Can we date the events in Genesis?

[triumphguy]

We can spend a ton of time trying to date his event, prove the historicity of that event, and figure out how the sin of Adam became the sin of all, and wonder what the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were and miss the essential truth:

we feel in the depth of our being that we are homeless; that we are strangers in a strange land. We are alienated from the earth and we are alienated from heaven.

Our sin is always before us.

What we seek in this earth never satisfies, never fills our needs, is never enough.

We try our best and our best is not enough.

And failure is our constant companion.

This is the truth that underlies Genesis.

Other civilizations say that we experience this alienation because we are not of this world, we are fallen Gods, we are intrinsically evil, we were always strangers.

Genesis tells us we are good, created good by a Good God who loves us, and who ultimately becomes one of us and dies for us.

All the rest, all the hoopla about literal this, Yahwistic that, historical this, mythopoetic that, is so much dross.

 

[someperson555]

CCC 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

first of all thats incerdibly unjust, why should other people be guilty for someones sin just because they are of the same species? should the son of a serial killer be executed too? a God of justice would not say that. people are only saved by christ if they accept his sacrifice, its not automatic. likewise with sin. we are not “born guilty” we choose in the course of our lives wether to participate in that sin or not. it goes against church teaching as well as logic to say that sin can be transmitted from one person to another. augustine was wrong in this assertion.

CCC 405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

this is true, so we are in agreement then. man is born fallible NOT sinful.
we are born naked and innocent and during the course of our lives we occasionally engage in battle with temptations, baptism is a means of helping us against this temptation. this is what i think genesis wants to convey. but it cannot be taken literally. we now know that there was death and suffering millions of years before man even existed, therefore its just impossible to say that the story of genesis is a literal account.

 

[gus]

no, actually darwinian evolution is far more believable than a story about two people created directly from dirt who ate from a magic fruit tree after they were tempted by a talking snake.

the book of genesis uses symbolism to describe man and his nature as well as his relationship to God (as you put it). but it must NOT be taken literally. the old testament uses a lot of metaphor and symbolism. for example, the floods never happened as it was described in genesis, historical evidence has proven that only a very small area was actually covered by water, (i forgot the exact name of the location). but its ludicrous to assert that there was a flood that actually covered the entire globe and that noah actually saved all the animals. anyway, the story of the garden symbolises that man is born with a fallible nature. it symbolises the life of each individual person, we are born innocent (yet fallible) and in the course of our lives we sin thereby fall out of grace and so on.

Based on current scientific data life on earth begin about the same time conditions on the earth allowed life.
When I was taught science many years ago the theory that a simple cell could have evoled seemed plausable
The amazing complexity of a single cell based on recent DNA discoveries brings traditional evoluntion theories into serious question.
There is no such thing as a simple cell. The cell is incredable complex and ordered.
The Church has taught the Universe had a beginning.
Current Physics seems to agree with the Church.

 

[someperson555]

Based on current scientific data life on earth begin about the same time conditions on the earth allowed life.
When I was taught science many years ago the theory that a simple cell could have evoled seemed plausable
The amazing complexity of a single cell based on recent DNA discoveries brings traditional evoluntion theories into serious question.
There is no such thing as a simple cell. The cell is incredable complex and ordered.
The Church has taught the Universe had a beginning.
Current Physics seems to agree with the Church.

when did i say the universe didnt have a begining? or when did i try to use evolution against the church? that isnt what the debate is about. please dont put words in my mouth!

 

[gus]

Sorry I meant it as a new post
Not as a response to your comment.
Its way past my bedtime.

 

[gus]

no, actually darwinian evolution is far more believable than a story about two people created directly from dirt who ate from a magic fruit tree after they were tempted by a talking snake.

the book of genesis uses symbolism to describe man and his nature as well as his relationship to God (as you put it). but it must NOT be taken literally. the old testament uses a lot of metaphor and symbolism. for example, the floods never happened as it was described in genesis, historical evidence has proven that only a very small area was actually covered by water, (i forgot the exact name of the location). but its ludicrous to assert that there was a flood that actually covered the entire globe and that noah actually saved all the animals. anyway, the story of the garden symbolises that man is born with a fallible nature. it symbolises the life of each individual person, we are born innocent (yet fallible) and in the course of our lives we sin thereby fall out of grace and so on.

Based on current scientific data life on earth begin about the same time conditions on the earth allowed life.
When I was taught science many years ago the theory that a simple cell could have evoled seemed plausable
The amazing complexity of a single cell based on recent DNA discoveries brings traditional evoluntion theories into serious question.
There is no such thing as a simple cell. The cell is incredable complex and ordered.
The Church has taught the Universe had a beginning.
Current Physics seems to agree with the Church.

