Genesis/Literal Interpretation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember someone (maybe N.T. Wright?) saying that the problem modern people have with much of Scripture, especially Genesis, is that modern Westerners are raised to look at everything like a science text book (this is my mangling of his thought, not his words). That is, we think every statement must be evaluated like it was a scientific hypothesis to be tested - but the ancients understood deeper truths. His point was that thousands of years ago a debate over the details of the so-called “facts” of Genesis would have seemed childish because they pale in both wonder and importance beside the truths being communicated.
Of course. Science has been spectacularly successful, but at a cost; some have begun to think of it as the model for all understanding. Scientists know better, but many non-scientists do not.

In particular, many Protestants have tried to borrow from the prestige of science to advance their claims.
 
Barbarian observes:
Adam was never immortal. God alludes to this, when He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal.
The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.) The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
Let’s take a look…

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

How can this be? The answer is in God’s word. Adam was not intrinsically immortal or free of suffering, only the Tree of Life (God’s intervention) made it so. And when God withheld that intervention, Adam was subject to both.

**The gift of immortality is, as St. Augustine teaches (De Gen. ad Litt. VI 25, 36), to be conceived as posse non mori (= the possibility of not dying) not as non posse mori (= impossibility of dyi,ig). The Fathers regarded bodily immor¬tality as being transmitted through the tree of life (Gn. 2, 9; 3,22). **
catecheticsonline.com/Fundamentals-BookTwo-PartOne-II.php
 
Barbarian observes:
Adam was never immortal. God alludes to this, when He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal.

Let’s take a look…

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

How can this be? The answer is in God’s word. Adam was not intrinsically immortal or free of suffering, only the Tree of Life (God’s intervention) made it so. And when God withheld that intervention, Adam was subject to both.

**The gift of immortality is, as St. Augustine teaches (De Gen. ad Litt. VI 25, 36), to be conceived as posse non mori (= the possibility of not dying) not as non posse mori (= impossibility of dyi,ig). The Fathers regarded bodily immor¬tality as being transmitted through the tree of life (Gn. 2, 9; 3,22). **
catecheticsonline.com/Fundamentals-BookTwo-PartOne-II.php
Let’s take another look:

IV. MAN IN PARADISE **
[374](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/374.htm’)😉 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, i
n a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ. **
[375](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/375.htm’)😉 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”.250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".251
[376](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/376.htm’)😉 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed.** As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.****2**52 The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman,253 and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.
[377](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/377.htm’)😉 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.
[378](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/378.htm’)😉 The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.255 There he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden,256 but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.
379 This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.
 
Article 1. Whether in the state of innocence man would have been immortal?

Objection 1.
It would seem that in the state of innocence man was not immortal. For the term “mortal” belongs to the definition of man. But if you take away the definition, you take away the thing defined. Therefore as long as man was man he could not be immortal.
Objection 2. Further, corruptible and incorruptible are generically distinct, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. x, Did. ix, 10). But there can be no passing from one genus to another. Therefore if the first man was incorruptible, man could not be corruptible in the present state.
Objection 3. Further, if man were immortal in the state of innocence, this would have been due either to nature or to grace. Not to nature, for since nature does not change within the same species, he would also have been immortal now. Likewise neither would this be owing to grace; for the first man recovered grace by repentance, according to Wisdom 10:2: “He brought him out of his sins.” Hence he would have regained his immortality; which is clearly not the case. Therefore man was not immortal in the state of innocence.
Objection 4. Further, immortality is promised to man as a reward, according to Apocalypse 21:4: “Death shall be no more.” But man was not created in the state of reward, but that he might deserve the reward. Therefore man was not immortal in the state of innocence.
 
