Does the Creation of Eve Contradict Theistic Evolution?

[rossum]

have you any straight quote from OTBible that men before Adam didn’t have a soul?

My post gave a common TE interpretation of Genesis 2:7 - "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. "

do you mean that since the men before had no souls, they did not feel any pain if they got hurt?

No. Animals do not have souls and they can feel pain. Pain is due to electrical impulses in certain nerves and those nerves are present in animals. No soul is needed for pain perception any more than it is for sight or smell.

rossum

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

My post gave a common TE interpretation of Genesis 2:7 - "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. "

The human body is formed of the same type of matter as the dust of the ground. In a sense Genesis is right up there with modern biochemistry.
However the actual story of Adam being moulded from clay and Eve made from his rib is a myth. It is contrary to our scientific understanding of where the human body came from. Which in a sense the authors of Genesis accept, because in an earlier chapter they tell a contradictory story of the world being called into being in six days.

 

[Ahimsa]

Genesis operates on different levels of symbolism and empiricism. On one level, “adam” represents the “earth”, the inorganic basis for life; and “eve” represents “the mother of all living”, or “life itself”. The story of Eve coming from Adam, symbolizes life “eve-volving” from the inorganic processes of the primeval earth.

 

[jmcrae]

No. According to the Church, a human is both a body and a soul. The organisms before Adam had bodies like ours but no souls, so they were not human in the theological sense. In Genesis 2 the creation of Adam is a two stage process - body from clay followed by the “breath of life”. Evolution merely covers the body from clay stage in more detail.

rossum

I’m sorry, but this is even harder for me to believe than that human beings (Adam and Eve) simply appeared from the dust of the ground.

If the soul is the form and life of the body, then how could a body that doesn’t have a human soul have the same form as a human body? (The soul is that which is missing when the body is dead. Notice that the dead body immediately begins to disintigrate as soon as the soul is gone from it. Not only does it cease to move of its own volition, it also ceases to retain its form.)

Also, there is no such thing as not having a soul. Everything that has a form has a soul. But, not everything has a human soul or a spiritual soul that can survive the death of the body.

Cats have cat souls, dogs have dog souls, trees have tree souls, etc.

 

[freesoulhope]

Does it matter how God created her? For Christianity to be true it only matters that He did create her, he created her using Adam in some way and she was created equal with him.

I personally agree with this stance; however the only question that keeps kicking me in the ribs, is not how Adam and Eve was created, but what are we to make of the biblical “timeline” in relation to the “descendants” of Adam and Eve, (as its seen written in the bible), when we are faced with the science’s, and the things that have been revealed to us through the principles of evolution and paleontology; I think that’s the real question. The reason being, it puts Adam and Eve about 10 000 years back in to the past, where as some scientist think that, human-like-beings, where doing creative things as much as 100 000 years in to the past.

I have heard ideas such as “they didn’t have a souls”, but I am finding that a bit hard to swallow when considering the things that these creatures were seemingly able to do, such as make weapons.

Secondly, when the bible has a lay out such as…

“Roy lived a thousand years, and then had a son by Susan, called Troy; then Troy grew tall and had children with Claire. These children where called Sam and Tom, and they lived 500 years before giving birth to Mizedeck, and so on and so forth…”

…One cannot help but think that the author has meant for me to think of this as “real” history, leading up to the present day.

Are we dealing with real history here? Or are we dealing with allegorical stories representing some truth about God and his people? The Pope doesn’t seem to give much le-way when people utter the concept of Adam and Eve being a universal image representing a community of people, rather then two distinct persons. This leaves very few options.

To those who have problems with doubt; please do not take this post negatively; I have faith that there is a good and positive answer; it’s just that I am eager to know it. I am not, and I refuse to be, one of those people that just accept everything on faith. My faith hasn’t become what it is now, by not questioning and reasoning; rather my faith is stronger because I question, and I have faith that there is a positive answer.

Peace.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I don’'t think it contradicts theistic evolution. I just wonder in what capacity did God mean that man should not be alone. If he were the only human amongst homo sapiens, then indeed, he would have been alone.

Like others, I take the phrase “image and likeness” to be that Adam was similar to God by means of his soul. The breath of God was associated with the creation of Adam when he blew into his nostrils the breath of life. The rib, being so closely linked to breathing, could have been a literary device used to express that Eve’s soul was made from a part of Adam’s soul.

 

[freesoulhope]

The rib, being so closely linked to breathing, could have been a literary device used to express that Eve’s soul was made from a part of Adam’s soul.

I think that the author was more expressing the “bond” between Adam and Eve as two people completing eacthother; becoming Lovers, uniting as “one being”, like the trinity is one God. I don’t believe that we have to think that Eve was actually made out of Adam. Rather its like poetry expressing a very strong emotional joining of two persons. Its more about a relationship between a man and a wo-man. The words “fleah of my flesh” and “Blood of my Blood” these are very personal and powerfull words expressing their “likeness” of eachother, for Eve is Like Adam, they are both “persons”. The author is expressing that man would be lonely or incomplete with out a women. Adam was seeking Eve, and God (being Love) brought Adam and Eve together. I believe that Adam Eve were real persons in History, but to take the story literally, not only blurs the deeper meaning behind the story, but makes the story unreasonable if taken to be real history.

I also feel that story is also a reaction to certain heresys and sins in the times of the author, and that the story was meant to be a teaching tool about God more then a actually dipiction of real history. That is not to say that Adam and Eve were not real; but their fall and creation most certainly did not, in my opinon, happen like how it is dipicted in genesis.

What do you think of my point of veiw?

 

[pprimeau1976]

I think that the author was more expressing the “bond” between Adam and Eve as two people completing eacthother; becoming Lovers, uniting as “one being”, like the trinity is one God. I don’t believe that we have to think that Eve was actually made out of Adam. Rather its like poetry expressing a very strong emotional joining of two persons. Its more about a relationship between a man and a wo-man. The words “fleah of my flesh” and “Blood of my Blood” these are very personal and powerfull words expressing their “likeness” of eachother, for Eve is Like Adam, they are both “persons”. The author is expressing that man would be lonely or incomplete with out a women. Adam was seeking Eve, and God (being Love) brought Adam and Eve together. I believe that Adam Eve were real persons in History, but to take the story literally, not only blurs the deeper meaning behind the story, but makes the story unreasonable if taken to be real history.

I also feel that story is also a reaction to certain heresys and sins in the times of the author, and that the story was meant to be a teaching tool about God more then a actually dipiction of real history. That is not to say that Adam and Eve were not real; but their fall and creation most certainly did not, in my opinon, happen like how it is dipicted in genesis.

What do you think of my point of veiw?

I think that the Genesis account could exclaim the strong emotional bond, but unfortunately we don’t get a sense of what strong emotional bond Adam and Eve had. We can imagine the bond as strong, but we never know what happened after the fall. You mentioned Adam’s declaration that this is “blood of my blood.” In those ancient cultures, blood along with breath, were symbols of life.

As far as Genesis being used as a way to react to certain heresies, I have seen no evidence of this. I do believe that the Genesis account was a way of describing a spiritual truth, not necessarily a physical truth.

 

[freesoulhope]

I think that the Genesis account could exclaim the strong emotional bond, but unfortunately we don’t get a sense of what strong emotional bond Adam and Eve had. .

They made Love; God does not permit lust, therefore i would say that this gives us a good sense of a strong emotional bond; Adam and Eve must have been married in God (Having permission; although obviously not in the same way we see today).

You mentioned Adam’s declaration that this is “blood of my blood.” In those ancient cultures, blood along with breath, were symbols of life.

A soul is what makes a person a person, rather then an impersonal-animal. It does not make sense to me that God would make Eve out of Adams personal soul, for Eve would then be Adam, rather then an indivisual, and i dare say that this would be agains’t her will; which in turn is agains’t God. This is why i say that these very “strong words”, words that have been used in a different sense (as you have stated), quite possibly could have been used as a simeli to show the fulfilling of Adams yerning for an Eve.

“Finally i have found my bride— she is my life”.

This is just an example of how somebody could play with words to express something profound; and i think that we have every reason, when looking at the bible over-all, that the various authors purposely employ such word-play through out the narrative, in order to get a profound and deep meaning across, and an emotional response from your soul.

“God parted the sea with a breath of his nostrils.”

I love word-play such as this; it makes the bible so much more deeper and inviting. At the end of the day, the authors where “entertaning” as much as telling a truth.

As far as Genesis being used as a way to react to certain heresies, I have seen no evidence of this.

Well there are different creation stories; such as the one where God splits the dragon in two; thus the universe, including us, was born out of the dragons blood. And this is the reason why we are sinners.

The Genesis story could quite possibly be a counter reaction to the heresys and errors of other creation stories, that may have been imposed on Jewish slaves and captives.

And then there is the matter of giving God at least one day of worship; making a holy day for God; the sabbath.

And then there is the sin of Homosexuality.

For these reasons, i can see the neccesity for the Genesis creation story. However, one cannot prove that it was for these reasons that the Genesis story was created; it just seems reasonable to me.

