Eve created from Adam... literally?

[mahoneyt]

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.

Well someone took my extra rib. I have one less rib protecting my vital organs because of woman. Granted its worth it. The rib story is a weak defense for subordination of woman. Its like saying the F-15 is better then the F-22 because the F-15 was made first. Yes I just compared us to fighter jets but I’m just saying.

 

[Steve40]

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.

There is no early prohabition against incest. Still today you can to some extent get a dispensation from the Church. My grandmother married her uncle. Although genetically it may not be wise, my grandparent’s marriage is and was recognized by the Church.

As a Catholic you must believe in the Doctrine on Original Sin. This includes believing that we all came from Adam and Eve. These facts force you also to believe that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other.

Scientifically, genetic drift and recessive mutations that would cause health issues are more of a problem as the human race grew. From a scientific perspective, that is what is observable and repeatable, we are de-volving not evolving and mutations are only a detriment to the human race, not an enhancement. This is why you should not marry your sister today, but it was OK to do this at the start of the human race.

 

[inthecloud]

As a Catholic you must believe in the Doctrine on Original Sin. This includes believing that we all came from Adam and Eve. These facts force you also to believe that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other.

1. The Adam as archetype of humans (and androgynous) is a well known theme in the Jewish kabbalah from Jesus times. That also stressed the sexlessness of YHWH and the angels. Remember Adam was created on YHWH image, and male and female was created.
2. The from his rib (actually his/her female side) is also well known interpretation from the kabbalah. Separating the male and female sides of mankind of the archetype.
3. Original sin means the soul strangement from God because of disobedience.
4. Jews unlike christians did not have a clear image of the difference between body and soul that is why Genesis looks literal on the subjet of Death (spiritual death) entering because of sin in the world.
5. There is room in biology for a literal Adam and Eve could be harder to explain (i have my own hipothesis).

Genesis in the light of old Jewish mysticism and modern catholic theistic evolution and critical scholarship reads much better in my opinion. Sadly it seems that the CC should find a way to teach it better. In that modern reading. Free from the literal meaning, it comes alive much more profound. But you need to integrate all that modern scholarship into a complete teaching to avoid the confusion going ot between the literalists and the is only a myth schools.

 

[buffalo]

DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY?
A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION

 

[buffalo]

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

 

[Valke2]

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)

I always learned that it is just guesswork that she was created from a rib. I forget the actual word used, but saying it means “rib” cannot be done with any certainity.

I know return you to your regularly scheduled thread

 

[itinerant1]

DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
Definitive tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman’, for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”

+++

Thanks for the link, Buffalo. I did a somewhat quick reading of the paper and was left with the impression that the author fails to prove his thesis. Whether my interpretation will change upon subsequent readings remains to be seen. Meanwhile, I’ll tentatively present my thoughts on the paper for any possible responses.

I will preface my remarks by saying that I have no reason to doubt that the first woman, Eve, was in some way derived from the first man, Adam.

The weakness in Rev. Harrison’s paper is his failure to recognize the various ways in which metaphorical language works. Consequently, he unnecessarily limits the possible methods of reading the text in question (quoted above) to either a literal/historical reading, or to a metaphorical reading of the kind that leaves open the possibility that Eve’s existence was not literally derived from Adam.

I submit that there remains a third method of reading the text, one that is metaphorical, but at the same time recognizes that the biblical author teaches that Eve was truly derived from Adam. There is nothing unusual whatsoever in this approach. In fact, it appears to properly take into account one of the ways in which language works In addition, Rev. Harrison has mis-identified the literary genre of the creation account. Furthermore, we know that biblical authors were often given only limited insights into the mysteries they wrote about. Who among the prophets of Israel had a full understanding of the Messianic prophecies? A fuller understanding of the O.T. prophecies was given during the new dispensation.

By the same token, Rev. Harrison’s thesis presumes that the biblical writer knew more details about Eve’s creation than what God had revealed to him.

Specifically, I am making the claim that the language of Eve’s creation is figurative, and its message is that Eve was derived from Adam, and intimately so, which is suggested by the metaphor of being fashioned from the rib of Adam. In other words, the fact that Eve was derived from Adam is expressed in figurative language. It is that simple. The figurative language teaches the basic fact. We may assume that God did not reveal to the biblical author exactly how Eve was derived from Adam, so he was unable to provide details of the great event.

Rev. Harrison improperly concludes that the Church infallibly teaches the literal/ historical sense of the text. His evidence includes quotations of Church affirmations that use the language of Genesis when teaching that Eve’s origin was truly from Adam. Rev. Harrison is thus applying a limited understanding of metaphorical language to Church pronouncements just as he does when reading Genesis.

