Adam & Eve: real people or symbols?

[PhilVaz]

A little copy/paste…Catechism and Science, both are true since truth cannot contradict truth

CATECHISM

I think it is fairly clear the Catechism does teach a literal, historical Adam/Eve from which we inherited original sin. At the same time, the Catechism fully supports modern science (paragraphs 159, 283-284), the same Catechism seems to support Adam/Eve as real people. The clear references to Adam/Eve as “our first parents” and existing as a literal, historical couple include paragraphs 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), etc. See paragraphs 355ff on the creation of man and woman, and paragraphs 385ff on the Fall. Here is a summary from this latter section:

1. 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.
2. 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.”
3. As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).
4. “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is… ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

SCIENCE

According to International Theological Commission of Cardinal Ratzinger, July 2004 statement, paragraph 63

“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”

Some good posts above, I’m waiting for the new book by Bonnette Origin of the Human Species (2nd edition, 2003), gotta have some answers

Phil P

 

[surfinpure]

JEGirl:

I guess I don’t understand what you’re saying; it seems contradictory to say we believe in two original parents who are the source of Original Sin AND it’s okay to believe in theistic evolution. Could you talk about that a little more?

Well, the Church tells us it’s okay to believe in theistic evolution, but they don’t mandate or teach it. I personally don’t believe it. Seems too unlikely to me that we could come from only two human parents if the link before that produced many humans. But that’s only my two cents.

 

[Steven_Merten]

brotherhrolf:

Yes but mitochondrial Eve goes back about 200,000 years ago and that’s another subject entirely. (I agree with Milford Wolpoff and not the out-of-Africa theory). A concept of theistic evolution (i.e. the record of “evolution” is nothing more than the record of God acting in His universe) goes a long way towards explaining why, bam, “fiat lux”, humanity starts exhibiting religious behavior 50,000 years ago.

Hello brotherhrolf,

The journal I read put mitochondrial Eve at 60,000 years. The way they get this is through estimating the average years between DNA mutations so it is relative (If DNA mutated faster than scientific estimations, the estimated years reduces. If DNA mutated slower the estimated years goes up). The really interesting part is that science agrees that the first mother was tens of thousands of years ago and not tens of millions of years as previously thought.

They also traced animal’s mitochondrial DNA, which also transmitts only from the mother, and found no original mother. Original parents, at least mother, is unique to humans, according to science.
genesis325:

I actually learned about this in an anthropology class in my very liberal college. They can trace Mitochondrial DNA back to a single woman (for some reason they can only trace it through women). .

Hello Genesis,

They use male and female mitochondrial DNA to trace liniages but all mitochondrial DNA comes from a person’s mother. Your mitochondrial DNA is a clone of your mother’s mitochondrial DNA rather than a recombination of mother and father’s genes as all other cells are. For this reason science can compare how it has mutated in different family liniages and get an idea where and when the original mitochondrial DNA existed.

 

[buffalo]

Since we weren’t here we can only make educated guesses. Why does it have to fit into what we think we know. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

God could have inserted Adam and Eve into the timeline anywhere He wished, and utimately Revelation will be the only thing we have to tell us.

 

[Steven_Merten]

buffalo:

God could have inserted Adam and Eve into the timeline anywhere He wished, and utimately Revelation will be the only thing we have to tell us.

Hello buffalo,

God is Omni-Present to the physical time which He created. Time is only a measurement of change between matter, energy and empty space. Time has no effect or limitations on God who is Omni Present to the whole of physical time which He created.

The whole emphasis of Genesis is that matter, energy and empty space flowed out into existance around the focal point of man. God did not insert Adam and Eve into a timeline. Rather a timeline came into existance, both infinite past and infinite future, from the focal point of man. If we find when Eve lived, then, according to God, this is when infinite past and infinite future of our universe was created into existance from the Omin Powerful, Omni Present spiritual hand of God.

 

[Ahimsa]

“Mitochondrial Eve”, as scientists understand her, was not like the Eve of the Bible. The Eve of the Bible was alone with Adam, with no other human relatives.

Mitochondrial Eve, on the other hand, is simply the most recent living woman from whom all living humans can claim descent. Thus, mitochondrial Eve herself had a mother, father, grandparents, etc. And she also had sisters, brothers, cousins, etc. It’s just that mitochondrial Eve’s mitochondrial DNA (unlike the mitochondrial DNA of her female relatives) has survived into the present.

On the idea regarding the necessity of a real Adam and Eve and original sin, much work has been done to show that original sin does not require a literal Adam and Eve. Jerry Korsmeyer, in Evolution and Eden, suggests that what we call original sin is the product of billions of years of evolution, during which human and other life forms have developed selfish predispositions. Thus, to become a child of God, via Jesus, is to transcend our evolutionary tendency to reject God.