 

[pprimeau1976]

freesoulhope:

They made Love; God does not permit lust, therefore i would say that this gives us a good sense of a strong emotional bond; Adam and Eve must have been married in God (Having permission; although obviously not in the same way we see today).

True, they had sex in order to produce Cain, Abel, Seth, and their other sons and daughters. However, on a technical level, God does permit lust insofar as he permits us to make decisions. Does he put up with lust? Absolutely not! Adam was a man and a sinful man at that. He could have lusted after eve, but we don’t know.

A soul is what makes a person a person, rather then an impersonal-animal. It does not make sense to me that God would make Eve out of Adams personal soul, for Eve would then be Adam, rather then an individual…

It doesn’t make sense to me either. However, the text says that a part of Adam was used in order for Eve to be created. You can take this as literal, i.e. God took one of Adam’s rib’s, or figuratively, i.e. God took a piece of Adam’s soul to make Eve. Any way you look at it, Eve would not be a clone of Adam just because a piece of Adam was made to create Eve.
The Genesis story could quite possibly be a counter reaction to the heresys and errors of other creation stories, that may have been imposed on Jewish slaves and captives.

And then there is the matter of giving God at least one day of worship; making a holy day for God; the sabbath.

And then there is the sin of Homosexuality.

For these reasons, i can see the neccesity for the Genesis creation story. However, one cannot prove that it was for these reasons that the Genesis story was created; it just seems reasonable to me. You have to be very careful when putting it in the terms you describe. You make it sound as if Genesis was a collection of fables created in order to scare people into conforming and behaving a certain way. To me it was God revealing the story through the writer or writers of Genesis. If Genesis did not have any weight, or was just a story written to scare people, Jesus would not have used Adam and Eve as an example when he talked about two becoming one flesh.

 

[freesoulhope]

Adam was a man and a sinful man at that. He could have lusted after eve, but we don’t know.

Desire and lust are not the same thing. Adam had sex with Eve before the “fall”, therefore i can safely say that the fall had nothing to do with Adams desire to make love with Eve. The fall may have come as a result of a sexual sin; however, it is clearly stated that Adam and Eve where making love before the fall, and God had no problem with that.

Eve would not be a clone of Adam just because a piece of Adam was made to create Eve.

Explain why thats logically the case? If Eve was made from Adams rib, then you might have a point; however i don’t see why (if we are to take Genesis story figuratively) I should think that God would make Eve from Adams soul. If we are to see it figuratively, then we must do exactly that. Eve has her own person; a soul has not parts, that you can take a part from it and make it into something else. The soul is the spiritual unifying part of one body, an indivisual. The biblical narritive gives no indication that the author was speaking figuratively about making Eve from Adams soul, not to mention the fact that there would be absolutly no need to use figurative language to express such a thing; the author would simply just say that Eve was made from Adams soul. That is even a more amazing and personal thing to say then the concept of a rib.

You have to be very careful when putting it in the terms you describe. You make it sound as if Genesis was a collection of fables created in order to scare people into conforming and behaving a certain way.,

Not to scare people. It was written to teach people about God, morality, and are relationship with him. The concequence of betraying God is very scary indeed, but the story is not for that purpose.

To me, Genesis over-all describes how easy life is with God, and how hard and desolate it is with out him.
pprimeau1976;2484557:

To me it was God revealing the story through the writer or writers of Genesis.

The authors were inspired by God to write it, but i don’t believe that it was a word for word revelation of history. I dare say (as far as Genesis is concerned) that apart form certain basic founding facts, such as the fall of are first parents and the creation of the universe, the rest is the creative imagination of man.

If Genesis did not have any weight,

Genesis holds a lot of weight; just not as a literal historical document, and i think it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.

Jesus would not

have used Adam and Eve as an example when he talked about two becoming one flesh.

Why not? Fable or not, Its a perfect representation of a man and a women becoming one flesh. Jesus used the story because he knew that people would relate to it, and the story represented what Jesus Christ was here to rectify. Jesus himself made up many stories to express a truth about reality(The Parables), because he knew what we are like. Why think that the authors of Genesis did any differently? Theres nothing wrong with it, neither does such stories debunk or make it any less true, that the human race had two parents called Adam and Eve, who, by commiting sin, turned away from God.

I don’t see any reason why taking the stories as fables, should cuase one to doubt that such an event is historically true. I personally thing it is harmfull to the faith to promote genesis as being a literal historical truth. Rather it should be seen as a figurative truth about an historical event.

 

[freesoulhope]

God does permit lust insofar as he permits us to make decisions.

Making decisions based on a healthy desire, is not lust. Lust is a perversion of healthy desires. For example; i have a desire to have a women; but this can become perverted and lustfull when i seek to use and see a women purely as an end to sexual gratification.

