Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?

[grannymh]

I wonder, who wrote the accounts of the first three chapters of Genesis. Who witnessed the 7 day creation story? Who saw God remove the rib from Adam? And, finally, who watched the serpent entice our first parents?

If no one was there to provide an eyewitness account of what actually went down, how did these stories come into being? One could speculate on three possible answers. The first is that the Holy Spirit revealed this to the author much as the Angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed. The second is that the story was handed down from generation to generation (oral tradition). This is plausible unless it deals with events before man was even created. The third is that these stories were written for theological clarification to and for a people who may have been exposed to outside theological constructs that were at odds with the revealed truth as it was understood by the authors.

I have no doubt that Holy Scripture is inspired. and, that the Bible reveals and describes the truth about God. It is not necessarily an historical description of events. Much of the known world in the ancient near east explained religious doctrines using literary styles that are not related to actual events. Could the Bible do the same?

As for original sin…We have sin in the world today. It is reasonable that somewhere between now and the creation of our first parents, sin entered the world. What I find fascinating is the details of the sin, itself. It was the sin of pride. A total rejection of the goodness of God in the hope of becoming like God. Doesn’t that say a lot about God? About us?

Finally, one more thought on inspiration. Inspiration is not limited to Scripture. We simply have a great deal of consensus that Scripture is inspired. God is truth, beauty and goodness and we can be inspired by God in all that is true, beautiful and good. Of course, this inspiration must be gauged using a filter, that being what is already defined as revealed truth.

Regarding post 94.
“As for original sin…We have sin in the world today. It is reasonable that somewhere between now and the creation of our first parents, sin entered the world. What I find fascinating is the details of the sin, itself. It was the sin of pride. A total rejection of the goodness of God in the hope of becoming like God. Doesn’t that say a lot about God? About us?”

What do the three verses in the thread’s title **Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin? **
say about the details of Original Sin? No hurry. I will be off the computer for a bit.

Genesis, chapter 2. usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j

 

[grannymh]

There is a double lesson in the scriptures and tradition of the Church regarding Adam, Eve, Virgin Mary, and Jesus Christ. Adam and New Adam (Jesus Christ), and Death through Eve, life through Mary.
Catechism **494 **At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:140

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143
139 Lk 1:28-38; cf. Rom 1:5.
140 Cf. LG 56.
141 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
142 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.
143 LG 56; Epiphanius, Haer. 78, 18: PG 42, 728CD-729AB; St. Jerome, Ep. 22, 21: PL 22, 408.
​

Thank you for all your resources.

I will be off the computer for a bit so there is no hurry. I am hoping that you can put together a complete story about Adam himself. Just Adam because Eve is not in Genesis 2: 15-17

Genesis, chapter 2. usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j

 

[cargau]

Genesis, chapter 2. usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j
​

15: God, like a loving father provided for Adam. God, realizing that man’s dignity is found in work, provided Adam with the opportunity for labor. God loves and provides. Other near Eastern religious philosophies often found the gods despising or resenting man.

16 and 17. God limits us as a parent limits their child. This limitation is not meant to restrict so much as to protect. Maybe God intended to reveal the knowledge of good an evil at some point but realized that our first parents were not ready for it. I think of a parent who places a curfew on a teenager. Eventually, that curfew will be lifted but the teen does not have the maturity and life knowledge to make wise choices reliably. By the way, none of this is dogma, just speculation on my part…

Of course, these three verses don’t really describe the actual sin being committed. I find it interesting to consider that this particular sin was so great that it had consequences for all generations. The God, who loves so wonderfully, willed the world into existence, blew his Spirit into the nostrils of a man and loved the world so much he sent his only begotten son. This sin is ugly because it demonstrates pride, greed, envy and ingratitude. The relationship of “I will be your God and you will be my people” was horribly ruptured. What is truly amazing, is that this episode is only part of the story. In time, God demonstrates love and mercy. In a word, “Our God is an awesome God”!​

 

[grannymh]

Two questions on Original Sin (not doubts):

Serious correction to my reply post 98. Second sentence.

