Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[Dempsey1919]

I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that every Catholic is obliged to believe such interpretatation given by the Catholic Church? And what if somebody cannot believe such nonsense? I am Catholic, but cannot believe this explanation.

I can only speak for myself. I believe in everything that the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches. Regarding the subject of evolution, the Church has said very little. However, I believe in what the Church has said, while keeping an open mind. As I have said, I believe in Theistic Evolution.

What do you believe?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Read this article for an understanding of the Catholic position:

Adam, Eve and Evolution
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

I am not sure if this should be classed as an infallible teaching, but I believe that it does contain elements of the truth. Original Sin is an essential doctrine of the Catholic faith; and this doctrine cannot be true if Adam (or the first human male) did not exist as the father of all the living.

 

[larkin31]

Read this article for an understanding of the Catholic position:

Adam, Eve and Evolution
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

I am not sure if this should be classed as an infallible teaching, but I believe that it does contain elements of the truth. Original Sin is an essential doctrine of the Catholic faith; and this doctrine cannot be true if Adam (or the first human male) did not exist as the father of all the living.

What would exempt this teaching from being “infallible”? Do laypersons get to decide that??

 

[grannymh]

I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that every Catholic is obliged to believe such interpretatation given by the Catholic Church? And what if somebody cannot believe such nonsense? I am Catholic, but cannot believe this explanation. Cain married his younger sister, rubbish! Is this the official interpretation of the Church? And what about incest taboo, what about congenital birth defects? If it were to be the truth, the mankind would quickly die off or would consist now of deformed, underdeveloped individuals.

If one believes in God and reads Genesis, one should check out the first four words
of Genesis 1: 28.

There is the answer as to how Adam and Eve became the parents of the entire human species.

 

[Pawel_J]

I can only speak for myself. I believe in everything that the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches. Regarding the subject of evolution, the Church has said very little. However, I believe in what the Church has said, while keeping an open mind. As I have said, I believe in Theistic Evolution.

What do you believe?

I believe in evolution as a process of creation. This process still continues. The creation is not finished, because the evolution is not finished. I do not believe in a pure Darwin theory in relation to its randomness (random mutations and natural selection as main engine for changes). It seems that in this respect Darwin was wrong. Recent discoveries prove that changes in species occurred more likely in a jump-like way and not gradually. They were more purposeful than random, so we can assume something must have had control over this process, give the necessary impulse to a cell, transposon etc. to act in a specific, required way. I think we can call it creation within evolution.

 

[grannymh]

I can only speak for myself. I believe in everything that the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches. Regarding the subject of evolution, the Church has said very little. However, I believe in what the Church has said, while keeping an open mind. As I have said, I believe in Theistic Evolution.

What do you believe?

I believe that the basis of evolution theory is the philosophy of materialism – that all reality is material. This works for dinosaurs, frogs, monkeys and others considered to be part of the brute animal kingdom. The human species is not a member of the brute animal kingdom because Adam and Eve were not members of the brute animal kingdom.

Technically, it is hard for me to understand Theistic Evolution, since the reality of God is not material. Does Theistic Evolution mean that God created life and evolution is a process? Does Theistic Evolution mean that evolutionary theory applies to the human anatomy but it cannot account for the spiritual soul? If so, I can understand your perspective.

 

[larkin31]

There is NO sneering in my question. I really want to know how you can say of a piece of doctrine that it–and not others–may be fallible. The “infallibility” issue is tremendously interesting to me, especially when it is used as a piece of argument in these discussions.

Is there a link to an explanation of the process of determining what is infallible and what is not? Or a layperson’s role in that? I would love to read it. I asked this on another thread, and all I received was a link to the Catechism, but this did not treat my question directly (I read the section on scriptural sacredness, primarily, which was called inerrant).

 

[buffalo]

**What Does The Catholic Church **Teach about Origins?

•        God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (*ex           nihilo*) in the beginning.
      (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

•        Genesis           does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission           1909[1])

•        Genesis           contains real history—it gives an account of things that really           happened. (Pius XII)

•        Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind.           (Pius XII)

•        Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and           Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 *Catechism,*           360, footnote 226: *Tobit*           8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only           be Adam.)

•        The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things,           the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ *Mark*           10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, *Ineffabilis           Deus*).

•        The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body           (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.

•        Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense           must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo           XIII, *Providentissimus           Deus*).

•        Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have           known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).

•        After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the           Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would           subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).

•        Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council           of Trent).

•        The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by           Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).

•        We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught           unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and           Vatican Council I).

