Doctrine of literal interpretation of Genesis, help!

[Jim_Baur]

Concerning the literal interpretation of Genesis, I would like a list or fact-sheet for official statements on the first three chapters of Genesis.

Does one exist?

Thanks!

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) consistently characterizes the language used in the first three chapters of Genesis as “symbolic” or “figurative”:

“Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day.” (CCC 337)

“The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that ‘then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.’” (CCC 362)

“The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original ‘state of holiness and justice.’” (CCC 375)

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” (CCC 390)

 

[NotWorthy]

Concerning the literal interpretation of Genesis, I would like a list or fact-sheet for official statements on the first three chapters of Genesis.

Does one exist?

Thanks!

Ask, my brother, and you shall receive.

I got this from AgapeBibleStudy.Com on their Bible Study of Salvation History.

Whether one believes in a literal six-day creation period is really not the issue.  **The issue is do you believe that God is the author of Creation?**  For those Catholic Christians who struggle with the question of evolution the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has set guidelines for what Catholic Christians must believe about Creation.  One may believe in a literal 6-day creation or that God used evolution in some way [other than Darwinism], but in 1907 the Magisterium defined what Catholics must believe about the history of creation to be in accord with the teachings of the Church in the document by Pope Pius X: *Pascendi Dominici Gregis.*

What Catholics Must Believe About Creation

1. The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time

2.  The special creation by God of man

3.  The formation of woman from man

4.  The unity of the human race

5.  The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice

6.  The divine command laid upon  man by God to prove obedience

7.  The transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent

8.  The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence.

9. The promise of a future redeemer

[see Humanae Generis, Pope Pius XII; Dr. S. Hahn: *Genesis 1-22: The Covenant as a Family Affair

; Pope Pius X: *Pascendi Dominici Gregis (*Sept. 8, 1907).]

 

[Jim_Baur]

Thanks to both of you; you saints are great!

 

[Cashue]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) consistently characterizes the language used in the first three chapters of Genesis as “symbolic” or “figurative”:

“Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day.” (CCC 337)

“The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that ‘then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.’” (CCC 362)

“The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original ‘state of holiness and justice.’” (CCC 375)

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” (CCC 390)

yes, this is very important ““The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that ‘then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.’” (CCC 362)”

We are not to understand that God literally made humans from the dust of the ground, it was simply a symbolic way of saying that man evolved.

 

[edwest2]

yes, this is very important ““The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that ‘then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.’” (CCC 362)”

We are not to understand that God literally made humans from the dust of the ground, it was simply a symbolic way of saying that man evolved.

“man evolved”? Adam and Eve were two real people.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[Bishop93]

yes, this is very important ““The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that ‘then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.’” (CCC 362)”

We are not to understand that God literally made humans from the dust of the ground, it was simply a symbolic way of saying that man evolved.

I agree with that.

 

[grannymh]

There is no doubt that post 2 is accurate. What is unfortunate is that there have been a lot of CAF posts claiming that the two sole parents of the human species, Adam and Eve as well as Original Sin are not real – only symbolic of some kind of truism. In the spirit of discussion, please allow me to use these examples to demonstrate teaching which uses literal reality and teaching about reality using symbolic language. Unfortunately, many persons are now applying symbolic and figurative to major Catholic doctrines in the first three chapters of Genesis.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) consistently characterizes the language used in the first three chapters of Genesis as “symbolic” or “figurative”:

One needs to be aware that “consistently characterizes” does not necessarily apply to all language used in Genesis. For example: Genesis 1: 1 is not symbolic. It is a very plain literal doctrine of the Catholic faith. Genesis 1:2 can be considered figurative. Genesis 1:27 is literal truth, not symbolic. And so on…

“Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day.” (CCC 337)

Paragraph 337 continues: “On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to ‘recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God’.” This statement is extremely important since many Catholics are using symbolically like new fallen snow covering everything which is distasteful like the reality of Original Sin. Adam and Eve, the two sole parents of the human species are being considered symbolically instead of a literal truth.

“The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that ‘then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.’” (CCC 362)

While the words dust and breath are seen as symbolic, the difficulty is that it is taken out of context. What exactly is “breath of life” symbolic of? (CCC 362-368)

“The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original ‘state of holiness and justice.’” (CCC 375)

This is a good example of teaching about reality by interpreting the symbolism. The key is that the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret the symbolism

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” (CCC 390)

Paragraph 390 continues with the important hinge as to “how to read” figurative language. “Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” In other words there has to be a lot of discernment regarding Genesis 3. It is sad, but I see this reasoning in CAF posts. The serpent is figurative, the fruit is figurative and the man and his wife are figurative of something…not all that important.

