Adam & Logic, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC teachings

[grannymh]

Who is Adam?

The Catholic teaching is that the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.”

Reference: St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4, 1. CCC 404. Plus common sense (miscellaneous logic) when one learns the Catholic teachings on Original Sin.

 

[simpleas]

1st – They were asymmetrically, and incompletely part of each other before intercourse (sex is slang). But: They were always equal in dignity, both in body and soul.
2nd – Original sin is propagated via the flesh, NOT the soul.
3rd – Adam named her “woman” not because she was in perfect unity with him, but rather because she was “taken OUT” of her man. (separated/divided).

Please Note: Division or separation is a form of death or propagation; eg: in the first three days of creation, only the act of cutting/dividing which is not a direct creation but of multiplying places where “water” exists, only that divisive act did not receive God’s explicit blessing of being “good.” All other days of creation receive the explicit comment “God saw that it was Good.” But not the second day, which is the only day dealing with division and separation instead of formation.

When God Created Eve, he put Adam into a deep sleep (eg: the sleep is a kind of death which will lead to new life); Then God cut Adam, separated a rib and some flesh, and made a woman out of a man.

The same image and pattern applies to the cross, where Jesus dies and from his side flows forth the substances needed to create a wife, the church, from his body. God put Jesus into a deep sleep in order to be able to form a wife from a death, which in some ways is “not good.”

Again, When God decided to make woman he said “it is NOT GOOD that man should be alone.”; God focuses on something being “not good” in creation; and notice how the passage on marriage says, “For this reason a man leaves his father and mother, and cleaves to his wife so that the two become one flesh.” which is the remedy to the division.

But what I am trying to get you to notice is that reproduction has a division step. Division is a point where the original life undergoes a loss/death/transformation in order than “another” may come into existence.

Poetically the point is made by Jesus himself: “Unless a grain of corn fall into the ground and die, it remains a single grain; but if it dies, it will produce a rich harvest.”

This lack of perfect unity, or this becoming of “two” is part of why “woman” is taken out of man and given a name signifying the division or ejection from his body; but that is not the whole story, for after intercourse, the woman is renamed, “Eve.” She has indeed come back to her origin, her man, and become united with him again; she has also become the mother of “all” the living, and in truth she even donated herself back to Adam.

But there is a tension that exists before intercourse, where the first woman is independent of Adam to a certain degree. Consider: A person’s name signifies the power the caller of the name has over them. Adam called her first by a name signifying her removal from his body, a separation. Also, their spiritual union is clearly NOT perfect, and that’s why St. Paul witnesses that the “woman” was deceived but Adam was not. Hence, their souls did not perfectly communicate with each other. They were vulnerable to attack.

Consider, in church teaching today – a couple can be engaged to be married, but until they have joined sexually they are still free to separate. This is a mystery which I think also reflects back on Adam and Eve. God divided the man in order to create the woman, but until they were joined AGAIN by God in a new way – they were vulnerable.

Therefore, what God has joined let no man separate. Everything else is negotiable.

Thanks.
I’ve never heard creation explained in that way before, it is interesting, yet if they were vulnerable to attack as you say this would suggest to me that God failed them.
And their souls not communicating with each other, I suppose their souls didn’t communicate with God either or else they would not have disobeyed. So they didn’t really have a clue what they were about to do then…hence why I’d say this suggests God failed them.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thanks.
I’ve never heard creation explained in that way before, it is interesting, yet if they were vulnerable to attack as you say this would suggest to me that God failed them.
And their souls not communicating with each other, I suppose their souls didn’t communicate with God either or else they would not have disobeyed. So they didn’t really have a clue what they were about to do then…hence why I’d say this suggests God failed them.

God, unlike man, hears everything. Communicating with God is easy.
All Adam had to do was call out to God, and God would have heard him.
But Adam didn’t… so, in one sense Adam despised God’s help or at least never looked for it.

But you’ve hit on a central point, our communion with God is not automatic; it requires effort.

There is another issue, in that the woman very likely thought the devil was a god.
That’s something that no one in the thread has seemed to even consider.
I think that may have something to do with how the woman was deceived.

