Eve the first woman

[Peter_Dawson]

I’m not questioning the veracity of the story. But to deny that we are descended from Adam and Eve is what I’m calling a foul on.

I suspect that all alive today are descended from the first two ensouled hominids. In effect, the descendancy cone enveloped everybody long ago, perhaps almost immediately.

But in my opinion, in the beginning, God ensouled the first two hominids, but two that were geographically close to each other, who would recognize each other by their self-awareness, and whose children would be ensouled and who would meet extremely distant cousins, also ensouled, who were not descended from Adam and Eve but who were descended from a common ancestor several generations back, and who were geographically established on Earth near the ones descended from Adam and Eve. This situation would have prevailed to accommodate the genetically-pre-wired incest taboo, which would have been necessary to secure the safety of hominid females within nuclear families.

 

[buffalo]

The Book of Jubilees says that Cain married his twin sister. (this is not canonical)

 

[Omyo12]

In that case, there would be the possibility of not having to descend from Adam and Eve - the source of Original Sin.

The Church disagrees with this hypothesis.

The Church teaches that we descend from “Adam” and “Eve”… but does NOT the literal Adam and Eve

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.
==snip==
Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.
International Theological Commission 2004 - headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)

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.

– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.”
Pope Benedict XVI, Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Gastel Gandolfo (2008)

We Catholics do are NOT required to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. We are NOT required to believe Adam lived just shy of a 1000 years…

However, the spiritual truth is there, and we are all of common decent and subject to Original Sin. However, the genealogies themselves and the literal people can be taken “allegorically”

refer to CCC 159, 282 - 301, 396-409

 

[slyOne]

Hi, SlyOne.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

Cain’s name is a Hebrew pun. Abel’s name is a Hebrew word derived from Syrian.

I take it, therefore, that you believe that Eve spoke Hebrew?

I apologize for possibly insulting your position. What I meant to say was that usually when someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, usually they base it on the fact that it is common knowledge, say for example Protestants claiming Catholicism to be founded by Constantine. Regardless of its truth value, we understand the claim they are making and some of the background arguments. You seem to have brought the concept of a joke in Hebrew, something probably nearly nobody on these forums have heard, given no secondary source to back it up, or even fully explain the concept.

I don’t know what language Eve spoke, it could have been sign language for all I know. I am just going on the assumption that since language doesn’t poof out of thin air, Hebrew must be in some way related to whatever Eve spoke. Even if not, then you are also assuming that Adam and Eve were named by the author of Genesis, not that they are in fact the authentic names. If so, I would ask you, since you seem to know a bit of Hebrew, what all of the other names in the geneology until Noah symbolize, or are those names actually real? And when exactly did the idea of being called by a name originate? Did Adam and Eve have names? I would make the initial hypothesis that they in fact had the name before Hebrew was even conceived.

 

[buffalo]

I apologize for possibly insulting your position. What I meant to say was that usually when someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, usually they base it on the fact that it is common knowledge, say for example Protestants claiming Catholicism to be founded by Constantine. Regardless of its truth value, we understand the claim they are making and some of the background arguments. You seem to have brought the concept of a joke in Hebrew, something probably nearly nobody on these forums have heard, given no secondary source to back it up, or even fully explain the concept.

I don’t know what language Eve spoke, it could have been sign language for all I know. I am just going on the assumption that since language doesn’t poof out of thin air, Hebrew must be in some way related to whatever Eve spoke. Even if not, then you are also assuming that Adam and Eve were named by the author of Genesis, not that they are in fact the authentic names. If so, I would ask you, since you seem to know a bit of Hebrew, what all of the other names in the geneology until Noah symbolize, or are those names actually real? And when exactly did the idea of being called by a name originate? Did Adam and Eve have names? I would make the initial hypothesis that they in fact had the name before Hebrew was even conceived.

This brings up an interesting question? Before the fall how did God communicate with Adam and Eve?

By telepathy? For God to transmit His thoughts he had to introduce language and protocol. What language was that? Was it Hebrew? Or did Adam and Eve develop it to communicate what God communicated to them forward?

 

[slyOne]

True, but the lives of Adam and Eve came and went before Hebrew language existed. I am suggesting that Adam and Eve were named during their own life. The Hebrew language, having to have words derived from something, chose to use Cain and Abel as roots for words that are likewise affiliated. If not, you must be suggesting that either Adam and Eve were not so called in name, or they in fact had no names.

 

[slyOne]

This brings up an interesting question? Before the fall how did God communicate with Adam and Eve?

