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

[simpleas]

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.

I quoted that the CCC explains genesis 3 uses figurative language and how I interpreted that to mean.
It means a figure of speech, and I don’t know how to understand that.

I know for example with this figure of speech :

When it’s raining very heavily, one might use the term ’ It’s raining cats and dogs’
It’s a figure of speech, it’s not literally raining cats and dogs…

When thinking of the account in Genesis 3, the CCC is saying it’s a figure of speech, so we don’t take the snake as literally speaking or do we? Because if we don’t then why would we take any of the dialogue between the snake, humans and God as written by the author as literal words spoken between them, and the actions.
I just don’t know where the figure of speech is meant to be in the account.

 

[grannymh]

I quoted that the CCC explains genesis 3 uses figurative language and how I interpreted that to mean.
It means a figure of speech, and I don’t know how to understand that.

I know for example with this figure of speech :

When it’s raining very heavily, one might use the term ’ It’s raining cats and dogs’
It’s a figure of speech, it’s not literally raining cats and dogs…

When thinking of the account in Genesis 3, the CCC is saying it’s a figure of speech, so we don’t take the snake as literally speaking or do we? Because if we don’t then why would we take any of the dialogue between the snake, humans and God as written by the author as literal words spoken between them, and the actions.
I just don’t know where the figure of speech is meant to be in the account.

Perhaps a simple clarification, by answering the following question, will help…

Close your Bible. Don’t sneak a peek at all the figurative language. Is the Original Sin real or not real? Yes or no! Your own interpretation, please.

 

[simpleas]

Perhaps a simple clarification, by answering the following question, will help…

Close your Bible. Don’t sneak a peek at all the figurative language. Is the Original Sin real or not real? Yes or no!

Seeing as you insist.

The jury is out on that question for me at this time in my journey…how sad, I know…

I’d like to say yes, it is real and leave searching for answers and be satisfied with what I know, but this isn’t so.

I know no one person (human) has the answers, so thanks for the discussion so far.

 

[grannymh]

Seeing as you insist.

The jury is out on that question for me at this time in my journey…how sad, I know…

I’d like to say yes, it is real and leave searching for answers and be satisfied with what I know, but this isn’t so.

I know no one person (human) has the answers, so thanks for the discussion so far.

Since you are interpreting Genesis chapter 3, does interpretation/ figurative language claim that Original Sin is real? Or is Chapter 3 denying Original Sin as many writers do today? Those two questions are not asking you to believe in Original Sin.

I want to know what Genesis Chapter 3 knows. Is that wrong?

One last thought. It seems that the Catholic Church is being ignored by changing CCC 390 to suit some author’s personal preference. How sad …

 

[grannymh]

Clarification for our gentle readers

The reason I want to start with the concept of a real Original Sin is that it gives us a base for examining figurative language when it appears. A real Original Sin needs a real original Adam. From that point, we can find the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. Examples. Genesis 3: 8; Genesis 1: 27; Genesis 2: 15-17.

By starting with a solid reality like Original Sin – yes, I know thousands of Catholics tinker with that reality – we can find the truth which occasionally uses figurative language. For example. How does one make Satan believable in a garden?

On the other hand, some people start with Jesus Christ and work backwards to Adam. I am not totally familiar with that approach; but, I can believe it works.

Apparently it is up to those who post to determine where this thread goes.

 

[Vico]

I quoted that the CCC explains genesis 3 uses figurative language and how I interpreted that to mean.
It means a figure of speech, and I don’t know how to understand that.

I know for example with this figure of speech :

When it’s raining very heavily, one might use the term ’ It’s raining cats and dogs’
It’s a figure of speech, it’s not literally raining cats and dogs…

When thinking of the account in Genesis 3, the CCC is saying it’s a figure of speech, so we don’t take the snake as literally speaking or do we? Because if we don’t then why would we take any of the dialogue between the snake, humans and God as written by the author as literal words spoken between them, and the actions.
I just don’t know where the figure of speech is meant to be in the account.

Figurative Language means:

A simile - compares two very different things that have at least one quality in common.
An analogy - compares, but usually identifies several points of similarity, for the purpose of conceptual clarity.
A metaphor - compares, but identifies the subject with the image.