Human nature itself remains an unique unification of the spiritual and the material. Human nature can be wounded in the natural powers proper to it,
cannot be totally corrupted because it is immortal.

(CCC 405; CCC 365)

I used the word it, when I meant the “soul” cannot be totally corrupted because it is immortal.

It seems strange that no one caught that.

 

[grannymh]

Please accept my apology. I made an error in post 98, second sentence.

Human nature itself remains an unique unification of the spiritual and the material. Human nature can be wounded in the natural powers proper to it, – the following should have been a new sentence beginning with t**he soul cannot be totally corrupted because it is immortal.
(CCC 405; CCC 365))

 

[Vico]

Thank you for all your resources.

I will be off the computer for a bit so there is no hurry. I am hoping that you can put together a complete story about Adam himself. Just Adam because Eve is not in Genesis 2: 15-17

Genesis, chapter 2. usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j

Using only those three verses (which is an incomplete story): the man that is settled in the garden of Eden by God to take care of it, is commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil for doing so will cause him death, but given the other fruit to eat.

 

[grannymh]

Using only those three verses (which is an incomplete story): the man that is settled in the garden of Eden by God to take care of it, is commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil for doing so will cause him death, but given the other fruit to eat.

Let us do our best to make Genesis 1: 15-17 a complete story.

First basic question so that we can get started. What is the first most greatest possible truth that we humans need to understand?

 

[grannymh]

Let us do our best to make Genesis 1: 15-17 a complete story.

First basic question so that we can get started. What is the first most greatest possible truth that we humans need to understand?

It is obvious that the existence of God in relationship to the existence of the first human is not often considered in discussions about Original Sin. The existence of God happens to be the first most greatest possible truth that we humans need to understand. For many, including prominent teachers and speakers, the existence of a first human reality is a wonderful symbolic myth that should not be taken literally because …

At the moment, according to the first Person mentioned in Genesis 2: 15-17, we have to consider the existence of “The Lord God” as Creator (Genesis 1: 1; Genesis 1: 26-27) in relationship to the first human creature, the singular Adam. We should not ignore “The Lord God” because the title of the forbidden tree is more fascinating. Comparing “The Lord God” to a human father protecting his children is o.k. as a start, provided we stipulate that this “father” is also the Divine Creator.

Does anyone object to the fact in Genesis 2: 15-17, that the mentioned “The Lord God” is truly the Divine Creator?

Does anyone have a problem with Adam being a first human creature in a relationship with his Divine Creator?

Does everyone accept the difference between “The Lord God” and the man He settled in the garden of Eden to cultivate and care for it"?

CCC 396 – **"**God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God."

 

[Vico]

Let us do our best to make Genesis 1: 15-17 a complete story.

First basic question so that we can get started. What is the first most greatest possible truth that we humans need to understand?

It is of less value to extrapolate by ignoring parts of the narrative, such as are in the other parts of Genesis and later. I accept the teaching of the Church which includes both the scripture and tradition and magisterial decisions on faith an morals.

 

[cargau]

It is obvious that the existence of God in relationship to the existence of the first human is not often considered in discussions about Original Sin. The existence of God happens to be the first most greatest possible truth that we humans need to understand. For many, including prominent teachers and speakers, the existence of a first human reality is a wonderful symbolic myth that should not be taken literally because …

At the moment, according to the first Person mentioned in Genesis 2: 15-17, we have to consider the existence of “The Lord God” as Creator (Genesis 1: 1; Genesis 1: 26-27) in relationship to the first human creature, the singular Adam. We should not ignore “The Lord God” because the title of the forbidden tree is more fascinating. Comparing “The Lord God” to a human father protecting his children is o.k. as a start, provided we stipulate that this “father” is also the Divine Creator.

Does anyone object to the fact in Genesis 2: 15-17, that the mentioned “The Lord God” is truly the Divine Creator?

CCC 396 – **"**God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God."

Honestly, I don’t think most folks would argue that the Lord God is divine creator. Other near eastern religions, however, make the same claim. Babylonian mythology, for example, has Marduk creating man from the blood of Kingu whom he had slain. Man was created to be servants to the gods, In contrast (Gn 2:15-17), God created man out of love for friendship. This is an important distinction as it seems to reorient the myth to suit the truth of who “The Lord God” really is.

We view inspired Scripture as literature that is relevant to us in 2016 (which it certainly can be), but the authors wrote to the people of their time with a specific message, for a specific purpose.

 

[grannymh]

While being on the computer is still not steady…I offer that the intention of the author of the first three Genesis chapters is simply to preserve Divine Revelation intact. Naturally, Divine Revelation begins with the powerful existence of the Creator and His marvelous creation.

Genesis, chapter 2. usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.

When Genesis 2: 15 teaches about God and Adam, there is an universal understanding regardless of which century or which neighborhood is when and where the reader lives. The idea that Genesis 2: 15 needs some sort of higher education for interpretation in this or that culture is not always needed.

A garden is a garden even when it is called paradise. Note that verse 15 does not use the word “perfect” to describe the garden of paradise. In my humble opinion, inserting the word perfect is a distraction that usually runs for a large number of posts. The prevalent idea is that some of the perfect garden rubbed off on Adam. This becomes the perennial question – how can a perfect Adam disobey God in a perfect paradise?
Stay tuned.

 

[grannymh]

Genesis, chapter 2. usccb.org/bible/genesis/2
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.

A garden is a garden even when it is called paradise. Note that verse 15 does not use the word “perfect” to describe the garden of paradise. In my humble opinion, inserting the word perfect is a distraction that usually runs for a large number of posts. The prevalent idea is that some of the perfect garden rubbed off on Adam. This becomes the perennial question – how can a perfect Adam disobey God in a perfect paradise?
Stay tuned.

How does one handle the question --How can a perfect Adam disobey God in a perfect paradise? Answer – we need to first examine God’s actions.

The author of the first three Genesis chapters faced the challenge of describing the Creator. Instead of physically describing a super-natural transcendent Pure Spirit --which would be impossible in material/physical language – the author described God’s actions. God had created Adam in His image so that Adam could not only communicate with God, he could also share in God’s life.
(Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC 355-356; CCC 1730-1732)
**CCC1703 **Endowed with “a spiritual and immortal” soul, the human person is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.” From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

God’s action in Genesis 2: 15 is to settle Adam in a place where he can live according to his material anatomy which needs material nourishment. (Genesis 2: 8-14)

Genesis 2: 16-17 is God’s action, via His command, that will maintain Adam’s position in the Garden.

Comments?

 

[grannymh]

SIDEBAR

In order for Christians to understand the depth of Original Sin teachings, we must keep in mind the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. “We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.” We need to search deep into the first three chapters of Genesis for why Adam’s sin is **both **a personal sin **and **the Original Sin. We should look closely at the first person who is settled in God’s Garden.

Paragraph 388 from the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
**CCC 388 **With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin,” by revealing Him who is its Redeemer.

For interesting information about Adam who shares our human nature, please read paragraphs 355-421. Warning. This is not a page turner.

 

[grannymh]

Honestly, I don’t think most folks would argue that the Lord God is divine creator.

The folks I know who would argue that the Lord God is not the Divine Creator are those who believe that Adam is a myth or symbol which does not exist in reality.
Something does not make sense.

Other near eastern religions, however, make the same claim. Babylonian mythology, for example, has Marduk creating man from the blood of Kingu whom he had slain. Man was created to be servants to the gods, In contrast (Gn 2:15-17), God created man out of love for friendship. This is an important distinction as it seems to reorient the myth to suit the truth of who “The Lord God” really is.

To me, the Babylonian mythology, the ancient legends, shamans, etc., all signify that humans, from the dawn of human history, have an innate sense of the supernatural. That innate sense led to both good and bad religious practices.

As you point out “In contrast (Genesis 2: 15-17) God created man out of love for friendship. This is an important distinction as it seems to reorient the myth to suit the truth of who “The Lord God” really is.”

