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

[grannymh]

Please note that there are two posts 926 and 927.

I did not see that until it was too late.

This problem apparently occurred when I was given blank screens because I was considered non-human spam. When a blank screen deletes my work, then I have to start over. I now have to constantly copy and paste into Word so that I have a backup. I am in the midst of trying to find a solution to some major difficulties.

Post 927 contains my final editing.

 

[cfauster]

I cannot speak for other Christian faiths. The Catholic Church holds that the material world and its material inhabitants from ants to antelopes are parts of God’s magnificent creation.

Amen from a Lutheran … and I will go out on a limb and speak as a generic Protestant too

 

[grannymh]

W is for words, literal words.

Our goal is to find the literal words which go with the six literal events in the first three beloved chapters of Sacred Scripture.

1.The creation of our universe.

We find in Genesis 1: 1, the most powerful literal words in the universe. When I read about all the objections to the first three mighty chapters of Genesis, I start to wonder what or who is being ignored. What or who is the subject of tampering?

We need to take seriously these literal words from Genesis 1:1 – “God created”

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth

 

[grannymh]

The literal words “God created” in Genesis 1:1

When we examine the promotion that Catholics are entitled to choose only happy Catholic doctrines and tamper with the rest of the doctrines …
there is the hidden idea that God incorrectly created.

When there is talk about rebuilding the Catholic Church…
there is the hidden idea that God incorrectly created.

When there is the proposal that the Catholic Church should put under the rug, certain difficult doctrines such as Original Sin…
there is the hidden idea that God incorrectly created.

And who would want a Catholic Church whose God incorrectly created?

Up front,
the first words,
God created,
calls each person to make a tremendous decision…

Do we accept God as the correct Creator? Or do we prefer doing our own thing?
Do we accept God as the correct Creator and listen intently to every truth in the first three tremendous chapters of Sacred Scripture?

Or do we put on blinders of allegory?

 

[OneSheep]

As I stroll through the fora, I ask myself before clicking here “I wonder what kind of mischief Granny is up to today?”

It’s really a bad habit. I should spend more time praising all the good you write.

Oh well, here I go again…

The literal words “God created” in Genesis 1:1

When we examine the promotion that Catholics are entitled to choose only happy Catholic doctrines and tamper with the rest of the doctrines …
there is the hidden idea that God incorrectly created.

God actually finds joy in our joy. I know of people who self-judge concerning being joyful, not me! We can find happiness in Truth, Granny! The truth sets us free, and the Truth guides us to eternal life, a life that begins today. A doctrine that pushes repentance is still a happy doctrine. We can take joy in revelation! You have heard the term “Good News”, right?

There is a hidden idea that God incorrectly created? If so, how do you know it is there?

When there is talk about rebuilding the Catholic Church…
there is the hidden idea that God incorrectly created.

No Granny, there is the explicit idea that creation is ongoing. Nothing hidden there at all. God keeps making little people every day. We make new discoveries every day. All of this is part of creation.

When there is the proposal that the Catholic Church should put under the rug, certain difficult doctrines such as Original Sin…
there is the hidden idea that God incorrectly created.

Hmmmm. Who proposed that the Catholic Church should put the doctrine of original sin “under the rug”? We must acknowledge that we all inherit the capacity to sin. Denial of this reality leads to a misguided notion about human capacity, and can lead to some people thinking that they are above the capacity itself. There is a difference between “putting under the rug” and de-emphasizing.

And the slippery slope that God incorrectly created? How did you get there? Or should I ask, “How did you project that others get there?”

And who would want a Catholic Church whose God incorrectly created?

OTOH, if God created A&E the way Genesis 2 depicts, He either wanted A&E to fail, or he made a mistake, which would promote the idea that God incorrectly created. These also present problems for a potential believer.

Instead, we can see that God creates.

And yes, literally, God created. Good job on that, Granny!

With minimal effort, we can look around and see that people, trees, many creatures, mountains, bacteria, slime molds, fungi, stars, and many, many other wonders are still being created. The universe is alive, Granny! It is not dead.

And neither is unfolding revelation.

 

[grannymh]

The six literal events in the first three beloved chapters of Sacred Scripture.

