Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[DavidKays]

Really?

Listen I don’t want to argue too much on this. Geez you guys don’t read my posts as well as you could. If you read my first post I suggested that many were created in the beginning so therefore we probably do not know exactly the first man. But we know of Noah. That was my link. Get it. I am not trying to start something new. I wish you guys can read better. If what I said earlier is true that there were many in the beginning then it holds true that we can all trace to Noah. That’s all. No big deal. You want Adam then that is OK. I am just talking out theories. That is all. God Bless!

 

[larkin31]

Listen I don’t want to argue too much on this. Geez you guys don’t read my posts as well as you could. If you read my first post I suggested that many were created in the beginning so therefore we probably do not know exactly the first man. But we know of Noah. That was my link. Get it. I am not trying to start something new. I wish you guys can read better. If what I said earlier is true that there were many in the beginning then it holds true that we can all trace to Noah. That’s all. No big deal. You want Adam then that is OK. I am just talking out theories. That is all. God Bless!

It’s ok, Dave. My position is that there is no certainty at all that Noah or a flood or any world-wide kill off of 99.99% of the fauna–including humans–ever occurred. But yes, that is another topic. I thought you would quickly explain something else, but never mind.

 

[DavidKays]

It’s ok, Dave. My position is that there is no certainty at all that Noah or a flood or any world-wide kill off of 99.99% of the fauna–including humans–ever occurred. But yes, that is another topic. I thought you would quickly explain something else, but never mind.

What do you want me to explain?

 

[jmcrae]

Through their action sin enter into the world, and because of that, everyonel sins against God because of fallen nature (except for Jesus and Mary). The Church doesn’t teach that there was a race of people without original sin living after the Fall of Adam and Eve,

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying.

JPII says that there was Original Man, Historical Man and Eschatological Man, and the Fall of Adam and Eve begins Historical Man. As far as we know Original Man only pertains to Adam and Eve.

Yes, and again, this is exactly what I was trying to explain.

Hypothetically you couldn’t breed out a race of people with original sin with a race of people without original sin, those without it would be constantly tempted or taken advantage by those with originl sin.

Hypothetically, that could have happened - the Scriptures tell us a different story, though. The Scriptures tell us that Adam and Eve are the parents of all who have ever lived.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying.

Yes, and again, this is exactly what I was trying to explain.

Hypothetically, that could have happened - the Scriptures tell us a different story, though. The Scriptures tell us that Adam and Eve are the parents of all who have ever lived.

Yeah, that’s what confounds me about people who don’t want to accept Adam and Eve as a single pair of first parents… The comment about believing Noah must be real, but there being no such requirement of Adam and Eve really raised an eyebrow.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

What’s the point of Christ’s sacrafice with out original sin? Sin wasn’t a problem until the fall, Adam and Eve’s original sin, which was the original reason why the saviour was promised:

Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

 

[larkin31]

…What’s the point of Christ’s sacrafice with out original sin? Sin wasn’t a problem until the fall, Adam and Eve’s original sin, which was the original reason why the saviour was promised:

This is the problem with taking so much literally from Genesis. There is no logical nor any religious requirement for many Christians that believers see original sin as something inherited biologically from an original couple and then handed down through the genetic material of our first cell of each individual life. It can be seen as a metaphor or representation of a condition without a literal first cause, but still fully real: our human imperfections.

 

[crazzeto]

This is the problem with taking so much literally from Genesis. There is no logical nor any religious requirement for many Christians that believers see original sin as something inherited biologically from an original couple and then handed down through the genetic material of our first cell of each individual life. It can be seen as a metaphor or representation of a condition without a literal first cause, but still fully real: our human imperfections.

You’re incorrect on this point sir, indeed original sin is very important to the plan of salvation. When one starts taking such a relitive approch to such a fundamental quesiton they very quickly lose site of what the faith is even about. It should be noted, the Catholic Church certainly doesn’t mandate a literalist view of creation, i.e. that it must have been a literal 6 24hr day creation. The reason is, Genisis in fact isn’t clear on that particular point, but a point it is clear on is that we are all childern of Adam and Eve, and as such we inherit their fallen nature.

 

[larkin31]

You’re incorrect on this point sir, indeed original sin is very important to the plan of salvation. When one starts taking such a relitive approch to such a fundamental quesiton they very quickly lose site of what the faith is even about. It should be noted, the Catholic Church certainly doesn’t mandate a literalist view of creation, i.e. that it must have been a literal 6 24hr day creation. The reason is, Genisis in fact isn’t clear on that particular point, but a point it is clear on is that we are all childern of Adam and Eve, and as such we inherit their fallen nature.

You misunderstand me. Yes, “Original Sin” is important, but for many Christians the meaning of that term is to describe the permanent errant condition we are in and that Jesus came to save. The term “Original” is used by these other Christians, and even some Catholics, in acknowledgment of the story that gives this condition a first cause, but not all Christians read that story literally. My point is that this is part of the logical difficulty of taking Adam and Eve literally as first anything. I know the RCC position (I have read the Catechism). But this position is problematic and difficult to defend literally and empirically.

