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

[grannymh]

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.

I can agree if, and that is a big if, you recognize that the “creation-flood story in Gn 2–11” is two stories merged together for modern convenience.

When I look at the book of Genesis, I often declare that I do not do Noah. The reason is so simple that it is often overlooked. Noah is not the first fully-complete human on planet earth.

While sin is in Genesis chapter 4, we need to be alert that Adam did not kill Abel.

I did a brief look at the link. I saw a reference to Genesis 1:28.That is fine in the context. But where is Genesis 1:27? Did you find its philosophy and theology? Another question–maybe I am reading the link wrong. Certainly, there are “divine decisions.” Where is the human decision which we learned in grade school back in the Dark Ages???

Please note that what was written is interesting good stuff. Still, I did not see a clear reference to the major event at the beginning of human history. Dang! My eyes must be getting bad. Do you have the theological (Genesis chapters 1, 2, 3 ) reference to that event? Personally, I like to start with the theological truths:

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.

Hint. The theological reference is the title of this thread.

 

[cfauster]

I can agree if, and that is a big if, you recognize that the “creation-flood story in Gn 2–11” is two stories merged together for modern convenience.

When I look at the book of Genesis, I often declare that I do not do Noah. The reason is so simple that it is often overlooked. Noah is not the first fully-complete human on planet earth.

While sin is in Genesis chapter 4, we need to be alert that Adam did not kill Abel.

I did a brief look at the link. I saw a reference to Genesis 1:28.That is fine in the context. But where is Genesis 1:27? Did you find its philosophy and theology? Another question–maybe I am reading the link wrong. Certainly, there are “divine decisions.” Where is the human decision which we learned in grade school back in the Dark Ages???

Please note that what was written is interesting good stuff. Still, I did not see a clear reference to the major event at the beginning of human history. Dang! My eyes must be getting bad. Do you have the theological (Genesis chapters 1, 2, 3 ) reference to that event? Personally, I like to start with the theological truths:

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.

Hint. The theological reference is the title of this thread.

The paragraph immediately preceding the one I already quoted (same reference - US Conference of Catholic Bishops on Genesis) reads as follows:

Genesis 1–11. The seven-day creation account in Gn 1:1–2:3 tells of a God whose mere word creates a beautiful universe in which human beings are an integral and important part. Though Gn 2:4–3:24 is often regarded as “the second creation story,” the text suggests that the whole of 2:4–11:9 tells one story. The plot of Gn 2–11 (creation, the flood, renewed creation) has been borrowed from creation-flood stories attested in Mesopotamian literature of the second and early first millennia. In the Mesopotamian creation-flood stories, the gods created the human race as slaves whose task it was to manage the universe for them—giving them food, clothing, and honor in temple ceremonies. In an unforeseen development, however, the human race grew so numerous and noisy that the gods could not sleep. Deeply angered, the gods decided to destroy the race by a universal flood. One man and his family, however, secretly warned of the flood by his patron god, built a boat and survived. Soon regretting their impetuous decision, the gods created a revised version of humankind. The new race was created mortal so they would never again grow numerous and bother the gods. The authors of Genesis adapted the creation-flood story in accord with their views of God and humanity. For example, they attributed the fault to human sin rather than to divine miscalculation (6:5–7) and had God reaffirm without change the original creation (9:1–7). In the biblical version God is just, powerful, and not needy.

 

[grannymh]

The paragraph immediately preceding the one I already quoted (same reference - US Conference of Catholic Bishops on Genesis) reads as follows:

Genesis 1–11. The seven-day creation account in Gn 1:1–2:3 tells of a God whose mere word creates a beautiful universe in which human beings are an integral and important part.

The words in the link above which I put in bold is because I am a human driven by curiosity. I want someone to tell me about an integral and important part.

The link’s first sentence is absolutely true. As an old-time journalist, I have to ask questions if I am interested in Catholic teachings. May I respectfully ask Why? How? when the link speaks of human beings.