cont’d

On the contrary, It is written (Romans 5:12): “By sin death came into the world.” Therefore man was immortal before sin.
I answer that, A thing may be incorruptible in three ways.
First, on the part of matter–that is to say, either because it possesses no matter, like an angel; or because it possesses matter that is in potentiality to one form only, like the heavenly bodies. Such things as these are incorruptible by their very nature.
Secondly, a thing is incorruptible in its form, inasmuch as being by nature corruptible, yet it has an inherent disposition which preserves it wholly from corruption; and this is called incorruptibility of glory; because as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.): “God made man’s soul of such a powerful nature, that from its fulness of beatitude, there redounds to the body a fulness of health, with the vigor of incorruption.”
Thirdly, a thing may be incorruptible on the part of its efficient cause; in this sense man was incorruptible and immortal in the state of innocence. For, as Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. 19 [Work of an anonymous author, among the supposititious works of http://forums.catholic-questions.org/cathen/02084a.htm”]St. Augustine): “God made man immortal as long as he did not sin; so that he might achieve for himself life or death.” For man’s body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God. This entirely agrees with reason; for since the rational soul surpasses the capacity of corporeal matter, as above explained (76, 1), it was most properly endowed at the beginning with the power of preserving the body in a manner surpassing the capacity of corporeal matter.
Reply to Objection 1 and 2 These objections are founded on natural incorruptibility and immortality.
Reply to Objection 3.** This power of preserving the body was not natural to the soul, but was the gift of grace. And though man recovered grace as regards remission of guilt and the meritglory; yet he did not recover immortality, the loss of which was an effect of sin; for this was reserved for Christ to accomplish, by Whom the defect of nature was to be restored into something better, as we shall explain further on (III, 14, 4, ad 1). ** of
Reply to Objection 4. The promised reward of the immortality of glory differs from the immortality which was bestowed on man in the state of innocence.
 
On the contrary, It is written (Romans 5:12): “By sin death came into the world.” Therefore man was immortal before sin.
But the death of which he spoke, is not a physical death, but a spiritual one, as Genesis makes clear. God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree, and yet physically, Adam lives on for many years after.

It was a spiritual death Adam died. And it is a spiritual death Jesus saved us from as God promised. If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die physically.

Your objections to the Catechism notwithstanding.
 
But the death of which he spoke, is not a physical death, but a spiritual one, as Genesis makes clear. God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree, and yet physically, Adam lives on for many years after.

It was a spiritual death Adam died. And it is a spiritual death Jesus saved us from as God promised. If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die physically.

Your objections to the Catechism notwithstanding.
Have any church documents you would like to share or is this just your teaching?

We will all die bodily here on earth, but restored bodily after the last judgement.
 
Will that include Adam?

Peace

Tim
Adam died. Only a few were assumed into heaven. So I would think that would be true for Adam.

Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286
 
Adam died. Only a few were assumed into heaven. So I would think that would be true for Adam.
So, if bodily death is not permanent and spiritual death is, doesn’t that support Barbarian’s argument?

Peace

Tim
 
His argument is not supported by constant Catholic teaching.
Well, how does that reconcile Adam’s death being only physical if he will be restored to his body at the last judgement? What punishment for sin was that?

Peace

Tim
 
Well, how does that reconcile Adam’s death being only physical if he will be restored to his body at the last judgement? What punishment for sin was that?

Peace

Tim
Impassibility will be the reward of the just. The damned will experience pain, heat, cold, discomfort, etc…

The bodies of the just will be glorified.
 
Have any church documents you would like to share or is this just your teaching?
Do you think the Bible is a Church Document? The Church seems to think so.
 
The Church also teaches that the Magisterium is the interpreter.
So is the constant church teaching wrong?
Apparently not:

**The gift of immortality is, as St. Augustine teaches (De Gen. ad Litt. VI 25, 36), to be conceived as posse non mori (= the possibility of not dying) not as non posse mori (= impossibility of dyi,ig). The Fathers regarded bodily immor¬tality as being transmitted through the tree of life (Gn. 2, 9; 3,22). **catecheticsonline.com/Fun…PartOne-II.php
 
Apparently not:

**The gift of immortality is, as St. Augustine teaches (De Gen. ad Litt. VI 25, 36), to be conceived as posse non mori (= the possibility of not dying) not as non posse mori (= impossibility of dyi,ig). The Fathers regarded bodily immor¬tality as being transmitted through the tree of life (Gn. 2, 9; 3,22). **catecheticsonline.com/Fun…PartOne-II.php
Ok - how bout this: note the documents referenced.

