A few quick Catholic questions about Adam and Eve and Satan

[Domiy]

I’m a devout Catholic, but I’ve always wondered on the accuracy or support for the story of Adam and Eve? First, what does the Church teach in this respect? Is the Adam and Eve story seen by the faith as the accepted fact of our creation or is there any room even inside the faith to suggest that it is indeed merely a made up story from the biblical times used to exemplify God and the universe? Note, that’s not to say that it being made up rejects the idea of God, just that the exact events are perhaps hard to verify, while there still is in fact a creator and God.

Along with that, where did the Adam and Eve story come from? Where was it first conceived or discovered or written? Does it have a similar origin to the other books in the Bible?

Lastly, I want to clarify that the serpent in the story who tricked Eve, it was indeed Satan right? If so, then this means the ‘creation’ of Satan (or his rebel against God) happened sometime while God was creating the universe or perhaps even before he decided to create it or something? What’s the thoughts and official Catholic teaching on this?

I’ve always wondered about this. I have no problem with the story, and believe every word of the Bible (taken with a grain of salt in some cases, of course), but I just wonder how sure can we be about the accuracy of the Genesis story when there seems to be very little validating it (as opposed to other stories and events in the Bible which can to an extent be historically proven or studied). Not that I require proof to believe in God, I believe in Him fully, but for philosophical purposes I’ve always wondered about this from a human perspective. Cheers.

 

[Domiy]

UPDATE:

After a quick read of the Catechism on the matter, things are a lot clearer (for a start, the story, or the concept of Adam and Eve and original sin is verified by Christ himself in Revelations).

However, I still feel that the topic deserves to be discussed; mainly the parts about the origins or source of the story and the philosophical beginning of Satan behind it.

God Bless!

 

[grannymh]

UPDATE:

After a quick read of the Catechism on the matter, things are a lot clearer (for a start, the story, or the concept of Adam and Eve and original sin is verified by Christ himself in Revelations).

However, I still feel that the topic deserves to be discussed; mainly the parts about the origins or source of the story and the philosophical beginning of Satan behind it.

God Bless!

The origin or source of the story of Adam and Eve is Divine Revelation contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. You might consider this thread “Should Catholic apologists teach the reality of Adam & Eve?” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721102 In general, this thread is based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-421. The presupposition is the existence of Satan. However, the philosophical beginning of Satan is intriguing; thus I thank you for this thread. I hope to learn a lot from it.

 

[Cadellin]

The Bible is the word of God. It was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It can therefore be trusted as true.

However, the Bible was written in the language of the people of the time, a language which was limited by the science of the time. The word ‘evolution,’ for example, does not appear in the Bible because the word didn’t exist when the Bible was written. This is why the Bible neither confirm nor denies the Theory of Evolution; neither the language nor the scientific concepts existed at the time to be able it to be mentioned.

The story of Adam and Eve, then, can not be understood in a scientific or even historical sense. It’s a bit like the parables of Jesus, they’re told to make a point. Did the Good Samaritan actually exists? Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn’t. Either way what we are to take from it is just who is our neighbour and what love of our neighbour means. The story of Adam and Eve should be understood likewise.

You can come to a better understanding of the Bible and its apparent inconsistencies with historical facts by remembering that the Bible tells the story of the action of the Holy Spirit throughout human (and even pre-human) history. So, it’s the story of what happened beneath the surface of worldly appearances and might not always correspond exactly with what happened on the surface (just as what happens undreneath the sea doesn’t always correspond exactly with what happens on the surface).

The problem with the creation episode and the story of the fall is that, unlike the life of Jesus, there was no one around at the time to write it down.

I don’t know if this answers your question, but there it is for what it’s worth.

 

[Polycarp1]

Did God use evolution? He may have. Genesis is not a science text, so it does not tell us how so much as why. But there are hints. Only three times in the creation account is “bara” used: for the creation of matter (I:I), life (I:2I) and humanity (I:27). The other times, God said, “let the waters bring forth…” or “let the earth bring forth…” that is, for most of His acts of “creation”, He made rather than created.
For example, He used the pre-existing material of “the dust of the earth to make man. Was that an ape body? Perhaps. Why not? Our 'image of God” distinctiveness, our personality, is grounded in the soul, not in the body. We are “rational animals”. God is not an animal.
Catholics have seldom had the difficulties and embarrassments many Protestants have had about creation vs. evolution. Ever since Augustine they have interpreted Genesis’ “days” non literally. (The Hebrew word there, yom, is often used non-quantitatively in Scripture.) Purposes not clocks, measure God’s time. KREEFT

 

[LegoGE1947]

The Bible is the word of God. It was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It can therefore be trusted as true.

