Adam and Eve Literalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter CarmenParvus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all evolution is not an established fact. And even if it were that would not effect the Church’s teaching on Adam and Eve. What we must believe is that the first man was not the son of an animal by a process of conception as normally conceived and that the first woman was some how derived from the first man. In addition Catholics must believe that all human beings descended from this first pair. Personally I like the Genesis version of the origin of Adam and Eve, I think it displays the special love God has for man and it is very poetic :).

But take a look at the Catechism. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Part 2, Section 2, chapter 1, paragraph 6.

Linus2nd
“Evolution is not an established fact”. Is this your position simply because you choose to not accept it? I disagreed with you. It clearly is an established fact, and poses problems for literalists trying to take Jewish stories and history as “established facts”. It’s easier to disregard it rather than acknowledge it which would then pose problems for religious positions regarding literal intrepretation of the Bible…I believe even that Catholic Church has come to the conclusion that some of what is in the Old Testatment are just that, stories, told the purpose of teaching and counseling people and they cannot be taken literally…
 
“Evolution is not an established fact”. Is this your position simply because you choose to not accept it? I disagreed with you. It clearly is an established fact, and poses problems for literalists trying to take Jewish stories and history as “established facts”. It’s easier to disregard it rather than acknowledge it which would then pose problems for religious positions regarding literal intrepretation of the Bible…I believe even that Catholic Church has come to the conclusion that some of what is in the Old Testatment are just that, stories, told the purpose of teaching and counseling people and they cannot be taken literally…
Could you provide any credible sources that the Catholic Church teaches what you think it does?

Peace,
Ed
 
I struggle with the same questions about Adam and Eve, but what really confuses me, is the other people living on the earth during this time, I believe they were black people, but everytime I ask about it, Im told this topic is banned by the church…I do not understand this, nor why it is banned.

Im not referring to the story of Lillith either. I only say this because I know many people connect these 2.
Dear Mike: the “other” people poses problems, hence the desire for some to ignore them. Conveniently, the church states that they are brothers and sisters of Adam and Cain, other children by Adam and Eve. Incest is not, at this time in time (also conveniently) considered taboo. Otherwise be is no “reasonable” explanation for their presence or existence (and why is the Bible quiet about these other children of Adam and Eve if they truly were?).

That they were black people is new to me and interesting, but still doesn’t answer the question. They had to come from some place, and if Adam and Even are the true beginning of all mankind, they too would be their children.

I don’t believe the topic is truly banned. Just one hard to address with convincing, believable answers.
 
All Catholics MUST believe that everyone on Earth descended from one and only one pair of parents–Adam and Eve.

There are a lot of people that don’t like hearing that but it is the truth.

As long as you believe that then you can believe in other aspects of evolution.

It is difficult to see how one could believe that all have descended from Adam and Eve and also believe that Adam and Eve “EVOLVED” from any other living species–if they did then they couldn’t be the SOLE parents of the human race which is required by Catholic belief.

I personally don’t have a problem with the big bang–dinosaurs–evolution of everything UP TO Adam and Eve–I just don’t believe that Adam and Eve evolved from anything else–I think they were SPECIALLY created by God.

I believe they could have been the first homo sapiens,

I also believe it could be possible that the Garden of Eden is present under the present day accidents of the country of Iraq–If Jesus can be present in the Eucharist without us seeing Him there–then the same could be true for the Garden of Eden.

The reason that Catholics must believe that all descend from Adam and Eve is because of original sin–there had to be a Fall for mankind–it really did happen and Adam and Eve were really ACTUAL people.

How we transition from a literal Adam and Eve maybe in a Garden of Eden that might not be in the same dimension as present day Iraq I don’t know–all I know is this–science and theology do not contradict one another–if the Catholic Church says we all descended from Adam and Eve then that is true and you can take it to the bank! It’s still OK to believe in anything that science says that doesn’t contradict the church’s teaching.

Remember Catholics believe in Both/and not either/or.

I don’t understand how God created everything out of nothing but I believe it.

I don’t understand how Jesus was able to resurrect Himself from the dead but I believe it!

I don’t know how the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ but I believe it.

I don’t SEE gravity but I believe it.

If your mind is big enough there will be no contradiction between theology and science.

If your mind is too small to grasp that there’s no contradiction between theology and science then hopefully you will be saved because of invincible ignorance.
Original sin: Was this taught or considered in the Old Testament? No, because it is a creation of the Church to justify it’s position on Christ and make the crucification/resurrection story work (thanks to Paul). Without this concept, then Christ was just another zealot the Romans put to death to warn the multi-cultural population to toe the line or suffer a similar fate. One cannot consider Adam and Eve to just be a “story” but then consider Original Sin as “factual”.