The most that we can say from a look at Church pronouncements is the Church definitely affirms that Eve was derived from Adam as a matter of (literal) historical fact. In no manner does the Church teach as certain that the language of the Genesis account is literal/historical.

That the Genesis account can teach by means of figurative language that Eve was truly derived from Adam is a simple distinction that does not seem to have occurred to Rev. Harrison.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[Steve40]

1. The Adam as archetype of humans (and androgynous) is a well known theme in the Jewish kabbalah from Jesus times. That also stressed the sexlessness of YHWH and the angels. Remember Adam was created on YHWH image, and male and female was created.
2. The from his rib (actually his/her female side) is also well known interpretation from the kabbalah. Separating the male and female sides of mankind of the archetype.
3. Original sin means the soul strangement from God because of disobedience.
4. Jews unlike christians did not have a clear image of the difference between body and soul that is why Genesis looks literal on the subjet of Death (spiritual death) entering because of sin in the world.
5. There is room in biology for a literal Adam and Eve could be harder to explain (i have my own hipothesis).

Genesis in the light of old Jewish mysticism and modern catholic theistic evolution and critical scholarship reads much better in my opinion. Sadly it seems that the CC should find a way to teach it better. In that modern reading. Free from the literal meaning, it comes alive much more profound. But you need to integrate all that modern scholarship into a complete teaching to avoid the confusion going ot between the literalists and the is only a myth schools.

I think you should focus a little less on modern Biblical “scholorship” and more on some of the basic Dogmas of the Catholic faith. Catholics are required to believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that Eve physically came from Adam and all of humanity came from Adam and Eve. These Traditions are not negotiable and the contradiction of them is considered heresey.

God Bless

Steve

 

[Valke2]

And are you required to believe in talking snakes with legs? In the formation of the earth in 7 days? In the creation of vault seperating the waters from the sky from the waters below the earth?’’

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 fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

origihttp://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.aspnal

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I don’t believe Eve was literally created from Adam. But maybe she was. What difference does it make really?

Hi a priori,

Unto itself, the story of Adam and Eve is so silly it is boring. But the beauty of this story, for me, comes when you reconcile it with the Groom Jesus and His Bride, The Church.

Like Eve who was considered to be the Bride of Adam, the Church is considered to the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:32). Like Eve who was born sinless, the Church is immaculate without a stain or blemish (Eph 5:25-27).

But the most incredible parallel is like Eve who was born from the ribs of Adam when he was in his deep sleep, the blood that founded the Church poured from Christ’s ribs when he was speared in His side as he slept, in death, upon on the cross (Ac 20:28, Jn 19:34).

(And this comparison works better when you liken Jesus as the new Adam [Lk 3:38, Ro 5:19, 1 Co 15:22, 1 Co 15:45]. So, Jesus and the Church give us the everlasting life that Adam and Eve lost for us.)

So, for me, the story of Adam and Eve is a story to tell us that when God created the world he had a plan to save it from sin too.

:twocents:

 

[Steve40]

God is capable of being Figurative and Real at the same time. Your body is symbolic. Your design is symbolic (see JP II Theology of the Body) but it is real at the same time. All of this gets down to physical realities. Catholics are very physical. We believe in a physical Body of Christ not just a spiritual body of believers. We believe in very physical Sacrements with the most Physical being the Eucharist. Is the Eucharist figurative or Is He Real?

An errosion of historical phisical realities will lead to a denial of present day physical understanding of all gifts from God including the gift of Himself. This end result is the logical conclusion of modernist thought.

 

[Cathryn]

God is capable of being Figurative and Real at the same time. Your body is symbolic. Your design is symbolic (see JP II Theology of the Body) but it is real at the same time. All of this gets down to physical realities. Catholics are very physical. We believe in a physical Body of Christ not just a spiritual body of believers. We believe in very physical Sacrements with the most Physical being the Eucharist. Is the Eucharist figurative or Is He Real?

An errosion of historical phisical realities will lead to a denial of present day physical understanding of all gifts from God including the gift of Himself. This end result is the logical conclusion of modernist thought.

I believe what you say here to be true and critical to our Cathoic faith.

 

[goofyjim]

I think you should focus a little less on modern Biblical “scholorship” and more on some of the basic Dogmas of the Catholic faith. Catholics are required to believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that Eve physically came from Adam and all of humanity came from Adam and Eve. These Traditions are not negotiable and the contradiction of them is considered heresey.

God Bless

Steve

So to accept a theistic evolution is heresy? Well then I must be a heretic.

