Adam and Eve...literal or allegorical?

[Techno2000]

To deny the existence of Adam and Eve as real, actual people is condemned heresy.
To suggest that any man preceded them or that any man is not descended from them is condemned heresy.
To suggest that Genesis is an allegory for all humanity and that there was no Original Sin is condemned heresy.
To deny that Genesis contains the real and actual historical account of Creation, the Fall, and the generations after has not been explicitly condemned, but is by nature self-evidently heretical because it denies the inerrancy of Scripture.

Yeah…it’s soooo hard to believe God could create Man…but it’s soooo easy to believe Man came from microbes.

 

[Gorgias]

To deny that Genesis contains the real and actual historical account of Creation, the Fall, and the generations after has not been explicitly condemned, but is by nature self-evidently heretical because it denies the inerrancy of Scripture.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #390:
CCC 390:

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language

Wow. Never knew that the Catechism was “self-evidently heretical” and “denies the inerrancy of Scripture”…

 

[goout]

1. The Catechism is not authoritative.
2. That does not contradict what I wrote.

So please clarify your position.
You claim the catechism is not authoritative. Should we give your opinion more weight than the Catechism?

Your point #4

To deny that Genesis contains the real and actual historical account of Creation, the Fall, and the generations after has not been explicitly condemned, but is by nature self-evidently heretical because it denies the inerrancy of Scripture.

confuses inerrant with “historically accurate”.

That is an error of modernist tendencies, which tend to conflate spiritual truths with materialist proof. As if CNN-type authority was the final arbiter of all truth.
The Truth (notice the capital T) is not confined to human history or science.
Insisting that the Truth of scripture conform to your own standard of truth makes for a very small god. (notice the small “g”)

 

[goout]

Adam and Eve…literal or allegorical?
At the risk of being repetitive, the question proposes a false dichotomy.

 

[goout]

Why are you telling me this. I know this. I was responding to your other point.
Your other point did not seem to allow for anything other than Genesis as literalist history without room for figurative language, and that innerancy means same.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If God has been PROVEN then just about every one would believe

There are a lot of things that have been proven, but if someone doesn’t want to believe it, they won’t. There are countless historical proofs that some people deny, like the Holocaust, falsely claiming the photos & video evidence it “edited.” The same is true for the historical evidence of the God of the Bible, including hundreds of specifically fulfilled prophecies.

Regarding to telescope comment I assert the Flying Spaghetti Monster is invisible.

It that was my only argument (“God is invisible”) your comment would be relevant, but I made several other comments. So, your argument is strawman.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So, do you mean something like Mt 12:40…?

First, it doesn’t say “evening & morning” which is what I challenged you to demonstrate, which this verse doesn’t use those terms. Second, the term “three days & three nights” can apply to any part of a LITERAL 24 hour day. While Jonah was indeed in the belly of the great fish for that time, Jesus used it to foreshadow the same LITERAL time He would be in the grave. IOW, when He died on Friday, even though Friday ended at sundown at 6pm, it still counted as “day 1.” But again, Jesus did not use “evening & morning.” So, you’re example is really irrelevant.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So literally 60% of the time he uses that phrase in all his writings, he’s using it to describe the creation. I don’t have a word for word memorization of the Toarh, but I assumed based on your language that he used that phrase all the time, but actually you are trying to use 40% of the usage to force undeniable definition on the majority . I mean like i said, I don’t think that argument holds water

So, how many times would the phrase have to used - consistently - before it will convince you “evening & morning” means a literal 24 hour period? The fact that it is used consistently to mean a 24 hour period, and 100% of the time it’s used by the SAME WRITER (Moses) in the OT to mean a 24 hour period only reinforces when Moses also used it in Genesis 1, Moses is also using it the same way in Genesis 1 also. I’m afraid you are arguing by exception, which is not how you study Biblical hermeneutics objectively.

These aren’t the things we are arguing about, and Jesus using the same language Moses used doesn’t add anything to the argument. So unless you’re saying the scripture wasn’t divine until Jesus cited it I don’t know why you keep bringing this up.

Then what are you arguing? That when Moses used “evening & morning” in Genesis 1 it did not mean a literal 24 period period, even though Moses used it consistently that way each & every time in the Torah? If that is what you’re arguing, again, besides your subjective personal opinion (“I don’t believe it means literal”), what is your objective argument for believing that?

And “I” am not the one saying Genesis 1 wasn’t “divine” until Jesus cited it (in fact, I am saying the opposite!) All I’m saying is that Jesus affirmed they were literal 24 periods, since He stated Adam & Eve were created in the same 24 hour 7 day Creation week by using the exact same phrase “in the beginning” from Genesis 1:1.

I’m not sure why you seem to be insisting that from Genesis 1:1 to the creation of Adam & Eve were not “necessarily” 7 literal 24 hour periods, given the evidence from both the OT by Moses, & the words of Jesus from the NT that they were.

 

[nfinke]

Jesus affirmed they were literal 24 periods

Jesus did not in any way mention days or hours or anything like that, much less something like “evening and morning”. He used the same word for beginning. You are reading into it what you want to, saying that “Jesus is using the same word for beginning that Moses used, therefore he is affirming my exact interpretation of the entire book of genesis.” You are reading “Adam and Eve were married in the beginning” as “Adam and Eve were married in the beginning [which definitely took place over exactly 168 hours]” This argument came out of nowhere and has no basis is logic so Im done with that one.

Then what are you arguing? That when Moses used “evening & morning” in Genesis 1 it did not mean a literal 24 period period, even though Moses used it consistently that way each & every [other] time in the Torah?

Yes.

Especially since, as I said, that is an unbelievably weak argument, as “each & every time” actually means “less than half of the times”.

Other than restating that argument again as if it was its own proof, explain why it is not a valid argument to say “sometimes a phrase can be used literally, and sometimes that exact phrase can be used again figuratively.”

 

[Gorgias]

The Catechism is not authoritative.

Pardon me? Care to elaborate?

That does not contradict what I wrote.

Actually, it does. You claimed that the assertion that the Genesis account isn’t a “real and actual historical account” is self-evidently heretical. I showed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts that Genesis 3 is figurative (and therefore, not a “real and actual historical account”). Moreover, the CCC asserts the inerrancy of Scripture, as the Church understands it, so there is no heresy there.

That the first man and woman lived in a Paradise and were tempted by the serpent is noy figurative. It is historical fact.

No… the Church teaches that it’s figurative.

First, it doesn’t say “evening & morning” which is what I challenged you to demonstrate

Distinction without a difference. “Day and night” and “evening and morning” express the same concept.

 

[EndTimes]

The Catechism is not authoritative.

That’s a well-known Fallacy - Totally UnTrue – Easily DeBunked.

 

[EndTimes]

In the apostolic constitution Fidei depositum, John Paul II declared that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is “a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Jesus did not in any way mention days or hours or anything like that, much less something like “evening and morning”. He used the same word for beginning

I didn’t say Jesus used the words “evening & morning.” I said He used the same Greek word for “beginning” used in the Septuagint of Genesis 1, when God created marriage, when Jesus talked about when marriage took place - “in the beginning.”

You are reading “Adam and Eve were married in the beginning”

Because that is what Jesus said:

"And Jesus answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning [Genesis 1:1] MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE [ie: Adam and Eve, Genesis 1:27] and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? [ie: marriage, Genesis 2:24]” (Matthew 19:4-5)

Especially since, as I said, that is an unbelievably weak argument, as “each & every time” actually means “less than half of the times”

Again, how many times does the phrase have to be used in the OT - consistently - to believe it’s also used that way by the same writer in Genesis? ZERO PERCENT of the time, the phrase means a non-24 hour period. You are arguing by exception, which is not how you do Biblical hermeneutics. It is too subjective.

explain why it is not a valid argument to say “sometimes a phrase can be used literally, and sometimes that exact phrase can be used again figuratively.”

Elsewhere in the Bible, when a word of a phrase has more than one meaning, it is evident from the text, or the text explains what the word means, like the word “brother” which has multiple meanings in both the Hebrew & Greek. IOW, you don’t have to “guess” what a word or phrase means. But in the case of “evening & morning,” to say it means a literal 24 hour period every other time in the OT by Moses outside of Genesis 1, but it doesn’t mean it in Genesis 1 is “reading into it what you want to” and “an unbelievably weak argument.” Since you are the one stating “it doesn’t mean that here,” then the burden of proof is on you - not mean - to demonstrate it does “not” mean this. What do you “evening & morning” means anyway?

 

[nfinke]

to say it means a literal 24 hour period every other time in the OT by Moses outside of Genesis 1, but it doesn’t mean it in Genesis 1 is “reading into it what you want to” and “an unbelievably weak argument.” Since you are the one stating “it doesn’t mean that here,” then the burden of proof is on you - not mean - to demonstrate it does “not” mean this.

You are actually implying here that a flimsy linguistic argument puts the burden of proof on me when your position flies in the face of logic and science. You can even add an underline, and that still won’t be the case.

Again, how many times does the phrase have to be used in the OT - consistently - to believe it’s also used that way by the same writer in Genesis?

Again, I doubt you’re actually reading any of my responses. I literally said I don’t care if it’s been used 1000000 times. I thought that was clear. I do not think him using the phrase in one way binds him in some mystical literary chains where he can never use it another way, because that’s silly. I see no validity in the argument.

 

[EndTimes]

You are actually implying here that a flimsy linguistic argument puts the burden of proof on me when your position flies in the face of logic and science.

Does the implication within that argument actually presume upon us

• so as to have any readers infer …
• that Man’s “logic and science” definitively supersedes God’s Sacred Scriptures?

 

[nfinke]

No I never claimed logic or science supersedes scripture in the slightest. But the logic God gave man in order to understand the world He made wouldnt contradict scripture either.

 

[EndTimes]

No I never claimed logic or science supersedes scripture in the slightest. But the logic God gave man in order to understand the world He made wouldnt contradict scripture either.

I just want to make sure that I’m being clear.

… And Reason…

From Scriptures therefore, By Reason we’re capable of Realizing God…

If that isn’t a Spiritual-based Proof,
than what proof or disproof could possibly exist and be made,
re: Catholic Teaching on for instance Adam&Eve,
that could for instance even non-spiritually disprove it as being Fact?

That said,

I do realize that most people accept the evidences (not Proof) of e.g, common ancestor as Fact…

Yet, even Common Ancestor is still disputed by some scientists of several Bio-Sciences…

Which fuels endless arguments concerning, e.g, Darwinism and Scientism versus religion or God.

That said, any theory of “evolution” which presents a Godless materialistic-only Beginning of Man without a God-Given Soul - is contrary to Catholic Teachings, yes?

_​

 

[nfinke]

If that isn’t a Spiritual-based Proof,
than what proof or disproof could possibly exist and be made,
re: Catholic Teaching on for instance Adam&Eve,
that could for instance even non-spiritually disprove it as being Fact?

Woah. I got a headache just reading that. But based on what I think you’re saying, I obviously don’t think reason is sufficient. Reason can get you to a certain point, and I think you can get all the way to God’s existence on reason alone, but of course many things are unknowable without Scripture. You can’t “reason” your way to the sacraments or Christ’s divinity, or the truth that the first two people to exist were named Adam and Eve, but reason also doesn’t contradict those revealed truths either.

That said, any theory of “evolution” which presents a Godless materialistic-only Beginning of Man without a God-Given Soul - is contrary to Catholic Teachings, yes?

Described exactly as you describe it, of course. But thats setting the situation in your favor. Nothing about the evolution says “God must not exist for this to be true” or “here is scientific proof that man has no soul”. God was certainly capable of creating life in any way He wanted to.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You are actually implying here that a flimsy linguistic argument puts the burden of proof on me when your position flies in the face of logic and science.

This has nothing to do with science, but hermeneutics. You keep saying, “I think” which is subjective, and not how to exegetically interpret a Biblical author’s intention. You are attempting to understand it beginning and ending with yourself. I begin and end with Moses and Jesus.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

But the logic God gave man in order to understand the world He made wouldnt contradict scripture either.

Science cannot disprove miracles, like God creating mankind in the same literal 24 hour 7 day creation week, which is supported by the exegesis of Genesis 1 and the words of Jesus.