Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Mebaqqer2


    I used to comment here many years ago when I had an interest in biblical research in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses. These days my biblical research is little concerned with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.

    I have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that I have written with original research entitled The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron on As explained in the abstract:

    Commentators on the book of Genesis regularly ascribe a particular symmetrical arrangement to the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron in which eight creative acts are equally divided into two triads of days. Yet although a number of scholars have noted incongruities in such an arrangement, a better one has yet to be proposed to replace it. This paper details an alternative narrative structure for the Hexaemeron which differs from that assumed by commentators. The narrative structure presented here not only better accounts for the features of the Hexaemeron than a symmetrical arrangement does, but also proves to be more emic to an ancient Israelite perspective. It is therefore hoped that this paper will advance future discussions of Gen 1:1–31 by providing exegetes with a surer foundation from which to give their expositions.

    As the summary diagram explains, the paper itself may be found on my personal page on the TOR network with a supporting video. The summary diagram will no doubt raise questions for some which will likely be addressed by watching the video and reading the paper on my personal page. Additional critiques, questions and comments are welcome.

    The summary diagram may be found here .

  • Earnest

    Welcome back, Mebaqqer2. I remember you as a pretty good researcher.

  • Mebaqqer2


    Thank you Earnest for your remembrance. I think that the findings of this paper really advance the scholarly discussion of Genesis 1. Accordingly, I have sent messages to several scholars whose names became known to me through this research to elicit critiques of my work. I have yet to hear back from anyone. Admittedly it has only been a couple of days and scholars are busy people. Since the recovery of the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron necessarily invalidates certain interpretations of Genesis 1, I have anticipated a certain amount of criticism. I am therefore surprised that nobody has commented on my paper here.

    For those who may not know how to access .onion sites on the TOR network, here is a helpful URL which explains how: .

  • Mebaqqer2


    I just now tried to view my page at the URL given here and was greeted with an error message. Logging in, I was told, “Your account was flagged as suspicious by an automated system. If this was an error, please accept our apologies.” I have filled out the “Request Reconsideration” form as follows, “I am not a spammer. I am an independent researcher who is unaffiliated with any university and stated as much when I signed up. It is for this reason I am noted as independent by the URL.” The reason for this particular phrasing is due to the default sentence of the form which read something like “I’m not a spammer. I am a researcher with …” Upon submission I was told “Your account was flagged as suspicious, and your reconsideration request is awaiting manual review. We're sorry for any inconvenience.” This right here is one of the reasons why I have placed my paper on a personal page rather than put it on

    Now as for the reason for the flagging, I suspect that this has to do with the messages I sent to several scholars which I mentioned above. Naturally these messages had similar verbiage and so perhaps the system thought the messages I sent to these approximately 6 scholars constituted “spam.” Perhaps two or more specifically denoted my messages as spam without reading them and the summary diagram. So apologies to everyone for the inconvenience.

  • Mebaqqer2


    Well it has been a day now and no response from There was not even a message sent to me that that my profile had been flagged as suspicious. I am worried that the status of my profile will cause the scholars I asked to review my work to dismiss it outright. "We're sorry for any inconvenience," says the auto-generated response. I am sure the contrition is overwhelming.

    At any rate, what is hosted at is only a summary diagram for the paper. This diagram serves to give potential readers an overview of the narrative structure before visiting my site to see if it is worth their time. And I do think it is worth the time of anyone who interested in reading Genesis 1 as intended by the author. To note just a couple of points:

    • I explain why the Jewish exegete Rashi is wrong in his exposition of day one. As anyone who has studied Genesis 1:1-3 knows, Rashi is the forerunner of modern commentators who maintain that the text is to be read along the lines of "When God began to create, etc."
    • I explain why rûaḥ ʾĕlōhîm in Genesis 1:2 cannot be "the Spirit of God," as if the very spiritual being of God is being spoken of, which agrees with the most ancient Jewish and Samaritan translations.
    • I explain why rāqîaʿ is indeed a solid body which agrees with the most ancient Jewish and Samaritan translations. Here I make no recourse at all to "ancient Near-Eastern mythologies."
    • I explain why it is that Genesis speaks of the creation of the heavens twice thereby resolving an apparent contradiction in the narrative.
    • But most important of all I explain why the six days of creation and their works are arranged the way that they are in Genesis 1. This arrangement displaces the one found in the "Literary Framework Interpretation" which is commonly espoused in commentaries.