Before the Fall, Adam Possessed Sanctifying Grace
and the Preternatural Gifts of Integrity, Immortality and Infused Knowledge.
 
From your linked document:

**The three gifts of bodily immortality, integrity and infused knowledge are called preternatural because they are not strictly due to human nature but do not, of themselves, surpass the capacities and exigencies of created nature as such. In other words, they are not entitatively supernatural.

Bodily immortality is the converse of mortality, i.e., the possibility of separation of soul from body. Adam was therefore capable of not dying. Yet the gift was conditional, provided he did not sin;**

In context, I don’t see how this contradicts the Catechism.
 
St Augustine City of God:

Chapter 26.— That We are to Believe that in Paradise Our First Parents Begat Offspring Without Blushing.

In Paradise, then, man lived as he desired so long as he desired what God had commanded. He lived in the enjoyment of God, and was good by God’s goodness; he lived without any want, and had it in his power so to live eternally. He had food that he might not hunger, drink that he might not thirst, the tree of life that old age might not waste him. There was in his body no corruption, nor seed of corruption, which could produce in him any unpleasant sensation. Hefeared no inward disease, no outward accident. Soundest health blessed his body, absolute tranquillity his soul. As in Paradise there was no excessive heat or cold, so its inhabitants were exempt from the vicissitudes of fear and desire. No sadness of any kind was there, nor any foolish joy; true gladness ceaselessly flowed from the presence of God, who was loved out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. 1 Timothy 1:5 The honest love of husband and wife made a sure harmony between them. Body and spirit worked harmoniously together, and the commandment was kept without labor. No languor made their leisure wearisome; no sleepiness interrupted their desire to labor. In tanta facilitate rerum et felicitate hominum, absit ut suspicemur, non potuisse prolem seri sine libidinis morbo: sed eo voluntatis nutu moverentur illa membra qua cætera, et sine ardoris illecebroso stimulo cum tranquillitate animi et corporis nulla corruptione integritatis infunderetur gremio maritus uxoris. Neque enim quia experientia probari non potest, ideo credendum non est; quando illas corporis partes non ageret turbidus calor, sed spontanea potestas, sicut opus esset, adhiberet; ita tunc potuisse utero conjugis salva integritate feminei genitalis virile semen immitti, sicut nunc potest eadem integritate salva ex utero virginis fluxus menstrui cruoris emitti. Eadem quippe via posset illud injici, qua hoc potest ejici. Ut enim ad pariendum non doloris gemitus, sed maturitatis impulsus feminea viscera relaxaret: sic ad fœtandum et concipiendum non libidinis appetitus, sed voluntarius usus naturam utramque conjungeret. We speak of things which are now shameful, and although we try, as well as we are able, to conceive them as they were before they became shameful, yetnecessity compels us rather to limit our discussion to the bounds set by modesty than to extend it as our moderate faculty of discourse mightsuggest. For since that which I have been speaking of was not experienced even by those who might have experienced it—I mean our first parents (for sin and its merited banishment from Paradise anticipated this passionless generation on their part)—when sexual intercourse is spoken of now, it suggests to men’s thoughts not such a placid obedience to the will as is conceivable in our first parents, but such violent acting of lust as they themselves have experienced. And therefore modesty shuts my mouth, although my mind conceives the matter clearly. But Almighty God, the supreme and supremely good Creator of all natures, who aids and rewards good wills, while He abandons and condemns the bad, and rules both, was not destitute of a plan by which He might people His city with the fixed number of citizens which His wisdom had foreordained even out of the condemned human race, discriminating them not now by merits, since the whole mass was condemned as if in a vitiated root, but by grace, and showing, not only in the case of the redeemed, but also in those who were not delivered, how much grace He has bestowed upon them. For every one acknowledges that he has been rescued from evil, not by deserved, but by gratuitous goodness, when he is singled out from the company of those with whom he might justly have borne a common punishment, and is allowed to go scathless. Why, then, should God not have created those whom He foresaw would sin, since He was able to show in and by them both what their guilt merited, and what His grace bestowed, and since, under His creating and disposing hand, even the perverse disorder of the wicked could not pervert the right order of things?
 
Book of Wisdom 2:23

For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. 24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top