Adam and Eve

[grannymh]

Well, we’re talking about Scriptural Theology, so it’s important to pick the proper theological definitions, and not the easiest ones.

Definitions are good. What is the definition of truth? I heard a rather simple one years ago …

In the context of Scripture, we talk about “the two senses of the Scripture”: the literal and the spiritual. At this level, the “literal sense of Scripture” means “what the author intended.” The document “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” points out that the literal sense isn’t simply the text on the level of its words (that is, the “literalistic” meaning): after all, it points out, “let your loins be girt” doesn’t intend to mean “put on your britches”, but rather, “be ready for action.”

I am familiar about the two senses of Scripture. However, I am looking for truth in the first three satisfying chapters of Genesis. I am looking for guts and blood reality.

It’s important to note that figurative language and allegories contribute to the literal sense of Scripture!

Personally, I enjoy figurative language. Years ago, when someone asked about the talking snake being Satan. I replied that at the time the author was trying to describe Satan --Halloween costumes had not been invented.

(

A side note: one of the spiritual senses of Scripture is the “allegorical sense”. It’s not relevant to our discussion here, since we’re talking about the literary technique of ‘allegory’, and the “allegorical sense of Scripture” doesn’t point to genre, but rather, asks us to recognize how the events in the Bible point toward Christ (see CCC, #117).)

Reviewing the section “The senses of Scripture”, I am wondering where is the flat out statement that Christ was and still is real.

Fair enough, but I don’t think that this is a reasonable definition in this context, nor is the assertion that “literal” implies “real” (as in “historically accurate”, which is what I’d guess you’re attempting to say by your recourse to “real” here).

This is getting closer. What I am searching for is not an implication; it is reality. My daughter-in-law is working on my ancestors. One ancestor had the wrong date of death so that her information was not historically accurate. Did that mean that my ancestor never lived?

Yes, this makes sense, since the genre here is “narrative.” Naturally, narratives tell stories through sequences of events.

In the world of literature, narratives can be both real and imaginative. I search for the reality of the event.

If you want to stick to the words on the page, you’ll have to abandon the “Satan” interpretation – after all, Satan never appears in this narrative. If, on the other hand, you’re claiming that “the serpent” means “Satan”, then you’ve already conceded the game: you’ve conceded the presence of allegory (i.e., the “serpent as allegory for Satan”) in the narrative.

Eventually, I do intend to address the talking snake.

This works if you’ve already proven that you’re talking about a historical narrative. If you’re trying to prove a historical narrative, then you can’t presume what you’re attempting to prove – that’s the logical fallacy known as “begging the question.”

Your argument from the perspective of “time” makes the same logical error.

I am not exactly talking about a historical narrative. I am referring to a real event in time and space which is the subject of the historical narrative.

My computer is doing its own thing… This is probably good because I need more time to understand the rest of your post and to double check the beginning.

At first reading, it seems to me that you are analyzing how scripture is written and what style it is written in. I have no problem with any of that. When all the facts and legends have been thoroughly checked for style, I want to know if the event took place in time and space. Thus, it would be considered a real event.

Here is an example. You won five thousand dollars. Your friends come over to celebrate. You are so thrilled about your good fortune that you say “I am so happy I could fly to the moon!”

You are real. At some point in time, you actually won five thousand dollars which are also real. Your happiness is real. Can you fly to the moon? “I am so happy I could fly to the moon” describes the reality of happiness, but in itself it is not reality.Suppose one of your friends does not believe you won five thousand dollars. You could show the friend your five thousand dollars; but what would you say if you already spent the five thousand dollars?

The analysis which I consider essential is that which takes place during a major Ecumenical Catholic Church Council. What can be interesting are Council citations in the CCC Index of Citations beginning on page 689. The Catholic Church reserves the right to evaluate the reality which appears underneath all the style, senses, genre, allegory this and figurative that?

My apology but I give up. I have wasted precious time. The spam block has eaten my post twice. The above is a saved draft and I should check it… The spam block has also eaten time by double checking editing. It is still stopping editing.

