Adam & Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter Majestic_Turtle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well seeing how the proposed story of Genesis takes place around the rivers near Israel it can be assumed that all human life would begin around that area is the story was remotely true. Now the ancient Jewish people did come from that area but not the rest of humanity.
We are not talking about the same subject matter.
The bible is not written as a history or science book. You want the bible to say something about specific science, like anthropology or genetics. The bible is not a science book.

You might want it to be a history book. The bible contains elements of history, but it was never intended to be history in the fundamentalist sense.

You see the bible through fundamentalist eyes.
We don’t.
 
We are not talking about the same subject matter.
The bible is not written as a history or science book. You want the bible to say something about specific science, like anthropology or genetics. The bible is not a science book.

You might want it to be a history book. The bible contains elements of history, but it was never intended to be history in the fundamentalist sense.

You see the bible through fundamentalist eyes.
We don’t.
Excellent! So why believe that Adam and Eve even existed. Through science and anthropology we can see that the bible isn’t a historical book nor one based on science. It is a collection of stories that do offer a glimpse of what people at the time viewed the world.
 
Excellent! So why believe that Adam and Eve even existed.
👍
Now that is a fair question. Good you are asking it. Genesis addresses questions of why, not how.
Through science and anthropology we can see that the bible isn’t a historical book nor one based on science. It is a collection of stories that do offer a glimpse of what people at the time viewed the world.
Great.
There are elements of history in the bible. The bible is rooted in history, but it is not history, journalism style.

And it definitely reflects the culture it was written in.
 
👍
Now that is a fair question. Good you are asking it. Genesis addresses questions of why, not how.

Great.
There are elements of history in the bible. The bible is rooted in history, but it is not history, journalism style.

And it definitely reflects the culture it was written in.
Your response makes no sense.
 
Adam was the first man.

As to his name - tis the name used by Sacred Scripture and the Church.

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.

Tis the name he is called by us and by Scripture.
Adam is the name of the first man in the creation story of Genesis. That doesn’t mean that the first person ensouled by God had the personal name “Adam.” As I’ve already stated, Adam is a play on words in Hebrew.
When we refer to the first man…well it is* Adam* we refer to.
No, when we refer to the first man in the book of Genesis, we refer to the character Adam. We do not know who was the first man, where he lived or what his name was. Genesis is not a literal history of the world. You keep on about who the Church refers to but you keep ignoring that the Church does not teach a literalistic reading of Genesis. I can’t imagine why it gives you satisfaction to insist on something that any serious biblical scholar, those in the Church, too, wouldn’t give an ounce of credence.
 
Oh really? So Adam and Eve are semi monkey people? If you can find proof of that grats! Also while we all are related we didn’t come from a strict two people.
Semi monkey people :rotfl:

I know a few men who would fit that distinction.

:rotfl::rotfl:
 
Adam is the name of the first man in the creation story of Genesis. That doesn’t mean that the first person ensouled by God had the personal name “Adam.” As I’ve already stated, Adam is a play on words in Hebrew.
What did I note?

Adam was the first man.

As to his name - tis the name used by Sacred Scripture and the Church.

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.

Tis the name he is called by us and by Scripture.

All rather true.

Adam is the name used by Sacred Scripture and the Church.

Does its roots get at the meaning “man” sure. But that does not change the fact that this this the name that is “used”. Just as the meaning of the name “Eve” does not change the fact that this is the name that is used for the first woman. Tis what we call her.
 
No, when we refer to the first man in the book of Genesis, we refer to the character Adam.
No.

Adam is the name used by Sacred Scripture and the Church.

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

Tis the name he is called by us and by Scripture.

Never does the Church or Scripture say “the character” Adam.

Rather Adam.

That is what the what the Sacred Scriptures and the Church call the first man.
 
Genesis is not a literal history of the world.
You mean like we might write history? No never said it was.
You keep on about who the Church refers to but you keep ignoring that the Church does not teach a literalistic reading of Genesis.
Yes as I noted above we refer to the first man as “Adam” sure. If you see my posts up above I note very clearly I embrace what the Church Teaches and how the Church discusses how to read Scripture and the different senses…the use of figurative language in the fall etc…
I can’t imagine why it gives you satisfaction to insist on something that any serious biblical scholar, those in the Church, too, wouldn’t give an ounce of credence.
Huh?