 

[Steve40]

So to accept a theistic evolution is heresy? Well then I must be a heretic.

Not necessarily. I can not reconcile Eve physically coming from Adam and all of us coming from Adam and Eve with the evolutionary model. It doesn’t make scientific sense to me. But some try to reconcile both, none the less. Polygeism is a heresey and believing that Eve did not come from Adam is a heresey.

Placing more faith in theoretical theistic evolution to the point of rejecting that Eve came from Adam and accepting Polygeism would make one a heretic, if they still claimed to be Catholic.

 

[goofyjim]

Not necessarily. I can not reconcile Eve physically coming from Adam and all of us coming from Adam and Eve with the evolutionary model. It doesn’t make scientific sense to me. But some try to reconcile both, none the less. Polygeism is a heresey and believing that Eve did not come from Adam is a heresey.

Placing more faith in theoretical theistic evolution to the point of rejecting that Eve came from Adam and accepting Polygeism would make one a heretic, if they still claimed to be Catholic.

And do you still subscribe to the earth being 5,000 or 6,000 years old? I follow an evolutionary process that God had a creating hand in. Again, I guess that makes me a heretic.

 

[a_priori]

Hi a priori,

Unto itself, the story of Adam and Eve is so silly it is boring. But the beauty of this story, for me, comes when you reconcile it with the Groom Jesus and His Bride, The Church.

Like Eve who was considered to be the Bride of Adam, the Church is considered to the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:32). Like Eve who was born sinless, the Church is immaculate without a stain or blemish (Eph 5:25-27).

But the most incredible parallel is like Eve who was born from the ribs of Adam when he was in his deep sleep, the blood that founded the Church poured from Christ’s ribs when he was speared in His side as he slept, in death, upon on the cross (Ac 20:28, Jn 19:34).

(And this comparison works better when you liken Jesus as the new Adam [Lk 3:38, Ro 5:19, 1 Co 15:22, 1 Co 15:45]. So, Jesus and the Church give us the everlasting life that Adam and Eve lost for us.)

So, for me, the story of Adam and Eve is a story to tell us that when God created the world he had a plan to save it from sin too.

:twocents:

Hi Charlie,

I understand. The relationship and symbolism in scripture of God’s relationship with mankind is very moving. I would argue that the Genesis account interpreted as metaphor does no violence to your point of view.

In Christ,
A Priori

 

[Steadfast_love]

Ok, so riddle me this.

[13] Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.
[14] Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me.”
[15] Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, **lest any who came upon him should kill him. **

On one hand, there was only Adam, Eve, Cain and possibly some unmentioned daughters at this point. On the other hand, Cain is afraid of others finding him and God gives him a mark to keep him safe from “any who come upon (Cain)” Who exactly are they?

 

[marymol]

We are not told the exact time period as to when Cain gets expelled ; considering the longevity of persons at the time and the long reproductive periods that it entailed , all sorts of possiblities are there .

Did Abel have children …even Cain - even if there is only mention of him having children during the period of his exile…

How about the possiblity of nephews and nieces , even grand nephews and so on for them both …

Agree , it is a mysterious passage …

Just as those words -’ In the beginning ,when God created the heavens and the earth …a mighy wind swept over the waters …’

For how long …

May the wisdom and mystery of The Word dwell in and enrich our hearts and help it to grow in love !

 

[PeterK]

Steadfast love,
There are many unanswered, yet basic, questions in the Genesis narratives - like the identity or origin of Cain’s wife and those Cain fears. How could details like these be over looked? Why aren’t they answered?
These problems lead to me to believe the narrative’s purpose was originally theological and not historical. So the story is not literal historic truth and doesn’t need to be - only my opinion to be sure.
However, if you must have literalist answers to these questions, and will not accept any other possible explainations that hold that the Genesis narrative is not literal historical truth, then go to www.answersingenesis.org. This non-catholic christian site promotes only a very ultra-literalist reading of the Genesis narratives. They have all kinds of clever ways of answering the above problematic texts all from an ultra-literalist POV.
Be warned - this POV can warp your mind. These are also the people that hold dinosaurs and humans cohabitated. They would have to think this because Adam literally named all the animals that God made - ALL the animals. They are in the process of building a museum that displays dinos and humans coexisting; kinda like the Flintstones I suppose.
More fruit born of sola scriptura.
However, if you cherry pick their answers you may find some clever ones that satisfy your inquiries.

Have fun.

Peter

 

[itinerant1]

Is the Eucharist figurative or Is He Real?

A precise way to describe the Eucharist is that it is both symbolic and real: The Eucharist is what it symbolizes.

itinerant1 :tiphat: