G
godsent
Guest
I have been told its just a representation of how humans can act between good and evil,but isnt it meant to be litural?
- Status
P
patg
Guest
The story of the man and the woman in the garden is a myth. It is an imaginative story that uses symbols to explore a realty beyond our comprehension. The reality being explored is “Why do human beings suffer?” In its present position, coming after a story nowhere near as old, the question becomes even more mysterious. Given the beliefs that God is all loving and all powerful, that God made humans human beings in God’s own image, and that we are very good, why do we suffer? You would think God would have created things in an order that didn’t involve suffering. Why pain in childbirth? Why death? Suffering appears to be part of the order of things. All of this is very mysterious. How can our belief that God is all loving and all powerful be made compatible with our experience of suffering?
Symbols
The author who chose to explore this question does not have the option of giving an historical explanation. He doesn’t know a historical explanation. The author makes it very evident that his genre is not historical by his obvious use of symbols.
What in the story is an obvious symbol? Every reader, once he or she thinks about it, recognizes the tree of a knowledge of good and evil as a symbol. Such a tree does not in fact exist in the order of reality. Notice there is no apple tree in this story. There is a tree of a knowledge of good and evil and a tree of life - another obvious symbol. If one can eat every day from the tree of life, one will not die. A third obvious symbol is the talking snake. Notice too that the snake is not referred to as the devil. The snake is a character in the plot, just as God, the man, and the woman are characters in the plot.
It is not unusual for someone to ask “How do you know that these are symbols? Maybe back at the beginning of creation there were trees like that and snakes could talk.” This question flows from a misunderstanding - the story does not date back to the beginning of time. The author is not contemporary whith the dawn of creation. This is a very sophisticated story. At the dawn of civilization society did not have a highly sophisticated view of marriage as expressed in Genesis 2:24. Neither farming nor the establishment of towns was an early development in prehistoric life, yet the fourth chapter of Genesis reports that Cain, who tilled the soil, married and built a town, all while separated from the family of his birth. This story, like the story in which God creates the world in a workweek, reflects a much more highly sophisticated society than would a story about the actual first human beings on the face of the earth. However, when we understand the literary form of the story, questions that presume historicity appear irrelevant. The text will simply not support a claim of historicity.
Symbols
The author who chose to explore this question does not have the option of giving an historical explanation. He doesn’t know a historical explanation. The author makes it very evident that his genre is not historical by his obvious use of symbols.
What in the story is an obvious symbol? Every reader, once he or she thinks about it, recognizes the tree of a knowledge of good and evil as a symbol. Such a tree does not in fact exist in the order of reality. Notice there is no apple tree in this story. There is a tree of a knowledge of good and evil and a tree of life - another obvious symbol. If one can eat every day from the tree of life, one will not die. A third obvious symbol is the talking snake. Notice too that the snake is not referred to as the devil. The snake is a character in the plot, just as God, the man, and the woman are characters in the plot.
It is not unusual for someone to ask “How do you know that these are symbols? Maybe back at the beginning of creation there were trees like that and snakes could talk.” This question flows from a misunderstanding - the story does not date back to the beginning of time. The author is not contemporary whith the dawn of creation. This is a very sophisticated story. At the dawn of civilization society did not have a highly sophisticated view of marriage as expressed in Genesis 2:24. Neither farming nor the establishment of towns was an early development in prehistoric life, yet the fourth chapter of Genesis reports that Cain, who tilled the soil, married and built a town, all while separated from the family of his birth. This story, like the story in which God creates the world in a workweek, reflects a much more highly sophisticated society than would a story about the actual first human beings on the face of the earth. However, when we understand the literary form of the story, questions that presume historicity appear irrelevant. The text will simply not support a claim of historicity.
B
buffalo
Guest
How to read Scripture - from the Catechism
**The senses of Scripture
** 115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation:** "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83**
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
How to read the account of the fall
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.**264 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.**265
343 Man is the summit of the Creator’s work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.21
360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity. 374 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, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
375 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
**The senses of Scripture
** 115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation:** "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83**
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
How to read the account of the fall
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.**264 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.**265
343 Man is the summit of the Creator’s work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.21
360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity. 374 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, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.
