Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?

[grannymh]

I cannot help but notice that your wording includes an insistence that “we are descendants from a population of two.”

This insistence, taken (I assume) to mean that Adam and Eve cannot have been selected from a larger (than two individuals) biological population, is what I do not find consistently reflected in Catholic documents.

I insist on a population of two because that is what is in the first three delightful chapters of Genesis.

A population of two maintains that Adam and Eve are not selected from a population. They originated within a population. Originated would emphasis that if the material anatomy came from proper pre-existent and living matter, it would still be necessary for a spiritual soul to animate the matter in order for it to become a human body. The concept of spiritual soul is not part of the normal evolution methods.

What is definitely contrary to Catholic teaching is the evolution concept that the human species formed as a large population evolving from a large population. Cladograms do not show a romantic Eve and Adam. The Homo/Pan split or divergence is considered a speciation event. The Homo side had more than two individuals.

 

[cfauster]

What is definitely contrary to Catholic teaching is the evolution concept that the human species formed as a large population evolving from a large population … The Homo/Pan split or divergence is considered a speciation event. The Homo side had more than two individuals.

I think you have clearly articulated your position, and I think I understand your position. If so, based on what you’ve written in other posts, besides the above statement your position also includes an insistence that Adam was created before Eve, and perhaps also that Eve’s body was created from Adam’s body (of course, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on any aspect of my understanding of your position).

The International Theological Commission document Communion and Stewardship does not go into detail, and merely has this sentence in paragraph 70:
“Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.”

The phrase “whether as individuals or in populations” is the extent of the document’s apparent acceptance of a breeding population consisting of others besides the literal couple of two, Adam and Eve.

More explication is found in this thread.

… They originated within a population. Originated would emphasis that if the material anatomy came from proper pre-existent and living matter, it would still be necessary for a spiritual soul to animate the matter in order for it to become a human body.

Here you do seem to accept a population larger than two, as long as only the two (Adam and Eve) are the first true humans, and as long as a spiritual soul created directly by God animates those two bodies and makes them true humans.

If so, then I would not say that you feel the science of human evolution necessarily contradicts Catholic doctrine, but only that the science of human evolution does not include Catholic doctrine. In other words, one cannot expect the science to be sufficient in providing all the important, relevant information.

 

[grannymh]

I think you have clearly articulated your position, and I think I understand your position. If so, based on what you’ve written in other posts, besides the above statement your position also includes an insistence that Adam was created before Eve, and perhaps also that Eve’s body was created from Adam’s body (of course, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on any aspect of my understanding of your position).

The International Theological Commission document Communion and Stewardship does not go into detail, and merely has this sentence in paragraph 70:
“Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.”

The phrase “whether as individuals or in populations” is the extent of the document’s apparent acceptance of a breeding population consisting of others besides the literal couple of two, Adam and Eve.

More explication is found in this thread.

Here you do seem to accept a population larger than two, as long as only the two (Adam and Eve) are the first true humans, and as long as a spiritual soul created directly by God animates those two bodies and makes them true humans.

If so, then I would not say that you feel the science of human evolution necessarily contradicts Catholic doctrine, but only that the science of human evolution does not include Catholic doctrine. In other words, one cannot expect the science to be sufficient in providing all the important, relevant information.

Briefly, because my head will soon be using the keyboard as a pillow.

Here is another way to explain what I am trying to point out. The science of human evolution is precisely following Darwin’s basic evolution model. This means that one has to know how basic evolution occurs over time.

As far as I know, the evolution of Homo … species (plural intended) was not a one day event nor a one population event.

Note to Eve and Adam. I still love you even when I have a hard time explaining you. Your existence is a true Victory in those first three loving chapters of Genesis.

 

[grannymh]

Here you do seem to accept a population larger than two, as long as only the two (Adam and Eve) are the first true humans, and as long as a spiritual soul created directly by God animates those two bodies and makes them true humans.

If so, then I would not say that you feel the science of human evolution necessarily contradicts Catholic doctrine, but only that the science of human evolution does not include Catholic doctrine. In other words, one cannot expect the science to be sufficient in providing all the important, relevant information.

I will never get to bed because my brain cannot figure out why the material realm of the scientist would ever contain the spiritual realm of Catholic doctrines.

