I agree. The nature of Adam’s disobedience is part of the relationship between God and his creation that I mentioned in my post (at least to my mind); I don’t think I worded my post very clearly, though. Apologies.
All of the books of the Scripture are TRUE. They are all divinely inspired, Words spoken by God himself. They containe revealed truth which cannot be gained from other sources.
Why do you think that powerful, God-given truths cannot be explained in allegory?
What possible reason is there to think that fictional stories have no authority or truth?
Obviously Catholicism explains the God-given truths which flow from the first three Chapters of Genesis. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, beginning with paragraph 355. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm
Regarding your post 78 about variously historical, prophetic, poetry or of other forms of discourse, there is no dogmatic emphasis on fiction or fictional stories per se. Also, the broad direction to give attention to “literary forms” is simply a broad direction to go beneath forms of discourse to search out the intention of the sacred writers. In other words, this quote describes an advisable method and not a particular dogma.
I don’t agree. When I see the unqualified statement “*For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse” *in a document titled “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation”, things are pretty clear to me. I believe it is all true *and also *mostly didactic fiction.Regarding your post 78 about variously historical, prophetic, poetry or of other forms of discourse, there is no dogmatic emphasis on fiction or fictional stories per se. Also, the broad direction to give attention to “literary forms” is simply a broad direction to go beneath forms of discourse to search out the intention of the sacred writers. In other words, this quote describes an advisable method and not a particular dogma.
Emphasis mine.
Pardon me for being so nit-picking. But a lot of problems can occur when one misuses the word “dogmatically”. There are enough problems already when one tries to find the reality in the first three chapters of Genesis.:sad_yes:
Speaking of Genesis. And speaking of how to read the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *
One needs to place individual paragraphs within the context of the entire Catechism. For example. When one is using a paragraph on “literary forms”, one needs to check additional information which is in another part of the context. Using the index, glossary, table of contents, footnotes, cross-references in the margins, and common sense such as reading the initial paragraphs which explain how to use the Catechism, can be very enlightening.
Since you have been so patient with me as I ramble on, here is the Catechism paragraph 390 which directly pertains to the first three chapters of Genesis. The title is “How to read the account of the Fall” scborromeo.org/ccc/para/390.htm
Personally, I suggest starting with paragraph 355. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm
Its opening sentence is unbeatable.
Here is an out-of-context sentence from the “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation”,
WE *ARE *totally free to believe in alternate interpretations of the historical nature of the vast majority of the bible. No catholic is required to believe that the stories of Noah, Jonah, Job, the tower of babel, or even the birth stories of Jesus are literalistic history.
Yes, and that is why I don’t try to, I rely on the church’s scholars such as the ones I previously mentioned.
Like I said, I rely on those much more qualified than me (or any random internet poster).
No need to - the church declares what we must believe on those subjects!
So what is it that we must believe about Adam, Original Sin, and Jesus Christ which can be found in the first three chapters of Genesis? I am primarily looking for the answer which connects all three subjects.
I’m not sure where you are trying to go with this - I’ve already said the church defines what we must believe about these things and you’ve already provided the references???
I was editing my post 84 while you were posting. Sorry, that I didn’t get the editing done quicker. Note: I do not deal with Noah, Job or other interesting people in the Old Testament.
Well yes, according to the church we must believe that there was an original first couple God used to found the human species. We do not have to believe in the literal creation accounts (or that their names were Adam and Eve). These accounts are myths used by the author to teach the truths about creation (or as the catechism states, “The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language…” and “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event,”)
When people respond to the question of taking the bible literally with the answer some parts or that the allegory represents a truth, I am always curious about the some parts and what truth.
This for me, too. I don’t think anyone was disputing that there were an original first couple, just that the Bible, word for word, should not be taken literally in all instances. The Church gives us our solid ground, so that we don’t stray into false conclusions about the Word of God.
I beg to disagree. I don’t think you can compare how we make things with how God does His creating. There’s really no comparison. He is the Almighty. He can do anything. He creates – makes things out of nothing – so why can’t He do it right the first time? But didn’t He say, in His Word, that when He originally created the earth, it was so beautiful that the angels shouted for joy? He tells Job, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth… When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
Did not Jesus endure the cross, a very messy business indeed, for the joy that was to come? There’s no need to be so literalistic.
There’s no difficulty at all–only in the way you are interpreting these verses. Moses wasn’t interested in how every blade of grass came into being–he was trying to tell us that God created the heavens and the earth and all they contain in an orderly fashion and for our benefit. Picking it apart and making more of than was intended is what gets people tied into knots and the scientific community skeptical about religion. God wants us to know how to get to heaven in his Word, not how the heavens go, which is a matter of natural inquiry and not important to the salvation of mankind.
Yes, but literal is not the same thing as literalistic, which means every word has to be taken at face value, such as “cats and dogs fell from the sky”. We all know that’s an idiom for a hard rain, but no one in his right mind would think that actual canines and felines were dropping out of the skies.
