Adam & Logic, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC teachings

[grannymh]

I tend to think the whole problem was that they didn’t recognize the difference between themselves and God. I tend to think that the world continues to be tainted by and operate under this mis-guided aberration to this day. Consider that every instance of plain old everyday pride/self-righteousness is a human acting in a capacity he wasn’t created to act in. This is why humility is so key to the kingdom-and not the easiest virtue for us to cultivate BTW. . We may not admit we want to be God but in many respects humans play at it everyday to one degree or another.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

There are good insights about today’s world in post 135.

Nonetheless, I need to clarify what Adam knew about God. Going back to the base of this thread which is both scripture in Genesis, chapters one, two, three, and Catholic teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, we examine Genesis 2:15-17. From the moment Adam stepped into the Garden, he recognized the difference between himself and God. *CCC *396 explains this difference by referring to “The Tree” that symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that Adam had to respect. Adam could not claim that he created the Garden. Certainly not, with the real Creator at his elbow.

CCC 396 tells us that Adam, a spiritual creature (because of his spiritual soul) needs to live in free submission to God. CCC 398 confirms that Adam knew his status in relationship to God. Adam chose to go against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.**

 

[fhansen]

There are good insights about today’s world in post 135.

Nonetheless, I need to clarify what Adam knew about God. Going back to the base of this thread which is both scripture in Genesis, chapters one, two, three, and Catholic teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, we examine Genesis 2:15-17. From the moment Adam stepped into the Garden, he recognized the difference between himself and God. *CCC *396 explains this difference by referring to “The Tree” that symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that Adam had to respect. Adam could not claim that he created the Garden. Certainly not, with the real Creator at his elbow.

CCC 396 tells us that Adam, a spiritual creature (because of his spiritual soul) needs to live in free submission to God. CCC 398 confirms that Adam knew his status in relationship to God. Adam chose to go against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.**

The problem, tho, IMO, is that Adam failed to grasp and accept those very insurmountable limits. Reality/reason apparently didn’t prevail over desire.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

The problem, tho, IMO, is that Adam failed to grasp and accept those very insurmountable limits. Reality/reason apparently didn’t prevail over desire.

I will continue to suggest that Adam chose to eat the fruit because his love of Eve was greater than his love of God (he preferred Eve to God) which I think is distinct from desire, and suggestive that evil can arise from what we might consider “good intentions”. Eve, OTOH, sinned because of desire, which she chose over God’s command (what we might consider “bad intentions”).

The fact that Adam sinned because he preferred his love of Eve to his love of God, should be contrasted, I think, with, “For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne.” (RheimsNT: John 3:16, original spelling). Original Sin arose out of an act based on Adam’s preferential love of Eve (which, in one sense, could be viewed as self-love, as Eve was made from Adam), while Christ’s Redemption of that Original Sin arose out of an act where God chose Love of Humanity, over self-Love (for want of a better term: self-preservation doesn’t seem to cut it), choosing to incarnate, suffer on the Cross and Die for our redemption.

An somewhat strained analogy might be the teenager who disobeys his father and sneaks out of the house to visit a girlfriend he’s passionately in love with. The process of sneaking out ends up putting the teenager in dire straights (perhaps the teenager steals his Dad’s car and being a terrible driver drives himself and his girlfriend into a lake). The father finds his son in these dire straights and despite the prior disobedience, doesn’t hesitate to jump into the lake and save both his son and his son’s girlfriend, but at the cost of his own life.

 

[fhansen]

I will continue to suggest that Adam chose to eat the fruit because his love of Eve was greater than his love of God (he preferred Eve to God) which I think is distinct from desire, and suggestive that evil can arise from what we might consider “good intentions”. Eve, OTOH, sinned because of desire, which she chose over God’s command (what we might consider “bad intentions”).

The catechism teaches that Adam’s primary motivation was to “be like God”. However, being like God means to have complete autonomy in determining right and wrong for oneself, so underlying motivations, such as the love he had for Eve, could certainly play a part. He presumably would’ve had to forsake her if he were to remain obedient to God. Desire, in and of itself, is not bad in any case. The Church distinguishes between inordinate and ordinate desires. And all desire is based on some perceived good, right or wrong.