 

[crazzeto]

You misunderstand me. Yes, “Original Sin” is important, but for many Christians the meaning of that term is to describe the permanent errant condition we are in and that Jesus came to save. The term “Original” is used by these other Christians, and even some Catholics, in acknowledgment of the story that gives this condition a first cause, but not all Christians read that story literally. My point is that this is part of the logical difficulty of taking Adam and Eve literally as first anything. I know the RCC position (I have read the Catechism). But this position is problematic and difficult to defend literally and empirically.

You really can’t explain Original sin in any other context, if you try claiming as many are here “well really there were many people, and Adam and Eve sort of represent them all”, well then you have a dicy situation where some have original sin and some don’t. Some people here try to claim,

Well the ones that don’t have original sin would have been tempted anyway by the ones that do, so they would have fallen into sin anyway… Nah uh, that doesn’t work. You still have a group of people who don’t have original sin, that is a people who, for instance, have aboslutly no need of Christianity, nor baptism should they manage to never commit a personal sin.

That doesn’t fly, you can’t have a group of people represented by Adam and Eve.

 

[larkin31]

You really can’t explain Original sin in any other context, if you try claiming as many are here “well really there were many people, and Adam and Eve sort of represent them all”, well then you have a dicy situation where some have original sin and some don’t. Some people here try to claim,

Well the ones that don’t have original sin would have been tempted anyway by the ones that do, so they would have fallen into sin anyway… Nah uh, that doesn’t work. You still have a group of people who don’t have original sin, that is a people who, for instance, have aboslutly no need of Christianity, nor baptism should they manage to never commit a personal sin.

That doesn’t fly, you can’t have a group of people represented by Adam and Eve.

I sympathize with your quandary.

You are assuming that “sin” represents ONLY an inheritable condition. THAT is the difficulty that you get into, so you must then backtrack and state that Genesis MUST be literal at least for Adam and Eve and the Fall, if not for other things (creation of planets, say). If you let go of the requirement that sin is ONLY inheritable, then Jesus still has his purpose and Genesis does not have to be fraught with logical and empirical conundrums.

 

[crazzeto]

I sympathize with your quandary.

You are assuming that “sin” represents ONLY an inheritable condition. THAT is the difficulty that you get into, so you must then backtrack and state that Genesis MUST be literal at least for Adam and Eve and the Fall, if not for other things (creation of planets, say). If you let go of the requirement that sin is ONLY inheritable, then Jesus still has his purpose and Genesis does not have to be fraught with logical and empirical conundrums.

No, I make no such assumption what so ever, in fact clearly you don’t understand what I wrote. There’s a clear distinction between personal and inherited sin… There is only a single inherited sin, original sin which corrupts our condition. It is quite possible, however to live a life completely free of personal sin, as has been witnessed in both the Gosples and in the lives of the saints. Take for instance:

Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame.

That is, they never commited personal sin! So if Zachary and Elizabeth had been of the group of original “first parents” which never commited original sin, then they have no need of the baptism which their own son would usher in, and Christ would take, bless and make a sacrament.

Or St. Nicholas of Tolentino
fatima.org/prayer/saint/091008sotd.asp

Born in answer to the prayer of a holy mother, and vowed before his birth to the service of God, St. Nicholas never lost his baptismal innocence. His austerities were conspicuous even in the austere Order — the Hermits of St. Augustine — to which he belonged. And to the remonstrances which were made by his superiors he only replied, “How can I be said to fast, while every morning at the altar I receive my God?”

That is a way of saying, like Zachary and Elizabeth he never commited nor wished to commit a personal sin. Again, if the propisition you put forward is true, then how do we know he ever required baptism? His ancestory might well have never commited original sin, thus he might well have been born just before God.

What you’re doing (which may be natural for one who has fallen into agnosticism), is taking the standards of the World and trying to Evaluate the truths of Christianity by them. This is an erroneous approach to take.

 

[jmcrae]

Put it this way - if we don’t literally inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve, then there would have been no need for Jesus to literally die on the cross for our sins - He could have done so metaphorically - nor would there have been any cause for HIm to rise literally from the dead - and there would be no need for us to be literally baptized, nor to literally show up for Mass on Sundays.

Which is why, I suppose, that those who don’t see Adam and Eve as our literal first parents, also don’t see the necessity of Baptism, and don’t see the need to come to Mass on Sundays …

 

[larkin31]

No, I make no such assumption what so ever, in fact clearly you don’t understand what I wrote. There’s a clear distinction between personal and inherited sin… There is only a single inherited sin, original sin which corrupts our condition. It is quite possible, however to live a life completely free of personal sin, as has been witnessed in both the Gosples and in the lives of the saints. Take for instance:

That is, they never commited personal sin! So if Zachary and Elizabeth had been of the group of original “first parents” which never commited original sin, then they have no need of the baptism which their own son would usher in, and Christ would take, bless and make a sacrament.

You are fully assuming that original sin is an inherited trait from the Fall. Why are you stating that that you are not?

