Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[John_Paul_Jones]

Where in the Bible do the names of Adam and Eve appear together?

Eve is mention not Adam in the story of Cain and Able, “man…with his wife Eve” Gn 4:1 Later with the birth of Seth, Adam’s name is mentioned but not Eve’s name, “Adam with his wife” Gn 4:25. the first telling of Seth birth it’s “his wife” and the second time it’s mention only Adam is named “Adam… begot a son…and named him Seth.” Gn 5:3. There is no mention of mention of “Eve” or “his wife.”

I have a NAB and it’s either one of the other that is mention. It is obvious it is implied, but I wonder why the two are not mention by name together?

I think Eve goes through an interesting change of how she is mention first she is known as “women,” then she is called “Eve” then she is called “his wife” then she is not mention at all. (I wonder what do the women here at CAF think about that.)

 

[firstmode]

Luke 3:23-39 (New International Version)

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,**
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.**

 

[firstmode]

Romans 5:12-14 (New International Version)

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

 

[firstmode]

1 Corinthians 15:22 (New International Version)

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[firstmode]

1 Corinthians 15:45 (New International Version)

45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

 

[firstmode]

1 Timothy 2:13-14 (New International Version)

13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

 

[firstmode]

Jude 1:14-15 (New International Version)

14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

 

[firstmode]

Why not? God can do anything. Which is easier to believe? That God shaped Adam and Eve from dirt, or that they came from monkeys which came from birds which came from reptiles which came from fish which came from single-celled organisms?

personally, I’ll take dirt over amoebas…but I’m a poetic sort. I LOVE the idea of God making this cool mud-pie creature and then breathing life into it and shazam! it’s Adam! The CCC says that God creates each of our souls, right? Why couldn’t he create Adam and Eve’s whole persons?

just sayin’

I think it is interesting to think about Lazarus being raised from the dead by Jesus. He was dead 3 days. Do you know what happens to the human body and the organs inside of it after 3 days? NASTY. But Jesus just spoke and every fiber of his body was instantly renewed from the deathly state. AMAZING!

 

[larkin31]

Good bump. What areas are you interested in? So far, I have not received a reasonable answer to the question – What truth does a symbolic Adam and Eve represent…

That mankind tries to put into art and story their cultural answers to the question: Why and how did we come to be here?

 

[grannymh]

To answer OP, well Catholic Beliefs on Science say something like (Can any Catholic Brother post me the exact quote from the Catechism please) this: " Science does not interfere with Christianity" something like that, so it accepts evolution ( We all come from amoebas which evolve in this, then that, then that, primates, until you get to humans.).
God Bless.

What you are referring to above (Post 342) are explanations offered by individuals, including high ranking clergy, in regard to the mission of the Catholic Church. One often hears that the Church proclaims doctrines in the realm of faith and morals and not in scientific matters. In other words, Church officials enjoy freedom of speech on the same level as you and me, but their conclusions about specific scientific matters are not part of Catholic doctrine. When specific research appears to contradict Catholic doctrine, Church officials will elaborate on this in the light of Divine Revelation. In a positive way, they will explain Church doctrines so that we can understand the truth.

When it comes to natural science in general, Catholicism places humanity at the pinnacle of creation because human nature is an unique unification of the material anatomy and the non-material spiritual soul. The human person is peerless on this earth. Catholicism does acknowledge the contribution of “scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 282-289) This cannot be considered an endorsement of any kind of specific scientific theory.

What I am describing is the way the visible Catholic Church operates in regard to its mission given by Jesus Christ. Please do not hesitate to ask questions.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»

 

[DavidKays]

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?

Hi Teneas. I believe there were more than 2 people. For instance if Cain married a woman then with the logic of having 2 people to start the human race he will have to marry his sister. The teaching of the church is vagued because in reality we really don’t know. I wasn’t there to find out. But it makes sense to me that many were created in the beginning. The story of Adam and Eve may be a metaphor discussing this personally when in reality the beginning had many more. Doesn’t one scripture say Man and Woman He created them. It makes more sense that God may have created more than we expected and this can explain how Cain married a woman that is not his sister. We can go to Noah where this family was the only one left on earth and in this case we can say for sure that the cousins were allowed to marry. This is allowed even today and it is not uncommon for cousins to marry each other. However I have problems with the close relationship between brother and sister and for me the question of Adam and Eve can be solved if there were more people around. Who knows may by Adam and Eve were real. I believe them to be. But we are talking about 1 family. I believe God must have created more. Unless it was OK to marry your sister I think God may have created more so that you can marry someone other than your sister. What is important is not that the human race began with this guy or with these guys but that it began anyway. The story illustrates God’s creative genius and how He began Mankind and how Mankind fell and to what steps were necessary to restore His Creation and Man. God Bless!

 

[crazzeto]

yes, they were real people…

 

[jmcrae]

Hi Teneas. I believe there were more than 2 people. For instance if Cain married a woman then with the logic of having 2 people to start the human race he will have to marry his sister. The teaching of the church is vagued because in reality we really don’t know. I wasn’t there to find out. But it makes sense to me that many were created in the beginning.

This creates a problem, in that, if so, then not every human being ever born had for their ancestors Adam and Eve.

If not all human beings have Adam and Eve for their ancestors, then not all human beings were born with Original Sin, and thus, Jesus had no reason to come to earth. All He had to do was encourage those who were not born in Adam’s sin to reproduce more rapidly than those descended from Adam, so that grace would return to the world. There would have been no reason for Him to die on the cross for our sins.

 

[DavidKays]

This creates a problem, in that, if so, then not every human being ever born had for their ancestors Adam and Eve.

If not all human beings have Adam and Eve for their ancestors, then not all human beings were born with Original Sin, and thus, Jesus had no reason to come to earth. All He had to do was encourage those who were not born in Adam’s sin to reproduce more rapidly than those descended from Adam, so that grace would return to the world. There would have been no reason for Him to die on the cross for our sins.

We may not have Adam and Eve as our ancestors but we can say for sure we have Noah. Anyway I was just making a point about how many Adams or Eves there might have been. I am not to concern about it but I was trying to reconcile the Cain marrying his wife bit. I see by your post that you are Roman Catholic. Original sin is taught different in the East so we can see that your arguement regarding the infection of sin as the West teaches not as correct because the East sees differently the causes of sin and the effect of sin. To the East we see that Adam and Eve sinned. That is correct. But we do not see the Fall of the human race because Adam and Eve sinned. The Eastern teaching will say that everyone has the Tree of Life before them and also the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. All that Adam and Eve has gone through now you are going through. The arguement in the West does hit a snag because now we are living in Grace so what about those who are baptised. Since baptism takes every sin how does the teaching of Original Sin as the West teaches can imply here. This is where the Eastern Church’s teaching come into effect and rightly teaches us that we are responsible to our own choices and that the choices of another can never be our own responsibilty. The West is correct up to a point. What the Eastern Church does is complete it. You say each of us is born with Original Sin but when you are baptised Original Sin or not should not have any effect on you. The Western teaching is vague to the East. She cannot understand it properly on its own until her own teaching will make it complete. Sir you cannot make statements as you do if you do not understand the Eastern’s position. All you do is bring out the Western position. We know the Western position and our Saints did not like it. What our Saints have done is complete the Western Church’s position. To them your teaching was incomplete. Correct to a point then incorrect when you leave it as it is. Our Eastern teachings just complete it to a more balanced doctrine. I will suggest you read up on our teachings. It might interest you and give you a more balanced approach that the East has always taught. God Bless

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by grannymh

What you are referring to above (Post 342) are explanations offered by individuals, including high ranking clergy, in regard to the mission of the Catholic Church. One often hears that the Church proclaims doctrines in the realm of faith and morals and not in scientific matters. In other words, Church officials enjoy freedom of speech on the same level as you and me, but their conclusions about specific scientific matters are not part of Catholic doctrine. When specific research appears to contradict Catholic doctrine, Church officials will elaborate on this in the light of Divine Revelation. In a positive way, they will explain Church doctrines so that we can understand the truth.

When it comes to natural science in general, Catholicism places humanity at the pinnacle of creation because human nature is an unique unification of the material anatomy and the non-material spiritual soul. The human person is peerless on this earth. Catholicism does acknowledge the contribution of “scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 282-289) This cannot be considered an endorsement of any kind of specific scientific theory.

What I am describing is the way the visible Catholic Church operates in regard to its mission given by Jesus Christ. Please do not hesitate to ask questions.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»Enter the Catechism at this paragraph
»Table of Contents
»Index
»St. Charles Borromeo Home

Thanks.

I know that the result from this came out from the controversy the Church was facing when Galileo discovered things and then Modern Science started to appear and the Church was struggling because people were asking so much questions about science and the bible contradicting each other, however in this particular part of the Bible the Creation, The Science of today (The Knowledge of today) is telling us something very different than the Creation, its saying we came from common ancestors along with other species.

