Did the things in the bible actually happen?

[HarryStotle]

One of the little things I like about Catholicism is that you don’t have to check your ability to think at the door. I find it highly unlikely that Jonah was really eaten by a whale, or that the entire world was covered by a flood. However, I find them both to be beautiful parables that provide great meaning. I often times think that those who argue if they “really happened” or not miss the big picture.

I suppose a big part of the challenge is to get the details in the stories correct so that we can pull from them the meaning they are intending to convey.

The Jonah story doesn’t say eaten by “a whale” it says דָּ֣ג (dāḡ) or “fish.” Neither is there any compulsion to think that Jonah was alive in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights. That language depicting Jonah’s “experience” in the belly of the fish is one of death. He called out to God from the belly of Sheol, שְׁא֛וֹל (šə·’ō·wl), the realm of the dead.

The “great meaning” obtained from the stories might even be greater if we get the details of the stories correct.

 

[EndTimes]

I think that she and I are simply using terminology differently. She wants “actual” to mean “literal” or “historical”. So, when I say “actual”, she replies, “oh, historical, then?”, and when I say “not historical”, she replies, “oh, not actual, then”?

Yep… Shifty? Sneaky? or Only befuddled in a semantical conundrum ?

Back to the OP …

Did the things in the bible actually happen?

Yes

Next Question?

_

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike_from_NJ:

What do you suspect was the literal disobedience that occurred?

Does it really matter? It was disobedience to God, as all sin is.

A: I know how we can close the budget gap.
B: How?
A: Does it really matter?

A: I know who the Zodiac killer is and how he got away with it.
B: How?
A: Does it really matter?

A: I know what happened to the lost colony of Roanoke.
B: How?
A: Does it really matter?

The sin of Adam and Eve, if true, would have been the most important decision that was ever made by a human – more than Alexander’s conquests, more than the discovery of penicillin, more than the Bay of Pigs --, and it doesn’t matter? We’ve got people on CAF asking all sorts of questions about the faith, yet the question as to what specifically was the Original Sin doesn’t matter? If you were to run a newspaper would you tell your reporters to forego why, when, where, how, and most of what? Saying you don’t know what the actual sin was would be more honest, but then that leads to many more questions without answers,.

You’re gonna hafta work on the precision of your language. We would say that God’s plan does come true. Although it would’ve been nice if there was no physical death and no fall of humanity, that doesn’t imply that since it happened, God’s plan failed.

Instead of calling the plan a failure, let’s say the original intention of the plan (to have people live forever without sin from the start) was foiled by humanity. Was this sin easily avoidable? Was it inevitable that at some point someone was going to commit this sin? How does this sin compare to the sins people commit after the fall? Like I said, there are many questions if we’re saying the Original Sin wasn’t a man and a woman eating a fruit from a forbidden tree. To say that it doesn’t matter is to hide from what it means.

 

[Gorgias]

Irrelevant questions (at least, in the present context.
For example:

A: I know how we can close the budget gap.
B: How?
A: Does it really matter?

Present situation, not past. Calls for specific, currently unknown action. Requires detail.
(Sin of Adam and Eve is past situation. We already know how to resolve issue, and God has provided step-by-step detail.)

A: I know who the Zodiac killer is and how he got away with it.
B: How?
A: Does it really matter?

Past situation, with no action (seemingly) to be taken – or, at least, if there were action, then it’s necessary to ID and find the killer.
(In the case of A&E, we already know “who”, and there’s no action for us to take WRT them.)

A: I know what happened to the lost colony of Roanoke.
B: How?
A: Does it really matter?

This is the closest one to the situation at hand. In this case, it’s merely a matter of historical interest. In other words, it’s purely academic.

In the case of A&E, we know (allegorically) “what happened to A&E”. It might be of interest to the curious, but beyond that, not relevant.

The sin of Adam and Eve, if true, would have been the most important decision that was ever made by a human – more than Alexander’s conquests, more than the discovery of penicillin, more than the Bay of Pigs --, and it doesn’t matter?

We know the nature of the sin, but not the details. Why do the details matter to our understanding of what sin is (rejection of God), what its effects are (death), and how to overcome it (belief in Jesus; sacraments; grace)?

We’ve got people on CAF asking all sorts of questions about the faith, yet the question as to what specifically was the Original Sin doesn’t matter?

And we have answers.

If you were to run a newspaper would you tell your reporters to forego why, when, where, how, and most of what?

Red herring.

Saying you don’t know what the actual sin was would be more honest

We know the nature of the sin. We don’t know the details. We’ve been honest in saying that.

Instead of calling the plan a failure, let’s say the original intention of the plan (to have people live forever without sin from the start) was foiled by humanity.

Catholic theology – and our understanding of God – looks at it differently. Where you see “failure” and “foil”, Christians would frame it up as “God’s plan included the offer of paradise, knowing that we’d reject it, and then providing Jesus as the answer.” See? No failure. No foilage.

 

[Gorgias]

Was this sin easily avoidable? Was it inevitable that at some point someone was going to commit this sin?

It’s not that there’s one great, neon-sign-blinking-red sin out there that caused the fall, and A&E had the bad luck to commit precisely that sin.

Rather, it’s “sin” – in general – that brought about the current state of affairs.

Perhaps you’re mistakenly thinking that there is one great landmine of a sin, and that’s why you want greater detail? (There isn’t.)

Like I said, there are many questions if we’re saying the Original Sin wasn’t a man and a woman eating a fruit from a forbidden tree. To say that it doesn’t matter is to hide from what it means.

The nature of the sin is “rejecting and disobeying God”. That pretty much sums it all up, don’t you think?

 

[AlNg]

let’s say the original intention of the plan (to have people live forever without sin from the start) was foiled by humanity.

In such a case would people live on forever, while birds, cats and dogs would die off as they do now?

 

[EndTimes]

Did the things in the bible actually happen?

T’is better to come to See the Old Testament
through the lens of the Mind of Jesus aka Gospels/NewTestament

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You understand that I could’ve easily given many more scenarios that you feel may have been apropos to the we-know-a-sin-occurred-but-not-a-single-detail-about-it scenario, right? I mean the word “Answers” is at the top of page you posted on. The point was to drive home that it’s odd that in something so vital a complete disinterest in wanting to know details. Also such details can help answer further questions that are naturally raised by what is being proposed.

So you’re saying sin occurred, but it wasn’t one particular sin that caused the fall but “sin in general”. Does that mean that any sin could’ve caused the fall of man? Could it have been a venial sin or a mortal one? If that is the case then was it inevitable that at some point someone was going to commit a sin and thus cause man’s downfall?

 

[gama232]

Without specific examples, threads like this are useless. And yes, the Church has infallibly declared certain things, but instead we get a mixture of all kinds of questions as opposed to a list of specific things. With such a list, answers can be given with supporting Church documents. Otherwise, this willl go nowhere fast.

 

[gama232]

See, the Catechism should be consulted on that.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

See, the Catechism should be consulted on that.

Where in the Catechism does it answer:

1. What was/were the sin(s) that caused the fall of man?
2. If Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned, was it likely that their offspring would have sinned? Was it inevitable that man would at some point fall?

 

[gama232]

From the Catechism:

III. ORIGINAL SIN

Freedom put to the test

[396] God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

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.278 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”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

[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

[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.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history :

 

[gama232]

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."289 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."290

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

If man was meant to be divinized by God in glory does that mean that it took but a single sin to "immediately lose the grace of original holiness?’

Let’s say Adam and Eve are not tempted by the devil and the two later have offspring. If the devil tempts an offspring one or more generations down the line would the same effects occur, even to those who did not fall into sin?

 

[gama232]

Let’s not speculate about some other outcome. God gave Adam and Eve one command: Do not eat of this tree. It’s in the Bible. It’s not symbolic. And it was not an apple. The fruit is not identified but it is described as “good for food.” That said, they were given the gift of immortality, among others.

I don’t know what you mean by “divinized.” That’s not in the Bible. Man had direct contact with God and was meant to live as physically immortal beings on Earth in harmony with God. The devil appeared and they chose to believe him. Never a good idea. Eve ate the fruit and gave the rest to Adam. “The wages of sin is death.” They got what they deserved when they disobeyed the only command they needed to obey.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Let’s not speculate about some other outcome. God gave Adam and Eve one command: Do not eat of this tree. It’s in the Bible. It’s not symbolic.

This brings us back to the title of the topic. Some Christians believe that eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was what actually happened. Other Christians do not. For those that do not the next logical question is from whence came Original Sin? And some of them propose that a sin or sins occurred and so my questions have been asking what were the actual sin(s) that were symbolized as the eating of the fruit in the Bible. So far I have gotten specifics.

And it was not an apple. The fruit is not identified but it is described as “good for food.” That said, they were given the gift of immortality, among others.

I don’t know what you mean by “divinized.” That’s not in the Bible.

I’m literally quoting you quoting the Catechism. In what you posted paragraph 398 says that man was destined to be fully ‘divinized’ by God in glory." If you don’t like that word take it up with the Church.

Man had direct contact with God and was meant to live as physically immortal beings on Earth in harmony with God. The devil appeared and they chose to believe him. Never a good idea. Eve ate the fruit and gave the rest to Adam. “The wages of sin is death.” They got what they deserved when they disobeyed the only command they needed to obey.

Did their offspring get what they deserved for the sin of their ancestors?

 

[gama232]

Original Sin is passed on to all offspring of Adam and Eve till today. If anyone does not believe what the Church teaches then they either lack understanding or prefer their own view. There is no need to defend that view, or consider it valid. People hold dissenting views about various parts of what the Church teaches. They are free to do so but should be open to correction. Of course, some refuse correction.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Original Sin is passed on to all offspring of Adam and Eve till today. If anyone does not believe what the Church teaches then they either lack understanding or prefer their own view. There is no need to defend that view, or consider it valid. People hold dissenting views about various parts of what the Church teaches. They are free to do so but should be open to correction. Of course, some refuse correction.

I know that the Church teaches that Original Sin is passed onto the offspring, but that wasn’t my question. I asked if you felt that the offspring deserved to get it for the sin of their ancestors.

 

[gama232]

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.

 

[webmasterpdx]

We are taught that scripture can be interpreted 4 different ways…literally, morally, allegorically and anagogically…and sometimes multiples of these at the same time…