375 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
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello godsent,
Here is a point of interest.
Have you read about mitochondrial eve? Science has traced all of human kind back to one woman they estimate lived 60,000 years ago.
Subcellular mitochondrial organels do not bear a combination of genes from a persons father and mother. A persons mitochondrial organels are clones of their mother’s mitochondrial organels. All other human genetics are the combination of a person’s mother and father’s genes. Through time mutations occur. Science has compared different human liniages through the different ways these lineiages mitochondrial genes have mutated and when these liniages mutated differently from one another. They have calculated that all human mitochondrial DNA came from one woman. Judging by the average time it takes for mutations to occur, they calculate that this woman lived 60,000 years ago. Science has also studied animal mitochondrial genetics and have determined that there is no common mother in animal liniages.
So if biologically all humans decended from one woman, then religiously all humans decended from one woman whom the bible tells us committed original sin.
What do you think?
Here is a point of interest.
Have you read about mitochondrial eve? Science has traced all of human kind back to one woman they estimate lived 60,000 years ago.
Subcellular mitochondrial organels do not bear a combination of genes from a persons father and mother. A persons mitochondrial organels are clones of their mother’s mitochondrial organels. All other human genetics are the combination of a person’s mother and father’s genes. Through time mutations occur. Science has compared different human liniages through the different ways these lineiages mitochondrial genes have mutated and when these liniages mutated differently from one another. They have calculated that all human mitochondrial DNA came from one woman. Judging by the average time it takes for mutations to occur, they calculate that this woman lived 60,000 years ago. Science has also studied animal mitochondrial genetics and have determined that there is no common mother in animal liniages.
So if biologically all humans decended from one woman, then religiously all humans decended from one woman whom the bible tells us committed original sin.
What do you think?
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
Focus on paragraph 390 of the CCC, quoted in a preceding post.
Recall, too, that “myth” does not mean something that is necessarily untrue.
The word “myth” is on a continuum of truth with the word “historical.” Are “historical” things 100% verifiable? Hardly. Did “historical” things occur exactly as they are described in some book? Hardly. Are “historical” things those that one should put beyond further discussion? Hardly.
I won’t belabor this much more, but may I point out that the scriptures have been “canonized” by the Church as being INSPIRED. I haven’t seen anybody put it quite this way, but I’d say it’s best to consider that the account of Adam and Eve is true, even if it’s not verifiable.
There are many things described in scripture where you should stop and scratch your head and ask “who is the narrator? and are we to believe that the narrator was there to witness the things that are being described?”
Who was the narrator of Genesis chapter one and did he/she witness the events described there? No, that would be impossible, if men were not created until Chapter Two or Chapter Three.
Who was the narrator of the “annunciation” to Mary in Luke’s gospel? There was Mary and the angel, and…who? The narrator was not there.
Who was the narrator of the gospel account of Christ’s agony in the garden? Let’s see, the three apostles were sleeping over here and Jesus was over there, so who’s left? Nobody. As we know, the account was written decades after the event and the veracity of the narrator is not the point of the passage.
We are given faith to accept the Bible, on the authority of the Church. If you can’t accept that, then you’re not even a Muslim, much less a Catholic.
Recall, too, that “myth” does not mean something that is necessarily untrue.
The word “myth” is on a continuum of truth with the word “historical.” Are “historical” things 100% verifiable? Hardly. Did “historical” things occur exactly as they are described in some book? Hardly. Are “historical” things those that one should put beyond further discussion? Hardly.
I won’t belabor this much more, but may I point out that the scriptures have been “canonized” by the Church as being INSPIRED. I haven’t seen anybody put it quite this way, but I’d say it’s best to consider that the account of Adam and Eve is true, even if it’s not verifiable.
There are many things described in scripture where you should stop and scratch your head and ask “who is the narrator? and are we to believe that the narrator was there to witness the things that are being described?”
