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

[grannymh]

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?

First, we need to consider the point that CCC 390 does not state that every verse in Genesis 3 is definitely figurative language. When it comes to the words of God, He is so plain spoken that figurative language is not necessary for Him. No doubt that the attack authors consider Genesis 3 as allegory, figurative language, non-literal literature. Thus, one can choose the real Catholic Church interpretations which are guided by the promised Holy Spirit in major ecumenical church councils or one can choose the various attacks against basic fundamental Catholic teachings.

Is the above reasonable considering the position of the author?

Post 217 has this excellent point which needs to be considered. “Figurative language can convey truths just as real as truths conveyed by any other kind of language.”

 

[grannymh]

When we first open the Book of Genesis, we humans usually read the first three chapters of Genesis from our own human point of view based in our own culture. When the author of those first three chapters of Genesis put together God’s truths, he wrote from God’s point of view.

We read the beginning of Genesis from the point of view of modern natural science. The author looked at the sky and earth and saw God creating the animals and then creating the pinnacle species, ourselves. We bring to our reading, myths, impossibilities, and figurative language. The author “cut to the chase” by beginning with the unbelievable love of God as our very own Creator. We are in the image of God which means that we can share in God’s life, aka Adam’s State of Original Holiness. We try to ignore what Adam did by twisting the true meanings (plural intended) of Original Sin to the point of denying the reality of the first human described in the first three chapters of Genesis.

The author had no doubt that the reality of Original Sin marked the whole of human history. (CCC 390) Currently, we need to walk in the sandals of the author.

 

[Vico]

When we first open the Book of Genesis, we humans usually read the first three chapters of Genesis from our own human point of view based in our own culture. When the author of those first three chapters of Genesis put together God’s truths, he wrote from God’s point of view.

We read the beginning of Genesis from the point of view of modern natural science. The author looked at the sky and earth and saw God creating the animals and then creating the pinnacle species, ourselves. We bring to our reading, myths, impossibilities, and figurative language. The author “cut to the chase” by beginning with the unbelievable love of God as our very own Creator. We are in the image of God which means that we can share in God’s life, aka Adam’s State of Original Holiness. We try to ignore what Adam did by twisting the true meanings (plural intended) of Original Sin to the point of denying the reality of the first human described in the first three chapters of Genesis.

The author had no doubt that the reality of Original Sin marked the whole of human history. (CCC 390) Currently, we need to walk in the sandals of the author.

Gaudium et Spes:
13. Although he was made by God in a state of holiness, from the very onset of his history man abused his liberty, at the urging of the Evil One. Man set himself against God and sought to attain his goal apart from God. Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, but their senseless minds were darkened and they served the creature rather than the Creator.(3)
(3) Romans1
21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.
24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by cfauster

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

OK.

 

[cfauster]

First, we need to consider the point that CCC 390 does not state that every verse in Genesis 3 is definitely figurative language. When it comes to the words of God, He is so plain spoken that figurative language is not necessary for Him. No doubt that the attack authors consider Genesis 3 as allegory, figurative language, non-literal literature. Thus, one can choose the real Catholic Church interpretations which are guided by the promised Holy Spirit in major ecumenical church councils or one can choose the various attacks against basic fundamental Catholic teachings.

Is the above reasonable considering the position of the author?

Post 217 has this excellent point which needs to be considered. “Figurative language can convey truths just as real as truths conveyed by any other kind of language.”

Thank you.

I guess I would add that fundamental Catholic teachings do not depend upon fundamentalists reading of scripture.

When in the CCC and other works from the Magisterium we are reminded that 1) in the Bible we are reading words with dual authorship, human and divine, and that 2) a variety of literary styles are employed in the Bible, and that 3) the human influence in the Bible will always reflect human culture, those true and innocent concepts are not necessarily coming from “attack authors.”

I certainly agree with you that such true and innocent concepts of Biblical scholarship are sometimes exploited when we sinners, consciously or not, resist acknowledging our sin.

Therefore, in the CCC and other works from the Magisterium we are reminded that various styles of language can convey very real truths, and even that figurative language can describe the theological essence of historical events/deeds without providing historically factual accounts.

 

[cfauster]

OK.

Thanks.

Here is what I consider to be one of the most helpful approaches to Original Sin but please note that it is not from a Catholic author and diverges from Catholic teaching in certain ways. Nonetheless, parts of it seem quite congruent with Catholic teaching, so I think one can take whatever is useful and leave the rest.

 

[Vico]

When we first open the Book of Genesis, we humans usually read the first three chapters of Genesis from our own human point of view based in our own culture. When the author of those first three chapters of Genesis put together God’s truths, he wrote from God’s point of view.

We read the beginning of Genesis from the point of view of modern natural science. The author looked at the sky and earth and saw God creating the animals and then creating the pinnacle species, ourselves. We bring to our reading, myths, impossibilities, and figurative language. The author “cut to the chase” by beginning with the unbelievable love of God as our very own Creator. We are in the image of God which means that we can share in God’s life, aka Adam’s State of Original Holiness. We try to ignore what Adam did by twisting the true meanings (plural intended) of Original Sin to the point of denying the reality of the first human described in the first three chapters of Genesis.

