Genesis 1-11 Figurative....but now what?!

[TMC]

I disagree. Adam and Eve had no job to say no. They had free will. They could choose. Eve told God she was beguiled by the serpent, Adam tried to palm it off on Eve. *** BUZZ *** Wrong answer.

Peace,
Ed

I don’t understand how this responds to my comment.

 

[Della]

The better word for the creation story is mythological not “parable”. Mythology does not tell us if a story is factual or not, it’s merely a form of writing, such as poetry or prose. So, a story can be mythological and still be true.

Various stories about creation were passed down through the Israelites which their priests wrote down for posterity. We see this in the two stories about the creation of man. Are they different stories? No, not really. They are simply two versions of the same story, just as the Gospels are four versions of Christ’s life and mission. Each story was told from a different perspective to tell us something unique about what happened. So, they are both true and both reliable.

Adam and Eve were real people. They had many children who married one another–at the time it was necessary to populate the earth, it was later abrogated because the relationships became to close to have healthy offspring–we can easily see how this works in dynasties that married close family members, but I stray from the main point. We are only told about those persons who were significant to Jewish history, and those things important for us to understand for our salvation. The unnamed people certainly did their part, but they were not as important to the authors’ intentions in relaying the Jewish people’s history.

People get themselves all worked up because they don’t understand the form of writing, the intent of the authors, nor why the stories were included. It really takes just a little study and common sense to see that everything falls into place if we have the right perspective and understanding.

 

[buffalo]

**Science is catching up, now they lived at the same time but didn’t know each other.
**

Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time
[Studies re-date 'Y-chromosome Adam' and 'mitochondrial Eve'.](http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478)

 

[buffalo]

ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN SPECIES

 

[edwest2]

The better word for the creation story is mythological not “parable”. Mythology does not tell us if a story is factual or not, it’s merely a form of writing, such as poetry or prose. So, a story can be mythological and still be true.

Various stories about creation were passed down through the Israelites which their priests wrote down for posterity. We see this in the two stories about the creation of man. Are they different stories? No, not really. They are simply two versions of the same story, just as the Gospels are four versions of Christ’s life and mission. Each story was told from a different perspective to tell us something unique about what happened. So, they are both true and both reliable.

Adam and Eve were real people. They had many children who married one another–at the time it was necessary to populate the earth, it was later abrogated because the relationships became to close to have healthy offspring–we can easily see how this works in dynasties that married close family members, but I stray from the main point. We are only told about those persons who were significant to Jewish history, and those things important for us to understand for our salvation. The unnamed people certainly did their part, but they were not as important to the authors’ intentions in relaying the Jewish people’s history.

People get themselves all worked up because they don’t understand the form of writing, the intent of the authors, nor why the stories were included. It really takes just a little study and common sense to see that everything falls into place if we have the right perspective and understanding.

That does not reflect Church teaching, which is clear. “Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909

Peace,
Ed

 

[Della]

That does not reflect Church teaching, which is clear. “Genesis does not contain purified myths.” Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909

Peace,
Ed

That which is written in the mythological style can be as factual as the morning newspaper. However, it can be difficult for people to understand it–just as the poetic style of the Psalms often makes it difficult to grasp the Psalmist meaning for those not accustomed to it. One needs to understand the intent of the author, the history surrounding the writing, and who the writing was meant for in order to have some understanding of it–and that’s not including the spiritual content. That is the sum of my comments which in no way contradicts Church teachings.

 

[brjoseph]

One other thing to note: although there are two creation

stories (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), there is only one fall of man story; therefore, your assertion about original sin doesn’t really follow from your claim about ‘two versions’…

Why do you make this claim? It seems that you’re vacillating between ‘Scripture as myth’ and ‘Scripture as literal historical truth’! After all, if the point of the story is to tell us, in figurative language, about the sin of our first human parents, then naturally, the conclusion is that they are at the top of our family tree! To think otherwise does damage to the theology in play, here: how do we assess the presence of other humans? Do they not share in original sin? Do they share in it, as if they, too, sinned? Is the sin of Adam and Eve imputed to them through some mechanism?

Moreover, by your ‘other people’ argument, you seem to be pointing to the words of Scripture and saying, “see! there are other peoples in existence! see! it’s right there!” If you want to make a claim for literalism, then it would help to be consistent…

QUOTE]

I think maybe before criticizing my remark you ought to have stopped at asking what I meant first.
How on Earth can you say there was no one else in the world with Adam and his family?? Have you read it for yourself? When Cain killed Abel and was sent away, he went to the land of Nod, and married a woman from there.
Where did this city and its inhabitants come from, if Adam and family are all there were? It doesn’t say he took a sister, doesn’t even suggest the people of Nod were in any way related to Adam… but there they were.
So, yes, I’m standing by my statement… the Adam and Eve story is allegorical, and there most definitely were, according to scripture, other people around.