•        All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days           were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the           Church)

•        The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing            completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception           (Vatican Council I)

•        St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global           Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed           all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and                all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (*Unam           Sanctam*, 1302)

•        The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important           in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 *Catechism           of the Council of Trent*)

•        Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of           evolution must be taught.
      (Pius XII, *Humani           Generis*)

•        Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope           Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely           affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[rev_kevin]

If one believes in God and reads Genesis, one should check out the first four words
of Genesis 1: 28.

There is the answer as to how Adam and Eve became the parents of the entire human species.

But in Genesis 1:26-28 it says “Then God said, Lets us make people in our own image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life, the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky and all the livestock, wild animals and small animals. So God created people in his own image. God patterned them after himself, male and frmale her created them, God blessed them and told them…”
This was the first account of the creation with more than one person.
Then in Genesis 2 is the second account of creation. Why 2 accounts one with people and one with just Adam and Eve?
Then we come to Cane and Able. Cain killed able and God put a mark on him to warn anyone who might try to kill him. Then Cain’s wife became pregnant.
Where did these people come from and where did Cains wife come from.
Could it be the people from the first account of creation?

 

[jmcrae]

I reread what you posted, and you are not wrong of course. You didn’t say there were actually known as Adam and Eve. Sorry for jumping to conclusions earlier.

“Adam” means “mud” and “Eve” means “Mother.” Perhaps these are names that their later descendants gave them. For all we know, they could have been called Henry and Martha.

 

[grannymh]

But in Genesis 1:26-28 it says “Then God said, Lets us make people in our own image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life, the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky and all the livestock, wild animals and small animals. So God created people in his own image. God patterned them after himself, male and frmale her created them, God blessed them and told them…”
This was the first account of the creation with more than one person.
Then in Genesis 2 is the second account of creation. Why 2 accounts one with people and one with just Adam and Eve?
Then we come to Cane and Able. Cain killed able and God put a mark on him to warn anyone who might try to kill him. Then Cain’s wife became pregnant.
Where did these people come from and where did Cains wife come from.
Could it be the people from the first account of creation?

You are one of the few people who puts a single verse citation into the context. That is an excellent way of understanding the Bible. The reason I did not do that is that the key to Adam and Eve’s children needed the emphasis of God blessing their procreation – Be fertile and multiply; To me, it seems silly to second guess God’s initial plan.

However, this plan was interrupted by Adam’s first sin. The basic “God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply’:” was still in place only childbearing would be more difficult as a consequence. Verse 20 reads: “The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.”

I do not have any answers to the rest of your post. My only point is that Catholic teaching is that there were two sole parents of the entire human species, Adam and Eve. Because God blessed their union, it was possible for the first generations to come into existence.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[jmcrae]

I am surprised you say so. Of course we cannot take the words of the Bible in this case literally. If this were to be a true, literal story, so after killing his brother, Kain, Adam and Eve would remain alone in the world. From 1 Moses 4:17 we know Kain had a wife. But there is only Kain and his parents in the world, so he could marry either his own mother, which is hardly possile, or his younger sister, born possibly later, which is disgusting. As you see the words of the Bible cannot be taken literally. They are symbolic.

Even if Abel had lived, whom else would either of them have married, other than their own sisters?

The human race didn’t have the accumulated DNA errors that we have today, so there would have been no harm in them marrying their sisters.

Abraham and Sarah both had the same father, though different mothers, and yet their marriage was lawful. Over time, we have had to marry more and more distantly from our near relatives, but back then, what other choice would they have had?

In the story of Cain and Abel, we see that both of them are grown men. It seems unlikely that Adam and Eve would have stopped having children after only two boys. It’s far more likely that they continued to have children, and that their children were marrying each other and starting families of their own.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree that Faith and science not necessarily must contradict each other, but on one condition, that we will not insist on literal understanding of the Bible, especially the OT. Adam means “human” and can represent the whole art or group of hominidae, which gave start to the mankind, but we cannot see him as a one, single, specific person. It’s ridiculous.

Actually, it is very beautiful. We are all one family, with one mother and one father - Adam and Eve. Everyone we meet is in some way distantly related to us.

 

[grannymh]

But in Genesis 1:26-28 it says …
Could it be the people from the first account of creation?

You are one of the few people who puts a single verse citation into the context. That is an excellent way of understanding the Bible. The reason I did not do that is that the key to Adam and Eve’s children needed the emphasis of God blessing their procreation – Be fertile and multiply; To me, it seems silly to second guess God’s initial plan.

However, this plan was interrupted by Adam’s first sin. The basic “God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply’:” was still in place only childbearing would be more difficult as a consequence. Verse 20 reads: “The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.”

