Do you believe in Adam and Eve?

[Thorolfr]

This is very interesting, but it is not, repeat not, Catholic teachings (plural intended).

There is nothing here against Catholic teaching. For example, according to a statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the International Theological Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

Also, according to Cardinal Ratzinger in In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

 

[grannymh]

There is nothing here against Catholic teaching. For example, according to a statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the International Theological Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63:

This is a committee report of what is happening in the natural sciences. It is not a Catholic doctrine.

Also, according to Cardinal Ratzinger in In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

Correct.

However, when a complementary reality proposes that a humanizing population of random breeding individuals in the thousands is the original maker of humankind…

There is Catholic opposition, because the Catholic doctrine is that the originating population of humankind is a population of two fully-complete, spirit and matter, sole true first real human persons.

 

[truetofaith]

There is nothing here against Catholic teaching. For example, according to a statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the International Theological Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63:

Also, according to Cardinal Ratzinger in In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

What you have quoted about evolution still doesn’t explain the formation of the female from the male’s rib.
Don’t Lutherans also believe that?

 

[clem456]

My question is as simple as that. I’m curious.

Do you believe in Adam and Eve?

No I believe in Jesus Christ.

I accept the Church’s teaching that God gave us two original truly human parents with a unity of body and soul, and the reality of original sin.

Do I believe that Genesis is a science textbook?
No. The Church has never proposed that Genesis is a literalist scientific explanation for creation. The Church does not propose to explain how the material form of the first two humans came to be (this makes some Christians very uncomfortable, to say the least)…

Does science disprove God’s omnipotent role in creation? No, science cannot disprove any article of faith.

 

[Contarini]

The stumbling block in this whole thread is not whether the Bible is True or where did God get the man & woman He calls Adam & Eve.

We start to stumble when we say God took 2, not fully evolved, primates and gave them souls to make them in His image & likeness.

God’s Word says after all the plants & animals were created, He made a ‘separate creation’ out of the ground, breathed His Life into his nostrils & called him Adam.
Now, after not finding a suitable mate for the man, Doctor God performs the first operation & forms a mate for Adam out of the man’s rib .Again, a ‘separate creation’ but Eve is from Adam’s own body.

This is what I don’t read in all these posts about Adam & Eve. :nope::coffeeread:

Because most people on this forum recognize that the early chapters of Genesis are clearly not historical accounts.

Creation “from the ground” could very easily refer to evolution.

You are looking for literalism and not finding it. Indeed. Your arguments for it so far have fallen severely short.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Then you’re saying God is a liar or maybe, forgetful?

No. We’re saying that God has an imagination.

Also that God inspired people to write according to the appropriate genre and cultural norms current in their societies.

When you lay off the straw men and actually start listening to what other people who differ with you think, then maybe a real conversation can start.

Edwin

 

[carmenp1]

In response to the theory of evolution, which is at odds with God’s account of creation; how can you believe in evolution and in God. Only one is right. The science on evolution has not been proved. The whole concept of an ape evolving into man requires more faith than to believe the genesis account of creation.
Carmen

 

[truetofaith]

Because most people on this forum recognize that the early chapters of Genesis are clearly not historical accounts.

Creation “from the ground” could very easily refer to evolution.

You are looking for literalism and not finding it. Indeed. Your arguments for it so far have fallen severely short.

Edwin

How could “Creation “from the ground” very easily refer to evolution?”
The Bible would instead say …‘God took a fish, a mammal or a primate & breathed life into it & called it - man!’
Everyone could understand that, without knowing evolution.

 

[carmenp1]

It’s not in many of these posts because the story of Adam and Eve is not a literal account of what happened. If we believe that the Bible is a literal account, then the earth is only about 6000 years old. But we know from science that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and we know from DNA that humans and chimpanzees and other apes share a common ancestor millions of years ago. Humans are not a separate creation.

If you don’t choose to believe God actually did everything He says He did, you are going to miss the one important message the bible is meant to deliver to us. You put your faith in science which requires a lot more faith, rather than God!

