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

[TMC]

You’re right; it doesn’t. Yet, that’s not what I claimed; I didn’t make a claim for a 6000-year-old earth. I didn’t make a claim for Adam and Eve as the only inhabitants on earth (the only humans, perhaps, I might argue for; but I didn’t make the claim you assert I did).

No, it doesn’t. It says that Adam is ‘the symbol of the original unity of the human race.’ There’s a big difference between those two assertions. Jack Lambert and Mean Joe Green are symbols of the Steel Curtain defense of the 1970’s-era Pittsburgh Steelers; of course, that doesn’t mean that they are only ‘symbols’ and aren’t ‘real human beings.’

Yes, and this is a discussion of the existence of humanoids on earth. Further, it says:

And further:

In other words, although scientists can study the physical world, and can discuss the rise of hominids, it cannot speak to the spark that God provided in order to create humans. Did hominids arise in isolation – one mating pair – or in a community? It’s immaterial; the Church still contends that God created human souls, without mediation, and thus began the human race. It’s this creation of the first two humans that the Church addresses in the context of the first chapters of Genesis.

What you have shown is that the Church is in conversation with scientific progress, not in competition with it. As the document says in paragraph 70, the theology of the Church “does not insert divine agency to fill in the ‘gaps’ in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called ‘God of the gaps’)”; rather, it shows how the descriptions in Genesis proclaim the truth, in ways that science does not – and can not – appropriate in its descriptions of physical processes. The theology that proceeds from Genesis is therefore not mythological or symbolic, but true in a way that its figurative language does not diminish…!

Yes, they are; yet, they don’t make the claims that you assert they’re making…

I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that there existed in the distant past (I.e. way more than 6000 years ago) a population of hominids who were physically human but lacked souls? And that at some point in time God elected to give a soul to one of these hominids, for the first time creating a fully human person? If that is what you mean, I don’t see how that is different from what I and others here have been saying about the figurative nature of the first six chapters of Genesis.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not sure what you mean.

Well, first off, I mean that your reading of the document you cited doesn’t seem to fit what’s being said there.

Are you suggesting that there existed in the distant past (I.e. way more than 6000 years ago) a population of hominids who were physically human but lacked souls? And that at some point in time God elected to give a soul to one of these hominids, for the first time creating a fully human person?

This is one of the possibilities that has been floated out there, in order to fit both with doctrinal statements and recent scientific progress. I’m not asserting that this must be the case, but that it is one way that you can attempt to resolve this discussion. It, too, has its difficulties, however…

Nevertheless, how do you interpret the document when it says, “Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention”…?

If that is what you mean, I don’t see how that is different from what I and others here have been saying about the figurative nature of the first six chapters of Genesis.

That’s odd, because if that theory is correct (and I’m not advocating for it in this context), then Genesis is more readable literally, even taking into consideration contemporary scientific theory! In other words, if one makes the claims that you bring up for consideration here, then the claim that Genesis 2ff are purely figurative stories no longer make sense! These narratives, then, would become literally true, on certain levels! So, no… if that’s the claim that one wishes to make, then it’s a very different claim than the assertion of purely figurative narrative in Genesis 2ff …

 

[TMC]

Well, first off, I mean that your reading of the document you cited doesn’t seem to fit what’s being said there.

This is one of the possibilities that has been floated out there, in order to fit both with doctrinal statements and recent scientific progress. I’m not asserting that this must be the case, but that it is one way that you can attempt to resolve this discussion. It, too, has its difficulties, however…

Nevertheless, how do you interpret the document when it says, “Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention”…?

That’s odd, because if that theory is correct (and I’m not advocating for it in this context), then Genesis is more readable literally, even taking into consideration contemporary scientific theory! In other words, if one makes the claims that you bring up for consideration here, then the claim that Genesis 2ff are purely figurative stories no longer make sense! These narratives, then, would become literally true, on certain levels! So, no… if that’s the claim that one wishes to make, then it’s a very different claim than the assertion of purely figurative narrative in Genesis 2ff …

I still don’t understand your position. I thought your belief or position was that the Genesis account of the origin of mankind is literal, not figurate. But if you are saying that Genesis is consistent with a belief that the first fully human person was a member of a group of hominids that lived together tens of thousands of years ago (or longer), then you must agree that the Genesis account(s) of the creation of man is figurative. A literal reading of Genesis does not allow for hominids evolving over time, with the first fully human being the first hominid ensouled by God.

 

[TMC]

Then why do you believe in original sin? I mean, why would you reject the story but accept the part that talks about original sin.