The first three chapters of *Genesis *lay the foundation for Jesus Christ painfully giving up His life on the Cross. They contain crucial truths of the Catholic Church. Perhaps that is why they are attacked.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[diggerdomer]

Ask, my brother, and you shall receive.

I got this from AgapeBibleStudy.Com on their Bible Study of Salvation History.

Catholics are not required by the Church to believe “the formation of woman from man.”

Catholics are not required to reject “Darwinism” in and of itself, it all depends on exactly what parts of Darwin’s theories (and more importantly, those who followed him and expanded on what he said) are under consideration.

 

[grannymh]

Catholics are not required by the Church to believe “the formation of woman from man.”

Catholics are not required to reject “Darwinism” in and of itself, it all depends on exactly what parts of Darwin’s theories (and more importantly, those who followed him and expanded on what he said) are under consideration.

Catholicism does not reject science 'in and of itself" because it is a valuable tool for understanding the material and physical world created by God, Himself.

The key is the difference between doctrine and opinions. The Catholic Deposit of Faith consists of Doctrines regarding faith and morals. Individuals can offer opinions on scientific matters which are normally outside the spiritual good for man’s soul.

Ah, one asks. What about human nature which is an unique unification of the material and immaterial, body and soul? By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. The important thing to remember is that science cannot go beyond the material/physical realm. Science, alone, cannot give complete answers to such basic life questions as: Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is our origin? What is our end? The human being is more than a decomposing body.

Science can answer obvious questions about plants and non-rational animals, etc. because these are made of decomposing matter. Science can answer questions about man’s anatomy because this is material. It cannot answer questions about man’s immaterial, immortal, eternal spiritual soul. These questions are answered by the Catholic Faith.

When a science theory looks solely at natural human anatomy and declares that is all there is, it needs to be rejected because humans are created as a living being beyond the natural. Humans are created by the Supreme Supernatural Being. Humans alone are called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 355-368)

Divine Revelation trumps.

Blessings,
granny

Link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Bob_Crowley]

yes, this is very important ““The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that ‘then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.’” (CCC 362)”

We are not to understand that God literally made humans from the dust of the ground, it was simply a symbolic way of saying that man evolved.

It seems to me that a statment form the church that God made woman from man is very much at odds with any belief in evolution.

 

[FightingFat]

“man evolved”? Adam and Eve were two real people.

Not something the Church has ever defined. Some theologians (eg Karl Rahner) have postulated the idea that Adam & Eve represent a community of the first people. The Church hasn’t ruled on it either way to the best of my knowledge, although it does tend to seem prefer the idea that Adam & Eve are two individuals from the language the Magisterium uses.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

I’m not sure what granny’s post had to do with Darwinism, and Divine Revelation does indeed trump, but only if it is truly divine revelation.

The generations from Adam to Christ only account for roughly 4,000 years (I think) of human history. Mitochondrial DNA transferred along the maternal line has allowed science to p(name removed by moderator)oint “Genetic Eve” of the whole human race at something along the lines of at least a million years ago. Especially in regards to the science/religion battlefront, I would reference Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical where he definitively states that science and Catholic theology are not in conflict and states that Darwin’s theory is the best they had at explaning human origins scientifically. Pope Pius did not necessarily like Darwin’s theory, but he recognized it as the most plausible and therefore said Catholics were free to believe in Darwinian evolution so long as they believed that God set it all in motion knowing that man would develop in His image.

So a 1950 Encyclical and a letter from Pope John Paul II reiterating the 1950 Encyclical both support the idea that Adam and Eve were not literal people. Darwin was not an atheist when he wrote “Origin of Species.” In fact, he was supportive of the idea that evolution was proof of God’s handiwork. His atheism developed after the death of his son. And what is usually being touted about as “Darwinism” today has little to do with actual Darwinian Evolution–hence why the phrase exists apart from “evolution” as a standalone.

And considering that the most literal interpretation of Genesis I’ve ever come across in the Catholic Church is one that takes the major themes as revelation and the details as symbolism, I’m way more inclined to feel that the Church and science can get along just fine as long as they keep in their respective Magisteria.

 

[NotWorthy]

Catholics are not required by the Church to believe “the formation of woman from man.”

Catholics are not required to reject “Darwinism” in and of itself, it all depends on exactly what parts of Darwin’s theories (and more importantly, those who followed him and expanded on what he said) are under consideration.

Where did I say we must reject Darwinism?

And I’ll look into the “woman from man” clause, for I thought that was dogmatic.

 

[grannymh]

It seems to me that a statment form the church that God made woman from man is very much at odds with any belief in evolution.

