Did the things in the bible actually happen?

[Gorgias]

You understand that I could’ve easily given many more scenarios that you feel may have been apropos

Then why didn’t you?

The point was to drive home that it’s odd that in something so vital a complete disinterest in wanting to know details.

The ‘details’ aren’t “vital” in this context. Your assertion is kinda like saying “it’s vital to the knowledge of the history of man to know what eye color the first homo sapiens had”. No, it isn’t. It’s vital to know that there was a first human, but not all details are vital to the message.

So you’re saying sin occurred, but it wasn’t one particular sin that caused the fall but “sin in general”.

I’m saying that it isn’t the particular identification of the particular sin that’s relevant.

Does that mean that any sin could’ve caused the fall of man?

Nope.

Could it have been a venial sin or a mortal one?

I see that Gama has already answered you with a catechism quote, so I’ll defer.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Then why didn’t you?

I assumed the gist was blindingly obvious. That shows me for not lowering expectations.

The ‘details’ aren’t “vital” in this context. Your assertion is kinda like saying “it’s vital to the knowledge of the history of man to know what eye color the first homo sapiens had”. No, it isn’t. It’s vital to know that there was a first human, but not all details are vital to the message.

If eye color had caused man to go from a being that was going to live forever to one that was going to live forever in God’s plan to one of suffering and toil then absolutely I’d be asking about the origin of eye color.

By knowing the Original Sin it can tell us what was expected of man then, give us a clearer picture of what is expected of man now, perhaps an insight into the afterlife or the nature of God. It might tell us about what the world might have been like if Adam and Eve had not sinned. It could also help us see if the claims of what a pre-fall was like are verifiable are formed from thin air.

I’m saying that it isn’t the particular identification of the particular sin that’s relevant.

Humor me.

Nope.

Okay, so maybe we’re getting somewhere. Not all sins could have caused the fall of man. Can you tell me what the dividing line is between a sin that could have done so and a sin that could not have?

I see that Gama has already answered you with a catechism quote, so I’ll defer.

You also saw that the catechism raised further questions, which I ask. Are you able tackle those at all?

 

[Gorgias]

I assumed the gist was blindingly obvious. That shows me for not lowering expectations.

Or… you could choose to raise your expectations and provide valid examples.

By knowing the Original Sin it can tell us what was expected of man then

Ahh… but we already know it, based on what we know of the Fall of Man, without the details that you feel you’re being deprived of!

You also saw that the catechism raised further questions, which I ask.

Same questions, merely phrased differently.

 

[HarryStotle]

What specifically did Adam do to choose “himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good?” It’s hard to take to heart a claim that perhaps the single most life-turning event for all humanity occurred and no one knows what actually happened.

“What actually happened” is on full display throughout human history. We see the results quite obviously in human society every day. You aren’t claiming that human moral evil is undetectable, are you?

Now the fact that the actual origin of the “fallout” is shrouded at the dawn of human history isn’t exactly a unique phenomena. What kind of documentation exists from that era that provides us with anything like the full accounting of “what actually happened?”

Seems to me that an account of the type recorded in Genesis is actually far better than anything else available from the dawn of history that could give us a glimpse into pre-recorded historical events.

What is it that you are seeking? A psychological analysis of human beings pre- and post-Fall? A newspaper from Eden? A treatise on stone? A wall painting or petroglyph? Even then, could those possibly provide sufficient detail to satisfy your “what actually happened” request?

 

[gama232]

The Catechism provides the key to interpreting Scripture. It starts with the literal.

 

[Gorgias]

The Catechism provides the key to interpreting Scripture. It starts with the literal.

“Literal sense”, which isn’t the same as the “literal words on the page”…

 

[gama232]

Please define literal sense.

 

[Gorgias]

Please define literal sense.

From the catechism:

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

From The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church:

The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. “Let your loins be girt”: Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms (“Be ready for action”). When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.

The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf “Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl.,” 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560).

Does a text have only one literal sense? In general, yes; but there is no question here of a hard and fast rule, and this for two reasons. First, a human author can intend to refer at one and the same time to more than one level of reality. This is in fact normally the case with regard to poetry. Biblical inspiration does not reject this capacity of human psychology and language; the fourth Gospel offers numerous examples of it. Second, even when a human utterance appears to have only one meaning, divine inspiration can guide the expression in such way as to create more than one meaning. This is the case with the saying of Caiaphas in John 11:50: At one and the same time it expresses both an immoral political ploy and a divine revelation. The two aspects belong, both of them, to the literal sense, for they are both made clear by the context. Although this example may be extreme, it remains significant, providing a warning against adopting too narrow a conception of the inspired text’s literal sense.

 

[gama232]

Thank you. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and there are things Catholics are required to believe as they actually did happen.

 

[Gorgias]

there are things Catholics are required to believe as they actually did happen.

Those are two distinct statements.

 

[EndTimes]

My feelings about Original Sin don’t matter. Yes, we, all of us, get Original Sin. Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin (Romans 5:12). We deserve it only in the sense that our first parents sinned.

However - in Catholicism - Original Sin is Taught as being
an extremely important historical event
which for a multitude of reasons
must never be tampered with…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

“What actually happened” is on full display throughout human history. We see the results quite obviously in human society every day. You aren’t claiming that human moral evil is undetectable, are you?

No, evil does exist. But with Original Sin and The Fall thee is a claim that our physical and mental makeup was altered instantaneously, that death entered where it wasn’t before, where we now are all (except for Mary) born with a specific burden because of this one act. Not only are we not being told what the specific cause is but we have no evidence that there was an effect.

