F
- Status
A
adrift
Guest
What was being taught?
- That there was a first man and woman without sin
- This couple disobeyed God bringing sin into the world
Catechism of the Catholic Church explains how scripture is to be read.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
These remarks are interesting but not relevant to the original post. The original post objected to the belief that the universe was created 5,000 years ago, and then, obviously, that man came into being several thousand years ago. The fact that men came into existence a hundred thousand or so years ago would then be the important thing, not how man came to exist.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Scientists can say nothing about what God can do. Nothing.
"The Time Question
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
"Real History
"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.
"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.
"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).
"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"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).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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” (CCC 390).”
Peace,
Ed
M
mardukm
Guest
I like how HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory explained it:
The body of humanity evolved, but at some point, God imbued two beings with souls, who (by definition) became the first humans. All human beings (body+soul) descended from these two.
My own theory is that Adam and Eve had other children. Jewish culture places great importance on lineage, so if they traced their lineage through Cain and Abel, that might explain why only Cain and Abel are mentioned, and not Adam and Eve’s other children, in the Bible.
Blessings,
Marduk
The body of humanity evolved, but at some point, God imbued two beings with souls, who (by definition) became the first humans. All human beings (body+soul) descended from these two.
My own theory is that Adam and Eve had other children. Jewish culture places great importance on lineage, so if they traced their lineage through Cain and Abel, that might explain why only Cain and Abel are mentioned, and not Adam and Eve’s other children, in the Bible.
Blessings,
Marduk
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Actually, that cartoon is not true at all.
Sooo true!
It treats the Bible as some kind of textbook, which it is not now, and was never intended to be.
It views the Bible in a superstitious way, and that serves neither science nor religion.
We do not understand Sacred Scripture by misrepresenting it to be something which it is not.
It is precisely the attitude represented by the cartoon that gives Christianity a bad name.
What separates Catholicism from fundamentalism is that we Catholics are able to understand Scripture and realize the real Truth that it speaks and the message which God reveals to us. When we treat the Bible as a modern-day science textbook, we are not understanding Divine Revelation, but corrupting it.
P
Protector
Guest
Yes, with the exception of Australia’s Cardinal George Pell who besides stating that the story of Adam & Eve was a myth, a mere story to explain evil and suffering, also maintains that humankind probably evolved from apes. He has just been appointed by Pope Francis as the head of Vatican finances.
Protector.
O
onemangang
Guest
I saw that debate, and put my hands over my face in shame, when the Cardinal dismissed the reality of Adam and Eve.
I think Dawkins was right to quickly point out, what about original sin then
It doesn’t have to be an either, or!
Evolution is true or the bible is true.
I just don’t think that’s necessary, you can have Theistic evolution be true, and have the biblical story be true as well, they do not cancel one another out!
We can have both, and
People who were physically human, could have been around before Adam, but they were only humans PHYSICALLY, they lacked what Adam had, a Soul (Nephesh)
How old was Adam when he came to be?
The bible implies he was not a wee little baby, but an adult, so could God have progressively used Evolutionary means to develop humans? …I think so!
Could those “humans” been ancestors to Adam?..I think so!
Were they human beings as we have human beings today, ones that have a rational intellect, a will, and a spirit? …I think NOT!
I think the first, truly human being, was not just physically human, but endowed with a rational intellect, a will, and a Spirit, an innermost part of being where God abides, his name was Adam!
Adam may have been ONLY PHYSICALLY HUMAN, until God breathed life, a soul (the Nephesh) into Adam, it was then, that Adam truly became human, not only PHYSICALLY HUMAN, BUT SPIRITUALLY HUMAN, making Adam, man, as we understand mankind today!
So you can have your cake and eat it too!
Both, and, theistic evolution, and a literal Adam!
Science is true and the biblical account is true, a both and scenario, rather than the either or, that pits science against scripture!
God bless!
