Adam and Eve...literal or allegorical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeaceBeWithYou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Different cultures at different times use different techniques for explaining “the stuff that happened in the past.”

If you don’t want to call oral accounts “history,” or poetic accounts “history,” or anything except stuff that fits current academic standards and has explicit footnotes “history,” you find yourself in the position of having nothing to read until 1850 or so.
 
I agree with that still the tone and symbolisim makes genesis a poet
Not a historical account of creation

(At least the creation part of genesis )
 
Last edited:
It can never be an historical account because there were no other human witnesses. We dont have any surviving written although some could argue that the verses ‘these are the generations’ could be an historical oral account.
 
I understand both are acceptable in the Church. Which way do you interpret it?..
I assume a large majority of people don’t take the story literally.
What Catholics are required to reject is polygenism as Pope Pius XII stated in Humani generis:
37. 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 in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority 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.[12]

38. 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.[13] 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.

39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
 
Last edited:
What Catholics are required to reject is polygenism as Pope Pius XII stated in Humani generis :
  1. 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 in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority 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.[12]
  2. 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.[13] 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.
  3. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
Yeah…that should be the death knell for any Catholic wanting to believe Man evolved from Apes …but its not.
 


Yeah…that should be the death knell for any Catholic wanting to believe Man evolved from Apes …but its not.
So I am adding another section:
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
 
What Catholics are required to reject is polygenism as Pope Pius XII stated in Humani generis :
In the 1940’s polygenism was a theory regarding the parallel evolution of different races. Although by the 1940’s most anthropologists who promoted polygenism had admitted that a complete parallel evolution wasn’t likely, but that there was common ancestor before the races evolved separately on different continents. That was completely discredited by the 1980’s.

The language in Humani generis regarding the scientific study of evolution is specific to the then present, 1950. Words and phrases like “Now” , “already completely certain” and “present state of human sciences“ are specific to 1950. Scientific study in that field has come a long way since then.

So there is no “required to reject” when talking about evolution in the context of Humani generis. The polygenism of the 1940’s doesn’t have anything to do with modern evolutionary science.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Vico:
What Catholics are required to reject is polygenism as Pope Pius XII stated in Humani generis :
In the 1940’s polygenism was a theory regarding the parallel evolution of different races. Although by the 1940’s most anthropologists who promoted polygenism had admitted that a complete parallel evolution wasn’t likely, but that there was common ancestor before the races evolved separately on different continents. That was completely discredited by the 1980’s.

The language in Humani generis regarding the scientific study of evolution is specific to the then present, 1950. Words and phrases like “Now” , “already completely certain” and “present state of human sciences“ are specific to 1950. Scientific study in that field has come a long way since then.

So there is no “required to reject” when talking about evolution in the context of Humani generis. The polygenism of the 1940’s doesn’t have anything to do with modern evolutionary science.
Polygenism / polyphyletism seems to have died along with Carleton Coon’s last published book in 1982. And today Neanderthal (earlier and never lived in Africa) and Homo Sapiens are see as the same species, maybe all from Homo Hidelbergensis (so Denisovan is also included).
 
Last edited:
It can never be an historical account because there were no other human witnesses. We dont have any surviving written although some could argue that the verses ‘these are the generations’ could be an historical oral account.
It can be a historical account if this was told directly by God as Gen 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective.
 
They are real.

They are mentioned in the New Testament.

There children are mentioned in the New Testament.

Their son is mentioned in the Eucharistic Prayer.
 
40.png
GiftofMercy:
It can never be an historical account because there were no other human witnesses. We dont have any surviving written although some could argue that the verses ‘these are the generations’ could be an historical oral account.
It can be a historical account if this was told directly by God as Gen 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective.
This causes some very obvious problems.
Does God reveal human history to human beings?
Are the human authors of scripture robots under the dictates of inspiration, such that God forces fortune-teller style knowledge of lost events into human minds?

Or are the human authors of scripture operating in the full human condition? Inspired by God while living in human time and space, and in communion with other human beings.
 
