Biblical Accounts of Creation Through God's Power (Aquinas 101)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 бер 2022
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
How should we interpret Biblical accounts of creation? Do they contradict scientific findings for the origins of the universe? In this episode of Aquinas 101: Science and Faith, join Fr. Jordan Schmidt, O.P., a Biblical scholar and Dominican friar from the Province of St. Joseph, as he presents how to interpret Biblical accounts of how the world is created through God's power.
More from Fr. Jordan Schmidt, O.P.'s Aquinas 101 creation series:
-Does Science Contradict the Bible? - • Does Science Contradic...
-Biblical Accounts of Creation Through God's Power - • Biblical Accounts of C...
-Biblical Accounts of Creation With God's Wisdom - • Biblical Accounts of C...
-How Do We Interpret the Genesis Creation Accounts? - • How Do We Interpret th...
This video is an excerpt from Lesson 39: Creation Through God's Power (Aquinas 101) by Fr. Jordan Schmidt, O.P. To explore the complete module, including supplemental readings and lectures, click here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
ua-cam.com/users/TheThomisti...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #ScienceAndFaith #ScienceAndReligion
This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
*Scripture quotations are from The Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1965, 1966 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
More from Fr. Jordan Schmidt, O.P.'s Aquinas 101 creation series:
-Does Science Contradict the Bible? - ua-cam.com/video/mXy__3-CWm4/v-deo.html
-Biblical Accounts of Creation With God's Wisdom - ua-cam.com/video/fD3BVDUurp4/v-deo.html
-How Do We Interpret the Genesis Creation Accounts? - ua-cam.com/video/d2Ik1ea8yUI/v-deo.html
God's creation is unfolding and is still in action and will still be in action until the end of time. Natural selection and change through heredity and generation is part of this creative action. For God who is not in time and for whom past present and future are one, this is creation.
Cool, I like the verse "Let there be light".
God bless.
You guys have a number of excellent videos highlighting the compatibility of religion and science, Catholicism and evolution, the Big Bang Theory, etc. Would you guys mind making a video specifically shredding Father Ripperger’s ridiculous criticism of evolution and non-creationism where he makes an artificial distinction between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution and claims that the entire process is impossible because apparently unchanging Aristotelian essences of various taxonomic categories can’t change as generations evolve? It would be broadly beneficial to many to see you doing so from a Thomistic perspective, given that many narrow minded and naive young Thomists who don’t understand material science are swayed by his rhetoric and literally false claims about the incompleteness of the fossil record and lack of additional evidence for evolution.
Great video! This helped me deepen my understanding of the subject. I can better explain this to others now :)
Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
Thanks Father
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!
Excellent!
Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
Thanks!
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!
That was excellent. As a scientist, thankyou for the dialogue 🙏
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!
presence: seraphim
wisdom: cherubim
power: thrones
interesting...
Also it seems at least evident that the psalmist is describing some kind of battle between God's power and demonic powers (dragons who rule over the earth) in creating inside their domain, as he daily does, perhaps most obviously in offspring. Also feeding to the sharks is reminiscent of Zechariah 2:
"For thus says the LORD of hosts after the LORD’s glory had sent me, concerning the nations that have plundered you: Whoever strikes you strikes me directly in the eye.
Now I wave my hand over them, and they become plunder for their own servants. Thus you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me."
