Father Robert Barron said that Adam was a figurative figure not a literal one? Help!

  • Thread starter Thread starter FishyPete
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FishyPete said:
I am not slamming anyone! I simply do not understand his comments. And I would love for someone to enlighten me.

He said in the video that Adam is not a literal figure with regards to Genesis.

What does that mean???
Click to expand...
If you listen to his entire third point, he nowhere says that there were no original parents, from whom we inherited original sin. He says the “Adam,” who personally named all the animals, was not a literal figure.

Please listen to the entire video again. Fr. Barron says absolutely nothing contrary to Catholic teaching.
 
From a CAF tract on the subject:

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. 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 original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

Full article here:
catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution
 
Adam and Eve were our literal first parents. Period.

See Romans 5:12:

biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm

The idea that God randomly picked two almost humans and dropped souls into them is a modern fiction that has no scientific basis - since science cannot study the soul - or basis in Scripture. Sin had entered the world and death. Jesus Christ came to call sinners to repentance. By His death, he conquered death and arose bodily from the tomb. What does Baptism do? We all have Original Sin.

Peace,
Ed
 
Father Robert Barron replied to his video tonight, go have a look, he said:

Adam is not a literal historic figure like George Washington.

He seems to believe in original sin, and I’d guess two original parents, though he hasn’t said so.

So there you go, he believes Adam by name was not real in terms of the story of Genesis.
 
Except that your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

You said, quoting Fr. Barron, that “Adam is not a literal historic figure like George Washington.”

You said that “Fr. Barron believes Adam by name was not real in terms of the story of Genesis.”

That would be true if “Adam is a literal historic figure” is equal to “Adam by name was real in terms of the story of Genesis.”

To say that Genesis is religious poetry, as does Fr. Barron, is not to deny the truth of what is taught there–that God created everything, that he set man over his creation having created him in his own image and likeness, that sin entered the world through the disobedience of the first parents. We might say that Genesis is not word for word, to the letter, historical truth, and we’d be right to do so. Why? Because that’s not what it was written to be–we cannot apply the standards of what constitutes historical writing now in our own time (and a necessity for extreme accuracy) to the way things were written in those days, especially when it wasn’t intended to be history in the way that other works in the Bible were (even some elsewhere in Genesis!).

And be very, very careful about making claims about things that are known to Fr. Barron and God in terms of one man’s faith.

-ACEGC
 
"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. 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 original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Peace,
Ed
 
I am an incarnation of Adam.
An individual expression of the reality human nature:
I have not created myself, but I participate in the creation of who I choose to be.
I am unique, existing in relation to my God, my fellow man and all creation.
My thoughts, feelings and intentions are mine, known only to God who, in His compassion understands me through and through; these I can share with others.
I sin, taking what belongs to God for myself, including this body/mind/spirit that He created as well as the decision as to what is right and wrong.
I would be doomed to both physical and spiritual death were it not for the sacrifice of another man, our Saviour, who is both man and God and who takes upon Himself my sins and my suffering, and promises life everlasting with God.
This is real in the here and now.

At the same time that this is metaphysically true, it also relates to events, decisions, persons that existed in time.

I get confused when people start using terms like figurative, allegorical, literal etc. The Truth in Genesis, I believe is revealed by the Holy Spirit and has been well described in the Church’s teachings. Genesis makes more sense than anything else I have come across to describe how we were created and how we are now who we are.
 
FishyPete said:
Ok, so I really respect Father Robert Baron, but I came across this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

at the 6 minute mark

And to say I was shocked was an understatement.

Can anyone provide some insight here? Doesn’t this fly in the face of original sin? I am sooooooo confused.😦
Click to expand...
I don’t think he meant that, though it could give that impression.

Rest assured that there was a first man and a first woman, the originators of the human race.

See the link below, very well documented as an answer who doubt the existence of a first man, Adam, and a first woman, EVE. It is Defined Dogma, and also that they were created in a state of innocence, that they sinned, and we have inherited their sin.

See link below.
Material is copyrighted so I used a link. Read the Catechism on creation and you see that the Church still believes and teaches that Adam and Eve were our first parents.

Linus2nd
 
Did Adam really live for 930 years? Or is that some kind of literary device?
 
Does this additional approach make sense???

The first three chapters of Genesis contain historical Divine Revelation.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I don’t think he meant that, though it could give that impression.

Rest assured that there was a first man and a first woman, the originators of the human race.

