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

[grannymh]

Original man:

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

And the LORD [Yĕhovah] God 'elohiym] formed [yatsar] man 'adam] of the dust `aphar] of [min] the ground, 'adamah] and breathed [naphach] into his nostrils 'aph] the breath [nĕshamah] of life; [chay] and man 'adam] became a living [chay] soul. [nephesh]

First (original) prohibition not to eat of the tree: Genesis 2:17 except the tree which brings knowledge of good and evil; if ever thou eatest of this, thy doom is death.

Excellent addition.

As a writer, I like to imagine the author of the first three chapters of Genesis as being the first investigative journalist in the Hebrew world. The journalism mantra, Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why? is evident in Genesis 1: 27 and Genesis 2:7. As any successful journalist will tell you – pay attention to the journalism mantra. The most answers, the better the article.

 

[grannymh]

As we wrap up this thread, the answer to the question Who? is easy. The two persons in Genesis 2: 15 are God and Adam. It is the what? question which many, not all, persons fail to take into consideration. The allegories often speak of a human father…

The difficulty is that the what? question asks what is the nature of the two persons in Genesis 2: 15. What is the nature of Adam? It is a created human nature. What is the nature of God? God is a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit. God’s nature is uncreated Divinity.
**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. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Free submission to God requires obedience to God as seen in Genesis 2: 16-17. The disobedience is clear. Do not eat the fruit of a particular tree.

It is the clarity of Genesis 2: 15-17 which is the explanation of Original Sin.

This explanation holds because of the existence of God and the original human in Genesis 2: 15-17 and the definitive description of the proposed original sin. Original because there is no other sin mentioned before Genesis 2:15-17.

A sincere thank you to all participants.

 

[grannymh]

As we wrap up this thread, the answer to the question Who? is easy. The two persons in Genesis 2: 15 are God and Adam. It is the what? question which many, not all, persons fail to take into consideration. The allegories often speak of a human father…

The difficulty is that the what? question asks what is the nature of the two persons in Genesis 2: 15. What is the nature of Adam? It is a created human nature. What is the nature of God? God is a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit. God’s nature is uncreated Divinity.
**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. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Free submission to God requires obedience to God as seen in Genesis 2: 16-17. The disobedience is clear. Do not eat the fruit of a particular tree.

It is the clarity of Genesis 2: 15-17 which is the explanation of Original Sin.

This explanation holds because of the existence of God and the original human in Genesis 2: 15-17 and the definitive description of the proposed original sin. Original because there is no other sin mentioned before Genesis 2:15-17.

A sincere thank you to all participants.

Apparently, this thread cannot be wrapped up because there is now the questions–
What exactly is being clarified? Who is doing that job? Why bother with the first three chapters of Genesis when so many people want to skip their reality?

As a beginning to unravel the clarity, here are three axioms.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

 

[Vico]

Apparently, this thread cannot be wrapped up because there is now the questions–
What exactly is being clarified? Who is doing that job? Why bother with the first three chapters of Genesis when so many people want to skip their reality?

As a beginning to unravel the clarity, here are three axioms.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

And to live or die.

• Gen 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God made grow every tree that was delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
• Gen. 3:22 Then the LORD God said: See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?

 

[grannymh]

And to live or die.

• Gen 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God made grow every tree that was delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
• Gen. 3:22 Then the LORD God said: See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?

I have been thinking about your comment “And to live or die.” I am in awe of God’s gift of intellective freedom to accept or reject our destiny. (CCC 1730)

There are times when I worry about the emphasis on pain and suffering following Original Sin. If we had perfect good health, that would not automatically make us heavenly saints. Like Adam, our priority is to choose or reject God’s forever offer to share His life with us. (Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC 356)

I am glad Adam exists because without the first three chapters of Genesis, I would be lost when it comes to an intellectual understanding of my human condition.

 

[simpleas]

And to live or die.

• Gen 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God made grow every tree that was delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
• Gen. 3:22 Then the LORD God said: See! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?

Hope this isn’t going away from the OP to much, but I’ve never heard that last quote (gen 3;22) from the bible that way before. Which bible was it written in?
I have only have one bible The Jerusalem.

