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

[grannymh]

As for original populations, I find some variation on a theological monogenesis hypothesis (best article I’ve seen covering several possibilities here) most convincing. That’s probably a topic better for a different thread.

Thank you. I have read the link and am not interested in commenting.

Original Sin is the most essential truth here, though it could possibly be more corporate in nature (as the OT dwells quite a bit on corporate sin–the whole group bearing guilt and responsibility, not just individual guilt, and even though some individuals may not be very culpable).

Usually, I ask for citations. However, when it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis, the possibility of “corporate in nature” does not exist. The fact of a single first human relationship with the Creator is evinced in numerous verses. Personally, I like Genesis 2: 15-17. Please note that Genesis 2: 18 affirms that Adam is the original human as described in Genesis 1: 27.

 

[cfauster]

I am not interested in this because it violates the ban on evolution discussion and this thread would be closed. I hope you respect the ban.

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution Threads
post 2

Indeed.

A Catholic blog, not exactly a forum (rather, it has designated authors posting articles) yet freely allowing comments on this topic banned on CAF, is
strangenotions.com/science/evolution/

So, private message on CAF, or use Strange Notions or other such places for public comments. As grannymh noted, we’ve had otherwise valuable threads suddenly disappear from CAF, and of course I’m sure CAF has good reasons for its policies, which in any case must be respected.

 

[grannymh]

You mentioned, "Am I the only one who recognizes that Adam and his immediate family existed before large populations came into existence? "

That refers to the modern thinking that the author of the first three chapters copied his material from surrounding cultures. When one considers the length of female fertility and overlapping generations, it is easy to see how Adam and Eve’s direct descendants quickly multiplied with some leaving the nest. While there are descendants (Hebrews) who maintained what Adam and Eve taught them, there were also descendants who did their own thing like inventing interesting legends.

And you noted a bit the consequent impacts of ideas on descent to modern thinking with regard to Original Sin. So I thought this relevant.

What is relevant is that currently there are popular writers and speakers who deny or change the actual Original Sin by denying the literal reality of Adam. This is the reason I started to explore Genesis 2: 15-17 as an explanation of Original Sin.

 

[grannymh]

IMO, this seems to harmonize all the evidence, scientific, Biblical, logical, philosophical, Church teaching, etc. The convergence of evidence illustrating a clearer picture of what actually happened in history, in harmony with what we know by faith and revelation.

I do not intend to be rude; but, it is very important to recognize the precise position of Pope Pius XII. This is the common sense teaching of the Catholic Church.
Encyclical Humani Generis, 1950.
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

 

[grannymh]

I do not intend to be rude; but, it is very important to recognize the precise position of Pope Pius XII. This is the common sense teaching of the Catholic Church.
Encyclical Humani Generis, 1950.

35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

I am sure that there are readers who are surprised that I did not quote Genesis 37.

A large number of good persons who either have slipped away from the basic meanings in the first three chapters of Genesis or who never studied these basic meanings is evinced on CAF.

We tired pilgrims look to the “fly in the ointment” approach as a way to get some of Eden’s original goodness (Genesis 1: 31) flowing our way. And, most importantly, we want everyone to shake hands as we develop a religion which is not disturbed by some essential truths like the original relationship between humankind and the Divine Creator. (Genesis 2: 15) I skipped Genesis 2: 16-17 because that is bad news. And, most importantly, we want everyone in our Big Tent to be comfortable, that is, no one should be bothered by the reality of sin.

Encyclical Humani Generis, 1950.

11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.

Link
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

[goout]

That refers to the modern thinking that the author of the first three chapters copied his material from surrounding cultures. When one considers the length of female fertility and overlapping generations, it is easy to see how Adam and Eve’s direct descendants quickly multiplied with some leaving the nest. While there are descendants (Hebrews) who maintained what Adam and Eve taught them, there were also descendants who did their own thing like inventing interesting legends.

What is relevant is that currently there are popular writers and speakers who deny or change the actual Original Sin by denying the literal reality of Adam. This is the reason I started to explore Genesis 2: 15-17 as an explanation of Original Sin.

It’s good to consider that when Genesis speaks, it is not speaking as human eyewitness, complete with tape recorder. It is witness that goes much deeper than that.

