Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[TimeToGrow]

Like the title says. What say all of you to this.

Were Adam and Eve actually people?

Or were they just names given to no real people and merely meant to symbolize the history of the world and falling from grace that man did?

Hello Teneas,

There are some that say Adam and Eve aren’t literal… Largely this is because of the current scientific challenges…

Adam and Eve believe it or not can be Literal without being in conflict with science. They don’t have to be the first parents of the Human Race to be literal… Many things literal were figures or Pre-figuration of the things to come… Also Adam and Eve are created or formed after the Seven day Story of Creation of Which Mankind is Created on the sixth day and Adam and Eve are formed after the Sabbath or 7th day. They were Planted East in Eden in the Garden of God.

Too one must remember That the Scripture was like the Lyrics of a Song. They were songs sung in an ancient oral tradition. Later transcribed from oral to written Form… Like many songs today that use metaphors and allegorical expressions that charatorize things in a poetic expression…

Peace and Godbless.

TimeToGrow

 

[grannymh]

There are some that say Adam and Eve aren’t literal… Largely this is because of the current scientific challenges…

The word “challenges” is a very wise word to use in regard to the reality of Adam and Eve.

“Challenges” is the perfect word to describe recent research coming from the scientific fields. By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

The chief challenge to current scientists is how to understand living human beings.

The reason is that science is limited because for the most part it is based on the philosophy that all reality is material or matter. But – the reality of reality is that human nature is uniquely different from every other bit of material or energy in the universe. Human nature is rational/corporeal, spirit/matter, soul/body.

The reality is that there is only one species, the human one, which is so completely different from all others that its primary characteristics are not found in any other species. There is only one species which was so loved by God, that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became human in order to reconcile humanity with its Creator forever in eternal love. It is because of the unique unity of the human species, that the supreme gift of Christ’s death on the cross is the sacrifice for all for all time.

Seriously, the assurance that all humans benefit from Christ’s Gift of Salvation is the fact that we all descended from the original person who committed the original sin which broke the original bond of friendship with God.

Because human nature’s primary characteristics are distinct from other species, its origin would have to be distinct. To retain the distinct primary characteristics through procreation, generation to generation, would necessitate that all would have to descend from the same true, fully complete humans who are the parents of all human beings.

The reality is that Adam and Eve are the real sole parents of the human race.

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.

 

[TimeToGrow]

The word “challenges” is a very wise word to use in regard to the reality of Adam and Eve.
]

Thanks Granny,

  I agree with much of what you have said. 

The entire human Race was created in the image and the Likeness of God and it was Good.. Not Evil.. It's internesting too, that sin is transgression of the Law and came by the hearing of the Law for if I had not known the Law I wouldn't have known sin.... or heard the Commands of Lord..

Adam was truly the first to hear his command… He truly first heard his voice… He was truly first visited…

Peace and God Bless

TimetoGrow

 

[SnakeMauler]

I agree with this. It would be crazy to suggest that the events narrated in Genesis occurred exactly as they are written. I am not advocating a literal interpretation of Genesis as some Christian Fundamentalists suggest. Genesis is not a science book.

Genesis should not be read literally. However, it does contain truths, and I personally believe one of these to be that humanity is descended from a single set of parents. I do not know what these first parents were like, and I am not suggesting that they were fully formed modern homo sapiens. I believe in Evolution and I believe that humanity has evolved from these single set of parents. I subscribe to Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism.

I struggle to understand how Catholics can say they do not believe that humanity is descended from a single set of parents, which the Bible calls Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of Original Sin. Death entered the world through Adam, and life entered the world through Jesus Christ. God created humanity in a state of original holiness and justice, and through the sin of the first man, death entered the world. The Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity assumed human nature to restore the human race. He came so that we could be made sons of God, receive his divine nature and have eternal life.

If Adam never existed, then Original Sin is not true. If Original Sin is false, then humanity had no need of a Saviour. Belief in the reality of Adam and Eve underpins the entire Catholic faith.

Personally I feel as though Genesis describes the first two/ or group of human beings who developed and/or were given by God sentience. In developing sentience, they fell away from the previous harmony with the environment that the anscestors of humans once had, which disobeyed all God had intended for them (Original sin). You have to be abstract about it. No one ever said everything in scripture means exactly as it appears in English, and no one ever said that the ancients who wrote the Bible had words that were completely synonymous with the words we have to describe the world today. That’s why we proclaim the “Mystery” of Faith every Sunday at Mass.

Snakemauler

 

[larkin31]

Personally I feel as though Genesis describes the first two/ or group of human beings who developed and/or were given by God sentience. In developing sentience, they fell away from the previous harmony with the environment that the anscestors of humans once had, which disobeyed all God had intended for them (Original sin). You have to be abstract about it. No one ever said everything in scripture means exactly as it appears in English, and no one ever said that the ancients who wrote the Bible had words that were completely synonymous with the words we have to describe the world today. That’s why we proclaim the “Mystery” of Faith every Sunday at Mass.

