I had just assumed that Genesis was oral history that the ancients handed down. Someone somewhere thought to write it down.
Catholic teaching is that, while many of the elements in the story of creation and the fall are figurative or symbolic, it nonetheless involves real people, by whatever names, a real first set of parents who’re the true sole ancestors of all living human beings and who committed the first act of disobedience of God, aka the “original sin” or “ancestral sin”.
Maybe. Another reasonable idea is that it was actually polemic, directed against contemporary pagan views. The framework is very close to creation accounts from Babylon, etc, but those accounts see creation as a byproduct of ungodly behavior and conflicts among the gods. Genesis recasts the story as the act of the single God, making man in his image.
Not really. There is no mention of Adam or a single pair. Simply the assertion that from the beginning God intended people to have permanent marriages.
Catholic Answers isn’t so clear that this issue is settled for Catholics. Human Origins: Which is it? Science or Theology? In general the Catholic Church ends up accepting generally held scientific conclusions, though at times after a bit of delay.
I tend to agree. But there seem to be problems with both views. Do you believe that Adam was formed out of dust, as the Bible says? Or is it more the metaphor of, from dust to dust, in reference to death?
How do you read the following verse?
Actually, I think theological concepts would be a real problem. Adam, and what he literally did, is the basis for the Fall of humankind. Jesus came to literally undo, what the literal Adam, literally did. - lol
What was the lynch pin for you. Assuming you abandoned a literal view at some point. Did "science" triumph over religion? Or what happened?
It seems to me that so much in the rest of the Bible builds on a literal reading of Genesis.
I got into original languages, various textual variants and editions and realized that it can all be read in many possible ways. I realized that the text is not preserved perfectly (actually far from that ) and it was the first step for leaving some literal fundamentalism and for the shift in my view of inspiration.
Yes, I think a mostly literal reading is essential to our beliefs. I'm struggling to understand the figurative view.
You may have a point there. A simple, condensed, portrait of creation, starring Adam and Eve. Simple enough for ancient people to understand and skipping over eons of time. Truth and simplicity.
As I have said all along, I think there are problems with both views. This is one of them.
Paul quite likely though Adam was a historical person. But it's easy to recast his insight in a modern way. Humanity as it naturally evolved was based on survival of the fittest. Jesus founded a new humanity, based on love of God and neighbor.
What do you make of this? (the him is Jesus)
Yes, the universe exists in God (in God's mind, lets say). The physical world is just an emergent world.
Do you understand that there are literal consequences for the Fall of humanity? (original sin)