    So I really do think this is an important paper and I am thus eager for its review. Refute what you can. Call whoever you need to aid you. But please confine yourself to substantive criticisms. If you are willing to forego the summary diagram due to the problems with, perhaps begin with the video on my site then plunge into the paper itself. My .onion site may be found here ycohlcms5la5sehy7rvjkc5mqj6zujsorvz5amvdgvxh3vydseff7kad.onion .

  • Mebaqqer2

    So my account has been unflagged and has sent me the following message:

    We're sorry for the trouble! Unfortunately, we get a significant number of spammers who try to abuse to reach their victims, and our spam-fighting systems sometimes make mistakes.

    Let's hope that the follow up messages that I sent to the scholars to explain the situation does not cause the system to automatically flag my account again without a proper manual review first.

    At any rate, the summary diagram of my proposal may once again be viewed on here . I am still awaiting substantive criticisms of this proposal. Feel free to give them if you have them.

  • Acluetofindtheuser

    I like how you divided the creation framework as if it is set up in a tabernacle arrangement with the most holy being meant to represent the entire cosmos itself. I believe the Genesis chapter one break up of of the creative days is too simple for the actual event that took place. There would have been thousands of different parts of the actual creation event. My feeling is that the six creative sections and a single rest day was made to fit over that period. I think there is something hidden as to why God sees seven as so important, not just as a rest day.

    The apostle John did something similar with dividing up the miracles of Jesus. He only highlighted seven of them even though 37 is the actual count if you compare the other gospels.

    I still need to look over your actual work when I get the chance. Thanks for sharing.

  • Mebaqqer2

    I like how you divided the creation framework as if it is set up in a tabernacle arrangement with the most holy being meant to represent the entire cosmos itself.

    It is my view that it is the author of Genesis 1 who arranges the narrative this way, i.e., a primordial united cosmos (day 1) and a habitable earth (days 2-6). All I have done is formally explicated the fact. A number of scholars have previously drawn a connection between creation and the tabernacle. Yet those studies are now found to have been imprecise and/or inaccurate in light of my findings. But the connection itself is grounded in ancient Jewish tradition. Thus Midrash Tadshe 2.1 explicitly states “The dwelling (tabernacle) was made to correspond to the creation of the world.” Josephus states “It happened that [the tripartite] arrangement of the Tent was also an imitation of the nature of the universe” (Judean Antiquities 3.122–23). Philo, referring to the temple, states, “The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe” (De specialibus legibus 1.66). Philo of course applies this to the dwelling as well as his work Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum shows. Yet when one considers the varied expositions of this connection found even in these earlier sources, it is clear that this tradition had already become obscured by the time of Josephus and Philo. This appears to be one reason why scholars have not previously been able to explicate the structure concretely in Genesis 1. My findings therefore represent the recovery of a lost exegetical tradition, “rekindled light” if you will, which explicates the six days of creation as the author intended.

    I still need to look over your actual work when I get the chance. Thanks for sharing.

    No, thank you for taking the time to review my work.

  • Mebaqqer2


    I have uploaded the video from my .onion site to the Internet Archive here. This video provides a more succinct visual presentation of the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron proposed in the paper The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron located on my .onion site, yet goes beyond the summary diagram of my proposal uploaded to Its viewing is recommended before reading the paper's more detailed discussion.

    I am still eager to hear critiques of my proposal. I have yet to hear any feedback other that given by
    Acluetofindtheuser above. Positive or negative, let me know what you think.