A
Abu
Guest
God told Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:1-24 that because of their sin they would have to work for a living, be at war with nature, suffer pain and sickness, and eventually die. Paul explains original sin in great detail in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.
catholic.com/quickquestions/is-there-any-biblical-evidence-for-the-catholic-doctrine-of-original-sin
Free will and the resulting sin of Adam and Eve is precisely why mankind, with this Original Sin, is prone to error and further sin. Rom 5:19 explicitly confirms: “a multitude, through one man’s disobedience, became guilty.”
The Catechism twice [28, 360] quotes Acts 17:26-28:
“From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth…” That the Catechism refers to a single person is confirmed in footnote number 226 [360] which cites Tobit 8:6, “Thou madest Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung…” Thus, the “one ancestor” could only be Adam. This is confirmed in [359] which quotes St Peter Chrysologus, “St Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first man, Adam,…was made by the last Adam.” The Catechism clearly teaches that polygenism is irreconcilable with Catholic Tradition.
For an opening to a whole new world of faith, reason and sanity see:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html
Infallible doctrine is: Adam & Eve were our first parents, by direct divine intervention and Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body (*Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII, 1880). Polygenism is impossible. [LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine]](LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine])
Then from the Pontifical Biblical Commission in its response of 30 June, 1909, On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis, the declaration:
a) that those pseudoscientific exegetical systems elaborated for the purpose of “excluding the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis” are not based upon solid arguments (EB 324; DS 3512).
So as Fr Harrison rightly points out in Did The Human Body Evolve Naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration:
“We are not dealing here with a mere Allocution, a Motu Proprio, a Brief, an Apostolic Exhortation, or a Nuntius, but a fully-fledged piece of pontificating endowed with no less inherent or formal authority than Humani Generis or Providentissimus Deus: the Encyclical Letter *Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII on Christian Marriage, dated 10 February 1880.
rtforum.org/lt/lt73.htm
catholic.com/quickquestions/is-there-any-biblical-evidence-for-the-catholic-doctrine-of-original-sin
Free will and the resulting sin of Adam and Eve is precisely why mankind, with this Original Sin, is prone to error and further sin. Rom 5:19 explicitly confirms: “a multitude, through one man’s disobedience, became guilty.”
The Catechism twice [28, 360] quotes Acts 17:26-28:
“From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth…” That the Catechism refers to a single person is confirmed in footnote number 226 [360] which cites Tobit 8:6, “Thou madest Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung…” Thus, the “one ancestor” could only be Adam. This is confirmed in [359] which quotes St Peter Chrysologus, “St Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first man, Adam,…was made by the last Adam.” The Catechism clearly teaches that polygenism is irreconcilable with Catholic Tradition.
For an opening to a whole new world of faith, reason and sanity see:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html
Infallible doctrine is: Adam & Eve were our first parents, by direct divine intervention and Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body (*Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII, 1880). Polygenism is impossible. [LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine]](LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine])
Then from the Pontifical Biblical Commission in its response of 30 June, 1909, On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis, the declaration:
a) that those pseudoscientific exegetical systems elaborated for the purpose of “excluding the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis” are not based upon solid arguments (EB 324; DS 3512).
So as Fr Harrison rightly points out in Did The Human Body Evolve Naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration:
“We are not dealing here with a mere Allocution, a Motu Proprio, a Brief, an Apostolic Exhortation, or a Nuntius, but a fully-fledged piece of pontificating endowed with no less inherent or formal authority than Humani Generis or Providentissimus Deus: the Encyclical Letter *Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII on Christian Marriage, dated 10 February 1880.
rtforum.org/lt/lt73.htm
T
TimothyH
Guest
This is an extremely important post and illustrates the scripture-as-textbook mentality which some Catholics are guilty of.
Scripture is not just a collection of words about God. Scripture is not a textbook for the faith.