 

[grannymh]

Well, we’re talking about Scriptural Theology, so it’s important to pick the proper theological definitions, and not the easiest ones.

In the context of Scripture, we talk about “the two senses of the Scripture”: the literal and the spiritual. At this level, the “literal sense of Scripture” means “what the author intended.” The document “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” points out that the literal sense isn’t simply the text on the level of its words (that is, the “literalistic” meaning): after all, it points out, “let your loins be girt” doesn’t intend to mean “put on your britches”, but rather, “be ready for action.”

It’s important to note that figurative language and allegories contribute to the literal sense of Scripture!

(A side note: one of the spiritual senses of Scripture is the “allegorical sense”. It’s not relevant to our discussion here, since we’re talking about the literary technique of ‘allegory’, and the “allegorical sense of Scripture” doesn’t point to genre, but rather, asks us to recognize how the events in the Bible point toward Christ (see CCC, #117).)

Fair enough, but I don’t think that this is a reasonable definition in this context, nor is the assertion that “literal” implies “real” (as in “historically accurate”, which is what I’d guess you’re attempting to say by your recourse to “real” here).

Yes, this makes sense, since the genre here is “narrative.” Naturally, narratives tell stories through sequences of events.

If you want to stick to the words on the page, you’ll have to abandon the “Satan” interpretation – after all, Satan never appears in this narrative. If, on the other hand, you’re claiming that “the serpent” means “Satan”, then you’ve already conceded the game: you’ve conceded the presence of allegory (i.e., the “serpent as allegory for Satan”) in the narrative.

This works if you’ve already proven that you’re talking about a historical narrative. If you’re trying to prove a historical narrative, then you can’t presume what you’re attempting to prove – that’s the logical fallacy known as “begging the question.”

Your argument from the perspective of “time” makes the same logical error.

It is possible to describe “literal” truth without recourse to “literal” historical narrative. The former doesn’t imply the presence of the latter.

Agreed. The attempt to assert that the first three chapters of Genesis only tell symbolic truth because they use figurative language is the flip side of the error that asserts that because literal truth is present, literal historical narrative must be the mode of its expression.

Yes, but it’s important to recognize that the assertion isn’t that there are figurative expressions within a historical narrative; rather, it’s that the narratives themselves are figurative.

My computer is working…

What I believe is happening is that we are addressing the first three valid chapters of Genesis from different perspectives. Your perspective is the “modern” one. And it is a very good approach for modern thinking. My perspective is from the dead generation that learned basic doctrines based in the three early chapters in Sacred Scripture. I start from Pentecost.

From what I learn on CAF, there is a void when it comes to understanding how Catholicism works. It is important to recognize that the truths about Adam and Eve were settled in major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils held in the centuries following Pentecost. It seems to me that currently, the literal issue is causing unnecessary confusion because we do not go into the depth of the reality of Adam and the reality of Original Sin. Regardless of how, right or wrong, reality is described, a real event (true existence of Adam and Eve) has to take place in time and space.

Catholicism says that the major event of Adam’s life took place "at the beginning of the history of man. (CCC 390) The importance of this event must be taken seriously. (last sentence of CCC 389)

 

[Tim_D]

You certainly are going to long way around for an answer that is relatively simple.

Adam & Eve were not real in the sense that George Washington was real. The Church teaches that there were an original two people, male and female, who were the first two people to be ensouled by God, thus being the first “true” human beings because they were “made in the image of God,” that is, in that they were human and spiritual beings. We simply call them Adam & Eve. Their names are a play on words, Adam being “of the ground” and Eve being “out of her man.” The Genesis narrative of them living in a garden, the incident with the serpent (Gorgias is correct that it was Christian commentators who ascribed the serpent being Satan; Jewish commentators do not), eating the forbidden fruit is all part of the figurative language used to instruct. Even the Church says that it is the lesson from the first 11 chapters of Genesis that is important, not the means used to convey it.

 

[fhansen]

You certainly are going to long way around for an answer that is relatively simple.

