Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter Suslar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Suslar

Guest
I have a question about Adam and Eve. In teaching an intergenerational program, a Pastoral Associate from our parish claimed Adam and Eve never existed – that they are a myth. When asked about how that could be given that our CCC says we all inherited original sin from a common set of ancestors or “first parents” (CCC 416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings), the PA stated we had “accepted a great lie.” The PA went on to say that creation stories exist in many ancient cultures so it’s likely that the Biblical story was just a copy of one of those other myths used to explain creation in a way people could understand.

When this issue was taken to the DRE, she said there likely were first parents, but no one knows for sure if their names were really Adam and Eve or something else. When asked if she would concede to calling the first people Adam and Eve as they are referred to not only in the Old Testament but also in the New Testament and CCC, she said she’d only agree to call them “first parents” and that the PA was right in describing creation as a myth. She went on to say that we have no historical evidence of Cain and Abel or Noah either – that their stories are fables. Her reasoning for this is citing Genesis 4:15 “lest anyone should kill him at sight” – “Who would have been around to kill Cain?” and verse 17 (“Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch . … “) to which the DRE asked, “Where did Cain’s wife come from?”

How should this be addressed? What can I say to help these people see that they are leading people away from the Truth? I need more training to better defend the Faith from those inside the Church who are doing so much harm. Suggestions? What should I be saying back to them in regard to Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah, etc.???
 
I’m also wondering about this. For example, St. Augustine taught that when God placed the earth above the waters, the waters were symbolic of evil people (who are mutable and changing) and the earth was Christians, in opposition with the water.

Was St. Augustine wrong? I know the Church Fathers weren’t infallible, but still… Should we understand Genesis metaphorically?
 
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Take your concerns to your priest and if that doesn’t correct the problem, then to the Bishop.

“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). "

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
 
Thank you!

Sadly, my pastor is not very well catechized himself and defaults to the PA and DRE for just about everything.

But I do think our Bishop would at least hear the concern . . . . .

It scares me to think of how many people “teach” that which they don’t know and how many innocent souls are lead astray because of it. Please join me in offering a prayer for the PA, DRE, pastor and all who wield influence on or teach others.
 
First, we need to avoid the classic false dichotomy that myth = false story made up completely out of thin air. I can’t recall if it was Chesterton or Lewis that spoke of “true myths.” Genesis 1-11 would fall into that category.

Your PA and DRE are (sadly) simply reflecting what has been going on in biblical scholarship in the past 100 years.

It is true that the creation story isn’t some sort of literalistic play-by-play of Creation. It has a literary structure to it that points to some very fundamental and profound religious truth. But that doesn’t mean Adam and Eve weren’t real people or that the Jewish people simply swiped some other ancient Mid-eastern creation story and made it their own.

I would take a good look at Pius XII’s Humani Generus (which has already been cited). That shot down the theory of polygenism (which is still being taught in some places) that says “Well, the Bible says God created Adam and Eve, but it doesn’t mean God didn’t create other sets of people, too.” That theory undercuts the doctrine of Original Sin and the fact that we are all united in one human family.

Personally, I wouldn’t be too concerned about whether or not we use the names “Adam” and “Eve” provided the correct Catholic understanding of one set of first parents is still there. To dismiss the Creation account as something completely fabricated undercuts not only Original Sin and the concept of the Mystical Body of Christ, it also undercuts the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

I think some Catholics think it is necessary to take such a view to mesh Catholic teaching with science and the theory of evolution, but it’s not necessary. Some have simply been led astray by bad biblical scholarship. They’re probably just passing on what they were taught, so don’t judge them too harshly.
 
“Humani Generus” is Magisterial teaching and is the basis for judging what others say and teach in the name of the Catholic Church. This is not to be considered an opinion or a possibility but is truth that is given to us by God.

LAMENTABILI SANE has proscribed the following 22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.
  1. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain.
  2. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .
We can judge they who teach error as ignorant but must condemn the error. It is simple enough to read the Magisterial documents to find the truth and not taking the time to study but to come to ones own opinion in opposition to the Church is, even if in ignorance, is condemnable in and of itself.
 