Stick to the scientific method which says that populations evolve into new populations. Is there any natural science textbook which states that the Homo populations over time evolved into two persons fondly known as Mr. and Mrs. Smith? Two is not the scientific method.

It is the scientific method per se which contradicts the Catholic doctrine on the origin of humankind. The ending Homo population from the Homo/Pan speciation event will never be described as a population of two humans.

That “never” contradicts the Catholic survival of two human founders of humankind.

 

[grannymh]

Good morning.

One of the more interesting things about Original Sin, is the search for the perpetrator not perpetrators plural.

The science of human evolution is not a good source because humans, according to the standard evolution theory, evolved in multiple “Homo” versions over centuries until the “modern man anatomy” model was strong enough and smart enough to survive in numbers large enough to dominate somewhere in Africa. (Rebecca Cann et al, “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution”, 1987) *Wikipedia *points out that the “Eve” was not the only woman in the population. “3. Common Misconceptions” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

If one does not want to use the standard evolution method as the reason why the science of human evolution opposes the singular man and singular woman teaching of Catholicism – here is research evidence that scientifically speaking “Eve” is part of a population.

 

[cfauster]

I will never get to bed because my brain cannot figure out why the material realm of the scientist would ever contain the spiritual realm of Catholic doctrines.

I would not expect the material realm of the scientist to contain the spiritual realm. I only expect compatibility and complementarity (rather than incompatibility and contradiction), but I don’t expect science to do theology, or vice versa.

Stick to the scientific method which says that populations evolve into new populations.

Good advice when doing science!

Is there any natural science textbook which states that the Homo populations over time evolved into two persons fondly known as Mr. and Mrs. Smith?

Not that I know of. I would not expect to find such a textbook either.

It is the scientific method per se which contradicts the Catholic doctrine on the origin of humankind. The ending Homo population from the Homo/Pan speciation event will never be described as a population of two humans. That “never” contradicts the Catholic survival of two human founders of humankind.

It’s not a contradiction. It can’t be, given the different questions and methods of science and theology.

 

[cfauster]

Good morning.

One of the more interesting things about Original Sin, is the search for the perpetrator not perpetrators plural.

The science of human evolution is not a good source because humans, according to the standard evolution theory, evolved in multiple “Homo” versions over centuries until the “modern man anatomy” model was strong enough and smart enough to survive in numbers large enough to dominate somewhere in Africa. (Rebecca Cann et al, “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution”, 1987) *Wikipedia *points out that the “Eve” was not the only woman in the population. “3. Common Misconceptions” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

If one does not want to use the standard evolution method as the reason why the science of human evolution opposes the singular man and singular woman teaching of Catholicism – here is research evidence that scientifically speaking “Eve” is part of a population.

Yes. You are correct that “Mitochondrial Eve” is part of a population.

Again, Eve (but speaking now of the biblical Eve) and the biblical Adam being part of a population does not contradict the Catholic doctrine that all true humans descend from Adam and Eve, and that all true humans “inherit” (in a non-biological sense) Original Sin. Original Sin could be transmitted down the generations despite the fact that the third generation of true humans (grandchildren of Adam and Eve) had four, not just two, grandparents or that the fourth generation had 8 great-grandparents, etc. As long as the ancestry of every true human includes Adam, seems to me the universality of Original Sin from Adam in all true humans would be preserved.

Perhaps the contradiction you see (but correct me if I am wrong) involves the co-existence in the population of the hominins or hominids who are not true humans. If so, I would note that this has been acknowledged and discussed by authors cited in this thread.

 

[grannymh]

Yes. You are correct that “Mitochondrial Eve” is part of a population.

Again, Eve (but speaking now of the biblical Eve) and the biblical Adam being part of a population does not contradict the Catholic doctrine that all true humans descend from Adam and Eve, and that all true humans “inherit” (in a non-biological sense) Original Sin. Original Sin could be transmitted down the generations despite the fact that the third generation of true humans (grandchildren of Adam and Eve) had four, not just two, grandparents or that the fourth generation had 8 great-grandparents, etc. As long as the ancestry of every true human includes Adam, seems to me the universality of Original Sin from Adam in all true humans would be preserved.

