Eve created from Adam... literally?

  • Thread starter Thread starter masterjedi747
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

masterjedi747

Guest
As Catholics, are we required to believe that Eve was literally created from Adam in some (miraculously) way? …and if so, where is this defined?

The opposing position (in my mind) would be that this account in Genesis is simply a figure to show that women were created with equal dignity… and not necessarily a literal/historical account. I really wouldn’t have much of an issue accepting it as literal (if it must be so), but I would much rather have the option of not violating fundamental physical laws, if at all possible.
 
masterjedi747 said:
As Catholics, are we required to believe that Eve was literally created from Adam in some (miraculously) way? …and if so, where is this defined?

The opposing position (in my mind) would be that this account in Genesis is simply a figure to show that women were created with equal dignity… and not necessarily a literal/historical account. I really wouldn’t have much of an issue accepting it as literal (if it must be so), but I would much rather have the option of not violating fundamental physical laws, if at all possible.
Click to expand...
Christians are required to believe in miracles. Otherwise, how would one explain or believe in the Incarnation or the Resurrection or the Ascension. So a Divine miraculous intervention at the start of the human race should not be excluded.
 
I don’t believe Eve was literally created from Adam. But maybe she was. What difference does it make really?
 
Adam, Eve, and Evolution
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
 
While miracles do happen, when something that may at first appear to be a miracle is explainable by natural forces, it need not be considered a miracle. When so called miracles are attributed to the intercession of a candidate for sainthood and there is a natural explanation, the “miracle” is not accepted as evidence.

There is a problem with some scholars who would try to explain away a true miracle by rather questionable means. For example the miracle of the loaves and fishes being attributed to a crowd deciding to share concealed food.

There are also folks who say because miracles defy the laws of science there can be no such thing as a miracle. However that is the very definition of a miracle, an event or happening that is outside the laws of science, laws which are sometimes confused with the natural law.

One may accept the narrative of the creation of Adam and Eve at face value or that the formation of their physical bodies can be attributed to an evolutionary mechanism of one sort or another. The Church does not require belief in either explanation.
 
masterjedi747 said:
As Catholics, are we required to believe that Eve was literally created from Adam in some (miraculously) way? …and if so, where is this defined?

The opposing position (in my mind) would be that this account in Genesis is simply a figure to show that women were created with equal dignity… and not necessarily a literal/historical account. I really wouldn’t have much of an issue accepting it as literal (if it must be so), but I would much rather have the option of not violating fundamental physical laws, if at all possible.
Click to expand...

According to a writer over at the Roman Theological Forum, it is infallibly true teaching - & he seeks to show this in a discussion of the Encyclical **Arcanum **of 1880.​

The problem is, that though his argument may be cogent as far as it goes, the position he considers to be infallibly true teaching has not, in recent times, been treated as infallibly true by the Magisterium.

And that can be taken in two very different ways:

Either
    1. the modern M. is being unfaithful to the past Tradition of the CC, whereas the past Magisterium was faithful to that Tradition
      or
    1. The modern M. is being faithful to the past Tradition of the CC, even though this involves not repeating some of what has been said in the past - its not repeating the position of Arcanum on the point in question, is at once an implicit judgement that the Encyclical’s position is not infallibly true teaching, and, evidence that it is not. Or, that Arcanum’s position may be authentic Catholic teaching, but, is not infallibly true even so.
      More generally, are we to look at:
  • the past, in the light of the present - or
  • the present, in the light of the past
  • enquiring minds would love to know - need to, indeed.
This is a teeny tiny little distinction - but it has massive consequences. It seems that the CC has shifted from the former to the latter - &, as though it may have done so without noticing. If a shift has occurred, one ends up with two different approaches to Tradition. Which is not to say that they are irreconcilable, but it is not clear how they are to be reconciled. Perhaps the problem is best left to look after itself.
 
What is sort of ‘neat’ about the literal belief in Eve being made from Adam’s rib is - how it seems so plausible even anatomically ; there are those floating ribs at the bottom of the rib cage and we can see how there could be one whole chunk that would fit right in there , in the shape of a triangle (with a small indentation , fit for a crown on the top )!

Man and woman He created them … to reign and rule over His creation , in peace and harmony !

Glory be to our Father !
 
How does one justify the first creation story “male and female he created them”? This is why much of scripture cannot be taken literally.
 
As a Catholics we are required to believe that Eve came from Adam and we all came from Adam and Eve.

below taken from kolbecenter.org/what_church_teaches.pdf.

“Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)·Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only beAdam.)·The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall(Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).· The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.·Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reasondictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).· Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they hadremained obedient (Pius XII).· After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the SecondPerson of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).·”
 
Steve40 said:
As a Catholics we are required to believe that Eve came from Adam and we all came from Adam and Eve.

below taken from kolbecenter.org/what_church_teaches.pdf.

“Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)·Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only beAdam.)·The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall(Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).· The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.·Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reasondictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).· Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they hadremained obedient (Pius XII).· After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the SecondPerson of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).·”
Click to expand...
But St. Augustine made the point that if it is taken literally there would have ot have been much incestual relations going on to propagate the species.
 
Hi Master__,

As long as we do not exclude the possibility of miracles, it is 100% orthodox to believe that the Genesis stories are a traditional Middle Eastern framework for the basic truths that God wants to teach us.

I think I have quoted several times on this forum the words of the old Pontifical Biblical Commission to the effect that, although Genesis does not contain history in the modern sense, we must not conclude that it does not contain history in any sense.

Verbum
 
The isssue of incest ,among Adam’s children is occasionally heard as an argument against the validity of biblical truth, esp. from nonchristians as well.

It does not have to be ; we know from scriptural accounts that God remained involved in the lives of Adam and Eve and their
children ; that same God could have given wives atleast for one or two of their sons , in the same manner He did for Adam.

God was willing to take up Enoch to heaven , as His friend !

Blessings !
 
I do not know.

It seems to be in a figurative presentation.

The Church does teach that parts of those accounts are in symbols.

Then the symbols need to be moved to the literal interpreation.

Again, I do not know, but that is my opinion.
 
What is sort of ‘neat’ about the literal belief in Eve being made from Adam’s rib is - how it seems so plausible even anatomically ; there are those floating ribs at the bottom of the rib cage and we can see how there could be one whole chunk that would fit right in there , in the shape of a triangle (with a small indentation , fit for a crown on the top )!
Click to expand...
I’m studying the Jewish Biblical tradition over that passage and I got the following insights.
  1. There was a huge conflict in judaism about what to do with Genesis 1 (man a woman created simultaniusly) and Genesis 2.
    That was the origin of the Lilith story, about Lilit being the first woman that was a bit of a feminist and became a demon that killed men and infants at night and was neutralized by the archangel Raphael (who appears in Tobit).
  2. The translation of “from his rib” is looked on by some jewish scholar as merely from “his side” not from a literal rib.
    Some jewish mystics looked at Adam as a sort of achetype of humanity who have a male and a female side. IHVH by taking Eve from his rib, was separating the biologicaly males and females sides of humanity from G-D Adamic archetipe. That reading would be highly favored if you do not read Genesis literary. It does makes a lot of sense to me.
  3. The basic idea of Jewish scholars about Adam and later Eve was that the basic message was about the biological unity of mankind, a message that appears in the whole Genesis. The Noah stories, the long patriarchal stories. The Talmud comment that the one that destroys a human life destroys the world.
    In my opinion Genesis reads much better in a prophetic non literal fashion. St Augustine was right. As are todays non literalists.
 
marymol said:
The isssue of incest ,among Adam’s children is occasionally heard as an argument against the validity of biblical truth, esp. from nonchristians as well.

It does not have to be ; we know from scriptural accounts that God remained involved in the lives of Adam and Eve and their
children ; that same God could have given wives atleast for one or two of their sons , in the same manner He did for Adam.

God was willing to take up Enoch to heaven , as His friend !

Blessings !
Click to expand...
Where did those wives for their sons come from? Did God create other humans in the same way he created Adam, out of nothing? Granted He did in the first creation story in chapter one, “male and female” He created them. But this story comes first so it should probably supercede the Adam and Eve tale.
 
Whenever we encounter the mysterious in biblical episodes we can just use the ‘miracle blank check’ approach, write it off as miraculous and relax our attempt to understand. But digging deeper pays off, especially with this passage of the creation of woman. I don’t believe the text is trying to tell us the woman was actually fashioned from the man’s rib.
OK, then what is it trying to tell us, literally.
I’ve studied, in my limited way, the Hebrew of Genesis. The Hebrew word for rib in this passage could literally mean ‘side’. This is interesting when considering the term adam which may be a pregnant term used in genesis to refer to mankind-humanity and also one specific man. This is why some modern bible translations use the human instead of the man or Adam proper when translating these early passages. If, in the verse we are inspecting, the term is allowed to also carry a meaning of ‘humanity’ then perhaps the action of the woman being taken from the side of humanity comes to mean something close to an idea that the woman is half or one side of humanity - the man the other. This would show the woman as being of the same ‘stuff’ as the man, and equal with the man in being made in the image and likeness of God.
Admittedly, there are all kinds of difficulties with translating the term adam as a specific person here and general humanity there. It can’t be both at the same time, right? When is it one and not the other and why? Also, its close relation to the term adama, earth or ground, needs to be considered. (Also, I am not making any attempt to promote an androgynous adam idea, yuk - please don’t let this thread go there.) Thus are the challenges of translation, which aren’t mine at the moment.
Anyway, you see my point, which in no way attempts to be an absolute comment on translation. But the english appears limited and has something to be desired for.