I do like however how you’ve taken the position that evolution could still have happened, but then God put a soul into “man” and he because what we are today, homo sapiens. Nice. Covers all bases. And it answes why all of a sudden we became, “smart”.
 
Humani Generis states Catholics are to believe monogenism.

From Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII:

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church

"# 375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . . divine life”.

“# 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. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”

Peace,
Ed
I confess … that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand “before the judgment-seat of Christ,” together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man (… ). Pope Pelagius I

[We confess] … that after [Jesus’] spirit was already rendered up, his side suffered perforation by a lance, so that through the ensuing flow of water and blood, the one and only, immaculate, virgin holy Mother Church, the Spouse of Christ, might be formed, just as from the side of the first man, cast into sleep, Eve was formed for him unto marriage. This happened so that the reality manifested in our last Adam, that is, Christ, might correspond to a certain prefiguring of that reality constituted by the first and ancient Adam, who, according to the Apostle, “is a type of the one who was to come” [cf. Rom. 5: 14] Ecumenical Council of Vienne in 1312

EVE, the first woman, made out of a rib of Adam (Gen. ii. 21); induced by the serpent to eat the forbidden fruit (iii. 6); persuades Adam to eat thereof (6); her sentence (16); God makes her a garment of skins (21); mother of Cain (iv. 1); of Abel (2); of Seth (25) and of daughters (v. 4)

Of all books ever written, this fivefold book of Moses is the only one that enlightens us with infallible certainty on the origin of all things in this universe, visible and invisible;on the creation of mankind and their destinies; on their duties, during this life, toward their Almighty Creator and toward each other, and on the rewards and punishments of the eternal life hereafter… . Before the coming of Christ the whole pagan world was plunged in darkness impenetrable concerning the origin of man and the world, and the sublime destinies appointed in Christ for Adam and his posterity in the very beginning. Christian teaching dispelled this midnight darkness and revealed to all believers both the secret of man’s origin and the incomprehensible glory of his supernatural destinies… . So, in these first verses and pages of Genesis — the Book of Origins — we are treading on abysses of revealed truth — of truth which explains to us both the world beneath and around us, and that unmeasured world which extends on all sides above and beyond our little globe, … Bible dictionary by Fr. B. O’Reilly, first published in the 1850s or early 1860’s approved by 23 Bishops

This, our Holy Mother the Church believes and teaches: When God was about to make man according to his image and likeness in order that he might rule over the whole earth, He breathed into the body formed from the slime of the earth the breath of life, that is, a soul produced from nothing… . And blessing the first man and Eve his wife who was formed by divine power from his side, God said: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1: 28) draft schema prepared by bishops and theologians of Vatican Council I

What is the true origin of marriage? That, Venerable Brethren, is a matter of common knowledge. For although the revilers of the Christian faith shrink from acknowledging the Church’s permanent doctrine on this matter, and persist in their long-standing efforts to erase the history of all nations and all ages, they have nonetheless been unable to extinguish, or even to weaken, the strength and light of the truth. We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept. In bringing this about, God, in his supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted. And so that this union of man and woman might correspond more aptly to the most wise counsels of God, it has manifested from that time onward, deeply impressed or engraved, as it were, within itself, two preeminent and most noble properties: unity and perpetuity. Pope Leo to the world’s Catholic bishops
 
con’t

Whether, in particular, the literal historical sense (sensus litteralis historicus) may be called in question (vocari in dubium possit), where it is a question of facts narrated in these chapters (ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis) which involve the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), as are, among others, the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special [or, particular] creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man (formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine); the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precept given by God to man in order to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine precept under the persuasion of the devil in the guise of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from the aforesaid primaeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Saviour?

Response: In the negative (Negative). Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Responsum of June 30, 1909

God formed man and crowned his brow with the diadem of his image and likeness… . Only from man could there come another man who could call him father and parent;and the helpmate given to the first man also comes from him and is flesh of his flesh … . Her name comes from the man, because she was taken from him.58**

**
The woman is fashioned “with the rib” that God-Yahweh had taken from the man. Considering the archaic, metaphorical and imaginative manner in which the thought is expressed, we can establish that this passage has to do with the homogeneity of the total being of both persons.67
 
Anybody who talks about “established fact” with regard to scientific theories doesn’t understand the scientific method. Any scientific theory can be overturned by new evidence, which is why science is the most successful epistemology every devised. Science continuously advances by discarding that which is wrong or inadequate. If only other disciplines showed the same willingness to discard discredited claims.