  • aqwsed12345

    Creation and Time

    The world was created by God. The creation is the work of the triune God, who created the universe, the heavens and the earth, the visible and invisible things, and also mankind. The fact that God is the Creator of the world (meaning everything that exists: people, animals, plants, planets, star systems, molecules, electrons, waves, space, time, natural and mathematical laws) means that the world owes its existence directly to God.

    Divine creation cannot be compared to human creation, as there is an infinite qualitative difference between the two. A creature can only shape or use the already existing matter, but it is never capable of creating matter itself out of nothing. According to Suarez, following in the footsteps of Thomas Aquinas, it must be declared that "a creature cannot even be made an instrument of creation" (Suarez. Disp. Metaph. 20. 2,11).

    In summary: God is uniquely the source of creation because God does not collaborate in the act of creation with any tools, companions, or materials. God's creative activity is exclusive. The way God brings things into being, no one and nothing else can. God's capability to create is an incommunicable attribute to the creature. To be able to create, to call being out of non-being, one must be God.

    God created the world out of nothing. The world is purely the product of divine will, meaning there is no material for creation (nulla datur). Thus, there is no eternally existing matter independent of God, and it is therefore asserted that God not only shaped the pre-existing primordial matter (second creation) but also created the matter itself. According to this, creation is: creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo).

    The creation from "absolute nothingness" (nihil negativum) is testified not only by Scripture (lumen revelationis) but also by natural human reason, philosophy (lumen naturae). If God were not the creator of matter, then matter would be as eternal as God. This dualistic notion ultimately leads to atheism. Because if God were not the creator of matter, then He would not be Lord over it. If God were not the absolute ruler of everything, meaning if there were anything that could exist without owing its existence to God and beyond His jurisdiction, then God would not be omnipotent. If God were not omnipotent, then He would not be God. In other words, if God had not created the world out of nothing, then God would not exist, which is inconceivable in light of the known order and purposefulness in the world.

    How did God create the world? God simply willed it, and the world came into being. God created the world with a single act of will. In other words, God created the visible and invisible things through His word. However, this word should not be understood in an anthropomorphic sense, but rather in a sense similar to the Greek Logos (word, reason, knowledge, will). Thus, the world is purely the product of divine will. Creation occurred in two stages:

    1. Direct or first creation (creatio inmediata seu prima): God created matter, the natural forces governing matter, the personal spiritual beings, and consequently, space and time as well. Without matter, there is no space, and without space, there is no time (however, the proof of this belongs to the realm of philosophy). This creation happened outside of time, and at this time, God created from "absolute nothingness" (nihil negativum, the denial of all existence).
    2. Indirect or second creation (creatio mediata seu secunda): This refers to God's wise activity when He further transformed the world through its elements. This creation occurred in time, and God used the relative nothingness (nihil privatum), the so-called primordial chaos (tohu wa-bohu), as its material.

    According to Scripture, the world was created by the command of God: "He spoke, and they were created; He commanded, and they were created" (Psalm 148:5). "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light" (Gen 1:3).

    The testimony of Scripture on the primary creation from nothing: "Consider the heavens above, and the earth below and everything on it. Reflect that God made them from nothing, and mankind came to be in the same way" (2 Macc 7:28).


    The testimony of the Bible on the second creation: "Your almighty hand, which formed the world out of formless matter..." (Wisdom 11:18). - This indicates that there was also a first creation, which occurred from nothing.

    The cause of creation of the world is God's goodness, and its purpose is the communication of the supreme good. The cause of creation is solely God's infinite goodness (bonitas Dei sola), whereby God wished to communicate Himself, the supreme good, to others (sese et summum bonum communicare voluit).

    God is omnipotent, which means that nothing forces God; thus, He created the world freely. Accordingly, He could have chosen not to create anything, as He is the happiest in and of Himself, and does not depend on any of His creations. So, why did He create the world? To this question, we cannot get more than Augustine's response due to the unconditional and absolute nature of the divine will: "If someone asks: why did God create heaven and earth? He must be answered: because He willed it. And if they press further: why did He will it? Then they seek something greater than the will of God; but they will not find anything greater. Let human audacity restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist" (August. Gen. C. Manich. I. 2,4). Thomas Aquinas does not speculate but asserts: "In no way does the will of God have a cause - God's will has no other reason" (Thom. Aquin. STh. I. 19,5).