Adam & Eve were not real in the sense that George Washington was real. The Church teaches that there were an original two people, male and female, who were the first two people to be ensouled by God, thus being the first “true” human beings because they were “made in the image of God,” that is, in that they were human and spiritual beings. We simply call them Adam & Eve. Their names are a play on words, Adam being “of the ground” and Eve being “out of her man.” The Genesis narrative of them living in a garden, the incident with the serpent (Gorgias is correct that it was Christian commentators who ascribed the serpent being Satan; Jewish commentators do not), eating the forbidden fruit is all part of the figurative language used to instruct. Even the Church says that it is the lesson from the first 11 chapters of Genesis that is important, not the means used to convey it.

But I’m not quite sure of the point here because either way those “original two people, male and female”, by whatever names, were “real in the sense that George Washington was real” according to my understanding of Church teaching.

 

[Tim_D]

But I’m not quite sure of the point here because either way those “original two people, male and female”, by whatever names, were “real in the sense that George Washington was real” according to my understanding of Church teaching.

Certainly. I simply meant that George Washington is to us not simply a character in a book but someone for whom we can still see true, historical evidence. In the case of the first two “real” human beings, all we have is theory and conjecture. We have more than just a figurative point of view about George Washington, not so with Adam & Eve.

 

[fhansen]

Certainly. I simply meant that George Washington is to us not simply a character in a book but someone for whom we can still see true, historical evidence. In the case of the first two “real” human beings, all we have is theory and conjecture. We have more than just a figurative point of view about George Washington, not so with Adam & Eve.

I see-we know nothing much of them other than that the Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit, knows of their act.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What are the first stages of God’s Revelation?

54-58
70-71

From the very beginning, God manifested himself to our first parents, Adam and Eve, and invited them to intimate communion with himself. After their fall, he did not cease his revelation to them but promised salvation for all their descendants…

1. What was the first human sin?

396-403
415-417

When tempted by the devil, the first man and woman allowed trust in their Creator to die in their hearts. In their disobedience they wished to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God (Genesis 3:5). Thus, Adam and Eve immediately lost for themselves and for all their descendants the original grace of holiness and justice.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[grannymh]

Certainly. I simply meant that George Washington is to us not simply a character in a book but someone for whom we can still see true, historical evidence. In the case of the first two “real” human beings, all we have is theory and conjecture. We have more than just a figurative point of view about George Washington, not so with Adam & Eve.

We, real humans, are the historical evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Smith who are casually mentioned in the very beginning of some kind of a Sacred novel which cannot figure out the big deal about the reality of God, Who, by the way, is occasionally mentioned in the first three reality-based chapters of Genesis.

 

[Tim_D]

I see-we know nothing much of them other than that the Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit, knows of their act.

Certainly. To take Genesis as a literal historical narrative is to not only misunderstand its purpose but is also contrary to what the Church teaches about it.

 

[Tim_D]

We, real humans, are the historical evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Smith who are casually mentioned in the very beginning of some kind of a Sacred novel which cannot figure out the big deal about the reality of God, Who, by the way, is occasionally mentioned in the first three reality-based chapters of Genesis.

So, you’ve given up on any reasoned discussion and have now stooped to sarcasm?

Question: do you believe the earth and all of its varieties of life were made in 6 literal days? (and please don’t resort to the band aid of "a day is as 10,000 years to God).

 

[Tim_D]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What are the first stages of God’s Revelation?

54-58
70-71

From the very beginning, God manifested himself to our first parents, Adam and Eve, and invited them to intimate communion with himself. After their fall, he did not cease his revelation to them but promised salvation for all their descendants…

1. What was the first human sin?

396-403
415-417

When tempted by the devil, the first man and woman allowed trust in their Creator to die in their hearts. In their disobedience they wished to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God (Genesis 3:5). Thus, Adam and Eve immediately lost for themselves and for all their descendants the original grace of holiness and justice.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Don’t see where any of this has any relevancy as to the literal and figurative aspects of Genesis. I hope that you are not suggesting that because the compendium uses the traditional telling from Genesis that that somehow means that the Church supports a literal interpretation, because that would simply be wrong.

