Adam and Eve...literal or allegorical?

[Tolle_Lege]

Here’s another thread that screams, “please pin me to the top of all posts because I’ve only been answered about 400 times before here”

 

[PeaceBeWithYou]

That’s your contribution? How sad.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

If you want a contribution, here is my own opinion on the matter:

The fact that the Assumption of Mary is a dogma, based not on eyewitness accounts but on Scriptural foreshadowing and allusion combined with theological reasoning, should be seen as providing an even stronger basis for proclaiming the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve - both body and soul - an infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church. In Scripture, this event and references to it is described not only in Genesis but also (to name just a few passages) 1 Chronicles 1, Tobit 8:6, Wisdom 10:1, Sirach 33:10, 40:1 and 49:6, Hosea 6:7, 2 Maccabees 7:28, Luke 3:38, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2, and Jude 1:14. So the totality of direct references to the instantaneous creation of Adam in Sacred Scripture far outweighs the rather scant allusions to the Assumption. Humani Generis requires only a belief in the immediate creation of Adam’s soul, which leaves open the possibility that God simply infused an intangible, rational soul into the already-existing animal body of Adam. This is problematic in that 1) it reduces God’s miraculous capability to create a man, body and soul, instantaneously if He so wished, 2) it separates God from material creation in that it is implied He is spiritual and unproven, able to intercede only in matters outside the physical realm and 3) it contradicts the Church’s current teaching that a soul is formed at the moment of conception. Albeit invisible to the naked eye, at conception a physical human is present, complete with an instantaneously created soul. Hence, Adam can just as well have been formed miraculously as an adult, which is clearly, definitively, and unambiguously stated in Scripture. And, once again, held up to the criteria used to dogmatically declare the Assumption, the creation of Adam and Eve has strong grounds to stand on as a dogmatic tenet of the Faith.
In the realm of evolutionary science, nothing stands in the way of a proclamation of such dogma, for science can trace back the biological beginnings of mankind, but cannot exactly p(name removed by moderator)oint the first occurrence of human beings made in God’s image.
The Church’s current teaching on the origin of human beings, in my opinion, shortchanges God’s power and allows for thoughts of separation between the spiritual and the physical. Humani Generis is often said to allow for this belief, but does not emphatically require it. However, personally, I hold the miraculous creation of Adam and Eve as described in Genesis as a true literal account due exactly to my required belief in the Assumption.

 

[Neithan]

Even a strict Darwinian like Richard Dawkins has to admit that at some point in the timeline of human evolution, one single human being somehow had the full ability of language and complex communication (some sort of mutation). Who did he talk to? That there were two original “speakers” is not an implausible leap, it’s actually more plausible, since language develops in communication.

 

[DIERM]

6 days right? Rested on the 7th?

But, be aware “rested” means His creative endeavors were complete, not that He stepped away from Salvation History…for if God ever “rests”, everything falls apart.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

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.

Whenever the specific Greek word for “day” (yom) is used with a number, along with “evening & morning” in the OT, it always refers to a specific 24 hour day. Moses wrote the entire Torah, including Genesis. So, when he reflects back in Exodus 20:11 about the Creation week, he understood his own writing in Genesis 1 to refer to a literal 24 hour 6 day work week:

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”

 

[Cruc3S1gnatus]

The Church teaches that they were two real historical figures who were the first true man and woman, and they both really historically sinned. It allows us to understand a lot of the details in the story as symbols, though.

Seriously just asked a priest about this last week and he said they didnt exist. He said the bible was full of metaphors and allegories. Needless to say I won’t be going back to him!

 

[Neithan]

An allegory can be about historical people. Their names may not have literally been Adam and Eve and they may not literally have eaten an apple/fig.

 

[EndTimes]

LITERAL! From Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis (Generation of Humans) we find:

""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.""

Also -
to deny Adam as being real would be to deny all direct mentioning of Adam within the NT
as well as Jesus’ Geneaology in Luke… .

When Jesus began his work he was about thirty years old,
the son, as people thought, of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, son of Mattathiah, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, son of Maath, son of Mattathiah, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda, son of Johanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Symeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim, son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Salmon, son of Nahshon, son of Amminadab, Some witnesses add: son of Admin. son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arpachshad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, son of Enosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.

 

[Techno2000]

LITERAL! From Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis (Generation of Humans) we find:

""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.""

Also -
to deny Adam as being real would be to deny all direct mentioning of Adam within the NT
as well as Jesus’ Geneaology in Luke… .

