The True Creation Story

[PJM]

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.

Thanks and God Bless

Patrick

 

[grannymh]

The below excerpt, at the bottom of this post, is from a link in a previous post.

usccb.org/bible/genesis/0

USCCB > Bible
Genesis – Introduction

Personally, I would have preferred more blood and guts as an introduction to The True Creation Story.
Here is an example. Please know that I do not do Noah.
“The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious, the nature of sexual attraction and marriage, why there are many peoples and languages.”
That is a wonderful sentence. However, I would appreciate down-to-earth citations from the first three sacred chapters of Genesis. Everyone is on their own when it comes to Chapter 4.
Here is another thought provoking sentence.
“Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions.”

This next sentence has me wondering what happened to the words “Divine Revelation”?
“Instead, they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological.”

Obviously, there are a lot of folks who would look at the Bible and think to themselves – This is a good introduction.

Nonetheless, when I read the first sentence: “How should modern readers interpret the creation-flood story in Gn 2–11?”
Why ask? When the stronger sentence would be – Modern readers can interpret the True Creation Story according to Catholic doctrines.

There are a few other sentences which make wonder…

Below is the very interesting excerpt. I would guess that CAF members and guests, plus myself, would need time to think through the excerpt which has a lot of interesting information. There is no doubt about that

usccb.org/bible/genesis/0

USCCB > Bible
Genesis – Introduction

“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. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead, they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological. They added and subtracted narrative details and varied the plot as they sought meaning in the ancient stories. Their stories reveal a privileged time, when divine decisions were made that determined the future of the human race. The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious, the nature of sexual attraction and marriage, why there are many peoples and languages. Though the stories may initially strike us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill, compression, and subtlety. They provide profound answers to perennial questions about God and human beings.”

 

[grannymh]

Continuation of thoughts about this paragraph quoted in post 139.
The paragraph is found in this link. I put special sentences in bold.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/0

USCCB > Bible
Genesis – Introduction

“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. Ancient Near Eastern thinkers did not have our methods of exploring serious questions. Instead, they used narratives for issues that we would call philosophical and theological. They added and subtracted narrative details and varied the plot as they sought meaning in the ancient stories. Their stories reveal a privileged time, when divine decisions were made that determined the future of the human race. The origin of something was thought to explain its present meaning, e.g., how God acts with justice and generosity, why human beings are rebellious, the nature of sexual attraction and marriage, why there are many peoples and languages. Though the stories may initially strike us as primitive and naive, they are in fact told with skill, compression, and subtlety. They provide profound answers to perennial questions about God and human beings.”

When I read the above sentences in bold, I want to put my arms around the author of the first three truly amazing chapters of the True Creation Story. I want to hug him and tell him that he is a wonderful, extremely intelligent person, who carefully and correctly preserved the “history” of the dawn of human history.

 

[grannymh]

From the link in post 140. I put a special sentence in bold.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/0
USCCB > Bible
Genesis – Introduction

"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**.”

Pardon my ignorance regarding Scripture scholarship.

I believe that the word “suggests” is equally misleading, dangerously misleading. Most likely, the writer of this popular link does not want readers to think that each and every Genesis word is history. Those familiar with the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth already know that not every word written in the first three amazing chapters of Sacred Scripture automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. However, there are some words which add support. See CCC 20-21 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition for an explanation of small print.

As modern readers, we have already seen lots of internet suggestions like the fly in the ointment and the rebuilding of Christianity from the bottom up. “Rebuilding Christianity” is a suggestion which is a general misinterpretation of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, guided by the promised Holy Spirit, already has Divine truths – The Real Presence of Jesus, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, in the Holy Eucharist. There is the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, including the Creed loudly professed at the beginning. And Seven Sacraments which serve us from the dawn of our life on earth to joy eternal in heaven following bodily death .

On the internet, Original Sin is being replaced by Original Blessing and other sweet-talking proposals. The Original Blessing suggestion goes way back to when popular Matthew Fox was a Catholic Priest. Some bad ideas, old and new, are being presented by Catholics. The most appealing suggestion is that it is perfectly fine to tamper with a difficult doctrine.

And now we have the suggestion that some events like Original Sin, may not have taken place. It is only an allegory for something else.

To grasp the concept of Original Sin in The True Creation Story, we start with the Goodness of God in the first three real chapters in Genesis. The first thing we learn is that God created Adam separately from the Animal Kingdom. Pause and take into one’s mind, the dramatic shift of Genesis 1:25 to Genesis 1:28. The human creature Adam enjoys the perfect relationship with his Creator God. His spouse Eve, having the same nature as Adam, is also in a friendship relationship with her Creator. Both are in the State of Original Holiness and Justice.

Adam says Wow!
Genesis 2: 23.

 

[grannymh]

Attention Gentle Readers, CAF Members and Guests

This older than dirt granny has learned something very special about The True Creation Story.

Please look at this valuable post 131, page 9, in the thread “How does Original Sin work?” in the Moral Theology Forum. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14554868&postcount=131

This post is in reply to my post 130. Together there is the beginning of an important study of relationship in the Garden of Eden which we do not often think about – at least I do not often think about when I am trying to understand the first three sacred chapters of Genesis. Granted that I often refer to the Original Friendship Relationship between Adam (humanity) and the Creator God (Divinity) but I have not looked deeper into
Genesis 3:8-10.
Genesis 3:8-10 usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

8
When they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden at the breezy time of the day,* the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.d
9
The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you?
10
He answered, “I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.”

 

[grannymh]

Attention Gentle Readers, CAF Members and Guests

This older than dirt granny has learned something very special about The True Creation Story.

Please look at this valuable post 131, page 9, in the thread “How does Original Sin work?” in the Moral Theology Forum. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14554868&postcount=131

This post is in reply to my post 130. Together there is the beginning of an important study of relationship in the Garden of Eden which we do not often think about – at least I do not often think about when I am trying to understand the first three sacred chapters of Genesis. Granted that I often refer to the Original Friendship Relationship between Adam (humanity) and the Creator God (Divinity) but I have not looked deeper into
Genesis 3:8-10.
Genesis 3:8-10 usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

8
When they heard the sound of the LORD God walking about in the garden at the breezy time of the day,* the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.d
9
The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you?
10
He answered, “I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.”

To me, the prayerful relationship between human and God is very important. Here is an example where the relationship apparently shifts to everyman and everywoman and the figurative equivalents of human conduct in the face of temptation. It seems that we are so used to downplaying the reality of Adam, that the dangers here are not fully detected.

While this example is old, I wonder if anyone is willing to express their thoughts
about it.
From catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve

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

 

[Vico]

To me, the prayerful relationship between human and God is very important. Here is an example where the relationship apparently shifts to everyman and everywoman and the figurative equivalents of human conduct in the face of temptation. It seems that we are so used to downplaying the reality of Adam, that the dangers here are not fully detected.

While this example is old, I wonder if anyone is willing to express their thoughts
about it.
From catholicreview.org/article/work/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve

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

They are not symbols. Note that we are not born with all the gifts that Adam and Eve were given. However all humans are called to be icons of Christ.

“Polygenism is a theory of human origins positing that the human race descended from a pool of early human couples, indeterminate in number. Hence Adam and Eve are merely symbols of Mankind.” – Msgr. Charles Pope
blog.adw.org/2010/10/polygenism/

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott: Unity of the Human Race
The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption. According to a decision of the Bible Commission, the unity of the human race is to be reckoned among those facts which affect the foundations of the Christian religion, and which, on this account, are to be understood in their literal, historical sense (D 2123). The Encyclical “Humani Generis” of Pius XII (1950) rejects polygenism on account of its incompatibility with the revealed doctrine of original sin.

Denzinger 2123:
** The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis** *
[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909]

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]

They are not symbols. Note that we are not born with all the gifts that Adam and Eve were given. However all humans are called to be icons of Christ.

“Polygenism is a theory of human origins positing that the human race descended from a pool of early human couples, indeterminate in number. Hence Adam and Eve are merely symbols of Mankind.” – Msgr. Charles Pope
blog.adw.org/2010/10/polygenism/

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott: Unity of the Human Race
The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption. According to a decision of the Bible Commission, the unity of the human race is to be reckoned among those facts which affect the foundations of the Christian religion, and which, on this account, are to be understood in their literal, historical sense (D 2123). The Encyclical “Humani Generis” of Pius XII (1950) rejects polygenism on account of its incompatibility with the revealed doctrine of original sin.
Denzinger 2123:
The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis *
[Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909]
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.

Thank you for your good information here and in many posts.

Personally, I would like to continue exploring this example from post 143 as it relates to The True Creation Story. However, I am taking a break and I do not know when I will return.

From catholicreview.org/articl…f-adam-and-eve

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

 

[10gr8kids]

catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[joseie]

This is exactly called making a mountain out of a molehill! Can anybody tell honestly as to which are the verses in the the creation chapters which are not clear enough? How simple ,easy to understand and straightforward are the all the verses! Then why try to import complicated meanings and twists for the verses which are already clear and meaningful enough? Since when was it began to feel that the simple ,literary and straightforward meanings of the verses may not be correct and that what was actually meant or intended was some thing else? Who gave the authority to anybody to interpret when the meanings of the verses are simple and clear enough?