Snakemauler

You’re Catholic? I am pretty sure that you are going against Church doctrine on this.

 

[grannymh]

I am pretty sure that you are going against Church doctrine on this.

said in regard to post 107.

Good catch.

The misunderstanding of Catholic teaching comes from the words “developing sentience,” Catholic teaching is that the true, first, fully complete human nature (that of Adam and Eve) consists of soul/body, rational/corporeal, spirit/matter. The spiritual soul is completely distinct from sentience which animals also have.

While there are all kinds of ramifications of original sin, the necessary Catholic understanding of original sin is ignored.

Genesis only describes the first two sole parents of the human species. The reference to a group of human beings who developed… is polygenism which the Catholic Church rejects.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[larkin31]

said in regard to post 107.

Good catch.

The misunderstanding of Catholic teaching comes from the words “developing sentience,” Catholic teaching is that the true, first, fully complete human nature (that of Adam and Eve) consists of soul/body, rational/corporeal, spirit/matter. The spiritual soul is completely distinct from sentience which animals also have.

While there are all kinds of ramifications of original sin, the necessary Catholic understanding of original sin is ignored.

Genesis only describes the first two sole parents of the human species. The reference to a group of human beings who developed… is polygenism which the Catholic Church rejects.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

So, were there other humans before Adam and Eve, or not? And are ALL humans today descended from A & E, or not? Your answer has confused me a bit.

 

[grannymh]

So, were there other humans before Adam and Eve, or not? And are ALL humans today descended from A & E, or not? Your answer has confused me a bit.

I’m beginning to understand where you are coming from.

Yes, ALL humans today descended from a real Adam and Eve.

However, what is really confusing is that some evolutionary scientists like to say that there were lots of quasi-humans all over the place for thousands of years who didn’t have souls.

To me, a scientific half-human, which is an anatomy specimen with no intellect or will, is not the same as today’s real human beings. Therefore, no matter how many fancy words, like sentience, polygenism or hominids, etc, are thrown around, a half-human is not a fully complete whole human like us.

In other words, there were NO true, real, fully complete humans before Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are Papa and Mama for sure.

Blessings,
All human life is sacred.

 

[larkin31]

…However, what is really confusing is that some evolutionary scientists like to say that there were lots of quasi-humans all over the place for thousands of years who didn’t have souls. …

I have NEVER heard of an “evolutionary scientist” today (you use the present tense here) who makes this claim.

Please elaborate.

 

[grannymh]

I have NEVER heard of an “evolutionary scientist” today (you use the present tense here) who makes this claim.

Please elaborate.

Francisco Ayala, popular U.S. biologist and proponent of the evolutionary theory, denies the literal existence of Adam and Eve in his research papers. The recent PBS series on the origin of man presented information about those thousands of pre-humans [quasi-humans] roaming different sections of the earth for centuries.

You may also check out the following websites:
and for current information. However, since these are basically devoted to evolution, there will not be information regarding the two sole parents of the human species.

In reality, our complete human nature which comes from Adam and Eve cannot fit into the limitations of the evolutionary/scientific realm.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[larkin31]

Francisco Ayala, popular U.S. biologist and proponent of the evolutionary theory, denies the literal existence of Adam and Eve in his research papers. The recent PBS series on the origin of man presented information about those thousands of pre-humans [quasi-humans] roaming different sections of the earth for centuries.

You may also check out the following websites:
and for current information. However, since these are basically devoted to evolution, there will not be information regarding the two sole parents of the human species.

In reality, our complete human nature which comes from Adam and Eve cannot fit into the limitations of the evolutionary/scientific realm.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

No. This is not my point.

I am asking, “Which evolutionary scientist claims that prehumans wandered around ‘without souls’?”

 

[grannymh]

Um…it doesn’t say that they were real man. It does say:

Just pointing that out is all, not saying you aren’t correct that they were real people, just saying nowhere in that text does it say they were real people. It does however, seem to point towards the symbolism of them.

May I respectfully point out that any kind of pointing to the symbolism of Adam is actually based on the true reality of Adam. For example, St. Paul speaks of the First Adam and the Last Adam. (CCC 359; Romans 5: 12-21)

Sometimes people, who read bits and pieces of the Catechism, mix up apples with oranges. (Pun intended.)

To understand Catholic teaching regarding the real people who are the sole parents of the human species, please read paragraphs 355 - 421 in Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

One can use this handy link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
It may be an eye opener to put “Adam” in the Catechism’s search box.

