Adam & Eve

[Bookcat]

Yes Adam was the* first man*

See Genesis, See St. Paul’s Letters, See the writings of the Popes etc.

Adam was the first man.

 

[Tim_D]

Yes Adam was the* first man*

See Genesis, See St. Paul’s Letters, See the writings of the Popes etc.

Adam was the first man.

We simply call the first man “Adam.” It wasn’t a personal name. Whoever were the first man and woman ensouled by God, made in His “image,” is who we consider to be Adam & Eve. Genesis is not a literal textbook of creation. In fact, the creation story of Genesis borrows heavily from the Mesopotamian creation story the Enuma Elis. Genesis makes its personal by having one god instead of many as the source of all things based on goodness. Whoever the writers/editors of the early chapters of Genesis, they certainly did not expect their work to be seen as a literal historical work.

 

[dnu]

I couldn’t help but find the irony in a user named “majestic turtle” asking about creation. For those on here who don’t know, the turtle plays a key role in the creation myths of many U.S. Native American tribes. Many tribes, particularly in the Eastern U.S. believed that the world was created on the back/shell of a turtle. a “majestic turtle,” if you will

David

 

[Bookcat]

We simply call the first man “Adam.” It wasn’t a personal name.

As I noted Adam was the first man.

Tis the name used by Sacred Scripture and the Church.

Tis the name he is called. That is who we mean when we say “Adam was the first man”.

When we refer to the first man…well it is* Adam* we refer to.

No point really in arguing about it. Tis the name he is called by us and by Scripture.

 

[cfauster]

Turtle,

Don’t stress the Creation story too much. It isnt a science textbook. If you have a few minutes to burn read this General audience by Pope Benedict XVI. He was a wonderful Theologian and wrote about Creation quite a bit.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130206.html

Excellent. Here are few highlights to me:

"However our question today is: in the age of science and technology does speaking of creation still make sense? How should we understand the narratives in Genesis? The Bible does not intend to be a natural science manual; rather, it wishes to make the authentic and profound truth of things understood. The fundamental truth that the accounts of Genesis reveal to us is that the world is not a collection of forces that clash with each other; it has its origin and its permanence in the Logos, in God’s eternal Reason which continues to sustain the universe …

Scripture tells us that the origin of being, of the world, our own origin is not in the irrational or in need, but rather in reason and love and freedom. Consequently, there is this alternative: either the priority of the irrational, of necessity, or the priority of reason, of freedom, of love. We believe in the latter hypothesis …

I would like to highlight a final teaching in the accounts of the Creation; sin begets sin and all the sins of history are interconnected. This aspect impels us to speak of what is called “original sin”. What is the meaning of this reality that is not easy to understand? … The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that with the first sin man “chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good” (n. 398)."

 

[pianistclare]

We simply call the first man “Adam.” It wasn’t a personal name. Whoever were the first man and woman ensouled by God, made in His “image,” is who we consider to be Adam & Eve. Genesis is not a literal textbook of creation. In fact, the creation story of Genesis borrows heavily from the Mesopotamian creation story the Enuma Elis. Genesis makes its personal by having one god instead of many as the source of all things based on goodness. Whoever the writers/editors of the early chapters of Genesis, they certainly did not expect their work to be seen as a literal historical work.

 

[Todd977]

the unborn child starts out female then becomes male before birth.

???

The Wikipedia article on “Sexual differentiation in humans” says, underlining mine:
Sex determination

A baby’s genetic sex is determined at the time of conception. When the baby is conceived, a chromosome from the sperm cell, either X or Y, fuses with the X chromosome in the egg cell, determining whether the baby will be genetically female (XX) or male (XY).[5] To be genetically female, one needs to be (XX), whereas to be a genetic male, (XY) is needed. It is the Y chromosome that is essential for the development of the male reproductive organs, and with no Y chromosome, an embryo will develop into a female. This is because of the presence of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome, also known as the SRY gene.[6]

A fetus doesn’t develop its external sexual organs until the second month of pregnancy—seven weeks after conception. The fetus appears to be sexually indifferent, looking neither like a male or a female. Over the next five weeks, the fetus begins producing hormones that cause its sex organs to grow into either male or female organs. This process is called sexual differentiation.

 

[Majestic_Turtle]

I felt a lot of the replies got a bit off topic but from the last reply I see that what I was connecting wasn’t actually something to put together because they are very different. Now I can conclude that indeed Adam came before Eve and not vice versa. Thank you all and God bless.

 

[Tim_D]

As I noted Adam was the first man.

It would be more accurate to say that we call the first man Adam.

When we refer to the first man…well it is* Adam* we refer to.

When we refer to the first man in Genesis, we do indeed call him Adam, for that is his name in the story. Who the first true “man” was, the first of mankind to be ensouled by God, we do not know, nor do we know where it was that he existed, nor do we know his name if he had any. You are making a fundamental mistake (pun intended) by using the early chapters of Genesis as a historical narrative.

 

[grannymh]

Then why is it that the Church herself does not teach a literal reading of Genesis? Do you know something they don’t?

What the Catholic Church does is to determine, define, and duly proclaim Catholic doctrines in the major Ecumenical Catholic Church Councils guided by the wisdom of the promised Advocate. (chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Now, consider the Catholic teaching that God, Adam, Eve, and Original Sin actually, truly exist. Next, read all the first three marvelous chapters of Genesis. God and Adam and Eve and Original Sin are literally there.