Who was the narrator of Genesis chapter one and did he/she witness the events described there? No, that would be impossible, if men were not created until Chapter Two or Chapter Three.
Who was the narrator of the “annunciation” to Mary in Luke’s gospel? There was Mary and the angel, and…who? The narrator was not there.
Who was the narrator of the gospel account of Christ’s agony in the garden? Let’s see, the three apostles were sleeping over here and Jesus was over there, so who’s left? Nobody. As we know, the account was written decades after the event and the veracity of the narrator is not the point of the passage.
We are given faith to accept the Bible, on the authority of the Church. If you can’t accept that, then you’re not even a Muslim, much less a Catholic.
P
patg
Guest
It is ridiculous to equate “inspired” with “literal history”. There is no relationship - any writing can be inspired fiction, poetry, history, myth, allegory, or anything else… unless one doesn’t believe God knows how to teach us with fiction.
And when the author clearly tells us they are not writing history, it isn’t time to question the author…
And when the author clearly tells us they are not writing history, it isn’t time to question the author…
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The Catholic Church has infallibly stated that there was one original male parent and one original female parent (i.e., Adam and Eve, though not necessarily by those names). The encyclical Humani Generis does this for example.
P
patg
Guest
That is what the church states. However, it has nothing to do with the literary form of the myth about the couple in the garden.
C
cyprian
Guest
I guess I’m (you’re not very) Catholic
P
patg
Guest
Maybe you better explain - I’m not aware of any requirement to believe the story, as told, is literal history. I am quite able to believe the “two original parents” concept without believing a snake once talked about magic trees.
B
buffalo
Guest
patg, refer to 116 in the Catholic Catechism.
P
patg
Guest
I’m not sure how to apply that generic catechism statement to a specific passage. To be serious about this, one must consult the actual church documents on biblical interpretation. Dei Verbum, for example, clearly allows the interpretation based on literary forms.
C
cyprian
Guest
the first part of your statement is true. the second part however is not a concept.
peace and love
B
buffalo
Guest
Study and pray patg. Surely that will help.
P
patg
Guest
Thanks, I shall.
If I hadn’t been doing that, I would probably not have fencountered the beauty and depth of current bilblical scholarship.
B
buffalo
Guest
and not the modernism either.
T
TOME
Guest
Patg, hopefully this may help.
As I was taught years ago and see recently in Jaroslav Pelikan’s book “Whose Bible Is IT?” we should always use as our starting point that what we are reading is the Litural Word.
However, all to often in scripture there developes reasonable doubts as to a passages being the litural truth. If that is the case, scripture scholars then study the text to determine if God’s revelation is coming to us in written form through the use of Allegory, Moral (wisdom) teaching or what is known as escathological teachings ( end times, final judgement, life after death.)
The important thing to remember, as taught in Dei Verbum, is that God has used Human Instruments to reveal Himself in the written word. Therefore, event if the naration cannot be taken as a literal truth, the Revelation always is True.
As I was taught years ago and see recently in Jaroslav Pelikan’s book “Whose Bible Is IT?” we should always use as our starting point that what we are reading is the Litural Word.
However, all to often in scripture there developes reasonable doubts as to a passages being the litural truth. If that is the case, scripture scholars then study the text to determine if God’s revelation is coming to us in written form through the use of Allegory, Moral (wisdom) teaching or what is known as escathological teachings ( end times, final judgement, life after death.)
The important thing to remember, as taught in Dei Verbum, is that God has used Human Instruments to reveal Himself in the written word. Therefore, event if the naration cannot be taken as a literal truth, the Revelation always is True.
P
patg
Guest
I would not have anything to do with the church where it not for modern biblical scholarship - that is exactly what brought me back and what keeps me here.
P
patg
Guest
I agree. As Dei Verbum says:
"For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. "
The myth of the couple in the garden is certainly in there among the “other forms”.
C
cyprian
Guest
not a myth (the couple)
- Status