According to the material world? Check out the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26. Peerless is a good descriptive word.

According to Catholic theology? Check out Genesis 1: 27. Peerless is a very good descriptive word.

Genesis, chapter one. usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

25
God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good.
26
Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.
27
God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female* he created them.

 

[grannymh]

The paragraph immediately preceding the one I already quoted (same reference - US Conference of Catholic Bishops on Genesis) reads as follows:

Genesis 1–11. The seven-day creation account in Gn 1:1–2:3 tells of a God whose mere word creates a beautiful universe in which human beings are an integral and important part. Though Gn 2:4–3:24 is often regarded as “the second creation story,” the text suggests that the whole of 2:4–11:9 tells one story. **The plot of Gn 2–11 (creation, the flood, renewed creation) has been borrowed from creation-flood stories attested in Mesopotamian literature of the second and early first millennia. In the Mesopotamian creation-flood stories, the gods created the human race **as slaves whose task it was to manage the universe for them—giving them food, clothing, and honor in temple ceremonies. In an unforeseen development, however, the human race grew so numerous and noisy that the gods could not sleep. Deeply angered, the gods decided to destroy the race by a universal flood. One man and his family, however, secretly warned of the flood by his patron god, built a boat and survived. Soon regretting their impetuous decision, the gods created a revised version of humankind. The new race was created mortal so they would never again grow numerous and bother the gods. The authors of Genesis adapted the creation-flood story in accord with their views of God and humanity. For example, they attributed the fault to human sin rather than to divine miscalculation (6:5–7) and had God reaffirm without change the original creation (9:1–7). In the biblical version God is just, powerful, and not needy.

Thank you for the Mesopotamian ancient legend especially what I put in bold. I look for these legends from the beginning of human history as evidence that

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.

I recognize that it is more convenient–do not stir the pot–to use the word adapted (see bold above). However, those of us who wrote before the birth of Goggle will recognize that the author of the first three chapters of Genesis was gifted with the skills of investigative journalism. Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why? That author could also be one of the first scientists because he observed without prejudice.

Please note that I give credit to the link for this sentence: “In the biblical version God is just, powerful, and not needy.” In my opinion, the link as quoted in a couple of posts is not necessarily in error. In my opinion, it appears to ignore or set aside some interesting very basic difficult information found in the Catholic Faith. In my opinion, we need to recognize the real depth of those mysterious verses in the first three chapters of Genesis.

To get to the three truths which I presented above, readers may find that paragraph 28, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, is a beginning observation when we go back to the origin of human history. We can call man a religious being.

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[grannymh]

One quick common sense question about all those legends. Where did they come from?

Answer. Given the length of female fertility, multiple births, and overlapping generations, Adam and Eve’s descendants would soon develop into a large family. And in large families, there is always a rebel or two. In my old neighborhood, there was this saying – In every family tree, there is always a horse thief hanging from a branch.

One thing which ties those legends and the first three chapters of Genesis together is that they are evidence that humans can sense the existence of the supernatural. Sensing the supernatural does not mean that the result is always good. There are some horrible ancient stories. Given a few rebels and some people with poor memories, it is understandable that all kinds of legends regarding the supernatural relationship with humans would appear over centuries.

What is amazing to me is that the author chose the right verses which would become Catholic teachings. That task should make us realize that the beginning three chapters of Genesis need serious study. Yes. The Holy Spirit inspired that author and protected the truth. Still, the author has a rational mind with personal free choice. Plus, authors can have strong feelings about how to write.

My answer is that the author loved the Creator God above all else. And he also loved us especially when it comes to describing a human relationship with the Creator God. When we open our minds to love, we can find the love between God the Creator and Adam the creature. We learn very quickly that this love relationship was meant for all descendants.

Genesis 1: 27-28 usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

27
God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female* he created them.
28
God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.

