The True Creation Story

[Michael_Mayo]

I like the word commentary on the Bible from this site but I do not know the actual source.

bible.org/download/netbible/ondemand/bybook/gen.pdf

 

[grannymh]

I like the word commentary on the Bible from this site but I do not know the actual source.

bible.org/download/netbible/ondemand/bybook/gen.pdf

Thank you.

I had to skim it because a lot of grammar, while very interesting, is beyond me. Nonetheless, I am sure that there are readers who are interested in this approach. On the other hand, the way some words are used was very informative.

This following information is important to me because I have seen a wrong interpretation of Genesis 1: 26. Similar to the below information, I have seen the “authoritative we” as an explanation.

*"2sn God. *This frequently used Hebrew name

for God אֱלֹהִים) ,’elohim)
is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”

Personally, I look at the way some action or some person is described according to the interpretation found in Catholic doctrines. Since not all the verses in the first three necessary chapters of Sacred Scripture do not automatically become Catholic doctrines, there is a lot that can be discussed.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you.

I had to skim it because a lot of grammar, while very interesting, is beyond me. Nonetheless, I am sure that there are readers who are interested in this approach. On the other hand, the way some words are used was very informative.

This following information is important to me because I have seen a wrong interpretation of Genesis 1: 26. Similar to the below information, I have seen the “authoritative we” as an explanation.

*"2sn God. *This frequently used Hebrew name

for God אֱלֹהִים) ,’elohim)
is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”
Personally, I look at the way some action or some person is described according to the interpretation found in Catholic doctrines. Since not all the verses in the first three necessary chapters of Sacred Scripture do not automatically become Catholic doctrines, there is a lot that can be discussed.

Correction to last sentence in post 119…
Because all the verses in the first three necessary chapters of Sacred Scripture do not automatically become Catholic doctrines, there is a lot that can be discussed.

To learn which verses are important in some way to Catholic teachings, please go to the CCC “Index of Citations” beginning on page 689. Also, check footnotes.

These two CCC paragraphs provide important information about the universal Catechism.

CCC **20 **The use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.

CCC 21 The quotations, also in small print, from patristic, liturgical, magisterial or hagiographical sources, are intended to enrich the doctrinal presentations. These texts have often been chosen with a view to direct catechetical use.

 

[grannymh]

Oh! So… you’re admitting that this account is an allegory? Great!

Before I start a reply, I struggle with the following question regarding allegory as an explanation for a serious doctrine of the Catholic Church. Then, I wonder why is an allegory needed.

If the first three chapters of Genesis are an allegory for Catholic truths, does the allegory itself have to be completely true? A popular allegory is described in posts 116 & 117.

 

[Vico]

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.

Genesis 3 (Knox translation)
15 And I will establish a feud between thee and the woman, between thy offspring and hers; she is to crush thy head, while thou dost lie in ambush at her heels.[2]

[2] For ‘she’ and ‘her’ the Septuagint Greek has ‘he’ and ‘his’; the Hebrew text also, as it has come down to us, gives ‘he’, or perhaps ‘it’. But most manuscripts of the Latin version have ‘she’, which plainly gives a better balance to the sentence. That the reference of this passage, in any case, is to the Incarnation, is the general opinion of the Fathers. The Latin here assumes that there is a play upon words in the original, since there are two Hebrew verbs closely alike, one of which means ‘to crush’, and the other ‘to follow eagerly’. But the Hebrew text has ‘to crush’ in both clauses; the Septuagint Greek, in both clauses, has ‘to lie in wait’.

Emphasized by St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 38):

XII. This being He placed in Paradise, whatever the Paradise may have been, having honoured him with the gift of Free Will (in order that God might belong to him as the result of his choice, no less than to Him who had implanted the seeds of it), to till the immortal plants, by which is meant perhaps the Divine Conceptions, both the simpler and the more perfect; naked in his simplicity and inartificial life, and without any covering or screen; for it was fitting that he who was from the beginning should be such. Also He gave him a Law, as a material for his Free Will to act upon. This Law was a Commandment as to what plants he might partake of, and which one he might not touch. This latter was the Tree of Knowledge; not, however, because it was evil from the beginning when planted; nor was it forbidden because God grudged it to us…Let not the enemies of God wag their tongues in that direction, or imitate the Serpent…But it would have been good if partaken of at the proper time, for the tree was, according to my theory, Contemplation, upon which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter; but which is not good for those who are still somewhat simple and greedy in their habit; just as solid food is not good for those who are yet tender, and have need of milk. Hebrews 5:12 But when through the Devil’s malice and the woman’s caprice, to which she succumbed as the more tender, and which she brought to bear upon the man, as she was the more apt to persuade, alas for my weakness! (for that of my first father was mine), he forgot the Commandment which had been given to him; Genesis 3:5 he yielded to the baleful fruit; and for his sin he was banished, at once from the Tree of Life, and from Paradise, and from God; and put on the coats of skins…that is, perhaps, the coarser flesh, both mortal and contradictory. This was the first thing that he learned— his own shame; Romans 1:22-31 and he hid himself from God. Yet here too he makes a gain, namely death, and the cutting off of sin, in order that evil may not be immortal. Thus his punishment is changed into a mercy; for it is in mercy, I am persuaded, that God inflicts punishment.

newadvent.org/fathers/310238.htm

 

[grannymh]

Oh! So… you’re admitting that this account is an allegory? Great!

I give up.

I belong to the dead generation who learned basic fundamental Catholic doctrines without the benefit of the “allegorical” first three event-filled chapters of Genesis. And I still do not need the “allegory” method in order to understand Original Sin or the necessity of a Divine Reconciler clearly presented in the first three amazing chapters of Sacred Scripture. The danger of today’s “allegory” approach is that anyone can choose their own interpretation of plain facts. The result is seen on CAF where basic Adam and the obvious Original Sin is hard to defend. The popular, thanks to the media, interpretation of “allegorical” Genesis in posts 116 & 117 has never been challenged correctly no matter when I posted it since 2011. I hope that interested persons will turn to the Catholic Church for the correct reading of the first three inspired chapters of Genesis. In my humble opinion, I cannot be a part of the allegorical approach which to me only produces clouds.

 

[Rau]

…The danger of today’s “allegory” approach is that anyone can choose their own interpretation of plain facts… In my humble opinion, I cannot be a part of the allegorical approach which to me only produces clouds.

Yes, that could be a risk. The other “risk” is that one’s attention could be drawn to what is being conveyed through the scripture, as opposed to thinking that each literary device (eg. a talking snake) must be accepted as factual event, rather than what it is - a literary device.

Accepting literary devices and the presence of an allegorical form need not diminish the Catholic doctrines you’ve expressed.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, that could be a risk. The other “risk” is that one’s attention could be drawn to what is being conveyed through the scripture, as opposed to thinking that each literary device (eg. a talking snake) must be accepted as factual event, rather than what it is - a literary device.

Accepting literary devices and the presence of an allegorical form need not diminish the Catholic doctrines you’ve expressed.

And, please, what are the real non-diminished Catholic Church doctrines expressed by the allegorical form? Chapter and verse citation is needed.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

And, please, what are the real non-diminished Catholic Church doctrines expressed by the allegorical form? Chapter and verse citation is needed.

What I see is that God created a good creation in an orderly way including humans. Humans made and continue to make conscious choices that alienate them from God.

“How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation-flood story.”
usccb.org/bible/genesis/0

And

“We must remember that Genesis was not meant to be a scientific explanation of how creation occurred. The first three chapters of Genesis which address creation, the fall of man, and the promise of salvation do not pretend to be a text of physics or biology which provides a scientific understanding of mankind and the world. Rather, the Genesis account of creation is a work of theology which focuses on the who, why, and what of creation. Writing centuries before the birth of our Lord, the inspired sacred authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit wove a story to capture truths of God and His creation. Since Abraham lived approximately 1850 BC, the stories of Genesis were probably preserved orally for centuries before ever being produced in written form.”

catholicstraightanswers.com/how-do-catholics-understand-the-creation-account-of-genesis-and-evolution/

 

[grannymh]

What I see is that God created a good creation in an orderly way including humans. Humans made and continue to make conscious choices that alienate them from God.

Thank you.

Please. Name chapter and verse from the first three sacred chapters of Genesis in order to substantiate your claims which are basically valid. Still, they cannot stand alone which may omit some important chapter and verse facts.

“How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11? The stories are neither history nor myth. “Myth” is an unsuitable term, for it has several different meanings and connotes untruth in popular English. “History” is equally misleading, for it suggests that the events actually took place. The best term is creation-flood story.”
usccb.org/bible/genesis/0

Please, it is important to name chapter and verse from the first three sacred chapters of Genesis which refer to God so that we can have some kind of Catholic foundation for the “creation-flood” story. When reading the first three sacred chapters of Genesis, I find God being present at real events which actually take place at the dawn of human history according to the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.

And

"We must remember that Genesis was not meant to be a scientific explanation of how creation occurred. The first three chapters of Genesis which address creation, the fall of man, and the promise of salvation do not pretend to be a text of physics or biology which provides a scientific understanding of mankind and the world.

Please note I am concerned with the Catholic doctrines which have a foundation in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1: 27 are sufficient when it comes to the material world of physics, biology, etc., including both the universe and the human decomposing anatomy.

Rather, the Genesis account of creation is a work of theology which focuses on the who, why, and what of creation.

Please. Name chapter and verse from the first three sacred chapters of Genesis which refer directly to theology. Genesis 1:1 is a start. Genesis 2:15-17 can be used because it highlights the Divinity of God.

Writing centuries before the birth of our Lord, the inspired sacred authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit wove a story to capture truths of God and His creation.

Please name at least some of the many Catholic truths of God and His creation along with the chapter and verse citation. Note that these truths are in both the material world and spiritual world. CCC 355-358 and CCC 1730-1732 may be useful when it comes to a complete understanding of mankind and the world.

Since Abraham lived approximately 1850 BC, the stories of Genesis were probably preserved orally for centuries before ever being produced in written form."

That is a reasonable approach considering the influence of the current surrounding cultures. A written document became necessary.
catholicstraightanswers.com/how-do-catholics-understand-the-creation-account-of-genesis-and-evolution/

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Sorry, Grannymh, but I am not interested in correlating the verses of the first three chapters of Genesis to Catholic teaching right now. i think the links I provided did that.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, Grannymh, but I am not interested in correlating the verses of the first three chapters of Genesis to Catholic teaching right now. i think the links I provided did that.

I only asked for the citations, chapter and verse.

As far as I can tell, the old-time method of learning all the Catholic doctrines relevant to the first three sacred chapters of Genesis is dying. Thus, it is understandable that today CAF participants would not relish taking the huge amount of personal time correlating a specific real chapter and verse to the real Catholic teachings especially when the real Catholic teachings are being messed up.

Small insignificant comment about the creation-flood story. I do not do Noah!

Blessings for your search for truth.
granny

 

[Vico]

And, please, what are the real non-diminished Catholic Church doctrines expressed by the allegorical form? Chapter and verse citation is needed.

I ran out of time or I would post more, but here are references to pick through:

• All that exists outside God was, in its whole sub stance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) Gn. 1:1
• The world is the work of the Divine Wisdom. (Sent. certa.) Gn.1:26
• The world had a beginning in time. (De fide.) Gn. 1:1
• The first man was created by God (De fide.) Gn. 1:27, 2:7, 2:22 (woman)
• The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.) Gn. 2:5, 3:20
• Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.) Gn. 15:8, 15:15, 37:35, 47:9
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.) Gn. 1:26, 2:7
• The supernatural endowment of the first parents:
• a) The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sen.fidei proxima.) Gn. 2:25, 3:7, 3:10
• b) The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.) Gn. 2:27
• c) The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.) Gn. 3:16
• d) The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.) Gn. 2:20, 2:23 et seq.
• Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.) Gn. 2:17, 3:1 et seq.
• Through sin our First Parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.) Gn. 3:10, 23, Gn. 3:16 et seq.
• Our First Parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) Gn. 3:15 et. seq.
• In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing. (De fide.) Gn. 3:24; 16:7 et seq.; 19:1 et seq.; 18:2 et seq.; 22:11 et seq.; 24:7; 28:12; 32:1 et seq.
• The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation. (De fide on the ground of general teaching.) Gn. 24:7
• The Devil possesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin. (De fide.) Gn. 3:1 et seq., 4:1 et seq.
• Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary. (De fide.) Gn. 22:18
• Mary was conceived without stain of original sin. (De fide.) Gn.3:15
• By intercessory prayer the Faithful on earth can procure gifts from God for one another. (Sent. certa.) Gn. 18:23 et seq.
• All temporal punishments for sin are not always remitted by God with the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment. (De fide.) Gn. 3:16 et seq.
• Marriage was not instituted by man, but by God. (Sent. certa.) Gn. 1:27, 1:28
• The primary purpose of Marriage is the generation ana bringing…up of offspring. The secondary purpose is mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge. (Sent. certa.) Gn. 1:28, 2:18
• The essential properties of Marriage are unity (monogamy) an indissolubility. (Sent. cuta.) Gn 1:28, 2:24
• In the present order of salvation death is a punishment for sin. (De fide.) Gn. 2:17
• The Immediate Vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural. (De fide.) Gn 1:25 et seq.