Notice, that God says afterward: “Man has become like one of us.”?
That has implications when taken in terms of Catholic Teaching and the CCC’s assertions about God’s total goodness.

Monotheism means God is “one”, as in a perfect unity. (He who has seen the Son, has seen the father… or again, scripture says: The Son does nothing by himself, but is doing everything the Father is doing. etc.) But, the sentence in Genesis can not possibly mean that Man has become united with God; rather, it’s an ironic statement that heavily implies man has become like a single individual in a group of disparate persons known as “gods.”

Read psalm 82, and perhaps you will recognize that biblically God bestows his titles on lesser being; eg: the Angels of heaven are also called princes, or gods. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, even called angels “Lord”, or YHWH in Hebrew, AKA. the personal name of God.

So that where Genesis says,“Man has become like one of us” there are multiple ways that sentence can be understood; and possibly God included the angels, and Satan, in the “us.” I say this because, God himself does not experience evil within himself. God is all Good and in him there is no darkness. ( Even Jesus tells us, Only God is Good. ).

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.
I’ve never heard creation explained in that way before, it is interesting, yet if they were vulnerable to attack as you say this would suggest to me that God failed them.
And their souls not communicating with each other, I suppose their souls didn’t communicate with God either or else they would not have disobeyed. So they didn’t really have a clue what they were about to do then…hence why I’d say this suggests God failed them.

What are the Sacred Scripture verses in the first three chapters of Genesis which speak of God failing Adam who is a real human person?

 

[grannymh]

Who is Adam?

The Catholic teaching is that the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.”

Reference: St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4, 1. CCC 404. Plus common sense (miscellaneous logic) when one learns the Catholic teachings on Original Sin.

It can be observed that all the personal posts about Adam this and Eve that are like grains of sand in comparison with this ocean of truth that the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” This vast ocean of Catholic truth includes both the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Catholic teaching that since Jesus Christ hung bloody for all humankind, we must hold that all humankind are invited to share in God’s life aka the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Information source. Genesis 1: 26-28; Genesis 3: 15; CCC 356; CCC 374-376; CCC 404; CCC 1260; CCC 1703; CCC 1730-1732; CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[simpleas]

I see. IMO we might be able to see how the knowledge changed them by looking at their descendants-and considering how* innocence* might compare. For example, Adam & Eve didn’t even know they were naked before the Fall-but consider that their previous state was superior to ours. Their so-called knowledge may not have yielded much other than shame. But I don’t think their experience in general before the Fall was totally different from ours-we share a basic human nature in common at least.

Well I think their experience would have been totally different regarding shame. If there was no shame in nakedness before the fall and then they are ashamed of their naked bodies after that is a big shift in human emotion.
I thought that shame at seeing themselves naked was thought of in the spiritual sense now. When they sin against God they realize they are separate from God now, they don’t have the supernatural gifts anymore, a sort of spiritual nakedness is experienced.
I don’t see why they should become ashamed of their bodies.

 

[simpleas]

God, unlike man, hears everything. Communicating with God is easy.
All Adam had to do was call out to God, and God would have heard him.
But Adam didn’t… so, in one sense Adam despised God’s help or at least never looked for it.

But you’ve hit on a central point, our communion with God is not automatic; it requires effort.

There is another issue, in that the woman very likely thought the devil was a god.
That’s something that no one in the thread has seemed to even consider.
I think that may have something to do with how the woman was deceived.

Notice, that God says afterward: “Man has become like one of us.”?
That has implications when taken in terms of Catholic Teaching and the CCC’s assertions about God’s total goodness.

Monotheism means God is “one”, as in a perfect unity. (He who has seen the Son, has seen the father… or again, scripture says: The Son does nothing by himself, but is doing everything the Father is doing. etc.) But, the sentence in Genesis can not possibly mean that Man has become united with God; rather, it’s an ironic statement that heavily implies man has become like a single individual in a group of disparate persons known as “gods.”

Read psalm 82, and perhaps you will recognize that biblically God bestows his titles on lesser being; eg: the Angels of heaven are also called princes, or gods. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, even called angels “Lord”, or YHWH in Hebrew, AKA. the personal name of God.

So that where Genesis says,“Man has become like one of us” there are multiple ways that sentence can be understood; and possibly God included the angels, and Satan, in the “us.” I say this because, God himself does not experience evil within himself. God is all Good and in him there is no darkness. ( Even Jesus tells us, Only God is Good. ).

Yes but would God have answered? I think God wanted A&E to make their own decision, which they did…

Yes psalm 82, which Jesus quotes in John 10:34, a while back I tried to get an understanding on what this meant.

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

What are the Sacred Scripture verses in the first three chapters of Genesis which speak of God failing Adam who is a real human person?

There are none that I am aware of, but I was responding to how I read Huiou Theou’s post.

 

[fhansen]

Well I think their experience would have been totally different regarding shame. If there was no shame in nakedness before the fall and then they are ashamed of their naked bodies after that is a big shift in human emotion.
I thought that shame at seeing themselves naked was thought of in the spiritual sense now. When they sin against God they realize they are separate from God now, they don’t have the supernatural gifts anymore, a sort of spiritual nakedness is experienced.
I don’t see why they should become ashamed of their bodies.

As with much of our experience, the experience of shame was both, the physical and the spiritual, the two sort of complimenting and paralleling each other. They were no longer comfortable with themselves, in either their own skins or their own beings. The catechism teaches that man became not only divided from God but even with their own *selves. * Relatedly they also would suffer both physical and spiritual death as well other physical and spiritual/moral evils.

And yes, shame was a very big deal, a very big change. And its interesting that they were actually judging their bodies to be bad. Perhaps they, like the rest of us IMO, hadn’t yet given up on the notion of being God, and their “creatureliness” was an offense to that ideal, one that they hid from and which we continue to hide from to this day. Man exists in a compromised, paradoxical state vis a vis truth. We don’t necessarily accept or fully embrace reality as it is; we cover up, we aren’t perfectly who we were created to be-or our conception of ourselves doesn’t necessarily match with who we are.

We also live in a state of less than pure happiness due in large part to unfulfilled desires-concupiscence. We think we need things in order to be happier/greater/more fulfilled that we don’t really need at all-and misery to one degree or another is the result due to a sense of deprivation. All of this is part of the semi-insanity of being human. All of this is due to Original Sin.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

sigh Most of that “messing around” was merely grammatical polishing which had absolutely nothing to do with changing meanings…

My apologies, I’m unable to edit my original post, and I was rushed. But for the record:

“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” (Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.14)

And this was a couple hundred years before St. Jerome.

Memo to Self: No posting while rushed.

 

[grannymh]

Interesting note about Adam in Genesis, chapter 3: 6-12. So far, I have not discovered the word shame. Nonetheless, I can understand the thought that the word “afraid” means shame. We must recognize that there can be all kinds of shame both physical and spiritual. Obviously, we can experience shame because of our sinfulness.

Naturally, there is personal interpretation on a free speech public message board.

These words from CCC 29 present a good insight regarding Adam. I put the essential in bold.
"…finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

From Genesis, chapter 3. usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

6
The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.c

7
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

8
When they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden at the breezy time of the day,* the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.d

9
The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you?

10
He answered, “I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.”

11
Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?

12
The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

Considering the context of Genesis 3: 6-12, in my humble opinion, it is verse 11 which needs attention by those interested in Catholicism.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My apologies, I’m unable to edit my original post, and I was rushed. But for the record:

“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” (Origen, Comm. in Matt. 15.14)

And this was a couple hundred years before St. Jerome.

Memo to Self: No posting while rushed.

I’ve seen pages of Origin’s hexapla. What he calls “great”, isn’t generally. He collates large numbers (great by number) of very small changes. Origin got upset about very small issues. I won’t deny that there are some texts which were severely corrupted, but then again; even here in the U.S., Benjamin Franklin made a cut and paste version of the bible all his own just to prove he could do it, and make the bible say very perverted things. However, having a name like Benjamin Franklin, didn’t automatically make the bible a text that Christian denominations in general accepted. Everyone knew it was a corrupt copy, and they knew the intention of the person who corrupted it.

