Before the fall of Adam and eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter angell1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider the following supposition: if there are sentient creatures on another planet, like humans on Earth, and if human sin caused universal death (the death of animals as well as humans), then would it not also follow that human sin would also cause death in these other sentient creatures, who would ostensibly also be in a state of preternatural grace? That is to suggest that the Fall of one race could cause death in another pre-Fallen race. This doesn’t seem to make sense.
Interesting supposition. As it happens I just began the writing of a story dealing with this question at some point in the future when it is actually possible to visit such a planet and explore the nature of people who never experienced the Fall. How would their understanding of God differ from ours? My wife says that in her view, there can be no such place, because the Fall was a necessary part of God’s own “story” so to speak. In other words, God had to give man free choice, and the Fall was inevitable so that God could be worshiped by those who had made the free choice for good. I tend to believe she is right.

I personally believe, based on my understanding of the physics involved, that we will never be able to visit such a place and return. But who knows what future developments may hold? Perhaps God would just never permit it. Remember the Tower of Babel?
 
So it never rained before the flood? How do we know that? It certainly never rained for 40 days before, but would it not have rained normally? I think it did. Rain is part of the normal meteorological cycle, the absence of which would change our understanding of the evolution and development of the earth being suitable to human life. Without rain, the planet would have all been a desert.
If it never rained before the Flood, it would certainly change our understanding of the development of life on Earth. However, not raining doesn’t necessarily translate into desert.

To understand why there are some people who think there was no rain prior to the Flood, you need to see where in scripture they’re getting this, and what line of reasoning their using to come to this conclusion.

First, see Genesis 2:5 - “And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.” So, here we see an allusion to the Flood when it says “God had not rained upon the earth.” We can understand this as an allusion to the Flood because between this verse and the first rains of the Flood, rain is not mentioned.

Yet, God plants a garden of paradise and places man within it. How does the garden grow? See Genesis 2:6 - “But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth.” There is a supposition by some that prior to the Flood, the Earth’s meteorological systems looked rather different. From Genesis 2:10 - “And a river went out of the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads,” we see that between the “spring” and the “rivers” this is how the surface of the earth was watered. But because of our understanding of evaporation, condensation and precipitation, to hold that there was no rain before the Flood, some have suggested a denser layer of atmospheric gases, less dust content in the atmosphere, and generally higher levels of humidity in the air.

So what about the Flood? The first time we hear about rain again after Genesis 2 is Genesis 7:4, when God warns Noah about how He will destroy humanity: “For yet a while, and after seven days**, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights**; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth.” Notice that the same language is used regarding rain. In Genesis 2, it says “God had not rained upon the earth,” and in Genesis 7, God warns “I will rain upon the earth.” So there is an obvious corollary here.

Then, in Genesis 7:11-12, we see a kind of mechanism of the Flood, “[11] In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: [12] And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” Whereas in Genesis 2, God had not yet rained, but a spring rose from the earth, in Genesis 7, the fountains of the deep (the source of the spring) were broken up, and the floodgates of heaven were opened.

The idea here is that there is a fundamental change in how the earth worked. Before, a spring from within gave the earth life. At and after, that spring was broken up, and the floodgates of heaven were opened. It should be useful to note that if the heavens were opened at the flood, they must have been closed prior to the flood.

The final piece of the puzzle is the rainbow. God gave us the rainbow as a sign that He would not flood the earth again. The thinking here is that the rainbow, to function as a sign in this manner, had to be something new and marvelous, a real sign. Indeed, if the earth had fundamentally changed, and there were no longer “fountains of the deep” because that water had been broken up, then the rainbow would have been a sign not just that God wouldn’t flood the earth again, but that it was impossible for it to do so in the new order of things.

