Genesis Account, not literal

[seekingtruechurch]

If we cannot take the Genesis story literally, how can we hold to the doctrine of original sin (as I understand original sin, we inherited it from Adam from which we originated) and how do we reconcile holding to the Nicene Creed where we acclaim, God is the Maker of all that is seen and unseen? Thanks in advance.

 

[Arwing]

CCC 390:

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.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s still a recounting of a historical event, just told in a mythological format. A real first man and a real first woman who rejected God’s moral order at the suggestion of the devil is still doctrine. The details of a tree of consciences fruit, etc… may be symbols of historical realities.

 

[seekingtruechurch]

Thanks for your quick responses. As I understand, both responses concur Genesis was a real event thus it would seem we hold to the Creationism view. So as follow up to my first post, why then does the Church teach theistic evolution as an acceptable view?

 

[Gorgias]

As I understand, both responses concur Genesis was a real event thus it would seem we hold to the Creationism view.

No. It’s real, but not literal.

Therefore, you cannot blithely conclude, “oh! Creationism, then!”

So as follow up to my first post, why then does the Church teach theistic evolution as an acceptable view?

Because it’s possible to view the creation account through the same lens of figurative narration.

 

[Wesrock]

Thanks for your quick responses. As I understand, both responses concur Genesis was a real event thus it would seem we hold to the Creationism view. So as follow up to my first post, why then does the Church teach theistic evolution as an acceptable view?

The narrative of the Fall was a real event but it’s told in a mythological style. It may not have involved eating a fruit, the fruit in the story may be a symbol of the actual temptation. Same idea with the garden, and with the snake. It may have been 6,000 years ago or 150,000 years ago. And so on.

 

[seekingtruechurch]

Just to clarify, when I think or speak of Creationism, I believe God did what the Bible and Creed say He did. I believe He created man. I believe He created all things. How long it took, I accept figuratively, a day is like a 1000 years. My struggle, my question, is in regards to theistic evolution. Did God create Man and Woman or did He create Man matter and Woman matter, then wait around for it to evolve before giving them souls? I cannot reconcile both views to be the same. I understand the views to either be, He created Man or He created something that eventually became Man.

Real equals literal
lit·er·al

ˈlidərəl,ˈlitrəl/

adjective
taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

“dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread”
(of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.

synonyms: word-for-word, verbatim, letter-for-letter; More

re·al1

ˈrē(ə)l/

adjective
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

“Julius Caesar was a real person”

synonyms: actual, nonfictional, factual, real-life; More
(of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.

“the earring was presumably real gold”

synonyms: genuine, authentic, bona fide; More

 

[buss0042]

The truths that are conveyed in these parts of Genesis are theological (such as the Fall, Original Sin, etc.) rather than supposed historical (6000 y/o earth, talking serpents, global flood, etc.). In that regard, the theological ideas conveyed are literally true, but not potential “historical” aspects.

In response to your struggle, you aren’t alone. It just isn’t known right now, and even though some will try to tell you that the matter of evolution is settled one way or another in this regard, it isn’t really known, so you’re in good company. Its okay to not know things like this and be unsure.

Be assured that regardless of what is true, it is God’s plan. Truth cannot contradict Truth. Evolution being true or not doesn’t change that humans fell, and that we originate from God.

 

[Wesrock]

God isn’t a clockmaker, meaning he doesn’t set up the universe to run, leave it on its own while he goes out for coffee, then come back to check on it and see what happenes. Even if evolution describes how life has changed over time, God has been present in and knowledgeable of every moment, not necessarily as an interferer, but as conserving the natural order.

 

[bquinnan]

You might enjoy this episode of Pints With Aquinas that delves into Genesis a bit: http://pintswithaquinas.com/podcast/adam-eve-and-evolution/

It is worth noting that doctors of the Church as far back as St. Augustine in the fourth century (and probably further, but I know Augustine for sure) discussed the deeper meanings of the stories in Genesis, well before concerns about their historicity and scientific possibility were raised. Regardless of how factual the story of Adam and Eve is, it reveals important truths about our relationship with God, each other and the rest of creation. As Arwing noted, the Catechism assures us that it is recounting a historical event, but uses figurative language in doing so. I don’t worry about trying to figure out what is literal and what is figurative; I try to focus on trying to understand what it all means to me today.

 

[edwest]

Man is a special creation. Eve was not born in a conventional sense. Not that anyone said it but " Genesis does not contain purified myths" - Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909

 

[Wesrock]

Man is a special creation. Eve was not born in a conventional sense. Not that anyone said it but " Genesis does not contain purified myths" - Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909

I know you weren’t commenting directly on my post, but just to clarify my position, I did say “mythological style,” but I certainly consider it to be historical. I do not consider it to be a myth or fable.