1.The Creation of Our Universe.
Hands down, we can understand the literal words “God created” in Genesis 1:1

2.The Creation of the Animal Kingdom.
Genesis 1:21
God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of crawling living creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw that it was good."
Perhaps one of the great sea monsters was the whale that Jonah met. Sorry, my dear readers, this thread stops with the Original Sin chapter three. You are on your own when it comes to understanding Jonah as lunch for a sea monster. However, I cannot resist this passage from the Book of Jonah, chapter 2. usccb.org/bible/jonah/2
Jonah, chapter 2
7
I went down to the roots of the mountains;
to the land whose bars closed behind me forever,
But You brought my life up from the pit,
O LORD, my God.f
8
When I became faint,
I remembered the LORD;
My prayer came to You
in Your holy temple.g

The existence of the Animal Kingdom is literal in Genesis 2: 20. The cattle , birds, and especially the wild animals are real. We can imagine that Adam was a tad faint facing these critters.
Genesis 2-20
The man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a helper suited to the man.
God created both Jonah and Adam and He stayed with them. God brought Jonah up from the pit. God expelled Adam and then He settled him east of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3: 24)

As someone who is interested in nature, I find it interesting that animals and humans interact in good ways and bad ways since the days of Sacred Scripture. What is also interesting is that the literal words “God created” is repeated three times in Genesis 1: 27. Genesis 1: 25-26 is the bridge from the animal kingdom to the third literal event. 3.The unique creation of humans which established the unique relationship between Divinity and humanity.

To be continued.

 

[grannymh]

Genesis chapter 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 makehuman 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.
Warning!
What you are about to read is not, repeat not, an official interpretation of Genesis 1: 26.

When I attempt to walk in the sandals of the individual talented author or redactor, I imagine him observing everything around him, top to bottom, side to side. Being a faithful Hebrew, he then had to describe the Creator God in His relationship role with Adam and all other humans since the beginning of humankind. God’s almighty power is why He and we see the goodness in nature.

Having read some of the interpretations of the word “us” in verse 26, I find that some interpreters say that “us” is like the “authoritative we” used in major documents by the supreme person in charge. Regardless of how we view verse 26, we cannot deny its supreme power. It is God’s almighty power that transforms human conception immediately into a true fully-complete human person. Human nature is now an unique unification of the material world and the spiritual world.

I have come to love verse 26 because it is the bridge that leads us out of the animal kingdom and into our peerless kingdom on earth. The author in sandals makes it definite that our spiritual soul in God’s image did not come from some highly sentient animal society. Standing in the mighty universe, the author wants us to know the Creator God Who is all-mighty.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

As I stroll through the fora, I ask myself before clicking here “I wonder what kind of mischief Granny is up to today?”

It’s really a bad habit. I should spend more time praising all the good you write.

Oh well, here I go again…

God actually finds joy in our joy. I know of people who self-judge concerning being joyful, not me! We can find happiness in Truth, Granny! The truth sets us free, and the Truth guides us to eternal life, a life that begins today. A doctrine that pushes repentance is still a happy doctrine. We can take joy in revelation! You have heard the term “Good News”, right?

There is a hidden idea that God incorrectly created? If so, how do you know it is there?

No Granny, there is the explicit idea that creation is ongoing. Nothing hidden there at all. God keeps making little people every day. We make new discoveries every day. All of this is part of creation.

Hmmmm. Who proposed that the Catholic Church should put the doctrine of original sin “under the rug”? We must acknowledge that we all inherit the capacity to sin. Denial of this reality leads to a misguided notion about human capacity, and can lead to some people thinking that they are above the capacity itself. There is a difference between “putting under the rug” and de-emphasizing.

And the slippery slope that God incorrectly created? How did you get there? Or should I ask, “How did you project that others get there?”

OTOH, if God created A&E the way Genesis 2 depicts, He either wanted A&E to fail, or he made a mistake, which would promote the idea that God incorrectly created. These also present problems for a potential believer.

Instead, we can see that God creates.

And yes, literally, God created. Good job on that, Granny!

With minimal effort, we can look around and see that people, trees, many creatures, mountains, bacteria, slime molds, fungi, stars, and many, many other wonders are still being created. The universe is alive, Granny! It is not dead.

And neither is unfolding revelation.

By the way. I understand your posts. They help me understand what is happening to our Catholic Church from within our Catholic Church. Lack of knowledge about what is happening is apparent. We do not need to know who is proposing what. What we need to know are the results. Like empty pews with the possible exception of Christmas and Easter. That “possibility” could be disappearing as some Catholics decide, determine, or unfold Divine Revelation according to personal preferences.

As for understanding “hidden ideas”. I belong to the dead generation which was taught how to use common sense and logical progression regarding basic fundamental Catholic doctrines.