When I read it here, I thought, why would God ask a question unto himself? What will happen now that Adam and Eve have knowledge of good and evil, if they eat of the tree of life also and live forever…like God wouldn’t know…?

It also lead me to a thought that the author of creation seems to know a lot of what God said to the first two humans, but very little about what the humans thought of and said to God.
Seems to me, that God sounds very like a human thinker, in a Good way, how much do we as humans think like God to be able to communicate God’s thinking into ours.

 

[Vico]

Hope this isn’t going away from the OP to much, but I’ve never heard that last quote (gen 3;22) from the bible that way before. Which bible was it written in?
I have only have one bible The Jerusalem.

When I read it here, I thought, why would God ask a question unto himself? What will happen now that Adam and Eve have knowledge of good and evil, if they eat of the tree of life also and live forever…like God wouldn’t know…?

It also lead me to a thought that the author of creation seems to know a lot of what God said to the first two humans, but very little about what the humans thought of and said to God.
Seems to me, that God sounds very like a human thinker, in a Good way, how much do we as humans think like God to be able to communicate God’s thinking into ours.

NABRE, but that phrase is used in many including RSVCE and NKJV.
Compare to plural “become like one of us”.

You mean the author of Genesis?

 

[simpleas]

NABRE, but that phrase is used in many including RSVCE and NKJV.
Compare to plural “become like one of us”.

You mean the author of Genesis?

Ok thanks, I’m more familiar with it written like this :

**Then Yahweh God said, ‘See, the man has become like
: one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to
stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some
and live for ever.’ *

‘Your’ version sounds like God isn’t sure what would happen next to man should he have ate from the tree of life with the knowledge of good and evil.
‘My’ version sounds like God knows exactly what will happen next.

Yes and the quote ‘Let us make man in our image’ God was never seen as a singular figure I don’t think.

Yes the author of the creation story, who was obviously human, possibly Moses?
The author is telling the story, but never says it was given to him in a vision/dream etc. Sounds almost like they were there, watching it all play out to know what God would have said to the humans.

 

[Vico]

Ok thanks, I’m more familiar with it written like this :

**Then Yahweh God said, ‘See, the man has become like
: one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to
stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some
and live for ever.’ *

‘Your’ version sounds like God isn’t sure what would happen next to man should he have ate from the tree of life with the knowledge of good and evil.
‘My’ version sounds like God knows exactly what will happen next.

Yes and the quote ‘Let us make man in our image’ God was never seen as a singular figure I don’t think.

Yes the author of the creation story, who was obviously human, possibly Moses?
The author is telling the story, but never says it was given to him in a vision/dream etc. Sounds almost like they were there, watching it all play out to know what God would have said to the humans.

Scholars do attribute most of the first five books of the Old Testament to Moses.

You must be using the 1966 JB. There have been many changes with the NABRE, but I prefer the 1970 NAB which I normally use:
Then the Lord God said: “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also and thus eat of it and live forever.”

 

[grannymh]

Hope this isn’t going away from the OP to much, but I’ve never heard that last quote (gen 3;22) from the bible that way before. Which bible was it written in?
I have only have one bible The Jerusalem.

When I read it here, I thought, why would God ask a question unto himself? What will happen now that Adam and Eve have knowledge of good and evil, if they eat of the tree of life also and live forever…like God wouldn’t know…?

It also lead me to a thought that the author of creation seems to know a lot of what God said to the first two humans, but very little about what the humans thought of and said to God.
Seems to me, that God sounds very like a human thinker, in a Good way, how much do we as humans think like God to be able to communicate God’s thinking into ours.

There are some interesting thoughts here. Personally I would change the words think like in this comment – “how much do we as humans think like God to be able to communicate God’s thinking into ours.” My question then would be – "How much do we as humans know about God …

This is basically what we know about God.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

Are you wondering about God’s thinking or are you wondering about God’s actions in the first three chapters of Genesis? Or are you wondering about *both *God’s thinking and actions? Personally, I find the both/and approach more successful.

Your thoughts?

 

[simpleas]

There are some interesting thoughts here. Personally I would change the words think like in this comment – “how much do we as humans think like God to be able to communicate God’s thinking into ours.” My question then would be – "How much do we as humans know about God …

This is basically what we know about God.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

Are you wondering about God’s thinking or are you wondering about God’s actions in the first three chapters of Genesis? Or are you wondering about *both *God’s thinking and actions? Personally, I find the both/and approach more successful.