Perhaps the contradiction you see (but correct me if I am wrong) involves the co-existence in the population of the hominins or hominids who are not true humans. If so, I would note that this has been acknowledged and discussed by authors cited in this thread.

I am referring to an originating population of real humans, more than two, with a
fully complete human nature (Genesis 1: 27) which was passed down to descendants. Apparently, Genesis 1: 27 is not a science text book. Thus, I can understand why scientific multiple populations in the Homo category are preferred. So be it.

You may have the last word.

 

[cfauster]

I am referring to an originating population of real humans, more than two, with a
fully complete human nature (Genesis 1: 27) which was passed down to descendants. Apparently, Genesis 1: 27 is not a science text book. Thus, I can understand why scientific multiple populations in the Homo category are preferred. So be it.

You may have the last word.

I was referring to your statement yesterday:
“The difficulty is that not everyone has a full understanding of what happens when “evolution” intersects with a basic Catholic doctrine such as we are descendants from a population of two.” (underlined in your original).

You also wrote:
“I insist on a population of two because that is what is in the first three delightful chapters of Genesis…What is definitely contrary to Catholic teaching is the evolution concept that the human species formed as a large population evolving from a large population. Cladograms do not show a romantic Eve and Adam. The Homo/Pan split or divergence is considered a speciation event. The Homo side had more than two individuals.”

If instead you are “referring to an originating population of real humans, more than two, with a fully complete human nature (Genesis 1: 27) which was passed down to descendants,” I’m a bit confused.

Perhaps yesterday when you wrote “I insist on a population of two because that is what is in the first three delightful chapters of Genesis” you specifically meant Genesis 2, whereas this morning you are referring specifically to Genesis 1: “I am referring to an originating population of real humans, more than two, with a
fully complete human nature (Genesis 1: 27) which was passed down to descendants.”

Indeed, that is a difference between the stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

But your many posts over the years make abundantly clear - I think - that even if the originating population of true humans soon numbered more than two, the very first true humans numbered only two - Adam and Eve - and in fact that Adam preceded Eve.

Finally, this morning you concluded (in part):
“Apparently, Genesis 1: 27 is not a science text book.”

I agree. It’s important, fascinating, foundational, essential, and more - all the positive adjectives you and others have rightly used to describe Genesis 1: 27, the first three chapters of Genesis of which that verse is a part, the entire book of Genesis, and the entire Bible.

 

[grannymh]

I was referring to your statement yesterday:
“The difficulty is that not everyone has a full understanding of what happens when “evolution” intersects with a basic Catholic doctrine such as we are descendants from a population of two.” (underlined in your original).

You also wrote:
“I insist on a population of two because that is what is in the first three delightful chapters of Genesis…What is definitely contrary to Catholic teaching is the evolution concept that the human species formed as a large population evolving from a large population. Cladograms do not show a romantic Eve and Adam. The Homo/Pan split or divergence is considered a speciation event. The Homo side had more than two individuals.”

If instead you are “referring to an originating population of real humans, more than two, with a fully complete human nature (Genesis 1: 27) which was passed down to descendants,” I’m a bit confused.

Perhaps yesterday when you wrote “I insist on a population of two because that is what is in the first three delightful chapters of Genesis” you specifically meant Genesis 2, whereas this morning you are referring specifically to Genesis 1: “I am referring to an originating population of real humans, more than two, with a
fully complete human nature (Genesis 1: 27) which was passed down to descendants.”

Indeed, that is a difference between the stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

But your many posts over the years make abundantly clear - I think - that even if the originating population of true humans soon numbered more than two, the very first true humans numbered only two - Adam and Eve - and in fact that Adam preceded Eve.

Finally, this morning you concluded (in part):
“Apparently, Genesis 1: 27 is not a science text book.”

I agree. It’s important, fascinating, foundational, essential, and more - all the positive adjectives you and others have rightly used to describe Genesis 1: 27, the first three chapters of Genesis of which that verse is a part, the entire book of Genesis, and the entire Bible.

The “more than two” error most likely happened when I was trying to edit and then everything would go blank because no one believed I was human.

The first thing I learned on CAF was that Adam and Eve did not exist.

