Adam, Eve, and Satan in the Garden

[grannymh]

Another question I have to ask - as a parent would you leave your children in the presence of an evil beast with nothing but pure evil and death in it heart - then come back and blame your children for falling to this beast. Does the parent not have any responsibility in this ?

So as the above poster says God allowed it.

To be clear I am not making God the bad guy - I’m fine with the story - but I always wanted to ask these question - in no way do I want to be insulting to God or anyone else. They are simply questions that come up from the story.

God is not a human parent.

 

[grannymh]

Actually it was Eve who was tempted by the devil first but that always seems to be left out of the discussion and she then went to Adam and got him to partake. I not trying to point fingers they are both equally guilty because God told them not to eat the fruit - and the Devil always seems to get away without any blame in this also. It all seems to fall on Adam shoulders when there were many players in this story. I guess the plot of the story does not matter - it the final outcome that is the point. I just don’t like the idea of all the fingers pointing to Adam when he was not the only player.

Adam is the original first human.
Only the real original first human person could actually commit the real original Original Sin.

Yes, both Adam and Eve committed serious personal sins. It is because of Adam’s position in the relationship between humanity and Divinity which is why human nature was wounded.

CCC 396 and CCC 404-405 have a good explanation.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[grannymh]

Another question I have to ask - as a parent would you leave your children in the presence of an evil beast with nothing but pure evil and death in it heart - then come back and blame your children for falling to this beast. Does the parent not have any responsibility in this ?

So as the above poster says God allowed it.

To be clear I am not making God the bad guy - I’m fine with the story - but I always wanted to ask these question - in no way do I want to be insulting to God or anyone else. They are simply questions that come up from the story.

God is not a human parent.

 

[TMC]

I don’t think you actually read Genesis 3.

Where does Genesis 3 describe the snake as an animal? I just read it. The only thing it says is that the serpent is cursed above all cattle and all wild animals.

Nowhere does it refer to the serpent as an animal. In fact, the word snake isn’t even in Genesis 3. The only translation that calls it a snake is the NABRE and that is an extremely poor translation of the actual Hebrew word. Almost every other translation calls it a serpent.

I’ve read the Bible cover to cover five times, large parts of it hundreds of times and have spent months reading and rereading specific books. I’ve been in Bible studies and practiced lectio divina for years and give a presentation on the Catholic method of Biblical interpretation at my parish’s adult faith formation class every year.

One of the most important things I have learned through all of this is that the Bible is a whole. It is a big mistake to interpret one verse, chapter or book apart from the rest of the Bible.

-Tim-

I agree that one should read the bible as a whole. That is the point of my question. This thread seems to assume a very literal reading of an allegorical passage, except the assumption that the snake (or serpent, if you insist) is an allegorical representation of Satan.

As to what the text reads, maybe you should read it one more time. Genesis 3:1 says:

Now the snake was the most cunning of all the **wild animals **that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?”

In Genesis 3:14 God addresses the snake directly saying:

Because you have done this, cursed are you among all the animals

What version of the bible are reading that does not refer to the serpent as an animal? All of my bibles use that word or a close synonym, such as beast.

Again, my view is that the entire account is allegorical, but I don’t understand why some treat the passage as literal, except for the talking snake.

 

[grannymh]

Again, my view is that the entire account is allegorical, but I don’t understand why some treat the passage as literal, except for the talking snake.

And how would you describe a spirit?

How should a temptation be properly described to indicate its ultimate seriousness?

Allegorical of what?

 

[TimothyH]

I agree that one should read the bible as a whole. That is the point of my question. This thread seems to assume a very literal reading of an allegorical passage, except the assumption that the snake (or serpent, if you insist) is an allegorical representation of Satan.

As to what the text reads, maybe you should read it one more time. Genesis 3:1 says:

In Genesis 3:14 God addresses the snake directly saying:

What version of the bible are reading that does not refer to the serpent as an animal? All of my bibles use that word or a close synonym, such as beast.

Again, my view is that the entire account is allegorical, but I don’t understand why some treat the passage as literal, except for the talking snake.

It’s not a snake. It is a serpent.

You are stuck on the NABRE. The NABRE has many good qualities but the translation of this part of Genesis is not one.

Snake is a very poor translation of the Hebrew word. Serpent is a better translation. A more correct translation is “than any of the animals” instead of “of all the animals.”

The DR is more correct here. The Knox translation conveys the meaning well.

*Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. (DR)

Of all the beasts which the Lord God had made, there was none that could match the serpent in cunning. (Knox)*

The literal sense of the scripture is not snake. The literal sense was something way more dangerous and sinister than a snake.

You can have the last word if you wish.

-Tim-

 

[mikekle]

It’s not a snake. It is a serpent.

You are stuck on the NABRE. The NABRE has many good qualities but the translation of this part of Genesis is not one.

Snake is a very poor translation of the Hebrew word. Serpent is a better translation. A more correct translation is “than any of the animals” instead of “of all the animals.”