 

[grannymh]

No Granny, there is the explicit idea that creation is ongoing. Nothing hidden there at all. God keeps making little people every day. We make new discoveries every day. All of this is part of creation.

" creation is ongoing" “We make new discoveries everyday.”

This sounds like natural science. As I recall, natural science does not deal with the full truth of Genesis 1: 27. It only deals with decomposing anatomies. Since we are in the third literal event – “The unique creation of humans which established the unique relationship between a divine being and a non-divine being.” – I do agree that scientists make wonderful ongoing discoveries especially in the medical arena of human bodies.

We know Adam was real human because like all real people, he needed nourishment. Genesis 2: 15. Without a garden, Adam’s material anatomy could starve. However, Adam was smart enough to make a sharp tool and with his strength he could easily provide meat for dinner along with peas, potatoes, and salads. Having named the animals, Genesis 2: 20, Adam knew where they lived.

Looking through the eyes of the evolution model, there could have been other humans living down the river which watered the garden. Genesis 2:10. Before jumping up and down about the evolution model, we remind ourselves that God has the literal power to look at everything He created. Genesis 1: 31. South, North, West, East. There were no other humans. Genesis 2:18.

We see God’s love when He fashioned Eve. Like Eve and Adam, we are gifted with love and blessing in Genesis 1: 27-28 because all of us are descended from the very first two true humans on planet earth.

Cited verses

Link to Genesis, chapter 1 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.m

31
God looked at everything He had made, and found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed—the sixth day.o

Link to Genesis, chapter 2 usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

10
A river rises in Eden* to water the garden; beyond there it divides and becomes four branches.

15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h

18
The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.* k

20
The man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a helper suited to the man.

 

[grannymh]

I wonder about the “original blessing” fellow,
And his students,
those who want to rebuild Christianity from the bottom up,
among other plans for a better tomorrow,
when everyone can tamper with Divine Revelation,
so that it unfolds in a gentle manner,
not disturbing sinners,
and those who prefer not believing everything…

… I wonder if mentor and students,
ever sit under a special tree,
in a special garden,
and discuss the very real Catholic doctrines,
flowing from those first three exciting chapters of Genesis.
If they can see the Divine Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity,
powerfully connected to the Adam and Original Sin saga,
then maybe,
in this time and space material world,
they can freely lift their souls to God where there is true peace.

 

[grannymh]

As I stroll through the fora, I ask myself before clicking here “I wonder what kind of mischief Granny is up to today?”

It’s really a bad habit. I should spend more time praising all the good you write.

Oh well, here I go again…

*** skip ***

OTOH, if God created A&E the way Genesis 2 depicts, He either wanted A&E to fail, or he made a mistake, which would promote the idea that God incorrectly created. These also present problems for a potential believer.

On the other hand, it is important to actually study Sacred Scripture before blaming God. When accusing God, one needs evidence, chapter and verse.

Please respond with your interpretations, chapter and verse in the beginning three chapters in Sacred Scripture. Your words “if God” is a good starting point.

Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

God actually finds joy in our joy. I know of people who self-judge concerning being joyful, not me! We can find happiness in Truth, Granny! The truth sets us free, and the Truth guides us to eternal life, a life that begins today. A doctrine that pushes repentance is still a happy doctrine. We can take joy in revelation! You have heard the term “Good News”, right?

Like everyone else, I want happiness in Truth, OneSheep. Please teach us the “Good News” about Original Sin. You did mention “A doctrine that pushes repentance is still a happy doctrine.” Why and how is repentance a happy doctrine? Can people really reject a loving God?

Like everyone else, I want your Truth that sets us free. I want God to find joy in my joy. Don’t hide your Truth under the rug. As our teacher, teach us how to unfold revelation.

Note. Would someone who follows OneSheep in other Forums, please let him know about this post. Thank you.

 

[OneSheep]

On the other hand, it is important to actually study Sacred Scripture before blaming God. When accusing God, one needs evidence, chapter and verse.

Please respond with your interpretations, chapter and verse in the beginning three chapters in Sacred Scripture. Your words “if God” is a good starting point.

Thank you.

Good Morning Dear, I was away for a few days.

Here was what I wrote:

if God created A&E the way Genesis 2 depicts, He either wanted A&E to fail, or he made a mistake, which would promote the idea that God incorrectly created.

Analysis:

If God did not want A&E to fail, He could have made His presence more palbable at the time they were deciding to disobey. In addition, He could have made the fruit not look good, or He could have told them it would lead to many problems for their children, which would have definitely motivated them to behave differently. These all indicate that God wanted A&E to fail. However, such want for failure compromises benevolence.