So my advise is pl.keep away from attempts to tamper and twist the clear meaning already expressed in the vereses themselves and don’t try to interpret and import meanings as found convenient and suitable to your imagination. How much other noble and productive work are there for human beings in this world than to while away time trying to find meanings and interpretations of the verses which even the holy spirit would not have dreamed while prompting the writers of the Scriptures.

 

[Vico]

Thank you for your good information here and in many posts.

Personally, I would like to continue exploring this example from post 143 as it relates to The True Creation Story. However, I am taking a break and I do not know when I will return.

From catholicreview.org/articl…f-adam-and-eve

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

Jesus Christ is the new Adam and The Mother of God is the new Eve that we might become sons of God. Catechism
411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

 

[grannymh]

The True Creation Story leads us to the Incarnation when Jesus assumed our human nature. Remember that Jesus stepped into the sandals of Adam who was unable to repair the shattered relationship between Divinity and humanity.

It is the Catholic Church which brings us Jesus Christ, The Word, Who became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”. Even when we seek the best description for our relationship with our Divine Creator, we cannot come close to what it means to be in the presence of the Beatific Vision following bodily death.

Because of a few, yet powerful, public Catholic speakers/writers, who want us to ignore those first three sacred chapters in Genesis – here is a reminder quote from the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

**CCC 389 **The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

 

[grannymh]

Here and there, I have been exploring various concepts of the human nature we inherited from Adam and Eve. With all the ancient legends and the popular Shaman, we know that a sense of the super-natural is inherent in our nature from the beginning. We can understand that it is possible for humans to have a friendship relationship with Divinity. Genesis 1: 27.

The Genesis author tells us that God planted a garden in Eden. Genesis 2:8. and gave it to Adam. Genesis 2:15. A hungry Adam would certainly have a longing for the super-natural God not only for material nourishment, but also for relationship.

While there are the beautiful verses from the beginning of Genesis to Genesis 1:25, the important truths which affect us begin with Adam and Eve being in a friendship relationship with God. Genesis 1: 28. If I were the author, I would have put the word picture “God moving about in the Garden” closer to the front simply because this friendly relationship is key to the story. Genesis 3:8.

Unfortunately, we are often tempted to think bad things about our Creator God because Adam’s wounded human nature is given to us. On the other hand, do we really want the nature of the creatures described before Genesis 1: 25?

Perhaps this Lent, we can take time to listen to God’s love.
John 3:16-17; Genesis 1:28-31; Genesis 2:7-9; Genesis 2:15; Genesis 2: 21-23; Genesis 3:9; Genesis 3:21.

Genesis 3:15 is especially important this Lent. We need Jesus.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
They will strike at your head,
while you strike at their heel.”

**CCC 410 **After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. This passage in Genesis is called the *Protoevangelium *(“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

**CCC 411 **The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the *Protoevangelium *as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.

 

[GatesToHeaven03]

I agree!

 

[buffalo]

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?

Maybe not. Tablet Theory of Genesis claims they were written down.

 

[buffalo]

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings andall kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[buffalo]

** The 254 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith**

1. 
   *]God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.
   *]God has created a good world.
   *]The world had a beginning in time.
   *]God alone created the World.
   *]God keeps all created things in existence.
   *]God through His providence protects and guides all that He has created.
   *]The first man was created by God.
   *]Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul.
   *]The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body.
   *]Every human being possesses an individual soul.
   *]God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny.
   *]Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace.
   *]They were also endowed with donum immortalitatis, i.e., the gift of bodily immortality.
   *]Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment.
   *]Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God.
   *]Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil.
   *]Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent.
   *]Original sin is transmitted by natural generation.
   *]In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity.
   *]Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

 

[Rau]

• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

This one jumps out. The statement does not say that all events as described actually happened - it just refers to “things” - which need not be all the things described. I’m inclined to believe that there was not a talking serpent, and I don’t think Pius intended to suggest otherwise.

 

[grannymh]

I agree!

There is a lot one can learn when one slowly reads the first three sacred chapters of Genesis.

 

[grannymh]

This one jumps out. The statement does not say that all events as described actually happened - it just refers to “things” - which need not be all the things described. I’m inclined to believe that there was not a talking serpent, and I don’t think Pius intended to suggest otherwise.

One needs to read the first three amazing chapters of Genesis in the light of Catholic teaching. The “talking serpent” tells us how Adam was tempted to disobey God. It is Adam freely committing the Original Sin which is important to know.