Without faith, it is impossible to please God. It was by faith Abraham received the promises God told him He would do. It was by faith In the New testament Jesus healed in some instances. It was by faith I got saved and was able to come into relationship with God, thru faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. It was by faith, believing that every word in the Old and New testaments are true. Every promise God gives in those pages are mine. I have seen God do some wonderful things for me. I believe God is true to His Word. As God says “let God be true and every man a liar”.
Carmen

 

[raroberto]

We have the usual complexity which reason (science) throws our way:

Geneticists believe that there must have been a pool of human beings that are the forebears of our species. This is also logical if God used evolution as a tool through the billions of years of our planet’s development (it’s only a long time to US – not HIM). Which I of course, I believe. I don’t think God created fictional fossil and genetic evidence to throw us off. Clearly no species could successfully propagate and reach a point where there were only two individuals – male and female – and then as their next trick – propagate successfully to the 7 billion plus people we are today.

But this does NOT contradict that there was an event where human beings disobeyed God – Adam and Eve or an entire tribe of early humans, thus resulting in our separation from God and original sin tainting us all. SOMEBODY offended God and I don’t think any of us think it had anything to do with an apple.

The universe is about 14 billion years old and our planet about 4 billion. The God of Creation clearly has a plan for salvation that human beings cannot possible conceive. Christians, who believe in the saving power of God made man in Jesus, just can’t know how long it took – or which acts of individual sin – brought us to the cross. Genesis is a human attempt to describe the work of God. We can’t be literalists, because God can NOT be reduced to words, nor the human mind rise to comprehend His mind.

 

[carmenp1]

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?

If you take the Bible, literally as an account of the things God says happened, then you will find upon reading it from Genesis to Revelation that God has given us an account of Adam and Eve in their sinless state, through to their fall into sin. He cursed man and the earth and you can look around today and see it’s effect everywhere you look. When Adam sinned, he was no longer able to stay in God’s presence. He walked and talked with God in the garden prior to falling into a sinful state. There you see the first instance of man being at enmity with God. God’s character is Holy. To enter into His presence with sin would have resulted in death. All through the Old Testament, you can see how God put in place a way for man to communicate with Him. Numbers 8:14 “Thus you shall separate the Levites from among the children of Israel, and the Levites shall be Mine.” I will take you to Hebrews 9:13 “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” So, until Christ’s death on the cross, God established blood sacrifice for the sins of His people which the Levites only could do. Offering the blood of goats and calves on the alter of the Tabernacle. But Christ’s blood was the final sacrifice for sin once, and for all. This was necessary why? Hebrews 10:4 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” He takes us through His plan of redemption. Its really simple. Adam & Eve were deceived. They disobeyed God. God judged that sin. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ to die in our place so by faith, in Him we could be reconciled to God, forgiven and restored to God. No longer at enmity with God. Unless you take God’s Word by faith from Genesis to Revelation, you will miss the redemption, the salvation God has given to us by grace.
Carmen

 

[grannymh]

Regarding the real possibility of Adam and Eve.

Personally, I don’t see any problem with an expert in agriculture and animal husbandry raising a large family along with his intelligent and talented spouse.

 

[carmenp1]

We have the usual complexity which reason (science) throws our way:

Geneticists believe that there must have been a pool of human beings that are the forebears of our species. This is also logical if God used evolution as a tool through the billions of years of our planet’s development (it’s only a long time to US – not HIM). Which I of course, I believe. I don’t think God created fictional fossil and genetic evidence to throw us off. Clearly no species could successfully propagate and reach a point where there were only two individuals – male and female – and then as their next trick – propagate successfully to the 7 billion plus people we are today.

But this does NOT contradict that there was an event where human beings disobeyed God – Adam and Eve or an entire tribe of early humans, thus resulting in our separation from God and original sin tainting us all. SOMEBODY offended God and I don’t think any of us think it had anything to do with an apple.

The universe is about 14 billion years old and our planet about 4 billion. The God of Creation clearly has a plan for salvation that human beings cannot possible conceive. Christians, who believe in the saving power of God made man in Jesus, just can’t know how long it took – or which acts of individual sin – brought us to the cross. Genesis is a human attempt to describe the work of God. We can’t be literalists, because God can NOT be reduced to words, nor the human mind rise to comprehend His mind.

Why are you trying to line up the whole theory of evolution with what God’s Word says? Does God agree with you, that you can discard some bits of the Bible and throw out others when they bring conflict to what science says happened? Jesus Himself quotes God in Matthew 4:4 "But He answered and said, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”

You are now at enmity with God when you say “…we can’t be literalistis, because God can NOT be reduced to words…”

You try to explain away things God’s Word says He did that you cannot take at face value. God populated earth in 6 thousand years. Not billions. You cannot comprehend how God did this? How do you then comprehend the concept that God created Man from the dust of the earth? This is why God says in Isaiah 55:8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts"
Humility will drive you to a place of wonderment at the awesome power of God.