Suslar said:
When this issue was taken to the DRE, she said there likely were first parents, but no one knows for sure if their names were really Adam and Eve or something else.
Click to expand...
There is true - there is no dogmatic statement on the names of the first humans endowed with a soul. The church only requires that you believe there was one first man and one first woman who were given immortal souls.
When asked if she would concede to calling the first people Adam and Eve as they are referred to not only in the Old Testament but also in the New Testament and CCC, she said she’d only agree to call them “first parents” and that the PA was right in describing creation as a myth.
Click to expand...
The term “myth” is not a synonym for false, it merely names the literary form of the story. The catechism states of the creation account: “This primeval event is narrated in figurative language in the Book of Genesis…”
She went on to say that we have no historical evidence of Cain and Abel or Noah either – that their stories are fables.
Click to expand...
That is true, there is no evidence. However, that does not mean that the stories do not teach truth and calling the stories fables, legends, or myths does not indicate that they are untrue, it defines the literary form containing that truth.
How should this be addressed?
Click to expand...
The leaders should be cautioned against making such flip statements to those still coming up to speed in biblical scholarship and dogmatic teachings.
What can I say to help these people see that they are leading people away from the Truth?
Click to expand...
You should read and understand what the church actually teaches before attacking them. They may be confusing newcomers but they are not leading anyone away from the truth.
I need more training to better defend the Faith from those inside the Church who are doing so much harm. Suggestions? What should I be saying back to them in regard to Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah, etc.???
Click to expand...
There are many things you need to read before doing so, including the catechism, and a few church documents such as Dei Verbum and the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (both online). Then you might look into the book used by many catholic adult scripture classes And God Said What? An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms by Margaret Ralph.
 
St. Luke in his Gospel, traces Judeo-Christian geneology back from Enosh, Seth, Adam to God. Luke 3:23

The NAB, in explanation of how St. Paul calls Christ the last Adam in 1 Cor 15:45:

"21 [45] The analogy of the first man, Adam, is introduced by a citation from Genesis 2:7.
Paul alters the text slightly, adding the adjective first, and translating the Hebrew adam twice, so as to give it its value both as a common noun (man) and as a proper name (Adam).

1 Cor 15:45b then specifies similarities and differences between the two Adams.

The last Adam, Christ (cf 1 Cor 15:21-22) has become a . . . spirit (pneuma), a life-principle transcendent with respect to the natural soul (psyche) of the first Adam (on the terminology here, cf the note on 1 Cor 3:1). Further, he is not just alive, but life-giving, a source of life for others.
 
"Her reasoning for this is citing Genesis 4:15 “lest anyone should kill him at sight” – “Who would have been around to kill Cain?” and verse 17 (“Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch . … “) to which the DRE asked, “Where did Cain’s wife come from?”

She must have missed the extended life spans of humanity in Sacred Scripture.

Cain, like most primitive people in small societies, would have married his sister. His brothers, born of Adam and Eve, would have killed Cain.

(Egyptian royalty, at the time of the building of the Pyramids, were marrying siblings. King Tut’s mother and father, were brother and sister.)

The option also exists that God created other groups of people.
 
Suslar said:
Thank you!

Sadly, my pastor is not very well catechized himself and defaults to the PA and DRE for just about everything.

But I do think our Bishop would at least hear the concern . . . . .

It scares me to think of how many people “teach” that which they don’t know and how many innocent souls are lead astray because of it. Please join me in offering a prayer for the PA, DRE, pastor and all who wield influence on or teach others.
Click to expand...
I am curious as to which books the PA recommends as a source of information. My personal motive is that I am tracing backwards to where this information comes from.
If you do not feel right in asking for this info, please don’t do it. You are in a very difficult situation and need to be cautious. Hopefully, there is someone else with your same concern.

I will join you in prayer when I next do the 2:00 AM hour of Eucharistic Adoration

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)
 
The story of Adam and Eve, and the story of Noah, as well as other ancient stories in the OT, contain some literal elements and some figurative elements.

Adam and Eve were two real persons at the origins of humanity; we are each and all their descendents. This teaching is implied by the teachings of Trent on original sin. But the story of Adam and Eve is related using various figures (fruit, talking serpent, etc.). There was a true historical event called the Fall, when Adam and Eve sinned. The Bible explains this historical event in figurative terms.

The Epistles teach that Adam and Eve were real human persons, by whose sins suffering and death entered humanity.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich describes the Fall of Adam and Eve as the sin of two real historical persons.

The view that Adam and Eve never existed, and that Noah and other OT persons never existed is incompatible with the Catholic Christian Faith. It is a common modernist error being promoted by many so-called scholars for the past few generations. But none of the Fathers, Doctors, or Saints of the Church has espoused that position. And the Magisterium has never taught such a thing.
 
Thanks all! I truly appreciate your comments and taking the time to write.

But 2 things jumped out from all the posts. First, Patg wrote, “You should read and understand what the church actually teaches before attacking them. They may be confusing newcomers but they are not leading anyone away from the truth.” I hope I wasn’t misunderstood – I do read and understand quite a bit, but never suggested attacking anyone! Unfortunately, these people do lead others from Truth. In the same class, the PA declared that the Virgin Mary is not a Saint! And, while the literary use of the mythological style is to use symbolism to convey a great truth, the PA meant the word to mean simple “false.”

The other thing is dear Barbkw who posted “The option also exists that God created other groups of people.” :eek: EEK! What would that do to the argument for the common set of ancestors!