However, the Bible was written in the language of the people of the time, a language which was limited by the science of the time. The word ‘evolution,’ for example, does not appear in the Bible because the word didn’t exist when the Bible was written. This is why the Bible neither confirm nor denies the Theory of Evolution; neither the language nor the scientific concepts existed at the time to be able it to be mentioned.

The story of Adam and Eve, then, can not be understood in a scientific or even historical sense. It’s a bit like the parables of Jesus, they’re told to make a point. Did the Good Samaritan actually exists? Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn’t. Either way what we are to take from it is just who is our neighbour and what love of our neighbour means. The story of Adam and Eve should be understood likewise.

You can come to a better understanding of the Bible and its apparent inconsistencies with historical facts by remembering that the Bible tells the story of the action of the Holy Spirit throughout human (and even pre-human) history. So, it’s the story of what happened beneath the surface of worldly appearances and might not always correspond exactly with what happened on the surface (just as what happens undreneath the sea doesn’t always correspond exactly with what happens on the surface).

The problem with the creation episode and the story of the fall is that, unlike the life of Jesus, there was no one around at the time to write it down.

I don’t know if this answers your question, but there it is for what it’s worth.

Also you could stress yourself out wondering if Adam and Eve had belly-buttons, where they got wives for Cain, Abel & Seth, What was the Good Samaritan’s name, What was the name of the guys who mugged him, the name of the inn keeper who took care of him, the priest and the Levite who left the guy along side the road? Who was the father of the Prodigal Son? The woman who lost the coin and swept the house till she found it? These are all stories in the Bible and just enough details are given to give you the jist of the stories and no more. God simply didn’t want us to know every minute detail of everything spoken of in the Bible, just what He deemed necessary for our eternal salvation.

 

[grannymh]

The Bible is the word of God. It was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It can therefore be trusted as true.

However, the Bible was written in the language of the people of the time, a language which was limited by the science of the time. The word ‘evolution,’ for example, does not appear in the Bible because the word didn’t exist when the Bible was written. This is why the Bible neither confirm nor denies the Theory of Evolution; neither the language nor the scientific concepts existed at the time to be able it to be mentioned.

The story of Adam and Eve, then, can not be understood in a scientific or even historical sense. It’s a bit like the parables of Jesus, they’re told to make a point. Did the Good Samaritan actually exists? Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn’t. Either way what we are to take from it is just who is our neighbour and what love of our neighbour means. The story of Adam and Eve should be understood likewise.

You can come to a better understanding of the Bible and its apparent inconsistencies with historical facts by remembering that the Bible tells the story of the action of the Holy Spirit throughout human (and even pre-human) history. So, it’s the story of what happened beneath the surface of worldly appearances and might not always correspond exactly with what happened on the surface (just as what happens undreneath the sea doesn’t always correspond exactly with what happens on the surface).

The problem with the creation episode and the story of the fall is that, unlike the life of Jesus, there was no one around at the time to write it down.

I don’t know if this answers your question, but there it is for what it’s worth.

Very interesting post. May I gently point out that understanding the story of Adam and Eve in the same way one understands the parables of Jesus, such as the Good Samaritan, is another creative way of attacking some basic Catholic doctrines. There is an interesting theme making the rounds: no first humans biblically known as Adam and Eve, no Original Sin, game over, Christianity is dead.

 

[grannymh]

Also you could stress yourself out wondering if Adam and Eve had belly-buttons, where they got wives for Cain, Abel & Seth, What was the Good Samaritan’s name, What was the name of the guys who mugged him, the name of the inn keeper who took care of him, the priest and the Levite who left the guy along side the road? Who was the father of the Prodigal Son? The woman who lost the coin and swept the house till she found it? These are all stories in the Bible and just enough details are given to give you the jist of the stories and no more. God simply didn’t want us to know every minute detail of everything spoken of in the Bible, just what He deemed necessary for our eternal salvation.