If you say “The God of Creation clearly has a plan for salvation that human beings cannot possible conceive” you are saying that God has provided salvation, planned it for us but did not make it understandable to us? How can we avail ourselves of His Grace and salvation if we are unable to conceive or understand it? In fact that’s why the Bible has to be taken literally, from Genesis to Revelation. If you don’t believe it you will not be able to understand what you need to do to be saved. The truth and simplicity of the Bible will escape you because of your lack of faith and trust in God.

You say: “…just can’t know how long it took – or which acts of individual sin – brought us to the cross.” The sin of disobedience to God that Adam and Eve committed in the garden was the individual sin that brought us to the cross. This is not a mystery. We tend to view sin in a way that is not scriptural. A lie is a little sin. Murder is a big sin. But does God view sin that way? Can we enter into his presence in a state of sin that in our eyes are minor sins? Who will answer this question for you? Search the bible and nowhere will you find God making a reference to big and small sins, or mortal and venial sins. That is man’s concept not God’s. Romans 6:20 “For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”

There is one unforgivable sin. That is the sin against the Holy Spirit.

You say: "…This is also logical if God used evolution as a tool through the billions of years of our planet’s development (it’s only a long time to US – not HIM). Which I of course, I believe… " What are you basing your belief on? “if God used evolution” To say this you are trying to mesh the theory of evolution with God’s Word. What if God didn’t use evolution. Is it still logical? If not, what are you left with? There are lots of problems with your way of viewing God and His plan for redemption. The single, important theme which God is giving us in the bible is that we are in a fallen state. Dead in our sins. We need to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. His blood pays for our sins and we can be reconciled to God. Simple. You cloud the truth and miss the whole purpose of God’s Word. Forget anything that takes you away from the literal Word of God. The theory of evolution which is only a theory, unproven requires faith to believe in it. So does God’s Word. It requires your faith to believe that God’s Word is the truth. Choose which one you will believe. But don’t try and believe both. Because 1 of them is a lie. Have you read the Bible? If not I would get started, beginning at Matthew. Then tackle the Old Testament.

Carmen

 

[clem456]

…
Why are you trying to line up the whole theory of evolution with what God’s Word says? Does God agree with you, that you can discard some bits of the Bible and throw out others when they bring conflict to what science says happened?
…

Is the bible a science textbook?

 

[Hans_W]

In response to the theory of evolution, which is at odds with God’s account of creation; how can you believe in evolution and in God. Only one is right. The science on evolution has not been proved. The whole concept of an ape evolving into man requires more faith than to believe the genesis account of creation.
Carmen

Carmen, not sure what denomination you belong to, but we Catholics accept that God created the diversity of the living world through the process of evolution. We call it Theistic Evolution.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Carmen, not sure what denomination you belong to, but we Catholics accept that God created the diversity of the living world through the process of evolution. We call it Theistic Evolution.

… while also believing that there was a first couple from which all subsequent humans arose.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Is the bible a science textbook?

Does the bible accurately represent real events?

 

[davidv]

Does the bible accurately represent real events?

11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

 

[Contarini]

In response to the theory of evolution, which is at odds with God’s account of creation; how can you believe in evolution and in God. Only one is right.

The burden of proof is on you to show that this is true.

To my mind the theory of evolution shows how marvelous God’s work of creation is.

The science on evolution has not been proved. The whole concept of an ape evolving into man requires more faith than to believe the genesis account of creation.
Carmen

I don’t see this, myself. Clearly creation is wondrous however it happened.

But the evidence for evolution is, in fact, overwhelming, and most of the arguments against it turn out to be naive or even dishonest.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

How could “Creation “from the ground” very easily refer to evolution?”
The Bible would instead say …‘God took a fish, a mammal or a primate & breathed life into it & called it - man!’
Everyone could understand that, without knowing evolution.

How on earth do you know what the Bible “would say”?

How are you such an expert on how the Almighty God ought to express himself using human authors who wrote in a culture radically different from your own?

Creation from the ground implies that humans weren’t created out of nothing but out of previous creation.

You are, again, reading in a woodenly literal manner. Why?

Why would you expect a divinely revealed account of creation to read like a cookbook recipe? (Actually I have some cookbooks that are quite imaginative, but hopefully you get the point. . . . )

Edwin