 

[brjoseph]

The better word for the creation story is mythological not “parable”. Mythology does not tell us if a story is factual or not, it’s merely a form of writing, such as poetry or prose. So, a story can be mythological and still be true.

Various stories about creation were passed down through the Israelites which their priests wrote down for posterity. We see this in the two stories about the creation of man. Are they different stories? No, not really. They are simply two versions of the same story, just as the Gospels are four versions of Christ’s life and mission. Each story was told from a different perspective to tell us something unique about what happened. So, they are both true and both reliable.

Adam and Eve were real people. They had many children who married one another–at the time it was necessary to populate the earth, it was later abrogated because the relationships became to close to have healthy offspring–we can easily see how this works in dynasties that married close family members, but I stray from the main point. We are only told about those persons who were significant to Jewish history, and those things important for us to understand for our salvation. The unnamed people certainly did their part, but they were not as important to the authors’ intentions in relaying the Jewish people’s history.

People get themselves all worked up because they don’t understand the form of writing, the intent of the authors, nor why the stories were included. It really takes just a little study and common sense to see that everything falls into place if we have the right perspective and understanding.

I disagree; while I believe it to be allegorical, that’s absolutely not the same thing as myth.

 

[Della]

I disagree; while I believe it to be allegorical, that’s absolutely not the same thing as myth.

Once again, and for the last time. I never said the creation story was a myth, in the sense of a made up story. Rather, and again for the last time, the creation stories are told in mythological form. And once again for the last time, the form of the writing does not tell us if the story is true or not, it’s only a form, such as prose or poetry. Anything written in any form of writing, except non-fiction, can be true or not. Mythology does not equal falsity. Please people, actually read what I write instead of skimming and then jumping to wrong conclusions. Thank you.

 

[Alizarin]

I would listen, smile, pass the test and learn about Catholic beliefs from authentic Catholic sources. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good place to start.

I went to a Catholic high school, and from a Catholic teacher who had gone to seminary (though he chose marriage over the priesthood in the end) I receieved the same “teaching” the OP did. Along with that, the flood wasn’t global, Matthew didn’t write his gospel, etc. The year before I had a teacher who taught a very literal interpretation of things. And this was a Catholic school. A Catholic school.

 

[edwest2]

That which is written in the mythological style can be as factual as the morning newspaper.​

That is incorrect. It assumes the Church has not studied the Bible until a few weeks ago.

"The Topical Reading

"This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

"The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was “formless and empty” (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

"On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

"But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “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), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. 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” (CCC 390).”

Source: Catholic Answers tract

From Humani Generis:

“38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Della]

Ed, please read my last post. Thank you.

 

[buffalo]

Gorgias;11174211:

One other thing to note: although there are two creation

stories (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), there is only one fall of man story; therefore, your assertion about original sin doesn’t really follow from your claim about ‘two versions’…

Why do you make this claim? It seems that you’re vacillating between ‘Scripture as myth’ and ‘Scripture as literal historical truth’! After all, if the point of the story is to tell us, in figurative language, about the sin of our first human parents, then naturally, the conclusion is that they are at the top of our family tree! To think otherwise does damage to the theology in play, here: how do we assess the presence of other humans? Do they not share in original sin? Do they share in it, as if they, too, sinned? Is the sin of Adam and Eve imputed to them through some mechanism?

Moreover, by your ‘other people’ argument, you seem to be pointing to the words of Scripture and saying, “see! there are other peoples in existence! see! it’s right there!” If you want to make a claim for literalism, then it would help to be consistent…

QUOTE]

I think maybe before criticizing my remark you ought to have stopped at asking what I meant first.
How on Earth can you say there was no one else in the world with Adam and his family?? Have you read it for yourself? When Cain killed Abel and was sent away, he went to the land of Nod, and married a woman from there.
Where did this city and its inhabitants come from, if Adam and family are all there were? It doesn’t say he took a sister, doesn’t even suggest the people of Nod were in any way related to Adam… but there they were.
So, yes, I’m standing by my statement… the Adam and Eve story is allegorical, and there most definitely were, according to scripture, other people around.

Adam and Eve had many children. In several hundred years there was a growing population.

 

[Darryl_B]

It should also be noted that Cain did not get a wife from Nod, he took his wife with him to Nod. Genesis 4:16-17.

 

[Darryl_B]

It should also be noted that according to Josephus Antiquities Book1 2:2 Cain traveled over many countries, he, with his wife, built the city named Nod.