 

[edwest]

Thank you for the clarification. It troubles me that some here wish to turn Genesis into a purely symbolic book, especially regarding the creation of man.

 

[Carmel]

The human mind can mythologise Genesis, ( the foundation ) and introductory book of God’s Plan of Salvation . Whats to stop us likewise deconstructing the rest of the Bible ?

 

[edwest]

This concern was written about in 1950. And it is still a concern.

 

[setarcos]

Quick question…perhaps it has already been answered. Concerning the CCC 390, How does the figurative translate to the literal? In other words how does the figurative language of Genesis translate into the literal events which transpired between Adam and Eve’s actions, the serpent, and the consequent fall from grace? It seems that the new testament treats the circumstances of the fall of man as a literal inherited condition. It also seems that the CCC makes comment upon this inherited original sin as if commenting upon the literal instead of the figurative. Now if Genesis presents these events in figurative language how is it that we may tease out the literal specifics of the events?

 

[setarcos]

The truths that are conveyed in these parts of Genesis are theological (such as the Fall, Original Sin, etc.) rather than supposed historical (6000 y/o earth, talking serpents, global flood, etc.). In that regard, the theological ideas conveyed are literally true, but not potential “historical” aspects.

I disagree, isn’t it more reasonable to claim that the events in Genesis are colorful descriptions of historical events and then the events themselves may be examined in a theological light? It makes no sense to consider the theological aspects of events whose extent actions and consequences depend upon the historical, that is real events taking place within our reality and in time. Otherwise your simply dealing with what if questions about something whose reality did not take place. For instance, for theological questions about the fall to take place concerning a reality we are in now the historical events which define the fall must have taken place first. So a historical event literally took place which we may speculate about theologically. That we may not be able to know precisely what literally took place during this historical event does not diminish the reality that a literal historical event must have taken place. Is this sensible?

 

[Wesrock]

Quick question…perhaps it has already been answered. Concerning the CCC 390, How does the figurative translate to the literal? In other words how does the figurative language of Genesis translate into the literal events which transpired between Adam and Eve’s actions, the serpent, and the consequent fall from grace? It seems that the new testament treats the circumstances of the fall of man as a literal inherited condition. It also seems that the CCC makes comment upon this inherited original sin as if commenting upon the literal instead of the figurative. Now if Genesis presents these events in figurative language how is it that we may tease out the literal specifics of the events?

It’s not just a matter of interpreting the creation narrative by itself. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul lays out a theology on Adam’s sin and Christ’s sacrifice. What is essential is that Adam sinned, not that Adam ate a fig. We also have a theology of original sin received from apostolic tradition consistent with this. These are absolutely central points to Christian theology, and the narrative of the fall cannot be interpreted as separate from that.

Perhaps this is why there’s a reputation of Catholics being (overall) more accepting of evolution while low church “Bible-only” Christians reputedly aren’t. The low church denominations maybe do feel like you pull one thread and everything unravels, while Catholics have the apostolic tradition and Patristic witness to to refer to. This last paragraph is admittedly all speculative, though.

 

[setarcos]

It’s not just a matter of interpreting the creation narrative by itself. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul lays out a theology on Adam’s sin and Christ’s sacrifice. What is essential is that Adam sinned, not that Adam ate a fig. We also have a theology of original sin received from apostolic tradition consistent with this. These are absolutely central points to Christian theology, and the narrative of the fall cannot be interpreted as separate from that.

Wouldn’t you agree though that Paul considered his theology to be based upon actual historical events. Adam literally performed some action which caused sin to enter the world. Therefore, literally a historical event took place causing the fall of man. This literal historical event is what is being theologically speculated over. Why then if a literal historical event took place do we not have a literal description of what took place instead of a colorful figurative description? Likewise the theology of original sin is based upon the a literal event having taken place. Unless we consider Genesis not even figurative but speculative which would further weaken the truth of any theology based upon it. Any theology based upon the speculative must itself be speculative theology. Speculative theology must itself be further removed from the truth than theology based upon a literal history.
On an aside…what do you mean by referring to other Christian “church’s” as low church’s ? Is this a derogatory remark on the supposed truths they adhere to? This seems like unnecessary hubris to me and detrimentally prideful.

 

[Arwing]

On an aside…what do you mean by referring to other Christian “church’s” as low church’s ?

As I understand it low church just means less focus on liturgy, sacraments and other ritual aspects. This of course means there will be some significant differences in beliefs e.g. on what sacraments are and their importance, the value of tradition, etc. but I don’t think it’s necessarily meant as derogatory.