The second thing I learned on CAF was that there was a problem with two creation stories. I saw a couple of posts on the topic and have never bothered with it since.

The third thing I learned on CAF is that the first three marvelous chapters of Genesis were not a science text book. When CAF still refused to consider me human, I thought maybe I should acknowledge that I do know that Genesis 1: 27 (my favorite answer to many questions) is not a science text book. Unfortunately, I was back looking for trees and storefronts and street signs hoping that kind of intelligence may help me become human. No such luck.

Currently, we are on the letter V for Victory in the first three victorious chapters of Genesis. The dramatic leap from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26 is a major victory for the human species. Humans now have dominion over the other species. As I said above, Genesis 1: 27, is my favorite answer. When we ask the question “how” – how is explained with Genesis 1:27
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.

Genesis 1: 27 is a reference to our rational spiritual soul which is why we are peerless in the material world of the animal kingdom.

 

[grannymh]

Currently, we are on the letter V for Victory in the first three victorious chapters of Genesis. The dramatic leap from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26 is a major victory for the human species. Humans now have dominion over the other species. As I said above, Genesis 1: 27, is my favorite answer. When we ask the question “how” – how is explained with Genesis 1:27
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.

Because of all the people who consider the first three Genesis chapters as allegory, I need to put some polish on the word “dominion.”

One of the signs of “dominion” is the difference between a highly sentient animal and human rational intelligence. An undeniable difference is that between a Beaver Dam and the Hoover Dam. usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/ See picture on right side.

Personally, I doubt that the mighty Hoover Dam will lead people to the existence of God. What the Hoover Dam does demonstrate is that we have the intelligence to see beyond the material world of busy beavers. Some would say that we have the gift of creative imagination. And others will say that humans created God. Years back, I saw the “created God” bit in print. Being practical, I decided that can’t be true because humans with their great intelligence would do a better job.

God is a mighty transcendent, super-natural, pure spirit Who does not need a material anatomy like ourselves. On the other hand, it is we who need to be spiritual in some manner so we can communicate with God.

Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings

1. God as Creator exists. Genesis 1: 1
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27

**CCC 356 **Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.
Adam and Eve, being fully-human (decomposing anatomy and rational spiritual soul) are victorious over the limits of the animal world. As their direct descendants, we are victorious.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

Personally I see no real difference in a beavers dam and a humans dam (hoover)

Both are made for each species to survive.

You might even say it was the beaver who taught the human the basics of a dam

 

[cfauster]

The “more than two” error most likely happened when I was trying to edit and then everything would go blank because no one believed I was human.

I’m guessing that a “not” got deleted accidentally; if so, your intended wording would be “not more than two.”

The first thing I learned on CAF was that Adam and Eve did not exist.

The second thing I learned on CAF was that there was a problem with two creation stories. I saw a couple of posts on the topic and have never bothered with it since.

The third thing I learned on CAF is that the first three marvelous chapters of Genesis were not a science text book.

I’m surmising that to a large (maybe complete) extent, the first two of the above three “learnings” were things you saw that some others on CAF thought and wrote, but … you disagree with those two ideas.

When CAF still refused to consider me human, I thought maybe I should acknowledge that I do know that Genesis 1: 27 (my favorite answer to many questions) is not a science text book. Unfortunately, I was back looking for trees and storefronts and street signs hoping that kind of intelligence may help me become human. No such luck.

I get that you agree the Bible differs from a science textbook, but beyond that, the business about trees, storefronts, etc. is inscrutable to me

 

[grannymh]

I’m guessing that a “not” got deleted accidentally; if so, your intended wording would be “not more than two.”

That could be true.

I’m surmising that to a large (maybe complete) extent, the first two of the above three “learnings” were things you saw that some others on CAF thought and wrote, but … you disagree with those two ideas.

According to my posts (top right corner), the idea that Adam and Eve did not exist has become a “fact” for a variety of reasons.

I have only seen a relatively small number of posts about the problem with two
creation stories. Thus, I do not have enough information to make any kind of evaluation.

I get that you agree the Bible differs from a science textbook, but beyond that, the business about trees, storefronts, etc. is inscrutable to me

Pardon me. I only work with the first three inspirational chapters of Genesis. Thus, an opinion about the Bible would not be appropriate.