Now the fact that the actual origin of the “fallout” is shrouded at the dawn of human history isn’t exactly a unique phenomena. What kind of documentation exists from that era that provides us with anything like the full accounting of “what actually happened?”

How does the Judeo-Christian origin story differ from that of any other religious story? Certainly not in verifiability. And with the topic at hand being whether things in the bible actually happened we’re not going to get an agreement on that among the spectrum of Catholics let alone the entire spectrum of Jews and Christians…

Seems to me that an account of the type recorded in Genesis is actually far better than anything else available from the dawn of history that could give us a glimpse into pre-recorded historical events.

With anthropology and archaeology we have a firmer grasp of our origins than from any religious origin story.

What is it that you are seeking? A psychological analysis of human beings pre- and post-Fall? A newspaper from Eden? A treatise on stone? A wall painting or petroglyph? Even then, could those possibly provide sufficient detail to satisfy your “what actually happened” request?

Truth, honesty, and knowledge. And part of that is to have that information and honesty about the event be on par with the confidence believers have about the event. We all have that friend or co-worker who regales us with events they’ve participated in or witnessed, yet when pressed can’t get the basic details right. I want to avoid that. If someone is saying there was a sin that altered humanity forever, and they’re saying the biting of a fruit form a particular tree was only symbolic of that sin, then a general idea of the nature of that sin is by no means too much to ask.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Ahh… but we already know it, based on what we know of the Fall of Man, without the details that you feel you’re being deprived of!

We haven’t reach the level of “know”, but even if we did it doesn’t preclude us from knowing more details and specifics. How many people call in on the Catholic Answers radio show are from Catholics who start with “I know [Catholic teaching] but I wanted to know…”? Perhaps they can get through hundreds of callers by just saying “It’s not important” over and over.

Same questions, merely phrased differently.

Unsurprisingly, same dodges too.

There’s a natural progression when someone in any field is told that cause A created effect Z:
What can we say about cause A?
What can we say about effect Z?
How do we know either or both to be true?
Is it possible that cause B, C, etc. could have caused effect Z?
If so or if not, in what important way(s) do A, B, C, etc. differ or are similar?
Was cause A inevitable?
Does cause A always cause effect Z?
Would cause A have a different effect if it occurred at a later date?
And so on…

Why does this quest for knowledge, something Catholicism in particular cites in its favor, seem to vanish when it’s so prevalent in practically all other Catholic matters?

This sudden and startling dropoff in intellectual curiosity matches up quite well with the specificity (really, the lack thereof) that can be said about the event in question. This would not be the first time when asking about religious matters that I’ve been told not to think about it too hard.

 

[Gorgias]

Why does this quest for knowledge, something Catholicism in particular cites in its favor, seem to vanish

Gee… maybe because you’re demanding a level of detail that isn’t available in an event that happened in pre-history, and suggesting that it’s irresponsible to suggest that such detail isn’t available?

This sudden and startling dropoff in intellectual curiosity matches up quite well with the specificity (really, the lack thereof) that can be said about the event in question.

Nah… it’s just realism. I don’t know what Adam’s hair color was, or what Eve’s height was. Recognizing that this kind of info isn’t available doesn’t imply “lack of intellectual curiosity”.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

“What actually happened” is on full display throughout human history. We see the results quite obviously in human society every day. You aren’t claiming that human moral evil is undetectable, are you?

No, evil does exist. But with Original Sin and The Fall thee is a claim that our physical and mental makeup was altered instantaneously, that death entered where it wasn’t before, where we now are all (except for Mary) born with a specific burden because of this one act. Not only are we not being told what the specific cause is but we have no evidence that there was an effect.

I suggest you need to spend more time reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is spelled out very specifically.

Specific cause…

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

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”.

Specific consequences…

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

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. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay". Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history .

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians. Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history :

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”

Method of Transmission…

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

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.

 

[Neithan]

If someone is saying there was a sin that altered humanity forever, and they’re saying the biting of a fruit form a particular tree was only symbolic of that sin, then a general idea of the nature of that sin is by no means too much to ask.

Seeking the knowledge of evil i.e. sin. We don’t know what the exact sin was.

I appreciate you challenging believers about this, I think it’s valuable for people to clearly understand the difference between belief on faith in revelation, and reasoned or observed knowledge.

 

[TMC]

If someone is saying there was a sin that altered humanity forever, and they’re saying the biting of a fruit form a particular tree was only symbolic of that sin, then a general idea of the nature of that sin is by no means too much to ask.

Seeking the knowledge of evil i.e. sin. We don’t know what the exact sin was.

A lot of theologians and other thinkers seem to believe the original sin was a form of hubris, namely thinking one is God, is like God, or striving for that state. I agree that it would be nice to know if there was a specific act, but I don’t think there was. I think the Eden story is an allegory for the fact that humans developed out of a natural, naive state into a state of self-awareness and commensurate self-aggrandizement that led humans to believe they were the masters of creation.

I know I will be flamed by some who think that contradicts Catholic teaching, but I am not saying that is what the Church teaches. The Church does sometimes appear to be somewhat incurious when it approaches this point. I believe that is in part because the Church does not want to deal with the outcry from those that are wedded to the allegory, i.e. making it more literal than intended. Just look at the outcry caused when then-Cardinal Ratzinger suggested that original sin may be more the result of being born into a fallen world, and not actually something transmitted through the generations. Much of the outcry over that suggestion relates to the fact that it was a very tiny movement aware from making the allegory literal.