The woman God “fashions” – and please do pay attention to the quotation marks – from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits a cry of wonder which is an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” In other words, Adam discovers Eve as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

This is the Catholic teaching: “Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman.” (Read Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 369-373)

Any science theory needs to remain in its material and physical realm which
includes non-rational material animals. Problems occur when a science theory applies its principles for non-rational material animals to human nature. Of course, science can answer questions about the human anatomy because this is matter which eventually decomposes.
But when a science theory examines the natural human anatomy and declares that humans are only material, i.e., they are the same as non-rational brute animals because of their origin – that is the point where it is at odds with Catholicism. Catholics believe in God.
Divine Revelation trumps.

The true human nature, spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, is not the result of some primordial soup. Human beings are beyond the natural world of science. They are created by the Supreme Supernatural Being. We human beings are the sole possessors of an unified nature consisting of the material body and God’s gift of the immaterial, immortal, eternal spiritual soul.

Blessings
granny

Human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[thistle]

Not something the Church has ever defined. Some theologians (eg Karl Rahner) have postulated the idea that Adam & Eve represent a community of the first people. The Church hasn’t ruled on it either way to the best of my knowledge, although it does tend to seem prefer the idea that Adam & Eve are two individuals from the language the Magisterium uses.

Not so. We ARE required to believe Adam and Eve were real people and that all of us came from these two people.

From HUMANI GENERIS
(Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine)
Pope Pius XII

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure what granny’s post had to do with Darwinism, and Divine Revelation does indeed trump, but only if it is truly divine revelation.

When it comes to the real human beings, Adam and Eve, Darwinism is not the only player on the field. Thus, I normally use science or science theories to encompass other disciplines and subsets.

Mitochondrial DNA transferred along the maternal line has allowed science to p(name removed by moderator)oint “Genetic Eve” of the whole human race at something along the lines of at least a million years ago.

The findings in the original molecular biology research which led to the concept of modern humans descending from a single woman who lived in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago have been disputed. Of course, this research is still open to debate due to additional research.

So a 1950 Encyclical and a letter from Pope John Paul II reiterating the 1950 Encyclical both support the idea that Adam and Eve were not literal people.

If you are referring to Humani Generis, please provide the quotations.

This would be appreciated since Humani Generis 37 states clearly the Catholic position that Adam was a real individual. In regard to “original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” Currently, we are part of the “everyone.”

And considering that the most literal interpretation of Genesis I’ve ever come across in the Catholic Church is one that takes the major themes as revelation and the details as symbolism, I’m way more inclined to feel that the Church and science can get along just fine as long as they keep in their respective Magisteria.

Of course, Catholicism supports science. That is a topic for another thread. What I would really like to know is what is meant by “major themes” in the “literal interpretation of Genesis.”

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[nordskoven]

The mitochondrial DNA/mtDNA study showing humankind came from one, first woman was complemented by a later study showing we came from one, first man: she was dubbed “Eve” and hinky scientists called our singular forefather “Scientific Adam.” Genesis said it, science confirms it, and that settles it.

We are made from the dust of the Earth: our constituent chemicals and minerals being derived from the stuff of the Earth. Genesis said it, science confirms it, and that settles it.

Genesis, closely translated, says that Woman was cloned from Man and “refined” and that’s cutting-edge science. Cloning and gene tweaking or “refining” tissue from a donor–let alone in an operation done under anesthesia as God put Adam to sleep–is rock solid science.

No emendation of evolution is indicated in Genesis or called for in science and Darwin himself noted no intermediate forms are extant in the fossil record, his self-described criterion of invalidation. Naturalist Darwin and his lawyer buddy Lyell wanted to erase Moses’ Genesis account per their letters to each other. That’s not science, it’s a satanic agenda from the atheistic “free love” era. The only thing supporting evolution is mockery and air-brushed pictures from National Geographic. Discoveries like the big guy found near the Lucy site are sanitized.

Christ You are the Way, Truth and Life. Make us long for fulfillment in You. AMEN

 

[edwest2]

From the encyclical Arcanum:

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”(2)”

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

The mitochondrial DNA/mtDNA study showing humankind came from one, first woman was complemented by a later study showing we came from one, first man: she was dubbed “Eve” and hinky scientists called our singular forefather “Scientific Adam.” Genesis said it, science confirms it, and that settles it.

Mitochondrial "“Eve” lived 200,000 years ago, and “Y” chromosome “Adam” 50,000 - 80,000 years later. They never met or mated, and Mitochondrial “Eve” is not the only woman at that time from whom we are descended.

StAnastasia