I don’t see any conflict between the doctrine of original sin and a figurative reading of the Adam and Eve story. Nor do I see any conflict between the doctrine of original sin and a belief in polygenism.

 

[Gorgias]

I still don’t understand your position. I thought your belief or position was that the Genesis account of the origin of mankind is literal, not figurate.

Actually, I don’t think that I’ve stated my position, in this thread; I was just noting that your position seemed to lack internal consistency – at one point, it argued from the perspective of figurative language, and at another, it discussed demographics from the perspective of the literal approach. It would seem that you should want to pick one or the other, or at least argue fully for one, from its perspective, and argue fully against the other, with respect to its perspective.

But if you are saying that Genesis is consistent with a belief that the first fully human person was a member of a group of hominids that lived together tens of thousands of years ago (or longer), then you must agree that the Genesis account(s) of the creation of man is figurative. A literal reading of Genesis does not allow for hominids evolving over time, with the first fully human being the first hominid ensouled by God.

Just for the sake of argument: I don’t think that what you say is necessary is, in fact, so. Not all literal readings of Genesis require a 6-days-of-24-hours interpretation. In this light, if we take the document you cited into consideration, the notion of God creating animals and then man could support a process of evolution into which God intervenes through ensoulment: God creates the animals? Check. God creates man in His image and likeness? Check. (No statement of the amount of time between these two occurrences? OK.)

Those who want their interpretation of a literal Genesis to hold sway are asking a whole 'nother question, though, not related to the general question of a literal interpretation of Genesis!

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t see any conflict between the doctrine of original sin and a figurative reading of the Adam and Eve story.

You should…

Nor do I see any conflict between the doctrine of original sin and a belief in polygenism.

Aah… that explains it, then! OK, I’ll bite: how do you reconcile polygenism with original sin? Especially given what the Church has already stated regarding these sorts of hypotheses?

 

[TMC]

Actually, I don’t think that I’ve stated my position, in this thread; I was just noting that your position seemed to lack internal consistency – at one point, it argued from the perspective of figurative language, and at another, it discussed demographics from the perspective of the literal approach. It would seem that you should want to pick one or the other, or at least argue fully for one, from its perspective, and argue fully against the other, with respect to its perspective.

Just for the sake of argument: I don’t think that what you say is necessary is, in fact, so. Not all literal readings of Genesis require a 6-days-of-24-hours interpretation. In this light, if we take the document you cited into consideration, the notion of God creating animals and then man could support a process of evolution into which God intervenes through ensoulment: God creates the animals? Check. God creates man in His image and likeness? Check. (No statement of the amount of time between these two occurrences? OK.)

Those who want their interpretation of a literal Genesis to hold sway are asking a whole 'nother question, though, not related to the general question of a literal interpretation of Genesis!

I guess we have different understandings of the words “literal” and “figurative.” The literal text of Genesis says that God created the world in six days, formed Adam from dust, and formed Eve from Adam’s side. If one does not believe those things, than that person is adopting a figurative, non-literal approach. It seems to me we both accept non-literal interpretstions, and are merely discussing which non-literal interpretations are acceptable.

My own belief is that man is the result of evolution. I also support both biological and theological polygenism. You say you have not stated your own beliefs–please do.

 

[TMC]

You should…

Aah… that explains it, then! OK, I’ll bite: how do you reconcile polygenism with original sin? Especially given what the Church has already stated regarding these sorts of hypotheses?

The Church has not condemned polygenism. To the contrary, the Church has been very careful not to do so. See, for example, Communion and Stewardship. Pope Benedict also spoke and wrote frequently on original sin and was careful to allow room for either mono- or poly genetic origins.

 

[bsroufek]

You are free to believe, as I do, in the literal sense of Genesis. I think those who call it “Myth” are lacking in Faith.

 

[Gorgias]

The Church has not condemned polygenism. To the contrary, the Church has been very careful not to do so. See, for example, Communion and Stewardship. Pope Benedict also spoke and wrote frequently on original sin and was careful to allow room for either mono- or poly genetic origins.

Pope Pius XII might disagree with you on that:

[T]he Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

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 that either 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.

(Humani generis, Pius XII).

Now, if you mean something other than the theory that there were humans after ‘Adam’ who were not his descendants or that ‘Adam’ is simply representative of a larger community of first humans, then there’s room to talk; but that wouldn’t be ‘polygenism,’ properly speaking. In fact, Benedict’s writings on the matter – which we have been discussing here – don’t speak to polygenism, per se, but other ways by which we can reconcile the notions of modern science and the doctrines of the Church.

But, as to your assertion that polygenism has the blessing of the Church… not so much.