When God speaks “let there be light”, there is no human being present to “hear” or “see”. When the inspired story of humanity’s creation happens, there is no journalism to document exactly who Adam is and who Eve is, where they lived, whether or not they were part of a large population of similar non-human creatures.
Subjecting the truth of Genesis to all this is silliness.

We simply don’t have answers for all this and we never will, and the truth of the faith shouldn’t hinge on scientific explanations. Never at odds with legitimate science, but not engaging in scientism. There is a huge difference.

And obviously, God prefers us to build our faith in this way, or we would find Adam’s shirt with his name tag on it.

 

[grannymh]

I cannot speak for all 50 chapters of the Book of Genesis. I can assure readers that when we actually study the first three chapters of Genesis, verse by verse, we find the foundation explanation for some major Catholic doctrines. For example: we discover that there is a God in Genesis 2: 15-17. It is also obvious that this God desires a relationship with a human person who, with his spouse, began humankind…

A relationship between a human person and a Divine Person is one of the important definitions of the Catholic Church.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I truly hope that some day in the future, a Catholic will figure out that the reality of Adam and the reality of his original friendship relationship with the Divine Creator (Genesis 2: 15-17) has slipped into oblivion.

I’ve read this sentence a few times now and would like to ask what you mean?

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

It’s good to consider that when Genesis speaks, it is not speaking as human eyewitness, complete with tape recorder. It is witness that goes much deeper than that.

When God speaks “let there be light”, there is no human being present to “hear” or “see”. When the inspired story of humanity’s creation happens, there is no journalism to document exactly who Adam is and who Eve is, where they lived, whether or not they were part of a large population of similar non-human creatures.
Subjecting the truth of Genesis to all this is silliness.

We simply don’t have answers for all this and we never will, and the truth of the faith shouldn’t hinge on scientific explanations. Never at odds with legitimate science, but not engaging in scientism. There is a huge difference.

And obviously, God prefers us to build our faith in this way, or we would find Adam’s shirt with his name tag on it.

There are many creation stories, some that are similar to Genesis. One wonders if parts from around these other stories did make it into the creation story we know today.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I truly hope that someday in the future, a Catholic will figure out that the reality of Adam and the reality of his original friendship relationship with the Divine Creator (Genesis 2: 15-17) has slipped into oblivion.

I’ve read this sentence a few times now and would like to ask what you mean?

Thanks.

How many posters notice that substituting a human father for God in the favorite allegory is not even close to the reality of God? How many posters notice that love between the Divine Person and the human person is a responsible two-way street? How many posters notice that in the first three chapters of Genesis, the original relationship between Divinity and humanity is a major point in determining the future, including the Divinity of Jesus Christ? How many posters notice that while the original relationship between Divinity and humanity is originally intended for all human nature, it is the original human Adam who can freely scorn the Divine Creator and thus his sin wounds both his human nature and the human nature of his descendants? How many posters really believe that Adam is truly the first human being. How many posters accept Adam and his spouse Eve as the sole founders of humankind?

Basic Questions are always acceptable because many posts can contain some kind of misunderstanding of some basic Catholic teachings regarding the first three basic chapters of Genesis.

Where are the basic answers? Better yet, where is the starting point for understanding Original Sin?

Yes, I have seen some excellent posts with excellent information about the Catholic teachings which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. Thank you.

But time moves quickly and some of the original truths are again omitted.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

I truly hope that someday in the future, a Catholic will figure out that the reality of Adam and the reality of his original friendship relationship with the Divine Creator (Genesis 2: 15-17) has slipped into oblivion.

How many posters notice that substituting a human father for God in the favorite allegory is not even close to the reality of God? How many posters notice that love between the Divine Person and the human person is a responsible two-way street? How many posters notice that in the first three chapters of Genesis, the original relationship between Divinity and humanity is a major point in determining the future, including the Divinity of Jesus Christ? How many posters notice that while the original relationship between Divinity and humanity is originally intended for all human nature, it is the original human Adam who can freely scorn the Divine Creator and thus his sin wounds both his human nature and the human nature of his descendants? How many posters really believe that Adam is truly the first human being. How many posters accept Adam and his spouse Eve as the sole founders of humankind?

Basic Questions are always acceptable because many posts can contain some kind of misunderstanding of some basic Catholic teachings regarding the first three basic chapters of Genesis.

