Are we required to believe the Fall of Man happened exactly as depicted in Genesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter A_Really_Big_Cat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

A_Really_Big_Cat

Guest
What I specifically am wondering about is the idea that Adam and Eve were the “first” humans. Is it acceptable that they could only be the first anatomically modern humans to defy God and cause the Fall; sort of like being the first “cavemen” to “know”?
 
They were the first two humans and the only ones. They weren’t apes 🦍 The Genesis narrative is probably 50% literal. For example, some theologians believe Original Sin involved the misuse of sex, not a literal fruit.
 
Last edited:
It is Catholic teaching that we share common parents.

If by “anatomically correct” you mean the first full humans with souls, then you can believe this.

It is also believed they had præternatural gifts. I
 
They were the first true humans, ensouled rational animals. That must is literally true. They may mot have been named “Adam” and “Eve”.
 
Frem what I’ve read, it’s the easiest chink in our armor to manipulate. Since the Fall, it’s been a source of much trouble and requires a lifetime to control.
 
Last edited:
I think the Catholic Church allows both literal and figurative views of the Genesis account.

I personally think that do to references in other books in the Bible to Adam and Eve as being literal. Their story should be taken literally.

However, Adam and Eve had been dated to have lived 6,000 years ago. While the first humans lived way before that.
This suggests that Adam and Eve were not the first humans.
But current evidence shows that our common ancestor dates back to about 7,000-5,000 years ago around the same time Adam and Eve were around meaning that even if they were not the first humans all people today could still be descendants of Adam and Eve.
Also the actions of Adam and Eve while being literal and historical were also probably reflective and symbolic of human nature as a whole.
 
A_Really_Big_Cat said:
…
Click to expand...
Humani Generis, Venerable H.H. Pope Pius XII:
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
Click to expand...
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...nts/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
 
My dad who isn’t very educated and was raised protestant always said he thought the fruit was symbolic for sex and not a literal fruit.
 
He’s a smart man who can see clearly! People overthink Original Sin. Reading CAF, it’s clear what people struggle with the most.
 
That’s interesting. I’ve heard of this concept, and that their struggle with sexuality being one of the main effects of their fallen condition, perhaps having to do with the realization of their nakedness. But I’m still not quite sure where the concept comes from. It seems to make sense, but I’m just not totally sure why. Well I guess for one, because it’s obvious that sexuality is such a deep struggle for fallen man. But I was wondering if you have a good source to explain this?

Also, I’ve wondered if the account is in one sense literal history, but is just full of metaphors in its description. But how then do we discern our way through that?
In any case it seems to “work” to take it as basically literal and yet every detail itself is symbolic. I tend to think that’s how God does things.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_1.shtml

St. Augustine alludes to it; however, he stopped short of claiming it was part of the original sin.

“[…] whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust…
[This lust] is the daughter of sin, as it were; and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins.
Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin […]”

Augustine, De bono coniugali
 
Last edited:
As Catholics we are permitted to consider Genesis allegorical. What we must believe is that the human race is descended from two sentient human beings, made by God in His own image and likeness (reason, will and the higher emotions) who in some manner broke this covenant with God and that taint/fault has been passed on to all their descendants. We must believe in the lesson Genesis teaches, if not the actual literal truth of every detail.
 
That sounds like it really depends on the person and even the time, I’d say.

It would appear their sin is 1) obviously, it’s disobedience. But say that part or the part where they don’t know morality is not literal for some reason.

It would then appear their sin is pride. They wanted to be like gods.
 
Kei said:
It would then appear their sin is pride. They wanted to be like gods.
Click to expand...
They could’ve admitted their fault instead of hiding. They could’ve begged forgiveness, instead they blamed everyone else.
 
Kei said:
That sounds like it really depends on the person and even the time, I’d say.

It would appear their sin is 1) obviously, it’s disobedience. But say that part or the part where they don’t know morality is not literal for some reason.

It would then appear their sin is pride. They wanted to be like gods.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Pride is the capital sin, or the “head of” sinfullness.
The placing one’s self at the center of existence, good and evil, one’s destiny, etc…

God has the fullness of knowing what the good is, in fact God is the good. Human beings instead place themselves at the center of existence, as the false arbiter of what is good. Which leads to “no good”.
 
Last edited:
I agree. They did not just commit one sin. Shame of their sin made them hide and not repent. They did not take responsibility for their sinfulness. If they had have sinned and immediately ran to God to repent…we might all be living in the garden of Eden today 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top