In the past I remembering hearing that passage described as meaning “near his heart”. (Adam’s rib).Do you have a choice in taking that portion of the biblical account literally or not?
Does anyone take that portion of the Genesis account literally? Why?
I am hoping there is a non literal meaning that is also compatible with being a catholic.Well, either God created Eve from Adam’s rib or not. There’s not much about that part of the Bible that can be taken in a figurative manner.
Out of curiosity, do you have an issue with the literal meaning?
That is a very acceptable position IMO. Is this example acceptable for belief? I refuse to take a literal meaning in this case. I don’t think Jews even have to either.In the past I remembering hearing that passage described as meaning “near his heart”. (Adam’s rib).
I don’t take it literally and doubt you have to. One could say it meant his soul (Eve came into existence with Adam, but originally only Adam was given the soul), or meant it emotionally. Why, out of curiosity, do you ask?Do you have a choice in taking that portion of the biblical account literally or not?
Does anyone take that portion of the Genesis account literally? Why?
I’m not a young woman and have been to many bible studies in my life. The Bible is so rich in meaning!That is a very acceptable position IMO. Is this example acceptable for belief? I refuse to take a literal meaning in this case. I don’t think Jews even have to either.
It is of great concern to some that science should dictate an interpretation of the work of God. How can this be? Since the Church considers knowledge discovered by man and also the knowledge given to it by divine revelation and held in the Deposit of Faith. If we confess that Jesus Christ was born, lived, died and rose again, from where do we add scientific explanations? If we believe Jesus literally raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers and did other things without scientific explanation, why do we stare at Genesis with suspicion?
Here, from the document Arcanum, Pope Leo XIII, tells us what the Church teaches in section 5:
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
I am sorry you misunderstood my question.
I am asking questions that are specific. Either you can answer them or you can not.
I refuse to take your link as answer to this question.
Changing goalposts.Yes, I believe that it is to be understood literally. And why not, as a Christian we believe that Christ rose from the dead in a glorified body, literally. And we believe that at Mass the bread and wine become literally the Body and Blood of Christ. Which is easier, for bread and wine to be turned into the Body and Blood of Christ (body, soul, blood and divinity) through every Mass in the whole world, or for God to make woman from a man’s rib?
I seek truth.I don’t take it literally and doubt you have to. One could say it meant his soul (Eve came into existence with Adam, but originally only Adam was given the soul), or meant it emotionally.** Why, out of curiosity, do you ask**?
Scientific in origin. Adam being created out of dust is actually aceptable to me from a scientific view.Forgive me if I am wrong. I am curious as to why you focus on this verse in particular like a few of the others before me. You seem to be at odds with this verse even though I remember Adam being created out of dust, or dirt. That is just as unbelievable.
Am I wrong in thinking that your objections are neither faith nor reason based but rather “feminine” in origin?
In 1996 scientists proved that a cell taken from a specific body part could recreate a whole individual. Dolly the sheep was cloned from cells taken from a mammary gland and became the exact replica of the donor.Scientific in origin. Adam being created out of dust is actually aceptable to me from a scientific view.
Google up Neil Tyson, maybe you need some more science in your life.
Without even trying to argue what you have posted here. I have to ask you this.In 1996 scientists proved that a cell taken from a specific body part could recreate a whole individual. Dolly the sheep was cloned from cells taken from a mammary gland and became the exact replica of the donor.
This should be adequate proof that cloning is not new to Almighty God. He created an exact female replica of Adam.
Male Adam, created with X and Y-chromosomes. Eve’s femininity due to her possessing a Y chromosome only. Adam being the life giver to X – male, and Y- female offspring.
You wanted scientific proof - Dolly is a scientific fact.Without even trying to argue what you have posted here. I have to ask you this.
Are you saying Eve is a clone and God was the first one to clone, yet cloning is immoral according to the church? Um. Okay.
There is no requirement in Catholic theology or doctrine that one take that passage of Genesis literally.Do you have a choice in taking that portion of the biblical account literally or not?
Does anyone take that portion of the Genesis account literally? Why?
What you are saying is that when God does something, it’s no longer immoral because he seems to choose a lot of immoral ways to get things done. I mean, immoral for us that is. Why couldn’t he have chosen morally acceptable ways, or I mean ways we realize are morally acceptable to do things in so many instances in the bible? Is that asking too much that he at least appear to be minimally as moral as we can be?You wanted scientific proof - Dolly is a scientific fact.
Almighty God will and can use any method He prefers.
It is not man’s province to play Creator / God and clone…
When we try to figure God out we can get in trouble with our thoughts. Everything God created is good, no matter how He did it.What you are saying is that when God does something, it’s no longer immoral because he seems to choose a lot of immoral ways to get things done. I mean, immoral for us that is. Why couldn’t he have chosen morally acceptable ways, or I mean ways we realize are morally acceptable to do things in so many instances in the bible? Is that asking too much that he at least appear to be minimally as moral as we can be?