Where are the basic answers? Better yet, where is the starting point for understanding Original Sin?

Yes, I have seen some excellent posts with excellent information about the Catholic teachings which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. Thank you.

But time moves quickly and some of the original truths are again omitted.

So basically you meant some people don’t think about the above questions (or similar) when exploring what Original sin means, and that some also think of God as a human father?
I can understand why some people do think of God as a human father, he did become human, although he was the son, in human form, but us humans tend to relate to what we see in front of us. I could be wrong.
But we know from the Our Father prayer that we are praying to a being beyond us.

I haven’t learnt enough about this original human/divine relationship to know why it out weighs humans alive today and their relationship with the divine.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

I haven’t learnt enough about this original human/divine relationship to know why it out weighs humans alive today and their relationship with the divine.

Thanks.

Please accept my apology, but I have never heard that the original human/divine relationship out weighs humans alive today and their relationship with the divine. I am interested in learning the reason for this …Does it have something to do with the Garden?

 

[simpleas]

Please accept my apology, but I have never heard that the original human/divine relationship out weighs humans alive today and their relationship with the divine. I am interested in learning the reason for this …Does it have something to do with the Garden?

The original friendship relationship that Adam shared with God, that is repeated in this thread and others sounds to be a friendship/relationship that we can not enjoy. (we are, after all sinners)
May be I’m reading your post’s wrongly, so I fail to see the point about Adam’s friendship/relationship being so important. I don’t understand what this original relationship consisted of, a part from the obvious (free from human sin).

Anyway, my bad, and my apologies also if I have read you wrongly.

Thanks.

 

[goout]

There are many creation stories, some that are similar to Genesis. One wonders if parts from around these other stories did make it into the creation story we know today.

The Church recognizes the elements of truth that are present in other religious traditions.
So it would seem possible that others would have similar accounts of revelation.

However God chose the Israelites to receive the fullest revelation of his truth. So that should steer us away from accepting indifferent accounts of creation.

 

[grannymh]

The original friendship relationship that Adam shared with God, that is repeated in this thread and others sounds to be a friendship/relationship that we can not enjoy. (we are, after all sinners)
May be I’m reading your post’s wrongly, so I fail to see the point about Adam’s friendship/relationship being so important. I don’t understand what this original relationship consisted of, a part from the obvious (free from human sin).

Anyway, my bad, and my apologies also if I have read you wrongly.

Thanks.

First. The original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity includes two persons – the Creator God Person and the human creature person Adam.

The following is my favorite attack on Adam. This newspaper attack by a Catholic is in reply to Catholics who question the reality of Adam and Eve. It answers their question with a proposed substitute question. Obviously, this denies Adam so that we do not have to deal with the difference between his sin, which would be a metaphor or figurative truth since Adam did not exist, and our sins.

Those who ask …
“Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?” The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”

 

[cfauster]

I see God as Creator of each human person. I also imagine that God dealt in a very special way with the very first humans. So, in that sense I agree that God is Father of Adam in a unique way. But of course, Jesus taught us all to refer to God as Father, so seeing Adam and Eve’s experience with God the Father as resembling our experience is not completely off the mark.

I realize that Catholics have a commitment to some doctrinal details that, at least in the minds of many or most Catholics, require that the first true humans numbered only two. In fact, some insist that Adam literally preceded Eve, and that Eve was created in some way from Adam’s body (even if not literally from Adam’s rib). If I understand Dr. Bonnette correctly, for example, he takes this position.

Though I do not agree with some details in the above view, I can respect it and appreciate Dr. Bonnette’s engagement with multiple disciplines including theology, philosophy, and science. I tend to agree, in fact, with his conclusion that the first true humans (in the spiritual sense) preceded anatomically modern humans. I will not link to his writings, because the last time I did that the entire thread disappeared before I could read some posts.

I agree with grannymh that we are tempted to downplay the reality and significance of sin, and that we must resist that temptation. Though I may not hold to every detail of the Catholic position, the basic story of sin and our salvation from sin through Christ is essential.

 

[simpleas]

First. The original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity includes two persons – the Creator God Person and the human creature person Adam.

The following is my favorite attack on Adam. This newspaper attack by a Catholic is in reply to Catholics who question the reality of Adam and Eve. It answers their question with a proposed substitute question. Obviously, this denies Adam so that we do not have to deal with the difference between his sin, which would be a metaphor or figurative truth since Adam did not exist, and our sins.

