Do you believe in Adam and Eve or Evolution?

[Ghosty]

One explanation might be that the overall process of creating the earth is outlined in the first chapter … and then the second chapter goes back and describes exactly where man was introduced into the outline…
It doesnt seem to specifically say that God created Adam after the end of the 6th or 7th day.

Another possibility: God created the environment that would accomodate plants … and planted the seeds… but they did not begin to grow until Adam was brought into the picture.

Plants were created and grew on the Third Day according to Chapter one of Genesis, and Adam and Eve were created on the Sixth Day:

9] And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11] And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so.
12] **The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
**13] And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

…

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28] And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
29] And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.
[31] And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Then, in Genesis 2 this is contradicted:

In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5] ** when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up – for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground**;
6] but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground –
7] then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
8] And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9] And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

So, if the story of Genesis is to be taken literalistically, which was it? I contend that this makes it obvious that the story is not intended to be taken literalistically, but rather as an exposition of the Truth to be understood and passed down as a memorable story; if God had meant the story as literalistic fact He would not have included contradictions. This doesn’t mean that Adam and Eve weren’t real people; they were, or else Original Sin has no meaning. It just means that the accounts of Genesis are figurative, and the CCC says as much.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

^This idea, popularized by Teilhard de Chardin (the Eclessiastical Monitum against de Chardin’s teachings still stands by the way), is completely heretical! Prior to the Original Sin, creation was perfect and harmonious. These first humans that you say God bestowed a soul upon while conceived in the womb of an ape-like beast, initially, would have been without sin. They would have been conceived immaculate. This completely contradicts Church teaching that Mary the Mother of God is the only human to be conceived immaculate. She is THE Immaculate Conception, not an immaculate conception, not the third immaculate conception. A genuine, literal interpretation of Genesis (which the church has upheld and taugh since her beginings) has no conflictions with the Immaculate Conception of Mary because the Bible states that Adam was created “out of the clay of the ground”.

First off, the Church does not teach that Mary alone was Immaculately Conceived; obviously Jesus was also Immaculate at conception. Furthermore my statements don’t fall under the teachings of Chardin’s which were condemned. Chardin’s views cover an entirely different approach to evolution, including “spiritual evolution” and “the evolution of God”, and those were, and are, condemned. I’m saying absolutely nothing of that sort.

As for the Church having upheld a literal interpretation of Genesis from the beginning, this is simply false. A simple reading of St. Augustine will show this isn’t true. Many of the Church Fathers believed that the “days” in Genesis were symbolic, not literalistic.

Again, I believe that Adam and Eve were real individuals, and truly the progenitors of humanity as we know it. I don’t believe we can have Original Sin without their very real existence, as if they represent a group of “first people”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Lui]

Must Catholics believe as an article of faith that all human beings have descended from two real human beings, Adam and Eve?

"Fr. Joe Answers:

Contemporary Catholic biblical scholars tell us that the stories found in the book of Genesis are not meant to be a source of historical or scientific fact as we understand those terms today. Rather, they are meant to convey religious truth. In the words of one Catholic spiritual leader, “the purpose of the Bible is not to tell us how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.”

…In short,there is no necessary contradiction between scientific theories of evolution Catholic belief. Moreover,** Catholics are not obligated to believe that the story of “first parents” named Adam and
Eve as told in the book of Genesis is historical fact.** They are, however, called to believe the religious truths which the Genesis story proclaims, namely:

1. That God played the ultimate role in all creation.
2. That God played the ultimate role in the creation of the human being.
3. That God created the soul which gives the human person an inherent dignity and the capacity for a relationship of love with God."
   bustedhalo.com/questionbox/must-catholics-believe-as-an-article-of-faith-that-all-human-beings-have-descended-from-two-real-human-beings-adam-and-eve

 

[buffalo]

Nothing. I don’t think that I need to believe that Noah actually built a boat with billions of species on board.
It says no where that Catholics have to believe in the literal interpretation of all stories in the Bible.

"What do Catholics believe about Adam and Eve?"
Catholics don’t believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. The Catechism explains belief in original sin as Genesis giving a figurative account of a “primeval event” that occurred at the beginning of humankind’s existence. Our first parents - regardless of what names they had - sinned. And their sin was larger than them. Its roots were in the kind of evil that exists in opposition to God. So as a Catholic you don’t have to believe in Adam and Eve as historic person, but you do have to believe in the original sin of humanity, a sin that leaves a mark on every human since the very first.
saintjamesacademy.com/why.html

Billion species at Noah’s time? Gotta source?