See the link below, very well documented as an answer who doubt the existence of a first man, Adam, and a first woman, EVE. It is Defined Dogma, and also that they were created in a state of innocence, that they sinned, and we have inherited their sin.

See link below.
Material is copyrighted so I used a link. Read the Catechism on creation and you see that the Church still believes and teaches that Adam and Eve were our first parents.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
I don’t see the link, though I would be interested in reading your source.

The vast majority of biologists would disagree with the opinion that a single adam and a single eve could be identified, if by that you mean homo sapiens (people just like us). The closest thing to that, based on the genetic evidence, would place the two individuals so far apart chronologically that they could never have met each other.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I don’t think he meant that, though it could give that impression.

Rest assured that there was a first man and a first woman, the originators of the human race.

See the link below, very well documented as an answer who doubt the existence of a first man, Adam, and a first woman, EVE. It is Defined Dogma, and also that they were created in a state of innocence, that they sinned, and we have inherited their sin.

See link below.
Material is copyrighted so I used a link. Read the Catechism on creation and you see that the Church still believes and teaches that Adam and Eve were our first parents.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Sorry about that. whynotcatholicism.net/view/adam-and-eve-true-original-sin-true

Linus2nd
 
FishyPete said:
But that discredits original sin, does it not? I mean I understand that genesis cannot be read as a historical scientific account, but the acceptance of One souled man and One souled woman is essential to the truth of original sin and why our Lord had to die on the cross… No?
Click to expand...
An allegory doesn’t rule out original sin at all. It is not scientific but it is historical! It seems highly unlikely that several human couples grasped simultaneously the difference between good and evil. Moral insight is clear evidence of the fundamental difference between persons and animals. Nor is it a distinction that can emerge gradually. We either realise something is right or wrong or we don’t. There are no half-measures when it comes to the possession of a conscience. 🙂
 
Bobby_Ray said:
Did Adam really live for 930 years? Or is that some kind of literary device?
Click to expand...
We don’t even know whether years were measured in modern. It is almost certain they were different but in any case we shouldn’t expect accuracy in an allegory.
 
edwest2 said:
"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. 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 original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
Click to expand...
👍 It is absurd to think sin existed before man - on this planet.
 
Let me make some things PERFECTLY CLEAR:
  1. Father Robert Barron said and I quote:
    **
    Adam is a literary figure gesturing toward the truth of what obtained “in the beginning.” He is not to be read as a straightforward historical figure like Caesar or Abraham Lincoln.**
  2. I do not wish to get into a discussion on evolution because frankly it is a.) not 100 per cent germane to the discussion at hand, and b.) it is not allowed and I respect that.
  3. I respect Father Barron, and I respect his work, i DO NOT think he is not a holy man, because I have no knowledge to make that claim. And I DO NOT QUESTION GOD’S work.
to sum up:

Here is my question for Father Barron, which he has not answered:
**
Father, I understand that Adam and Eve were literary figures, but my question is what is your stand on original sin and how we inherited it? The Catholic Church states, and I have been taught that we come from one man and one woman, and that we inherited original sin from that one man and woman, regardless of whether or not they were called “Adam”, or “Eve”. What is you stance on this, irrespective of Genesis, given that you have stated that original sin is like a sickness we inherit (I believe it was in a blog post). I love your work, but this has troubled me, and I can’t find a definite answer from you anywhere?**

Now I have scoured the internet (because I respect the man, and enjoy his work) trying in vain to find even a scrap of information regarding his stand on our FIRST TWO PARENTS, outside of Genesis, which I understand points to the primordial event.

I CANT FIND ANY. see? I can’t find any…

If anyone can point me to a link or a video where Father Robert Barron discusses his thoughts on original sin, please do so.

We don’t need to read Genesis as a literal historical account (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 original fault freely committed by our first parents). I know that. What I am wondering about is what Father B thinks about original sin and how WE inherited it.

thanks and Happy Thanksgiving.
 
I do remember that on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In, they once said that Original Sin depends on how original you choose to be!😃
 
LegoGE1947 said:
I do remember that on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In, they once said that Original Sin depends on how original you choose to be!😃
Click to expand...
Thanks but comedy isn’t what i’m looking for here… (with all due respect :))
 
FishyPete said:
Thanks but comedy isn’t what i’m looking for here… (with all due respect :))
Click to expand...
Okay. This topic of original sin is one I have struggled with myself. So I’ll just grab a bag of popcorn and sit over here quietly:popcorn:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top