*For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them;
- Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation*
I wish Catholics would stop treating Scripture as a textbook about God and the faith, and start treating it as it was meant - as God speaking with us. And what could be better than the creator of the universe meeting with us and speaking with us? That’s what I want!
-Tim-
F
FrDavid96
Guest
What we need to understand here is the very purpose of the Genesis stories.
The Genesis stories were never intended to be a scientific explanation for how the world (as we now know it) came to be. They were meant from the very beginning to be spiritual explanations.
The Jewish method of teaching is storytelling. Now, I’m going to use the word “Jewish” even though that’s a-historical because the word would not apply until a few centuries before Christ. When the Jewish people had questions, especially important questions, they answered them with stories—unlike the modern Western practice of seeking simple, direct answers. Christ’s own use of parables illustrates that to us quite clearly. He often responded to questions with a story.
The purpose of the creation stories (note the plural) in Genesis are to teach the truth that God created the universe, rather than to tell us how He did it. We must put these stories into context. Every creation story ever composed in all of mankind’s history, every single one of them, even the Native American ones, present the beginning of the world as some kind of accident or some mistake or mischief on the part of the gods. The Jewish stories are unique in that their stories alone present creation as a conscious and intentional act of a loving God. Creation is no accident. God does not look at creation and say “something went wrong” (as all others do) but instead “He saw that it was good.” They are also unique (though not absolutely so) in that they speak of creation ex nihilo —out of nothing. God did not take pre-existing things to make the universe, but He made it from nothing, simply by speaking it into existence. In other words, all things, everything comes from God’s loving act of creation. These ideas are in complete contrast to the stories of other religions.
The other point of Genesis creation is to show that the things (like heavenly bodies, stars, trees, etc.) that other peoples worshiped as gods are not gods at all, instead they are the product of God’s creation. They are not things to be worshiped, but quite the opposite, they are things placed there by God for man’s good. We do not worship the ocean as a god, but we have stewardship over it. Not only are the gods of other religions false, they are the creation of the God of Abraham; they are not merely weaker, they are completely subject to him. That’s why Genesis speaks of the “greater light” and the “lesser light” because these things do not even deserve to have proper names. Every society known to them gave proper names to the sun and moon (even our modern English names derive from pagan names) but Genesis does not.
The stories in the opening chapters of Genesis are intended to speak spiritual truths to us. They are very different from the creation stories of other religions—radically different. They speak to us of a loving God Who made creation ex nihilo and Who created man as the pinnacle of that creation, infusing into him the very breath (spirit, ruha, pneuma, anima) of God.
We need (indeed we must) read the creation accounts of Genesis in the spirit in which they were intended—stories to speak spiritual truths. They are stories unlike any other in human history; stories inspired by the Holy Spirit in a very unique way, and given to us as part of the totality of Sacred Scripture.
It has only been roughly a century now that man has been able to understand the physical origins of the universe, and of the human species (apart from mostly isolated academics, but even there, we’re talking about relatively recent discoveries). We are still trying to come to terms with what might seem at first to be a conflict between science and faith.
However, if we realize that the bible is not a science textbook, but a collection of spiritual truths (some historically accurate, some not intended to be that) then we realize that there is no conflict between science and religion. Faith tells us that God created the universe. Science tells us how that creation by God developed.
The Genesis stories were never intended to be a scientific explanation for how the world (as we now know it) came to be. They were meant from the very beginning to be spiritual explanations.
The Jewish method of teaching is storytelling. Now, I’m going to use the word “Jewish” even though that’s a-historical because the word would not apply until a few centuries before Christ. When the Jewish people had questions, especially important questions, they answered them with stories—unlike the modern Western practice of seeking simple, direct answers. Christ’s own use of parables illustrates that to us quite clearly. He often responded to questions with a story.