 

[TMC]

Pope Pius XII might disagree with you on that:

(Humani generis, Pius XII).

Now, if you mean something other than the theory that there were humans after ‘Adam’ who were not his descendants or that ‘Adam’ is simply representative of a larger community of first humans, then there’s room to talk; but that wouldn’t be ‘polygenism,’ properly speaking. In fact, Benedict’s writings on the matter – which we have been discussing here – don’t speak to polygenism, per se, but other ways by which we can reconcile the notions of modern science and the doctrines of the Church.

But, as to your assertion that polygenism has the blessing of the Church… not so much.

Never said it had the blessing of the Church, but it has not been condemned. Pius said it was not “apparent” how polygenism can be reconciled with the faith but did not declare it could never be reconciled. Since then many Cathoioc theologians, including Pope Benedict and the international theological commission have left room for polygenism. Again, read Communion and Stewardship, which expressly provides for the possibility of polygenism.

 

[MollyMac]

I am reading through this thread and others on the forum and some hold to the belief that Jesus’ parables used to teach the crowds are similar or are to be read and comprehended the same way as the Creation and Fall of man account in Genesis and also the account of Noah and the flood. I do not see the resemblance. Christ told the disciples and those who followed that parables were used so the crowds might understand. Nowhere in Genesis or thereafter does anyone refer to Creation or the Flood as just a symbolic story or a parable or anything of the like. There are different instances in the Old Testament where prophets used stories to explain things (such as David and Nathan) but the stories were reveled as stories used to teach a lesson. The Creation account and the Flood are not explained that way in scripture by anyone. So why is it not taken literally?

Would anyone have any thoughts on Matthew 24:37-39?

Matthew 24:37-39? Anyone?

Does anyone have any thoughts on Hebrews 11? Noah was listed in the passage as one of those who were applauded for their faith. All of the men and women (“the people of old”) named were living at one time except Noah, who was from a “figurative” story? Abel (Adam and Eve’s son) is also mentioned for his faith in Hebrews 11.

Noah is also mentioned by St. Peter in his second epistle in chapter 2. These specific passages are all referencing a “figurative” event, but not revealing to the reader that it is a “figurative” event? I do not find the Flood or the account of Adam and Eve being described as “figurative” or a parable of sorts anywhere in the books of the Bible.

 

[kmcarl56]

I would suggest to you that it is both literal and figurative. I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth, without a doubt in my mind. However, if we are to believe that God actually created the heavens and the earth in only 7 days (in our time span of 24 hours per day), then why is there scientific proof that it took thousands of years for the earth to get to the point of habitation… Then, how there is proof that the platletts of the earth moved around to create the continents; or how some places on our continents have evidence of having once been under water (fossils prove it); or how some species of the same genus ended up on different continents. In addition to those things, certain species continue to mutate into other forms of the same genus depending upon the habitat in which they live.

I would also advise you that the name “Adam” in the original Hebrew (or Greek?) simply means “man,” so “Eve” may possibly simply mean “woman.” Therefore, God created man and woman, our original parents because we are human, not derived from a couple of apes mutating into humans. God gave us His intelligence to have free will, just as He does (since we are made in His image and likeness). If we were just animals, like apes, we would continue to only know how to forage for food, defend ourselves, and copulate.

You are right, I think, that knowing the difference between good and evil came to man only after eating the forbidden fruit, which was offered to them by Satan (the serpent). In addition, scientists have proven that the flood was world-wide, and that it did occur in the history of the earth.

I have studied a lot of literature, including Old World Literature, and I think that as long as you keep the faith that you have in God, the answers to your questions will come from Him. If not in this lifetime, He will certainly reveal the answers when you meet Him in Heaven. Don’t sweat the small stuff, I say. Instead, accept that the Bible is the Truth, the only Truth, and there are simply some things that we, as humans, are just not to know or understand in this life.

Keep in mind that there are many “stories” in the Bible to explain things to us in terms that we can understand and relate to. Remember also that in the days of Moses, Noah, and Jesus, most people related to a more allegorical way of understanding than, say, the true written word. Plays were commonly used to address the relative human conditions. Complete understanding is sometimes simply beyond our comprehension.

Stay true to your faith, my dear, and learn. Always remember that by listening to others’ thoughts and ideas does not mean that you have to agree or believe as they do. Knowledge is a gift. Use it wisely.

:newidea:

May God bless you and keep you in His sheltering arms from now and throughout eternity!

 

[Gorgias]

Never said it had the blessing of the Church, but it has not been condemned. Pius said it was not “apparent” how polygenism can be reconciled with the faith but did not declare it could never be reconciled.