This distinction is emphasized in Genesis 1: 26-27. And in God’s actions toward Adam in Genesis 1: 15. We can correctly assume that if God’s command is disobeyed with “death” as a result, then obedience would result in an eternal friendship relationship with God.

We view inspired Scripture as literature that is relevant to us in 2016 (which it certainly can be), but the authors wrote to the people of their time with a specific message, for a specific purpose.

Apparently, since its birth at Pentecost, the Catholic Church sees the first three chapters of Genesis as containing basic fundamental divine truths. In my neighborhood, from what I read, relevant literature is to be regularly updated to fit our current culture. I am sure that is not what you meant.

I cannot speak for all “inspired Scripture,” nor can I assume that the inspired author of those first three Genesis chapters actually knew that what he was relating would be the path to the Divinity of the future Jesus Christ. This author’s purpose is to preserve the divine traditions regarding the dawn of human history for his current population, yes, but also for each succeeding generation, eventually for our generation.

Obviously, this author recognized the Divinity of the Creator when he dramatically shifted from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26 and the unique human species (Genesis 1: 27) which “is the summit of the Creator’s work,” (CCC 343. Italics in text)

Perhaps the key to understanding the depth of Original Sin is to figure out how three ancient chapters can have the same specific message for populations centuries apart.

What say you?

 

[cargau]

The folks I know who would argue that the Lord God is not the Divine Creator are those who believe that Adam is a myth or symbol which does not exist in reality.
Something does not make sense.

Not Really. The Church does not compel us to believe in the historical existence of Adam and Eve. She does claim that we all share two human parents who at some point sinned. As Catholics, we are free to believe either way. One can subscribe to this understanding and still believe in a Divine Creator.

To me, the Babylonian mythology, the ancient legends, shamans, etc., all signify that humans, from the dawn of human history, have an innate sense of the supernatural. That innate sense led to both good and bad religious practices.

Yes, but bear in mind that many of the Jews were deported to Babylon. Thus, they were exposed to the mythology of the land where they dwelled. The writers of scripture (often through redaction) needed to clarify the truth about God

Apparently, since its birth at Pentecost, the Catholic Church sees the first three chapters of Genesis as containing basic fundamental divine truths. In my neighborhood, from what I read, relevant literature is to be regularly updated to fit our current culture. I am sure that is not what you meant…

What has changed (Especially since Vatican II; Dei Verbum) is the that Biblical scholarship helps us to more fully understand Scripture. The Bible was never intended to be a history book, yet it was often understood as being just that…still is. When Scripture scholars study the language, literary style, culture, archeological,(etc.) aspects, we come to a more complete understanding of what was written and why. But Scripture should never be "regularly updated to suit the times.

I cannot speak for all “inspired Scripture,” nor can I assume that the inspired author of those first three Genesis chapters actually knew that what he was relating would be the path to the Divinity of the future Jesus Christ. This author’s purpose is to preserve the divine traditions regarding the dawn of human history for his current population, yes, but also for each succeeding generation, eventually for our generation…

I highly doubt that the authors had any such notion. There mission was not to preserve some historical text, it was to teach, inspire and warn the people about God and the consequences of rejecting him.

Perhaps the key to understanding the depth of Original Sin is to figure out how three ancient chapters can have the same specific message for populations centuries apart.

What say you?

Again, these Scripture passages may have had a very different meaning 500-600 years BC than they do today. The point here is to focus and understand the theological truths that are uncovered.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The folks I know who would argue that the Lord God is not the Divine Creator are those who believe that Adam is a myth or symbol which does not exist in reality.
Something does not make sense.

Not Really. The Church does not compel us to believe in the historical existence of Adam and Eve. She does claim that we all share two human parents who at some point sinned. As Catholics, we are free to believe either way. One can subscribe to this understanding and still believe in a Divine Creator.

Quick!
Somebody please tell me that
“The Church (in post 113) does not compel us to believe in the historical existence of Adam and Eve” is not the Catholic Church.

