Eve, Adam & His Rib

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=grannymh;7654437] You are so right about Pope Pius XII warning Catholics. Maybe he was also warning scientists to conduct their research properly. Did you catch all the provisions for even discussing the scientific topics? Can you tell that I am really impressed with this Pope?
Click to expand...
I’m am over on the back fence discussing this issue which I believe is extremely important.

Of course the Pope is warning scientists AND Catholics to do their research properly but nowhere does he say Catholics can believe that man evolved from lower life forms. He is simply allowing the discussion and research to take place.
 
Third_Day said:
I’m am over on the back fence discussing this issue which I believe is extremely important.

Of course the Pope is warning scientists AND Catholics to do their research properly but nowhere does he say Catholics can believe that man evolved from lower life forms. He is simply allowing the discussion and research to take place.
Click to expand...
He’s not saying we can’t either. 🤷
 
Faith1960 said:
He’s not saying we can’t either. 🤷
Click to expand...
I believe he is. Just because no infallible decree has been made doesn’t mean Catholics can go against what has always been taught by the Church Fathers who are the guardians of Sacred Tradition.
 
Third_Day said:
I believe he is. Just because no infallible decree has been made doesn’t mean Catholics can go against what has always been taught by the Church Fathers who are the guardians of Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
The ECF’s thought the sun revolved around the Earth too, but we’ve learned a lot since then.
 
Faith1960 said:
The ECF’s thought the sun revolved around the Earth too, but we’ve learned a lot since then.
Click to expand...
Guess what. I agree with the Fathers. Heliocentrism has never been proven even though scientists have tried. Einstein’s theory of relativity was created because of the inability of any experiment to prove the earth moves.
Please go read about Geocentrism from John Salza’s Scripture Catholic website.

scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
 
Third_Day said:
The Truth will set you free!
Click to expand...
Missed it. Could you recap for me?

So much talk about Sun and Earth and what is revolving around what made me dizzy for a bit. So much spinning and calculations to make of it. Thankfully, I am told I don’t have to think about it at all because the bible tells me so!
 
Third_Day said:
Guess what. I agree with the Fathers. Heliocentrism has never been proven even though scientists have tried. Einstein’s theory of relativity was created because of the inability of any experiment to prove the earth moves.
Please go read about Geocentrism from John Salza’s Scripture Catholic website.

scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
Click to expand...
If anyone wishes to discuss geocentrism, there is a good debate over in the Philosophy Forum. Start with the last posts until you find the beginning of the discussion.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=525105

I have checked the Salza link. Now it is time to return to this thread’s topic. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

*Isaiah 55: 6-9 *
 
The discussion seems to require a literal reading of Sacred Scripture. I do not believe that is necessary for the Creation account of the Universe or the Creation of Human Beings. The point of woman being taken from man (i.e., his rib) is to underscore their relationality and connectedness. Note the discussion in 1 Corinthians 11. :o
 
tnystrom said:
The discussion seems to require a literal reading of Sacred Scripture. I do not believe that is necessary for the Creation account of the Universe or the Creation of Human Beings. The point of woman being taken from man (i.e., his rib) is to underscore their relationality and connectedness. Note the discussion in 1 Corinthians 11. :o
Click to expand...
Perhaps the account should have read.

I fashioned the man, then I fashioned woman. I made them complementary.

And Adam upon gazing at Eve - at last, a female for me, not of my bones. 😦

But… It doesn’t…
 
buffalo said:
Perhaps the account should have read.

I fashioned the man, then I fashioned woman. I made them complementary.

And Adam upon gazing at Eve - at last, a female for me, not of my bones. 😦

But… It doesn’t…
Click to expand...
No, what the account states is that the creator thought animals would be good company for Adam. Never occured to the great creator that this would be a huge fail.
Then the creator noted it was not good. For man. To be. Alone.

Afterthought.
 
StrawberryJam said:
No, what the account states is that the creator thought animals would be good company for Adam. Never occured to the great creator that this would be a huge fail.
Then the creator noted it was not good. For man. To be. Alone.

Afterthought.
Click to expand...
Actually, the account has nothing to do with failure. What it clearly states is that Adam with his amazing human nature had the right and the position of authority to name the animals which did not have a human nature. Adam’s actions in naming animals according to their animal nature were successful. It clearly states that breeding a man with animals would not be possible because animals did not have a suitable human nature for a procreative partnership.