The DR is more correct here. The Knox translation conveys the meaning well.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. (DR)

Of all the beasts which the Lord God had made, there was none that could match the serpent in cunning. (Knox)

The literal sense of the scripture is not snake. The literal sense was something way more dangerous and sinister than a snake.

You can have the last word if you wish.

-Tim-

Yes, I think they like the use the word snake, because its something people can relate to, they dont stop to think back when Eden was around, there were creatures alive that are not around anymore, something like a dragon, or dinosaur-like creature is most likely.

If you would like some great some statements and info about these creatures that once existed, I created a thread awhile back about dragons, historical evidence of what is clearly something we would call a dragon/ dinosaur if we saw it with our own eyes.

Here is a thread with some great info on historical dragons…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965952&highlight=dragon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

To be blunt, this is a bunch of nonsense. For one, nowhere in the text are we told of the fear and anxiety of Adam in eating the fruit. In fact, when confronted, he blamed Eve for giving him the fruit, not his fear of the serpent! Eve, when asked “why did you do such a thing?” says that the serpent “tricked” her and so she ate. She didn’t say he threatened or coerced her. Had they acted under fear and duress then they wouldn’t have been culpable for what they did. God’s warning of death in eating the fruit was the loss of sanctifying grace, not death from the serpent. Even Milton didn’t take this tack in Paradise Lost. I fear that some modern-day theologians are doing what theoretical physicists are doing; turning long held ideas and opinions upside down simply for the sake of doing so.

You’re absolutely right. The idea of fear and anxiety has zero basis in the Biblical text.

 

[edwest2]

It was the one thing they were forbidden to do, but it wasn’t an issue until they were confronted with the Serpent (Satan), where they had to chose between saving their (earthly) life or betraying God. The decision at its heart was the same decision the Apostle Peter was confronted with on the eve of Christ’s crucifixion.

This interpretation predates Christ and is still valid in the Church. The Church doesn’t have “official teachings” on scripture, except for a tiny few select verses (such as when it needed to state that water was a necessary matter for baptism).

Yes, it does.

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Ed

 

[TMC]

And how would you describe a spirit?

How should a temptation be properly described to indicate its ultimate seriousness?

Allegorical of what?

I don’t take issue with the way the story is described. I agree that it is etiological allegory on man’s sinful nature - and that it does a good job of that. I simply object to taking certain parts of the story as allegory, but insisting the rest is literal history.

 

[TMC]

It’s not a snake. It is a serpent.

You are stuck on the NABRE. The NABRE has many good qualities but the translation of this part of Genesis is not one.

Snake is a very poor translation of the Hebrew word. Serpent is a better translation. A more correct translation is “than any of the animals” instead of “of all the animals.”

The DR is more correct here. The Knox translation conveys the meaning well.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. (DR)

Of all the beasts which the Lord God had made, there was none that could match the serpent in cunning. (Knox)

The literal sense of the scripture is not snake. The literal sense was something way more dangerous and sinister than a snake.

You can have the last word if you wish.

-Tim-

Call it a serpent if you like. Serpents and snakes are both animals. The author calls the serpent a wild animal, and puts the word “animal” (or a close synonym) in God’s mouth. I agree that the serpent is meant to represent evil. My question is why one would be willing to agree that the serpent is an allegory for personified evil (and not the literal animal or beast described) while still insisting the rest of the account is literal?

 

[TMC]

Yes, I think they like the use the word snake, because its something people can relate to, they dont stop to think back when Eden was around, there were creatures alive that are not around anymore, something like a dragon, or dinosaur-like creature is most likely.

If you would like some great some statements and info about these creatures that once existed, I created a thread awhile back about dragons, historical evidence of what is clearly something we would call a dragon/ dinosaur if we saw it with our own eyes.

Here is a thread with some great info on historical dragons…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965952&highlight=dragon

If the creature in the account was a dragon, then why is it that snakes are now legless and damned to strike at our heels while we strike at their heads? That portion of the account becomes nonsensical if we interpret the serpent to be a dragon or a dinosaur.

Again, I believe the answer is that the account was never meant to be taken as history.

 

[mikekle]

If the creature in the account was a dragon, then why is it that snakes are now legless and damned to strike at our heels while we strike at their heads? That portion of the account becomes nonsensical if we interpret the serpent to be a dragon or a dinosaur.

Again, I believe the answer is that the account was never meant to be taken as history.

That is a good question…Maybe the ‘snake with legs’ WAS a dragon, and after God condemned all them to slither on their bellies, they sort of turned into what we know to be a snake? Although this does not account for the many biblical and historical references AFTERWARDS, to what can really only be a dragon (something that can shoot fire from its mouth, about 60ft long, winged, scaly armor, etc).

I dont think we can ever figure this out, mainly because we have no way of knowing what types of creatures existed in Eden, we have no way of knowing what a snake with legs looked like before God cursed them, however I do think it was a literal description, as there are many other biblical and historical references to such creatures, things that DO NOT exist in our times.