 

[buffalo]

Steven Merten:

Hello buffalo,

God is Omni-Present to the physical time which He created. Time is only a measurement of change between matter, energy and empty space. Time has no effect or limitations on God who is Omni Present to the whole of physical time which He created.

The whole emphasis of Genesis is that matter, energy and empty space flowed out into existance around the focal point of man. God did not insert Adam and Eve into a timeline. Rather a timeline came into existance, both infinite past and infinite future, from the focal point of man. If we find when Eve lived, then, according to God, this is when infinite past and infinite future of our universe was created into existance from the Omin Powerful, Omni Present spiritual hand of God.

That’s what I have been trying to get across that man is the reason for creation. Thanks. I think we may get a distorted view trying to look back and make firm pronouncements without this consideration, as now some scientists have shown that the speed of light is slowing.

 

[surfinpure]

Ahimsa:

On the idea regarding the necessity of a real Adam and Eve and original sin, much work has been done to show that original sin does not require a literal Adam and Eve. Jerry Korsmeyer, in Evolution and Eden, suggests that what we call original sin is the product of billions of years of evolution, during which human and other life forms have developed selfish predispositions. Thus, to become a child of God, via Jesus, is to transcend our evolutionary tendency to reject God.

Have you read what the Catechism has to say? Or the Fathers of the Church?

 

[Ahimsa]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

Have you read what the Catechism has to say? Or the Fathers of the Church?

Yep, I have.

Concerning the Fathers, they didn’t know about evolution and a 15 billion-year old universe.

Concerning the Catechism, what particular statement did you have in mind?

 

[surfinpure]

Ahimsa:

Yep, I have.

Concerning the Fathers, they didn’t know about evolution and a 15 billion-year old universe.

Concerning the Catechism, what particular statement did you have in mind?

I’m not referring to evolution. I’m referring to evolution being the cause of original sin. The Fathers don’t agree with that. They say we have to believe we were given a soul at the time we became human (whether through evolution or not), and that real people committed real sins that resulted in the fall.

 

[Ahimsa]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

I’m not referring to evolution. I’m referring to evolution being the cause of original sin. The Fathers don’t agree with that. They say we have to believe we were given a soul at the time we became human (whether through evolution or not), and that real people committed real sins that resulted in the fall.

I don’t see any conflict here. If by ‘soul’ you mean ‘the ability to make moral decisions’, then sure, being human means having a soul. And once you have the ability to make a moral decision, and you then make an immoral decision, then that would be the Fall.

 

[surfinpure]

Ahimsa:

I don’t see any conflict here. If by ‘soul’ you mean ‘the ability to make moral decisions’, then sure, being human means having a soul. And once you have the ability to make a moral decision, and you then make an immoral decision, then that would be the Fall.

The fall, as is taught by the Church and in Scripture, occurred with one man. I refer you back to the quote from the CCC:

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned…” The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”

 

[Ghosty]

On the idea regarding the necessity of a real Adam and Eve and original sin, much work has been done to show that original sin does not require a literal Adam and Eve. Jerry Korsmeyer, in Evolution and Eden, suggests that what we call original sin is the product of billions of years of evolution, during which human and other life forms have developed selfish predispositions. Thus, to become a child of God, via Jesus, is to transcend our evolutionary tendency to reject God.

That argument is heretical, I’m afraid. Others can provide the links if they have time before I’m able to post again, but here’s straight from the Catechism:

**404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Original Sin can not both be an evolutionary development and a personal sin.

Adam and Eve were indeed real individuals from whom we all claim descent. There is no way around this that squares with Catholic teaching. This does not interfere with theistic evolution of the human body, however, nor does it imply that Genesis must be read in a literalist fashion, in fact the Catechism says that things are described with symbolic language.

 

[Ahimsa]

Ghosty:

Original Sin can not both be an evolutionary development and a personal sin.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The evolutionary process itself isn’t original sin, but it provides the context in which original sin, or the Fall, can take place. Billions of years of evolution taught that an organism’s sole reason was to survive by any means possible. But lower life forms can’t be faulted for that, since they lack the ability to make moral choices. Original sin can only occur in the context of a person who is able to make a moral choice. When Adam and Eve appeared, they were placed within a world where evolution (based on survival, struggle, and selfishness) had taken place. Since they were moral agents, Adam and Eve could choose good or bad – they choose the latter, because the serpent (one of the many products of the evolutionary process) convinced them to choose the bad; the serpent convinced them to look to the past (evolution) and not the future (Christ). Thus, Adam and Eve Fell. The Fall occurred within an environment prepared by evolutionary selfishness.

 

[Ghosty]

Ahimsa: Your last post is not in line with what you wrote earlier, which was:

On the idea regarding the necessity of a real Adam and Eve and original sin, much work has been done to show that original sin does not require a literal Adam and Eve.