I insist on what?

“That is the name Sacred Scripture and the Church uses for the first man.”

We call the first man “Adam” and the first woman “Eve” (or Eva or Ewa…etc).

As do serious Biblical Scholars and Scholarly Popes for that matter.

Perhaps your reading abit into my posts some or blending them with other posts of others.
 
Some excerpts of how the Church calls the first man Adam:

A few from the Catechism:

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.”

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…

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 biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God’s decision to give him a helper.”

~ Pope Benedict XVI DEUS CARITAS EST

“Because of Adam’s sin we too are born “blind” but in the baptismal font we are illumined by the grace of Christ.”

~ Pope Benedict XVI 3 April 2011 Angelus

“…very first pages of the Book of Genesis that recount the dark and tragic event of the sin of Adam and Eve. Our first parents were defeated by the Evil One…”

~Pope Benedict XVI 15 August 2011 Angelus

Compendium of the Catechism - 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. After the flood, he made a covenant with Noah, a covenant between himself and all living beings.
  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

(the other quotes are from the www.vatican.va)

One could go on and on and on…but that is enough examples.

The Church refers to Adam as the first man. And Scriptures and the Church refer to our parents as Adam and Eve. Real persons not characters.

Now do the authors intend to assert that is the names they actually used for each other? Well that is something one could seek into and plumb the arguments -but as to what the Scriptures and the Church call the first man - that would be Adam. Our first parents referred to as Adam and Eve.
 
No.

Adam is the name used by Sacred Scripture and the Church.

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

Tis the name he is called by us and by Scripture.

Never does the Church or Scripture say “the character” Adam.

Rather Adam.

That is what the what the Sacred Scriptures and the Church call the first man.
The point Tim is trying to make is important and you are talking past it.
The name Adam is not an historically infallible name, like your birth certificate. It was never intended that way, and it should not be taken in fundamentalist fashion like that.
We properly call him Adam with the Church, and he is a real person, but we also have to accept that no human transcriber was present at his becoming human to call him such.
The name has a meaning as Tim pointed out, and the profound meaning behind the name is more important that it’s literal historicity. To get hung up on the historicity of the name is to rob the scriptures of their life to a certain degree. (P Benedict Verbum Domini)

This is important, because it speaks to how the Church reads the bible and interprets it, and what inspiration is, etc…
 
The point Tim is trying to make is important and you are talking past it.
Read again my posts…

As noted above …they are being somewhat read into …inadvertently.

(as I can do of course at times in reading others…)
 
We call the first man “Adam” and the first woman “Eve” (or Eva or Ewa…etc).

As do serious Biblical Scholars and Scholarly Popes for that matter.
Don’t you understand? The name “Adam” is just a place holder, not a proper name. You are trying to project a spiritual truth onto literal history.
 
I should’ve mentioned this earlier but my thought process was wouldn’t it make more sense for Eve to come first because of when women become pregnant, the unborn child starts out female then becomes male before birth. This is all probably unrelated but I was thinking about it and thought if there’s a possibility that women came before man.
If we take an evolutionary model, why must we assume that they were born of the same parents, in that type of order? And Eve still could have been made of Adam’s rib.
 
Don’t you understand? The name “Adam” is just a place holder, not a proper name.
Did you read all my posts? Please read them - whole and entire.

Please read them as they are written -freshly (it is easy to read into something if one already thinks one knows what it says…).

Oh - and does the Church Teach that the name “Adam” is just a place holder?

No.
 
Oh - and does the Church Teach that the name “Adam” is just a place holder?

No.
So, do you believe that God’s name is Yahweh? Because that’s what He said to Moses. *Tis the name used in scripture. * Such is his name in scripture and according to the Jews.

Does the Church teach that the personal name of God is Yahweh in the same way that you maintain she teaches that the first rational human being ensouled by God was named “Adam?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top