Ref: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott.

 

[grannymh]

I ran out of time or I would post more, but here are references to pick through:

• All that exists outside God was, in its whole sub stance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) Gn. 1:1
• The world is the work of the Divine Wisdom. (Sent. certa.) Gn.1:26
• The world had a beginning in time. (De fide.) Gn. 1:1
• The first man was created by God (De fide.) Gn. 1:27, 2:7, 2:22 (woman)
• The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.) Gn. 2:5, 3:20
• Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.) Gn. 15:8, 15:15, 37:35, 47:9
• Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.) Gn. 1:26, 2:7
• The supernatural endowment of the first parents:
• a) The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sen.fidei proxima.) Gn. 2:25, 3:7, 3:10
• b) The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.) Gn. 2:27
• c) The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.) Gn. 3:16
• d) The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.) Gn. 2:20, 2:23 et seq.
• Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.) Gn. 2:17, 3:1 et seq.
• Through sin our First Parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.) Gn. 3:10, 23, Gn. 3:16 et seq.
• Our First Parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) Gn. 3:15 et. seq.
• In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing. (De fide.) Gn. 3:24; 16:7 et seq.; 19:1 et seq.; 18:2 et seq.; 22:11 et seq.; 24:7; 28:12; 32:1 et seq.
• The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation. (De fide on the ground of general teaching.) Gn. 24:7
• The Devil possesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam’s sin. (De fide.) Gn. 3:1 et seq., 4:1 et seq.
• Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary. (De fide.) Gn. 22:18
• Mary was conceived without stain of original sin. (De fide.) Gn.3:15
• By intercessory prayer the Faithful on earth can procure gifts from God for one another. (Sent. certa.) Gn. 18:23 et seq.
• All temporal punishments for sin are not always remitted by God with the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment. (De fide.) Gn. 3:16 et seq.
• Marriage was not instituted by man, but by God. (Sent. certa.) Gn. 1:27, 1:28
• The primary purpose of Marriage is the generation ana bringing…up of offspring. The secondary purpose is mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge. (Sent. certa.) Gn. 1:28, 2:18
• The essential properties of Marriage are unity (monogamy) an indissolubility. (Sent. cuta.) Gn 1:28, 2:24
• In the present order of salvation death is a punishment for sin. (De fide.) Gn. 2:17
• The Immediate Vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural. (De fide.) Gn 1:25 et seq.

Ref: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott.

Because of the length of this valuable list, I ran out of character space. Thus, my reply will be in a separate post 132.

 

[grannymh]

Reply to post 131.

Has anyone ever known some Catholic truths for ages? Then someone lists those truths and suddenly there is a new dimension which should be explored.

Please take a look at these two items from post 131.
· The first man was created by God (De fide.) Gn. 1:27, 2:7, 2:22 (woman)
· The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.) Gn. 2:5, 3:20

To complicate my reaction to this post by Vico, here is my public observation of my years on CAF.
“I landed on CAF before the ban on evolution discussion. The Catholics at that time were being intimidated by the evolution folks. With the subsequent evolution discussion ban currently gone, intimidation is no longer an issue because Catholics are now working to put the Evolution Model into Catholicism.”

In addition, I currently consider the attacks on the first three sacred chapters of Genesis as shooting fish in a barrel.

Thank you, Vico. There are items on the list that are currently lost because of the strength and popularity of the Science of Human Evolution. Definitely, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Thus, I need time to work through my thoughts. Getting to the truth of The True Creation Story is not easy.

Vico, if you and others are concerned about the weakening of these two items and probably other items, please continue exploring the possible connection to the disappearing emphasis on the dawn of human history as told in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis. I may have to take a break so I can step back and explore.

 

[Vico]

…

Surely a reference to the Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909 is allowable, which is about excluding the literal historical sense, and allowing for allegorical and prophetical interpretation, and the need to use the literal and historical sense.

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma
patristica.net/denzinger/#n2100

2121 Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation?

–Reply: In the negative.

2122 Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, * because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, * because of the manifold testimony of the Old and of the New Testaments; * because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and * because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held,
[1]it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth;

[2]but are

• either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism;
• or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths;
• or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls?

–Reply: In the negative to both parts.

2123 Question 111: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?

–Reply: In the negative.

2124 Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved?

–Reply: In the affirmative.

2125 Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment?

–Reply: In the negative.

2126 Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied?

–Reply: In the affirmative.

2127 Question VII:

Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give to his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these?

–Reply: In the negative.