Other Christians argue that our human condition is imperfect, yes, but its cause was not an actual “Fall” committed by a literal pair of first humans so that they could then pass down through DNA the condition of being fallen. Other Chrisitans read Adam and Eve figuratively as a metaphorical explanation for the origin of human fallibility, which Christ would still be able to come and redeem later. This approach does not lessen the need for a savior in any way. It just avoids the conundrum of the growing evidence that there was no original pair of naked proto-adults, made from each other’s DNA (cloning), placed in modern day Iraq 6-10 thousand years ago, given dominion and naming rights of all creation, and then sired all of humanity subsequently, passing on their imperfections via DNA (since to be sired from another proto-human pair would mean that they would NOT be passing down this sin). The logical entrechats in this are very challenging.

 

[larkin31]

…What you’re doing (which may be natural for one who has fallen into agnosticism), is taking the standards of the World and trying to Evaluate the truths of Christianity by them. This is an erroneous approach to take.

What?

All I am doing is explaining that to read Genesis more figuratively negates the requirement of these logical slights of hand and crash collisions with empirical science.

Many Christians do not read Noah as literal history either. There are even more problems there!

 

[crazzeto]

You are fully assuming that original sin is an inherited trait from the Fall. Why are you stating that that you are not?

Other Christians argue that our human condition is imperfect, yes, but its cause was not an actual “Fall” committed by a literal pair of first humans so that they could then pass down through DNA the condition of being fallen. Other Chrisitans read Adam and Eve figuratively as a metaphorical explanation for the origin of human fallibility, which Christ would still be able to come and redeem later. This approach does not lessen the need for a savior in any way. It just avoids the conundrum of the growing evidence that there was no original pair of naked proto-adults, made from each other’s DNA (cloning), placed in modern day Iraq 6-10 thousand years ago, given dominion and naming rights of all creation, and then sired all of humanity subsequently, passing on their imperfections via DNA (since to be sired from another proto-human pair would mean that they would NOT be passing down this sin). The logical entrechats in this are very challenging.

There’s no assumption to make, St. Paul makes it very clear. “For where sin entered the world through one man…”

 

[larkin31]

There’s no assumption to make, St. Paul makes it very clear. “For where sin entered the world through one man…”

Fine. You are drawing the “conclusion” from St. Paul. My point obviously was that you enter the thought process about sin with the a priori belief that it came from one point in time from one human couple, ie. from a literal reading of Genesis (which St. Paul shared). This simply confirms my point: you have that position faith before you examine the logical consequences and then construct certain other elements of faith (like not “all” of Genesis has to be literally true) in order to soften the logical fender-benders that inevitably occur.

My point is that other Christians approach all this in a less literal fashion and have fewer logical fender-benders along the way.

 

[crazzeto]

Fine. You are drawing the “conclusion” from St. Paul. My point obviously was that you enter the thought process about sin with the a priori belief that it came from one point in time from one human couple, ie. from a literal reading of Genesis (which St. Paul shared). This simply confirms my point: you have that position faith before you examine the logical consequences and then construct certain other elements of faith (like not “all” of Genesis has to be literally true) in order to soften the logical fender-benders that inevitably occur.

My point is that other Christians approach all this in a less literal fashion and have fewer logical fender-benders along the way.

You act as if that single verse is the entire source for this,

(Psa 51:5) (51:7) For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.

as compared

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

as compared

Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

earlier in the same book / chapter

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

And lets not forget

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

etc… many many more verses.

 

[larkin31]

You act as if that single verse is the entire source for this,

as compared

as compared

earlier in the same book / chapter

And lets not forget

etc… many many more verses.

I was not making a point of the solitary verse

you are really missing my point

I am ONLY trying to point out that those who read the Fall account less literally do not have the same logical conundrums.

I don’;t mind at all if you keep reading it literally. I am trying to discuss the consequences of doing so.

 

[edwest2]

Fine. You are drawing the “conclusion” from St. Paul. My point obviously was that you enter the thought process about sin with the a priori belief that it came from one point in time from one human couple, ie. from a literal reading of Genesis (which St. Paul shared). This simply confirms my point: you have that position faith before you examine the logical consequences and then construct certain other elements of faith (like not “all” of Genesis has to be literally true) in order to soften the logical fender-benders that inevitably occur.

My point is that other Christians approach all this in a less literal fashion and have fewer logical fender-benders along the way.

If you were a scientist standing next to Jesus Christ when He called Lazarus from the tomb, how would you describe the method used? When Jesus cleansed the lepers? Gave sight to the blind? Rose bodily from the dead and ate with His disciples? Logic, as we understand it, does not apply.

I think God should be given credit for doing things God can do.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

If you were a scientist standing next to Jesus Christ when He called Lazarus from the tomb, how would you describe the method used? When Jesus cleansed the lepers? Gave sight to the blind? Rose bodily from the dead and ate with His disciples? Logic, as we understand it, does not apply.

I think God should be given credit for doing things God can do.

Hope this helps,
Ed

We weren’t discussing miracles, which is an entirely different set of problems.

We were discussing one’s approach to literal readings of various parts of the Bible and reconciling them with each other logically. The RCC does not openly wave logic off. Much work is done to reconcile certain things. But I can understand if you don’t wish to. Your prerogative.