Even in the case of Eve, Adam elevated the created over the Creator in value. Why he loved Eve-or anything else for that matter-over God is the question we all need to ask ourselves, as love of God is supposed to take precedence, being a matter of right order and justice, God being the greatest good. Any valuation of anything above Him leads to chaos and a less perfect world in general. We’re here to learn why and how to love Him in that way, as I see it, with the help of grace.

 

[simpleas]

If Adam sinned out of love for Eve why did he blame her when God asked him had he eaten from the forbidden tree?

 

[fhansen]

If Adam sinned out of love for Eve why did he blame her when God asked him had he eaten from the forbidden tree?

He was a bit of a rat.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

The catechism teaches that Adam’s primary motivation was to “be like God”.

CCC 397 (quoting Romans 5:19) states that the sin was disobedience, CCC 398 seems to be a gloss on 397 stating the motivation for the disobedience and cites to St. Maximus the Confessor’s Ambigua for the “be like God” quote and the ". I am an admirer of St. Maximus, specifically, I’d love to get a copy of the translation of his Life of the Virgin but in this case I don’t think the cite accurately reflects what happened, or supports the whole of CCC 397 which states “In that sin man preferred himself to God…he chose himself over and against God.”

I don’t claim that my explanation Adam’s motivation arose out of misguided impulse based on love is correct, but I think it is a better gloss on those first two statements than the cite to St. Maximus (though maybe not, I’m unable to find an online version of his Ambigua so could be a lot more to St. Maximus’ gloss than those two phrases). Certainly there may be a better explanation as to Adam’s motivation somewhere by some known commentator, I just don’t see how you get “be like God” from any text of Genesis.

The Serpent never spoke to Adam, there is no evidence that Eve relayed the Serpent’s message to Adam, God never warned Adam that eating the fruit would make him “be as Gods”. So at no point was Adam ever aware that eating the fruit would result in him becoming “as Gods”.

Which brings up a quick note on the “be as Gods” line. Arthur Allen Leff wrote a whole series of articles on how there can only be two possible moral universes: one where there is an absolute morality given to man from God, the other where every single person decides his or her own morality and no morality, no matter how violent, or how “noble” is any better or worse than any other (either everything is relative or you have a single absolute). Main point being: there is no absolute morality without God - atheists who claim that they can derive a normative morality based on some axiom or other are just fooling themselves (there was a long thread on this site recently so won’t bother with details).

So thanks to this thread forcing me to think about this chapter, that’s now what I think what was going on with eating the fruit of the tree - it represents the point in human existence before which man’s freewill was limited in one way, Adam and Eve had to accept God’s moral universe as the only possible moral universe, they had the freewill to disobey/rebel against that moral code, but could not, of themselves, establish their own moral universes (as people do freely today). By way of analogy, a child is perfectly capable of saying NO! to his parent, but is not capable of developing his own system of morality such that saying No would be (in his mind only) a morally correct act as opposed to a rebellion against the moral order.

After the fruit, Adam could (and man did) establish their own moral universe which not only explains (at least to me) the development of pagan religions and moral codes far different from God’s (just look at the abortion industry), but also why Cain was so angry that God rejected his wheat, in Cain’s moral universe wheat and meat were equivalent, and of course why Adam and Eve decided that nakedness was now something that must be covered.

Naturally, there is personal interpretation on a free speech public message board.

Of everything posted in this thread, this is the one sentence that is really making me stop and reflect. On some level I’ve enjoyed this thread, it has helped me think about the subject matter. On another level, I think there’s a lot of crazy stuff being thrown around (and I’m just as guilty as a couple of other folks) and that’s not particularly healthy. There is something to be said for limiting one’s exposure to particularly crazy heterodox ideas (per a post a few threads bad: No Eve did not think the Serpent was a god) and certainly the nature of an internet board can make one post in haste or in zeal (I’m certainly guilty of both of these) which also can lead to doctrinal errors (I’m sure Theou could point out something equally crazy that I’ve said). Unfortunately, there’s not enough official Apologists to go around and intervene if a scriptural interpretation thread goes too far off the rails. Not that this thread has, I think you and fhansen have been pretty good about ignoring or deflecting anything that is too far off the rails and keeping the discussion mostly on track. I can’t say the same about myself.

Anyway, you’ve given me food for thought.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

There was only ever one complete copy of the Hexapla, Also, Origen was a brilliant guy but his problem was Origenism not St. Jerome.

I’ve seen pages of Origin’s hexapla. Therefore, it obviously was copied.