2128 Question VIII:

Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?

–Reply: In the affirmative.

 

[grannymh]

Surely a reference to the Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909 is allowable, which is about excluding the literal historical sense, and allowing for allegorical and prophetical interpretation, and the need to use the literal and historical sense.

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma
patristica.net/denzinger/#n2100
2121 Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation?

–Reply: In the negative.

2122 Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose,

• because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters,
• because of the manifold testimony of the Old and of the New Testaments;
• because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and
• because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held,

[1]it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth;

[2]but are

• either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism;
• or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths;
• or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls?

–Reply: In the negative to both parts.

2123 Question 111: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?

–Reply: In the negative.

2124 Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved?

–Reply: In the affirmative.

2125 Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment?

–Reply: In the negative.

2126 Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied?

–Reply: In the affirmative.

2127 Question VII:

Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give to his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these?

–Reply: In the negative.

2128 Question VIII:

Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?

–Reply: In the affirmative.

Thank you for your research.

Question 2123 caught my eye because it lists fundamental doctrines. It is my understanding that doctrines defined by the major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils, guided by the promised Holy Spirit, cannot be questioned as if they may not have truth.

2123 Question 111: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?

–Reply: In the negative.

 

[grannymh]

From the link in post 133. Thank you.

2105 In explaining all this doctrine of the modernists, Venerable Brethren, We shall seem to some, by chance, to have delayed too long. Yet it was quite necessary to do so, both that, as is customary, We might not be charged by them with ignorance of their tenets, and that it might be clear that when it is a question of modernism we are dealing not with scattered teachings in no way connected with one another, but with a single and compact body, as it were, in which, if you admit one thing, the rest necessarily follows. Thus we have made use of what amounts to didactic reasoning, and sometimes we have not rejected the atrocious words which the modernists have employed.

Now as we look back upon the whole system in one glance, as it were, no one will be surprised when we define it as the synthesis of all heresies. Surely, if anyone had proposed this to himself, to bring together into one the sap and blood of all the errors that have ever existed about the faith, no one would have performed the task more completely than the modernists have done it. Rather they have gone so much beyond this as not only to destroy completely the Catholic religion, but all religion, as We have already intimated. Hence, the applause of the rationalists; for this reason do those among the rationalists who speak more freely and openly congratulate themselves on having found no more efficacious allies than the modernists.

Personally, I have trouble with “church-speak”, that is, the method of sharing truth can be beyond me and I long for a simpler way of speaking the truth. However, I do recognize the scary issue in these two sentences quoted below. They remind me of what is happening today where good people think that improvement of Christianity will come by tearing down the Catholic Church from inside it and then rebuilding it so that it fits today. One popular writer/speaker wants to rebuild Christianity from the bottom up by getting rid of the unfortunate first three chapters of unnecessary stuff like Original Sin. What is scary to me is that if one returned to the old heresies – would that destroy the foundation of Catholicism so that the entire structure will crumble. Personally, I believe that we need to hang on to the first three important chapters in Genesis.

Quote from 2015 at the top of this post.
“Now as we look back upon the whole system in one glance, as it were, no one will be surprised when we define it as the synthesis of all heresies. Surely, if anyone had proposed this to himself, to bring together into one the sap and blood of all the errors that have ever existed about the faith, no one would have performed the task more completely than the modernists have done it.”

 

[PJM]

Before I start a reply, I struggle with the following question regarding allegory as an explanation for a serious doctrine of the Catholic Church. Then, I wonder why is an allegory needed.

If the first three chapters of Genesis are an allegory for Catholic truths, does the allegory itself have to be completely true? A popular allegory is described in posts 116 & 117.

Hi Granny, I hesitate to jump in on a string your active on as you are so very well informed.

But for the sake of others and dialog on this issue I will share the following.

Parts of the story of creation are indeed allegory; what is NOT is:

GOD is the CREATOR of all of the Universe and certainly of ALL living things
GOD is the “author” {source} of life and death. either by His Divine Will or by His Divine Providence and permission. God can permit evil; BUT God cannot CAUSE evil.

Adam & Eve ARE OUR first parents, though their names could be different than Adam & Eve

GOD created the Universe by His Divine Will though WILLING each component into existence, so He’s not what we might call a “Blue-Collar-worker”

Hence the “7 days” could have been “7 seconds” or 70,000 years. Time does not exist for God; everything is present-time to Him. & his gang of “bad-angels”

Original Sin stems not from simply "eating an apple"

Indeed it could have been ANY kind of fruit tree [not relevant]
The thing WE need to know is that because God had literally provided a “perfect” existence for them; with no REAL wants that already provided for them, so that ONLY thing lacking was the the same temptation of Lucifer & his gang of Bad -angels"…

Similar to Adam and Eve the Angels are gifted with a mind, intellect, freewill and Soul; which for this conversation we can describe and the very source of “life-itself”. BUT there God-gifted attributes were and ARE even closer to God’s than our humanities {Gen 1:26-27} …So those given more are judged more severely {Mt 13:12}

This reality factors in GREATLY on God’s NECESSARY “Just Judgment” {because of His Divine Nature} in rightly knowing the severity of their sin. Having given them everything, every want, and certainly more than every NEED, they still freely choose to DISOBEY the ONE thing denied them as a TEST. A TEST that they freely choose to fail; choosing as did Satan himself, that same ONE thing the angels lack: actually being GOD

DOUAY BIBLE

**Gen 3:2-5 **“[2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil”

So the Original sin was not truly “original” as the fallen angels made the same choice. But it was the Original failing of humanity and God in relationship to ALL that had been gifted to them. We exist as Isaiah tells us in chapter 43: verse 7 & 21 “[7] everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." … [21] the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.

So life; BOTH THEN AND NOW IS THE “LIFE-TEST”

It was not merely eating fruit.it was desiring to actually “be God”; and being winning to risk “all” for that possibility, that precipitated all of the effects of their actions and freewill choice that led God in Divine Justice to insist that we too, be tested, we too with a mind, intellect and freewill CAN know of God through creation, and then freely choose to love or hate Him. {There is no real middle ground here except in our minds & hopes.}

Thanks for letting me in here.
Hope this clarifies the issue a bit?
GBY

Patrick

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny, I hesitate to jump in on a string your active on as you are so very well informed.

But for the sake of others and dialog on this issue I will share the following.

Parts of the story of creation are indeed allegory; what is NOT is:

GOD is the CREATOR of all of the Universe and certainly of ALL living things
GOD is the “author” {source} of life and death. either by His Divine Will or by His Divine Providence and permission. God can permit evil; BUT God cannot CAUSE evil.

Adam & Eve ARE OUR first parents, though their names could be different than Adam & Eve

GOD created the Universe by His Divine Will though WILLING each component into existence, so He’s not what we might call a “Blue-Collar-worker”

Hence the “7 days” could have been “7 seconds” or 70,000 years. Time does not exist for God; everything is present-time to Him. & his gang of “bad-angels”

Original Sin stems not from simply "eating an apple"

Indeed it could have been ANY kind of fruit tree [not relevant]
The thing WE need to know is that because God had literally provided a “perfect” existence for them; with no REAL wants that already provided for them, so that ONLY thing lacking was the the same temptation of Lucifer & his gang of Bad -angels"…

Similar to Adam and Eve the Angels are gifted with a mind, intellect, freewill and Soul; which for this conversation we can describe and the very source of “life-itself”. BUT there God-gifted attributes were and ARE even closer to God’s than our humanities {Gen 1:26-27} …So those given more are judged more severely {Mt 13:12}

This reality factors in GREATLY on God’s NECESSARY “Just Judgment” {because of His Divine Nature} in rightly knowing the severity of their sin. Having given them everything, every want, and certainly more than every NEED, they still freely choose to DISOBEY the ONE thing denied them as a TEST. A TEST that they freely choose to fail; choosing as did Satan himself, that same ONE thing the angels lack: actually being GOD

DOUAY BIBLE

**Gen 3:2-5 **“[2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil”

So the Original sin was not truly “original” as the fallen angels made the same choice. But it was the Original failing of humanity and God in relationship to ALL that had been gifted to them. We exist as Isaiah tells us in chapter 43: verse 7 & 21 “[7] everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." … [21] the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.

So life; BOTH THEN AND NOW IS THE “LIFE-TEST”

It was not merely eating fruit.it was desiring to actually “be God”; and being winning to risk “all” for that possibility, that precipitated all of the effects of their actions and freewill choice that led God in Divine Justice to insist that we too, be tested, we too with a mind, intellect and freewill CAN know of God through creation, and then freely choose to love or hate Him. {There is no real middle ground here except in our minds & hopes.}

Thanks for letting me in here.
Hope this clarifies the issue a bit?
GBY

Patrick

Glad to have you here.

We are all humans; yet each of us is unique. There are always times when some other unique persons need to hear our thoughts because our unique clarification and information is what they need to hear.