This causes some very obvious problems.
Does God reveal human history to human beings?
Are the human authors of scripture robots under the dictates of inspiration, such that God forces fortune-teller style knowledge of lost events into human minds?

Or are the human authors of scripture operating in the full human condition? Inspired by God while living in human time and space, and in communion with other human beings.
I only referred to Gen 1.
 
The Church speaks about “true men” in theological concepts, seeing human beings as a whole, and not in a way limited merely to scientific concepts.
So when Humanii Generis speaks about “true men” it is referring to a unity of body and soul, not just to the material side of humanity.
 
40.png
goout:
This causes some very obvious problems.
Does God reveal human history to human beings?
Are the human authors of scripture robots under the dictates of inspiration, such that God forces fortune-teller style knowledge of lost events into human minds?

Or are the human authors of scripture operating in the full human condition? Inspired by God while living in human time and space, and in communion with other human beings.
I only referred to Gen 1.
Well ok then. Problem solved. 🙃
 
I would say that the story reads to me as something closer to an allegory than a historical record. Generally, I see the fall in two ways. First, God created the world good, not perfect. So the word “fallen nature” can refer to natural evils (evils being the negation of the good). But the story of man is about a different type of fall, a different type of evil that is willful. And the story is full of symbolism about the nature of choosing evil.

I do believe that original sin is passed down, though I think science and psychology seem to indicate that it is passed down by BOTH nature and nurture, but I tend to see our psychology and the limits of our free will (not a denial of free will, but the limits…as in our slavery to sin) as tied to human psychology. I don’t see them as seperate things.

We generally call our first parents Adam and Eve, and this is appropriate, but it’s important to note the meaning of these names. Adam is Hebrew for the word ‘man’ or “human.” Eve means the “to give life” and she is called that because she is the mother of all the living.

Dei Verbum says that there is a literal and spiritual meaning of scripture. In this sense literal just means reading it as it was intended to be understood. It does not mean “it literally happened.” It only means that if the literal meaning of the passage is meant to be taken literally, but this is not always the case.

While it is true that the Pope expressed concerns about rejecting polygenism, much of his concern was with the implications of denying original sin. We should read his actual concerns and not just read a small segment and then insist “Okay, so we should treat this as an infallible teaching.” His concerns about it are enough to make us cautious about making a judgment, for in this case, we do have traditions that seem to uphold the idea of Adam and Eve being our literal first parents pretty strongly. At the same time, the science would seem to pretty strongly say the opposite.

I would caution anyone to pit religion against science or science against religion. It is a sceintific theory not a fact. It holds a lot of magisterial weight but it not infallible. I would say this lends us to being open to what the science has to say without it threatening the tenents of our faith–such as our belief in original sin, infant baptism, etc.
 

A Single-Couple Human Origin is Possible​

Ola Hössjer, Ann Gauger

Abstract​

The problem of inferring history from genetic data is complex and underdetermined; there are many possible scenarios that would explain the same data. It can be made more tractable by making reasonable simplifications to the model, but it is continually important to remember what has been demonstrated and what is merely a parsimonious working assumption. In this paper we have chosen to model the demographic ancestry of humanity using the simplest of assumptions, with a homogeneous population whose size can vary over time. All other assumptions such as the mutation rates were standard, and no natural selection was in operation. Using a previously published backwards simulation method and some newly developed and faster algorithms, we run our single-couple origin model of humanity and compare the results to allele frequency spectra and linkage disequilibrium statistics from current genetic data. We show that a single-couple origin of humanity as recent as 500kya is consistent with data. With only minor modifications of our parsimonious model assumptions, we suggest that a single-couple origin 100kya, or more recently, is possible.

https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2019.1
 
Saying “when God was talking about actual 24 hour days He used the word “day”. THEREFORE it is IMPOSSIBLE that He could also use that word to refer to another length of time metaphorically” is a really weak argument.

If God refers to the period of creation as 6 days, whether you think that’s literal or figurative, OBVIOUSLY when they later reference that event they would use the same words. That’s not any kind of proof.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top