Catholics interpret Scripture as to what the author intended to convey, guarded by the Magisterium and protected by the Holy Spirit.

Here is the constant teaching and understanding of the Church:

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[Lui]

Billion species at Noah’s time? Gotta source?

Ok, I exaggerated a bit but there are at least 10 million different species that existed even at Noah’s times. Did Noah have all the existing invertebrates, reptiles, mammals(including lamas and alpacas from the Andes, kangaroos and koalas from Australia), birds and amphibians on board?

 

[1voice]

Nothing. I don’t think that I need to believe that Noah actually built a boat with billions of species on board.
It says no where that Catholics have to believe in the literal interpretation of all stories in the Bible.

saintjamesacademy.com/why.html

So you can consider the Bible a mythology?

 

[Lui]

So you can consider the Bible a mythology?

No, but Catholics aren’t told to believe that ALL stories of the Bible are to be taken literally. I know that certain fundamentalists believe this but Catholics don’t.
Not even the Pope believes that every story of the Bible is to be taken literally:

 

[Publisher]

So you can consider the Bible a mythology?

“Myth” does not mean “untrue”…a “myth” is a story…which may or may not contain historical truth…but seeks to convey deep Truth in the contents of the “myth”.

I do not believe in a “literal” Adam and Eve, formed out of the dust of the ground…or she out of Adam’s rib…the first chapters of Genesis are to declare that God created all that is…and sought to answer in a mythic story how death and pain entered into the world…kind of a Hebrew “Pandora’s Box” type story.

Same with Noah…and perhaps Abraham and Moses…Abraham and Moses may be mythic compilations of many historical figures which eventually “made up” the characters of Abraham and Moses…The Pentatuch is a mythic telling of the origins of Israel…not factual history necessarily.

 

[RobbyS]

I have been struggling with this too.

I voted evolution, i take Adam and Eve to be symbolism but i would hope the literal creation story to be true so it can strengthen my faith!

Symbolic of what? That’s maybe the question. If Genesis is taken as a revelation from God, then what is revealed? The Church insists on the reality of the moral unity of mankind and of the Fall. I have read that we might think of the Creation stories as vision/s of the mystery of human origins, and the role of God in it, and his relkation to mankind. In visions, the Seer always sees in accordance with his experience. Thus, Lucia heard the Lady and the angels speak in her own language and assumed forms familiar to her. Likewise, the Seer of the Genesis story(ies) uses images peculiar to his age and experience. But he sees truths that science can no more recover than it seems able to fathom the nature of human thought.

 

[noobio]

“Myth” does not mean “untrue”…a “myth” is a story…which may or may not contain historical truth…but seeks to convey deep Truth in the contents of the “myth”.

I do not believe in a “literal” Adam and Eve, formed out of the dust of the ground…or she out of Adam’s rib…the first chapters of Genesis are to declare that God created all that is…and sought to answer in a mythic story how death and pain entered into the world…kind of a Hebrew “Pandora’s Box” type story.

Same with Noah…and perhaps Abraham and Moses…Abraham and Moses may be mythic compilations of many historical figures which eventually “made up” the characters of Abraham and Moses…The Pentatuch is a mythic telling of the origins of Israel…not factual history necessarily.

So, would you consider, Jacob, Joseph, Ruth Joshua, Gideon, Samson, Saul, David or Solomon as mythical characters too ? How do you know who is a mythical character and who isn’t mythical.

 

[buffalo]

Ok, I exaggerated a bit but there are at least 10 million different species that existed even at Noah’s times. Did Noah have all the existing invertebrates, reptiles, mammals(including lamas and alpacas from the Andes, kangaroos and koalas from Australia), birds and amphibians on board?

You sure did. Now species is a recent classification. Gotta a source for how many were around at Noah’s time?