And what, pray tell, is necessary for our salvation which is not found in the biblical story of Adam and Eve?

 

[Polycarp1]

The central importance of the doctrine of creation, we can examine more fully why it is so central. As stated in the Creed, “I believe in God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth,” it shows that even the doctrine of God presupposes this doctrine, for it is this doctrine which specifies the identity of the God proposed for belief. We believe in the “Creator of heaven and earth,” not in a separate God, different from the Creator; not in a God indistinguishable from creation or nature; and not in an impersonal force from which all things have overflowed or emanated.”
The doctrine of creation, then, is in the first place a doctrine about the character and identity of the God we worship. In the second place, the doctrine of creation is a doctrine about the identity and character of the world. As the Catechism puts it, “[The doctrine of creation] concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that human beings of all time have asked themselves: Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is our origin? What is our end? Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going? The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions (#282).
These questions are not simply about the first moment or event in the sequence of events that led to the world as we know it, but ultimate questions about the character of the world, its end in the sense of its purpose or goal, and its origin in the sense of its having been brought into existence with this purpose or goal in mind. As the Catechism goes on to comment:
It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when
humankind appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called God? CAVADINI
View youtube.com/watch?v=M61CZUdTbUc

 

[LegoGE1947]

And what, pray tell, is necessary for our salvation which is not found in the biblical story of Adam and Eve?

Nothing that I know of. Except why didn’t Adam just tell the stupid snake to shut up and stop hitting on his wife?

 

[grannymh]

The central importance of the doctrine of creation, we can examine more fully why it is so central. As stated in the Creed, “I believe in God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth,” it shows that even the doctrine of God presupposes this doctrine, for it is this doctrine which specifies the identity of the God proposed for belief. We believe in the “Creator of heaven and earth,” not in a separate God, different from the Creator; not in a God indistinguishable from creation or nature; and not in an impersonal force from which all things have overflowed or emanated.”
The doctrine of creation, then, is in the first place a doctrine about the character and identity of the God we worship. In the second place, the doctrine of creation is a doctrine about the identity and character of the world. As the Catechism puts it, “[The doctrine of creation] concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that human beings of all time have asked themselves: Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is our origin? What is our end? Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going? The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions (#282).
These questions are not simply about the first moment or event in the sequence of events that led to the world as we know it, but ultimate questions about the character of the world, its end in the sense of its purpose or goal, and its origin in the sense of its having been brought into existence with this purpose or goal in mind. As the Catechism goes on to comment:
It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when
humankind appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called God? CAVADINI
View youtube.com/watch?v=M61CZUdTbUc

What is most interesting about the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,* paragraph 284 is the reference to “another order” taken to mean the spiritual domain. “The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences.” In other words, one cannot throw Adam and Eve out of the Catholic Church because the first three chapters of Genesis are not science.

 

[grannymh]

Nothing that I know of. Except why didn’t Adam just tell the stupid snake to shut up and stop hitting on his wife?

And how is knowing the answer to the question “Why didn’t Adam just tell the stupid snake to shut up and stop hitting on his wife?” necessary for our salvation?

Obviously, when one knows what Satan was actually up to, one understands the necessity for Jesus Christ. Obviously, if all Satan was doing was hitting on Eve, since she was the only woman in the garden, there is no need for Jesus to hang bleeding on a cross. Game over. Christianity is dead.

 

[LegoGE1947]

And how is knowing the answer to the question “Why didn’t Adam just tell the stupid snake to shut up and stop hitting on his wife?” necessary for our salvation?

Obviously, when one knows what Satan was actually up to, one understands the necessity for Jesus Christ. Obviously, if all Satan was doing was hitting on Eve, since she was the only woman in the garden, there is no need for Jesus to hang bleeding on a cross. Game over. Christianity is dead.

I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. I know Satan hated humans because God created them. And he wanted mankind to turn their backs on God and be their own “gods”. And by the time Jesus came along the world was so corrupt the only solution for the whole mess was for Jesus to redeem mankind by bleeding on the Cross for them. Game ain’t over till it’s over.

 

[grannymh]

I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. I know Satan hated humans because God created them. And he wanted mankind to turn their backs on God and be their own “gods”. And by the time Jesus came along the world was so corrupt the only solution for the whole mess was for Jesus to redeem mankind by bleeding on the Cross for them. Game ain’t over till it’s over.