Thanks all for your prayers and support!
 
This whole thread is why I don’t like Catholic Bible study groups. I wanted to know more about the Bible, and pressed as hard as I could, to get Catholic Study groups. But, I have made the decision, and now I avoid them for this reason, alone.

But, there’s a more technical reason for avoiding these self-appointed Bible experts who come up with these sensational opinions and arguments.

First and foremost, you should study the Bible text as it is written. This is the Word of God that has been handed on to us – as it is.

We should be reading it and studying it for our salvation, as it is.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) wrote a document back around 1993, called The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. This document can be downloaded for free from the www.ewtn.com website, search for it in their document library.

Now, that document is hard to read, in itself. But, what it’s saying, is that there is no totally satisfactory method of Bible study (historical criticism, form criticism, redactional criticism, feminist criticism, etc.) that can alone give us the key to understanding scripture.

So, theoretically, you could “bury” your PA with questions about the different methods of study (exegetical methods) to prove that he/she doesn’t have a clue about the issues. If you read all 115 pages of it, it comes down to this, that the PBC says they will answer questions about scripture submitted to it, but even their answers should not be taken as the final word.

So, that should settle one question, that you don’t have to take the PA’s explanation as the “Final Word.” There is no final word, except from the Church itself – it’s magisterium.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are paragraphs early on about the “senses” of scripture. So, you may want to familiarize yourself with what those are. I’d “bury” your PA with questions about the “senses” of scripture – if you hadn’t guessed that by now. Golly, you should have the RIGHT to ask “What is the literal sense of that verse?” and "What are the spiritual “senses” of that verse? ** That’s what you should be studying!!** The Church says, THAT’S where scripture study should be centered. That’s where the meaning of scripture is – at those levels or “senses.”

The Catechism itself is heavily dependent on the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) issued by the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council. That is also available at the ewtn.com website.

The documents I have mentioned here are written FOR YOU. And, you should enforce those standards in your parish Bible study. Otherwise, you should set off on your own and study scripture with a reliable commentary written according to these standards (which is what the PBC says in the document on Interpretation, anyway.)
 
Scripture should be read WITH FAITH as it was written in the first place.

Yet another fundamental document from the PBC, with an introduction from His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI (also available free at ewtn.com) is something called The Jewish People and their Scriptures. This is another 115 page document explaining the value and importance of the Hebrew Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament).

Benedict says that if you throw away the OT, then you can’t understand the NT.

You can pick up all kinds of commentaries and read all kinds of opinions. I’ve been reading Jewish commentaries for two years (which Benedict endorses – in general – by the way) and they don’t get bent out of shape or preoccupied with notions of myth and/or historicity.

(The Jews are proud of the fact that they don’t have a central magisterium. They RELISH different opinions and they look at it all. They keep it all on file. They are totally HUMBLE to the ways that The Almighty has revealed Himself to them. They don’t shave their beards off, because something seems to be related to a Middle East myth of some nearby pagan religion. A central point of Judaism is how UNIQUE their system of faith is, in the whole idea of MONOTHEISM.

Now, did your PA talk about the whole idea of MONOTHEISM that is taught right from the get-go in Genesis Chapter One? If NOT, then he/she has missed one of the lessons of Genesis Chapter One, the DE-Mythologizing of the nearby pagan faiths ! Men aren’t to be worshipped! They are created! Animals are not to be worshipped. They were created! Rocks aren’t to be worshipped – you get the idea?

“Enough” with the myths, already. SO WHAT if God chose to use a myth that people were familiar with, CHANGE IT to express the truth in a way that would destroy the other myth and teach something new? SO WHAT? Did your PA explain criticizing God for this?)

I’m sorry, but I just GAG on such pompousness.

And, OH, by the way. Take a look at Psalm One: BLESSED is the man who WALKS NOT in the company of the wicked [people who ignore God], STANDS NOT in the way of sinners pretty self-explanatory], and SITS NOT in the counsel of the scoffers [atheists].

BLESSED is the man who meditates on GOD’S WORD night and day.

And,another OH by the way, read Chapter Three about “teachers” and what GOD expects of them.

Heh, heh. Makes me laugh. I just keep asking people like your PA to tell me which pages to tear out of the Bible! C’mon, right now! Let’s tear out those pages and get it over with!
 
WhOOPs. In the last several lines preceding, I meant to say “James Chapter Three.”

That’s for sure, this topic is a hot button one for me. I love scripture, I am enriched by scripture, my faith is in scripture.

Historical criticism is a “tool” for studying scripture – an indispensible tool, as Pope Benedict says. But, don’t ignore that HC starts with an assumption that there is no God and the supernatural is a fabrication. With such a starting point, you know you’re going to reach a dead end in the discussion sooner or later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top