More biblical tie-ins…
If we allow in this passage an understanding of the woman and the man being two equal sides of one humanity, then covenant ideas begin to emerge. Before the woman is built up from the side of adam, adam is put in a deep stupor or sleep after which the dividing occurs followed by the man’s ‘flesh of my flesh’ announcement. This same sequence - deep sleep followed by a halving process followed by an announcement - occurs when God makes his covenant with Abraham a little later. The same hebrew term is used for ‘deep sleep’ in both events.
Does this possible parallel with the Abraham covenant event tell us that a covenant is being made between the man and the woman? Is that how the ancient writer would have understood it? Isn’t marriage the most common symbol/metaphor for covenant in the entire bible? Wouldn’t it seem biblically incongruous if the idea of covenant was absent from the first union of man and woman?

So, for me the question of the woman being created from a rib as infallibly true is a distortion or gross simplification of the truer question, which is 'do you believe it infallible that the woman is of the same humanity as man and is equal with man in being made in the image and likeness of God? Yes, I do.

Nice chat, thanks for considering my (name removed by moderator)ut.

Peter
 
Wow, PeterK that’s is great! Actually I would say that Adam can be both a single person and a symbol for humanity in general…
we see the same thing in Revelation (Ch 11 & 12 I think), ie. The Dragon/ serpent with many heads and horns is obviously the devil (single) and all kingdoms/ countries (group) who persecuted God’s people, and the child (Jesus- single; Davidic line of kings- group); the arch angel (single, but 1 angel not much of a battle, probably also sybolizing the legion of angels), and of course the woman (Mary- single; the church- group). In Catholic theology, things aren’t always either/ or, often they are both/ and. I think the idea that “Adam” in Gen is at the same time our 1st human father, AND a symbol of humanity, makes the creation accound all the more beutiful and meaningful. Kudos! 👍

p.s. people, don’t get hung up on the incest of Adam and Eve’s children… There’s a lot of our cultural bias against it, but who’s to say at the dawn of the species, with a pure gene pool, there would have been anything wrong with it. It was a necessity, so obviously God would allow it, and guard aginst any of the problems we associate with it nowadays. Also- you can’t believe that God made wives for Cain and Able and Seth… All of humanity had to desend from Adam and Eve… read your catechism!:tsktsk:
 
Thank you too for the many good insights in the previous posts helping us to appreciate the beauty of The Word , both in its literal simplicity and profound mystery .

There is the Gen.account of creation of man , set apart by itself , in Gen 5 ; brief and cryptic and poignant .

’ In the day He created man, He made him, to His likeness and image .
He created them male and female and and blessed them ;and called their name Adam , in the day when they were created .

And Adam lived a hundred an thirty years , and begot a son to his own image and likeness and called him Seth.’
Code: 
  No direct mention of Eve - God called ' them' Adam  - and agree here the covenantal relationship of oneness could be what is to be appreciated .
Cain and Abel are not mentioned either …almost as though to tend us forward from that incident …

Seth is mentioned as being ’ in the image of Adam …’

Seth - probably grew up hearing of that first encounter of Adam and Eve… . when Adam exclaimed , in ecstacy - ’ here at last is the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh …’

Could not Seth, made in the image of Adam , have asked The
Father , to grant him too, such a partner … …it still would not distort the truth of our origin from our first parents .

Not aware of the above being in contradiction to any Patristic teachings ; if so , apologies .

Agree too that in the purity of the creation , even in our fallen nature , the awareness against close unions between family members did not have to come in till much later .

Blessings !
 
There’s a reason that a rib was used. That way, we would be equals. If it were a foot, woman would be perceived as inferior to man. If it were the head, it would be the reverse. At least, that’s the theory. The practice, well… (cough cough)
 
masterjedi747 said:
As Catholics, are we required to believe that Eve was literally created from Adam in some (miraculously) way? …and if so, where is this defined?

The opposing position (in my mind) would be that this account in Genesis is simply a figure to show that women were created with equal dignity… and not necessarily a literal/historical account. I really wouldn’t have much of an issue accepting it as literal (if it must be so), but I would much rather have the option of not violating fundamental physical laws, if at all possible.
Click to expand...
There is significance and meaning in the account of Eve being fashioned from the rib of Adam. However, we cannot apply a strictly allegorical meaning to that event. In 1941, Pius XII said we must retain as certain that Genesis teaches the first woman was in some way derived from the first man.

Exactly how the first woman was derived from the first man remains to be explained. The Church does not know enough yet to formulate an answer. So, the instruction of Pius XII sets the boundaries we are to observe when interpreting Genesis in this matter.

What I have said here is based on what the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. has said about this issue. Fr. Hardon assisted with writing the CCC, and he was certainly a very knowlegeable authority.

itinerant1 :tiphat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top