 

[Bookcat]

Don’t see where any of this has any relevancy as to the literal and figurative aspects of Genesis. I hope that you are not suggesting that because the compendium uses the traditional telling from Genesis that that somehow means that the Church supports a literal interpretation, because that would simply be wrong.

Read it again.

Was there an Adam and Eve?

Yes.

Where they our first parents?

Yes.

Did they sin and pass the effects of that original sin down to their descendants?

Yes.

Are there figurative elements in the first parts of Genesis?

Sure.

Where Adam and Eve real?

Yes.

 

[Bookcat]

"Deceived by the Evil One, Adam and Eve, our first parents, failed to live up to the relationship of trust with their Lord, succumbing to the temptation of the Evil One who instilled in them the suspicion that the Lord was a rival and wanted to limit their freedom.

So it was that they preferred themselves to divine love freely given, convinced that in this way they were asserting their own free will. They consequently ended by losing their original happiness and they tasted the bitter sorrow of sin and death."

~ Pope Benedict XVI

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/missions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20060429_world-mission-day-2006.html

Rather real persons who yes made a rather real choice with their free will…one that effected their lives …and that of their descendants…

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/node/1712

 

[grannymh]

So, you’ve given up on any reasoned discussion and have now stooped to sarcasm?

Question: do you believe the earth and all of its varieties of life were made in 6 literal days? (and please don’t resort to the band aid of "a day is as 10,000 years to God).

Hey, I am an older than dirt cranky (feminine of snarky) granny. If satire works …

People who actually take the time to study the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27 automatically know that the descriptions of the universe and the time it took for the material world to unfold its glory are not Catholic doctrines. Therefore, I do not have to resort to any band aid, including my chocolate one. I have observed enough of the scientific world that I can say, with confidence, that the earth we step on and the flies we swat were not produced in 6 literal days. Well…maybe the flies, being small, were quick starters.

 

[Tim_D]

Read it again.

Was there an Adam and Eve?

Yes.

Where they our first parents?

Yes.

Did they sin and pass the effects of that original sin down to their descendants?

Yes.

Are there figurative elements in the first parts of Genesis?

Sure.

Where Adam and Eve real?

Yes.

And I don’t think that anyone here denied any of that. What is in question is the literary means by which this mystery is presented in Genesis.

 

[Tim_D]

Hey, I am an older than dirt cranky (feminine of snarky) granny. If sarcasm works …

People who actually take the time to study the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27 automatically know that the descriptions of the universe and the time it took for the material world to unfold its glory are not Catholic doctrines. Therefore, I do not have to resort to any band aid, including my chocolate one. I have observed enough of the scientific world that I can say, with confidence, that the earth we step on and the flies we swat were not produced in 6 literal days. Well…maybe the flies, being small, were quick starters.

The Church does not base her doctrines on episodes in the Bible. Certainly the Church will use portions of the Bible in support or presentation of what we believe and why we believe it but it doesn’t say that this doctrine is base on this chapter and verse.

 

[Bookcat]

And I don’t think that anyone here denied any of that. What is in question is the literary means by which this mystery is presented in Genesis.

I was answering the question of the thread.

According to Catholic teaching, are Adam and Eve actually the first human beings, or are they symbols of the first human beings? Relevant quotes of the bible or church documents would be appreciated.

Real human beings.

Indeed our first parents.

See above posts.

 

[grannymh]

The Church does not base her doctrines on episodes in the Bible. Certainly the Church will use portions of the Bible in support or presentation of what we believe and why we believe it but it doesn’t say that this doctrine is base on this chapter and verse.

Do you realize that official Catholics doctrines are properly defined and duly declared by official major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit? There is a lot of time in preparation for a Council which includes serious time in studying Sacred Scripture. The final discussion uses chapter and verse as evidence of Divine Revelation.

Have you looked at the footnotes in the CCC for the scripture used as a base for parts of a particular paragraph?

Have you looked at pages 689-720 of the CCC Index of Citations which gives the chapter and verse that is used in CCC paragraphs?

Have you heard homilies based on the Scripture readings in that day’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

Are you familiar with the Apostles’ Creed which beings with the scripture verse, Genesis 1:1. This same verse is expressed loudly in the beginning of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.