 

[RobbyS]

man evolved from apes which evolved from micro-organism. the earth is 4.4 billion years.
the book of genesis is metaphor, do not attempt to treat it literally.

And that is the regnant theory, but it doesn’t answer the question. We don’t know when “man” was created. But the counter question is: If we were to encounter the first humans, how would you distinguish them from “apes.” --other anthropoids?

 

[someperson555]

And that is the regnant theory, but it doesn’t answer the question. We don’t know when “man” was created. But the counter question is: If we were to encounter the first humans, how would you distinguish them from “apes.” --other anthropoids?

well there are many different theories about when exactly man emerged, but i believe the current consensus is around 200, 000 years ago (?) im not 100% sure on that, but anyway, the way we would be able to distinguish the first humans from apes is if they are self-aware. sentience seems to be something of the spirit. so from the point in time which God decided to breath a spirit into the animal body.

 

[grannymh]

first of all thats incerdibly unjust, why should other people be guilty for someones sin just because they are of the same species? should the son of a serial killer be executed too?

In reality, a serial killer is not the first human on earth.

In order to understand the Catholic doctrines about Original Sin, one first needs to recognize the unique position of Adam as the founder of the human species. Because the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man, Original Sin is transmitted as a “contracted state”.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[farpinho]

Based on current scientific data life on earth begin about the same time conditions on the earth allowed life.
When I was taught science many years ago the theory that a simple cell could have evoled seemed plausable
The amazing complexity of a single cell based on recent DNA discoveries brings traditional evoluntion theories into serious question.
There is no such thing as a simple cell. The cell is incredable complex and ordered.
The Church has taught the Universe had a beginning.
Current Physics seems to agree with the Church.

Evolution is still very plausable to me, but I am seriously skeptical that random mutation and natural selection would be sufficient to explain all the complexity and diversity of life. It feels more like God purposely created an universe with a logical sequence, e.g. beginning, climax, etc.

 

[farpinho]

Well, since Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of evil, they learned the ability to sin, that’s what we inherited from them…

 

[grannymh]

Well, since Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of evil, they learned the ability to sin, that’s what we inherited from them…

Adam, with his human nature, had full knowledge of right and wrong before he freely chose to commit Original Sin. What we inherited from Adam is his wounded human nature as a consequence of his sin. Human nature for Adam and for us is an unique unification of both the immortal soul and the decomposing anatomy.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Reconciling “science” and “religion” is so tiring… uch:

Sort of like the guy in the circus trying to keep saucers spinning on top of sticks (several at once)

 

[farpinho]

Sort of like the guy in the circus trying to keep saucers spinning on top of sticks (several at once)

 

[farpinho]

Adam, with his human nature, had full knowledge of right and wrong before he freely chose to commit Original Sin. What we inherited from Adam is his wounded human nature as a consequence of his sin. Human nature for Adam and for us is an unique unification of both the immortal soul and the decomposing anatomy.

Thanks for making this clear.

 

[buffalo]

Reconciling “science” and “religion” is so tiring… uch:

I find it fascinating.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is still very plausable to me, but I am seriously skeptical that random mutation and natural selection would be sufficient to explain all the complexity and diversity of life. It feels more like God purposely created an universe with a logical sequence, e.g. beginning, climax, etc.

It is not and that is what is now coming to light.

You would like IDvolution.

 

[LegoGE1947]

first of all thats incerdibly unjust, why should other people be guilty for someones sin just because they are of the same species? should the son of a serial killer be executed too? a God of justice would not say that. people are only saved by christ if they accept his sacrifice, its not automatic. likewise with sin. we are not “born guilty” we choose in the course of our lives wether to participate in that sin or not. it goes against church teaching as well as logic to say that sin can be transmitted from one person to another. augustine was wrong in this assertion.

this is true, so we are in agreement then. man is born fallible NOT sinful.
we are born naked and innocent and during the course of our lives we occasionally engage in battle with temptations, baptism is a means of helping us against this temptation. this is what i think genesis wants to convey. but it cannot be taken literally. we now know that there was death and suffering millions of years before man even existed, therefore its just impossible to say that the story of genesis is a literal account.

When I was in the military I always thought it unjust to punish a whole company for the mistake or wrong-doing of one person, but they did it anyhow.

 

[grannymh]

Reconciling “science” and “religion” is so tiring… uch:

For Catholics, it is simple once they learn the difference between the material world and the spiritual world. When an interpretation of natural science research (material world) intersects with Catholic doctrine (spiritual world) and opposes it –

Divine Revelation trumps!

 

[buffalo]

God gave humans enough power to set the course of the universe.

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286