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.

 

[grannymh]

No. This is not my point.

I am asking, “Which evolutionary scientist claims that prehumans wandered around ‘without souls’?”

Naming names is not the issue and I do not intend to treat it as such. The real issue is the reality of Adam and Eve.

By definition, spiritual, immortal, immaterial items are excluded from the realm of science. The person’s soul is spiritual, immaterial, and immortal which is not in the material realm of basic science. Thus, the normal course is to exclude the existence of a spiritual soul. For information purposes, it is acceptable that prehumans would not have souls because prehumans are totally different from us.

The first evidence of a spiritual soul is found in the account of Adam and Eve, the first real, fully complete humans.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[larkin31]

Naming names is not the issue and I do not intend to treat it as such. The real issue is the reality of Adam and Eve.

It would be helpful, then, if you meant the claims that you make. Or take more care with them. I found it very interesting, but it turns out that you wrote something (a LARGE claim) that you are now walking away from.

…For information purposes, it is acceptable that prehumans would not have souls because prehumans are totally different from us.

I don’t know what the first part of this sentence means, and I don’t understand the logic of the second. Are you claiming that ONLY modern humans have souls? No other species have souls, nor have they ever? Nor will they ever? No other animals do?

 

[buffalo]

It would be helpful, then, if you meant the claims that you make. Or take more care with them. I found it very interesting, but it turns out that you wrote something (a LARGE claim) that you are now walking away from.

I don’t know what the first part of this sentence means, and I don’t understand the logic of the second. Are you claiming that ONLY modern humans have souls? No other species have souls, nor have they ever? Nor will they ever? No other animals do?

All living things have souls.

Humans have immortal souls. Did the alleged pre-humans have immortal souls?

 

[grannymh]

. Are you claiming that ONLY modern humans have souls? No other species have souls, nor have they ever? Nor will they ever? No other animals do?

Adam and Eve are the first, real, fully complete human beings because they are soul/body, rational/corporeal, spirit/matter. As descendents of Adam and Eve, we are fully complete human beings.

As real descendents of Adam and Eve, we have the marvelous opportunity to walk in real friendship with God.

Pardon me. But I have no clue where your reference to “ONLY modern humans” fits in. As far as this thread is concerned, a real human being is a real human being.

So that we don’t get bogged down in frogs and lions, no other animals and no other species have a spiritual, immortal, immaterial soul.

As to whether other species will ever have a spiritual, immortal, immaterial soul, I consider that a speculation similar to whether outer space creatures wear green or purple hats. And I would rather indulge in ice cream than in such kind of speculation.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[larkin31]

As far as this thread is concerned, a real human being is a real human being.

Tautologies usually aren’t persuasive. “A circle is a circle.” Well, sure. Ok.

So that we don’t get bogged down in frogs and lions, no other animals and no other species have a spiritual, immortal, immaterial soul.

Is this Church teaching? Heaven only has homo sapien sapiens in it?

 

[TimeToGrow]

Tautologies usually aren’t persuasive. “A circle is a circle.” Well, sure. Ok.

Is this Church teaching? Heaven only has homo sapien sapiens in it?

Hello Larkin31,

Maybe this will help!

CCC

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”.

What does this Mean to you… At first glance it seems simple but it is actually more complex. There is a lot more there than most think. Do these statements mean what others think it means. Do you know why it wouldn’t make a differance when Adam and Eve were created by reading this…
The Church is interpreting the sybolism of Biblical languages in an Authentic way in light of NT Scripture and Tradition, it teachees that OUR first parents. The Churches first parents. Those predesdended before the Foundation of the World.

 

[larkin31]

Hello Larkin31,

Maybe this will help!

CCC

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”.

What does this Mean to you… At first glance it seems simple but it is actually more complex. There is a lot more there than most think. Do these statements mean what others think it means. Do you know why it wouldn’t make a differance when Adam and Eve were created by reading this…

The Church is interpreting the sybolism of Biblical languages in an Authentic way in light of NT Scripture and Tradition, it teachees that OUR first parents. The Churches first parents. Those predesdended before the Foundation of the World.

Hi Time To Grow.

Unfortunately, I don’t know what you just said. Can you try me again to see if I can understand? What are you claiming about first “souls”? ANd When?

 

[jmcrae]

Is this Church teaching? Heaven only has homo sapien sapiens in it?

Yes. It is de fide that Heaven is populated with Angels and human beings (persons physically descended from Adam and Eve) along with the Three Persons of the Godhead. No other beings are up there.

Animals have a material soul which vanishes when they die, just as the flame of a candle vanishes when it is blown out. This is why it is okay to kill an animal to put it out of its suffering (since there is no redemption for animals, and thus, its suffering is not redemptive) but not a human being.