Let’s look at the text itself: Genesis 9:11-17 - “[11] I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth. [12] And God said: This is the sign of the covenant which I give between me and you, and to every living soul that is with you, for perpetual generations. [13] I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me, and between the earth. [14] And when I shall cover the sky with clouds, my bow shall appear in the clouds: [15] And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh. [16] And the bow shall be in the clouds, and I shall see it, and shall remember the everlasting covenant, that was made between God and every living soul of all flesh which is upon the earth. [17] And God said to Noe: This shall be the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh upon the earth.”

Note lastly that this is the first mention of clouds in the Bible. Cheers!😃
 
Interesting supposition. As it happens I just began the writing of a story dealing with this question at some point in the future when it is actually possible to visit such a planet and explore the nature of people who never experienced the Fall. How would their understanding of God differ from ours? My wife says that in her view, there can be no such place, because the Fall was a necessary part of God’s own “story” so to speak. In other words, God had to give man free choice, and the Fall was inevitable so that God could be worshiped by those who had made the free choice for good. I tend to believe she is right.

I personally believe, based on my understanding of the physics involved, that we will never be able to visit such a place and return. But who knows what future developments may hold? Perhaps God would just never permit it. Remember the Tower of Babel?
I agree with all of this except for this part here: the Fall was inevitable. This is not necessarily so. One may be free and choose freely to worship and love God in true obedience and Faith, without ever falling. From Aquinas we learn that each individual angel is its own unique specie. So, each angel was itself given the ultimate choice of freely choosing to love and serve God. We know that only one third of angelic creatures fell. Thus, we may also surmise that it is possible that freely-choosing, human-like beings (that is, beings that are a body-spirit union) may also have not fallen. The fall was not necessary, and actually asserting that it was is heretical, per Catholic doctrine.
 
So it never rained before the flood? How do we know that? It certainly never rained for 40 days before, but would it not have rained normally? I think it did. Rain is part of the normal meteorological cycle, the absence of which would change our understanding of the evolution and development of the earth being suitable to human life. Without ran, the planet would have all been a desert.
There was not rain as we know it now. That’s one of the reasons the people were scared. Before rain came from the sky, the earth was watered by a mist that came from the ground.
 
Thus, we may also surmise that it is possible that freely-choosing, human-like beings (that is, beings that are a body-spirit union) may also have not fallen. The fall was not necessary, and actually asserting that it was is heretical, per Catholic doctrine.
I agree that freely-choosing humans could choose not to fall. But I was unaware that Catholic doctrine says that it is heretical to assert that the fall was inevitable. Why would that be?
 
I have a real problem buying the assertion that there was no rain as we know it before the fall. The biblical quotations and interpretations seem a stretch to me, and fly in the face of the history of the development of the earth as I understand it, as well as geology and meteorology.
 
I have a real problem buying the assertion that there was no rain as we know it before the fall. The biblical quotations and interpretations seem a stretch to me, and fly in the face of the history of the development of the earth as I understand it, as well as geology and meteorology.
I don’t disagree. It is a mythological story after all. I was merely putting forward the position that some people hold.
 
I agree that freely-choosing humans could choose not to fall. But I was unaware that Catholic doctrine says that it is heretical to assert that the fall was inevitable. Why would that be?
It is so because saying that the fall was inevitable, or that it was somehow part of God’s plan, implies a kind of predeterminism, as well as implying also that God intended sin, both of which are heretical. The fall was not inevitable.
 
I have a real problem buying the assertion that there was no rain as we know it before the fall. The biblical quotations and interpretations seem a stretch to me, and fly in the face of the history of the development of the earth as I understand it, as well as geology and meteorology.
Not sure about rain but there weren’t any rainbows!

🙂
I don’t disagree. It is a mythological story after all. I was merely putting forward the position that some people hold.
It is not mythological, it is real.

Does this mean you never pray the Hail Holy Queen?
 
"Adam and Eve: Real People

“It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).”

Catholics believe Adam and Eve were the parents of all.

Peace,
Ed
 
It is not mythological, it is real.

