Garden of Eden was in Another Universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the Online Etymology Dictionary on ‘earth’:

O.E. eorþe “ground, soil, dry land,” also used (along with middangeard) for “the (material) world” (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.Fris. erthe “earth,” O.S. ertha, O.N. jörð, M.Du. eerde, Du. aarde, O.H.G. erda, Ger. Erde, Goth. airþa), from PIE base *er- “earth, ground” (cf. M.Ir. -ert “earth”). The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400.

Perhaps when I’m feeling less intellectually lazy, I’ll try to figure out the translated meaning of the author’s actually used word. But for now, I still don’t see much about ‘earth’ that requires it to mean specifically this planet or even this “universe” (that’s an odd term if our universe is more like one among many connected universes in an even larger multiverse… making the multiverse totality the real “universe”/“earth”/material world perhaps.) Why wouldn’t “earth,” what philosophers used to consider a primary building block of the material world, not our planet or solar system or galaxy or, presumably, post-Big Bang universe, just apply to the “dust” which is transient, material existence?

I happen to think it’s most likely that the Garden was on our planet, but I do think there’s “doxastic wiggle room” here. Thank you for providing that source, though. Anyone know what the original Scripture language for these passages meant by “heaven” and “earth”? I mean, wouldn’t excluding multiverses from “earth” make them into heaven, especially since anything pre-Big Bang would better qualify as “in the beginning”?
Sorry In Spiration (love that name, very clever) but what does that mean ‘the earth was considered as a planet from c. 1400?’ The earth was known to be a global sphere for at least 5,700 years:*** It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth:***’ (Is. 40:22.)Above I showed where a pope condemned any notion of ‘another world’. Obviously papal decrees mean nothing on this ‘Philosophy’ thread, where mediaeval popes were considered scientific ignoramuses who got all their papal decrees on cosmology wrong.
The world then was geocentric, that is, the earth was not a planet, never in revelation. The earth was the Lord’s footstool and footstools do not fly off at 70,000mph around the sun. Poor popes, imagine thinking the earth really was the Lord’s footstool. The bible must have meant spaceship, or comet, or flying ‘stool’, if you get what I mean. Why the same decree meant Catholics had to believe Adam and Eve and the garden of Paradise was on that same footstool, the unmoving earth at the centre of the universe as Genesis tried to get us to believe. But we are much smarter now, hell flies around the sun and the Garden could be in a parallel universe. God help us all.
 
=Neil_Anthony;7395303]I have a theory that the Garden of Eden wasn’t on Earth where described (around the tigris and euphrates river) but was in another universe or another dimension, or something like that. Is that heretical?
Heritical? I don’t think so. As i’ts not defind doctrine or dogma.

However:

In God’s CREATED Universe there are science tells us “BILLIONS” of galaxy’s, stars and plantets and DESPITE DEEP exploration of space, ONLY ONE PLANET and ONLY ONE SPECEIES on this ONE Palnet are completely unique.

ONLY Earth can sustain life and ONLY humanity has the ability to Know God, Love God, Thank God and Serve God. The odds of this beinf coincediencal are BILLONS TO ONE!

In addition to the odds supporting your position is also the issue of LOGIC…

How Could Adam and Eve be our First parents [which is a Church Doctrine and MUST be believed, If they were [are] from another planet? 🤷

You may wish to rethink your position friend?

God Bless,Pat
 
Heritical? I don’t think so. As i’ts not defind doctrine or dogma.

However:

In God’s CREATED Universe there are science tells us “BILLIONS” of galaxy’s, stars and plantets and DESPITE DEEP exploration of space, ONLY ONE PLANET and ONLY ONE SPECEIES on this ONE Palnet are completely unique.

ONLY Earth can sustain life and ONLY humanity has the ability to Know God, Love God, Thank God and Serve God. The odds of this beinf coincediencal are BILLONS TO ONE!

In addition to the odds supporting your position is also the issue of LOGIC…

How Could Adam and Eve be our First parents [which is a Church Doctrine and MUST be believed, If they were [are] from another planet? 🤷

You may wish to rethink your position friend?

God Bless,Pat
Just one point Pat. When you say not ‘heretical’ does that mean Catholics can ignore that papal decree as not having any authority at all? Can such decrees deemed ‘not infallible’ by individual Catholics be put in the waste bin?
 
Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»
 
THe Garden of Eden was created on Earth, just like everything else. That is doctrine in the bible.

Make of this as you wish.
I am inclined to agree with you. Also perhaps (in fact very perhaps) it still exists here on earth - not that its dimensions will enable you to access it.
 
=cassini;7399467]Just one point Pat. When you say not ‘heretical’ does that mean Catholics can ignore that papal decree as not having any authority at all? Can such decrees deemed ‘not infallible’ by individual Catholics be put in the waste bin?
GREAT Question! Thanks for asking.

