The True Creation Story

[grannymh]

Welcome Gentle Readers, CAF Members and Guests

When the thread “**Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?” **was in spitting distance of 1,000 posts, I found myself still looking for additional solid information about the real stories of original obedience and original disobedience.

Here is the dilemma. Ever since the talented author of the beginning three chapters of Genesis looked up at the sky and declared “Wow, that is amazing! I have to write about that.” – Others asked questions. Questions not only about the stars, but also about themselves. For example. Why are we humans, who are not as strong as many animals, so different that we dominate all other creatures? Why do we humans have a longing, deep in our hearts, for something beyond our material world?

In other words, Original Sin still needs explanation. This time, we need to explore the beginning of human history and the depth of Creation. In other words, we are still going to find hundreds of ways to unfold creation and when we are dissatisfied with that, we can tamper here and there.

In other words, we are in a maze and we need the Catholic Church which has a firm foundation of basic truths. We absolutely need The True Creation Story.

Note: This thread is dedicated to the Holy Spirit.

 

[seagal]

I’m not entirely sure what you’re looking for. The only information we have is the story in Genesis. Since people didn’t start out with the means to write stuff down I imagine it was handed down over the generations by story telling over evening campfires. What is it that’s not clear about original sin? And what is it you think that a bunch of amateur theologians that hang out on these forums can come up with that the best thinkers in ages past haven’t?

 

[Della]

grannymh:

Ever since the talented author of the beginning three chapters of Genesis looked up at the sky and declared “Wow, that is amazing! I have to write about that.”

I don’t usually cherry pick sentences, but this one might get us off on the wrong foot.

The first five books of our OT are called the “The five Books of Moses” as they were written as one continuous writing. We have no evidence that Genesis was influenced by nor written by the kind of person you described.

Certainly, creation stories were passed down, and Moses probably used these, but we have to keep in mind that God revealed himself to Moses as he had not done before him, giving him the Law and precepts that the people of Israel were to follow. Therefore, what is recorded in Genesis, and so on, is inspired of the Holy Spirit, and meant for our edification. That doesn’t mean the Creation as described in Genesis is easy to understand/interpret, it obviously is difficult, but probably not so much for those who lived at that time. It’s cast into mythological language, which tells about events in a certain style–one with which the people of the time were familiar. Mythology doesn’t necessarily concern itself with actual events as a form of storytelling, but it can, and in this case, it does.

As for doctrinal issues being built on Genesis, it’s more that Genesis is a witness to the fall of man which Our Lord utilized to reveal more of the Father’s will to us, which he gave to his Apostles, and thus their successors, to teach to his universal Church.

As seagal cited, we amateur theologians aren’t very well equipped to parse doctrine based on our own thoughts re the Creation and Fall of Man as related in Genesis. All we need to know for our salvation regarding this issue the Church has taught us. The Catechism is the best resource for us lay people as to what we need to know. Anything we might come us with could only be our own speculations/opinions.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not entirely sure what you’re looking for. The only information we have is the story in Genesis. Since people didn’t start out with the means to write stuff down I imagine it was handed down over the generations by story telling over evening campfires. What is it that’s not clear about original sin? And what is it you think that a bunch of amateur theologians that hang out on these forums can come up with that the best thinkers in ages past haven’t?

If you have not seen the “battles” over Original Sin". Praise God!

 

[Polycarp1]

There’s a great online course on Creation given by Dr. John Cavadini a professor of theology at ND called In God’s Image: The Mystery of Creation.

He really goes into Creation and Original sin. It blew me away and I’ll never dismiss Genesis as just a nice story again.

step.nd.edu/registration/complete-catalog/in-gods-image/

 

[grannymh]

I don’t usually cherry pick sentences, but this one might get us off on the wrong foot.

If I can give someone a compliment, I do so. As for a talented author. Think how easy it is for us to google.

The first five books of our OT are called the “The five Books of Moses” as they were written as one continuous writing. We have no evidence that Genesis was influenced by nor written by the kind of person you described.

Certainly, creation stories were passed down, and Moses probably used these, but we have to keep in mind that God revealed himself to Moses as he had not done before him, giving him the Law and precepts that the people of Israel were to follow. Therefore, what is recorded in Genesis, and so on, is inspired of the Holy Spirit, and meant for our edification. That doesn’t mean the Creation as described in Genesis is easy to understand/interpret, it obviously is difficult, but probably not so much for those who lived at that time. It’s cast into mythological language, which tells about events in a certain style–one with which the people of the time were familiar. Mythology doesn’t necessarily concern itself with actual events as a form of storytelling, but it can, and in this case, it does.

It is in the first three exciting chapters of the Book of Genesis where the True Creation Story is presented. Would you have specific information about those special three beginning chapters of Sacred Scripture?

As for doctrinal issues being built on Genesis, it’s more that Genesis is a witness to the fall of man which Our Lord utilized to reveal more of the Father’s will to us, which he gave to his Apostles, and thus their successors, to teach to his universal Church.

As seagal cited, we amateur theologians aren’t very well equipped to parse doctrine based on our own thoughts re the Creation and Fall of Man as related in Genesis. All we need to know for our salvation regarding this issue the Church has taught us. The Catechism is the best resource for us lay people as to what we need to know. Anything we might come us with could only be our own speculations/opinions.

Doctrinal issues have been clarified by the major Ecumenical Church Councils.

One of the interesting sections of the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *is the Index of Citations, beginning on page 689. Coincidentally my favorite Genesis verses are there.

 

[simpleas]

I’m not entirely sure what you’re looking for. The only information we have is the story in Genesis. Since people didn’t start out with the means to write stuff down I imagine it was handed down over the generations by story telling over evening campfires. What is it that’s not clear about original sin? And what is it you think that a bunch of amateur theologians that hang out on these forums can come up with that the best thinkers in ages past haven’t?

I think it was the sumerian people who were the first to write on clay tablets, not sure if these same people were the ones who made clay figures as a means of communication, before written word.
The sumerian creation account is very similar to Genesis.

 

[grannymh]

There’s a great online course on Creation given by Dr. John Cavadini a professor of theology at ND called In God’s Image: The Mystery of Creation.

He really goes into Creation and Original sin. It blew me away and I’ll never dismiss Genesis as just a nice story again.

step.nd.edu/registration/complete-catalog/in-gods-image/

Thank you.

I went through the course descriptions which were interesting. I am very curious. Please. What did Week 4 teach about human and divine contact?

 

[Della]

If I can give someone a compliment, I do so. As for a talented author. Think how easy it is for us to google.

I’m not sure Moses would think of himself as an author who looked at the sky and decided to declare what he thought he saw there. He didn’t do that–he wrote what God inspired him to write. He hardly needs our appreciation of his writing skills.

It is in the first three exciting chapters of the Book of Genesis where the True Creation Story is presented. Would you have specific information about those special three beginning chapters of Sacred Scripture?

I never invited in depth discussion of the first three chapters of Genesis by what I wrote, so I have no idea what you want me to do here.

Doctrinal issues have been clarified by the major Ecumenical Church Councils.

Yeeeessss. So?

One of the interesting sections of the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *is the Index of Citations, beginning on page 689. Coincidentally my favorite Genesis verses are there.

That’s nice for you, but I can’t see what it has to do with your topic. Again, I’m baffled as to what you want us to discuss.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure Moses would think of himself as an author who looked at the sky and decided to declare what he thought he saw there. He didn’t do that–he wrote what God inspired him to write. He hardly needs our appreciation of his writing skills.

I never invited in depth discussion of the first three chapters of Genesis by what I wrote, so I have no idea what you want me to do here.

Yeeeessss. So?

That’s nice for you, but I can’t see what it has to do with your topic. Again, I’m baffled as to what you want us to discuss.

Moses would never look up at the sky and decide to declare what he thought he saw there. He would not bother with mythological language when there were literal historic events which needed preservation considering the various cultures surrounding the Hebrew Nation.

Genesis 1: 1 is flat out literal.
“In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth”

Genesis 1: 27 is flat out literal.
“God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.”
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

From post 1.
“I found myself still looking for additional solid information about the real stories of original obedience and original disobedience.”

Moses would give solid information when it comes to God’s relationship with His people. Correct? Moses would not tamper the necessary requirements for Original Sin. He was absolutely certain that there could only be One True God. Moses not only wrote what God inspired him to write, he mentally understood the literal key points which had to be included in his first three truth-filled chapters.

What would I like to discuss? Answer. The Sacred Scripture Moses uses which is in the first three fascinating chapters of Genesis. For example. I thought that someone in the Sacred Scripture Forum would naturally point out specific verses where Moses describes a human and divine relationship. This original relationship is necessary to understand the proper effects of Original Sin.

I am willing to wait for someone who is interested in the True Creation Story as revealed in Sacred Scripture’s beginning three chapters.

 

[Della]

Moses would never look up at the sky and decide to declare what he thought he saw there. He would not bother with mythological language when there were literal historic events which needed preservation considering the various cultures surrounding the Hebrew Nation.

You apparently skimmed over my post because I specifically mentioned that mythological language may be used to tell actual events since it is merely a storytelling method that has no connection to the veracity or lack of veracity of the story/event. The CCC says that figurative language was used: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/390.htm. I rest my case.

Genesis 1: 1 is flat out literal.
“In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth”

Genesis 1: 27 is flat out literal.
“God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.”
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

Um, no. It’s not literal, as you mean it. The Church interprets it the literal sense–but not everyone does.

From post 1.
“I found myself still looking for additional solid information about the real stories of original obedience and original disobedience.”

Moses would give solid information when it comes to God’s relationship with His people. Correct? Moses would not tamper the necessary requirements for Original Sin. He was absolutely certain that there could only be One True God. Moses not only wrote what God inspired him to write, he mentally understood the literal key points which had to be included in his first three truth-filled chapters.

What would I like to discuss? Answer. The Sacred Scripture Moses uses which is in the first three fascinating chapters of Genesis. For example. I thought that someone in the Sacred Scripture Forum would naturally point out specific verses where Moses describes a human and divine relationship. This original relationship is necessary to understand the proper effects of Original Sin.

I am willing to wait for someone who is interested in the True Creation Story as revealed in Sacred Scripture’s beginning three chapters.

My dear, you didn’t make it clear what you wanted to discuss, nor can you assume others will know what you expect. If you want people to cite verses that support some idea, then please say so. Better yet, why don’t you do that, then we’ll all know what it is you want.

 

[RetreatFan]

Why are we humans, who are not as strong as many animals, so different that we dominate all other creatures?

Because we are the only creatures that were created in the image and likeness of God. That is not a small thing. We are unique in all of Creation, and the Creator Himself commanded us to fill the Earth and subdue it. It is a Divine mandate.

Why do we humans have a longing, deep in our hearts, for something beyond our material world?

Because the Creator planted it there, precisely as a reminder that we were different from all other creatures, that man was the only creature that was called to live in Communion with Him.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not entirely sure what you’re looking for.

I am looking for people who are so comfortable with Sacred Scripture, especially the first thee outstanding chapters of Genesis, that they are willing to take the chance of finding something significant in regard to Catholic doctrines. These people are not intimidated by the human gloss of myths and allegories.

Explorers of Sacred Scripture, Genesis chapters 1,2 & 3, used to handle the questions like the given examples. Explorers of those Sacred three chapters would freely tackle the dawn of human history and the depth of Creation. Ordinary folk could freely read those chapters because they knew the Catholic doctrines involved and thus they could avoid mistakes. There is a kind of joyful pride when a connection between this verse and that verse is discovered.

I am looking for a conversation with someone who appreciates the marvels of God expressed in real words found in the first three chapters of Sacred Scripture.

 

[grannymh]

Why are we humans, who are not as strong as many animals, so different that we dominate all other creatures?

Because we are the only creatures that were created in the image and likeness of God. That is not a small thing.

Most likely you recognized the dramatic shift of Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27.

We are unique in all of Creation, and the Creator Himself commanded us to fill the Earth and subdue it. It is a Divine mandate.

I have to smile listening to God making sure that we got His message. Genesis 1: 28, Could there be other times that God was making sure we got His very serious message. Genesis 2:17.

What reasoning is behind these strong messages? Genesis 1: 27 demonstrates God’s deep love for us.

Why do we humans have a longing, deep in our hearts, for something beyond our material world?

Because the Creator planted it there, precisely as a reminder that we were different from all other creatures, that man was the only creature that was called to live in Communion with Him.

Excellent answer. Thank you.

And how did God plant that longing? We return to Genesis 1: 27.

When we study key Catholic truths, for example, intellective free choice, we find that Genesis 1: 27 is the base for that reality. Intellective free choice is also demonstrated in Genesis 2: 15-17. Can we say that Genesis 2: 15-17 demonstrates God’s love for us? We need to some more thinking about that.

 

[grannymh]

When we use real words like “God blessed them” found in the first three loving chapters of Genesis, we begin understanding the depth of God’s love in His real words warning, Genesis 2: 17. At this point, we need to have our guard up when those popular public writers teach that tampering the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in the beginning chapters is the way to unfolding happy peace.

At this point, we turn to the real teachings of the Catholic Church which continues to explain the original friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity. The real words “Where are you?” in Genesis 3: 9 alert the reader that there is a serious break in the original friendship relationship. Other readers may use Genesis 3: 1 as the red flag. We learn from both citations.

If the True Creation Story is about God’s love, then why did Original Sin happen? In my opinion, the key is the difference between before and after Genesis 1: 25. CCC 1730 is also very important. Discussions would advance other possibilities to explore. For example. There cannot be two equally all powerful primary gods at the same time. Only one primary god can be all powerful. This is why Adam needed to live in submission to his Creator. (CCC 396 & CCC 1730) In other words, there can only be one top dog.

This thread presents the opportunity to safely explore the dilemma of questions. The Catholic Church has our back.

Coincidentally, I need to be off the computer because of dumb problems which need solving or simply invest in a new computer. While the cat is away, the readers can play.

 

[thistle]

catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

 

[grannymh]

Useful Links for The True Creation Story

usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

 

[thistle]

Moses would never look up at the sky and decide to declare what he thought he saw there. He would not bother with mythological language when there were literal historic events which needed preservation considering the various cultures surrounding the Hebrew Nation.

Genesis 1: 1 is flat out literal.
“In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth”

Genesis 1: 27 is flat out literal.
“God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.”
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

From post 1.
“I found myself still looking for additional solid information about the real stories of original obedience and original disobedience.”

Moses would give solid information when it comes to God’s relationship with His people. Correct? Moses would not tamper the necessary requirements for Original Sin. He was absolutely certain that there could only be One True God. Moses not only wrote what God inspired him to write, he mentally understood the literal key points which had to be included in his first three truth-filled chapters.

What would I like to discuss? Answer. The Sacred Scripture Moses uses which is in the first three fascinating chapters of Genesis. For example. I thought that someone in the Sacred Scripture Forum would naturally point out specific verses where Moses describes a human and divine relationship. This original relationship is necessary to understand the proper effects of Original Sin.

I am willing to wait for someone who is interested in the True Creation Story as revealed in Sacred Scripture’s beginning three chapters.

Pope Benedict XVI appears to disagree with you on taking the first three chapters of Genesis as literal.

“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”

 

[simpleas]

catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

Thanks for this link.

I liked this particular quote :

Holy Scripture enables us to go a still further step if we again follow our basic rule – namely, that we must read the Old and New Testaments together and that only in the New is the deepest meaning of the Old to be found. In the New Testament Christ is referred to as the second Adam, as the definitive Adam, and as the image of God (cf. 1 Cor 15:44-48; Col 1:15). This means that in him alone appears the complete answer to the question about what the human being is. In him alone appears the deepest meaning of what is for the present a rough draft. He is the definitive human being, and creation is, as it were, a preliminary sketch that points to him. Thus we can say that human persons are the beings who can be Jesus Christ’s brothers or sisters. Human beings are the creatures that can be one with Christ and thereby be one with God himself.

Hence this relationship of creature to Christ, of the first to the second Adam, signifies that human persons are beings en route, beings characterized by transition. They are not yet themselves; they must ultimately become themselves. Here in the midst of our thoughts on creation there suddenly appears the Easter mystery, the mystery of the grain of wheat that has died. Human beings must die with Christ like a grain of wheat in order truly to rise, to stand erect, to be themselves (cf. John 12:24). Human persons are not to be understood merely from the perspective of their past histories or from that isolated moment that we refer to as the present. They are oriented toward their future, and only it permits who they really are to appear completely (1 John 3:2).

 

[RetreatFan]

And how did God plant that longing? We return to Genesis 1: 27.

Sure, but I would point specifically to Genesis 2:7, when God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life as the point when that longing for communion was planted. Man doesn’t become aware of it, though, until he names the animals and still doesn’t find a suitable helper. Before creating the suitable helper God purposely has him name the animals so man can realize he was alone in the universe as a human person. That moment of original solitude, when man’s consciousness helps him realize he’s different from all the other creatures is the source of our longing for happiness, love and union that can only be fulfilled by our communion with God. Unfortunately because of original sin that ache and longing has been misdirected towards all kinds of earthly idols that hold the promise of a happiness that never comes, because our longing for the infinite cannot be fulfilled by anything finite. Welcome to the history of man after sin…