Cain and Abel just an analogy?

[ConstantineTG]

Wait a second! Cain builds a whole City. Even under the assumption that Adam and Eve had a unnamed daughter who gave birth to Enoch through incest, there should only be 6 people alive. (Adam, Eve, Cain, Cain’s wife, Seth, and Enoch) How did Cain find enough people to built a whole city? Even if he built all of the building himself, which I find unlikely, you need people to populate the city. Did they magically appear, or were they already there?

Its clear in Genesis 5 that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters.

Also note that “city” doesn’t mean the same way we mean a “city” today. It could be nothing more than a bunch of tents or shacks. Back then most people were nomads, so a city could be an organized settlement of any size, even if it where just a dozen or so.

 

[hockeyfan]

Its clear in Genesis 5 that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters.

Also note that “city” doesn’t mean the same way we mean a “city” today. It could be nothing more than a bunch of tents or shacks. Back then most people were nomads, so a city could be an organized settlement of any size, even if it where just a dozen or so.

Those are both valid arguments. First off, I just reviewed Genesis 5, and though it says in 3-5…

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

It names the other sons and daughters as having been born chronologically after Seth. Before chap. 5, it only mentions 3 sons, Cain, Abel and Seth.

On the point about building a city, it is fair. Even still, a community is still necessary besides a wife and kids. There would have to be either humans who are not family members of Adam/Eve or brothers/sisters of Cain’s coming with him. It still doesn’t track.

 

[garysibio]

of course it is allegorical and you are absolutely correct. It is possible that in the Jewish stories that were handed down generation to generation, the earliest stories of all, and the first people in those stories, were named Adam and Eve. In other words, there certainly were other people, but the very first known stories concerned two people named Adam and Eve, who had sons Cain and Abel. Of course there were other people around as well for them to marry.

No. Genesis is history, not allegory.

 

[garysibio]

Those are both valid arguments. First off, I just reviewed Genesis 5, and though it says in 3-5…

It names the other sons and daughters as having been born chronologically after Seth. Before chap. 5, it only mentions 3 sons, Cain, Abel and Seth.

On the point about building a city, it is fair. Even still, a community is still necessary besides a wife and kids. There would have to be either humans who are not family members of Adam/Eve or brothers/sisters of Cain’s coming with him. It still doesn’t track.

Why? Cain simply married one of his sisters. There was no prohibition on incest at the time.

 

[StarSapphire]

No. Genesis is history, not allegory.

Allegorical! (I’m getting argumentative, think I’ve had too much coffee… )

 

[ConstantineTG]

Those are both valid arguments. First off, I just reviewed Genesis 5, and though it says in 3-5…

It names the other sons and daughters as having been born chronologically after Seth. Before chap. 5, it only mentions 3 sons, Cain, Abel and Seth.

On the point about building a city, it is fair. Even still, a community is still necessary besides a wife and kids. There would have to be either humans who are not family members of Adam/Eve or brothers/sisters of Cain’s coming with him. It still doesn’t track.

It says after Seth was born was when he lived 800 more years and had other sons and daughters. So if we are to take a literal approach to Genesis, then the spouse of Seth and Cain would have come from their younger sisters.

Since there are no clear timelines in Genesis, we don’t know when this city building happened exactly. It could have housed all children of Adam and Eve, or part of it.

 

[garysibio]

Allegorical! (I’m getting argumentative, think I’ve had too much coffee… )

Please provide any textual evidence that Genesis is to be taken as anything other than historical. (I should tell you that I have asked for this several times on the CAF and have yet to receive an answer. I’m not talking about a satisfactory answer, I mean any answer at all.)

 

[StarSapphire]

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?.. And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree,* I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries**, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally*

You needed only but to ask

(Origen Adamantius of Alexandria)

 

[garysibio]

It says after Seth was born was when he lived 800 more years and had other sons and daughters. So if we are to take a literal approach to Genesis, then the spouse of Seth and Cain would have come from their younger sisters.

Since there are no clear timelines in Genesis, we don’t know when this city building happened exactly. It could have housed all children of Adam and Eve, or part of it.

The fact that the text says that Adam and Eve had other children after Seth does not mean that they didn’t have other children besides Cain, Abel and Seth before that.

 

[garysibio]

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?.. And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree,* I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries***, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally

You needed only but to ask

(Origen Adamantius of Alexandria)

I asked for textual evidence, not the opinion of a heretic. Better luck next time.

 

[StarSapphire]

Textual? As in the bible text? It’s not exactly a treatise on the allegorical context of itself, is it.

Will you settle for the Catechism? The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

(And I am in two minds about heretics, seeing as one of our monarchs happily went round burning people for making the heretical mistake of following the catholic faith)

 

[garysibio]

Textual? As in the bible text? It’s not exactly a treatise on the allegorical context of itself, is it.