There continues to be alot of confussion on what is a “Infallible pronouncement.” To began with it must be described as such at it’s start of the “new teaching.” This IS an “Infallible Teaching.”

However, a Teaching NEED NOT BE proclaimed “Infallible” to require mandated acceptence and belief.

FROM THE CURRENT CODE OF CANON LAW

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI


Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith,** he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.**

"]§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1
. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

**§2. **Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753
Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops. [This is speaking of the CC Mageristrium]

**Can. 754 **All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Take note of the FACT that both Infallible Teaching and other teaching even if NOT Infallibly proclaimed; SO LONG AS THEY TOUCH ON ANY MATTER OF FAITH AND OR MORALS require our assent.

I Do not believe that the LOCATION of The garden touches on either catagory. That it was real however is a Doctrine to be held; and the idea of Eden being on a different planet touches on matters of Faith… Were Adam and Eve real? Yes, and this to is a Doctrine to be held in belief.

Thanks for asking,
God Bless,
Pat
 
Thanks for all the replies.
I should explain what problems this unusual theory about Eden help solve:
  1. Death is a result of the fall, but we know that Earth has always had death. So the expulsion from the garden may have meant sending our souls to this planet/universe.
  2. The angels guarding the entrance to the garden of Eden are nowhere to be found on Earth.
  3. Inheriting original sin due to the sin of another seems unjust. If we are born on this earth after a sin of our own in another universe/dimension, to give us a second chance, that seems more just.
  4. Natural history on earth shows we descended from a population of early humans, not from one man and one woman. It is hard to reconcile with dogma.
 
GREAT Question! Thanks for asking.

There continues to be alot of confussion on what is a “Infallible pronouncement.” To began with it must be described as such at it’s start of the “new teaching.” This IS an “Infallible Teaching.”

However, a Teaching NEED NOT BE proclaimed “Infallible” to require mandated acceptence and belief.

FROM THE CURRENT CODE OF CANON LAW

THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI


Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith,** he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.**

"]§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1
. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

**§2. **Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753
Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops. [This is speaking of the CC Mageristrium]

**Can. 754 **All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Take note of the FACT that both Infallible Teaching and other teaching even if NOT Infallibly proclaimed; SO LONG AS THEY TOUCH ON ANY MATTER OF FAITH AND OR MORALS require our assent.

I Do not believe that the LOCATION of The garden touches on either catagory. That it was real however is a Doctrine to be held; and the idea of Eden being on a different planet touches on matters of Faith… Were Adam and Eve real? Yes, and this to is a Doctrine to be held in belief.

Thanks for asking,
God Bless,
Pat

Great reply Pat. Now if in 1459 Pope Pius II condemned the idea that there could be another world than this one, to say the Garden of Eden was in Another Universe is against the infallible teaching of the Church. Oh by the way, no doctrine is ’ described as such at it’s start of the “new teaching.” This IS an “Infallible Teaching,” never. Indeed I cannot think of one occassion when the Church said this is infallible, this is not. The reason why is shown above. ALL TEACHINGS ON FAITH AND MORALS BY A POPE ARE INFALLIBLE.
 
=Neil_Anthony;7403725]Thanks for all the replies.
I should explain what problems this unusual theory about Eden help solve:
  1. Death is a result of the fall, but we know that Earth has always had death. So the expulsion from the garden may have meant sending our souls to this planet/universe.
***No death as part of God’s Plan was exclusively for His Created humanity alone.
WHY” READ Isaiah 43: verses 7 -21 and you’ll have your answer.
Of ALL created things ONLY humanity holds the POSSIBILITY of knowing God; Loving God; Thanking God; OBEYING God and Serving God.
Thus the larger the number of humanity; the GREATER the Glory to God.*** PJM
  1. The angels guarding the entrance to the garden of Eden are nowhere to be found on Earth.
And just how would we know this as they are from the Spiritual realm? Have you ever seen your guardian Angel? PJM
  1. Inheriting original sin due to the sin of another seems unjust. If we are born on this earth after a sin of our own in another universe/dimension, to give us a second chance, that seems more just.
Also while your in the Book of Isaiah; LOOK UP chapter 55: verses 6-9
***God at times is pragmatic. If your mom and dad have blue eyes and red hair; your going to also have blue eyes and red hair.
Adam and Eve are the very first parents of all of humanity. Had they NOT sinned we would have inherited there perfection as well. BUT they did sin, and we do [DIVINE JUSTICE] share in this imperfection brought about by freewill disobedience***. PJM
  1. Natural history on earth shows we descended from a population of early humans, not from one man and one woman. It is hard to reconcile with dogma.
***REALLY!:o

So you have evidence of how sight, hearing, freewill, minds, intellects and souls evolved? WOW! Write a book and make a couple of million dollars. No-one before you has been able to PROVE this theory of yours, all though a GREAT MANY have tried.***

May God grant you right understanding my friend!