Does this mean you never pray the Hail Holy Queen?
Mythology isn’t fiction, and I certainly didn’t mean to imply that the stories in Genesis aren’t real. Rather, they are real events told through symbolic imagery. Hence, mythos.

Yes, I do pray Hail Holy Queen.
 
What would have happened if an animal before the fall had have eaten of the Tree of Life?
 
Mythology isn’t fiction, and I certainly didn’t mean to imply that the stories in Genesis aren’t real. Rather, they are real events told through symbolic imagery. Hence, mythos.

Yes, I do pray Hail Holy Queen.
The allegorical approach. I fail to see any reason to believe its allegory.
 
Luke 3:23 When he began, Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli,

24 son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph,

25 son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai,

26 son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Josech, son of Joda,

27 son of Joanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri,

28 son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er,

29 son of Jesus, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi,

30 son of Symeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim,

31 son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David,

32 son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Sala, son of Nahshon,

33 son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah,

34 son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor,

35 son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah,

36 son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech,

37 son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan,

38 son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.
 
The allegorical approach. I fail to see any reason to believe its allegory.
Not quite allegory. That would imply the characters are fictitious, and they are not. Adam and Eve don’t “represent” some deeper meaning. They are our first parents. But the events surrounding their fall into sin shouldn’t be read in a literal sense.

Consider: Adam and Eve were given the preternatural grace of infused knowledge. They had a deep understanding of the world about them, so much so that Adam was able to name each animal according to its nature. Such knowledge would naturally include the fact that serpents cannot speak. Yet, if you read the story literally, a serpent spoke with Eve. Are we to then believe that despite their clear natural understanding of the world, that Eve would not find it strange in the least to have a serpent speaking to her? Her knowledge would have made it clear that such an animal had no capacity for it. Furthermore, she and Adam had been given dominion over it, they stood in a position of true authority over it. Yet, should we not find it strange that she accepted its authority when her own was greater?

Or perhaps a more natural reading of the text makes more sense; the image of the serpent is given to convey an underlying aspect of the exchange; namely that the deception was particularly subtle and crafty. It makes more sense to use the image of a serpent than, say, the image of a dog. Dogs are too obvious and blunt. Serpents are subtle, and deadly. They strike without warning, and often kill using poison, a slow death from within. Their tongues are split, and are often used as symbols of deception (imaging a split between word and meaning, to say one thing and mean another). It the perfect image for what happened.

I happen to think we have pretty good reason to think there is a lot of symbolic language there.
 
If it never rained before the Flood, it would certainly change our understanding of the development of life on Earth. However, not raining doesn’t necessarily translate into desert.
There was not rain as we know it now. That’s one of the reasons the people were scared. Before rain came from the sky, the earth was watered by a mist that came from the ground.
I have a real problem buying the assertion that there was no rain as we know it before the fall. The biblical quotations and interpretations seem a stretch to me, and fly in the face of the history of the development of the earth as I understand it, as well as geology and meteorology.
Yes, I heard some say that the earth was covered by a kind of moisture canopy in the sky before the flood and that’s what watered the planet through a mist and that it was that canopy that God released to cause the heavy rains on the earth, and after that canopy was gone/empty the weather was altered to cause the changes and extreme temperatures we see today. I don’t remember the correct term or word that was used for the canopy. That canopy also protected the earth from certain harmful rays of the sun etc that causes aging that we now no loner have etc. That’s why people lived for hundreds of years in the past even after the fall. It’s all very interesting. Just something to think about. 🙂
 
It is so because saying that the fall was inevitable, or that it was somehow part of God’s plan, implies a kind of predeterminism, as well as implying also that God intended sin, both of which are heretical. The fall was not inevitable.
Exactly which would also mean that the people in hell for their sins would be there unjustly since/if their fall was inevitable. That would mean they were created for the purpose of failing and suffering in hell. Their reason for being made would be so they could fall and suffer in hell. That doesn’t sound like God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top