 

[grannymh]

In the legend link, usccb.org/bible/genesis/0, we find this informative sentence: “the gods created the human race as slaves whose task it was to manage the universe for them—giving them food, clothing, and honor in temple ceremonies.” When the author of the first three chapters of Genesis looked at the history of his people, he did find periods of slavery, but that was not the normal status of his people. Slavery is based on the concept that humans do not have serious basic free will and therefore, like critters, do not seek union with God. (CCC 1730-1734).

In Genesis chapters one through three, example, first part of Genesis 3: 8, God is a familiar friend. Obviously, the author observed the difference between animals and himself. Genesis 1: 27 is the author’s reasonable conclusion. It is also guided inspiration.

There are legends that lead to the shaman. Catholicism states that the “shaman” or “mediator” has to be divine. The reasonable explanation is that it is God Who first establishes His divine relationship with Adam in Genesis 2: 15. Not the reverse.

“The authors of Genesis adapted the creation-flood story in accord with their views of God and humanity.”(from link)

I do not do the flood. Nonetheless, may I point out that the key human view of God and humanity has to contain a clear description of Original Sin. Genesis 2: 15-17 has to be clearly understood in order to understand Original Sin and humankind.

There is history in the first three chapters of Genesis. This history is based on God’s interaction with the father of our species. We are not some adapted myth or legend.

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.

 

[grannymh]

This sentence from post 243 has started to bother me. It talks about free will, but somehow it needs to be reconciled with the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.*
From Post 243
" Slavery is based on the concept that humans do not have serious basic free will and therefore, like critters, do not seek union with God."

From CCC 396
" Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom."

From CCC 397
“Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.”

At first glance, Genesis 2: 15-17 does not appear to be about freedom. Or is there an underlying assumption that human nature is all about freedom?

 

[grannymh]

The first three chapters of Genesis clearly demonstrate that God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. And every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. The author did not need any ancient myths or legends of neighboring people to figure out those two truths. They come from the religious history of his own people.

Here is confirmation of the historic genre from paragraph 388, the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
CCC 388 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.

In addition to Romans 5: 12-21, there is 1 Corinthians 15: 20-22.
20
But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits* of those who have fallen asleep.
21*
For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.
22
For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life,

 

[cfauster]

I don’t see how the USCCB’s teaching re. the genre of Genesis 1-3 (as something other than history) is at odds with the Catechism.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t see how the USCCB’s teaching re. the genre of Genesis 1-3 (as something other than history) is at odds with the Catechism.

I assume you are referring to post 245. CCC 388 is not a substitute for the whole Catechism. It expresses that the human condition is connected in some way to the “the history of the fall narrated in Genesis.” Personally, I prefer the Genesis chapters one, two, and three history position because it is able to tell the whole common sense story including the nasty action of a very real original person whose nature can share in the life of the Creator. Apparently, in this century, the nitty gritty is that genre is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[cfauster]

Apparently, in this century, the nitty gritty is that genre is in the eye of the beholder.

Or, something with a distinct genre of “creation-flood narrative” (as the USCCB puts it) can contain some historical as well as religious truths, yet not be historical (nor mythical) in genre.

Indeed, Catholic church teaching is clear that Gen. 1-3 refers to events that really happened yet without describing the events in modern historical terms. Rather, figurative language is used.

Again, because of the historical realities described, the genre is not “myth.”

Because of the figurative language used, the genre is not “history” either.

Text can contain some history without having a genre of history.

 

[grannymh]

Or, something with a distinct genre of “creation-flood narrative” (as the USCCB puts it) can contain some historical as well as religious truths, yet not be historical (nor mythical) in genre.

Indeed, Catholic church teaching is clear that Gen. 1-3 refers to events that really happened yet without describing the events in modern historical terms. Rather, figurative language is used.

Again, because of the historical realities described, the genre is not “myth.”

Because of the figurative language used, the genre is not “history” either.

Text can contain some history without having a genre of history.