The author had no doubt that the reality of Original Sin marked the whole of human history. (CCC 390) Currently, we need to walk in the sandals of the author.

We also have Catechism 289:
Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

And 285 is on challenges to Christian faith, based upon myths of origin:

Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins.* Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). * Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. * Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). * According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). * Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). * Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism).
All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.

Here is what I consider to be one of the most helpful approaches to Original Sin but please note that it is not from a Catholic author and diverges from Catholic teaching in certain ways. Nonetheless, parts of it seem quite congruent with Catholic teaching, so I think one can take whatever is useful and leave the rest.

This link is to BioLogos, an organization which does not accept the literal real Adam as in Catholic teaching. I put the critical words in bold.

Link biologos.org/blogs/archive/adam-and-eve-literal-or-literary

“As many of our readers know, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a critically important topic in the discussion of Christianity and human origins. Although BioLogos takes a firm stand on the fact that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans (see here), science does not rule out the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve, which opens this interesting discussion.”

There is no doubt that there could be helpful approaches to Original Sin considering the expertise of its contributors. However, one cannot take whatever is useful and leave the rest unless that person understands all Catholic teachings stemming from Genesis 1: 27 and Genesis 2: 15-17 as a start. That person also needs to comprehend the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth in order to understand great teachers like Irenaeus.

 

[grannymh]

Expulsion from Eden. usccb.org/bible/genesis/3
1
Now the snake was the most cunning* of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?”
2
The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
3
it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’”
4
But the snake said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!
5
God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.”

We cannot separate the above verses from Genesis 2: 15-17 if our intent is to learn about Original Sin.

God speaks. 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.
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.

God speaking to His people is normal for the Hebrew people. Recall the prophets. Recall that humans are in the spiritual image of God via their rational spiritual soul. (Genesis 1: 27) Interestingly, the powerful verse Genesis 1: 27 comes first in the description of human nature beginning with the first person.

I realize that Simpleas is referring only to chapter three. However, the author chose to present truths throughout all first three chapters of Genesis. That way, the reader follows a progression of truths leading to the disastrous Original Sin. We learn that Adam is capable of shattering humanity’s first friendship relationship with the Creator. Catholic teaching is that “Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.” (CCC 404) When God speaks in Genesis 2: 15-17, His direct command is evidence that Adam has the free choice of human creature’s obedience to the Divine God.

 

[grannymh]

Just a stray thought …

When looking for basic evidence for the reality of Original Sin, we find the magnificence of God.

Genesis 1: 27 usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female* he created them.

Genesis 2: 7 usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

then the LORD God formed the man* out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.%between%

 

[cfauster]

This link is to BioLogos, an organization which does not accept the literal real Adam as in Catholic teaching. I put the critical words in bold.

Link biologos.org/blogs/archive/adam-and-eve-literal-or-literary

“As many of our readers know, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a critically important topic in the discussion of Christianity and human origins. Although BioLogos takes a firm stand on the fact that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans (see here), science does not rule out the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve, which opens this interesting discussion.”

There is no doubt that there could be helpful approaches to Original Sin considering the expertise of its contributors. However, one cannot take whatever is useful and leave the rest unless that person understands all Catholic teachings stemming from Genesis 1: 27 and Genesis 2: 15-17 as a start. That person also needs to comprehend the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth in order to understand great teachers like Irenaeus.

Thank you.

As noted multiple times in various CAF threads, I think most all Catholic authors understand that Catholic teaching requires historical individuals, Adam and Eve, as the first truly human parents. Such a view is compatible with, though not required by, the BioLogos position. As noted in bold by Grannymh, BioLogos insists that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans. If indeed the existence of additional biological progenitors would be incompatible with Catholic teaching, then yes, BioLogos itself is incompatible with Catholic teaching on this matter.

 

[cfauster]

Thanks.

Here is what I consider to be one of the most helpful approaches to Original Sin but please note that it is not from a Catholic author and diverges from Catholic teaching in certain ways. Nonetheless, parts of it seem quite congruent with Catholic teaching, so I think one can take whatever is useful and leave the rest.

Though the essay to which I provided a link in a previous post of mine (quoted above) closely reflects my own personal views, it diverges from Catholic teaching more than do some other BioLogos essays. Some examples of BioLogos essays more compatible with Catholic teaching are linked here.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you.

As noted multiple times in various CAF threads, I think most all Catholic authors understand that Catholic teaching requires historical individuals, Adam and Eve, as the first truly human parents. Such a view is compatible with, though not required by, the BioLogos position. As noted in bold by Grannymh, BioLogos insists that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans. If indeed the existence of additional biological progenitors would be incompatible with Catholic teaching, then yes, BioLogos itself is incompatible with Catholic teaching on this matter.

This is a very important statement considering that it begins with the fascinating word “if”. From post 228.
“If indeed the existence of additional biological progenitors would be incompatible with Catholic teaching, then yes, BioLogos itself is incompatible with Catholic teaching on this matter.”