Council of Trent already “clarified” Jerome Vulgate was authentic, therefore changes to Gen 3:15 in the Nova Vulgate are contrary to already established Church dogma. Please don’t resort to ad hominems.

Hypocrite. If you don’t want abrasive responses, don’t make demeaning and abrasive remarks like:

You of all people on this thread should be aware…

Changes to Genesis 3:15 was not the passage I was discussing. Don’t dodge and troll. The passage under discussion was Genesis 3:6. The nature of the change we were discussing is entirely different than the one in Genesis 3:15. There is a big difference bewteen the omission of a word found in both the Hebrew (eg: the original language) and the LXX translation in Genesis 3:6, and what is going on in Genesis 3:15.

Please don’t state suppositions as facts. There is some evidence that Jerome may have had access to Matthew in Hebrew.

Multi layered hypocrisy won’t help… Throughout the entire discussion you have been talking about the issue that Jerome’s original Vulgate no longer exists; and then you talk about having to “reconstruct” it; and yet, here you are trying to claim all kinds of ridiculous things based on “suppositions” about what Jerome’s original version must have said when you don’t even have it.

I’ve read Jerome’s letters. I am very sure he had a copy of the Ebionite version of Matthew in Syriac. The text was very clearly edited in ways which go so far as to have Jesus admitting he could be a sinner!

Jerome tells everyone, plainly, in his “dialog with Pelagius”, that the so called gospel of Matthew was really written in Syriac, but using Hebrew letters; And anyone who has checked the Vulgate, or the Greek that the Vatican has for the new testament (eg: the original inspired language of the new testament) can find out pretty quickly that even though there are Hebrew words transliterated in Matthew’s Gospel; that Hebrew words are spelled differently than syriac equivalents.

Jerome also quotes a line from the text which shows that not only was it syriac, but it was edited in ways which do not agree with church teaching about the sinlessness of Jesus.

"‘according to Matthew’, which also is to be seen in the library of Caesarea, the story tells: ‘Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brethren said unto him, ‘John Baptist baptizeth unto the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized of him.’ But he said unto them, ‘Wherein (what) have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized of him? unless peradventure this very thing that I have said is a sin of ignorance.’”

With Jerome telling us he found changes like that in the so called “Hebrew” Matthew, do you still want to claim Jerome had access to the original Matthew?!?!

I’ll give Jerome this much credit, when he later realized he had been fooled by a fraudulent copy, he refused to use ANY of it in the Vulgate and admits this in his letters.
After all, the POPE commissioned him to translate the new testament from the best GREEK, not from the Hebrew.

All I get from this is that you don’t like St. Jerome because you think he translated a word wrong based on the texts you are looking at and not the ones he was looking at,

The Catholic church, as a matter of Dogma, infallably made decrees based on the Greek word “hypostasis.”; Therefore, I KNOW that the original word was in Greek.
Are you seriously going to continue insinuating Jerome found “hypostasis” in Hebrew?!

though you have already admitted he had access to more texts. As between you and St. Jerome, I’m going to go with Jerome.

You can believe whatever you want to. We will just have to disagree.

No. There are inspired translations (Jerome, Douay-Rheims) and there are uninspired translations.

And there are infallible decrees telling us what the inspired Greek looked like including old testament quotes. So, there clearly are inspired Greek translations. There are also inspired Hebrew originals. And there is no copy of Jerome’s original Vulgate according to “you”.

Good grief. We obviously have a very different idea of what infallibility means and how it can be legitimately applied. I don’t think there’s any value in continuing the debate.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

don’t think there’s any value in continuing the debate.

Yeah, I don’t think so either, we are definitely talking at cross purposes on most, if not all points.

 

[grannymh]

The Serpent never spoke to Adam, there is no evidence that Eve relayed the Serpent’s message to Adam, God never warned Adam that eating the fruit would make him “be as Gods”. So at no point was Adam ever aware that eating the fruit would result in him becoming “as Gods”.

Here is where some serious reading of the first three chapters of Genesis (thread title) is extremely necessary. Which verse(s) says that the Serpent must speak out loud and directly to Adam? Which verse(s) presents God’s actual warning?

And I might add, there needs to be some serious consideration of the three axioms I presented in the opening post.

Which axioms do you deny? And why?

Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings

1. God as Creator exists. Genesis 1: 1
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

He was a bit of a rat.

I thought about this, not the rat bit, but sinning for love of Eve, but then blaming her for it when questioned, sounds very childish in a sense.

The sin of Adam and Eve was like no other sin any fallen human could commit, I’ve read that somewhere.

I think both were deceived, Adam was with Eve when the serpent tempted her, we just get to hear how it was the women that fell first and why she did, but not why the man did. I wonder why?..

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Which axioms do you deny? And why?

This goes to why I am now certain that scripture debates on the Internet without a moderating experienced Apologist are pointless.

Nothing you quoted from me about the fact that in Genesis Chapter 3 the Serpent never talks directly to Adam is directly related to the axioms in your post. Derivable from Axiom 1 is the fact that God made Adam, Eve and the Garden, but that has little to do with the fact that the Serpent never talks directly to Adam. Similarly Axioms 2, God certainly talked directly to Adam, and he was aware that the fruit of the tree was forbidden, but again, not really on point as to the fact the Serpent never talked directly to Adam. Axiom 3, not only do we know that God talked to Adam, but we know Adam talked to God, again not really related to the Serpent never talking directly to Adam.

Despite or because of this you follow this quote with what is known as a “loaded question” a logical fallacy and ask me which axioms I deny. A Loaded question logical fallacy is defined as a “question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.” You don’t connect the axioms you cited to my quote, or explain how my quote somehow contradicts these axioms, but ask me tell you what axioms I deny anyway.

Anyway, at this point, I don’t see anything productive in continuing with this thread at all.

Best

 

[grannymh]

This goes to why I am now certain that scripture debates on the Internet without a moderating experienced Apologist are pointless.

Nothing you quoted from me about the fact that in Genesis Chapter 3 the Serpent never talks directly to Adam is directly related to the axioms in your post. Derivable from Axiom 1 is the fact that God made Adam, Eve and the Garden, but that has little to do with the fact that the Serpent never talks directly to Adam. Similarly Axioms 2, God certainly talked directly to Adam, and he was aware that the fruit of the tree was forbidden, but again, not really on point as to the fact the Serpent never talked directly to Adam. Axiom 3, not only do we know that God talked to Adam, but we know Adam talked to God, again not really related to the Serpent never talking directly to Adam.

Despite or because of this you follow this quote with what is known as a “loaded question” a logical fallacy and ask me which axioms I deny. A Loaded question logical fallacy is defined as a “question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.” You don’t connect the axioms you cited to my quote, or explain how my quote somehow contradicts these axioms, but ask me tell you what axioms I deny anyway.

Anyway, at this point, I don’t see anything productive in continuing with this thread at all.

Best

I am formulating my reply to you and to anyone who is interested in the topic of this thread. Due to commitments, I will post later.

Those who wish to talk with an experienced Apologist, my sincere suggestion is to use “Ask an Apologist” which appears on the top of the menu at the left of the screen. Or one can ask questions in the Apologetics Forum.

My intention for this thread is to discuss Adam and what can be learned from the first three chapters of Genesis. Please notice that the thread title says CCC teachings.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I thought about this, not the rat bit, but sinning for love of Eve, but then blaming her for it when questioned, sounds very childish in a sense.

That’s one of the issues with how the text is written. The author does not spell out the reasons for each of the activities, but forces the reader to make inferences. A person’s internal biases are revealed by how they see the text, and as a person matures they might see different things than they did as a child.

The sin of Adam and Eve was like no other sin any fallen human could commit, I’ve read that somewhere.

I agree.

I think both were deceived, Adam was with Eve when the serpent tempted her, we just get to hear how it was the women that fell first and why she did, but not why the man did. I wonder why?..

Paul says Adam was not deceived but the woman was. cf. 1Timothy 2:14.
In Genesis, the information Paul apprears to have been looking at is that the woman (not yet named Eve) admits to being deceived by the Devil who was pretending to act as a friend. eg: Genesis 3:13. out of envy, CCC 391 / Wisdom 2:24.

When God cross examines Adam and the woman, each of the things they say is clearly technically true. God does not call either of them a liar.

Adam was “with her”, so his response in Genesis 3:13 can’t be taken to mean the woman gave him fruit without him knowing where it came from. He couldn’t have been deceived by the woman. Also, Adam had already spoken with God in the past – although the woman had not. So, Adam ought to have known the serpent was not the same god who spoke to him before, but the woman had no first hand experience. she was, I think, vulnerable.