The same issue is true with the LXX, or the Hebrew, or the Vulgate. Anyone can produce a rogue copy; and sometimes local authorities tried to pervert religion that way. Josephus is an example, in his Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus was trying to preserve the Jewish bible, but in a way occasionally compromised to be compatible with Roman (pagan) sensibilities. However, no Christian (or Jewish) group uses Josephus’ reworking of the bible as the inspired word.

The very comment you quote from Origin, merely proves, that the most common errors were deletion of sentences and duplications. Considering that the Roman Catholic editions of the Greek (and there are some, including Vaticanus B), and espcially of the Latin, have evidence of more editing and commentary than other bibles; Origin was not a fan of the Roman Catholic preservation of the texts, and not surprisingly he was condemned (or at least accused, and quite possibly falsely) of Heresy by the Roman Catholic translators; notably St. Jerome hated Origin.

Of course, no one likes a critic… but the very fact St. Jerome had to RE-translate the bible for the Latin church (as there were Latin editions before Jerome) is a sure sign that their bibles had become corrupted. Everyone knew the problem was really bad.

Notably, the Roman language did not take over as the official language of the region for over a hundred years after Christ’s death. During the interim, Greek was a language still officially used by the Roman Government. Even Jesus’ death sentence on the Cross had Roman, Greek, and Hebrew inscriptions on it.

I also find it ironic that you are attempting to quote Origin, when St. Jerome is responsible for the destruction of most of Origin’s work. Also, there are several posters over the years who pointed out that the Pope’s instructions to Jerome were to NOT use the Hebrew, but to translate from the Greek. Jerome was a proud man who apparently ignored his orders, and even went so far as to suggest some books not found in the Hebrew Tongue were unbiblical/not part of the canon. The pope was not happy with Jerome for disobeying, and some people have shown me letters where the pope indicated disciplinary action was immanent if Jerome did not include the Greek books, like Tobit. So. St. Jerome did include them and they were included in the Canon, and the very council of Trent (which you cite) goes out of it’s way to point out that those books are infallibly part of the bible.

But I caution you, don’t get hung up on infallibility.
Infallibility, does not mean impeccability. Infallibility does not make up for a translator’s ignorance. There is always a possibility that more information could be added to the Vulgate in the future and declared infallible; what can not happen, is that the parts of the Vulgate already translated should teach, clearly, something which is heretical.
Infallibility does not guarantee the complete deposit of knowledge on a subject will be made manifest all at once; Infallibility only guarantees that what is declared will be true.

In many infallible councils, for example, the creed of the church was expanded with more words and clearer meanings. Realize: The exact same thing can happen with a translation of the bible.

 

[fhansen]

Interesting note about Adam in Genesis, chapter 3: 6-12. So far, I have not discovered the word shame. Nonetheless, I can understand the thought that the word “afraid” means shame. We must recognize that there can be all kinds of shame both physical and spiritual. Obviously, we can experience shame because of our sinfulness.

It has to do with the way Gen 2 ended, vs the way things ended up in Gen 3:
**“The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.” **Gen 2:25

Presumably that all changed, with God even providing coverings for them, and which is why commentators from at least Augustine on have addressed this as a matter of shame.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

I also find it ironic that you are attempting to quote Origin, when St. Jerome is responsible for the destruction of most of Origin’s work.

Pretty sure that happened after the Islamic Conquest of the Holy Land (and in particular after they torched the Library at Caesarea)

In any event, I note that you don’t disagree that Jerome had access to more textual traditions and different, and earlier, and better Hebrew texts.

In many infallible councils, for example, the creed of the church was expanded with more words and clearer meanings. Realize: The exact same thing can happen with a translation of the bible.

You of all people on this thread should be aware that any attempt to translate the Bible to get “clearer meanings” is doomed to failure. The Bible rarely admits to “clearer meanings” - you can find deeper meanings, you can find different kinds of meaning, but translating for “clearer meanings” just means the translator is translating to put in the words for the meaning he sees, not that which is actually there.

 

[fhansen]

Pretty sure that happened after the Islamic Conquest of the Holy Land (and in particular after they torched the Library at Caesarea)

In any event, I note that you don’t disagree that Jerome had access to more textual traditions and different, and earlier, and better Hebrew texts.

