Adam, Eve, and Satan in the Garden

[MrSnaith]

CCC 390 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.

“Mankind” has a history that extends well beyond a million years. (Refer to any text book on paleoanthropology). If Genesis has its facts right, Adam lived in the Neolithic Period no earlier than about 10,000 years ago. So the idea that “a deed that took place at the beginning of human history” was instigated by our man, “Adam” is frankly indefensible. Adam “in the image of God” was God’s representative on earth, a role he failed to fulfill and it fell to Christ. Adam, who lived about 7,000 years ago, was the progenitor of the Semitic race, not the human race. My book, *Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham *covers that.

I’m curious what you mean when you place mankind in quotations. Can you clarify, please?

 

[Dick_Fischer]

Mankind would include Australopithicines according to the Smithsonian Institute that begins with bipedalism around 6 million years ago as the first hallmark. Stone tools are considered the first marker by many paleoanthropologists and they place the genus Homo in the “human” category and exclude bipedal precursors. So the very definition is somewhat fluid. We Christians might want to add other spiritual factors such as God-awareness or belief in a Higher Power. But as a purely biological definition I prefer to leave it in the hands of scientists even when they don’t all agree…

 

[Memaw]

The Church teaches that the “fall” was a primordial event that has an effect on each and every one of us. It is a defect, a tendency towards our own will instead of God’s. It is the reason that we require a redeemer fulfilled in Christ. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegorical presentation to highlight that deficiency in us. It isn’t meant to be taken literally but to explain that which we don’t understand, much in the way that the Greek myths were meant to provide a basis for something that primitive people couldn’t comprehend. How pitiful would it be for Jesus to have to suffer and die in such pain and agony because two people took a bite of a fruit?

How pitiful Jesus died for the sins of those who don’t believe Him. And to think, HE was promised to us right after the fall of Adam and Eve who directly DISOBEYED GOD. If there were no Adam and Eve, (if they were just a myth) don’t you think it a little unnecessary for Jesus to die to redeem us from their sin?? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Wesrock]

From a Catholic standpoint, I’m pretty sure Adam is intended to be the father of the whole human race. Semites are explained as being descended from the figure Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in scripture. So even considering it as allegory, the obvious intent is to frame all men as being descended from Adam, not just Semites.

If I were to continue the “Adam event” historical (I’m not sure I do), then I’d assume “humans” pre-Adam had not reached a certain threshold of reason, and that Adam was the first to reach what God intended for man, and that all humans today are descended from him (though maybe not just from him and Eve, but that over the thousands of years his genes spread to everyone who modern man claims descent from). I’m not sure I’d insist on it being 6000 - 7000 years ago, though.I’d push it back Mich further. Even if we discount the threshold part of the argument, could we not still argue that Adam was selected as a representative and follow though on everyone alive today tracing ancestry back to Him.

Memaw, if I back away from thinking about it historically, I think it would still be sufficient to understand that man as a whole disobeyed God. Christ in that sense wouldn’t be a literal second Adam, but a figurative one, which we would still understand and see precisely because our scriptures frame it this way. He would still be obedient where men before were disobedient.

 

[Tim_D]

How pitiful Jesus died for the sins of those who don’t believe Him. And to think, HE was promised to us right after the fall of Adam and Eve who directly DISOBEYED GOD. If there were no Adam and Eve, (if they were just a myth) don’t you think it a little unnecessary for Jesus to die to redeem us from their sin?? God Bless, Memaw

The Church teaches that the early chapters of Genesis do not teach a literal history but reveal certain spiritual truths. Which is more pertinent: that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal word for word account of a historical episode or the spiritual truth that man is born in the state of original sin and requires a redeemer to restore us to a state of justice? Does the fact that there wasn’t a literal prodigal son diminish in any way the moral of the story?

 

[Memaw]

So, you agree with simpleas’ post but disagree with mine when we both said the exact same thing, echoed in the catechism that says that original sin is not an action but a “state.”

It was an action for Adam and Eve but its a “state” we are born with. God bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

From a Catholic standpoint, I’m pretty sure Adam is intended to be the father of the whole human race. Semites are explained as being descended from the figure Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in scripture. So even considering it as allegory, the obvious intent is to frame all men as being descended from Adam, not just Semites.

If I were to continue the “Adam event” historical (I’m not sure I do), then I’d assume “humans” pre-Adam had not reached a certain threshold of reason, and that Adam was the first to reach what God intended for man, and that all humans today are descended from him (though maybe not just from him and Eve, but that over the thousands of years his genes spread to everyone who modern man claims descent from). I’m not sure I’d insist on it being 6000 - 7000 years ago, though.I’d push it back Mich further. Even if we discount the threshold part of the argument, could we not still argue that Adam was selected as a representative and follow though on everyone alive today tracing ancestry back to Him.

Memaw, if I back away from thinking about it historically, I think it would still be sufficient to understand that man as a whole disobeyed God. Christ in that sense wouldn’t be a literal second Adam, but a figurative one, which we would still understand and see precisely because our scriptures frame it this way. He would still be obedient where men before were disobedient.

What a tangled web we weave. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Dick_Fischer]

Here is my point. Understood as Semitic history Genesis 2-11 makes perfectly good sense consistent with the history of the ancient Near East. Nowhere does the Bible state that all humans everywhere came through Adam and Eve. It is a common misunderstanding that dates to the early church. It is no wonder that Christianity is gaining in third world countries where education is lacking and they don’t have the acumen to question our 17th century misinterpretation. On the other hand we are losing ground in North America and Europe where education is sufficient enough for them to know we have placed our faith in absolutely impossible interpretations of Scripture. By clinging to obsolete dogma we are damaging the credibility of sacred Scripture. And the cause for which we have labored is foundering.

 

[Tim_D]

Nowhere does the Bible state that all humans everywhere came through Adam and Eve.

The Catholic faith indeed teaches that “all humans everywhere came through Adam and Eve,” at least in a spiritual sense. While I am no Bible thumper, I am pretty sure that Adam and Eve are biblically considered the first man and first woman, the progenitors of mankind.

Edit: I see that you list your religion as Methodist. Undoubtably there will be theological obstacles here that will not be overcome due to differences in thought.

 

[Dick_Fischer]

In a spiritual sense I agree, Adam failed to fulfill his mission and all the world suffered through his disobedience. Biologically, however, our origins are rooted in antiquity.

 

[Tim_D]

In a spiritual sense I agree, Adam failed to fulfill his mission and all the world suffered through his disobedience. Biologically, however, our origins are rooted in antiquity.

Lately, I have been reading about origin of life sciences, intelligent design and criticisms of evolutionary biology as a philosophy for the creation of life. In it all, I have found that, while some scientist act as if they have all the answers, the fact is that there are far more unanswered than answered questions. I personally do not subscribe to a literal reading of Genesis. But I also do not subscribe to the scientific theories that try to dogmatically state where man came from or how the first cell was created. The fact is, we don’t know and we will never know. The most sobering fact to me is the immense odds against the universe and life evolving by random chance. In the 1970s, Sir Fred Hoyle and his team, unreligious people, worked out the odds of life being created by random chance and arrived at the odds of 1 x 10 to the 40,000th power! Mind boggling, to say the least.

 

[Dick_Fischer]

Hi Tim:

The probability game is misunderstood. What are the odds that your Mom would meet your Dad and out of 40 million sperm cells that set out to find an egg that one that became you was successful. Now multiply those odds for every generation in your lineage going back in time for, say, a million years. The odds of your being here at all are just as astronomical - yet here you are! Those large numbers are not a measure of probability, but predictability. Could anyone have predicted a million years ago that you would be here today with a specific DNA signature? No. Therefore your existence is a miracle.

 

[Tim_D]

Hi Tim:

The probability game is misunderstood. What are the odds that your Mom would meet your Dad and out of 40 million sperm cells that set out to find an egg that one that became you was successful. Now multiply those odds for every generation in your lineage going back in time for, say, a million years. The odds of your being here at all are just as astronomical - yet here you are! Those large numbers are not a measure of probability, but predictability. Could anyone have predicted a million years ago that you would be here today with a specific DNA signature? No. Therefore your existence is a miracle.

Hiya Dick,

Not exactly. Sir Fred Hoyle and his team used the laws of chemistry, physics, probability, etc., to figure the odds of a single cell, along with its necessary proteins and amino acids necessary for any odds of survival, forming by pure, unguided chance from nothing. My mom and dad, along with those pesky 40 million sperm cells, already existed. Sir Fred was working from the viewpoint of an absence of organic life (I’m not sure if the term *ex nihilo * is the proper term). As Saint Augustine pointed out; it isn’t a big deal for a potter to make a jar out of clay that is already there; the big trick is to make it out of nothing!

 

[Wesrock]

Here is my point. Understood as Semitic history Genesis 2-11 makes perfectly good sense consistent with the history of the ancient Near East. Nowhere does the Bible state that all humans everywhere came through Adam and Eve. It is a common misunderstanding that dates to the early church. It is no wonder that Christianity is gaining in third world countries where education is lacking and they don’t have the acumen to question our 17th century misinterpretation. On the other hand we are losing ground in North America and Europe where education is sufficient enough for them to know we have placed our faith in absolutely impossible interpretations of Scripture. By clinging to obsolete dogma we are damaging the credibility of sacred Scripture. And the cause for which we have labored is foundering.

Yet I find this reading to be troublesome. It suggests that God didn’t just make a chosen nation (out of Abraham), he went so far as to **create **a race of people separate from the rest of mankind. This undermines God’s fatherhood of all mankind. It undermines the unity of the human family you would find in a traditional reading of the creation account. It also is not just that one man’s trespass lead to condemnation for all men if that man cannot truly claim to be representative of the whole human race like Adam. Certainly Genesis was written with a near eastern understanding (and it’s limits) of the world. However, I feel as if you’re trying to reconcile the Adam and Eve story as a historical event within our scientific understanding of the origin of humanity. It seems harmonious in that respect, but theologically it strikes too many discordant notes. It undermines much of the meaning we are supposed to take from the story. It undermines much of what scripture is directly telling us (literally and allegorically).

