Adam and Eve, playing with grenades

[Poseidon]

I find it interesting that Catholic understanding of Genesis 3 dictates that disobedience was the reason for banishing from Eden, whereas in 3:22 the God himself (or the Elohim themselves, if you prefer) say(s) that the real reason was understanding of good and evil that Adam gained:

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Which leads to the fascinating question, why God didn’t want Adam to know good from evil…

Also, if God was so about free will, why did he let A&M eat from one of the trees without interference (the bad one) and then not let us eat from the good one?

 

[snarflemike]

Also, if God was so about free will, why did he let A&M eat from one of the trees without interference (the bad one) and then not let us eat from the good one?

Your question is like saying “I want to experience (know) fire, but I don’t want to suffer ANY of the effects of fire.”

 

[snarflemike]

I think it’s useful to post a reminder that Catholics are not biblical literalists. Genesis tells us about a choice that was made, and the results of that choice. Catholic theology explains these things, but doesn’t get hung up on a literal reading.

 

[Poseidon]

Your question is like saying “I want to experience (know) fire, but I don’t want to suffer ANY of the effects of fire.”

Could you explain this?

 

[Poseidon]

I think it’s useful to post a reminder that Catholics are not biblical literalists. Genesis tells us about a choice that was made, and the results of that choice. Catholic theology explains these things, but doesn’t get hung up on a literal reading.

That’s true, and I understand that many Catholics don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. However, many do, so this question is directed toward them.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Honestly, I could never understand that argument. It just seems backwards.

It makes sense, for example, to read Deuteronomy to understand the social background which is implicit in the Gospel. It makes sense to read the Gospel before reading Revelation. In general, it makes sense to use an earlier text to understand the later text, because it gives you some context.

However, since Genesis supposedly contains the earliest history of mankind, then no other text can be used to provide the context for Genesis, because no other text should predate Genesis.

If you say that one should read later commentary to understand Genesis, you are acknowledging that Genesis is not a historical narrative, but rather a symbolical or mythological one, i.e. it is post hoc attempt by the Jewish culture to describe cosmogony. An attempt naturally limited by then-current understanding of the world.

However, if it is so, then obsessing over what Genesis actually says has as much merit as obsessing over, say, Nordic mythology or Tolkien’s Valaquenta – i.e., none.

Genesis almost certainly evolved from an early oral tradition. The context not provided in the story was almost certainly known already by the Jewish Rabbis.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Genesis almost certainly evolved from an early oral tradition. The context not provided in the story was almost certainly known already by the Jewish Rabbis.

I’m almost certain that you are almost certain about this.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m almost certain that you are almost certain about this.

Your sarcasm is misdirected. My source is the New American Bible. I am quoting from my own copy of the Bible-the quotes are typed out by hand. I used this in HS, which I graduated from last year. My teacher insisted on reading the italicized commentary.

The New American Bible Opening Commentary on the Pentateuch and Genesis:

The introduction to the Pentateuch mentions what were probably the four primary sources for its creation, the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomic sources. Genesis is most likely derived from the first three of the four sources in combination. The direct quote on the Yahwist source:

The Yahwist himself was a collector and an adapter. His narrative is made up of many disparate stories that have been reoriented, and given a meaning within the context in which they now stand…

The quotes on the other two of the three Genesis sources similarly said that they had their own “history and life-setting”, I would just rather not type it all out.
…

This sacred history was formed within the bosom of early Israel, guided by the Spirit of God…it was transmitted by word of mouth from generation to generation-until all was brought together in writing…

From the specific introduction to the book of Genesis:

[The sources used] are the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), and Priestly (P) sources, which in turn reflect older oral traditions (see Introduction to the Pentateuch).

So you can now be certain that I was most definitely NOT lying or exaggerating when I said I was almost certain.

 

[ReapReason]

Genesis almost certainly evolved from an early oral tradition. The context not provided in the story was almost certainly known already by the Jewish Rabbis.

To me Genesis seems more like a “parable” than some kind of historical account.

Why don’t people understand that the Jewish religion is not a product of scripture? The Bible or torah itself is born out of an ancient tradition preceding scripture. Scripture in my mind is a theological expression of their core religious values and beliefs; using fictional elements as descriptors of deeper spiritual truths, parables, allegories, metaphors, symbols, and even poetry as a means of expression. There is also history, but even the history has to be understood in the writing style of that age.

It seems foolish to me to take genesis as some sort of description of how the universe literally came into existence. I don’t believe that this was the authors intention at all.

I would say that its more reasonable to understand genesis as a kind of parable or allegory used to express core elements of their beliefs. It is written in a style that people can remember.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

To me Genesis seems more like a “parable” than some kind of historical account.

Why don’t people understand that the Jewish religion is not a product of scripture? The Bible or torah itself is born out of an ancient tradition preceding scripture. Scripture in my mind is a theological expression of their core religious values and beliefs; using fictional elements as descriptors of deeper spiritual truths, parables, allegories, metaphors, symbols, and even poetry as a means of expression. There is also history, but even the history has to be understood in the writing style of that age.

It seems foolish to me to take genesis as some sort of description of how the universe literally came into existence. I don’t believe that this was the authors intention at all.

I would say that its more reasonable to understand genesis as a kind of parable or allegory used to express core elements of their beliefs. It is written in a style that people can remember.

I agree, I’m just saying that the story is to be interpreted in the light of Jewish commentary.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Marc A,

No hard feelings on my side, nor intended. It just simply read the way it read. Your explaination helped, but can’t you see how what you said opened that door right up?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc A,

No hard feelings on my side, nor intended. It just simply read the way it read. Your explaination helped, but can’t you see how what you said opened that door right up?

True, but at the time it was the honest answer. I couldn’t remember where I read it. It was only later I thought to check in my Bible.

Anyway, no hard feelings at all.