You of all people on this thread should be aware that any attempt to translate the Bible to get “clearer meanings” is doomed to failure. The Bible rarely admits to “clearer meanings” - you can find deeper meanings, you can find different kinds of meaning, but translating for “clearer meanings” just means the translator is translating to put in the words for the meaning he sees, not that which is actually there.

You know, you guys might want to consider starting a thread on the best bible translations for understanding Genesis-or best in general. Just a thought. Probably be a lot of interest.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Pretty sure that happened after the Islamic Conquest of the Holy Land (and in particular after they torched the Library at Caesarea)

No, not all of it. Perhaps some of the last complete copies…
But Jerome’s vitrol is still what caused the works to be condemned, both in his own time and later.

In any event, I note that you don’t disagree that Jerome had access to more textual traditions and different, and earlier, and better Hebrew texts.

He clearly had access to some textual traditions we don’t. That doesn’t mean he had all textual traditions; obviously he had nothing from the Dead Sea scrolls… etc. which settled some disputes as to the proper numbering of the Psalms. Jerome is also not some super translator who made no mistakes.

You of all people on this thread should be aware that any attempt to translate the Bible to get “clearer meanings” is doomed to failure. The Bible rarely admits to “clearer meanings” - you can find deeper meanings, you can find different kinds of meaning, but translating for “clearer meanings” just means the translator is translating to put in the words for the meaning he sees, not that which is actually there.

No, it doesn’t. Not when an ecumenical council is clarifying what the meaning ought to be. If you don’t believe God can, and does, remind us of things we have the evidence for, but “forgot”, through the Holy Spirit; then I don’t see how you can claim to believe in the Catholic Church at all.

John 14:26 NAB (one sentence, fair use quote).
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you.*Case in point.

Jerome translated from the new testament Greek (there is no Hebrew, and Even Matthew was not available in Hebrew by the time of Jerome.).

The Latin word “substance” is how Jerome translated the Greek word “hypostasis.” The words are based on identical word roots. Latin: sub=under stance=stand; Greek: hypo=under stasis=stand. English even has an equivalent compound word: “understanding” All three of these words are about knowing what something or someone is.

At first sight, Jerome’s choice of what appears to be a literal translation ought to have caused no problems (especially as Trent infallibly documented that his translation is “valid”, right?)… But in fact, his translation ignores the difference in connotation between the Greek and Latin words. Jerome’s ignorance of Greek nuances led to a conflict between the Roman Catholic churches and the Eastern Churches which lasted centuries and still has negative effects, all of which could have been totally avoided. People on both sides were calling each other heretics, all because of a little translation sloppiness. Look in your Catechism, CCC #252; Very clearly; A Hypostasis is not exactly the same as Substance in spite of Jerome’s translation. Look in the creed, where it talks about the father and son being “con-substantial” How Ironic, that my nieces all complain that the word is so confusing… yet, it’ really thanks to Jerome for royally screwing up the unity of the church. Even today we have to carry around a word that most people don’t have a clue as to what the philosophical meaning or history is, in the name of healing an old wound.

A hypostasis is a rational substance; and there is a HUGE difference between a rational substance and chemicals, atoms, or other things which are merely substances with no personality of their own.

When I point out that the creed developed, I mean that additional clarifying words were added to the creed as part of the promise in John 14:26. The same can happen at any time for the bible as well. Everyplace Jerome translated “hypostasis”, there is a potential that God meant person, or rational substance, and not just substance.

That is only a single example, and I don’t wish to get into a really deep discussion about translational issues here and derail Granny’s thread. But, I don’t see any historical version of the bible (used by large portions of the church) as completely lesser than the others. Each version of the bible preserves details of Traditions and traditions and are worth investigating carefully to come to a fuller understanding of what God means to tell us through his word.

 

[simpleas]

As with much of our experience, the experience of shame was both, the physical and the spiritual, the two sort of complimenting and paralleling each other. They were no longer comfortable with themselves, in either their own skins or their own beings. The catechism teaches that man became not only divided from God but even with their own *selves. * Relatedly they also would suffer both physical and spiritual death as well other physical and spiritual/moral evils.

And yes, shame was a very big deal, a very big change. And its interesting that they were actually judging their bodies to be bad. Perhaps they, like the rest of us IMO, hadn’t yet given up on the notion of being God, and their “creatureliness” was an offense to that ideal, one that they hid from and which we continue to hide from to this day. Man exists in a compromised, paradoxical state vis a vis truth. We don’t necessarily accept or fully embrace reality as it is; we cover up, we aren’t perfectly who we were created to be-or our conception of ourselves doesn’t necessarily match with who we are.

We also live in a state of less than pure happiness due in large part to unfulfilled desires-concupiscence. We think we need things in order to be happier/greater/more fulfilled that we don’t really need at all-and misery to one degree or another is the result due to a sense of deprivation. All of this is part of the semi-insanity of being human. All of this is due to Original Sin.

I’m not sure about them thinking their “creatureliness” was an offense to that ideal

God made them as creatures and spiritual, when their eyes are open they realize they are creatures/spiritual beings? They would already have known they were not on the same level as God, they didn’t look like him, or a least they would have guessed God wasn’t the same being as they were.

I don’t know about anyone else but I never have thought about being God, I can understand that God is the creator and I am the created.

I haven’t got time at the moment to write anymore, but I was reflecting on the line where God asks them “who told you, you were naked?”

 

[simpleas]

Interesting note about Adam in Genesis, chapter 3: 6-12. So far, I have not discovered the word shame. Nonetheless, I can understand the thought that the word “afraid” means shame. We must recognize that there can be all kinds of shame both physical and spiritual. Obviously, we can experience shame because of our sinfulness.

Naturally, there is personal interpretation on a free speech public message board.

These words from CCC 29 present a good insight regarding Adam. I put the essential in bold.
"…finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

From Genesis, chapter 3. usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

6
The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.c

7
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

8
When they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden at the breezy time of the day,* the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.d

9
The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you?

10
He answered, “I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.”

11
Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?

12
The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

Considering the context of Genesis 3: 6-12, in my humble opinion, it is verse 11 which needs attention by those interested in Catholicism.

Ha, great minds think alike!

I didn’t read this until after I had posted!

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure about them thinking their “creatureliness” was an offense to that ideal

God made them as creatures and spiritual, when their eyes are open they realize they are creatures/spiritual beings? They would already have known they were not on the same level as God, they didn’t look like him, or a least they would have guessed God wasn’t the same being as they were.

I tend to think the whole problem was that they didn’t recognize the difference between themselves and God. I tend to think that the world continues to be tainted by and operate under this mis-guided aberration to this day. Consider that every instance of plain old everyday pride/self-righteousness is a human acting in a capacity he wasn’t created to act in. This is why humility is so key to the kingdom-and not the easiest virtue for us to cultivate BTW. . We may not admit we want to be God but in many respects humans play at it everyday to one degree or another.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

No, not all of it. Perhaps some of the last complete copies…

There was only ever one complete copy of the Hexapla, Also, Origen was a brilliant guy but his problem was Origenism not St. Jerome.

He clearly had access to some textual traditions we don’t.

Exactly.

No, it doesn’t. Not when an ecumenical council is clarifying what the meaning ought to be. If you don’t believe God can, and does, remind us of things we have the evidence for, but “forgot”, through the Holy Spirit; then I don’t see how you can claim to believe in the Catholic Church at all.

Council of Trent already “clarified” Jerome Vulgate was authentic, therefore changes to Gen 3:15 in the Nova Vulgate are contrary to already established Church dogma. Please don’t resort to ad hominems.

Jerome translated from the new testament Greek (there is no Hebrew, and Even Matthew was not available in Hebrew by the time of Jerome.).

Please don’t state suppositions as facts. There is some evidence that Jerome may have had access to Matthew in Hebrew.

yet, it’ really thanks to Jerome for royally screwing up the unity of the church.

All I get from this is that you don’t like St. Jerome because you think he translated a word wrong based on the texts you are looking at and not the ones he was looking at, though you have already admitted he had access to more texts. As between you and St. Jerome, I’m going to go with Jerome.

Each version of the bible preserves details of Traditions and traditions and are worth investigating carefully to come to a fuller understanding of what God means to tell us through his word.

No. There are inspired translations (Jerome, Douay-Rheims) and there are uninspired translations.