The True Creation Story

[grannymh]

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

So sorry that I must have confused you.

Being older than dirt, I belong to the dead generation who learned the literal truth of Divine Revelation (in the first three astounding chapters of Genesis) as properly defined and duly declared Catholic doctrines in major Ecumenical Church Councils guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit before I read the first three inviting chapters of Sacred Scripture.

Help me out here.

Which Catholic doctrine are you referring to when I denied its literal truth? Or which Scripture verse did I deny having a connection to the foundation of Catholicism. Our universal Catechism has a handy list of relevant Scripture references beginning with Genesis 1:1

 

[grannymh]

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.

With Genesis 1:27 as the general creation or formation of human nature, then Genesis 2:7 is God’s hands-on interaction with each person. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the two accounts.

My imagination has me thinking that our decomposing anatomy is definitely in the material world. God looks at the beautiful person being conceived and out of love, God brings this person into His spiritual world. With His own breath, God immediately gives the spiritual soul.

Man doesn’t become aware of it, though, until he names the animals and still doesn’t find a suitable helper.

My position is that Adam, because of his rational spiritual soul, knew what was at stake when he scorned his Creator. There is definitely communion, that is, a friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity from the beginning. God makes sure that Adam’s anatomy is nourished in Genesis 2:15, and that there is a handy river watering the garden. Genesis 2:10

“longing for communion was planted” at Genesis 2:7, but not being aware of it, in my opinion, needs some further information. Maybe a break for breakfast will help. Maybe the answer does not have to be a specific quote but rather what the verses are teaching. A bowl of cereal is calling me. I will return.

Quick P.S. Maybe longing for communion with God is something unique and not like my longing for spring.
:snowing:

 

[RetreatFan]

Surely when God said “It’s not good for man to be alone, I will make a help suitable for him” He knew exactly what He had in mind, but He doesn’t create woman right away, He first creates the animals and tells man to name them. Why? Precisely so that man could first know and realize he was alone in the universe as a person, and that his first love must always be God. That is what JPII called Original Solitude, that longing for God at the heart of all of us that only man is capable of. Then, only after man had come to know his ultimate calling (union with God) does He give him the suitable help He promised, someone with whom man can truly become His image and likeness in this world, another person with whom man could mirror the communion of love and life that is the essence of the triune God.

 

[cfauster]

catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

Indeed, Ratzinger has a lot of wisdom for us there.

Others have given wonderful excerpts in this thread already today. Here is another:

“… the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time – from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world.”

 

[grannymh]

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…

I am still at Genesis 2:7 as the point when that longing for communion with God was planted.

Our Catholic teaching is that Adam and Eve are created in the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. Therefore, they are immediately in union with God. (CCC IV. Man in Paradise, paragraphs 374-375)

My suggestion is that Genesis 2:7 describes the complete creation of Adam as the first parent of humankind. As a result of Adam’s disobedience, human nature is wounded and thus it is deprived of State of Original Holiness.

Gentle Readers,

Please note that I have made up the following proposal. It is straight from my imagination. My proposal is that at the same time that God gives Himself in breath so that Adam shares in His life, He knows that Adam and some of his descendants will reject His friendship. Human nature will be wounded and we all know the sad effects.

Adam’s human nature is immediately complete. He is immediately in communion
with his Creator and he also knows exactly what he must do to keep that relationship. Has anyone had a memory which was so part of one’s life that we know we will never forget that memory because it is part of our bones? Could the longing for communion with God be part of our bones? Even when we are in deep love with God, there is something within us which longs for more. Can we imagine that when God completed Adam, He planted a kiss on his heart?

 

[seagal]

So far I don’t see any thinking that hasn’t been thunk before.

 

[grannymh]

Surely when God said “It’s not good for man to be alone, I will make a help suitable for him” He knew exactly what He had in mind, but He doesn’t create woman right away, He first creates the animals and tells man to name them. Why? Precisely so that man could first know and realize he was alone in the universe as a person, and that his first love must always be God. That is what JPII called Original Solitude, that longing for God at the heart of all of us that only man is capable of. Then, only after man had come to know his ultimate calling (union with God) does He give him the suitable help He promised, someone with whom man can truly become His image and likeness in this world, another person with whom man could mirror the communion of love and life that is the essence of the triune God.

For me, this is a new way of approaching the “naming of the animals.” I see your presentation as complimentary. I also see your words as very informative. I also see that my mind will have lots work to do.

 

[cfauster]

I think JPII’s concept of Original Solitude, like lots in his Theology of the Body, is very wise and helpful.

In a previous thread the matter of animals being created before Eve, and Eve being made from Adam’s rib/side while he slept, was addressed.

JPII had this to say:

“Perhaps, therefore, the analogy of sleep indicates here not so much a passing from consciousness to subconsciousness, as a specific return to non-being (sleep contains an element of annihilation of man’s conscious existence). That is, it indicates a return to the moment preceding the creation, that through God’s creative initiative, solitary “man” may emerge from it again in his double unity as male and female … The woman is made “with the rib” that God-Yahweh had taken from the man. Considering the archaic, metaphorical and figurative way of expressing the thought, we can establish that it is a question here of homogeneity of the whole being of both. This homogeneity concerns above all the body, the somatic structure. It is also confirmed by the man’s first words to the woman who has been created: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2:23). Yet the words quoted refer also to the humanity of the male. They must be read in the context of the affirmations made before the creation of the woman, in which, although the “incarnation” of the man does not yet exist, she is defined as “a helper fit for him” (cf. Gn 2:18 and 2:20). In this way, therefore, the woman is created, in a sense, on the basis of the same humanity.”

 

[goout]

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 is not held by the Catholic Church to be literalist documentation of events, journalism style.
I know of no Catholic scholar who holds this view. Maybe someone else does.

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

The prime sense of scripture is literal. All of it. But it is not literalist.
Do you believe that the author of Genesis was standing there documenting the creation of the universe?

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

A profound theological Truth. Not a work of journalism.

 

[goout]

I think JPII’s concept of Original Solitude, like lots in his Theology of the Body, is very wise and helpful.

In a previous thread the matter of animals being created before Eve, and Eve being made from Adam’s rib/side while he slept, was addressed.

JPII had this to say:

“Perhaps, therefore, the analogy of sleep indicates here not so much a passing from consciousness to subconsciousness, as a specific return to non-being (sleep contains an element of annihilation of man’s conscious existence). That is, it indicates a return to the moment preceding the creation, that through God’s creative initiative, solitary “man” may emerge from it again in his double unity as male and female … The woman is made “with the rib” that God-Yahweh had taken from the man. Considering the archaic, metaphorical and figurative way of expressing the thought, we can establish that it is a question here of homogeneity of the whole being of both. This homogeneity concerns above all the body, the somatic structure. It is also confirmed by the man’s first words to the woman who has been created: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2:23). Yet the words quoted refer also to the humanity of the male. They must be read in the context of the affirmations made before the creation of the woman, in which, although the “incarnation” of the man does not yet exist, she is defined as “a helper fit for him” (cf. Gn 2:18 and 2:20). In this way, therefore, the woman is created, in a sense, on the basis of the same humanity.”

I encourage others to read TOB also. It is a hard read, but the point of it is not to understand the philosophical and theological minutiae, **but to understand how a world class Catholic philosopher and Pope reads scripture. ** It is a good model for the rest of us. JP2 is about as far from literalist fundamentalism as you can get.

 

[goout]

Indeed, Ratzinger has a lot of wisdom for us there.

Others have given wonderful excerpts in this thread already today. Here is another:

“… the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time – from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world.”

This should be a sticky at the top of this forum.

 

[grannymh]

Genesis is not held by the Catholic Church to be literalist documentation of events, journalism style.
I know of no Catholic scholar who holds this view. Maybe someone else does.

Genesis is a book with 50 chapters. Is there a specific Catholic doctrine which worries you?

 

[cfauster]

Genesis is a book with 50 chapters. Is there a specific Catholic doctrine which worries you?

Why do you ask such a question?

What in the post from goout suggests that any specific doctrine worries goout?

 

[grannymh]

Why do you ask such a question?

What in the post from goout suggests that any specific doctrine worries goout?

Please take a look at my post count. I posted a lot of posts which means I have had to read a lot of posts in order to do that. I do not look at posts with blind ears.

One of the signals that there is a problem with a Catholic doctrine are these very popular words: “is not held by the Catholic Church”. Another signal would be “missing information”. Context often has its own signal. A rather recent signal is the “tamper concept.”