 

[grannymh]

I wonder if all the misunderstandings of Original Sin occur because some people no longer consider the first three chapters of Genesis as being important in modern life.

That is the opening post.

It is beginning to be apparent that the questions of “figurative language” coming from popular prominent prolific writers and speakers have reached billions of worldwide internet readers. Obviously, this is causing a bit of havoc in the lives of ordinary folk whose Catholic faith is under a variety of attacks, small, big, and stealth.

Why not ask how the Genesis author actually knew the exact words that God said when the popular approach to the first three chapters is the road named myth. How could Moses or anyone with intellectual talents be sure that some Genesis words are correct? It should be obvious that it is first necessary that the figurative language be provided in both words and context. And context, context.

Here is one solution to the questions regarding the message of God. The “how” part (refer to journalism’s mantra) is because the author understood the rational intelligence of the first living example of the human species.

Not only did the first living example of the human species have the sentience that his material anatomy needed nourishment, he also knew that nourishment could be obtained by his own efforts. Granted that some members of the animal kingdom know how to use sticks as tools to gain their food, this survival instinct cannot be equated with the science of agriculture known by the first human gardener.

For example. “Cultivate” is a really interesting descriptive word. There is no need to figure out its figurative language. On the other hand, maybe this figurative language refers to sore muscles on a hot day.

Apparently, the author assumed that readers, because they believed in the existence of God as proclaimed by the Hebrew people, would know when figurative language would be required and when figurative language would not be needed.

One more granny thought before I leave. Perhaps, todays’ readers should look for answers in the first three chapters of Genesis so that the questions can be known. Once the questions are known, then it is possible to evaluate the answers. Yes. I agree that this sounds like circular reasoning which is the big bad wolf waiting to knock down our straw minds. However, one should note that both ends of the circle can be the truth.

In my humble opinion, one of the major reasons that the first three chapters of Genesis are not important in modern life is because “figurative language” is an easy tool that can be used to validate a variety of personal interpretations such as the disappearance denial of the first living example of the human species.

Seriously, because of 5,377 things which are currently complicating my writing life, I will be off CAF for a bit. Don’t know exactly when I will get back. I look forward to the discussion of the above, because I love crediting the author with outstanding brain power. Maybe the next time, I will propose that the author was a woman.

Blessings,
granny

.

 

[simpleas]

Since you are interpreting Genesis chapter 3, does interpretation/ figurative language claim that Original Sin is real? Or is Chapter 3 denying Original Sin as many writers do today? Those two questions are not asking you to believe in Original Sin.

I want to know what Genesis Chapter 3 knows. Is that wrong?

One last thought. It seems that the Catholic Church is being ignored by changing CCC 390 to suit some author’s personal preference. How sad …

Your first question : Yes.

Second question : No.

Third question : No.

The CCC states it as figurative language. People will make of that what they will.

I was seeking to understand an account that is deemed as figurative, but the words used between the “characters” are the actual, literal words in a figurative setting…

 

[grannymh]

Brief clarification of CCC 390.

Please note that CCC 390 refers to a single historical event which is a major doctrine of the Catholic Church because Divine Revelation gives us that certainty of faith. The use of figurative language signals that the almost unexplainable event can be understood. The basics of God’s command is found in Genesis 2: 15-17
**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.

 

[grannymh]

Brief clarification of CCC 390.

Please note that CCC 390 refers to a single historical event which is a major doctrine of the Catholic Church because Divine Revelation gives us that certainty of faith. The use of figurative language signals that the almost unexplainable event can be understood. The basics of God’s command is found in Genesis 2: 15-17
**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.

Additional clarification.

The idea that Genesis 3 is figurative is one of the clever ways, used by some popular writers, to remove the reality of Adam. Please note that in the Catholic Church, Adam is not figurative language. Adam does not represent …
Adam is.

 

[cfauster]

How do Catholics understand the creation account of Genesis and evolution? from Catholic Straight Answers.

In any case, some Catholics and other Christians who view Adam (and Eve) as historical individuals accept the possibility that Adam (and Eve) got their belly buttons in the normal way.

 

[Vico]

Brief clarification of CCC 390.

Please note that CCC 390 refers to a single historical event which is a major doctrine of the Catholic Church because Divine Revelation gives us that certainty of faith. The use of figurative language signals that the almost unexplainable event can be understood. The basics of God’s command is found in Genesis 2: 15-17
**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.

According to Humani generis (Pope Pius XII) and Lumen Gentium 25 (Vatican II), Monogenism is theologically certain, that is, that the human race came from one set of parents. Catholics are obliged to assent to theologically certain teachings even though not defined.

Humani generis

1. 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.

 

[cfauster]

Brief clarification of CCC 390.

Please note that CCC 390 refers to a single historical event which is a major doctrine of the Catholic Church because Divine Revelation gives us that certainty of faith. The use of figurative language signals that the almost unexplainable event can be understood. The basics of God’s command is found in Genesis 2: 15-17
**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.

Here is a CAF thread from last fall focused on the matters so wisely addressed by CCC 390 quoted above.

 

[cfauster]

According to Humani generis (Pope Pius XII) and Lumen Gentium 25 (Vatican II), Monogenism is theologically certain, that is, that the human race came from one set of parents. Catholics are obliged to assent to theologically certain teachings even though not defined.

Humani generis

1. 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.

A good thread this spring addressed the above quote.

 

[Vico]

A good thread this spring addressed the above quote.

And it was mentioned there The Theological Commission document COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP,

From that we have “Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species… can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.” and “it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan”:

1. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. The appeal to divine causality to account for genuinely causal as distinct from merely explanatory gaps does not insert divine agency to fill in the “gaps” in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called "God of the gaps”). The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[simpleas]

How do Catholics understand the creation account of Genesis and evolution? from Catholic Straight Answers.

In any case, some Catholics and other Christians who view Adam (and Eve) as historical individuals accept the possibility that Adam (and Eve) got their belly buttons in the normal way.

Was there something about figurative language in that link? I started to read and got half way before realising there may not be?

 

[cfauster]

And it was mentioned there The Theological Commission document COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP,

From that we have “Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species… can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.” and “it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan”:

1. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. The appeal to divine causality to account for genuinely causal as distinct from merely explanatory gaps does not insert divine agency to fill in the “gaps” in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called "God of the gaps”). The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Indeed. Very relevant quotation, noting that according to Catholic doctrine, the creation of each human soul involves direct special creation. This is compatible with accompanying indirect creation “through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history.”

 

[cfauster]

Was there something about figurative language in that link? I started to read and got half way before realising there may not be?

I think the emphasis of the linked article is on the theological meaning (the who, why, and what, rather than the how) of the Genesis account. For example, there is this passage:

*We must remember that Genesis was not meant to be a scientific explanation of how creation occurred. The first three chapters of Genesis which address creation, the fall of man, and the promise of salvation do not pretend to be a text of physics or biology which provides a scientific understanding of mankind and the world. Rather, the Genesis account of creation is a work of theology which focuses on the who, why, and what of creation. *

 

[simpleas]

I think the emphasis of the linked article is on the theological meaning (the who, why, and what, rather than the how) of the Genesis account. For example, there is this passage:

*We must remember that Genesis was not meant to be a scientific explanation of how creation occurred. The first three chapters of Genesis which address creation, the fall of man, and the promise of salvation do not pretend to be a text of physics or biology which provides a scientific understanding of mankind and the world. Rather, the Genesis account of creation is a work of theology which focuses on the who, why, and what of creation. *

And so, if the account in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, then the words/dialogue between the four “characters” isn’t set in stone, or is it?

I’m speaking only of genesis 3, which is the account of the fall of man. There is plenty of dialogue between the “characters” that is often used to explain why we as humans behave as we do. So these words must be true,but the event/act not.

 

[cfauster]

And so, if the account in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, then the words/dialogue between the four “characters” isn’t set in stone, or is it?

I’m speaking only of genesis 3, which is the account of the fall of man. There is plenty of dialogue between the “characters” that is often used to explain why we as humans behave as we do. So these words must be true,but the event/act not.

Figurative language can convey truths just as real as truths conveyed by any other kind of language. I respect the CCC’s careful explanation that combines “figurative” with an actual primeval event/deed.

Whether the words (dialogue) vs. characters, actions, etc. of Genesis 3 differ in how each is to be interpreted - figuratively vs. not figuratively - I can’t comment in any informed way, especially regarding Catholic doctrine, but others have offered good insights within this and other threads.