Original Sin absolutely requires a literal Adam and Eve. Furthermore, the tendency for selfishness that you describe is explicitely part of Original Sin, and did not exist prior to the Fall according to Catholic teaching. From the CCC:

**377 **The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

and:

**418 **As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

I don’t know where you’re getting the writings of this “theologian”, but what you’re presenting is absolutely outside the boundaries of Catholic teaching.

 

[Ahimsa]

Ghosty:

Ahimsa: Your last post is not in line with what you wrote earlier, which was:

Original Sin absolutely requires a literal Adam and Eve. Furthermore, the tendency for selfishness that you describe is explicitely part of Original Sin, and did not exist prior to the Fall according to Catholic teaching. From the CCC:

and:

I don’t know where you’re getting the writings of this “theologian”, but what you’re presenting is absolutely outside the boundaries of Catholic teaching.

Yes, I said earlier that original sin does not *require *a literal Adam and Eve – and for many Protestants, a non-literal Adam and Eve would work just fine; the example I gave above, though, does include a literal Adam and Eve, which would be consistent with the CCC.

Regarding tendency to sin, I can see how Adam and Eve didn’t originally have the tendency to sin, but surely they had the potential to choose sin, before they actually did so?

 

[surfinpure]

Ahimsa:

Since they were moral agents, Adam and Eve could choose good or bad – they choose the latter, because the serpent (one of the many products of the evolutionary process) convinced them to choose the bad; the serpent convinced them to look to the past (evolution) and not the future (Christ).

Whoa!! I’ve never heard, even in theistic evolution, Satan called an evolutionary product. Are angels then also evolutionary products, and not spiritual beings, according do your source? This is far outside the realm of Church teaching and Scritpure.

 

[JimO]

Ahimsa:

Here’s where it gets interesting. The evolutionary process itself isn’t original sin, but it provides the context in which original sin, or the Fall, can take place. Billions of years of evolution taught that an organism’s sole reason was to survive by any means possible. But lower life forms can’t be faulted for that, since they lack the ability to make moral choices. Original sin can only occur in the context of a person who is able to make a moral choice. When Adam and Eve appeared, they were placed within a world where evolution (based on survival, struggle, and selfishness) had taken place. Since they were moral agents, Adam and Eve could choose good or bad – they choose the latter, because the serpent (one of the many products of the evolutionary process) convinced them to choose the bad; the serpent convinced them to look to the past (evolution) and not the future (Christ). Thus, Adam and Eve Fell. The Fall occurred within an environment prepared by evolutionary selfishness.

This sounds fascinating; however, it doesn’t fit either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Even if you believe in biological evolution, the spirit cannot “evolve”. The “serpent” as a biological creature (a snake) might have evolved, but Satan (a fallen spiritual being) did not. His choice of the serpent as a way to physically manifest himself gives no insight into evolution. Also, Christ, as a Person in the Trinitarian Godhead was not just the future, but the past. He is eternal.

The process of evolution, as described by science, is not intrinsically evil. It is just one of the many processes of order created by God. You are mixing moral terms (selfishness) with non-moral processes (evolution) and ascribing intelligence or purpose to the evolutionary process by expressing it as a “teacher” or saying that it is “selfish.” This one aspect of your theory is where I have the most problem because it is similar to the view of the atheistic evolutionists who also ascribe purpose or intelligence to a process.

I agree with some of what you have said, but you are coming at it from an angle that I cannot say that I agree with.

 

[Ahimsa]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

Whoa!! I’ve never heard, even in theistic evolution, Satan called an evolutionary product. Are angels then also evolutionary products, and not spiritual beings, according do your source? This is far outside the realm of Church teaching and Scritpure.

Well, if you want to equate the serpent with Satan, that’s fine. In that case, Satan simply seduced Eve and Adam. That change wouldn’t affect my larger point, though.

 

[Ahimsa]

JimO:

The process of evolution, as described by science, is not intrinsically evil. It is just one of the many processes of order created by God. You are mixing moral terms (selfishness) with non-moral processes (evolution) and ascribing intelligence or purpose to the evolutionary process by expressing it as a “teacher” or saying that it is “selfish.” This one aspect of your theory is where I have the most problem because it is similar to the view of the atheistic evolutionists who also ascribe purpose or intelligence to a process.

I agree with some of what you have said, but you are coming at it from an angle that I cannot say that I agree with.

Would you say that organisms are generally “selfish” in the sense of looking out either for themselves or for those who are closely related genetically? I’m not using “selfish” in an “evil” sense, but in a morally neutral sense. Thus, by being “selfish”, organisms are not committing any sort of sin, original sin or otherwise. It’s when humans, who are moral agents, adopt a selfish standpoint, that original sin begins to appear.

I agree that Christ is eternal, but insofar as the Kingdom of God is here, yet not yet here, then Christ is also Future.