 

[acarlson]

Can’t take the creation story literally, seeing as how there are two different stories, one after the other. I also accept evolution - directed by God - as legitimate. I believe, however, that humans came from two distinct people created by God and NOT as a random genetic off-shoot of apes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I couldn’t answer the poll because I don’t see them as being necessarily inconsistent. I don’t even think evolution precludes a single Adam and a single Eve from whom we are all descended. I do think it’s very interesting to think about how that could have been. But the fact is, we weren’t there, and we don’t know.

 

[RobbyS]

“Myth” does not mean “untrue”…a “myth” is a story…which may or may not contain historical truth…but seeks to convey deep Truth in the contents of the “myth”.

I do not believe in a “literal” Adam and Eve, formed out of the dust of the ground…or she out of Adam’s rib…the first chapters of Genesis are to declare that God created all that is…and sought to answer in a mythic story how death and pain entered into the world…kind of a Hebrew “Pandora’s Box” type story.

Same with Noah…and perhaps Abraham and Moses…Abraham and Moses may be mythic compilations of many historical figures which eventually “made up” the characters of Abraham and Moses…The Pentatuch is a mythic telling of the origins of Israel…not factual history necessarily.

Abarham does not seem mythical to me. Rather very much like sheiks who lived in the Middle East until recent times. No wonder Mohammed identified with him! Details may be wrong: there were probably no domesticted camels until much later, but the characters in his story seem very human. There is not much that is supernatural in the Abrahamic stories. They and much of what follows seem more legendary than mythical.

 

[Publisher]

So, would you consider, Jacob, Joseph, Ruth Joshua, Gideon, Samson, Saul, David or Solomon as mythical characters too ? How do you know who is a mythical character and who isn’t mythical.

Joseph, Jacob, Samson and Ruth…yes…Gideon, Saul, David and Solomon…most likely real characters…but with mythic stories woven around them…the farther back toward the “beginning” would be mythical stories relaying Truth…Truth is not dependant on each character being a “single character” but could be compilations of men and women who played a significant role in Israel being established as a nation of the ancient near east…I see no need to embrace these characters as real individuals…it certainly makes it easy to do so…but history is much more complicated…especially a religious history seeking to establish the prominence of their tribal god as the “one True God.”

 

[RobbyS]

Can’t take the creation story literally, seeing as how there are two different stories, one after the other. I also accept evolution - directed by God - as legitimate. I believe, however, that humans came from two distinct people created by God and NOT as a random genetic off-shoot of apes.

I accept evolution so long as they don’t try to say too much about human origins, or the origins of life. I insist that we must start with the fact that there are radical differences between man and even his closest biological relations. Many try to minimize the differences between the human intellect and the minds of the other animals. At one and the same time, the Darwinists insist on our unity with the rest of nature with their inability to fathon the nature of human intelligence, which divides us from it.

 

[Lui]

You sure did. Now species is a recent classification. Gotta a source for how many were around at Noah’s time?

Since I don’t believe that the earth is only 6000 years old I assume that they all existed or at least about the same amount. I don’t think the animal kingdom has changed much in this period except for domestic animals. There were probably a lot more species because many are extinct due to human civilization.

 

[RobbyS]

I couldn’t answer the poll because I don’t see them as being necessarily inconsistent. I don’t even think evolution precludes a single Adam and a single Eve from whom we are all descended. I do think it’s very interesting to think about how that could have been. But the fact is, we weren’t there, and we don’t know.

So far as science is concerned, we can’t know. We can play with the math and the DND and posulate a distant ancester, but even that is problematical.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So far as science is concerned, we can’t know. We can play with the math and the DND and posulate a distant ancester, but even that is problematical.

Yup. And I think the Adam and Eve story, if we knew it in full, could be even more marvelous than we could possibly imagine.

 

[noobio]

Joseph, Jacob, Samson and Ruth…yes…Gideon, Saul, David and Solomon…most likely real characters…but with mythic stories woven around them…the farther back toward the “beginning” would be mythical stories relaying Truth…Truth is not dependant on each character being a “single character” but could be compilations of men and women who played a significant role in Israel being established as a nation of the ancient near east…I see no need to embrace these characters as real individuals…it certainly makes it easy to do so…but history is much more complicated…especially a religious history seeking to establish the prominence of their tribal god as the “one True God.”

Why is it that Joseph, Jacob Samson are some how mythical and the others are not ? How do you pick and choose ? Can I also believe that some of Jesus’ life was a myth ?