    The result of creation is both the visible and the invisible world. According to Thomas Aquinas, the specific result of creation is the existence of things (Thom. Aq. S.Th. I. 45,6). Interpreting revelation through this, we profess that the result of creation is both the visible and the invisible world (creatura visibilis et invisibilis) as a whole, which is divided into two parts (heaven and earth):

    1. Earth (terra): every visible or perceptible reality with senses or instruments, and the natural sky itself (caelum physicum).
    2. Heaven (caelum): the "kingdom of heaven" of angels and saints (caelum angelorum et beatorum), the heavenly realm of God (caelum Dei maiestaticum), distinguished from God's eternal and infinite glory and majesty (aeterna et infinita Dei gloria et maiestas), with which He inherently and eternally possesses, and will forever possess, being omnipresent and supreme over all, with an omnipotent eternal divine dominion over everything (omnipraesens ac aeternum divinum omnipotens dominium super omnia).

    When and how long did it take for God to create the world? Regarding the time of creation, it can be stated with certainty that God created the world with an eternal act of creation that began in time. The "first creation," meaning the creation of matter, time, space, natural and mathematical laws, did not occur in time. It could not have happened in time since time presupposes space, and space presupposes matter. Therefore, it makes no sense to ask "when" in relation to the first creation. Based on the opinions of the Church Fathers and philosophical arguments, it is most probable that the first creation occurred instantaneously.

    As for the time of the second creation, by which we mean God transforming the primordial chaos into an ordered world, besides the fact that it occurred in time, there is no consensus. The Church has not yet decided with all its authority, and it might not, because this question lies on the boundary of theology and natural science, and there is a great risk of stepping out of bounds from both sides.

    The indirect creation is described in Scripture in the story of the six days of creation (hexaëmeron). Its interpretation is not fully clarified yet, and many free opinions exist within the Church, which, although not equally accepted, are neither condemned nor supported. One thing is certain, Scripture does not err and does not mislead, but attention must always be paid to the implied intention of the author and the literary genres. There cannot be any real discrepancy between the true (!) meaning of Scripture's only authentic place and the certain (!) results of natural science. Thomas Aquinas warns: "One must not compromise the truthfulness of Scripture, but also not expose it to the mockery of the unbelieving scholars with a wrong interpretation" (Thom. Aqin. STh. I. 68 1, c). With this in consideration, here are some concepts in order of their probability:

    1. The most probable view is that the hexaëmeron should be interpreted literally, but this literality should not be understood in a primitive and exaggerated manner. The sacred text does not require it in every aspect, but only where the revealed truth and the nature of the text demand it. Nonetheless (within certain limits), it is free to follow other interpretations. The position of the Church Fathers on this point is not uniform and clear. Some explained the creation story in a literal sense, others followed an allegorical explanation, and these include not the least authoritative figures (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nyssa). They thought that either the second creation also occurred instantaneously, or we do not know how long it took. The biblical six days were then explained as a vision: According to this, the creation story is a faithful proof of the (supposed) primordial revelation (revelatio archaica) given to Adam, which, despite being passed down orally from generation to generation before the Mosaic recording, still retains traces of its original form. The six days are not the six days of creation but six days experienced, whose morning and evening marked the beginning and end of the revelation. According to this, God revealed the secret of creation to Adam (according to others, to Moses) over six (seven) nights, the essence of which is that the entire world originates from God. The succession of created things is not an actual but a logical sequence, in which each preceding work is always a prerequisite for the following one. Thomas Aquinas found this proposal clever and exceedingly suitable for defending the authority of the Bible. This hypothesis seems to be supported by the fact that the second creation story does not take the first into account (the order of creation changes: in the first, man is created last; in the second, first), which seems to indicate that the inspired author did not intend to provide a documentary account of the world's formation. He merely wanted to convey religious truths in the language of his time by incorporating into the Bible the popular legends that preserved variations of the primordial revelation. However, God guided the author in the selection of stories, thus it is entirely a product of divine revelation, and as such, cannot be subject to criticism (Cf. Pius XII: Humani generis; Mediator Dei). Since Adam also saw the creation of Eve in a dream (tardema), it is not unfounded to propose that the entire visible creation was also shown to him in a vision, especially since God typically communicated revelations through dreams and visions thereafter. The theory gains particular authority because it was developed well before the evolutionary theory, and it is not shadowed by the suspicion of conducting defensive battles to preserve the authority of Scripture, presenting what is essentially a forced reduction of the content of revealed truth as reconciliation. The theological qualification of the theory: probable opinion (sententia probabilis): a view supported by more serious internal reasons; or common opinion (sententia communis): a free opinion generally professed by theologians as a revealed truth.

    The Book of Genesis tells the events "from Adam's perspective." The six days are spent in six dreams, during which God communicated the creation of the world to Adam through visions (a mix of reality and symbols). We must start with the so-called "second" creation story. Adam's perspective. He wakes up, finds himself in the middle of a "Garden"... God brings animals before him in reality (not all of them!) and he names them - naming grants power over something. He observes the sexual dimorphism in higher animals, arousing in him the desire for completion, and then God casts a "deep sleep" (in Hebrew: tardema) upon him. Then, with six days spent, we loop back to the first creation story, where God symbolically narrates the creation of the world. It's practically like rewinding time in a movie for him. For example, the first day is when the earth was covered by a thick cloud of carbon dioxide, and hence he only saw light and darkness. That's why the "placement" of the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in the sky comes "later." Once the frame clears, he can see them. This is important even for the most primitive people. The stars provide location and time determination. From a "geocentric" perspective, God projects the images into Adam's heart in the dream. This was the true biblical explanation that avoids both 'creationist' and 'scientist' pitfalls.

    2. The second hypothesis is committed to an absolute literal interpretation of the six days of creation. As natural science seems to shake this belief, deeply religious scientists have developed the tenets of so-called scientific creationism, which, with varying degrees of success, attempts to justify through a thorough examination of scientific results that the idea of six days of creation and the assumption of a relatively young world is scientifically irrefutable and can even be supported. There are several points on which this hypothesis can be debated, but many of their findings cannot be completely dismissed. However, care must be taken not to support our claims with weak arguments, as this would undermine the authority of the very Scripture we intend to defend. Thomas Aquinas emphasizes the principle: "When we wish to represent revealed truth scientifically, we must be cautious; if we support the truth of faith with weak rational reasons, the unbelievers will mock us, because they think we accept as true what the faith offers based on those weak arguments" (Thom. Aquin. Summa contra gentiles. I. 13. fin.). This theory also has its zealous followers, who, though with strong faith, naively do not see and do not want to see the problems. They not only take the creation story literally but also read more into it, mixing it with modern interpretative models, than it contains. The qualification of the theory: pious opinion (sententia pia): a teaching that is neither obligatory nor refutable from a theological perspective, yet is in harmony with ecclesiastical sentiment.

    3. Other theologians see the six days as six major periods. However, this theory raises several issues. The Bible clearly mentions six 24-hour cycles. If we interpret the day symbolically from the six days, then why take the number six literally? It is not customary in Catholic exegesis to interpret one part of the same sentence symbolically and another literally. Besides, the six periods do not correspond to the sequence generally accepted by the natural sciences in terms of evolution or geological history (the Earth and light exist before the Sun). If it satisfies neither the proponents of evolution nor matches the traditional understanding, the efforts of the theory's proponents seem unnecessary. Moreover, Thomas Aquinas' caution about being careful is particularly relevant here. Nevertheless, the view remains popular and tolerable today. Theological classification: common opinion (sententia communis): a free opinion supported by several theologians.

    4. Nowadays, many hold the controversial free opinion that the six days of Scripture have no historical message, and the Book of Genesis simply proclaims the truth using the Babylonian worldview: nothing exists eternally, nothing (neither the sun, the moon, nor the stars) is a god, only the one eternal and true God, from whom all other beings derive. According to this theory, the reason creation is divided into 6 + 1 days is because Scripture wants to establish the sanctification of the Sabbath and the seven-day cycle. However, this periodization explanation does not, in fact, justify the sanctification of the Sabbath, since, according to it, the scriptural basis relies on no fact, no historical truth. The main flaw of the theory is its circular reasoning: The Sabbath must be sanctified because it is written that God rested on the seventh day. But if God did not rest, especially not after six days, then why was it written? To sanctify the Jewish Sabbath? This would be a classic example of a logical fallacy. The theory is discredited by being essentially a revised version of the anti-Christian and atheist Friedrich Delitzsch's pan-Babylonian and mythic explanation, which was so thoroughly dismantled by Christian counter-criticism that it remained untenable in its original form, but due to some partial truths, it is still tolerated near the Catholic faith. Therefore, its classification is: tolerated opinion (sententia tolerata): in a matter of free inquiry, an opinion that many consider contrary to sound theological standpoint, yet it has not incurred the disapproval of the teaching authority.

    The above four theories are not of equal theological value or likelihood. Their classification ranges from the common opinion to the tolerated opinion. Naturally, besides these, many other theories have been developed to interpret the creation story, but they are all related to one of the above four, thus it can be generally stated that "since no opinion obliges with the obedience of faith," anyone wishing to remain Catholic must choose from among these four theories, at least until there is a doctrinal church resolution.

    Let's be more careful because this is a boundary area.

    1. Do not turn into dogma what is not (only the special creation of man is dogma). The requirement for literal interpretation is not synonymous with a primitive explanation.
    2. Do not unify our voice with those who reject the literal interpretation.

    BUT! Following Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius XII, the literal interpretation also allows many possibilities, even in this question. According to Thomas Aquinas, if real questions are posed concerning the authority of the Bible, then one cannot argue by appealing to the authority of the Bible (Summa contra gentilles). This leads to Protestant blind faith: "It is so, period. If you don't believe it, you're damned." This is not an argument externally. Moreover, if we press too hard, we suggest that we do not have a real answer and do not understand what we believe. Catholic faith seeks understanding ("fides quaerens intellectum").

    Here is the issue of Noah and the dinosaurs, for example, what needs to be taken literally? What directly follows from the story:

    1. There was an unparalleled flood, preserved by many other folk myths (e.g., Gilgamesh).
    2. Humanity was wiped out.
    3. The catastrophe was God's punitive judgment on people, to indisputably enforce divine justice, proclaiming that His moral laws cannot be relativized.
    4. There was a huge ark, which carried many animals.

    What does not necessarily follow from the text:

    1. The flood did not need to sweep across the entire earth, as it was sufficient to destroy only the inhabited area, which at the dawn of humanity was a very small area (this is true both on biblical and evolutionary grounds). Thus, for humanity, the world (as known to them) was destroyed.
    2. Consequently, it was not necessary to take every animal onto the ark, only those needed for a small family's sustenance and those important for the survival and rapid proliferation of these animals - through the intricate interconnections of the food chain.
    3. It is not necessary to believe that there was no rainbow before the flood, only that it was not made into a symbol of the covenant. In the sense that today's faithful humanity views the rainbow, it did not exist.

    In summary: the dinosaurs did not necessarily have to be extinct due to the flood. There are several other explanations, but none of these belong to the field of theology. Theology is not a natural science. It does not deal with whether a scientific hypothesis is true or not, but with whether it is compatible with revelation or not.

