding, I believe the good Cardinal uses the terms creatio continua to refer to this in the book.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad