Genesis

[Aloysius]

Alright, now we don't have to believe that Creation stories are literal and stuff, but I always thought we do have to believe that there was two original people, Adam and Eve, correct.

so someone tell me what the line is we draw on what we have to take as literal and what we shouldn't take as literal. gracias

Pax

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 24 2004, 10:44 PM']Alright, now we don't have to believe that Creation stories are literal and stuff, but I always thought we do have to believe that there was two original people, Adam and Eve, correct.

So someone tell me what the line is we draw on what we have to take as literal and what we shouldn't take as literal.  gracias.[/quote]
Both of these questions have been answered by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter [u]Humani Generis[/u]:

In reference to the question about Adam and Eve, Pope Pius XII said, "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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Magisterium of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." [Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter [u]Humani Generis[/u], no. 37]

In reference to the historical nature of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, Pope Pius XII said, "Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents." [Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter [u]Humani Generis[/u], no. 38]

The teaching of Pope Pius XII was succinctly reaffirmed by the post-conciliar Magisterium when it issued the [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], which states that, "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." [[u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], no. 390; cf. nos. 396-409]

Edited July 25, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

I may need some more evidence to make a case for this teaching belonging to the ordinary universal magisterium and thus is infallible

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2004, 06:03 PM'] I may need some more evidence to make a case for this teaching belonging to the ordinary universal magisterium and thus is infallible [/quote]
I don't.

[Aloysius]

I don't either, but the people who I need to make the case to DO.

[Aloysius]

they said that that's the same way we used to think that the first five books were all written by Moses or something like that

[Quietfire]

I have no idea if this is any help to this topic, but in my studies, the Genisis story actually begins in Chapter 2. Chapter 1 is basically a overview, written after 2 and on.

Using a poor analogy...It's like watching the very beginning part of Star Trek where Kirk is saying.."Space, the final frontier.." then you actually get into the story line once the show starts.

Actually I think Mark Shea touched on this as well.

Peace.

[cmotherofpirl]

To the Jews he most important event and book in the Pentateuch was Exodus. Genesis is a prequel to that.
Genesis [ the beginnings] teaches us about Creation and our place in it. Everything was made by God and it was good. The original couple screwed up and there are eternal consequences. God promised to fix it.
History in the sense we undertand it starts with Abraham.

Never dismiss or underestimate the importance of Genesis. Truth set in story form is still TRUTH. Every detail is there for some reason because the writings were directly inspired by God.

[Quietfire]

I absolutely agree, Cmom.
My point is that we should be careful, especially with Genesis.
Check the internet and you'll find thousands of 'religions' who believe in the demon seed theory as well as the Nephilim theory, and especially the two creation theory. All because they failed to study the historical impact of Genesis and chose instead to consider it some kind of hidden coding and such.
This is scary stuff.
I for one cannot figure out how people even begin to think like this, but all I can do is pray that they come to thier senses.

Because often Catholic evangelize Non-Catholics there should be consideration in this. Without proper understanding of what the Church has taught for some 2000 years, many exclusively interpret what they want- hence, we have thousands of Non-Catholic denominations.

My point is that although yes, it is historically a story that is truth...it should be explained as a story that is truth.

As far as Adam and Eve? I believe they truly were.
I believe they are truly our first parents.

Peace.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2004, 04:38 PM']I don't either, but the people who I need to make the case to DO.[/quote]
If the constant teaching of the Church, reaffirmed both by Pope Pius XII and the [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], will not convince them, then I can think of nothing else that will convince them. The Church has definitively rejected polygenism as a heresy, because it is incompatible with the dogma of original sin, and she has constantly reaffirmed the historical character of the book of Genesis (which she readily admits uses figurative language to record true history). If they won't accept this, then the most you can do is pray for them, because they are in error about matters that have been taught by the Magisterium as [i]de fide[/i].