By telepathy? For God to transmit His thoughts he had to introduce language and protocol. What language was that? Was it Hebrew? Or did Adam and Eve develop it to communicate what God communicated to them forward?

Telepathy might be an interesting hypothesis, depending on what you mean by the term. It seems like, in addition to apparition, interior locution is a frequent manner used by God to communicate private revelation. Thomas Aquinas speculated that due to the Fall, humanity lost some supernatural powers. Maybe mankind had some superior method of communication that was lost after original sin.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Church teaches that we descend from “Adam” and “Eve”… but does NOT the literal Adam and Eve

We Catholics do are NOT required to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. We are NOT required to believe Adam lived just shy of a 1000 years…

However, the spiritual truth is there, and we are all of common decent and subject to Original Sin. However, the genealogies themselves and the literal people can be taken “allegorically”

refer to CCC 159, 282 - 301, 396-409

I agree with everything you just said. I don’t know that I claimed any different.

 

[Omyo12]

I agree with everything you just said. I don’t know that I claimed any different.

Ah, ok, cause…

You seem to imply that, if something is Typology, then that means its not true, but a fabricated story to teach a lesson. I have heard Catholic commentators call Abel a Type of Crhist, but I’ve never heard one say its a fable (for lack of a better term).

…made me think you thought the Church required the story of Cain and Abel to be interpreted as literal truth.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ah, ok, cause…

…made me think you thought the Church required the story of Cain and Abel to be interpreted as literal truth.

Not literal truth, but true people.

 

[Omyo12]

Not literal truth, but true people.

elaborate?

On the surface that almost looks like a contradictory statement

True people as in the actual sons of the first man, Adam, and they lived for hundreds of years?

or true people in that a somewhat similar situation happened in early human history? (not necessarily the second generation of humans)

 

[NotWorthy]

elaborate?

On the surface that almost looks like a contradictory statement

True people as in the actual sons of the first man, Adam, and they lived for hundreds of years?

or true people in that a somewhat similar situation happened in early human history? (not necessarily the second generation of humans)

Here’s what I understand about Creation. This comes from AgapeBibleStudy.Com
:

WHAT CATHOLICS MUST BELIEVE ABOUT CREATION

1. The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time

2.  The special creation by God of man

3.  The formation of woman from man

4.  The unity of the human race

5.  The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice

6.  The divine command laid upon man by God to prove obedience

7.  The transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent

8.  The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence.

9. The promise of a future redeemer

I originally felt that Peter Dawson was denying 4, 6, 7, and 8 (but I may be wrong). Hence, if there was an Adam and Eve, it would seem contradictory to say that Cain and Abel didn’t exist.

And it seems extremely naive to make the claim that the “only conclusion” is the one Peter came up with. I know he says its his opinion, but then he claims that his is the only valid opinion.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Here’s what I understand about Creation. This comes from AgapeBibleStudy.Com
:

WHAT CATHOLICS MUST BELIEVE ABOUT CREATION

1. The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time

2.  The special creation by God of man

3.  The formation of woman from man

4.  The unity of the human race

5.  The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice

6.  The divine command laid upon man by God to prove obedience

7.  The transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent

8.  The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence.

9. The promise of a future redeemer

I originally felt that Peter Dawson was denying 4, 6, 7, and 8 (but I may be wrong). Hence, if there was an Adam and Eve, it would seem contradictory to say that Cain and Abel didn’t exist.

And it seems extremely naive to make the claim that the “only conclusion” is the one Peter came up with. I know he says its his opinion, but then he claims that his is the only valid opinion.

(1) The Church itself would say that, relative to our time frame, God has not stopped creating – don’t forget about the souls of future children.

(2) The formulation is ambiguous. We are permitted to believe in the evolution of our species, but God separately creates the soul of each and ensouls us at conception. At this juncture, the hominid evolution evidence is getting quite substantial.

(3) I don’t believe this. However, of course I believe the conclusion, in Genesis. 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. Genesis 2:24. Physically, psychologically and spiritually, God intends us to be paired. Each man is the chief religious officer of his family. In all other ways, women and men are equals.

(4) Why would I deny this one??? However, there is an interesting problem: Both Neanderthals and those midget hominids in the Pacific seemed to have speciated away from us.

(5) Nah. I do deny this one. The state of justice is hypothetical only, in my opinion. It reflects what man would have been IF the free will, unattended by grace, did not incline to sin, due to our knowledge of our contingency.

Some of the folks here go way, way, way overboard on this. They actually believe that there was a place on Earth where lions purred lovingly at the first ensouled Homo Sapiens and the mosquitoes didn’t bite and there either were no germs or else the germs carefully avoided sickening the first ensouled Homo Sapiens!

(6) The test of Adam and Eve in the story is also a hypothetical. It’s just there to dramatize how unjgraced Man would handle every single moral decision – badly.

(7) The tempting talking serpent is also a hypothetical. The Devil and his demons do exist. I know more about this than I am currently letting on. Also, I have read that really, really strong demonic possessions generate an “air of snakiness” within the minds of bystanders. Interesting!

(8) I don’t believe that there was a fall followed by God kicking the recently-ensouled pair out of a perfect place and a joyous imposition onto the next 100,000,000,000 humans of a strong inclination to sin as a “punishment.” I think that what the Adam and Eve story reflects is something much less “mechanical,” but deeper and subtler.

(9) I think that a redeemer was always needed, and that there was always a grace enlivening our imaginations and our prophets to look for a redeemer.

The ironic thing about black-hearted condemnations which my statements here will generate is that very, very, very, very few in this website who make those condemnations understand the Redeemer concept. I’ve articulated it here, and have been called a “heretic.” Probably almost no one in this website “believes” anything more about Doctrine (9) than the words.

 

[NotWorthy]

Peter, thank you for proving my point.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter, thank you for proving my point.

I am humble enough to admit areas of disagreement.

Humble, because many here say, “Heretic! Heretic!” and yet they themselves reject components of the Faith.

Who is the better Catholic?

Tweedledum, who denies components of the Faith (and you’d be surprised how Catholic I am) and black-heartedly calls someone like me “heretic” without admitting their own differences with the Church?; or

Tweedledee, who openly admits where he believes the Church to be mistaken, and, keeping this admission in mind, never calls anyone here “heretic”?

For instance, NotWorthy, do you believe that Jesus was not technically born because Mary didn’t break water so that Jesus didn’t come into this world via the birth canal?

Do you believe that Mary died before her Assumption?

Do you believe that we have the right to pick and choose what we want to believe, in Encyclicals?

Be brave. Few here are.

 

[NotWorthy]

I am humble enough to admit areas of disagreement.

Humble, because many here say, “Heretic! Heretic!” and yet they themselves reject components of the Faith.

Who is the better Catholic?

Tweedledum, who denies components of the Faith (and you’d be surprised how Catholic I am) and black-heartedly calls someone like me “heretic” without admitting their own differences with the Church?; or

Tweedledee, who openly admits where he believes the Church to be mistaken, and, keeping this admission in mind, never calls anyone here “heretic”?

For instance, NotWorthy, do you believe that Jesus was not technically born because Mary didn’t break water so that Jesus didn’t come into this world via the birth canal?

Do you believe that Mary died before her Assumption?

Do you believe that we have the right to pick and choose what we want to believe, in Encyclicals?

Be brave. Few here are.

Was Jesus technically born? Why, yes! But I don’t understand the point of the question. Caesarean babies are still born, nonetheless.

Did Mary die? Yes (although I wouldn’t argue with anyone who felt that she didn’t die).

Oh, we can pick and choose between various things in encyclicals. Once its dogma, however, we are placed under certain restrictions. I’ve had doubts from time to time regarding dogma’s, but I’ve come to realize that the doubts originate from lack of knowledge and trust in the Church and Her teachings. Doubts, I feel, are OK. But when one teaches that something that the Church dogmatically teaches is wrong, then they’ve crossed into the heretic zone - for isn’t that what heresy is? It’s not a false belief, but a false teaching while knowing it goes against what the Church emphatically teaches?

The canon of the Bible is a good example. The Church decided on the canon during several synods and local councils (Carthage and Hippo), which were supported by the Pope in the late 4th century. After that, it was still all right to question the canon. Several people, proper Catholics and even Cardinals (if I remember correctly), denied several books of the Catholic Canon. But once the Council of Trent defined it dogmatically (and the Pope “signed off” on this decision), then its no longer proper to publicly question the Church’s decision on the canon.

Does that answer your questions, Peter?

 

[Omyo12]

Here’s what I understand about Creation. This comes from AgapeBibleStudy.Com
:

WHAT CATHOLICS MUST BELIEVE ABOUT CREATION

1. The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time

2.  The special creation by God of man

3.  The formation of woman from man

4.  The unity of the human race

5.  The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice

6.  The divine command laid upon man by God to prove obedience

7.  The transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent

8.  The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence.

9. The promise of a future redeemer

I originally felt that Peter Dawson was denying 4, 6, 7, and 8 (but I may be wrong). Hence, if there was an Adam and Eve, it would seem contradictory to say that Cain and Abel didn’t exist.

