Sarah_JC Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Jamie, sorry for not making myself clear: All I was saying is that the "story" of Adam and Eve is symbolically what happened, not literally. Humans were in perfect union with God, we sinned, and by that act were seperated from God. And I was taught that human beings were decended from a single pair. All I'm saying is the language is symbolic. The meaning of what happened is the same, but it's much more beautiful as a story. I'm just saying, eating the "fruit" of a tree, they were forced to live with the "fruit" of their decision. Didacus, I have no idea what the sin was, but I have a suspicion it wasn't adultery. "God did not dictate it" does not mean there are errors. I did not say there are errors. All I'm saying is the creation story of Genesis might (just maybe) be symbolically written (like a poem), rather that literally written (like the Gospels, and IMHO the rest of Genesis) because the two people who were there probably didn't have a written language. The story is not supposed to be historical, it's allegorical. At any rate, I'm going to bake cookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:33 PM']Someone must be reasonable. [right][snapback]613442[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well when you find that person, please point them out. Us insane people might not be able to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Two quick points - there are not two creation stories. there is one. Genesis two focuses on man. It's senseless to say there are two. It's like people have never even read Genesis. Saying Genesis is a 'story' is just like saying "John 6" proves a symbolic communion and we should all be Baptists. Neither were written symbolicially. To say so is to jump to a conclusion against all evidience to the contrary. No Adam and Eve, no Jesus. Btw, the Catholic Church teaches we have to believe in our parents as the first two people on earth. We cannot believe in a group of 'humanoids' that wandered around and God struck souls into two of them. Now if They called each other Adam (first man) and Eve (first woman) or if "Adam said "Hey Ogagalala" refering to his wife is a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote] "Adam said "Hey Ogagalala" refering to his wife[/quote] I love it when married folk have pet names for each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 The point being they could have called each other anything. Adam probably wasn't not "Adam" since that is a translation as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Adam and Eve You're name is Adam Adam said "Hey Ogagalala" referring to his wife... Sorry just trying to interject some humor while the athiests and Christians duke it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Do you know how much I get slugged for 'transmitting original sin'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 12:49 PM']"do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense". The tree that our parents ate from has metaphorical ramifications, we use it all the time, but t'was a tree none the less. [right][snapback]613385[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response, I'm afraid not. The "metaphorical" sense is quite different from the "literal historical" sense claimed by the Pontifical Biblical Commission for the first three chapters of Genesis. But if you want to argue that they really mean the same thing, can we extend your claim to "This is my Body" being metaphorical as well? LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 yep, that's right. God didn't mean it when he seperated day from night. He lied to you. I'm sorry. There was not morning or night. Jesus didn't die for your sins either. Sorry. He was just kidding in John 6. He really just wants to you be happy and think whatever you want to think about that old worthless document called 'the Bible' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technicoid Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:09 PM']Pius X, Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae (1907): "Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are BOUND IN CONSCIENCE TO SUBMIT TO THE DECISIONS of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions" PBC "On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis: " III. In particular MAY THE LITERAL HISTORICAL SENSE BE CALLED IN DOUBT in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE DIVINE COMMAND AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE DEVILÂ UNDER TO FORM OF A SERPENT; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer? Answer: IN THE NEGATIVE. Then IÂ concluded : "In sum, Catholics are all "bound in conscience" to accept that Eve was literally tempted the devil in the form of a serpent." What precisely are you claiming I misinterpreted or misposted? I've capitalized the key phrases leading to my conclusion. You can find both documents on the web or in history books if you want to check the accuracy of these two quotations. (Actually they are cut and pastes from the web).[/quote] Yes. I saw both quotes, and I concur that you changed nothing in them. What you did was you read and interpretated those lines without regard to anything else that was written in that document. I provided a summary at the end of the post. Did you miss that? The section as a whole did not say that we are bound to accept that the literal words "THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE DIVINE COMMAND AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE DEVIL UNDER TO FORM OF A SERPENT" are scientifically precise descriptions of specific events. It says that we cannot dismiss the literal meaning as an impossibility. Given that none of us were on hand to witness the events, how can we claim something to be a scientific certitude in the positive or negative? Given that we cannot provide empirical that such things did not happen, we cannot claim that the literal historical is [i]in doubt[/i]. In particular, it says the the exegetical methods the commission at that time was analyzing were not sound and could not be used to claim that the literal historical meaning of the chapters in question is in doubt. Also, the last paragraph makes it clear that the commission is not equating the terms literal/historical with scientific: [quote]VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters? Answer: In the negative.[/quote] No, we are not bound to seek meticulously after exactness in scientific language in these passages. Yes, the intention of the sacred author was to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech at the time and suited to the understanding an capacity of men. Your reading of the text is informed by a 20th-21st century mindset. The commission is saying that it needs to be read within the context of the time in which and for the purpose for which it was written. By your response, I see that you didn't intend to mislead anyone. However, this use of proof-texts out of context can lead to such misunderstandings. From the concepts I draw, you cannot say that we are bound by conscience to accept that Eve was literally tempted by Satan in the form of a serpent. You can only say that we are bound by conscience not to dismiss it out of hand and claim that it's purely allegorical or simply a literary device. It conveys literal truth, even if it doesn't describe events in a scientifically precise manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Now calm down Brother... calm down... We're looking for a discussion, not a fight (well, at least I am). I can appreciate that you believe the bible in a litteral sense. I for one am not convinced of this, not forthe first three books of Genesis anyways. Nor do I believe I should be ex-communicated because of it. Nor should it be taken as evidence that I throw away everything in the bible either - can we have a basis of mutual respect betweeen us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:19 PM']We had the Crusades to take back the Holy Land from the fanatical Muslim Turks who invaded and oppressed the Christians there, and did not allow Christian pilgrims safe passage to visit the Holy Land. [right][snapback]613418[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Response, That's the rationalization used to justify the Crusades, but how much of it is really true? Perhaps you would like to start a separate thread on the cursades which we pursue this one on fact and fiction in scripture. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:51 PM']You can only say that we are bound by conscience not to dismiss it out of hand and claim that it's purely allegorical or simply a literary device. It conveys literal truth, even if it doesn't describe events in a scientifically precise manner. [right][snapback]613530[/snapback][/right] [/quote] A most excellent post my friend, I must compliment you. A question: Having, as per good conscience, considered the litteral possibilty creation as depicted in the bible, is it possible and/or permissible to accept a conclusion that these are not historical events and thus and allegory, while retaining in good faith the teachings of the Catholic church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 01:47 PM'] Two quick points - there are not two creation stories. there is one. Response, No. There are two different accounts. An easy way to prove this is to simply record the sequence of events in Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2. There are two Flood accounts also. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 16 2005, 02:46 PM']yep, that's right. God didn't mean it when he seperated day from night. He lied to you. I'm sorry. There was not morning or night. Jesus didn't die for your sins either. Sorry. He was just kidding in John 6. He really just wants to you be happy and think whatever you want to think about that old worthless document called 'the Bible' [right][snapback]613514[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Question, Wouldn't it have been John who was "just kidding" in John 6? I don't think Jesus was still around when it was written. Littleles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts