The Catholic Perspective

by sabastious 139 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  sabastious

  Also, I don't know how you can say with authority that it is allegory. You can think that is probable, but how do you say certain with authority? I'm also interested in what other absurd leaps you think would be connected. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Just curious, since I'm not seeing what you're seeing :)

  I'm going to start a research project soon on the Genesis Adam and Eve account.

  In response to your question about my conviction of the account's original intention: I ask you a question:

  If all or some of the Adam and Eve creation account is literal, what parts should be taken literal and why?

  ^ Answer this question only using the Genesis account itself.

  Information from other Bible books can not rightly be used as evidence since they were written long after (and a variety of other reasons). These other future references to the story can be investigated and their purposes for the reference to Adam and Eve can deduced.

  I am refering to the inception of the story. Why must the author's intentions for writing remain so ambiguous! We sometimes take for granted that Genesis was placed at the beginning of the Holy Handbook many years after it was written. Many seem to overlook this huge fact for some reason. I for one feel it is imperitive for one to understand the story at all.

  It's application today is extremely clunky and frankly lazy. The story is rich with symbolism and covers many deep themes. The story also gives real insight to who our ancestors were: they were a smart deep thinking folk. They came up with a brilliant piece with the Adam and Eve story. The reason I know it's allegory is because it's so specific. Take a few parts of the symbolic pie:

  Cunning serpent that seduces it's subjects with power and understanding

  Forbidden Fruit with real mystical effects upon eating

  Tree of Life

  Nakedness

  Man formed FROM the Earth

  Women formed FROM Man

  God "breathing" into Man

  ^ Did these events actually transpire? No, it is absurd to believe that these are the actual events transpiring from natural cause and effect. These are SYMBOLS and only symbols. As real events, in part or in their entirity, the topics they were concocted to represent fall by the wayside.

  -Sab
• 

  tec

  Hey! You can't answer a question with another question :)

  I would personally think that the story is so specific, so as to make it simple. I think the trees each symbolize something, (obviously one symbolized life, and one symbolized knowledge of good and evil). I think the garden represented perhaps the spiritual realm. I don't think God was walking around in a human body, and I don't think Satan was an actual talking snake... but the serpent represented him. But God is real. Satan is real. So why not Adam and Eve as well?

  I don't even think that the fruit was an apple, or even a fruit, but rather representing the taking in of knowledge and experience. 'Feeding' off of whatever that tree represented - just as we can now 'feed' off of Christ - I put that in italics, because you asked only to say what I thought according to the story itself, and I could not have come to this last part without Christ's words.

  But Sab, regardless of whether the account is taken literally or symbolically or a mixture of both, there should be no bearing on the message itself - which is why I cannot understand why you think it is disrespectful. I would think that the message would be more important than the literal or symbolic nature of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. (which message still varies, regardless)

  Tammy
• 

  cameo-d

  dgp: "Sabastious, as a former Catholic I agree with you. I just would point out that all Christian use essentially the same Bible and worship essentially the very same devil of a god. It doesn't make sense, no matter what particular flavor you choose."

  And do you know why that is? They all use "essentially the same Bible" because of Cannonical Laws that any translations of scriptures are prohibited unless they have been approved by the Holy C. Or the editing must be supervised by a bishop. Does NWT have any credits that reveal this?
• 

  sabastious

  But Sab, regardless of whether the account is taken literally or symbolically or a mixture of both, there should be no bearing on the message itself - which is why I cannot understand why you think it is disrespectful. I would think that the message would be more important than the literal or symbolic nature of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. (which message still varies, regardless)

  What message is this that the Adam and Eve story is relaying to you?

  -Sab
• 

  tec

  Well there are deep things, but the simplest on-the-surface takeaway that I get, I suppose, is that Adam and Eve gave into temptation and their own selfish desire to have more than what had already been given them... and that losing Eden and access to the tree of life was their own fault - though Satan played a strong hand in deceiving them. But it was their fault, and not God's - although I suppose that Adam seems to try and lay a bit of blame at God's feet (the woman YOU put here with me...)

  Tammy
• 

  BurnTheShips

  If all or some of the Adam and Eve creation account is literal, what parts should be taken literal and why?

  Answer this question only using the Genesis account itself.

  Sure. There are two alternative Creation narratives back to back at the beginning of Genesis. If they were read in a strictly literal fashion, they would easily be found to be contradictory in many details, and the contradictions are obvious. Yet the author-compilers of this text had no problem putting them next to each other.

  BTS
• 

  sabastious

  Well there are deep things, but the simplest on-the-surface takeaway that I get, I suppose, is that Adam and Eve gave into temptation and their own selfish desire to have more than what had already been given them... and that losing Eden and access to the tree of life was their own fault - though Satan played a strong hand in deceiving them. But it was their fault, and not God's - although I suppose that Adam seems to try and lay a bit of blame at God's feet (the woman YOU put here with me...)

  This is the explanation that has confused so many people, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you read the whole account. For instance, for some reason you feel compelled to put all the blame on Adam and Eve. There were many more factors for the action than simply "Adam and Eve were selfish."

  First of all, they were naive especially Eve. God placed a VERY appealing tree (why did God make it so appealing?) in the center of the Garden and named it the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Enticing? Yes, it was especially for Eve who was relativly new to this whole living thing (evidence of this would be that she didn't know that snakes could not talk). So the temptation was a group effort involving all parties: God, Adam and Eve and the Serpent.

  Interestingly the only tree forbidden in the garden was the Tree of Good and Evil, the Tree of Life was in the Garden and Adam and Eve ate from it freely until they were expelled from the Garden. What a mysterious tree! It plays very little role in the story as a literal tree, but as a symbol it is very powerful.

  You keep asking me why I can be so sure that Adam and Eve is allegory. I'll go back to my Grapes of Wrath analogy: There is a lot of allegory in that book. Your position reminds me of someone insisting, on principle, that the Grapes of Wrath may NOT be an allegory just because of the fact that John Stienbeck has passed away.

  It is allegory because it is. When you read it without Christian blinders you can see it for what it really is, a beautiful allegory about the beginning of humankind with many intellectually deep aspects.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Sure. There are two alternative Creation narratives back to back at the beginning of Genesis. If they were read in a strictly literal fashion, they would easily be found to be contradictory in many details, and the contradictions are obvious. Yet the author-compilers of this text had no problem putting them next to each other.

  The two creation narratives are seperate stories that set up the Adam and Eve account. They are seperate, really. The fact that the two creation accounts contradict is a mystery to me. I have always wondered why the original writers did that, maybe it was a poetic style back then.

  -Sab
• 

  tec

  Yes, it was especially for Eve who was relativly new to this whole living thing (evidence of this would be that she didn't know that snakes could not talk).

  Or she had talked to the serpent before, Sab. Which is why she wasn't surprised that he spoke to her again. Adam wasn't surprised, either, and he was there as well. Now I agree that both were naive, and not much of a match for Satan, and that explains what happened to Satan. His punishment was decided upon first.

  So perhaps you could tell me what you think this account is about then? Because I still don't see what the difference between it being allegory or literal has to do with the meaning.

  Tammy
• 

  PSacramento

  The two creation narratives are seperate stories that set up the Adam and Eve account. They are seperate, really. The fact that the two creation accounts contradict is a mystery to me. I have always wondered why the original writers did that, maybe it was a poetic style back then.

  Nah, just two different stories that focused on different parts and since no one viewed them as "science" it was all good to keep them as is for the sake of the oral traditions from where they came.

  The complier/writer of Genesis could have blended them into one, but if he had done that the people the knew the oral traditions would have probably accused him of changing things for his own motives.