The Theory of Evolution (and every other scientific theory) will never be “established fact.” However, the evidence for evolution is astonishing and confirmed by billions of pieces of data from dozens of disciplines ranging from molecular biology to embryology to geology to … Evolution deniers should spend more time learning and less spewing opinions on matters they know little about, even it the conclusions contradict their cherished beliefs.
 
Anybody who talks about “established fact” with regard to scientific theories doesn’t understand the scientific method. Any scientific theory can be overturned by new evidence, which is why science is the most successful epistemology every devised. Science continuously advances by discarding that which is wrong or inadequate. If only other disciplines showed the same willingness to discard discredited claims.

The Theory of Evolution (and every other scientific theory) will never be “established fact.” However, the evidence for evolution is astonishing and confirmed by billions of pieces of data from dozens of disciplines ranging from molecular biology to embryology to geology to … Evolution deniers should spend more time learning and less spewing opinions on matters they know little about, even it the conclusions contradict their cherished beliefs.
The modern syntheses is being replaced by self-organization as we speak. There are so many holes in evo theory now it is imploding. But, are you resorting to an argument from popularity?

Design deniers are twisting and turning as everyday we find more evidence of biologic design. Are you a design denier?

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and is provisional.

It can not be established fact and that is why evolutionism is philosophy.
 
Once again. The Genesis narrative gives a lot of information on WHAT God did, however not much information on HOW God did it.
Does it really matter that some choose to believe God created (For a want of a better description) instantaneously or in six days through breath or spirit or his spoken word, and some choose to believe he used a process that took millions of years.
Is it not true that we all believe in God through Faith and is not the important thing that we believe through Faith that God was the creator no matter how God did it.
After all any attempt to describe Gods creative action is an attempt to anthropomorphise God and in a very real sense (while we are discussing the book of Genesis) brings the words of Gen 3:5 to mind.
 
God created the entire universe.
He maintains everything that exists here and now, from the subatomic microcosm to the billions of galaxies around us, through time measured in the billions of years.
This is but a part of the totality of creation which includes countless angels and demons.
The Word became man, was crucified and was resurrected, after healing and raising people from the dead.
Every Sunday, we eat His body when we participate in the eucharist.
We ourselves live in hope of a resurrection as a glorified body in the new Jerusalem.
God who is omniscient, omnipotent, Beauty, Truth and Love, are people truly suggesting that He could not create a holy physical-spiritual being with free will, by combining the simplest form of matter with what is highest in the universe, His own breath?
He couldn’t bring forth a companion from this original man and thereby generate the entire human race?
The story of Adam and Eve reveals to us the basics of our nature, our world and our relationship with God.
Our day-to-day life is miraculous, God is everywhere.
The truth of a philosophy is the degree to which it brings you closer to Him, in mind, heart and action.
 
Anybody who talks about “established fact” with regard to scientific theories doesn’t understand the scientific method. Any scientific theory can be overturned by new evidence, which is why science is the most successful epistemology every devised. Science continuously advances by discarding that which is wrong or inadequate. If only other disciplines showed the same willingness to discard discredited claims.

The Theory of Evolution (and every other scientific theory) will never be “established fact.” However, the evidence for evolution is astonishing and confirmed by billions of pieces of data from dozens of disciplines ranging from molecular biology to embryology to geology to … Evolution deniers should spend more time learning and less spewing opinions on matters they know little about, even it the conclusions contradict their cherished beliefs.
I know 100% compliance is the goal. I’ll side with the Church on this.

Peace,
Ed
 
God created the entire universe.
He maintains everything that exists here and now, from the subatomic microcosm to the billions of galaxies around us, through time measured in the billions of years.
This is but a part of the totality of creation which includes countless angels and demons.
The Word became man, was crucified and was resurrected, after healing and raising people from the dead.
Every Sunday, we eat His body when we participate in the eucharist.
We ourselves live in hope of a resurrection as a glorified body in the new Jerusalem.
God who is omniscient, omnipotent, Beauty, Truth and Love, are people truly suggesting that He could not create a holy physical-spiritual being with free will, by combining the simplest form of matter with what is highest in the universe, His own breath?
He couldn’t bring forth a companion from this original man and thereby generate the entire human race?
The story of Adam and Eve reveals to us the basics of our nature, our world and our relationship with God.
Our day-to-day life is miraculous, God is everywhere.
The truth of a philosophy is the degree to which it brings you closer to Him, in mind, heart and action.
Once again! WHAT God has done / is doing not HOW God is doing it. NB: Breath can be translated as Spirit. And who want’s to get into a discussion about the complexities and make up of Gods spirit??? Not me!
 