Could you kindly give me the verse which is figurative language. Then, could you tell me what is the reality which is figurative. In other words, what does the figurative words actually describe. I have always wanted someone to do this because then I could compare the figurative with actual Catholic doctrines.

Please note that I only do the first three chapters. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

Or, something with a distinct genre of “creation-flood narrative” (as the USCCB puts it) can contain some historical as well as religious truths, yet not be historical (nor mythical) in genre.

Indeed, Catholic church teaching is clear that Gen. 1-3 refers to events that really happened yet without describing the events in modern historical terms. Rather, figurative language is used.

Again, because of the historical realities described, the genre is not “myth.”

Because of the figurative language used, the genre is not “history” either.

Text can contain some history without having a genre of history.

The below quoted sentence has me down.
From post 248
“Because of the figurative language used, the genre is not “history” either.”

What is the figurative language describing?
I simply want to understand figurative language verse examples and find out if they are history. For example: Satan is not history genre because the figurative language serpent tempted Adam.

It would really help if you gave an actual figurative language verse example in the first three chapters of Genesis and then tell me if it is history or not. Thank you.

I give up trying to understand genre. I am grateful that genre is not used to determine truth within the Catholic Church – even though some people would like to change some annoying Catholic truths.

 

[cfauster]

Here is the post I’m thinking of, grannymh.

As you noted in that post, the Catechism places great importance on the singular event that is the topic of this thread. So does the USCCB, and the Catholic Church in general.

When the USCCB states that the genre of Genesis chapters 2-11 is neither historical nor mythical, they are not contradicting the Catechism.

Again, 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.

 

[grannymh]

Here is the post I’m thinking of, grannymh.

As you noted in that post, the Catechism places great importance on the singular event that is the topic of this thread. So does the USCCB, and the Catholic Church in general.

When the USCCB states that the genre of Genesis chapters 2-11 is neither historical nor mythical, they are not contradicting the Catechism.

Again, 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.

The first problem is the equalization of the Flood story with the Original Sin story. The particulars of the Flood story, to my knowledge, have not been duly declared and properly promulgated as formal Catholic doctrines based on Divine Revelation during a major ecumenical council guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit. However, I am aware of special interpretations of symbolism which enrich Catholic teachings.

“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.

Excuse me. The Catholic Church does more than suggest that Original Sin took place. The history of one original first human who freely committed the first Original Sin has been duly declared and properly promulgated as a formal Catholic doctrine based on Divine Revelation during a major ecumenical council guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit.

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.

I did not know that the author of the first three chapters is considered an Ancient Near Eastern thinker. I thought he was a member of the Hebrew nation.

Reading the verses in the first three chapters of Genesis, one does get a sense of the philosophical approach that the unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. (CCC 365) As for theology, it is apparent that God exists as the Creator in the beginning.

In addition, I would like to know the actual verses which provide profound answers to perennial questions, maybe those by the Ancient Near Eastern Thinkers.

To be clear, the presented link does contain a lot of truths. It is the missing information that startles me.

 

[grannymh]

Being older than dirt, I remember learning in Catholic grade school that the basic relationship between Divinity and Humanity, aka God the Creator and Adam the creature, was key to understanding the first three chapters of Genesis, including the reality of Original Sin. Honestly, I do not remember all the “key’s” significant points. I did retain the concept of Christ’s Divinity and recently I personally see the necessity of the Catholic Church being connected to Genesis 3: 15.

Genesis 3: 15 is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”)
**CCC 410 **After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. This passage in Genesis is called the *Protoevangelium *(“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

Footnote 304: Cf. Gen 3:9, 15

The long range mission of the Messiah is John, chapter 14: verse 18: I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

Obviously, the author who wrote Genesis 3: 15 was not thinking about the visible Catholic Church on earth. Still, the author felt the immense love of God for all His people. This deep and abiding love would never abandon the creatures which are in His image. Genesis 1: 27. The author did express this loving relationship in Genesis 2:15 and then he clearly stated the means of maintaining this relationship. Genesis 2:16-17.