When scripture says,“Man has become like One of us”, I also think that implies that man had become at least partially conformed to the devil / remade (become) an image of the Devil’s fall. Even the CCC notes the connection obliquely: CCC 392: "We find a reflection [copy of an image] of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like god.”

What a person want’s to model themselves after, either God or god, is the very nature of the temptation. (Wisdom 2:23-24 Ronald Knox bible states it this way: “God, to be sure, framed man for an immortal destiny, the created image of his own endless being; but, since the devil’s envy brought death into the world, they make him their model that take him for their master.” A typical LXX translation is slightly less poetic, “23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. 24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: Whoever takes his side finds it.” )

Adam was originally in God’s image, for he was created as son of God.
I suppose I could agree that Adam was indeed “childish” …
Luke 3:38 “… the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”
But, what do you really mean?

 

[grannymh]

This goes to why I am now certain that scripture debates on the Internet without a moderating experienced Apologist are pointless.

Nothing you quoted from me about the fact that in Genesis Chapter 3 the Serpent never talks directly to Adam is directly related to the axioms in your post. Derivable from Axiom 1 is the fact that God made Adam, Eve and the Garden, but that has little to do with the fact that the Serpent never talks directly to Adam. Similarly Axioms 2, God certainly talked directly to Adam, and he was aware that the fruit of the tree was forbidden, but again, not really on point as to the fact the Serpent never talked directly to Adam. Axiom 3, not only do we know that God talked to Adam, but we know Adam talked to God, again not really related to the Serpent never talking directly to Adam.

Despite or because of this you follow this quote with what is known as a “loaded question” a logical fallacy and ask me which axioms I deny. A Loaded question logical fallacy is defined as a “question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.” You don’t connect the axioms you cited to my quote, or explain how my quote somehow contradicts these axioms, but ask me tell you what axioms I deny anyway.

Anyway, at this point, I don’t see anything productive in continuing with this thread at all.

Best

As OP, it is my privilege to set the playing field which happens to be plainly described in the thread’s title. It is proper for me to ask for citations from the first three chapters of Genesis.
Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings

1. God as Creator exists. Genesis 1: 1
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27
   It is also proper for me to ask which of the above axioms does a poster deny.There is no reason to consider Catholic Church teachings a “loaded question” or a logical fallacy, because each axiom above stands on its own. Cutting to the chase. Non-theists and those who deny the reality of Adam need to seriously deal with those three axioms on this thread. It is far simpler to ask a flat out “no or yes” question than to deal with side issues about God’s existence and the existence of a rational soul. Such “existence” would do well in the Apologetics Forum.

Yes, it is possible to deduce additional truths from each of the presented axioms.

Regarding the Serpent never directly talking with Adam, it may be difficult to connect that directly to a particular axiom. Perhaps one could try axiom three because one can deduce Adam’s nature from it. It can be argued that it was not necessary for the Serpent to talk directly to Adam, because Adam already knew that the tree represented the limits of a creature. Adam was fully aware, before the Serpent appeared, of the seriousness of disobedience to God’s plan.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

That’s one of the issues with how the text is written. The author does not spell out the reasons for each of the activities, but forces the reader to make inferences. A person’s internal biases are revealed by how they see the text, and as a person matures they might see different things than they did as a child.

I agree.

Paul says Adam was not deceived but the woman was. cf. 1Timothy 2:14.
In Genesis, the information Paul apprears to have been looking at is that the woman (not yet named Eve) admits to being deceived by the Devil who was pretending to act as a friend. eg: Genesis 3:13. out of envy, CCC 391 / Wisdom 2:24.

When God cross examines Adam and the woman, each of the things they say is clearly technically true. God does not call either of them a liar.

Adam was “with her”, so his response in Genesis 3:13 can’t be taken to mean the woman gave him fruit without him knowing where it came from. He couldn’t have been deceived by the woman. Also, Adam had already spoken with God in the past – although the woman had not. So, Adam ought to have known the serpent was not the same god who spoke to him before, but the woman had no first hand experience. she was, I think, vulnerable.

When scripture says,“Man has become like One of us”, I also think that implies that man had become at least partially conformed to the devil / remade (become) an image of the Devil’s fall. Even the CCC notes the connection obliquely: CCC 392: "We find a reflection [copy of an image] of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like god.”