The theory of evolution, and even human evolution, does not in any way contradict monogenism, and I have explained this in earlier posts. At some point (c. 70,000 years ago), the homo sapien population definitely went under 1000, and it is not scientifically unreasonable to say that it even went down to two, at which point Adam and Eve (those last two) would have been given souls. Also, Humani Generis specifically and clearly states that Adam and Eve’s bodies could have come from "Pre-Existing and Living Matter, meaning that they could have also had parents.

P.S. I AM a "design’ denier (for the person who was talking about design), in the case of direct ‘drawing board’ design, because there is no direct evidence for design. In fact, many of the supposed "well designed’ organs are ‘designed’ very poorly. For example, take the human heart. While ID proponents often like to say how amazing it is that it can work 24/7/365 for 70+ years, and use this as evidence for ID, the truth is that it’s actually a rather poor ‘design’; the structure of the coronary arteries would make any piping engineer cringe. Another example of poor design is laryngal nerve in humans, which take absurd detours around arteries near our heart, making it about four times longer than it actually needs to be, and making us more susceptible to injury. These make no sense in light of design, but they do when you factor in efficiency (for the heart example) and common descent (for the second example). This is one of the reasons why I don’t believe in “intelligent design”, there is just too much unintelligent ‘design’, mistakes and leftover parts from ancestors that even a novice engineer would not make, let alone a God as infinitely powerful and intelligent as ours. If you truly want to look for intelligent design, look at the laws of physics that are calibrated so precisely that they allow evolution to happen without a design. That is where the real intelligence is.
 
The theory of evolution, and even human evolution, does not in any way contradict monogenism, and I have explained this in earlier posts. At some point (c. 70,000 years ago), the homo sapien population definitely went under 1000, and it is not scientifically unreasonable to say that it even went down to two, at which point Adam and Eve (those last two) would have been given souls. Also, Humani Generis specifically and clearly states that Adam and Eve’s bodies could have come from "Pre-Existing and Living Matter, meaning that they could have also had parents.

P.S. I AM a "design’ denier (for the person who was talking about design), in the case of direct ‘drawing board’ design, because there is no direct evidence for design. In fact, many of the supposed "well designed’ organs are ‘designed’ very poorly. For example, take the human heart. While ID proponents often like to say how amazing it is that it can work 24/7/365 for 70+ years, and use this as evidence for ID, the truth is that it’s actually a rather poor ‘design’; the structure of the coronary arteries would make any piping engineer cringe. Another example of poor design is laryngal nerve in humans, which take absurd detours around arteries near our heart, making it about four times longer than it actually needs to be, and making us more susceptible to injury. These make no sense in light of design, but they do when you factor in efficiency (for the heart example) and common descent (for the second example). This is one of the reasons why I don’t believe in “intelligent design”, there is just too much unintelligent ‘design’, mistakes and leftover parts from ancestors that even a novice engineer would not make, let alone a God as infinitely powerful and intelligent as ours. If you truly want to look for intelligent design, look at the laws of physics that are calibrated so precisely that they allow evolution to happen without a design. That is where the real intelligence is.
This first paragraph is just speculation. If you don’t like ID, start another thread.

Peace,
Ed
 
The theory of evolution, and even human evolution, does not in any way contradict monogenism, and I have explained this in earlier posts. At some point (c. 70,000 years ago), the homo sapien population definitely went under 1000, and it is not scientifically unreasonable to say that it even went down to two, at which point Adam and Eve (those last two) would have been given souls. Also, Humani Generis specifically and clearly states that Adam and Eve’s bodies could have come from "Pre-Existing and Living Matter, meaning that they could have also had parents.

P.S. I AM a "design’ denier (for the person who was talking about design), in the case of direct ‘drawing board’ design, because there is no direct evidence for design. In fact, many of the supposed "well designed’ organs are ‘designed’ very poorly. For example, take the human heart. While ID proponents often like to say how amazing it is that it can work 24/7/365 for 70+ years, and use this as evidence for ID, the truth is that it’s actually a rather poor ‘design’; the structure of the coronary arteries would make any piping engineer cringe. Another example of poor design is laryngal nerve in humans, which take absurd detours around arteries near our heart, making it about four times longer than it actually needs to be, and making us more susceptible to injury. These make no sense in light of design, but they do when you factor in efficiency (for the heart example) and common descent (for the second example). This is one of the reasons why I don’t believe in “intelligent design”, there is just too much unintelligent ‘design’, mistakes and leftover parts from ancestors that even a novice engineer would not make, let alone a God as infinitely powerful and intelligent as ours. If you truly want to look for intelligent design, look at the laws of physics that are calibrated so precisely that they allow evolution to happen without a design. That is where the real intelligence is.
The poor design is bogus. To determine if a design is good or bad one must know the intent of the designer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top