Edited July 27, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

okay, well they've been convinced. case closed. thank you phatmass especially Apotheon, you rock

[crusader1234]

Now I'm not sure of how faithful this is... so if I'm being unfaithful by all means let me know... but this is how I see it:

God creates the earth and makes man for woman and woman for man, and we turn away from him. Genesis is the same thing... just a parable type story.

Obviously certain things contradict eachother... for example Adam and Eve couldn't have literally brought forth the nation of the world with three sons. Science has proven evolution.. etc. The point of the creation story in Genesis isn't that God literally created the world as is and Adam and Eve had three sons who had kids magically.. but rather that God created the world and we turned away.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jul 28 2004, 01:43 AM'] Now I'm not sure of how faithful this is... so if I'm being unfaithful by all means let me know... but this is how I see it:

God creates the earth and makes man for woman and woman for man, and we turn away from him. Genesis is the same thing... just a parable type story.

Obviously certain things contradict eachother... for example Adam and Eve couldn't have literally brought forth the nation of the world with three sons. Science has proven evolution.. etc. The point of the creation story in Genesis isn't that God literally created the world as is and Adam and Eve had three sons who had kids magically.. but rather that God created the world and we turned away. [/quote]
Several points...

1. As was just pointed out, the Church does teach that Adam and Eve are the first parents of all humanity, i.e. all humanity is directly descendent from the first two people created by God. (odd bit of information here...a study of mitochondrial dna demonstrated that it was possible that all women descended from one women...)

2. Scripture only tells us of three sons of Adam and Eve, but that doesn't mean that they only had three sons. Those three sons were important to the story the author was trying to tell, so they were included. The other children obviously weren't as important to what the author was trying to communicate and so were not mentioned.

3. While there is evidence to support various theories of evolution, it is by no means a proven fact. There are valid arguments against popular theories of evolution.

[carrdero]

The book of GENESIS to me is one of the most suspicious books in the Bible. One reason I think is because GOD does not really come out smelling like a rose. So I brought up this question with GOD and I was very surprised with the results and I hope this helps.
It seems that the episode of the Garden Of Eden is mankind's first introduction to challenges and the the original serpent doesn't particularly stand for evil or sin but instead stands in for the obstacles that we encounter in our daily lives such as doubt, fear and conflict. When Adam and Eve faced the choice of eating the symbolic fruit of UNDERSTANDING, they approached it as a conflict instead of a decision. In Adam and Eve's case there was the fear of dying that was introduced. The doubt of not living up to someone else's expectations.
GOD then goes on to express that "Conflicts were never intended for humankind. Challenges were. You have obstacles to overcome at every turn of your lives. Notice I said “overcome.” Never did I imply there ever is an obstacle that could not BE overcome. YOU should not fall prey to obstacles. Never let them rule YOUR existence or YOUR freedom to live happily, comfortably, considerately."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Jul 29 2004, 12:20 PM'] The book of GENESIS to me is one of the most suspicious books in the Bible. One reason I think is because GOD does not really come out smelling like a rose. So I brought up this question with GOD and I was very surprised with the results and I hope this helps.
It seems that the episode of the Garden Of Eden is mankind's first introduction to challenges and the the original serpent doesn't particularly stand for evil or sin but instead stands in for the obstacles that we encounter in our daily lives such as doubt, fear and conflict. When Adam and Eve faced the choice of eating the symbolic fruit of UNDERSTANDING, they approached it as a conflict instead of a decision. In Adam and Eve's case there was the fear of dying that was introduced. The doubt of not living up to someone else's expectations.
GOD then goes on to express that "Conflicts were never intended for humankind. Challenges were. You have obstacles to overcome at every turn of your lives. Notice I said “overcome.” Never did I imply there ever is an obstacle that could not BE overcome. YOU should not fall prey to obstacles. Never let them rule YOUR existence or YOUR freedom to live happily, comfortably, considerately." [/quote]
Although this is an interesting personal take on the narrative of the fall of man in Genesis 3, it doesn't do justice to the Church's doctrinal tradition, which sees the narrative as the foundation for the dogma of original sin. Thus, I cannot agree with your private interpretation of the text.

God bless,
Todd