The purpose of the creation stories (note the plural) in Genesis are to teach the truth that God created the universe, rather than to tell us how He did it. We must put these stories into context. Every creation story ever composed in all of mankind’s history, every single one of them, even the Native American ones, present the beginning of the world as some kind of accident or some mistake or mischief on the part of the gods. The Jewish stories are unique in that their stories alone present creation as a conscious and intentional act of a loving God. Creation is no accident. God does not look at creation and say “something went wrong” (as all others do) but instead “He saw that it was good.” They are also unique (though not absolutely so) in that they speak of creation ex nihilo —out of nothing. God did not take pre-existing things to make the universe, but He made it from nothing, simply by speaking it into existence. In other words, all things, everything comes from God’s loving act of creation. These ideas are in complete contrast to the stories of other religions.
The other point of Genesis creation is to show that the things (like heavenly bodies, stars, trees, etc.) that other peoples worshiped as gods are not gods at all, instead they are the product of God’s creation. They are not things to be worshiped, but quite the opposite, they are things placed there by God for man’s good. We do not worship the ocean as a god, but we have stewardship over it. Not only are the gods of other religions false, they are the creation of the God of Abraham; they are not merely weaker, they are completely subject to him. That’s why Genesis speaks of the “greater light” and the “lesser light” because these things do not even deserve to have proper names. Every society known to them gave proper names to the sun and moon (even our modern English names derive from pagan names) but Genesis does not.
The stories in the opening chapters of Genesis are intended to speak spiritual truths to us. They are very different from the creation stories of other religions—radically different. They speak to us of a loving God Who made creation ex nihilo and Who created man as the pinnacle of that creation, infusing into him the very breath (spirit, ruha, pneuma, anima) of God.
We need (indeed we must) read the creation accounts of Genesis in the spirit in which they were intended—stories to speak spiritual truths. They are stories unlike any other in human history; stories inspired by the Holy Spirit in a very unique way, and given to us as part of the totality of Sacred Scripture.
It has only been roughly a century now that man has been able to understand the physical origins of the universe, and of the human species (apart from mostly isolated academics, but even there, we’re talking about relatively recent discoveries). We are still trying to come to terms with what might seem at first to be a conflict between science and faith.
However, if we realize that the bible is not a science textbook, but a collection of spiritual truths (some historically accurate, some not intended to be that) then we realize that there is no conflict between science and religion. Faith tells us that God created the universe. Science tells us how that creation by God developed.
E
edwest2
Guest
Pope John Paul II said the human body evolved? Can you provide a quote for this? And a quote that explains how God picked two almost humans and dropped souls into them? And what is the scientific basis for that? The soul part?
Thanks,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
I noticed your reference to the book of Genesis which has 50 chapters. Wow!
My understanding is that God’s Divine Revelation about the existence of an eternal heaven and human’s ability to go there is initially presented in the first three chapters of Genesis. I like the fact that the Catholic Church’s interpretation puts God’s presence up front and personal.
It is very important to know that the first three chapters of Genesis are not a scientific textbook. We would be up the creek without a paddle if it were. While natural science is a gift from God, it stops with the decomposing anatomy of humans. It is comforting to know that the Catholic Church can tell the difference between rotting skin and bones and a spiritual rational soul in the image of God the Creator.
Of course, we realize that a biopsy of our spiritual principle is a futile procedure. While some folks may not agree with the Catholic Church’s insistence that human nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world, I personally prefer that doctrine over science which is confined to blood and guts. Divine Revelation trumps!
Now one would think that the human author, who is definitely not a Ph.D. scientist , would emphasize the glory of the population in which he lives. Where was that man’s pride? Instead, he makes sure that every reader recognizes the uniqueness of the individual by describing a human gardener with an unique rational mind like ours. This uniqueness is the reason for John 3: 16.
Logically, the author first demonstrates the uniqueness of the human population. He makes sure that readers understand that the human population was different in kind from all other species. The interesting detail about this ancient observation in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is that the author did not use any current population as the comparison to other species. He chose only one individual as being different in kind from all other species. This, in itself, demonstrates that Adam and his spouse would be the sole progenitors of the peerless human species. The unity of one dominant human species, classified as vertebrate, testifies to the necessary existence of a real Adam and Eve as the first human vertebrates. Speaking of fellow vertebrates, do we ever wonder why birds who can fly do not build space stations and humans who cannot flap their arms in flight can sit in the comfort of an airplane?
By giving the first human gardener rational abilities for his personal use, the author demonstrates that this gardener is perfectly capable of making choices apart from a population. Being apart from a population signifies that there can be no “population” influences with the very first propagation of the human species. Quick point – the Catholic Church teaches that all humankind is in the first real, fully complete human as one body of one man. This insures that all humankind receives, by propagation, that same human vertebrate anatomy as the first human. No going from dinosaurs to birds type of development.
It is obvious, or should be obvious, that the spiritual soul is not material. Of course, the spiritual soul hinges on the existence of God. The existence of God and the existence of God’s relationship to His first human creature is front and center in those mysterious first three chapters of Genesis. What is fascinating about this aspect is that further on in Genesis, we learn about God and His relationship with His chosen people. But when it comes to the dawn of human history, God’s interaction with humans is explained in terms of one human and his spouse. Not only that, but St. Paul describes the first human as one human person. Certainly St. Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit promised in chapter 14, Gospel of John, would be able to tell the difference between one initial human and a population.
Now comes the tricky statement – The person biblically known as Adam was not a real person.
If you and I are real humans, our first natural ancestor had to be a real human with a spiritual soul. Catholics know this because the belief in a super-natural Creator is professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Now add the Catholic belief that God calls us to share in His divine life. You and I are individuals with our own individual intellect and will according to the Catholic Church. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that each of us is in the hand of our own counsel so that each of us independently can seek God, know God, serve God and be happy with God in heaven. By the way, we serve God because we do not have the same nature as God our Creator. As creatures, we maintain a relationship with God by our free obedience to God our Creator. We inherited this freedom to love God or deny God as part of our unique human nature demonstrated by a real Adam. God’s Divine Revelation appears in the first three chapters of Genesis…according to the Catholic Church.
At the beginning of human history, one real person had the choice of remaining in God’s friendship or of leaving God’s friendship. This is a logical teaching because human nature, by definition, has the choice to love God or deny God. With one real person who, with his spouse, has children, all the children would either contract that person’s state of original holiness or they would contract that person’s state of deprivation of original holiness. Going forward to Jesus hanging bloody on His cross, we know that He opened the gate of heaven for all, so now we can reason that all had contracted the state of deprivation of original holiness which can only be the result of the original Adam’s real, very real Original Sin. It is that simple.
E
edwest2
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Not long ago, a Rabbi questioned Exodus. It didn’t happen. There is no archeological evidence for it. A Jewish writer stated that if Exodus did not literally happen then there is no Judaism. And he urged those who believed it didn’t happen to stop celebrating Passover, to be intellectually honest and to believe archeology instead.
Peace,
Ed
A
andrewstx
Guest
Yes, that is what I thought too, that Adam and Eve were not literal historic charactors. I was set straight by my director of novices who told me the Adam and Eve had to be real because that it where the dogma of Original Sin comes from.
E
edwest2
Guest
So, why didn’t the ancient writers add: “And God told us that in ages long past, men looked like animals and lived like animals, and had the knowledge of animals. But as the ages passed, they began to change, and became men such as you are today, and with knowledge such as you have today.”
Genesis records things God actually did. It does not promote the “God who did nothing” idea. We are clearly taught an individual Adam was responsible for Original Sin and that is why Jesus Christ was born. Facts.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
One thing brought up here on a regular basis is that science is silent about God and the supernatural. It cannot find or study something called a soul. There is no scientific basis for combining a supernatural idea with the scientific method.
Peace,
Ed
- Status