So, when Pius said, “(in the) 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,” he didn’t mean that Catholics should reject polygenism? That’s odd, since, ya know, we have the words “the faithful cannot embrace” and “polygenism” right next to each other! Hmm… Care to explain how Pius didn’t mean what he clearly stated?

Again, read Communion and Stewardship, which expressly provides for the possibility of polygenism.

Again, I have. And, I maintain that it doesn’t embrace polygenism. Perhaps you might provide a definition of what you mean to be polygenism? And, having done so, provide us a quotation from Communion and Stewardship that “expressly” supports that view?

Thanks!

Blessings,

G.

 

[Gorgias]

I would also advise you that the name “Adam” in the original Hebrew (or Greek?) simply means “man,” so “Eve” may possibly simply mean “woman.”

Actually, “Adam” means ‘of the red clay’ and Eve means “(mother) of all living.” Interestingly, in the Septuagint, she isn’t named ‘Eve’, but ‘Zoe’; in other words, at this point in the narrative, it’s a descriptor as much as a name…!

In addition, scientists have proven that the flood was world-wide, and that it did occur in the history of the earth.

Erm… really? I’ve never heard such a thing; rather, I’ve always heard that it’s thought that there was a really large, catastrophic, regional flood, which gave rise to the variety of flood stories that many cultures in the area developed. Do you have a reference to these scientists’ claims?

 

[MollyMac]

Okay, my Religious Studies department is confusing me at my High School

1. If the story of Adam and Eve was just figurative (they say), then where did original sin come from?
2. Who or what was the serpent representing in the garden? One of the teachers says that it is representing how this story is a myth. I think it was Satan. Isn’t that what head Mary is crushing under her feet? It would make sense…in revelations it says that Satan was “the old snake”

I will have more questions as the weeks progress on. I am in Scriptural studies required for freshmen…

Thanks for all of your help!!!:bible1::bible1::bible1:

To provide direct answers to your questions:

If you attend a religious private school, you should be able to take to the teacher(s) your Bible and your Church teachings and say, “Here is truth.”

If you are in the public school system, you have the right to take your Bible and your Church teachings and say, “This is truth.” I had this experience and I worded my answers on examinations as 'this is what you taught, but this is what I believe." My professor was usually cooperative.

 

[buffalo]

Della, with respect, and going on the assumption that you didn’t mean to sound condescending, I think you ought to know that I have a rather extensive knowledge of the scriptures and the history surrounding them both as spiritual revelation and as literature. I’m perfectly aware of the different writing styles, different authors, times in which they were composed, and the cultural issues and subtexts to be found therein… so please don’t assume that I disagree with your take on them out of ignorance.
In short, I’m not reading anything “cold.”
If you’d care to take another look at my objection to what was said about Cain’s wife, I think it stands. The scriptures tell us absolutely nothing about who she was or where she came from; it’s silent on the matter. Therefore, yes, in order to make her existence fit with what’s supposed to be a strictly literal interpretation of the story until that point, details DO have to be manufactured, and no matter how well developed, logical or reasoned details about her origin may be, the FACT, Della, is that it all remains nothing but the purest speculation.
Therefore, I contend, that if one views the story as allegorical in entirety, much like Christ’s parables, the point and message become clear, and the inconsistencies and contradictions cease to matter.
I certainly believe that scripture IS the inspired, divine word of God. I don’t for a second believe that God gave dictation to his authors. And while I believe much of the bible to be as historically true as is it spiritually, I do not believe the Genesis account can reasonably be said to be one of those passages.
That doesn’t suggest I discount God as creator, Man made in God’s image, the concept of original sin, or any of the MESSAGE of the story, as it is the very real and substantative precursor of the Gospel.
But I don’t believe in a literal, historic individual “Adam” any more that I believe in a literal, historic “Prodigal Son,” or “Ten virgins with lamps.” This is figurative writing, not history or science.

Jubilees (although not canonical) says he married his twin sister Avan.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Okay, my Religious Studies department is confusing me at my High School

1. If the story of Adam and Eve was just figurative (they say), then where did original sin come from?
2. Who or what was the serpent representing in the garden? One of the teachers says that it is representing how this story is a myth. I think it was Satan. Isn’t that what head Mary is crushing under her feet? It would make sense…in revelations it says that Satan was “the old snake”

I will have more questions as the weeks progress on. I am in Scriptural studies required for freshmen…

Thanks for all of your help!!!:bible1::bible1::bible1:

the bible can be understood in the literal sense of that time and understood in context figurative and moral interpretation can also be applied if ones can keep in mind the truth that can be known.

God bless