I do not have any answers to the rest of your post. My only point is that Catholic teaching is that there were two sole parents of the entire human species, Adam and Eve. In my humble opinion – because God blessed their union, it was possible for the first generations to come into existence without the problems associated with later generations.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[larkin31]

But in Genesis 1:26-28 it says “Then God said, Lets us make people in our own image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life, the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky and all the livestock, wild animals and small animals. So God created people in his own image. God patterned them after himself, male and frmale her created them, God blessed them and told them…”
This was the first account of the creation with more than one person.
Then in Genesis 2 is the second account of creation. Why 2 accounts one with people and one with just Adam and Eve?
Then we come to Cane and Able. Cain killed able and God put a mark on him to warn anyone who might try to kill him. Then Cain’s wife became pregnant.
Where did these people come from and where did Cains wife come from.
Could it be the people from the first account of creation?
There were other humans outside Eden. The outer world was not empty. I see no other way to explain this. There is fruit and food and animals outside, also. Otherwise, once outside that barred gate, Adam and Eve would have starved and died. If nothing outside existed, then Cain had to mate with either his mother or a sister or that serpent (now legless). This is not the “cleaving” that the Bible recommends, by a long shot!

I certainly don’t go for the incest/DNA argument presented above.

 

[rev_kevin]

You are one of the few people who puts a single verse citation into the context. That is an excellent way of understanding the Bible. The reason I did not do that is that the key to Adam and Eve’s children needed the emphasis of God blessing their procreation – Be fertile and multiply; To me, it seems silly to second guess God’s initial plan.

However, this plan was interrupted by Adam’s first sin. The basic “God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply’:” was still in place only childbearing would be more difficult as a consequence. Verse 20 reads: “The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.”

I do not have any answers to the rest of your post. My only point is that Catholic teaching is that there were two sole parents of the entire human species, Adam and Eve. In my humble opinion – because God blessed their union, it was possible for the first generations to come into existence without the problems associated with later generations.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

Lets look at the word “mother.” the word means: a female parent. a woman in authority often used as a title as in the superior of a religious order. an old or elderly woman. {the mother or invention} being in realtion of a mother to others {mother of church, a mother country} to be or act as mother to.

Adam named the woman Eve because she would be the mother of all the living. This would include the birds, the fish, all living things that she did not give birth to.
Now my translation says the mother of all people everywhere could mean that there were other people and she would be the mother, in title only, of Genesis 1, as the woman in authority not the birth mother.

This is only speculation that I find to be plausable.

 

[jmcrae]

There were other humans outside Eden.

This would mean that there could at some point in history have been human beings around who were not descended from Adam and Eve. Yet, we are required to believe that every human being who has ever lived was a descendant of Adam and Eve - this is what it means, to be a human being, is to be a descendant of Adam and Eve.

Since Jesus died on the Cross for “Adam” (the descendants of Adam), does this mean that there could be human beings who cannot be regenerated in Christ? Could there be Church members getting baptized who cannot be washed clean of sin, because they are not descendants of Adam, but of someone else?

 

[rev_kevin]

This would mean that there could at some point in history have been human beings around who were not descended from Adam and Eve. Yet, we are required to believe that every human being who has ever lived was a descendant of Adam and Eve - this is what it means, to be a human being, is to be a descendant of Adam and Eve.

Since Jesus died on the Cross for “Adam” (the descendants of Adam), does this mean that there could be human beings who cannot be regenerated in Christ? Could there be Church members getting baptized who cannot be washed clean of sin, because they are not descendants of Adam, but of someone else?

They would be from God. If you look at Genesis 1 God created “people” in his own image male and female at the same time, no mention of male first and female later and it don’t mention Eden. Now in Genesis 2 it mentions Eden and he placed 2 humans there. Fist came the male and later came the female. So God created the ones in Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[jmcrae]

They would be from God. If you look at Genesis 1 God created “people” in his own image male and female at the same time, no mention of male first and female later and it don’t mention Eden. Now in Genesis 2 it mentions Eden and he placed 2 humans there. Fist came the male and later came the female. So God created the ones in Genesis 1 and 2.

This is two versions of the same story. The people that God created in Genesis 1:27 are Adam and Eve together with their children.

 

[rev_kevin]

This is two versions of the same story. The people that God created in Genesis 1:27 are Adam and Eve together with their children.

Thats not what it says. Why would there be 2 accounts of the same thing. Cane and Able don’t come around until Chapter 4 and who were the other people that Cane had to worry about? Who was pregnant with his child? Why does it say people and not Adam and Eve? Why is there mention of other lands? Why is there a Garden of Eden? There is no mention of anyone leaving the Garden of Eden before God told Adam and Eve to leave, so who would Cane have to worry about?