And it seems extremely naive to make the claim that the “only conclusion” is the one Peter came up with. I know he says its his opinion, but then he claims that his is the only valid opinion.

Thanks for the detailed reply

If there was an Adam and Eve (in a symbolic sense) I don’t think its contradictory to deny the existance of the literal Cain and Abel.

However, yes, there was true primeval event that is described by the story of Cain and Abel

The RSV2CE translates 'adm as Adam and man. Genesis 5, if the word is translated consistently, reads:

Genesis 5
“1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Adam when they were created.”

According to Church teaching, the human soul was a special creation even though the body was “from the earth” and according to Pope Pius XII’s statement in 1941, Eve is a product of Adam.

However in what way Eve came from Adam is kinda also open to interpretation. For me, I believe Eve came from Adam to show that they are one flesh. It shows the important union between a man and a woman. Also, the word used is “rib” which also translates as “side.” This could mean Eve was equal to Adam (however made subordinate to him in spirit after the Fall).

Its also naive to claim the only conclusion is a literal one (as so many creationists boast)

 

[buffalo]

Thanks for the detailed reply

If there was an Adam and Eve (in a symbolic sense) I don’t think its contradictory to deny the existance of the literal Cain and Abel.

However, yes, there was true primeval event that is described by the story of Cain and Abel

The RSV2CE translates 'adm as Adam and man. Genesis 5, if the word is translated consistently, reads:

According to Church teaching, the human soul was a special creation even though the body was “from the earth” and according to Pope Pius XII’s statement in 1941, Eve is a product of Adam.

However in what way Eve came from Adam is kinda also open to interpretation. For me, I believe Eve came from Adam to show that they are one flesh. It shows the important union between a man and a woman. Also, the word used is “rib” which also translates as “side.” This could mean Eve was equal to Adam (however made subordinate to him in spirit after the Fall).

Its also naive to claim the only conclusion is a literal one (as so many creationists boast)

What has been the constant teaching and understanding of the Church regarding Adam and Eve?

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks for the detailed reply

If there was an Adam and Eve (in a symbolic sense) I don’t think its contradictory to deny the existance of the literal Cain and Abel.

However, yes, there was true primeval event that is described by the story of Cain and Abel

The RSV2CE translates 'adm as Adam and man. Genesis 5, if the word is translated consistently, reads:

According to Church teaching, the human soul was a special creation even though the body was “from the earth” and according to Pope Pius XII’s statement in 1941, Eve is a product of Adam.

However in what way Eve came from Adam is kinda also open to interpretation. For me, I believe Eve came from Adam to show that they are one flesh. It shows the important union between a man and a woman. Also, the word used is “rib” which also translates as “side.” This could mean Eve was equal to Adam (however made subordinate to him in spirit after the Fall).

Its also naive to claim the only conclusion is a literal one (as so many creationists boast)

If you re-read Peter’s opening post, you may understand my angst at his choice of words:

Cain and Abel are fictional. The only reason why anyone says otherwise is that they are clinging to a false notion that “understanding the Bible is simple. Since the book is ‘from God,’ every jot and tittle is perfectly true.”

In fact, even ancient Hebrew children – even ancient Hebrew little children – knew that the Genesis Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel stories were fictional.

But they don’t teach infallible history. In fact, the stories are the ancient version of modern day Dr. Seuss stories. If we were travel back in time and kidnap two ancient Hebrew children to our day-and-age, and plunk them down in front of a computer screen and translate what some of the folks here maintain, when they say that the Bible, including the Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel stories, are perfectly historical, the ancient Hebrew children would look at each other with complete astonishment, and then burst out laughing at the members of this site who maintain that the stories are historical.

The effect would be the same as a room full of adults seriously discussing in front of modern kids whether Mickey and Donald and Pluto ever got married, and where they spent their honeymoon, and, by the way, do they have good credit and do they prefer Mastercard or Visa, or Discover Card?

I disagree especially with the parts I underlined.

And there seems to be the misnomer that, since I believe in Adam and Eve, I also believe that the 6 day Creation Account is completely accurate. I don’t believe that, but I don’t question someone who does.

Its also naive to claim the only conclusion is a literal one (as so many creationists boast)

And this naive claim is one that I haven’t supported.

 

[NotWorthy]

Regarding the question of whether Cain and Abel were real, I would wonder why one is willing to accept the existence of Adam and Eve but then write off Cain and Abel as fictional.

Although I admit the argument is as fruitful as discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, the point of view that “they are fictional and this is the only rational conclusion” is even more fruitless.