considering that leviathan, in Job, is depicted in making the sea his "playground" or his servant.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well in the end. Jesus' words to Julian of Norwich 🙏❤️
My translation, Jesus is saying, I got this 👍💪🙏❤️🙏
St Augustine of Hippo in his commentary on Genesis discusses this question. Putting it simply, if a scriptural seems to contradict known science, science must be accepted. He said those that use scripture to argue against science are causing mockery of Christianity. St Augustine asks if the description of creation in 7 days is figurative? He asks how can there be days in the beginning when there were none? He also derides Christian heretics who twist scripture to prove a flat earth. Something the ancients including Greeks and Romans never ever believed. They knew the world was spherical and even calculated its circumference. One example: Ptolemy the astronomer was a pagan. His theory of heliocentricity was accepted and therefore scripture interpreted in the light of it. Galileo proposed another theory which did not answer the observable change of seasons as his theory did not include elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun. Two theories both with pros and cons. Galileo got into trouble because he proposed a theory as fact and derided anyone who questioned him and raised problems with his theory. He demanded his proposals were not a theory but fact. His instruments he used such as the lenses fir his handmsde telescope were new and doubts temained about the hand made lenses. The Scriptures are not science and that is to be expected. The Scriptures are expressed with the known science of the authors and their times in the background. Scripture is interpreted in the light of the known science of the times in which they are read, heard and understood. There is no divide between science and Christianity. None.
As Dr. Albert Einstein stated I qoute Whoever invented the Atoms owns the Universe! K
based and Ugarit-pilled
I believe science should be the lens through which we interpret certain aspects of Scripture. In some parts of the text, like the Beatitudes, it has no place (obviously). In other areas, it's useful for determining what should be read as poetic language/where we must look at the simple theological understanding within the text.
There is an account that when Galileo first posited his ideas, churchmen said that they needed to be considered after more evidence *and in light of further scriptural analysis*. I think that's wrong: read the Bible as hard as you want, the observations made by science are, occasionally, going to cause your exegesis to hit a brick wall. In instances like that, direct physical observation should be our guiding light for how to interpret the scriptures, although I'd caution to never try to declare scientific explanations completely infallible. They're always being refined!
Even in the Galileo example, there are many caveats in place. In some sense, yes, of course, the Earth revolved around the Sun. But there is a great deal of nuance to that understanding. From the perspective of ourselves as observers (very important in physics!), the Sun indeed appears to revolve around the Earth: The Earth can accurately be described as motionless and the Sun as circling us from our frame of reference (just as the interior of an automobile traveling at 60 miles per hour can be described as if it were motionless with respect to the objects inside the vehicle, and just as the relative speed of a passing automobile going 70 mph on the ground can accurately be described as going 10 mph with respect to the subject automobile, and just as the book sitting on my shelf can accurately be described as "completely motionless" while in reality it sits on a planet spinning at tremendous speeds).
Moreover, the Earth also necessarily sits at the center of the observable universe, and every point in space can also accurately be described as the "central" or "starting" point from where the Big Bang expanded. In some sense, neither geo- nor heliocentrism are correct, since our solar system orbits the center of our galaxy, and our galaxy in turn takes its specific place in galactic clusters & superclusters. So, in some ways, geocentrism is dead wrong. In other ways, it's correct!
The moral here is that I believe that science should be our guide to the scientific parts of the Scriptures, but also that science does not necessarily warrant a cold or total or complete rejection of old ideas where it appears they should be overturned. Sometimes they are just colored in different lights, and sometimes old beliefs are vindicated in a new sense.
The Pagan perspective is useful here: Pagan sages would advise people that when their myths seemed internally contradictory, that was a signal that there was a deeper mystery lying within the stories that had to be be meditated upon and derived. So too should it be within the Christian tradition and when it comes to apparent conflicts between scientific discovery and the tenets of the Faith.
Thanks for this. I hadn't quite thought about how geocentrism has some historical sense to it, although it is fairly simple once you mentioned it. I completely agree as well. Thank you for sharing; some of the other comments here scare me.
Psalm 74 is poetry, Genesis is a historical account, totally different!
No
Jesus and the apostles, when they refer to psalms, they speak of the King David. Either Jesus who is God himself, was wrong (and it is absurd if you're christian) or scholars are wrong.
Adam and Eve and genealogy of Jesus Christ are not metaphors.
Adam and Eve aren’t metaphors,sure. Did he say that? No.
Nor did he say either of the genealogies were metaphorical,though,that’s certainly more of an orthodox viewpoint then denying Adam and Eve as historical personages anyway.
I would have focuses on Genesis 1 and 2. We often are made fun of for believing God made everything literally in 7 days not for believing God killed dragons and monsters to make the universe.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and to comment. We have a video on Genesis 1 and 2 coming soon, so stay tuned!
Correction, you are made fun of, you don’t have to believe that to be Catholic, you can believe that, I wouldn’t and I wouldn’t advise it, but you can.
But you are made fun of, other Catholics like myself have no problem reading scripture in light of a less literal lense.
God is omnipresent and the omnipotent and the omniscient and he created the universe out of nothing genesis and psalm 74 is the little illustration of the word of God as the book of job mentioned the Orion nebula and the Arcturus the neutron stars and leviathan and the behemoth and the infinite number of species as the divine laws of the transcendental secret of God
Shut
Why would the interpretation of Sacred Scripture be dependent on "scientific" THEORY? This fear of disagreeing with scientists is weak. There is no certainty among experimental scientists. This is embarassing.
I think you are conflating certainty with justified belief and maybe you are aware of that. Either way I wouldn't recommend it.
There should be no conflict bet science and the bible...if there is then our interpretation in one of those must be defective and needs to be revisited...
Delusional gibberish
If what you say is true, why is it that most ancient Christians, even highly educated ones, believed things that are not compatible with science? Because they believed those things based on what scriptures says
If our understanding of scripture is improved by science then maybe scripture is not as useful as we thought
Or we do not expect people to understand things no one in their time knew of at the time regardless of belief. Many ancient pagan and even atheistic scholars believed similarly wrong things by modern scientific reckoning. This is just the nature of the development of human knowledge as a matter of due course across generations.
Besides that is a very broad brush. What people knew and believed varied wildly. For instance, there is a 2nf century Christian apologist critiquing the ancient Greek pagan pantheon. During the course of his critique he mentions that some philosophers of the day theorized the Sun was like the other stars in the heavens.
And while many common folk believed the Earth might be flat (among other shapes) most ancient intellectuals knew by a variety of means it was round.
People believed wrong things for the same reasons they do today just on a different scale because we benefit from the cumulative knowledge and wisdom of more generations of our ancestors and what idead of theirs stood the test of time. What stands still stands regardless and in support by the greater clarity of what has passed. Both in the natural sciences and religious thought.
They only but heads due to historical clashes in academia because people want the cultural influence of being the sole authority of truth and fill the role of worthship for highest truth and defend it whether it be God or something else, our natural tendency to seek like-minded people with the accelerant of social media making echo chambers and because of the fragmentation of knowledge and greater specialization of fields due to the sheer vastness of modern human knowledge.
@@LostArchivist You are right, it is unreasonable to expect them to understand something the current science didn't understand
Let's assume that scripture scripture has always been correct, and people just didn't notice. Then, how can we possibly be sure we understand scripture correctly?
@@falnica Understanding the Scriptures faithfully as the Catholic Church understands it! The Scriptures are not a mere book, but the Word of God, Jesus Christ, the living and creative Word, recorded by the Apostles and guarded and interpreted by the Holy Spirit in His Mystical Body: the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
@@falnica Our undetstanding as individuals is necessarily partial and ever growing. As more of history unfolds we see more of God`s guidance in the Church and reflecting on what He reveals, we understand more clearly and more fully what God means by this or that teaching. Combine that with the greater insight say into the history of Israel, or the nature of the cosmos, or how life develops and our own bodies function, we gain a better natural mirror to see the way God jas made Creation. This in turn lets us know God in another way more clearly as studying a piece of art or a poem reveals things about the artist who makes it.
The way we know most sure is by using everything God has given us to do so, filtering by what we know and by putting them to the test and following the ways of evaluation He has said we are to. We are ever advancing but in a sense we will only have the complete picture when the story is over and the Author of Life explains it all Himself.
@@LostArchivist The way our knowledge grows is not by scripture, but by science. If anything, science allows us to understand scripture better
If what you say is true, scripture should be secondary at best
Thanks!
Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!