 

[Tim_D]

Now, consider the Catholic teaching that God, Adam, Eve, and Original Sin actually, truly exist. Next, read all the first three marvelous chapters of Genesis. God and Adam and Eve and Original Sin are literally there.

But the Church does not teach that “Adam, Eve…actually, truly exist.”

Do you also believe that the world and the universe were created in 6 literal days?

 

[grannymh]

But the Church does not teach that “Adam, Eve…actually, truly exist.”

Do you also believe that the world and the universe were created in 6 literal days?

The last shall be first.

Natural science is not in the spiritual realm therefore, you can believe in 6 literal days, while I decline that belief. Please note that when the Science of Human Evolution intersects with the spiritual teachings of the Catholic Church – there is big trouble.

And yes, the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve actually truly exist. Common sense should tell you that no Adam which means no Original Sin which means that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was not needed on planet earth.

 

[Tim_D]

And yes, the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve actually truly exist. Common sense should tell you that no Adam which means no Original Sin which means that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was not needed on planet earth.

The Church teaches that there exist a necessity of a first man and first woman who was ensouled by God. That is conceded. The Church does not teach that the story of creation in Genesis is literal history and things happened as portrayed. You keep playing fast and easy by avoiding coming straight out and making a definitive statement about the historical, literal existence of the pair as portrayed in Genesis. Original sin is a mystery that we will never comprehend, much like the incarnation, the resurrection or the True Presence. Is it possible for the ancients to portray that mystery is such a simple narrative?

BTW, common sense ain’t always so common.

 

[simpleas]

I felt a lot of the replies got a bit off topic but from the last reply I see that what I was connecting wasn’t actually something to put together because they are very different. Now I can conclude that indeed Adam came before Eve and not vice versa. Thank you all and God bless.

Glad you have concluded something that I could never understand in a million years

 

[grannymh]

The Church teaches that there exist a necessity of a first man and first woman who was ensouled by God. That is conceded. The Church does not teach that the story of creation in Genesis is literal history and things happened as portrayed. You keep playing fast and easy by avoiding coming straight out and making a definitive statement about the historical, literal existence of the pair as portrayed in Genesis. Original sin is a mystery that we will never comprehend, much like the incarnation, the resurrection or the True Presence. Is it possible for the ancients to portray that mystery is such a simple narrative?

BTW, common sense ain’t always so common.

The story of material creation in Genesis, regardless of how dumb it is, belongs to the material world which is not the same as the spiritual world. Therefore, there is no reason for the Catholic Church to declare as doctrine that the six days or whatever is literal history.

Original Sin can be understood once a person grasps the concept that there is a difference between a Divine Being and a human being. The original friendship relationship was between two unequal beings. Therefore, since there cannot be two equally supreme beings, the human being needed to live in submission to the one and only Divine Being. Only obedience to God could maintain the friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity. (CCC 396 & CCC 1730)

Original Sin is disobedience which shattered the original relationship between God and human. Because Adam is human, he did not have the Divine power to restore a relationship created by Divine power. The Incarnation was what was needed. John 3: 16-17.

The essential goal of the first three historical chapters of Sacred Scripture was to present the literal events as they happened. That worked until the author faced Satan. Not really facing Satan because the author had no clue how to describe Satan. A talking snake was the solution. We should be grateful that the author chose figurative language for the horror of evil per se.

 

[twf]

As I noted Adam was the first man.

Tis the name used by Sacred Scripture and the Church.

Tis the name he is called. That is who we mean when we say “Adam was the first man”.

When we refer to the first man…well it is* Adam* we refer to.

No point really in arguing about it. Tis the name he is called by us and by Scripture.

“Adam” literally means “man”. Yes it is the name that Tradition gives us, but we are literally calling him “the man”. It is a symbolic name. He was the first man, hence he is “the man”. That doesn’t mean that the real Adam didn’t also have a distinct personal name. Though of course we wouldn’t know what it was.

 

[PJM]

I was wondering whether it mattered or not if Adam came first or if Eve came first. Does it make any difference if Eve came first rather than Adam?

Actually it makes a GREAT deal of difference: Here’s WHY

1. God has freely chosen to make HIMSELF know to us a “FATHER”
2. Jesus Christ became Incarnate MAN
3. Throughout the churches history and Sacred Tradition GOD has freely chosen One-MAN to lead HIS chosen people:

Noah, Abram, Moses. the Judges, the Kings, the Prophets leading up to John the Baptist who Introduce Jesus Himself who choose freely 12 MALE apostles [Mt 10:1-4]

So t seems obvious and indisputable that this was and REMAINS God’s freewilll choice:thumbsup:

GBY

 

[Bookcat]

“Adam” literally means “man”…

Thank you. Yes I know that is what it means.

Have a blessed Lords Day!

 

[truetofaith]

But the Church does not teach that “Adam, Eve…actually, truly exist.”

Do you also believe that the world and the universe were created in 6 literal days?

I see why many Catholics join Protestant denominations…they believe what is written in the Bible!!

 

[twf]

I see why many Catholics join Protestant denominations…they believe what is written in the Bible!!

The Bible is the Church’s book. She and she alone tells us what it means. Our faith isn’t based on the Bible…rather the Bible reflects the faith of the Church. The Church tells us that such a literalistic interpretation of Genesis is not necessary.