Do you believe in Adam and Eve or Evolution?

[1voice]

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:

Then, in Genesis 2 this is contradicted:

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!

The problem that you see is due to poor translation of key words.

Two distinct and different Hebrew words are used for the word earth in the first 2 chapters of Genesis.
… The word used in G 1:11, for “earth”, which is ‘erets’ – is a word which has broad geographic connotations … like … the whole country or the whole earth.

In Gen 2:4-5 The Hebrew word ‘sadeh’ is used. It is used to refer to a specific geographic location. It refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture.

For example:

Gen. 23:12-13: “And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land 'erets], saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field [sadeh]; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there.”

Ex. 9:22 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land 'erets] of Egypt, upon man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field [sadeh], throughout the land 'erets] of Egypt.”

Lev. 25:2-3, “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land 'erets] which I give you, then shall the land 'erets] keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field [sadeh], and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof…”)

A key to understanding what is being described … is that verse 2:5 goes on to explain WHY there were no “plants of the field” – because a) there was no rain upon the earth, and b) there was no man to work the earth – the two key elements for agriculture. Thus, what this passage indicates is that there was as yet no organized agriculture, and that makes sense of the verses following, where God specifically plants the garden of Eden and places man to tend to it.

G2 is not indicating that there were no plants created yet at all, but that a special place was set aside for the foundation of agriculture and for plants “of the field” to be developed.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Basically, I believe in everything in the Bible. I don’t stress out too much about creation, I tend to take up the literal history from the patriarchs and all that. I mean Christianity/Judaism have done such good things in the world and for a million reasons theres way more reasons to believe in them then other religions, might as well just accept everything and go with it.

 

[ijf90]

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!

No, Mary was the only human immacuately conceived. Christ’s taking of the human flesh is referred to as The Incarnation. The Church has never declared any other human to have been conceived immaculate.

If I recall, I said “popularized by de Chardin”. Your statements do reflect his thoughts. Though de Chardin himself may have not specifically concocted the ideas you afore stated, he indeed shared them and is primarily responsible for their promulgation.

While St. Augustine and some other Saints in the early church did theorize that the days in Genesis could be metaphorical, the Church herself did not. Regarding St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, his mentor, believed in a 24 hour day consisting of day and night. I can assure you, more early church fathers maintained a literal interpretation of Genesis than those who did not. Also, I don’t think that those who did not believe in a 6-day creation were advocating evolution, theistic evolution, or any such idea.

I must say, I am very glad that you realize Adam and Eve were real individuals, the sole monogamous pair from which humanity is descended …if not, that’d be another whole debate!

God Bless you too!

 

[1voice]

“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.

Well then why even bother with the Bible… There are lots of ancient myths that convey deep truth.

 

[Ghosty]

The problem that you see is due to poor translation of key words.

Two distinct and different Hebrew words are used for the word earth in the first 2 chapters of Genesis.
… The word used in G 1:11, for “earth”, which is ‘erets’ – is a word which has broad geographic connotations … like … the whole country or the whole earth.

In Gen 2:4-5 The Hebrew word ‘sadeh’ is used. It is used to refer to a specific geographic location. It refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture.

For example:

Gen. 23:12-13: “And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land 'erets], saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field [sadeh]; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there.”

Ex. 9:22 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land 'erets] of Egypt, upon man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field [sadeh], throughout the land 'erets] of Egypt.”

Lev. 25:2-3, “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land 'erets] which I give you, then shall the land 'erets] keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field [sadeh], and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof…”)

A key to understanding what is being described … is that verse 2:5 goes on to explain WHY there were no “plants of the field” – because a) there was no rain upon the earth, and b) there was no man to work the earth – the two key elements for agriculture. Thus, what this passage indicates is that there was as yet no organized agriculture, and that makes sense of the verses following, where God specifically plants the garden of Eden and places man to tend to it.

G2 is not indicating that there were no plants created yet at all, but that a special place was set aside for the foundation of agriculture and for plants “of the field” to be developed.

The word erets is used in both chapters, so you’re wrong on that. Yes, plants of the field are spoken of, but it is erets in general that is being spoken of; if there were no plants of the field because it had not yet rained, then there couldn’t be other kinds of plants yet either. Another point is that in the second story the animals are made after man, while in the first they are made before.

ijf90:

No, Mary was the only human immacuately conceived. Christ’s taking of the human flesh is referred to as The Incarnation. The Church has never declared any other human to have been conceived immaculate.

The Church has never declared that Mary was the only one Immaculately conceived, however. Yes, Christ is called the Incarnation, but obviously He was conceived, and conceived Immaculately.

As for Chardin, my point is that the teachings of his which were condemned have nothing at all to do with what I’m talking about. His teachings which were condemned had to do with the evolution of God and spirituality (literally that we are evolving into God), not with biological evolution.

And for the Fathers, the Church has never condemned the teachings of the Fathers who understood Genesis metaphorically, so you can’t say that the Church has consistently taught a literalistic interpretation of Genesis; clearly many Bishops have not taught that, and they were never condemned for it.

Peace and God bless!