This is Faith, the Creation even though right now it appears as if it didn’t happen, it did happen, just that our knowledge right now is telling us it isn’t. I didn’t know why the Church doesn’t defend this, it should, because this is were “Science” (Knowledge) and Faith have to do with the same thing.

For example: If in the Bible you read and the Sun stopped, you will say “uh that’s just dumb the Sun doesn’t move anyway”, that’s right but here on Earth without knowing that it would best be described as the Sun not moving than the Earth stopped, because we don’t see the Earth moving already. In the Bible they use a language of “perspective” , “what you see is what you write”. So Modern Science in here is true, while the Bible is also, but the Creation of our God being changed into evolution I think, we should defend it. If it didn’t happen that way it didn’t happen anyway. And that means no Original Sin, and no Original Sin means no need for Jesus, then Jesus is a lie. That sacrifice He did is the most important part of Christianity, and our beliefs.

If evolution did happen, humans would had been more than 2 at a time. There wasn’t one amoeba when the amoebas first appeared, there were far a lot more. So Science does interfere here with Creation. This is no matter of Science this is a matter of Faith.

God bless.

 

[jmcrae]

We may not have Adam and Eve as our ancestors but we can say for sure we have Noah.

If there were “many Adams and many Eves” then why not “many Noahs”? On what basis do you say that the second chapter of Genesis is purely metaphorical, but not the fifth to the ninth? After all, many unlikely things also happen in these chapters, as well, that could easily be understood as mere storytelling, or myth.

Anyway I was just making a point about how many Adams or Eves there might have been. I am not to concern about it but I was trying to reconcile the Cain marrying his wife bit.

Since there was not yet any genetic corruption in the family line, there is no reason that Cain could not have married his sister. After all, Eve was actually made from Adam’s flesh (and presumably had the exact same DNA as him) and they were able to be married and have children. So Cain could certainly have married his sister.

With regard to Original Sin, if there is no such thing, then what is the purpose of Baptism?

 

[DavidKays]

If there were “many Adams and many Eves” then why not “many Noahs”? On what basis do you say that the second chapter of Genesis is purely metaphorical, but not the fifth to the ninth? After all, many unlikely things also happen in these chapters, as well, that could easily be understood as mere storytelling, or myth.

Since there was not yet any genetic corruption in the family line, there is no reason that Cain could not have married his sister. After all, Eve was actually made from Adam’s flesh (and presumably had the exact same DNA as him) and they were able to be married and have children. So Cain could certainly have married his sister.

With regard to Original Sin, if there is no such thing, then what is the purpose of Baptism?

But that was the point I was trying to make. You are not understanding the Eastern’s position at all. I am not arguing about the purpose of baptism but since you bring it up baptism came to us because to infuse the seeds of Graces in us. Now by your arguement baptism is necessary to relieve Original Sin ( but please sir understand the Eastern position for a change ) but in the East we see it more than taking away Original Sin but the planting of the seeds of greatness in each person. The Catholic Church is always gunning for the sin and the East gunning for the greatness. We do not see things the same way because we see things from terms of greatness. However the West is seemingly bent on looking too much on the sin. The Orthodox Saints prefer to teach the children from this angle. That gives us more ammunition to help our children when raising them. We do things differently that’s all. You want to raise your kids on what the West teaches then that is fine. We just don’t do it that way. Our approach is similar to the movie Akeelah and the Spelling Bee and I will quote " Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? We were born to make manifest the Glory of God that is within us. and as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same." That is the Eastern way in a nutshell. We just approach it in a different way. The West does it her way and the East does it her way. OK. We just think our way is better for our children. God Bless! and by the way I was not giving doctrine to that person about Adam and Eve. What is your problem anyway. I was just suggesting points that may or may not be true. I really don’t care if there was one Adam or many. But if you believe there is one, fine, God Bless you but I was just making a little point about something else and I get alot of ammunition coming to my direction. Anyway it is good to hear from you. Catholics tend to have more ammunition than us Easterners.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

This creates a problem, in that, if so, then not every human being ever born had for their ancestors Adam and Eve.

If not all human beings have Adam and Eve for their ancestors, then not all human beings were born with Original Sin, and thus, Jesus had no reason to come to earth.

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, 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.

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.

 

[larkin31]

We may not have Adam and Eve as our ancestors but we can say for sure we have Noah. …

Really?

 

[crazzeto]

Really?

Yeah, I truely wonder how that got reasoned out.