 

[goout]

Genesis is a book with 50 chapters. Is there a specific Catholic doctrine which worries you?

Can you be more specific? I am aware that Genesis has many chapters. My response was addressing your post.
Please be specific.

 

[cfauster]

Please take a look at my post count. I posted a lot of posts which means I have had to read a lot of posts in order to do that. I do not look at posts with blind ears.

One of the signals that there is a problem with a Catholic doctrine are these very popular words: “is not held by the Catholic Church”. Another signal would be “missing information”. Context often has its own signal. A rather recent signal is the “tamper concept.”

Indeed.

For example, here is a post in which you stated your concern quite clearly, including this:

“In my humble opinion, one of the major reasons that the first three chapters of Genesis are not important in modern life is because “figurative language” is an easy tool that can be used to validate a variety of personal interpretations such as the disappearance denial of the first living example of the human species.”

I guess all I’m saying, grannymh, is that not everyone acknowledging the figurative language in Genesis is bent on exploiting it as a tool to deny Catholic doctrines. Certainly JPII and Benedict XVI were not, in their words recently quoted in this thread.

Well, all I’m suggesting is that many other Catholics likewise may be completely faithful to Catholic doctrines - including the doctrine that Adam was historical and the first true human - and yet recognize figurative language. Multiple posts are compelled to mention this figurative-language matter merely to counter apparent denial that figurative language exists in Genesis. Your own definition of literal precludes figurative. In this and other threads you often insist that the first three chapters of Genesis should be read literally rather than figuratively.

I realize that you are protecting important doctrines. And yes, some people do exploit figurative language to deny important doctrines. But not everyone does!

 

[grannymh]

Adam is the real first living human person who committed a proper Original Sin. Adam and his spouse Eve, who is the second real living human person, are the sole founders of humankind.

 

[grannymh]

Indeed.

For example, here is a post in which you stated your concern quite clearly, including this:

“In my humble opinion, one of the major reasons that the first three chapters of Genesis are not important in modern life is because “figurative language” is an easy tool that can be used to validate a variety of personal interpretations such as the disappearance denial of the first living example of the human species.”

I guess all I’m saying, grannymh, is that not everyone acknowledging the figurative language in Genesis is bent on exploiting it as a tool to deny Catholic doctrines. Certainly JPII and Benedict XVI were not, in their words recently quoted in this thread.

Well, all I’m suggesting is that many other Catholics likewise may be completely faithful to Catholic doctrines - including the doctrine that Adam was historical and the first true human - and yet recognize figurative language. Multiple posts are compelled to mention this figurative-language matter merely to counter apparent denial that figurative language exists in Genesis. Your own definition of literal precludes figurative. In this and other threads you often insist that the first three chapters of Genesis should be read literally rather than figuratively.

I realize that you are protecting important doctrines. And yes, some people do exploit figurative language to deny important doctrines. But not everyone does!

Wow!

It looks like I need to go back to Square One. Square One is when I learned on CAF that Adam and Eve did not exist.

 

[cfauster]

IMO, you don’t need to repeat your shock and dismay at reading - first long ago, and probably multiple times since - someone on CAF claiming that Adam and Eve did not exist, grannymh. You’ve recounted it many times . I realize it was very motivating of your desire to correct that error.

Again, my simple point is that not everyone acknowledging the presence of figurative language in the first three chapters of Genesis denies that Adam and Eve existed !!!

When I’ve seen you acknowledge figurative language it’s a very limited kind. You’ve used examples such as “raining cats and dogs.” Of course, everyone knows that should not be taken literally. As far as the first three chapters of Genesis, I think you have acknowledged that the serpent in Genesis 3 might be used figuratively to represent Satan, though please correct me if I’m wrong on that.

The quotations from JPII and Benedict XVI provide a relatively full and very helpful sense of how the first three chapters of Genesis use figurative language. It goes beyond the “raining cats and dogs” level.

 

[grannymh]

Can you be more specific? I am aware that Genesis has many chapters. My response was addressing your post.
Please be specific.

Specifically.

When I landed on CAF, I learned that Adam and Eve did not exist. Currently, I am following Catholic teachings when it comes to the True Creation Story. This is a free speech public message board.