When Jesus began his work he was about thirty years old,
the son, as people thought, of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, son of Mattathiah, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, son of Maath, son of Mattathiah, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda, son of Johanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Symeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim, son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Salmon, son of Nahshon, son of Amminadab, Some witnesses add: son of Admin. son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arpachshad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, son of Enosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.

Yeah… the Bible got everybody’s name right, except Adams.

 

[EndTimes]

"Yeah… the Bible got everybody’s name right, except Adams. "

Interesting how it is God who named Adam/Man and Jesus

And barring Angels of known names,
every other creature created by the Creator, from:
Children of God, to beasts, flowers, veggies, et cet

• are named BY Man.

_

 

[GiftofMercy]

Numbers can be adjectives , as words, rather then as counted entities.

The word Yom translated as ‘day’ is a Hebrew word. It can have several meanings, and not all meanings are a specific time marker

You wrote
Whenever the specific Greek word for “day” (yom)

 

[EndTimes]

I know how 'day" can refer to differing lengths of time…

Give examples of how “Numbers can be adjectives” ?

 

[GiftofMercy]

I know how 'day" can refer to differing lengths of time…

Give examples of how “ Numbers can be adjectives ” ?

The post I was referring to had mistranslated a Hebrew word as a Greek word. I am referring to the use of words that can be traslated as (for example) the number four, also used originally as an adjective in Biblical Hebrew.

 

[nfinke]

Whenever the specific Greek word for “day” (yom) is used with a number, along with “evening & morning” in the OT, it always refers to a specific 24 hour day.

1. Your theory is still built on the idea that if someone uses a specific word to mean something many times, that it is impossible for them to use it to mean something else at any point in all of their writings. This statement that a word can only have one use has no basis in logic. The argument is that using “days” to describe a much longer time period makes it understandable. So responding with “well the definition of day is established” doesnt do anything to diminish my argument.
2. Youre acting like Moses is writing a first hand account, saw himself that the days were 24 hours, and wrote Genesis accordingly. Moses was not there for creation. He wrote the Torah based on revelation from God. You might argue he wrote Exodus on based on his own first hand knowledge, but that doesnt work for Genesis, and specifically the creation story, to which God was the only eye witness. God told him it happened in 6 “days”, so thats what Moses wrote. So the concept of “Moses only wrote yom when he knew it was a 24 day” is silly, because hes writing about things he had no way of knowing were true in the first place, had they not been described to him by God.
3. Its 100% possible God summed it up that way both because otherwise He would have to use numbers so big Moses didnt even have words to describe them, and also to establish the Sabbath as a way to affirm the creator, and all science on the subject points to that being the case. The only other explanation that doesnt say “everything we know about how science works is wrong”, is that God created the world in six days, but designed it to appear in every single conceivable way to be billions of years old…to deceive us? just for fun? because we need another source of doubt in the world? It doesnt seem to make sense to me that in this one area God would design the world specifically to make reason and faith incompatible, when it seems like he went through great pains to make sure that didnt happen at any other point.

 

[EndTimes]

re: Yom - and how long a “day” was/is…

As a sidenote and as far as I know,
Catholics are not bound to either accept or reject that a day is 24 hours…

Noting that,
and realizing that some would disagree with this following,

Yes some - perhaps fewer in number - believe that day is 24 hours - and beyond - some believe that one MUST believe that - etc and etc

As for me? And in reference to how Scritpures and Catholic Teachings refer to greater and lesser sins - weightier and not as weighty, I never allow myself to get overly hung-up in what some deem to be potentially endless theological debates which are as far as Judgement and Salvation is concerned are actually minor or even Wrong to do so - and that is: quibbling over terms and words for reason that they spur division along with distractions - from our Lord Jesus Whom deserves our rapt Attention…

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Your theory is still built on the idea that if someone uses a specific word to mean something many times, that it is impossible for them to use it to mean something else at any point in all of their writings.

1. If you read my entire post, that is not my argument.

Youre acting like Moses is writing a first hand account, saw himself that the days were 24 hours, and wrote Genesis accordingly. Moses was not there for creation. He wrote the Torah based on revelation from God.

1. Again, that is not my argument (“Youre acting like Moses is writing a first hand account, saw himself that the days were 24 hours.”) My argument was based on the linguistics of the use of the specific word when it’s used with “evening & morning” along with a “number.” Again, I never said Moses was there as an eyewitness. But like you said, “He wrote the Torah based on revelation from God,” and then used the linguistics from the Hebrew language to explicitly explain that by “yom,” he was saying “literal 24 hour period” which involves “evening & morning” with a number (“first day,” etc) just as he does in Exodus which he also wrote.

Its 100% possible God summed it up that way both because otherwise He would have to use numbers so big Moses didnt even have words to describe them. The only other explanation…is that God created the world in six days, but designed it to appear in every single conceivable way to be billions of years old…to deceive us? just for fun?

Except that the linguistics of the text, along with use of “evening & morning” with the use of a number “first day, second day…” etc does not allow for that personal opinion. Again, when you look at other verses in the Torah (like Exodus) where Moses does the same thing, he uses them to mean a literal 24 period.

to deceive us? just for fun? because we need another source of doubt in the world? It doesnt seem to make sense to me that in this one area God would design the world specifically to make reason and faith incompatible

I don’t know why you find it as “another source of doubt” for God to “deceive us.” Why do you find an Omnipotent God Who bodily rose Jesus from the dead, walked on water, caused a worldwide Flood, separated the Red Sea, but incapable of creating the heavens & the earth in 7 literal 24 days, since that is what the text says, which is supported by the linguistics? And Jesus Himself said the first marriage took place “in the beginning” which is the exact same Greek word in the Septuagint (arche) in Genesis 1:1.

 

[nfinke]

My argument was based on the linguistics of the use of the specific word when it’s used with “evening & morning” along with a “number.”

I am saying it doesnt matter how Moses used the word. Moses thought he was being literal. God, who essentially dictated Genesis to him, was being symbolic, and Moses was unaware of the real meaning. God is by no means always literal in His revelations to man. Sometimes He tells it straight like with Jeremiah or Elijah, sometimes He just shows them what He wants to show them, like Isaiah and John. Why would Moses use the word for day in some different manner than normal if he himself didnt know it was being used symbolically? That argument makes sense if you are taking the position that Moses had full knowledge of what actually happened during creation, and was writing what he knew had happened, which isnt the case. If hes writing a secondhand account (which he is) then this argument has no foundation. The only other way to make it logically sound is if you assert that there is no possible way God was being a little symbolic in relating an event to a human, which we know based on the entire rest of the Bible that He loves to do.

Remember Moses held the brush, but the Lord wrote Genesis, like with the rest of the Book. Youd have to argue that this imaginary law that binds the word Yom to a literal use only is unbreakable even by God.

Your theory is still built on the idea that if someone uses a specific word to mean something many times, that it is impossible for them to use it to mean something else at any point in all of their writings.

when you look at other verses in the Torah (like Exodus) where Moses does the same thing, he uses them to mean a literal 24 period.

Im not trying to be annoying here, but I really dont see how that is not the argument youre making. This is the same logic used by people like seven day adventists who insist God (outside of Jesus) has a physical body, because His “arm” and “eyes” and “back” are described in the OT. There is no language that has ever existed that has had linguistic laws determining how, or if, specific words could be used to symbolize other things. That entire concept is absurd.

Why do you find an Omnipotent God … incapable of creating the heavens & the earth in 7 literal 24 days

I never once said He was incapable, which He obviously isnt. I never said it was a source of doubt for me.

The point is I think it is infinitely more likely that God just dumbed down the creation of the cosmos to a level the Hebrews could easily accept without actually being untrue, than that He just on a whim decided to make His 6-day-old universe appear in every way to have existed for billions of years for apparently no reason. Occam’s razor and all that.

 

[RogueSemicolon]

St. Augustine, as well as a number of Early Church Fathers before him, didn’t understand the days of creation as literal 24-hour days. As Gavin Ortlund notes,

In Augustine’s view, God creates all things simultaneously, and the 7-day construct in Genesis 1 is an accommodation in which “the Scriptural style comes down to the level of little ones and adjusts itself to their capacity.”

That is to say, the construction of creation into days was a way for God to make something ineffable comprehensible to us. The above cited article gives an overview of why St. Augustine came to his interpretation, but, I presume, you would need to read his book De Genesi ad litteram for a full appreciation of his exegetical rigor.

 

[Gorgias]

God, who essentially dictated Genesis to [Moses]

Moses held the brush, but the Lord wrote Genesis, like with the rest of the Book

Neither of these assertions is what the Catholic Church means when it describes “inspiration.” In fact, your assertions are precisely the examples that the Church gives when it explains what Scriptural inspiration is not.