Catholics Say the Garden of Eden Wasn't Real

[prodigal-sun]

Joe Smith taught the Garden of Eden is in Missouri.

Guess the apple DOES fall far from the tree

I guess Joe never saw the Rocky Mountains in Alberta.

Peace!

 

[Contarini]

There may have been scribes in the past that thought that the first books were not literal but they are not in the majority.

I grant that. However, I have yet to hear that truth is determined by majority vote. The fact that some Christian theologians in premodern times could see the problems with taking these texts literally shows that the nonliteral position isn’t just a capitulation to modern ideas. But of course the rise of modern science has made the nonliteral interpretation seem a lot more plausible and the literal one much harder to defend.

The parallels between other ‘legends’ can easily be accountable the the possibility that the events actually occurred and other cultures handed down the story in a different(due to misunderstanding) or intentionally corrupted manner.

That is certainly one possibility. But why do you assume that it is the correct explanation? Isn’t it more likely that the Biblical version is the correct version *theologically *and mythically? Your view rests, in my opinion, on the typical modern error of thinking that myth is a clumsy attempt at scientific explanation. In fact, it’s a different kind of explanation altogether. Bad myth is a corruption of good myth, not of science.

The Creation story parallels other creation stories in only minor ways.

I don’t see that.

The Genesis story is unique and at odds with most others including the order in which creatures were created. Typically man would be first and the creatures created afterward. This is of course opposite and to our limited knowledge correct scientifically and the Genesis account.

The first Genesis account. The second one (in chapter 2) places the creation of animals after the creation of the man.

Genetic studies now think that there were two ancestors to the Human race. Not a bunch of monkeys evolving everywhere to something nearly exactly the same all over the earth for millions of years.

Sloppy terminology in describing the theory of evolution (“monkeys” rather than “primates”) doesn’t really make you sound more credible.

Geneticists do not think that the common male ancestor (Y-chromosomal Adam) and the common female ancestor (mitochondrial Eve) lived at the same time–one appears to have lived thousands of years after the other. So your account is a bit misleading here. But it’s certainly true that genetics points to a single geographical origin for the human race, and that this supports the Genesis narrative.

When I say that Genesis is not doing history and is not to be taken literally, I do not mean that it does not describe real events. I think it does.

Even if macro-evolution were possible (which it isnt DNA sequences to make new proteins are so mathematically impossible

I’m not sure what you mean by this. I think you mean “statistically improbable.” Mathematical impossibility would be something like 2 + 2 +5–I don’t think you mean that.

for a single one even based off of already existing proteins its ridiculous, and this would have to happen over and over and over millions of times in the proper sequence and there is NO transitory evidence at all in the fossil records)

There’s plenty of transitory evidence in the fossil records. I think you mean that we only have fossil evidence for a tiny fraction of the transitory forms that would have had to have existed if evolution were true.

there would be many different evolutions, not something that eventually evolves exactly the same everywhere.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. The human race, according to most scientists, evolved in only one place, as you noted above. That is not “evolving exactly the same everywhere.”

I personally think that people who believe the Genesis account is just a story trust more in the words of godless men than the Word of the Creator.

Given the muddled and inaccurate nature of your statements so far, I think it’s safe to say that your personal opinion is poorly informed.

Also if you believe at all in the infallible nature of the Church, then the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich confirm the actual happenings of what is described in Genesis.

I was not under the impression that the infallibility of the Catholic Church stood or fell with the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. I have yet to see any reason to accept those visions.

You say one part is just a story, then you say the prophecies were written after the fact, then you say Christ’s story was embellished even though the apostles were all executed (but John) over an embellished story to make people just ‘live better’. Then the whole bible becomes a moral guide story, or just another ‘religion’. With friends like this who needs enemies.

Truth matters.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Don’t you find it just a tiny bit presumptuous? “I’m not a Catholic, but I am going to tel Catholics what they believe.”

No, I don’t. Especially since I accurately reported what the CC says in relation to what the OP asked, while you gave a personal opinion which is not what the CC teaches. I have met many Catholics who believe things other than what the CC teaches.

Also if you believe at all in the infallible nature of the Church, then the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich confirm the actual happenings of what is described in Genesis. Unless you think those visions were just the Lords little “story to make the Jews feel better…” ‘Watch this part Anne, wow! there goes Satan! Like those effects?! This IS all in your mind, get it? And they say I dont have a sense of humor…’

I hate to tell you, but personal revelations are not taught to be part of the infallible revelation of the Catholic Church. Catholics are free to believe them or not, and the CC neither affirms nor deny their content. They only affirm them as compatible with Catholic teaching or incompatible, which is totally different.

 

[estesbob]

I have a lot of respect for the church and was dumbfounded recently by a comment that was made by two Catholic women. It was in reference to a local Catholic school and parish that promote the Garden of Eden was not real, but symbolic or a metaphor or a lesson.

1. Does the church teach this or are these people being misguided by information that would be against what the church promotes?
2. If what they think is true, how long has this been the church’s position? I just don’t see this as being their position in previous eras.

It is not now nor ever has been a Doctine of the catholic Church that the garden of eden didnt exist. A Catholic is free to beleive it did or did not as long as they accept the conceopt of original sin and that we descended from Adam and Eve. Keep in mind that there only about a half dozen verses in the Bible that the Church has definitive interpretations of. Not being shacked with Sola Scriptura the Church is not as concerned with parseing verse as our seperated bretheren are.

 

[grannymh]

Why do you think God didn’t have the authors write something along the lines of ’ This is an accuarate and historical account of creation and mans fall into sin’

Or

’ This is a metaphor or allegory to explain origins ’

Would that not have cleared up all future diasagreements amongst Christians?

What do you think? I ask, because I don’t if it’s intended to be historical or metaphorical.

Could it be that the people of that time knew more about God than we do now?
So there was no need to explain historical and allegory.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Why do you think God didn’t have the authors write something along the lines of ’ This is an accuarate and historical account of creation and mans fall into sin’

Or

’ This is a metaphor or allegory to explain origins ’

Would that not have cleared up all future diasagreements amongst Christians?

What do you think? I ask, because I don’t if it’s intended to be historical or metaphorical.

Probably because whether it’s metaphorical or not doesn’t matter that much in terms of affecting our salvation.

 

[KathleenGee]

There are myths but in them is truth. We don’t know the origins at this point…science can help…so we are not sure on the literal, but the faith events did happen…

 

[grannymh]

There are myths but in them is truth. We don’t know the origins at this point…science can help…so we are not sure on the literal, but the faith events did happen…

It is my humble observation, that there are Catholics who do not understand the importance of Catholic doctrines regarding Adam in the “garden”. Believe me I have read some pretty wild speculations.

When I started checking speculations against the actual universal* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, I was amazed at the depth of meaning concerning Adam and the meaning for us since we share in his human nature.

Catholicism is definitely sure that there were two sole parents of the human species.
Certain people object to this reality; however, I think that is because they don’t understand that humans are different from brute animals.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam in the “Garden” ** is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics is also very useful.