The business about trees, storefronts, etc. is so inscrutable to me that I may decide that CAF is beyond my computer knowledge. I have attempted “seeking clarification.”

 

[grannymh]

As we come to the end of the alphabet, we find one of the major letters.

W is for words, literal words.

Our goal is to find the literal words which go with the following six literal events in the first three beloved chapters of Sacred Scripture.

1.The creation of our universe.

2.The creation of the animal kingdom.

3.The unique creation of humans which established the unique
relationship between Divinity and humanity.

4.The clarification of specific terms for a relationship between a
divine being and a non-divine being.

5.The appearance of Satan and his temptation.

1. Adam yielding to Satan and the results.

 

[cfauster]

Obviously, the Science of Human Evolution is limited to the first three historical chapters of Genesis. And because these amazing chapters define the origin of human nature, there is a direct conflict with Catholic teachings.

Many Catholic scientists question the “direct conflict” thesis.
Some of them have founded a new Society.
Those able to attend their first conference might consider doing so.

 

[goout]

A quick clarification about a couple of internet points.

If Saint Pope John Paul II basically stated that Catholics are welcome to accept the Theory of Evolution if they wish to, he would have added certain qualifications. Leaving out those qualifications is a serious offense against truth.

Another internet misunderstanding is that Catholics do not follow a completely literal Bible interpretation and as a result of this, the Theory of Evolution does not need to conflict with Catholic beliefs. Obviously, the Science of Human Evolution is limited to the first three historical chapters of Genesis. And because these amazing chapters define the origin of human nature, there is a direct conflict with Catholic teachings.

This is not Catholic Scripture sense at all.
And here is the address by John Paul 2 for anyone to read:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
The science of human evolution is not “limited to the first three historical chapters of Genesis”. Scripture is not about science, it is about revelation and theology. Scripture was never written or intended to speak about scientific details and processes.

God I get so tired of this.

 

[grannymh]

Many Catholic scientists question the “direct conflict” thesis.
Some of them have founded a new Society.
Those able to attend their first conference might consider doing so.

I am checking this site. Thank you.

I would love to go to the Conference. I doubt that my B.S. degree would get me in. Especially, when I was in university, liberal arts, one had to take Latin or Greek to get a B.A.
Thus, my B.S. has a basic math course as the science requirement.

 

[grannymh]

This is not Catholic Scripture sense at all.
And here is the address by John Paul 2 for anyone to read:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

Here is the relevant part of the above cited address. Please note the word “incompatible”.
“As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.”

The science of human evolution is not “limited to the first three historical chapters of Genesis”. Scripture is not about science

 

[grannymh]

This is not Catholic Scripture sense at all.
And here is the address by John Paul 2 for anyone to read:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

Here is the relevant part of the above cited address. Please note the word “incompatible”.
“As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.”

The science of human evolution is not “limited to the first three historical chapters of Genesis”. Scripture is not about science

, it is about revelation and theology. Scripture was never written or intended to speak about scientific details and processes.

The Science of Human Evolution is based on the normal evolution model. This is in the material realm as we know it; therefore, there is no entry into the first three historical chapters of Genesis.

As for those famous descriptions of the universe and animals in Genesis 1: 1-25, basically, they stand on the spiritual creative power of God. The real nitty-gritty of science is not part of the first three amazing chapters of Sacred Scripture. Those special chapters do not stand on modern science.

As for the science aspect, the author was trying to find words to describe the wonders he observed. These wonders per se are in the material world. One should not bash the author because there are incorrect scientific details. What was he to do – deny what he saw because a science textbook was far away in the future.

I cannot speak for other Christian faiths. The Catholic Church holds that the material world and its material inhabitants from ants to antelopes are parts of God’s magnificent creation. The Catholic Church does not officially define as doctrines, the “science” per se of solely material elements of God’s magnificent creation. Members of the Catholic Church are free to do their personal scientific appraisals. Members of the Catholic Church are free to take part in natural science. Members of the Catholic Church are free to teach or write about current science discoveries. This freedom does not automatically become official properly defined Catholic doctrines.

The Catholic Church does not accept “science doctrines” when they deny basic Catholic truths.