So, we move to the possibility that what A&E did was not what God wanted. With full awareness, a person will be obedient, but A&E were not fully aware. God could have created beings with 100% awareness, (having all the relevant information to make the best choice) but He did not, and they made the wrong decision. The “correct” way to create man would have been for him to have all relevant information. Since A&E did not have all relevant information, it can be deduced by some that we were incorrectly created.

The analysis above shows some of the problems if we take the story literally. Nothing in Church doctrine says that we are to take Genesis literally.

It can be shown that Genesis 2 was written in part to divert people from blaming (thinking negatively of) God for the human condition, for suffering, by pointing blame at people (A&E) instead. This is really a good thing in terms of getting people to take responsibility for their own actions. Indeed, it does no good to blame God for our condition. Instead, we can see God as infinitely merciful, which is exactly the way that Christ shows Him to be. The problem is that when people point at the story of A&E as accurately depicting Our Father, the whole image of such benevolence is compromised.

As Bishop Barron emphasized, all scripture is to be interpreted keeping Christ in mind. Our Father cares for us; He does not wish for our failure. He does not trick us. He does not intend to set us up for failure. He is not indifferent to our suffering; nor would He simply stand by and let us inadvertently choose an eternity away from Him. Any punishment would begin with a Heart of Mercy.

 

[OneSheep]

Like everyone else, I want happiness in Truth, OneSheep. Please teach us the “Good News” about Original Sin. You did mention “A doctrine that pushes repentance is still a happy doctrine.” Why and how is repentance a happy doctrine?

It is a happy doctrine because repentance leads to an eternal life, beginning right here, right now. Repentance is a “change of mind”. If one changes his mind about being enslaved to wealth and status, the result is a holiness, a freedom, happiness.

In addition, “original sin” doctrine as an acknowledgement that we are all capable of sin and need salvation from such alienation (enslaved by our human drives, not in deeper relationship with Christ) points to part of the reason for the incarnation in the first place.

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

You see, having an undistorted image of God is in itself a grace. Christ presents a True image. The image of Christ, one of infinite mercy and forgiveness (Good News!), must take precedent when reading Genesis. We can ask “WWJD?” in terms of how a loving Father would behave in the Story, keeping in mind that God loves us at least as much as the person who loves us most (Good News!).

Can people really reject a loving God?

Yes, if they are blind or ignorant.

Like everyone else, I want your Truth that sets us free. I want God to find joy in my joy. Don’t hide your Truth under the rug. As our teacher, teach us how to unfold revelation.

Baiting? so subtle…

People don’t unfold revelation, Granny. Revelation unfolds through the Holy Spirit. Many people have played a role in this, but it is the Spirit that does the revealing.

Note. Would someone who follows OneSheep in other Forums, please let him know about this post. Thank you.

Shoot, nobody notified me. Obviously no one follows me that reads this thread.

 

[grannymh]

Dear Gentle Readers,

As you probably noticed. Posts 940 and 941 can use a bit of real Catholic Church teachings. Not the choose-your-own teachings of the alternative Church of Unfolding Revelation. I wonder. How many unfolding teachings of alternative Catholicism would be needed to entice a reader to go where the living is easy? A good example of “if God” easy living would be choosing one of God’s possibilities for the non-existent garden inhabitants mentioned in post 940.

Apparently, we need to set some ground rules. 1. God exists as Divine transcendent, super-natural Pure Spirit without material restrictions. 2. Adam and Eve exist as the very first fully-complete human persons with a decomposing anatomy and a live-forever rational soul. Are there any objections?

 

[OneSheep]

Dear Gentle Readers,

As you probably noticed. Posts 940 and 941 can use a bit of real Catholic Church teachings. Not the choose-your-own teachings of the alternative Church of Unfolding Revelation. I wonder. How many unfolding teachings of alternative Catholicism would be needed to entice a reader to go where the living is easy? A good example of “if God” easy living would be choosing one of God’s possibilities for the non-existent garden inhabitants mentioned in post 940.

And these comments pertain to my posts?

Try again, Granny! You are sure to come up with something that actually addresses what I wrote. You can hit the “quote” button, and then respond to my words with your own valuable opinions. It’s all good!

 

[grannymh]

And these comments pertain to my posts?

Try again, Granny! You are sure to come up with something that actually addresses what I wrote. You can hit the “quote” button, and then respond to my words with your own valuable opinions. It’s all good!

Readers are important and it is important to address what is being taught as Catholic teachings. Teaching is the operative word. If “a bit of real Catholic Church teachings” is needed…

For example. “… original sin” doctrine as an acknowledgement that we are all capable of sin and need salvation from such alienation…" (post 941)

Nothing wrong with that.
However, readers deserve the deeper meanings taught by the Catholic Church.

Another example from post 940. “If God did not want A&E to fail, He could have made…”

“If God” is a small sign that people can change the “if” of beliefs to whatever because alternative Catholicism is one big happy family of individuals who can believe whatever their version of the Holy Spirit presents.

Readers may be looking for the alternative Church of Unfolding Revelation. I made up that name in post 942 because it represents ideas, like tampering, when there are difficulties with the teachings of the Catholic Church. We often hear that debating within the Catholic Church somehow damages unity. I think that there are a lot of people who do not know the early history of the Catholic Church. And they somehow do not comprehend the work of the promised Advocate. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

So, we move to the possibility that what A&E did was not what God wanted. With full awareness, a person will be obedient, but A&E were not fully aware. God could have created beings with 100% awareness, (having all the relevant information to make the best choice) but He did not, and they made the wrong decision. The “correct” way to create man would have been for him to have all relevant information. Since A&E did not have all relevant information, it can be deduced by some that we were incorrectly created.

It was what they wanted because God allowed them to choose. How could they choose if they did not have the correct information, we can’t choose something were aren’t aware of I don’t think.
I don’t think they were created incorrectly, they were made how God saw, according to the author of the creation story, which was Good.

 

[OneSheep]

Readers are important and it is important to address what is being taught as Catholic teachings. Teaching is the operative word. If “a bit of real Catholic Church teachings” is needed…

For example. “… original sin” doctrine as an acknowledgement that we are all capable of sin and need salvation from such alienation…" (post 941)

Nothing wrong with that.
However, readers deserve the deeper meanings taught by the Catholic Church.

And the deeper meaning is?.. Get to the meat of it, Granny, what is the most important point you think needs to be made!

Another example from post 940. “If God did not want A&E to fail, He could have made…”

“If God” is a small sign that people can change the “if” of beliefs to whatever because alternative Catholicism is one big happy family of individuals who can believe whatever their version of the Holy Spirit presents.

It’s much bigger than that. Do you remember the definition of Church, the three definitions provided by the CCC? You were so silent, Granny. So silent people sometimes are when they disagree with the truth…

The Spirit is in the all, and in the one. You put all the ones together, and the Spirit inspires those responsible for writing doctrine. Theological problems are real, Granny, and those have to be worked out.

Readers may be looking for the alternative Church of Unfolding Revelation. I made up that name in post 942 because it represents ideas, like tampering, when there are difficulties with the teachings of the Catholic Church. We often hear that debating within the Catholic Church somehow damages unity. I think that there are a lot of people who do not know the early history of the Catholic Church. And they somehow do not comprehend the work of the promised Advocate. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

St Augustine ran across difficulties, and he tampered. St Thomas A. ran across discontinuities, and tampered. St. Anselm… St. Bonaventure, Karl Rahner, John duns Scotus, Pope Benedict all of them addressed problems. All of these people participate(d) in unfolding revelation. Martin Luther participated. Bishop Tutu participates. Carlton Pearson participates, Pope Francis participates. Mother Theresa participated, so much was revealed through her work. The Advocate works through all of them and many, many more.

 

[OneSheep]

It was what they wanted because God allowed them to choose. How could they choose if they did not have the correct information, we can’t choose something were aren’t aware of I don’t think.
I don’t think they were created incorrectly, they were made how God saw, according to the author of the creation story, which was Good.

Yes, I don’t think they were made incorrectly then, and we never have been made incorrectly. The “incorrectly” business started with Granny saying that opinions different than her own have a hidden message that humans were made incorrectly, but it is quite the opposite. Some of the underpinnings of unmodified original sin doctrine indeed can be taken to indicate that God made man incorrectly, and some of the modifications of doctrine make it less of a possibility that “God makes junk”.

It is difficult to make choices when we are not aware of the choices, and when we do not know all the relevant ramifications, consequences, effects of the choices, we are also making choices from a position of ignorance. Once A&E experienced eating the forbidden fruit, they suddenly “knew better”, they experienced shame. If they had full knowledge, they would have “known better” before they ate the fruit.