Please, for the sake of my grannykids. I do not want to be some modern anatomy who (in post 113) “share two human parents who at some point sinned.” If that sin was stealing from the “poor box” which some churches use to have – I would be so embarrassed. Maybe there were lots of
“two human parents” so my grannykids have the chance that they and I had honest and trust worthy two human parents at some point.

Hoping for the best since I did read that Catholics “are free to believe either way.” Yet, I still worry because how can I tell which way is the better way since I want my grannykids to be able to hold their heads up?

Full of hope,
granny

 

[grannymh]

Again, these Scripture passages may have had a very different meaning 500-600 years BC than they do today. The point here is to focus and understand the theological truths that are uncovered.

Please.
Would you kindly name the “the theological truths that are uncovered”?
How do you understand them?
What are the theological truths that are uncovered in Genesis 2:15-17?

Perhaps the key to understanding the depth of Original Sin is to study those uncovered theological truths which you found and focused on… Please explain them and their relationship with Genesis 2: 15-17 or any other part of the first three chapters of Genesis.

Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

Not Really. The Church does not compel us to believe in the historical existence of Adam and Eve. She does claim that we all share two human parents who at some point sinned. As Catholics, we are free to believe either way. One can subscribe to this understanding and still believe in a Divine Creator.

Again, these Scripture passages may have had a very different meaning 500-600 years BC than they do today. The point here is to focus and understand the theological truths that are uncovered.

Please.
Would you kindly name the “the theological truths that are uncovered”?
How do you understand them?
What are the theological truths that are uncovered in Genesis 2:15-17?

Perhaps the key to understanding the depth of Original Sin is to study those uncovered theological truths which you found and focused on… Please explain them and their relationship with Genesis 2: 15-17 or any other part of the first three chapters of Genesis.

Thank you.

The reason that it is often hard to find the recent “uncovered” theological truths is that the Catholic Church, with the grace of the Holy Spirit (chapter 14, Gospel of John), has already determined the basic fundamental theological truths. What remains is “to grasp the full significance over the course of the centuries.” (CCC 65-67)

Yes, the Catholic Church does compel us to believe in the historical existence of both Adam and Eve and Original Sin. The following paragraph is one that some Catholics attack. I put in bold the words which attackers often ignore.

**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.

Humani Generis, Pius XII

37. 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.[12]

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The folks I know who would argue that the Lord God is not the Divine Creator are those who believe that Adam is a myth or symbol which does not exist in reality.
Something does not make sense.

Quick!
Somebody please tell me that
“The Church (in post 113) does not compel us to believe in the historical existence of Adam and Eve” is not the Catholic Church.

Please, for the sake of my grannykids. I do not want to be some modern anatomy who (in post 113) “share two human parents who at some point sinned.” If that sin was stealing from the “poor box” which some churches use to have – I would be so embarrassed. Maybe there were lots of
“two human parents” so my grannykids have the chance that they and I had honest and trust worthy two human parents at some point.

Hoping for the best since I did read that Catholics “are free to believe either way.” Yet, I still worry because how can I tell which way is the better way since I want my grannykids to be able to hold their heads up?

Full of hope,
granny

Assumption warning!

What I took from what cargau said (please correct me if I’m wrong cargau) is that Catholic’s need not believe the named persons Adam and Eve and the description of Gen 1-3 to be completely literal.
Catholics are free to use their imagination, but the Catholic teaching is that two fully complete humans committed a deed at the very beginning which broke friendship with God.

 

[grannymh]

Assumption warning!

What I took from what cargau said (please correct me if I’m wrong cargau) is that Catholic’s need not believe the named persons Adam and Eve and the description of Gen 1-3 to be completely literal.
Catholics are free to use their imagination, but the Catholic teaching is that two fully complete humans committed a deed at the very beginning which broke friendship with God.

May I respectfully ask for some examples of what you are referring to as assumptions in the advised Assumption Warning.

Please let us know the verses which come under the Assumption Warning.

Please let us know what did Adam not do which deserves the Assumption Warning.

Please let us know which Catholic doctrines should get an Assumption Warning because of the literal Divine Revelation which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis.

Your clarifications are needed. Thank you.