 

[Darryl_B]

Once again, and for the last time. I never said the creation story was a myth, in the sense of a made up story. Rather, and again for the last time, the creation stories are told in mythological form. And once again for the last time, the form of the writing does not tell us if the story is true or not, it’s only a form, such as prose or poetry. Anything written in any form of writing, except non-fiction, can be true or not. Mythology does not equal falsity. Please people, actually read what I write instead of skimming and then jumping to wrong conclusions. Thank you.

Back in those days they carved information into clay tablets. They wanted to record their history their generations for future generations to know. Genesis is a collection of at least 10 clay tablets condensed into a single book by probably Moses. Each father was responsible for ensuring their story was transmitted to the next generation. So sorry, no time for myth, allegory, or any other type of poetic license. They recorded what was truth, so the origins were not lost to obscurity. If you want stories we will tell them around the fireplace, not carve them into stone with an urgency to record history,

 

[Gorgias]

brjoseph;11178313:

Gorgias:

One other thing to note: although there are two creation stories (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), there is only one fall of man story; therefore, your assertion about original sin doesn’t really follow from your claim about ‘two versions’…

Why do you make this claim? It seems that you’re vacillating between ‘Scripture as myth’ and ‘Scripture as literal historical truth’! After all, if the point of the story is to tell us, in figurative language, about the sin of our first human parents, then naturally, the conclusion is that they are at the top of our family tree! To think otherwise does damage to the theology in play, here: how do we assess the presence of other humans? Do they not share in original sin? Do they share in it, as if they, too, sinned? Is the sin of Adam and Eve imputed to them through some mechanism?

Moreover, by your ‘other people’ argument, you seem to be pointing to the words of Scripture and saying, “see! there are other peoples in existence! see! it’s right there!” If you want to make a claim for literalism, then it would help to be consistent…

I think maybe before criticizing my remark you ought to have stopped at asking what I meant first.
How on Earth can you say there was no one else in the world with Adam and his family?? Have you read it for yourself? When Cain killed Abel and was sent away, he went to the land of Nod, and married a woman from there.
Where did this city and its inhabitants come from, if Adam and family are all there were? It doesn’t say he took a sister, doesn’t even suggest the people of Nod were in any way related to Adam… but there they were.
So, yes, I’m standing by my statement… the Adam and Eve story is allegorical, and there most definitely were, according to scripture, other people around.
Adam and Eve had many children. In several hundred years there was a growing population.

There you go – fixed it for ya…!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias;11174211:

One other thing to note: although there are two creation

stories (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), there is only one fall of man story; therefore, your assertion about original sin doesn’t really follow from your claim about ‘two versions’…

Why do you make this claim? It seems that you’re vacillating between ‘Scripture as myth’ and ‘Scripture as literal historical truth’!

Moreover, by your ‘other people’ argument, you seem to be pointing to the words of Scripture and saying, “see! there are other peoples in existence! see! it’s right there!” If you want to make a claim for literalism, then it would help to be consistent…

I think maybe before criticizing my remark you ought to have stopped at asking what I meant first.

Sorry – I responded to what you wrote; are you saying that you meant something different than what you said?

How on Earth can you say there was no one else in the world with Adam and his family?? Have you read it for yourself? When Cain killed Abel and was sent away, he went to the land of Nod, and married a woman from there. Where did this city and its inhabitants come from, if Adam and family are all there were? It doesn’t say he took a sister, doesn’t even suggest the people of Nod were in any way related to Adam… but there they were.
So, yes, I’m standing by my statement… the Adam and Eve story is allegorical, and there most definitely were, according to scripture, other people around.

So, you’re not seeing any difficulties with your claim: (1) Creation story is allegorical and (2) context of creation story is literal? It seems highly inconsistent: if you claimed that Genesis 2 and 3 (and following) were allegorical, then we’re ok (as far as internal logic goes), and there’s no problem with the appearance of new people; or, if you claimed that Gen 2ff were literal, then you could ask where the people came from (but you’d have to abandon your assertions of allegory).

Which is it? Or are you gonna stick with your ‘apples and oranges’ approach?

 

[Della]

Back in those days they carved information into clay tablets. They wanted to record their history their generations for future generations to know. Genesis is a collection of at least 10 clay tablets condensed into a single book by probably Moses. Each father was responsible for ensuring their story was transmitted to the next generation. So sorry, no time for myth, allegory, or any other type of poetic license. They recorded what was truth, so the origins were not lost to obscurity. If you want stories we will tell them around the fireplace, not carve them into stone with an urgency to record history,

Please read my last post–it’s my last word on the subject. Thank you.

 

[Darryl_B]

Please read my last post–it’s my last word on the subject. Thank you.

Your last post before this one was “Please read my last post. Thank you.” Do you mean the one before that?