    Evolution is not exclusively Darwin's theory but also includes the scientifically proven work of the never excommunicated or indexed Brno Augustinian canon, Georg Mendel. According to Darwin, acquired characteristics are inherited; this contradicts reality. For example, someone becomes a weightlifter, trains, but their son is not necessarily, genetically determined to be one. Mendel developed the theory of genes, which the discovery of DNA confirmed. He established the basic laws of inheritance, which were further developed with higher mathematics (God wrote the book of nature in the language of mathematics) and experimentally verified. Evolution has two basic laws: a) Every offspring has a different set of genes from its parents (direct ancestors), even if only slightly. b) Each individual (including identical twins or dividing single-celled organisms) is affected by different environmental factors. If "mutation" and "selection" are real (and they are), and we add population genetics and species formation through the isolation of populations, there is no problem. From a Catholic perspective, only the leap in the order of being (from non-living to living, from living to human) is unacceptable, both philosophically, theologically, and not supported scientifically.

    In my opinion, the Protestant type of creationism is heretical, according to a council decision from the 1200s. On one hand, it is dogma that God also works through secondary causes (natural laws), not constantly performing supernatural miracles. This is not accepted by creationist Protestant letter fanatics. On the other hand, the theory of "evolution" is not synonymous with "Darwinism," a nature-philosophical system burdened with flaws, used by agnostic, deist, atheist thinkers as a "scientific" argument, without distinguishing Darwin's actual scientific truths. It is heresy to claim that the animal or human soul is merely a state of matter with higher energy and lower entropy. This doctrine of reductionism (reducible from one to the other) was also condemned in the Middle Ages. That is, God's direct intervention ("miracle"), that is, Creation, is necessary for non-living to become living, living to become human. Darwinists do not accept this. However, there is such an excess of being, for example, between the living and the non-living, the human and the living, that has never been scientifically proven. For example, they could not provide the "formula of life," it is not possible to produce living from non-living in a purely immanent way. I adhere to the Biblical Commission's 1909 response on what must be taken literally from the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis, as well as to the notion that interpreting everything literally, just as interpreting everything metaphorically (denying historical reality), is heresy. The fact that "evolution" within a single order of being (the living world) is possible aligns with the idea that God allows the inner autonomy of Creation to unfold, using secondary causes. This Thomistic realist optimism represents this view, in contrast to the monoenergist perspectives of Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism.

    It is not the six-day creation story that primarily contradicts the theory of evolution, as even the Church Fathers and Thomas Aquinas did not uniformly interpret it, and the vision theory (interpretation number 1) played a prominent role. The real problem is sin. If humans appeared on Earth billions of years after life itself (and in this context, it is irrelevant whether we accept the separate creation of humans and the "mulier ex primo homine" as a near-dogmatic belief), it means that struggle for existence, suffering, and especially death existed on Earth before the first couple's sin and did not "come into the world as a consequence of sin," as taught by Apostle Paul. Then, nature "does not groan and labor with us," but had its own troubles without us. Then, "death did not enter the world through one man," but God - horrifying to say - designed destruction into the world order.

    But there is no problem with sin. To my knowledge, "kosmos" is not the word used in Paul's text here. That is, the entry of sin into the world is not a question of natural science. After all, we can only speak of sin in the case of creatures with moral free will. Death and decay are part of "chronos," not "kairos." God created this world as transient; the "paradisiacal state" refers to the relationship to humans, as Francis of Assisi also commanded the animals. God created humans in a supernatural state, and according to the Council of Trent, original sin primarily signifies the loss of this state. The consequence of this is death, but as a punitive, retributive form of death. Thus, the "death" - the passing of the material body - does not necessarily follow from sin, something the Church has never infallibly taught. According to the consensus of the Church Fathers, if humans had not sinned but were not created in a state of supernatural grace, they would still have had to die. However, this death would not have been accompanied by uncertainty and would likely have been similar to the deaths of Jesus and Mary, and if they had not lost original righteousness, they would have been transfigured without death, similar to the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Our foreparents did not fall out of heaven, the paradise. If someone refers to the "leopard and the kid" (a Jehovah's Witness's childish image of the paradisiacal state), they must take literally the forging of swords into ploughshares and the 1000-year earthly kingdom, but they cannot do so, as chiliasm has long been condemned as heresy. The relevant opinions of the old theologians and Church Fathers were purely philosophical speculations, without scientific support.

Share this