Both Christian and Rabbinic tradition see Adam is the father of all mankind. I’m not sure we really have the grounds to dispute this interpretation.

Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being” - 1 Corinthians 15:45

 

[grannymh]

Here is my point. Understood as Semitic history Genesis 2-11 makes perfectly good sense consistent with the history of the ancient Near East. Nowhere does the Bible state that all humans everywhere came through Adam and Eve. It is a common misunderstanding that dates to the early church. It is no wonder that Christianity is gaining in third world countries where education is lacking and they don’t have the acumen to question our 17th century misinterpretation. On the other hand we are losing ground in North America and Europe where education is sufficient enough for them to know we have placed our faith in absolutely impossible interpretations of Scripture. By clinging to obsolete dogma we are damaging the credibility of sacred Scripture. And the cause for which we have labored is foundering.

Genesis 1: 26-28. Genesis 2: 15. Genesis 2: 18. Genesis 2: 23. Genesis 3: 20-21 and the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26 that is considered an indication of the change in species.

Please note that I may be older than dirt; however, I do not consider myself an obsolete dogma.

 

[Memaw]

Genesis 1: 26-28. Genesis 2: 15. Genesis 2: 18. Genesis 2: 23. Genesis 3: 20-21 and the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26 that is considered an indication of the change in species.

Please note that I may be older than dirt; however, I do not consider myself an obsolete dogma.

Same here!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Dick_Fischer]

I appreciate all your comments. Theology is very important to me, I have a Master of Divinity degree. However, if our theology does not square with the facts of history all too often theologians simply ignore the facts and propagate the tradition. This will continue to work among the illiterate and uninformed. On the other hand, we are paying the price among the world’s populations who have bothered to learn something about science. That concerns me. The theological “tools” commonly employed for purposes of exegesis are Scripture, heritage and culture (Stanley Grenz), and Scripture, tradition, reason and religious experience (Alister McGrath). Do you catch the missing ingredient? Where does historical evidence come into the equation? If humans evolved from primates over six million years ago, or even if they popped into existence 200,000 years ago, and Adam lived in southern Mesopotamia 7,000 years ago that should tell us something about human origins. But facts simply do not trump the tradition that Adam was the ultimate progenitor of all mankind. So that is my point. We have to allow science and history to mediate our extrapolations from the sacred text, or continue to stick our heads in the sand and allow atheism, cults and competing religions to gain in popularity by simply extolling facts we choose to ignore.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not sure I’d accept the scientific definition of man in the broadest sense for the purpose of talking about Adam and Eve. It seems like a narrower definition would be necessary. I’m also not sure why it’s necessary to insist on Adam existing 7,000 years ago unless you take a literal reading of the chronology and ages, which you seem to be doing, which strikes me as more detrimental to faith in such a secular culture. This is why I’d be perfectly comfortable dating the event – if historical – back much, much further, even over a hundred thousand years ago (or two), which fits better theologically and doesn’t contradict the historical record. The early genealogy given in Genesis would serve to show that mankind is a common family, all of whom were created with a special purpose by and for God. It would not be a literal recounting of dates or an exhaustive list of the genealogical line. There’s no contradiction here with the historical record.

Anyway, there’s not much more I can say on this without going in circles. I respect your POV.

 

[grannymh]

Those folks who have been following paleoanthropology know that there have been some disrupting fossil finds. Maybe Dr. Milford Wolpoff was right.
Add the comments of an archaeology expert who was disputing a burial location.

The point is

Precise data from every acre, from every day in each century going backwards thousands and thousands of years is a bit scarce. The possibility of a highly intelligent person trained in the science of agriculture (Genesis 2:15) who is capable of survival can be applied to one original first human and his large family.

Consider the Black Swan. Before European explorers had reached Australia, it was believed that all swans were white. Just like believing the impossibility of two original first human parents.
svswans.com/black.html

 

[Dick_Fischer]

If Genesis 2-11 is considered as a complete unit of information then it all fits comfortably within a historical timeframe from about 7,000 years ago to about 4,000 years ago in southern Mesopotamia. You can’t just pluck Adam out of the narrative and stick him somewhere convenient to suit your theological beliefs. The error does not lie with the text. It lies with a translation and an interpretation that does not line up with the facts. Also it lies with the mistaken idea that Adam somehow was the first of our species. That necessarily has to be given up. I could give you a deluge of historical corroboration but that is why I wrote a book. Or you could go to YouTube and type in “Creation, Genesis and Origins” and get it all in a series of 30 minute talks. Or I could give you a long list of books that you could take to the Library of Congress and look all this stuff up yourself. (Don’t worry, I’ll give you the page numbers too.)