From what I have learned since landing on CAF, the idea of possible additional biological progenitors dates to the 1950’s. On the other hand, this thread dates back a lot further. As the first step in traveling way back in time to an author who did not have the benefit of modern science, here is an interesting Catholic perspective from CCC 404. “But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.”

I am sure that it is no surprise that I would research the word “if” by looking at Genesis 2: 15-17. Personally, I think God used common sense in dealing with Adam as the first and only father of the human species. Currently, it would be a tad difficult to trace my ancestry back to Adam or to his neighbor Joe. Personally, I would prefer neighbor Joe because he probably had enough backbone to be obedient to Genesis 2: 15-17.

 

[cfauster]

The “book” of God’s Word and the “book” of God’s World both tell truth.

They use different “dialects” or “languages.”

Some attempts to “translate” each “word” of the two “books” to force one-to-one matching seem unwise.

Tremper Longman addresses this regarding the Flood story in Genesis. I think the concepts he employs (and many others do as well) can help with understanding several chapters in Genesis, including Ch. 3.

 

[grannymh]

The “book” of God’s Word and the “book” of God’s World both tell truth.

They use different “dialects” or “languages.”

Some attempts to “translate” each “word” of the two “books” to force one-to-one matching seem unwise.

Tremper Longman addresses this regarding the Flood story in Genesis. I think the concepts he employs (and many others do as well) can help with understanding several chapters in Genesis, including Ch. 3.

As the Queen of cherry picking… I found this opinion in the link. I put “how” in bold.
"Genesis 1-11 begins with an account of creation. God created everything and everyone. While Genesis 1-2 does not tell us how God created humans … "

The “how” God created humans starts with the list of animals including sea monsters and crawling creatures in the beginning verses of chapter one, book of Genesis. At Genesis 1: 25, the author gives us the dramatic shift to Genesis 1: 26 which clearly explains the human person. Then Genesis 1: 27 gives us the final “how”.

Obviously, the “how” starts with the existence of God which existence is way different from the beliefs of surrounding cultures and continues to be different from the atheist viewpoint.

Before everyone gets excited, I said atheist and not scientific. In general, we need to accept the plain fact that the natural realm of the scientist is the material world. While individual women and men scientists may explore the spiritual world, that is their personal choice and not a requirement of natural science. Natural science, per se, is a gift from God which benefits us in the medical arena and in worldwide communication among other examples. I am sure that many scientists will have extra stars in their heavenly crown.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Personally, I would prefer neighbor Joe because he probably had enough backbone to be obedient to Genesis 2: 15-17.

 

[simpleas]

The “book” of God’s Word and the “book” of God’s World both tell truth.

They use different “dialects” or “languages.”

Some attempts to “translate” each “word” of the two “books” to force one-to-one matching seem unwise.

Tremper Longman addresses this regarding the Flood story in Genesis. I think the concepts he employs (and many others do as well) can help with understanding several chapters in Genesis, including Ch. 3.

biologos.org/blogs/brad-kramer-the-evolving-evangelical/genesis-and-the-flood-introduction

This is a very interesting point, words written to a people and place in a very different time.

Second, as we address the question of genre, we need to remember that the Bible, while written for us, was not written to us. The authors of the books of the Bible had an original audience in mind when they wrote, and that audience is not us. As I like to tell my students, they don’t call the book of Romans “Romans” for nothing! It was written to the church in Rome and when we read it, we need first to put ourselves in the place of the church of Rome before applying it to ourselves.

 

[grannymh]

Another granny picking quote.
“Second, as we address the question of genre, we need to remember that the Bible, while written for us, was not written to us. The authors of the books of the Bible had an original audience in mind when they wrote, and that audience is not us. As I like to tell my students, they don’t call the book of Romans “Romans” for nothing! It was written to the church in Rome and when we read it, we need first to put ourselves in the place of the church of Rome before applying it to ourselves.”

Obviously, the first three chapters of Genesis was not written to the Romans. Why? Because that would leave out the good people in Corinth and Chicago.

The truth is that the first three chapters of Genesis are written for the descendants of Adam and Eve. That cannot be denied.

 

[grannymh]

The truth is that the first three chapters of Genesis are written for the descendants of Adam and Eve. That cannot be denied.

Equally simple is the question of genre of the first three chapters of Genesis. When common sense is applied, it is easy to recognize that the genre is historical.

 

[cfauster]

Equally simple is the question of genre of the first three chapters of Genesis. When common sense is applied, it is easy to recognize that the genre is historical.

I like how the USCCB puts it:

How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation-flood story. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead, they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological. They added and subtracted narrative details and varied the plot as they sought meaning in the ancient stories. Their stories reveal a privileged time, when divine decisions were made that determined the future of the human race. The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious, the nature of sexual attraction and marriage, why there are many peoples and languages. Though the stories may initially strike us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill, compression, and subtlety. They provide profound answers to perennial questions about God and human beings.