Your thoughts?

You can change* think like God* to know about God if you like.

What I’m pondering is how the author of the creation story (Moses) would be able to write down what God actually said. I mean,as we take the literal meaning about parts of the scripture IE the commands, the warnings and punishments as what God actually said, or else it would be useless to explain it as original sin.
We don’t know how the author came upon this knowledge of God’s own words, not the creation story as such.

Like when, as humans we are, when someone says something to you, we know they must have thought about what they would say before they speak the words, so God speaking words like a human, so the human could understand, the author must have understood God very deeply to be able to write such scripture.
We are reading about a spiritual being after all.

Actions speak louder than words, that has been a motto of mine since I learnt it.

There are many actions in Genesis creation/fall story, and words, but I think there are more words that actions, between the humans and God. Most words coming from God.

Not sure I’ve explained that very well,but you may be able to pull something from it.
But like I said I think I might be derailing from your OP.

 

[grannymh]

You can change* think like God* to know about God if you like.

What I’m pondering is how the author of the creation story (Moses) would be able to write down what God actually said. I mean,as we take the literal meaning about parts of the scripture IE the commands, the warnings and punishments as what God actually said, or else it would be useless to explain it as original sin.
We don’t know how the author came upon this knowledge of God’s own words, not the creation story as such.

What you are sharing is basic to this thread. Thank you.

Knowing that Moses or someone equal to his leadership put together one story, that is, the first three chapters of Genesis, is valuable in answering the valid questions about how did this author come upon this knowledge of God’s own words. I realize that we learn that the author was inspired; still, I believe that the author is extremely intelligent and he has the gifts of investigative journalists. Like a scientist, he observes without prejudice.

Would it be possible for a brilliant author to look at the history of his people and compare it to the tradition(s) of Adam and Original Sin? At this point, I need to go back to where God speaks directly.

Please, what would be your first examples of God’s words?

 

[simpleas]

What you are sharing is basic to this thread. Thank you.

Knowing that Moses or someone equal to his leadership put together one story, that is, the first three chapters of Genesis, is valuable in answering the valid questions about how did this author come upon this knowledge of God’s own words. I realize that we learn that the author was inspired; still, I believe that the author is extremely intelligent and he has the gifts of investigative journalists. Like a scientist, he observes without prejudice.

Would it be possible for a brilliant author to look at the history of his people and compare it to the tradition(s) of Adam and Original Sin? At this point, I need to go back to where God speaks directly.

Please, what would be your first examples of God’s words?

God speaking creation into being.

But all word’s quoted to be what God actually said. Yet as the CCC states the account in genesis 3 is figurative language.
Figurative language meaning a figure of speech.
So this account :

*Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
*

SNIP

*The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
*

Would be a figure of speech, that the author, although inspired, wouldn’t have know God’s exact words to the humans, the serpents words, or the humans to the serpent and God.
Because the CCC states there was a deed that took place at the beginning of creation, but that these events in Genesis 3 were not literal.

So with, for example, the pain in child birth may not have been a literal punishment, yet being evicted from Eden seems to have been a literal event, or else there would have been no sin.

I’m just trying to understand something that should be believed, yet it is thought of as a figure of speech.

 

[grannymh]

God speaking creation into being.

But all word’s quoted to be what God actually said. Yet as the CCC states the account in genesis 3 is figurative language.
Figurative language meaning a figure of speech.
So this account :

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

SNIP

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Would be a figure of speech, that the author, although inspired, wouldn’t have know God’s exact words to the humans, the serpents words, or the humans to the serpent and God.
Because the CCC states there was a deed that took place at the beginning of creation, but that these events in Genesis 3 were not literal.

So with, for example, the pain in child birth may not have been a literal punishment, yet being evicted from Eden seems to have been a literal event, or else there would have been no sin.

I’m just trying to understand something that should be believed, yet it is thought of as a figure of speech.

We need to read the entire CCC 390, including individual words, in order to understand it correctly.
**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.

 

[Vico]

God speaking creation into being.