This is why it is necessary to continue reading because then one finds out that only God, not animals, can create human nature. Adam immediately praised God for giving him a suitable helpmate by saying “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” In other words, Eve had a human nature.

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)
 
Faith1960 said:
The ECF’s thought the sun revolved around the Earth too, but we’ve learned a lot since then.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…
I often hear that people then (ECF’s included) thought the earth was “Flat”; Do you believe they thought that?

I mean, they saw the mountains – they knew it wasn’t “FLAT” flat. So what did they think?

St. Augustine talks about the “Anti-podes”, that is the feet pointed the opposite way on the other side of the Earth. He was debating whether or not there really were people on the other side, and does not say “The earth is FLAT, there is no other side.”. Nor does he say “they would FALL OFF!” as a “proof”. He calls them the feet pointing the other way, showing he understood that they would stick to the ground just as we do – but upside down. In the end, he can’t really decide if these people exist or not – but he doesn’t see any reason to believe they must. His approach is much the same as a prudent pope thinking about polygenism.

Just so, what does it mean that the earth is the center of the universe? (or solar system – or whatever). (Helio-centric is Sun-centered, but we’re not really sun-centered either.)

What does it mean that early people would think the sun went around the earth? Tell me, do you ever look at the sun going down over the ocean – and say “That was a beautiful Earth rotation”. What have we “really” learned?
I think we’re in a popularity contest of “We’re smarter than those dumb ancients because we’re told cool things by physicists.” BUT Just because someone else might be smarter today – doesn’t mean everyone is!
😃

I think the “real” argument is over who’s argument is more “aesthetic”. Who can say the most correct thing by “observation” with the least amount of complexity; Occam’s razor as it is often called. It isn’t about who is “right” but who has to do the Least Work in defending their position.
 
Faith1960 said:
Are we, as Catholics, required to believe that Eve was literally created by God taking a rib from Adam while he was asleep or is that just a story?
Click to expand...
While Adam was asleep, is equivalent to “dead”. When Jesus dies on the cross, his side is opened – and this is considered the birth of the Church as his bride. The same logic in two apparently different contexts.

Reasoning from the crucifixion, backward, by analogy – I would say, no, we’re not required to believe Eve came from Adam’s rib per-se. The church existed at the moment one sinless person existed by the effects of his salvation (AKA Baptism). In the Catholic Tradition, that moment is the immaculate conception of his mother. Time and Consequence can be separated in the historical unfolding wisdom of God and the creation of a Wife.

There is, however, a necessity of having the crucifixion and the opening of Christ’s side in “fullfillment” of the type of Adam. For this reason, discarding the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib “in any way at all” is pure folly. There must be a connection for the symbol to have any value as a prototype. There is something manifestly mysterious about the creation of Eve.

A friend of Mine, Celeste McGovern (Now. Cowley), made a comment at a party about how a woman’s DNA has two X chromosomes instead of an X+Y. That is a woman’s genetics is “part” of a man’s. I laughed, and repeated what she said shaking my head. Strangely, everyone at the party then thought it was my thought – and not Celeste’s – and made out like I was brilliant. That has struck me as shameful ever since. Celeste deserves the credit for noticing such a thing.

My point is, there are many relationships and patterns both in scripture and science which reflect each other. The prophets of scripture speak through analogy, and models. It might be called the “analogy” of faith. What scripture means that “Eve” was of Adam’s bone and flesh, just as Isaac – the husband of Rebekah – was called Rebeka’s father’s “flesh and bones” is tied up with these women and men being suitable marriage partners with a prior family relationship.

It is not possible that Eve comes from a different family line than Adam. If no parents are legitimately describable to the ancient mindset, Genesis becomes constrained to describe the relationship in reduced terms. Animals (bestiality) was not appropriate for Adam (though it was potentially available first), he needed another like himself. However, I think that means human “slime” spoken of in Genesis had to be in common either directly or indirectly with Adam and Eve – and given that the creation of the Church is asynchronous with the opening of Christ’s side – It is not impossible to think a similar thing is true of Adam and Eve since we see the possibility in the figure of Christ.

Just so, we are still told as recently as ash Wednesday – remember man you are dust, and to dust you will return. Man is composite, and can decompose. (But there are still incorruptables).