 

[Tim_D]

…however I do think it was a literal description…

Funny, then, that the Church herself does not teach a literal understanding of Genesis. To believe in a literal telling of the fall of man is to entirely miss the author’s point.

 

[grannymh]

Funny, then, that the Church herself does not teach a literal understanding of Genesis. To believe in a literal telling of the fall of man is to entirely miss the author’s point.

That is really a broad conclusion. It makes me wonder – how do you explain your “fall of man” topic? According to Catholic teachings?

 

[Tim_D]

That is really a broad conclusion. It makes me wonder – how do you explain your “fall of man” topic? According to Catholic teachings?

The Church teaches that the “fall” was a primordial event that has an effect on each and every one of us. It is a defect, a tendency towards our own will instead of God’s. It is the reason that we require a redeemer fulfilled in Christ. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegorical presentation to highlight that deficiency in us. It isn’t meant to be taken literally but to explain that which we don’t understand, much in the way that the Greek myths were meant to provide a basis for something that primitive people couldn’t comprehend. How pitiful would it be for Jesus to have to suffer and die in such pain and agony because two people took a bite of a fruit?

 

[grannymh]

The Church teaches that the “fall” was a primordial event that has an effect on each and every one of us. It is a defect, a tendency towards our own will instead of God’s. It is the reason that we require a redeemer fulfilled in Christ. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegorical presentation to highlight that deficiency in us. It isn’t meant to be taken literally but to explain that which we don’t understand, much in the way that the Greek myths were meant to provide a basis for something that primitive people couldn’t comprehend. How pitiful would it be for Jesus to have to suffer and die in such pain and agony because two people took a bite of a fruit?

Please accept my apology.

I was asking for the Catholic teaching on “fall of man” which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[Tim_D]

Please accept my apology.

I was asking for the Catholic teaching on “fall of man” which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis.

Are you being facetious or sincere?!?!? Are you insinuating that the first three chapters of Genesis speak of a literal disobedient event in the literal personage of Adam and Eve?

 

[grannymh]

Are you being facetious or sincere?!?!? Are you insinuating that the first three chapters of Genesis speak of a literal disobedient event in the literal personage of Adam and Eve?

I am sincerely serious about Catholic teachings.

What I am saying is that there are real Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. Everyone is free to accept or deny. If one is going to deny, then one should know what exactly is being denied. Why waste a denial on something which is not accurate?

First, Original Sin (often referred to as the Fall) is an action and not a defect. It is not a tendency towards our own will instead of God’s, it is a deliberate action by a human being.

Second. At the dawn of human history, a real original human person had a real relationship with his Creator Who is the Divine God. God’s relationship with humanity is real. Original Sin is “the reason that we require a redeemer fulfilled in Christ.” To be more precise, we required a divine redeemer which means that Christ had to be divine. The reason for Christ’s divinity is simple. God and Adam are not equal beings on the same level. Adam, being the human creature, did not have the power to restore his shattered relationship with God. It is God Who instituted the human/divine relationship. Information source is Genesis 1: 26-27 and common sense.

Third. Dealing with an allegorical presentation, one should decide what Catholic truth is highlighted. Highlighting a deficiency in us can make us wonder about what we were before the deficiency and at the very least we would wonder what caused that deficiency whatever that is.

It is best to stop here so you can present your questions.

Personally, my Catholic grade school teaching was very easy to understand.

1. Original Sin is a real action committed by the original human on planet earth.
2. This real person had a loving relationship with his Maker.
3. This first human’s free disobedience is the reason that this loving relationship ended.
4. Jesus Christ has the power to restore humanity’s relationship with Divinity. John 3: 16-17.

Extra important information. The Sacrament of Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace (victory over bodily death) removes the State of Original Sin and turns the person back toward God by being in the State of Sanctifying Grace.

 

[Tim_D]

First, Original Sin (often referred to as the Fall) is an action and not a defect. It is not a tendency towards our own will instead of God’s, it is a deliberate action by a human being.

What deliberate action does a newly conceived child commit to cause them to be stained with original sin? Isn’t it true that a new-borne babe, already in need of baptism to repair the loss of grace, is in a spiritually defective state?

BTW, a “tendency towards our own will instead of God’s” is a classic definition of “sin.”

…common sense.

Common sense isn’t always very common.

Personally, my Catholic grade school teaching was very easy to understand.

1. Original Sin is a real action committed by the original human on planet earth.
2. This real person had a loving relationship with his Maker.
3. This first human’s free disobedience is the reason that this loving relationship ended.
4. Jesus Christ has the power to restore humanity’s relationship with Divinity. John 3: 16-17.

Are you insinuating that the story of Adam is a literal truth as recorded in the Bible? Are you not aware that the Church does not teach that the early chapters of Genesis to be a literal primordial history but an allegorical explanation as to the role of God as creator and man’s place in His creation? Your list reads like something from the Baltimore Catechism; not very insightful and far too general and unspecific to be of much help.