Pat
 
Seriously though, if anyone’s got a legitimate source from Church Dogma that insists the Garden of Eden had to be on this planet, I’m interested to see it. I’ll gladly go with the infallible doctrine; I can’t claim to have a lot of certainty on its teaching here. But for what it’s worth, my gut tells me that your theory is in the clear, Neil. That is, I wouldn’t say its necessarily heresy. At most, I’d say you’re violating a couple epistemic duties.
Would common sense do?

Starting with the current population of human beings, common sense would say that their human nature had to come from human ancestors with the same human nature that you and I have. Catholicism teaches that human nature was transmitted by the first sole parents of the human species lovingly known as Adam and Eve.

Granted that the Garden of Eden is a description of the ideal location in which Adam had a personal relationship with God. But wouldn’t it make sense that this special place would be on the same planet as his descendents, us, occupy. If this lovely garden was in another universe, how would Adam, along with his family get to earth?
Certainly Adam was in enough trouble just being able to exist – would he really have time to learn how to space travel?

On the other hand, Star Wars’ junkies should not be denied their fun.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
Granted that the Garden of Eden is a description of the ideal location in which Adam had a personal relationship with God. But wouldn’t it make sense that this special place would be on the same planet as his descendents, us, occupy. If this lovely garden was in another universe, how would Adam, along with his family get to earth?
Certainly Adam was in enough trouble just being able to exist – would he really have time to learn how to space travel?
But the earth shows no evidence that there was a major change 6000 or so years ago when death was introduced and thistles became a problem for farmers. It looks like the earth always had problems. Also no one has found the garden of eden - if it was on earth, then where is it now?
I’m not talking about space travel, I’m talking about a parallel universe called paradise which is like a better version of earth that man was intended to live in, but was expelled from to this version of earth, in a mystical way, pushed into a parallel ****** universe with death and pain.
 
But the earth shows no evidence that there was a major change 6000 or so years ago when death was introduced and thistles became a problem for farmers. It looks like the earth always had problems.
Understanding the earth’s problems and determining the age of the earth is part of the knowledge of the material/physical world. Mankind is aided by this knowledge; but her or his salvation does not depend on this knowledge.
Also no one has found the garden of eden - if it was on earth, then where is it now?
Finding the “garden” is an attractive detour from the real purpose of human life.

Actually, the purpose of the “garden” was not to be a tourist attraction. Once the “garden’s” real purpose was attained, there was no reason for its physical/material existence on this planet.
I’m not talking about space travel, I’m talking about a parallel universe called paradise which is like a better version of earth that man was intended to live in, but was expelled from to this version of earth, in a mystical way, pushed into a parallel ****** universe with death and pain.
Of course posters can pose all kinds of speculations about creation --even add in some extra universes with all kinds of inhabitants.

CAF has been home to all kinds of speculations on the topic of the “garden” and its people which, I am sorry to report, are aimed at avoiding the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. Thus, I am very interested in knowing how you will eventually work the particular Catholic doctrine of Original Sin into your theory. In my humble opinion, post 27 is a way of avoiding Catholicism.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
Its possible, but unlikely. No, sorry, I think Adam and Eve were Africans and probably very near where scientists have predicted.

But you can think what you want. The Bible doesn’t really state one way or another.
It wouldn’t be a sin to think it was on another planet either.
 
CAF has been home to all kinds of speculations on the topic of the “garden” and its people which, I am sorry to report, are aimed at avoiding the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. Thus, I am very interested in knowing how you will eventually work the particular Catholic doctrine of Original Sin into your theory. In my humble opinion, post 27 is a way of avoiding Catholicism.
My intent is to help reconcile Catholicism with natural history, not to contradict Catholicism.

I am speculating that our souls existed in that parallel universe, chose sin, and then were sent to this universe to be born as babies here. So, in this universe, we have original sin inherited from our parents, but we were born into it because of a bad choice on the other side. But, that might conflict with a doctrine stating that our souls did not exist before our conception? I don’t know, but I find this line of thought might have some benefit to help reconcile with modern science.
 
My intent is to help reconcile Catholicism with natural history, not to contradict Catholicism.

I am speculating that our souls existed in that parallel universe, chose sin, and then were sent to this universe to be born as babies here. So, in this universe, we have original sin inherited from our parents, but we were born into it because of a bad choice on the other side. But, that might conflict with a doctrine stating that our souls did not exist before our conception? I don’t know, but I find this line of thought might have some benefit to help reconcile with modern science.
It seems to me that it would be so much easier to read and understand the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Entering topics is also very useful since the Catechism does expand on the basics and implications.
Do check out the Index.

When one enters a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»


Blessings,
granny

Catholicism has the answers.
 
Oh oh! Now that its in the internet, I would have to set the internet on fire!
You’ve already done that!😉

Seriously, I don’t think we were put on this planet to study for a history test.

That said, we’re not to cast doubt on God’s Word.

Pax Christi.
 
Is this the “fabulous preexistence of souls” that was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top