What a person want’s to model themselves after, either God or god, is the very nature of the temptation. (Wisdom 2:23-24 Ronald Knox bible states it this way: “God, to be sure, framed man for an immortal destiny, the created image of his own endless being; but, since the devil’s envy brought death into the world, they make him their model that take him for their master.” A typical LXX translation is slightly less poetic, “23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. 24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: Whoever takes his side finds it.” )

Adam was originally in God’s image, for he was created as son of God.
I suppose I could agree that Adam was indeed “childish” …
Luke 3:38 “… the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”
But, what do you really mean?

1. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27
2. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27

So this could not be true for the first humans, only one, Adam,because God didn’t speak to Eve?

The description of God making the women from the man doesn’t include God giving her a soul, but do we think that God didn’t give her a soul or that she got it from Adam, no, we can conclude that Eve was given a soul too. So why do we assume God didn’t speak at anytime before the fall, not written down in genesis, to Eve?

But, what do you really mean?

I mean that the first couple had supernatural gifts, yet they speak and act like they did not.

 

[grannymh]

So this could not be true for the first humans, only one, Adam,because God didn’t speak to Eve?

The description of God making the women from the man doesn’t include God giving her a soul, but do we think that God didn’t give her a soul or that she got it from Adam, no, we can conclude that Eve was given a soul too. So why do we assume God didn’t speak at anytime before the fall, not written down in genesis, to Eve?

In reply to the sentence in bold.
Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings

1. God as Creator exists. Genesis 1: 1
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27
   Those who deny axiom 2 will assume that God didn’t speak to Eve before Adam committed the Original Sin. The error is the assumption that God’s creative power is limited.

Those who deny axiom 3 deny Adam’s human nature which includes the ability to rationally communicate with another true human. The error is the assumption that Eve is not a true human who, by the use of the word we, knew God’s command.
Genesis 3: 1-3 usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

1
Now the snake was the most cunning* of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?”
2
The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
3
it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’”

Blessings,
granny

The human person is an unique creature who is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So this could not be true for the first humans, only one, Adam,because God didn’t speak to Eve?

No, that doesn’t quite follow. I’ll explain in a moment.

The description of God making the women from the man doesn’t include God giving her a soul, but do we think that God didn’t give her a soul or that she got it from Adam, no, we can conclude that Eve was given a soul too.

There is plenty of evidence that the woman has a soul from God in scripture! (and a “nature” from Adam) God says, let us make man in our likeness. God made man male and female, and breathed the “breath of life” into man. (Not into THE man, but into man) Genesis 1:27 and especially Genesis 2:7.

The word man is collective and includes women. The word “men” is not collective but isn’t used in the creation account when the creation of souls is discussed.

If you think Genesis 2:7 is referring only to Adam, you’re mistaken. It refers to all of us even today. History (especially creation), in the ancient view, is not a purely linear account of events which start with the earlier and progress only to later events. History, in their eyes, is a cycle; The Creation of the first summer, implies a recurring event of summers. The Creation of a Monday, implies an endless stream of future Mondays. etc.

With respect to the creation of “man” The scripture writers saw in the seminal clay/slip of the earth, a continual formation of man from clay/slip. I mean, they saw it in the raw substance (wet dust/slip) called seminal fluids that every man and women share during sexual reproduction and which God would form into a child in the womb. Later in the bible, God inspires the explicit use of this image in Isaiah 64:8 “Yet, Lord, thou art our father; we are but clay, and thou art the craftsman who has fashioned us;” Or again, back in Isaiah 64:6 (in the Ronald Knox bible from the Vulgate) the wasting of the same substance,"[We are] no better than the clout (menstruation rags) a woman casts off."

Even the word I was disputing with Trevor over is evidence that the woman had “intellect”; eg: Intellect or “nous” is, itself, proof that the woman had a spiritual soul from God.

So why do we assume God didn’t speak at anytime before the fall, not written down in genesis, to Eve?

I don’t assume such a thing. There is evidence that the woman did not speak with God in the same way Adam did. I do not mean to say the woman had no communication with God, but I clearly am making an inference, based on several pieces of evidence, that Eve did not receive the law from God himself; eg: based on the order of events shown in Genesis, based on he woman citing a different law than the one Adam was explicitly given, and especially because St. Paul tells us that the woman was deceived and the man was NOT deceived.

I mean that the first couple had supernatural gifts, yet they speak and act like they did not.

That’s a very difficult point to untangle. I’m not sure I can clearly answer you at this moment as I am not sure the church has a clear teaching on the issue. I am tempted to say that Adam and Eve did not have supernatural gifts, because Jesus has given us more than they lost; and the original creation is the baseline for the thing called “nature.” As baptized christians, we are “super natural”; as unbaptized, we have a wounded nature (below natural, subject to concupiscence); and Adam and Eve were natural, eg: having that which God intended for man. However there are problems associated with that approach and it can lead to conundrums…

Let me ask you if something makes any sense to you:

Sin is a privation or depravation of Good. But not all privations are sin, only some privations are sin. eg: Jesus, never sinned. But he did deprive himself of some things which are godly. cf: Philippians 2:7. Jesus, therefore, was able to grow in something good, namely wisdom, because he started out with less wisdom and progressed to more: Luke 2:52. “And so Jesus advanced in wisdom with the years, and in grace both with God and with men.”

So it is possible to not have certain gifts of instant or full awareness of knowledge of the things of God, without any sin being involved. If Jesus, who had the fullness of supernatural gifts (the Divine Son was fully united with him, spirit, and body) could empty himself of God’s omniscience without sin; how much more could Adam and the Woman who never had the full union with God in the first place?

Why is Adam and the Woman’s lack of omniscience (before the fall) so disturbing?

 

[simpleas]

No, that doesn’t quite follow. I’ll explain in a moment.

There is plenty of evidence that the woman has a soul from God in scripture! (and a “nature” from Adam) God says, let us make man in our likeness. God made man male and female, and breathed the “breath of life” into man. (Not into THE man, but into man) Genesis 1:27 and especially Genesis 2:7.

The word man is collective and includes women. The word “men” is not collective but isn’t used in the creation account when the creation of souls is discussed.

If you think Genesis 2:7 is referring only to Adam, you’re mistaken. It refers to all of us even today. History (especially creation), in the ancient view, is not a purely linear account of events which start with the earlier and progress only to later events. History, in their eyes, is a cycle; The Creation of the first summer, implies a recurring event of summers. The Creation of a Monday, implies an endless stream of future Mondays. etc.

With respect to the creation of “man” The scripture writers saw in the seminal clay/slip of the earth, a continual formation of man from clay/slip. I mean, they saw it in the raw substance (wet dust/slip) called seminal fluids that every man and women share during sexual reproduction and which God would form into a child in the womb. Later in the bible, God inspires the explicit use of this image in Isaiah 64:8 “Yet, Lord, thou art our father; we are but clay, and thou art the craftsman who has fashioned us;” Or again, back in Isaiah 64:6 (in the Ronald Knox bible from the Vulgate) the wasting of the same substance,"[We are] no better than the clout (menstruation rags) a woman casts off."

Even the word I was disputing with Trevor over is evidence that the woman had “intellect”; eg: Intellect or “nous” is, itself, proof that the woman had a spiritual soul from God.

I don’t assume such a thing. There is evidence that the woman did not speak with God in the same way Adam did. I do not mean to say the woman had no communication with God, but I clearly am making an inference, based on several pieces of evidence, that Eve did not receive the law from God himself; eg: based on the order of events shown in Genesis, based on he woman citing a different law than the one Adam was explicitly given, and especially because St. Paul tells us that the woman was deceived and the man was NOT deceived.

That’s a very difficult point to untangle. I’m not sure I can clearly answer you at this moment as I am not sure the church has a clear teaching on the issue. I am tempted to say that Adam and Eve did not have supernatural gifts, because Jesus has given us more than they lost; and the original creation is the baseline for the thing called “nature.” As baptized christians, we are “super natural”; as unbaptized, we have a wounded nature (below natural, subject to concupiscence); and Adam and Eve were natural, eg: having that which God intended for man. However there are problems associated with that approach and it can lead to conundrums…

Let me ask you if something makes any sense to you:

Sin is a privation or depravation of Good. But not all privations are sin, only some privations are sin. eg: Jesus, never sinned. But he did deprive himself of some things which are godly. cf: Philippians 2:7. Jesus, therefore, was able to grow in something good, namely wisdom, because he started out with less wisdom and progressed to more: Luke 2:52. “And so Jesus advanced in wisdom with the years, and in grace both with God and with men.”

So it is possible to not have certain gifts of instant or full awareness of knowledge of the things of God, without any sin being involved. If Jesus, who had the fullness of supernatural gifts (the Divine Son was fully united with him, spirit, and body) could empty himself of God’s omniscience without sin; how much more could Adam and the Woman who never had the full union with God in the first place?