Will you settle for the Catechism? The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

(And I am in two minds about heretics, seeing as one of our monarchs happily went round burning people for making the heretical mistake of following the catholic faith)

The Church teaches that, although not every passage in the Bible is to be taken literally, it should be taken literally unless there is something about the context that makes a literal interpretation impossible or very unlikely. All I am asking for is something in the text itself that would satisfy this principle. What is it about the text that makes it impossible or unlikely that it was meant to be taken literally.

Jesus didn’t seem to think so. He referenced Genesis as if it were history. So does Paul.

I’m not particularly impressed with the quotation from the CCC considering it was authored by Cardinal Schoenborn who also permitted a homoerotic depiction of the Last Supper to be displayed on diocesan property. It is also not the textual evidence needed to reject Genesis as anything other than literal.

I don’t know what your point about the monarch has to do with Origen’s reliability. He taught heresy; he is not reliable.

 

[grannymh]

The Church teaches that, although not every passage in the Bible is to be taken literally, it should be taken literally unless there is something about the context that makes a literal interpretation impossible or very unlikely. All I am asking for is something in the text itself that would satisfy this principle. What is it about the text that makes it impossible or unlikely that it was meant to be taken literally.

Jesus didn’t seem to think so. He referenced Genesis as if it were history. So does Paul.

I’m not particularly impressed with the quotation from the CCC considering it was authored by Cardinal Schoenborn who also permitted a homoerotic depiction of the Last Supper to be displayed on diocesan property. It is also not the textual evidence needed to reject Genesis as anything other than literal.

I don’t know what your point about the monarch has to do with Origen’s reliability. He taught heresy; he is not reliable.

If you are referring to CCC 390, I do not find Cardinal Schoenborn as an author. Sources, listed in the footnotes, include the Council of Trent, Pius XII, Paul VI, and Gaudium et spes. In any case, the Council of Trent, Pius XII and Paul VI outrank him.

In my humble opinion, it is Divine Revelation as contained in Catholic doctrines which is primarily important.

 

[garysibio]

If you are referring to CCC 390, I do not find Cardinal Schoenborn as an author. Sources, listed in the footnotes, include the Council of Trent, Pius XII, Paul VI, and Gaudium et spes. In any case, the Council of Trent, Pius XII and Paul VI outrank him.

In my humble opinion, it is Divine Revelation as contained in Catholic doctrines which is primarily important.

It is my understanding that the CCC is the work of Cardinal Schoenborn. Exactly which one of the sources in the footnote denies the historical nature of Genesis?

BTW, regardless of who authored the CCC or who it quotes, it is still not the necessary textual evidence.

 

[grannymh]

It is my understanding that the CCC is the work of Cardinal Schoenborn. Exactly which one of the sources in the footnote denies the historical nature of Genesis?

BTW, regardless of who authored the CCC or who it quotes, it is still not the necessary textual evidence.

It is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who was responsible for the CCC. Cardinal Schoenborn may have been on the commission, I don’t know.

I thought you were looking for the historical affirmation of Adam and Eve which is what CCC 390 refers to. My mistake. Sorry about that.

 

[garysibio]

It is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who was responsible for the CCC. Cardinal Schoenborn may have been on the commission, I don’t know.

I thought you were looking for the historical affirmation of Adam and Eve which is what CCC 390 refers to. My mistake. Sorry about that.

Ratzinger was in charge but I believe Schoenborn was responsible for actually compiling it. I doubt that Ratzinger, as head of CDF, had the time to be very hands on.

I found this on cardinalschonborn.com/

After several years of ecclesiastical service in various pastoral and educational settings, Cardinal Schönborn has gained international prominence for his work as Director of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) the greatest single reference work on Catholic doctrine today.

 

[grannymh]

Ratzinger was in charge but I believe Schoenborn was responsible for actually compiling it. I doubt that Ratzinger, as head of CDF, had the time to be very hands on.

I found this on cardinalschonborn.com/
After several years of ecclesiastical service in various pastoral and educational settings, Cardinal Schönborn has gained international prominence for his work as Director of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) the greatest single reference work on Catholic doctrine today.

Thank you for the particular info.
Yes, I can understand someone compiling what has been previously taught for centuries. That is important and difficult work. When one looks at the list of citations for the Catechism, found in the hard cover version, one can only be in awe.

 

[garysibio]

Thank you for the particular info.
Yes, I can understand someone compiling what has been previously taught for centuries. That is important and difficult work. When one looks at the list of citations for the Catechism, found in the hard cover version, one can only be in awe.

While the CCC is a tremendous resource and is obviously the product of an incredible amount of work, not everything it contains is the historic teaching of the Catholic Church. Here is some quotes from Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis – June 30, 1909

Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation? – Reply: In the negative.

Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls? – Reply: In the negative to both parts.

Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? – Reply: In the negative.

In each case the Pontifical Biblical Commission ruled in favor of the literal reading of Genesis. There is much more to the document which can be found here.

 

[grannymh]

Gary J Sibio
If you would like to see my photos, click here.

I started looking at your photos. They are excellent.

 

[garysibio]

I started looking at your photos. They are excellent.

Thank you.