The body of Adam, or a human being, is composite. It shares something of it’s mother and father’s body – but there is a new reality with respect to the spirit.
Curiously, the CCC speaks about a married couple becoming one and uses either spirit or soul, I can’t quite remember – but I think it is “spirit”. And St. Paul speaks about marriage between a believer and non-believer saying the believer sanctifies the unbeliever so that the children are holy. But marriage of this sort clearly ends at the death of the sanctifying spouse.

In any event, the exact meaning of “rib” is vague. A man’s substance, slime, seed, clay, is not the man himself. We, as Catholics, don’t say that contraception (non-abortive, such as condoms, diaphragms, etc.) that destroy or prevent the passing on of sperm kill human beings just because they destroy living cells. Genetically, the seed is only half the Man. It is haploid. Though it is alive when it leaves the man, I don’t think it is the man’s spirit which informs that seed once it has left his body. Just so, taking blood and transfusing it to save a life, is not the same as uniting the spirit (Even to the level mentioned in the CCC about marriage). Nor the fanciful Vampire type thinking that has been all the rage in recent years in books and movies about something “in the blood”. One man’s Genes can show up in another man, or even a monkey, and it makes no difference. The immortal spirit of a man forms the man – not the other way around. The body doesn’t “cause” the spirit.

God himself brought forth Eve when the time was right. He could have brought forth children with Genetic diversity (as well) so that the worries of incest would not have been a problem – with his help and friendship. He could have been the ultimate “midwife” father. However, since the account of Genesis talks about a “fall” from grace, the perversions of God’s plan that we now see as a result that can’t be traced to what his plan was without the fall. Science has little to say (yet) about the spirit.

The pope requires, in the document on Polygenism, that Catholics do not HOLD the scientific position of many Adam’s and Many Eve’s. The encyclical does not constrain one against considering the sinful behavior of early man (bestiality, incest, etc.) Nor of looking for alternate ways the effects could come about. Genetic transfer by bacteria or viruses or other vectors of genetic information.

It is inevitable that the “rib” taken from Adam has a real, historical, significance of some kind. Exactly what, I don’t know. There is good reason to tread carefully when speculating about the subject. It isn’t wise to “not believe”, either. Ponder it.
 
From Arcanum - Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII:

“5. Still, the purpose We have set before Us is not to recount, in detail, benefits of this kind; Our wish is rather to speak about that family union of which marriage is the beginning and the foundation. The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God bath joined together, let no man put asunder.”(2)”

Peace,
Ed
 
I find the spiritual sense of the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib to be the more interesting subject.

You say “Eve, Adam & his rib”

I say “The Church, Christ, and His Side”

Genesis relates that Adam was put into a deep sleep (sleeping on the day of his creation, right in the middle of the day – things haven’t changed much with most men). This is an image of Jesus dying on the cross. The Hebrew word for sleep suggests something close to death [as perhaps ancient man believed].

When His side is pierced, blood and water come out, which are the source of the creation of His Church.
 
Huiou_Theou said:
Hmmm…
I often hear that people then (ECF’s included) thought the earth was “Flat”; Do you believe they thought that?

I mean, they saw the mountains – they knew it wasn’t “FLAT” flat. So what did they think?

St. Augustine talks about the “Anti-podes”, that is the feet pointed the opposite way on the other side of the Earth. He was debating whether or not there really were people on the other side, and does not say “The earth is FLAT, there is no other side.”. Nor does he say “they would FALL OFF!” as a “proof”. He calls them the feet pointing the other way, showing he understood that they would stick to the ground just as we do – but upside down. In the end, he can’t really decide if these people exist or not – but he doesn’t see any reason to believe they must. His approach is much the same as a prudent pope thinking about polygenism.

Just so, what does it mean that the earth is the center of the universe? (or solar system – or whatever). (Helio-centric is Sun-centered, but we’re not really sun-centered either.)

What does it mean that early people would think the sun went around the earth? Tell me, do you ever look at the sun going down over the ocean – and say “That was a beautiful Earth rotation”. What have we “really” learned?
I think we’re in a popularity contest of “We’re smarter than those dumb ancients because we’re told cool things by physicists.” ** BUT Just because someone else might be smarter today – doesn’t mean everyone is!**😃

I think the “real” argument is over who’s argument is more “aesthetic”. Who can say the most correct thing by “observation” with the least amount of complexity; Occam’s razor as it is often called. It isn’t about who is “right” but who has to do the Least Work in defending their position.
Click to expand...
Edit for purposes of charity
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top