The devil is contantly trying to pervert the natural human desires that God freely gave to us; this is how the devil traps us into the vice of thinking that certain sinfull acts are normal; such as mastibation. He confuses, twists, and tempts are sensory faculties. This does not, however, make are sensory faculties instruments of lust; they are instruments for good.

Adam and Eve were with out sin before the fall; and to think they fell because God gave them desires, is to put sin on God.

Adam and Eve fell because they used there imagination in perverted ways which eventually sprouted in to mortal sin and addiction. This is why God is contantly speaking about keeping your thoughts pure, because he knows that there is a connection between what we think and the perverted desires that we act out in reality.

 

[paarsurrey]

To me it was God revealing the story through the writer or writers of Genesis.

Hi
Who wrote Genesis? Could you kinldy name of the person with certainty?
Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.

 

[paarsurrey]

I’m sorry, but this is even harder for me to believe than that human beings (Adam and Eve) simply appeared from the dust of the ground.
If the soul is the form and life of the body, then how could a body that doesn’t have a human soul have the same form as a human body? (The soul is that which is missing when the body is dead. Notice that the dead body immediately begins to disintigrate as soon as the soul is gone from it. Not only does it cease to move of its own volition, it also ceases to retain its form.)
Also, there is no such thing as not having a soul. Everything that has a form has a soul. But, not everything has a human soul or a spiritual soul that can survive the death of the body.
Cats have cat souls, dogs have dog souls, trees have tree souls, etc.

Hi
I agree with you. It is reasonable.
Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.

 

[paarsurrey]

Genesis operates on different levels of symbolism and empiricism. On one level, “adam” represents the “earth”, the inorganic basis for life; and “eve” represents “the mother of all living”, or “life itself”. The story of Eve coming from Adam, symbolizes life “eve-volving” from the inorganic processes of the primeval earth.

Hi
It is stretching to far, in my opinion.Isn’t it?
Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.
There is no such thing as not having a soul. Everything that has a form has a soul. But, not everything has a human soul or a spiritual soul that can survive the death of the body.

 

[paarsurrey]

The human body is formed of the same type of matter as the dust of the ground.

Hi
Is it a scientific truth/law? Kindly quote the reference.
Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.
There is no such thing as not having a soul. Everything that has a form has a soul. But, not everything has a human soul or a spiritual soul that can survive the death of the body.

 

[paarsurrey]

My post gave a common TE interpretation of Genesis 2:7 - "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. "
No. Animals do not have souls and they can feel pain. Pain is due to electrical impulses in certain nerves and those nerves are present in animals. No soul is needed for pain perception any more than it is for sight or smell.
rossum

Hi
Little queries sir.
What is TE interpretation of Genesis?
You say:“Animals do not have souls and they can feel pain.”
One of my friends[jmcrae] on this thread says:“Cats have cat souls, dogs have dog souls, trees have tree souls, etc.”
What are you arguments on this contention ?
Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.
There is no such thing as not having a soul. Everything that has a form has a soul. But, not everything has a human soul or a spiritual soul that can survive the death of the body.

 

[paarsurrey]

As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”[/indent]
rossum

Hi
You, Sir, adopted a quote from Mark Siderits (1989) “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.” as your signatures. I didn’t agree with it, but I started a thread in the “Non-Catholic sub-forum” a thread titled “the ultimate truth is that there is truth”.
Thanks for loaning an idea. This is just to acknowledge and appreciate you.
Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

No. According to the Church, a human is both a body and a soul. The organisms before Adam had bodies like ours but no souls, so they were not human in the theological sense. In Genesis 2 the creation of Adam is a two stage process - body from clay followed by the “breath of life”. Evolution merely covers the body from clay stage in more detail.
rossum

Hi
The man before Adam though was breathing like a horse was breathing or a dove was breathing; man’s distinction over other animates was that he was destined to receive word of God, when that stage came that was a **special kind of breathing **he received revelation or word of GodAllahYHWH which set new goals of progress for him that were not known to other animals.

God taught man to talk that is breathing new life to man that has been mentioned in the Genesis, to express his emotions and to store knowledge and convey it to future generations, this quality is breathing new life to Adam, previously he was like a moving animal only. Could one ever think such a primitive man could invent any languages? A little rational reasoning is required to get these things from Genesis, never mind if the Clergy could not discern these things from the Book. God sent the Book for everybody, clergy has no exclusive rights on the Book, more than an ordinary men, specially if they cannot understand the Book and the every day sensible things.
Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

I think my Catholic friends here agree to my post.

Thanks