Why is Adam and the Woman’s lack of omniscience (before the fall) so disturbing?

There is plenty of evidence that the woman has a soul from God in scripture! (and a “nature” from Adam) God says, let us make man in our likeness. God made man male and female, and breathed the “breath of life” into man. (Not into THE man, but into man) Genesis 1:27 and especially Genesis 2:7.

The word man is collective and includes women. The word “men” is not collective but isn’t used in the creation account when the creation of souls is discussed.

I’m sorry but this just confuses me. God breathes life into the man, meaning both, yet Eve is not created until after. God gives the law to the man (both) but not to the woman?

Well if they didn’t have supernatural gifts what did they loose…

So it is possible to not have certain gifts of instant or full awareness of knowledge of the things of God, without any sin being involved. If Jesus, who had the fullness of supernatural gifts (the Divine Son was fully united with him, spirit, and body) could empty himself of God’s omniscience without sin; how much more could Adam and the Woman who never had the full union with God in the first place?

Good question.

Why is Adam and the Woman’s lack of omniscience (before the fall) so disturbing?

Apparently they had sufficient awareness and knowledge of the consequences if they disobeyed, this wasn’t omniscience of course, because they were not gods, even if they become god- like after the fall.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I’m sorry but this just confuses me. God breathes life into the man, meaning both, yet Eve is not created until after. God gives the law to the man (both) but not to the woman?

There are two different stories of creation in Genesis, one of which treats of creation as an overview; the later story fills in details and as a sequence of events (time). Note: The stories look at creation from different perspectives but speak of events which happened at the overlapping times.

Look at Genesis 1:28, “God pronounced his blessing on them”; so the story in Genesis 1:28 is talking about God blessing an already created man and woman; but God doesn’t actually create Adam until Genesis 2:7. Again: In Genesis 2:1 – Creation is proclaimed “finished”, but then God doesn’t create a man until a few verses later.

The earlier story is like a table of contents for the later story. It’s an epitome or outline. In the earlier story, we already know that God is rational and spiritual. In the earlier story, God says Man AND woman were created in his image. From that alone, we already know that woman has a spiritual soul just like man. (eg: The answer to your original objection…)

But as to the exact sequence of events, or the order in which they were created; that doesn’t happen until the second story. I know I’m not mistaken about the sequence of events, for St. Paul tells us “Adam was created first, then the woman.” ( 1Timothy 2:13 ).

However, the exact way the author of Genesis wrote about those events is not strictly chronological. In a Cyclic history,essential events are expected to repeat. For example, Tuesday follows Monday, but eventually – Monday will happen again. (Not the same Monday, Chronologically, but the same Monday cyclically.)

God created “man” (not Just a single person, Adam) from the dust of the earth.
But also: Every time two people have intercourse, they share the watered dust of the earth from which Adam was made, and it is God who forms the child in the womb from that substance. The same generalized or abstracted event mentioned in Genesis 2:7 repeats.

Much of the story of creation repeats. The events are not identical, just as the things that happen on this Monday are not exactly the same as that happened last Monday; but there is a general repetition of events because of similar conditions.
If I watch how a “typical” week goes for a certain person; I have a good idea what the next week will be like in general (not in detail, and not without risk of deviation.)

As a reader of Genesis, each of us needs to figure out which events are cyclical, and which ones are unique; and why.

Example:
God breathes life into a specific man, Adam, as part of fulfilling Genesis 1:27. But, God is still breathing life into man every time one comes into the world. That’s the way I read passages like Genesis 2:7. Later events may not occur precisely the same as the way it happened in Genesis 2:7, but it does repeat in a general way; eg: When life was breathed into me – I became Andrew; when life was breathed into my son, Stephen was formed. But we are both alive, and God did it.

Apparently they had sufficient awareness and knowledge of the consequences if they disobeyed, this wasn’t omniscience of course, because they were not gods, even if they become god- like after the fall.

exactly.

Well if they didn’t have supernatural gifts what did they loose…

I’m not sure. This is one of the places where conundrums show up.
Most traditional Catholics would say they lost “preternatural” gifts. But I don’t see that word in the CCC… did I miss it? Since you brought nature up; What do you think the word “nature” means and how do you know? Perhaps we can compare ideas with those in the CCC and discover a few things about it.