 

[cfauster]

The first problem is the equalization of the Flood story with the Original Sin story … The Catholic Church does more than suggest that Original Sin took place. The history of one original first human who freely committed the first Original Sin has been duly declared and properly promulgated as a formal Catholic doctrine based on Divine Revelation during a major ecumenical council guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit … To be clear, the presented link does contain a lot of truths. It is the missing information that startles me.

I take the following (italics added for emphasis) as referring, at least in part, to God’s response to man’s Original Sin: “Their stories reveal a privileged time, when divine decisions were made that determined the future of the human race.”

Maybe that is insufficient. If so, I encourage you to write to the USCCB and request that important information currently missing from their commentary be added.

 

[grannymh]

I take the following (italics added for emphasis) as referring, at least in part, to God’s response to man’s Original Sin: “Their stories reveal a privileged time, when divine decisions were made that determined the future of the human race.”

Maybe that is insufficient. If so, I encourage you to write to the USCCB and request that important information currently missing from their commentary be added.

As I have continually said – there are truths in the commentary. I respect freedom of speech and the right of an author to express what she or he or a committee considers important. Considering all the public information which is available, I am content with freedom of speech on CAF.

 

[grannymh]

As I have continually said – there are truths in the commentary. I respect freedom of speech and the right of an author to express what she or he or a committee considers important. Considering all the public information which is available, I am content with freedom of speech on CAF.

One of the blessings of freedom of speech on CAF is that I can explore logical paths of truth following truth. I have requested information and asked questions along the way. Recognizing that guests often outnumber members, I understand the scarcity of answers. This is why I offer my own discussion. Nonetheless, it can happen that questions are more important.

We have a marvelous amazing Catholic Faith. It deserves our exploring its depths of truth.

 

[grannymh]

Genesis 2:15

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

and

Genesis 3: 8-9

8
When they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden at the breezy time of the day,* the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9
The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you?
We understand that the Garden of Eden, even though it is sometimes referred to paradise, is not the heaven where we are in the presence of the Beatific Vision. When we try to understand the intentions of the author of the first three chapters of Genesis, we should notice the definite emphasis on the garden itself. It is the place where God is.

This reference of the Creator’s “place” appears to be unique because it seems to imply a relationship rather than a physical temple. By his disobedience in the garden, Adam broke his relationship with his Creator. Thus, the natural reaction is for Adam to avoid God’s place by hiding.

Personally, I often think that sometimes, we should think about God calling to Adam and seeking his presence. God’s question “Where are you?” should remind us of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, looking for the lost lamb. Obviously, the author did not know about Jesus Christ. He did know that God’s love for humans continues even when the human freely chooses to leave the flock. The author’s intention appears to be a reminder that God loves us and wants us to live with Him.

What is interesting to me, is that the author did not use figurative language. Instead, he used a flat out question which tells the whole story of God’s love. “Where are you?” says it all.

Yes, I know that some readers of the first three chapters of Genesis will claim that the author is only writing to his own nation. My thought is that the author knew the exact truth that future readers, being descendants of Adam and Eve, would have his human nature which is in the image of God. Human nature is both material and spiritual and therefore, we have a rational spiritual soul with intellective free choice. The author explained this in Genesis 1: 27 and Genesis 2: 15-17.

We are the same species as the author. God so loved our species that He continually asks us “Where are you?” God wants to settle us in His garden where we can cultivate our life in obedience so that following bodily death we can live in joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision.
John 3: 16

For God so loved the world that He gave* His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life.

While my thoughts above are not official, they do lead to Catholic teachings where we can pause and think about our own lives. I believe that the author of the first three chapters of Genesis knew that he needed to preserve these teachings of his nation for all generations of all nations in the future.

We need to find the truth in those first three chapters and then follow the truth in the Catholic Church and finally examine our own lives as to what we are really following.