Those who ask …
“Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?” The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”

So God is a person then? Not a human person, but a person being???

I have only thought of God the creator as spiritual, even though I’ve seen many a painting depicting God as a old human man…

I am questioning/pondering/imagining what the first human and the creator of the first person shared with each other that was the original friendship relationship.

I have heard some comment that when speaking of Adam/Eve we should think of them as more than one person, a group or tribe if you like. I know the church teaches it is only one man who was created in friendship with God and then a female created after.

But I’m interested in exploring this original friendship, and using just one source might not give out much information.

 

[grannymh]

So God is a person then? Not a human person, but a person being???

I have to go with the Catholic teaching that God is three Persons in one nature.

I have only thought of God the creator as spiritual, even though I’ve seen many a painting depicting God as a old human man…

Yes. God is a transcendent super-natural Pure Spirit without the restrictions of a material decomposing anatomy. Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures

I am questioning/pondering/imagining what the first human and the creator of the first person shared with each other that was the original friendship relationship.

They shared friendship with each other. This means that they were not enemies.

I have heard some comment that when speaking of Adam/Eve we should think of them as more than one person, a group or tribe if you like. I know the church teaches it is only one man who was created in friendship with God and then a female created after.

That comment about the “tribe” was refused by Pope Pius II in 1950.

But I’m interested in exploring this original friendship, and using just one source might not give out much information.

The internet is a tangle of great sources depending on one’s position regarding God the Divine Creator. Use whatever sources you wish. Personally, as I recall my education in Catholic grade school, when it came to Adam and Original Sin, common sense was a good source.

Today the word “religion” in the last line of post 291 means so many different things that my older than dirt brain is in a tailspin.

 

[grannymh]

To truly understand the magnificence of God’s chosen relationship with the first human, one can begin with Genesis 2:15 which is possible because of the love in Genesis 1: 27. Some persons prefer Genesis 2: 7. Personally, I am still in awe with the dramatic chasm between Genesis 1:25 and Genesis 1: 26.

The nitty-gritty of Adam’s original relationship with God (CCC 375, last sentence) is what we experienced when we were baptized. Adam’s State of Original Holiness (sharing in the divine life of the Trinity) is the same as our State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC Glossary Sanctifying Grace, page 898) Adam freely shattered his State of Original Holiness (friendship relationship with God) and we shatter our State of Sanctifying Grace (friendship relationship with God) when we commit a mortal sin.

What is the original friendship relationship with God? Basically,fundamentally, it is the State of Sanctifying Grace aka the State of Original Holiness.

Yes. The first human and his Creator shared a very deep loving friendship.

 

[simpleas]

To truly understand the magnificence of God’s chosen relationship with the first human, one can begin with Genesis 2:15 which is possible because of the love in Genesis 1: 27. Some persons prefer Genesis 2: 7. Personally, I am still in awe with the dramatic chasm between Genesis 1:25 and Genesis 1: 26.

The nitty-gritty of Adam’s original relationship with God (CCC 375, last sentence) is what we experienced when we were baptized. Adam’s State of Original Holiness (sharing in the divine life of the Trinity) is the same as our State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC Glossary Sanctifying Grace, page 898) Adam freely shattered his State of Original Holiness (friendship relationship with God) and we shatter our State of Sanctifying Grace (friendship relationship with God) when we commit a mortal sin.

What is the original friendship relationship with God? Basically,fundamentally, it is the State of Sanctifying Grace aka the State of Original Holiness.

Yes. The first human and his Creator shared a very deep loving friendship.

If the state of sanctifying grace is the same as original holiness, we wouldn’t die, would we?
So it can’t be…not to me anyway, not in my understanding or lack of understanding of what Adam had that we do not.

Thanks for your thought on God and Adam sharing a deep loving relationship. Sounds like it should be, yet we as humans living now as the creatures affected by original sin, know that we can love someone/God but still sin against them. We have alittle bit of an excuse though, we are born separate from God, and inclined to sin.
Adam on the other hand, was created without an inclination to sin, love of God etc, yet became the original sinner.

You know that jigsaw puzzle you spoke about a while ago, I still have half the pieces to put together, a few missing…