R
religioussoup
Guest
My question is as simple as that. I’m curious.
- Status
M
MichaelHowling
Guest
Of course…there must have been 2 first human beings.
As far as the story goes in genesis I believe in the religious truth revealed in the old testament. I don’t purport that the creation story is EXACTLY how it went down. But I do believe in the religious truth revealed in it…historical truth? well, that’s not what the scriptures purpose is to give (although it is possible and I am fully open to it).
As far as the story goes in genesis I believe in the religious truth revealed in the old testament. I don’t purport that the creation story is EXACTLY how it went down. But I do believe in the religious truth revealed in it…historical truth? well, that’s not what the scriptures purpose is to give (although it is possible and I am fully open to it).
E
edwest2
Guest
Yes. They are our two first parents.
From a Catholic Answers tract:
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. 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” (CCC 390).”
Ed
From a Catholic Answers tract:
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. 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” (CCC 390).”
Ed
D
Dorothy
Guest
Also, see the Encyclical “Humani Generis”.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Yes I believe in Adam and Eve.
M
mdgspencer
Guest
If there were no first people, there would be no us.
Furthermore, some aspects of their story underline important Christian doctrines. Such as original sin, which comes from the fall of Adam and Eve. So much of their story as in the Bible’s account would have actually occurred.
The Church however has long accepted that much of the story of creation and Adam and Eve can be seen as poetic rather than literal. When it comes to this aspect of their story, what is expressed poetically is something I believe.
Furthermore, some aspects of their story underline important Christian doctrines. Such as original sin, which comes from the fall of Adam and Eve. So much of their story as in the Bible’s account would have actually occurred.
The Church however has long accepted that much of the story of creation and Adam and Eve can be seen as poetic rather than literal. When it comes to this aspect of their story, what is expressed poetically is something I believe.
A
AyJSimon
Guest
Here’s something I’ve wondered about. Lots of Catholics claim not to be literalists, particularly w/r/t the story of Creation in Genesis. Yet, it feels like many of these same Catholics have no problem talking about Adam & Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the “Fall of Man” as though these were actual people, places, and events.
It’s the “fall of man” bit that I find problematic here. If the events depicted in Genesis didn’t literally happen, what was “the fall of man,” exactly? Are we really talking about two people who once lived uncorrupted by sin, but someone did something to bring the concept of Original Sin into the world?
It’s the “fall of man” bit that I find problematic here. If the events depicted in Genesis didn’t literally happen, what was “the fall of man,” exactly? Are we really talking about two people who once lived uncorrupted by sin, but someone did something to bring the concept of Original Sin into the world?
E
edwest2
Guest
An individual Adam and individual Eve sinned. That made it necessary for Jesus to become true man and true God and to create a New Covenant and means of salvation.
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
T
truetofaith
Guest
Yes. If you don’t believe in Adam & Eve, you don’t believe the Bible. Therefore you’re calling God a liar, right from the start!
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Yes, the Church requires the faithful to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, our first parents. That does not mean that Genesis is completely literal. But God did something special to our first parents to make them in his image. To separate us from the Animals.
I personally believe God used evolution to develop the human form, and at the right time he set aside two…Adam and Eve… and breathed their souls into them and they became the first true humans as we know it.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
In a word…yes… to deny the fall of man and the true principles found in Genesis is to basically say its all just naturalism and there is nothing special about man and jesus did not need to come, and he did nothing on the cross, and there is no after life…etc…etc… It completely unravels/snowballs
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
First, I find it interesting, and hopeful, that the idea of one man and one woman being the first humans doesn’t pose a problematic issue for you. It doesn’t for me, either, even though I am an evolutionist.
Original sin could have been any number of things. And it must have been once certain thing.
Man fell when he ceased to fully put his trust in the God who created him. When Eve and Adam willfully chose to refuse to believe God, and sought to be “like God”, “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”, as the saying goes, that is when man fell.
St. Paul contrasts this desire to usurp Godship, to be like God without God, with Jesus in a hymn in his letter to the Philippians:
This hymn is a commentary not only on Christ, but on Adam. This is why the sin of Adam, whatever it was, is so serious. It desired to make Adam something he was not, and should not be: God without God.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A man who seeks to play God, without God’s support - have we not seen enough of this sort of thing in our own times to know it is a bad idea? And you wonder why God severely punished Adam for seeking to be God without His supervision?
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Evening TarkanAttila: Do you think that it might have been eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? This is how the bible gives account of the act.
All the best,
Gary
B
baliano
Guest
During the great flood all the world was destroyed except for Noah and those whom God directed him to save. If this is Biblical narrative is as true as the Adam and Eve narrative then doesn’t it follow that the present world population is actually descended from Noah and his family? For those who enjoy calculating population growth this would reset the starting point significantly. Of course through Noah we ultimately get back to Adam and Eve so there is no danger of disputing that belief.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good Evening Baliano: I hope all is well with you today. I have wondered about the Great Flood since I was a child. I have never been able to figure out where the water came from and where it went. For instance, if one were able to raise all the water from all the oceans, streams, lakes, rivers, ponds and every water source available on the planet and then rained it all back down on the planet, wouldn’t it just refill the oceans, streams, lakes, rivers and ponds you raised it from? Where did the water comes from and where did it go?
All the best,
Gary
M
marlap2
Guest
Yes.
And I concur with most of the great answers.
And I concur with most of the great answers.
P
powerofk
Guest
Sure that’s how the Bible gives account. Honestly, though, I think the rest gives a clue. In my mind, the “fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (never described in the Bible as an apple, by the way - different cultures have actually different ideas about what type of fruit it is) is a metaphor - it’s the gaining of some “forbidden” knowledge. But what is the temptation? To be like God. It continues to be the prime temptation of humanity - we are always trying to take on God’s creative powers. We, as humans, continue to repeat the same sin propogated by Adam and Eve. Were they real? Of course. But we don’t really know how they fell to that first temptation to try to be like God. I read somewhere that the domestication of plants fits the bill. Regardless, though, even though the Earth is more than 6000 years old (billions of years old, in fact) - civilization really is about 6000 years old. And, according to the Bible, Cain built the first cities.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
It could have been. But what the tree’s fruit was - Knowledge-giving, giving the capability to be good or evil - is more important.
I have no horse for or against a literal interpretation of Genesis. My honest opinion is agnosticism. What I do know is that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and wrought original sin upon the human race, and man has suffered for it ever since. And it was this sin for which Our Lord climbed onto the Tree of the cross and became God’s Tree of Knowledge, from which we may eat and become like God.
In other words, even if God made a literal tree in a literal garden that a literal man and woman ate the literal fruit of, God gave us a superior Tree that may as well have been that tree. And that Tree is the Cross.
P
pianistclare
Guest
yes. Me too.
- Status