But all word’s quoted to be what God actually said. Yet as the CCC states the account in genesis 3 is figurative language.
Figurative language meaning a figure of speech.
So this account :

*Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
*

SNIP

*The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
*

Would be a figure of speech, that the author, although inspired, wouldn’t have know God’s exact words to the humans, the serpents words, or the humans to the serpent and God.
Because the CCC states there was a deed that took place at the beginning of creation, but that these events in Genesis 3 were not literal.

So with, for example, the pain in child birth may not have been a literal punishment, yet being evicted from Eden seems to have been a literal event, or else there would have been no sin.

I’m just trying to understand something that should be believed, yet it is thought of as a figure of speech.

Some of the most important dogmas of faith and doctrines about antropology, and which do not depend on literalness, are:

• The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
• The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
• Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
• The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
• Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
• Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
• A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
• The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
• God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
• Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
• Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
• Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
• Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) Denzinger 788.
• Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
• Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
• Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
• In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity.
  (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. Denzinger 788 et seq.)
• Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with Preternatural Gifts:*
• The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
• The donum rectitudinis or* integritatis* in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
• The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering, i.e, possibility of remaining free from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
• The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)

– Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott

Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogma) 788 and following are from the Council of Trent,
Session V (June 17, 1546), Decree On Original Sin which can be read here:
patristica.net/denzinger/#n800

 

[simpleas]

We need to read the entire CCC 390, including individual words, in order to understand it correctly.
**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.

Yeah, I’m not questioning sin as such, we all are imperfect.

I read it as CCC saying the genesis 3 account is a figure of speech, but that a deed (not specified) took place.

So what is quoted as God’s words may not be God’s words at all. Like I said before, the author does not say how he knew what was said at the time of creation. He used his own imagination from the world around him and was inspired to write such an account.

 

[simpleas]

Some of the most important dogmas of faith and doctrines about antropology, and which do not depend on literalness, are:

• The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
• The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
• Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
• The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
• Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
• Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
• A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
• The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
• God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
• Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
• Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
• Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
• Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) Denzinger 788.
• Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
• Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
• Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
• In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity.
  (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. Denzinger 788 et seq.)
• Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with Preternatural Gifts:*
• The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
• The donum rectitudinis or* integritatis* in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
• The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering, i.e, possibility of remaining free from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
• The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)

– Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott

Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogma) 788 and following are from the Council of Trent,
Session V (June 17, 1546), Decree On Original Sin which can be read here:
patristica.net/denzinger/#n800

Thanks.

I’m not explaining myself well enough, apologies…

I’m not questioning antropology from the genesis’ account, I understand that the author may have studied the world around him and humans in particular, yet the text we have isn’t a scientific account only it is spiritual too.
I question the words that are written that are believed to be God’s own words.

 

[Vico]

Thanks.

I’m not explaining myself well enough, apologies…

I’m not questioning antropology from the genesis’ account, I understand that the author may have studied the world around him and humans in particular, yet the text we have isn’t a scientific account only it is spiritual too.
I question the words that are written that are believed to be God’s own words.

Catchism has:
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65​

64 Cf. Heb 1:1-3.
65 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 103,4,1L 37,1378; cf. Ps 104; Jn 1:1.

 

[grannymh]

Yeah, I’m not questioning sin as such, we all are imperfect.

I read it as CCC saying the genesis 3 account is a figure of speech, but that a deed (not specified) took place.

Pardon me.
That sounds like some popular writers who are annoyed by simple truths so they are pushing readers into doubting some aspect of their faith. Or pushing them to substitute more user-friendly ideas which would replace or update some annoying teachings.

Here is an interesting quote from a newspaper article many years ago regarding CCC 390. “It recognizes that Genesis is figurative language," Obviously, the article is still on the internet.

The real CCC 390 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
**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.

Perhaps, you could clarify if Original Sin, is real or not real. However, that means going back to the Genesis 2 account and skipping some fascinating stuff that flies around on the internet.

 

[simpleas]

Catchism has:
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65​

64 Cf. Heb 1:1-3.
65 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 103,4,1L 37,1378; cf. Ps 104; Jn 1:1.

Yes, this would be what I don’t understand. If God, as stated above, expresses himself completely through the sacred writers then why does the CCC say that the account uses figurative language. Wouldn’t it be literal language as it is God speaking/expressing himself through writer?