Pardon me for my cranky (feminine of snarky) mood where I get extremely nitpicky.

The world being a mess is true. But Jesus Christ was needed immediately, as soon as Adam gave into Satan’s real temptation. Remove this fact and game is a finger tip away from being over since the real need for a Divine Redeemer can be missed by downgrading Original Sin as being the same as the corruption sins of the world. Yes, Original sin is responsible for corruption only if one accepts its uniqueness which is based on the philosophical reason for Adam’s reality. (St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4, 1. CCC 404)

 

[Nimzovik]

Iconing so I can find this thread later. :takeoff:

 

[Cadellin]

The central importance of the doctrine of creation, we can examine more fully why it is so central. As stated in the Creed, “I believe in God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth,” it shows that even the doctrine of God presupposes this doctrine, for it is this doctrine which specifies the identity of the God proposed for belief. We believe in the “Creator of heaven and earth,” not in a separate God, different from the Creator; not in a God indistinguishable from creation or nature; and not in an impersonal force from which all things have overflowed or emanated.”
The doctrine of creation, then, is in the first place a doctrine about the character and identity of the God we worship. In the second place, the doctrine of creation is a doctrine about the identity and character of the world. As the Catechism puts it, “[The doctrine of creation] concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that human beings of all time have asked themselves: Where do we come from? Where are we going? What is our origin? What is our end? Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going? The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions (#282).

It’s not the *doctrine *of creation that’s at issue here, but the language used to describe the historical events. As the *Catechism of the Catholic Church * expresses it (390), ‘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.’

 

[grannymh]

It’s not the *doctrine *of creation that’s at issue here, but the language used to describe the historical events. As the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *expresses it (390), ‘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.’

And the real historical event that took place at the beginning of the history of man is a real Adam actually committing a real Original Sin. (Humani Generis #37, footnote 265 to CCC 390; St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4, 1; CCC 404; Genesis 3: 11-12; CCC 397)

 

[Nimzovik]

What is most interesting about the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,* paragraph 284 is the reference to “another order” taken to mean the spiritual domain. “The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences.” In other words, one cannot throw Adam and Eve out of the Catholic Church because the first three chapters of Genesis are not science.

Hmmmmmmm… Interesting…

 

[Cadellin]

And the real historical event that took place at the beginning of the history of man is a real Adam actually committing a real Original Sin. (Humani Generis #37, footnote 265 to CCC 390; St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4, 1; CCC 404; Genesis 3: 11-12; CCC 397)

Nobody’s denying that, but was the original sin committed by eating a real fruit off a real tree? That’s the figurative language CCC 390 refers to.

 

[grannymh]

Nobody’s denying that, but was the original sin committed by eating a real fruit off a real tree? That’s the figurative language CCC 390 refers to.

Good question. Because we need to know the significance and the future result of any specific or figurative action. Not all fruit are yummy for our tummy. Sorry, my granny instincts kick in when least expected.

One of the basic things which has to be made clear is that Adam knew right from wrong and the difference between good and evil before he came in close contact with the then named tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Notice that even the crafty Satan knew the real significance of the action temptation. Eve saw two concepts of the fruit which was both good for food and desirable for wisdom as Satan cleverly hinted.

It doesn’t really make much difference if the organic fruit was real or not. The disobedient action, physical or mental, is what shattered Adam’s holy relationship with his Creator. The Original Sin was the action of preferring oneself over God and against God. Physically or mentally, Adam deliberately scorned his Creator.

The situation all of us are in is due to the fact that all humanity is in Adam “as one body of one man”. On the other hand, we know by Revelation that Adam’s holy relationship with God was not for him alone but for all human nature. It is our Redeemer Who opened the “gates of heaven” for all those who in the past, in the present, and in the future answer “yes” to God’s invitation to share in his Divine life. This is why we are made in the image of God.

(CCC 378; CCC 396; Genesis 2: 8-9; Genesis 3: 4-6; Genesis 3: 9-11; CCC 397-400; St. Thomas Aquinas, DeMalo 4,1; CCC 404;CCC 355-361; Romans 5: 12-21; Acts 17: 22-27; CCC1260)