F
Faith1960
Guest
Well actually whether we’re required to believe she was literally made from Adams rib.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Ed,
Proof-texting is often dangerous, even when it’s done by Catholics.
I think it’s important to recognize the reason why Leo provided this synopsis of the Genesis account, and this can be found in the context of this quote, both immediately before and after it:
“[T]he purpose We have set before Us is… to speak about that family union of which marriage is the beginning and the foundation. The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all.”
“God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.”
So, why paraphrase the Biblical account? As an affirmation of a literal interpretation of Genesis 2? No, but rather… in service of the goal of his encyclical: a defense of Christian marriage!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Thanks for this post! This is, truly, the basis for the problem I’ve identified! Now… I can’t speak to the Hebrew; I can only look at the Greek of the Septuagint and the Latin that followed it, and trust the creators of the Septuagint and St Jerome correctly translated the Hebrew.
Actually, no. Let’s look at the Greek and the Latin:
The Latin Vulgate for Gen 2:19 reads: “formatis igitur Dominus Deus de humo cunctis animantibus terrae”.
The Greek of that verse reads: “καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς ἔτι ἐκ τῆς γῆς πάντα τὰ θηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ”.
Now, Jerome seems to be translating ἔτι as igitur – “therefore” – which does, of course, indicate a causal link between the desire to create a helpmate and the creation of all animals.
And yet, it can be argued that the use of the ablative absolute doesn’t refer to an event in the remote past, but in the immediate past: God gives the animals to Adam to name, having just created them for this purpose. The ablative absolute would allow for this interpretation as well.
No; not ‘tested’, but identified as having failed to meet the purpose God had in mind. In the Greek, the word is ‘εὑρέθη’ – they “were found” not to be a suitable helper. Same conclusion, even if you don’t like the English word used in the NAB.
The problem is, in the ‘princess’ story, the weenies already existed and already would have been considered potential suitors. Unless you require your personal interpretation of the use of the ablative absolute, then the animals didn’t pre-exist God’s desire to find a helpmate; so Adam wouldn’t have considered them candidates. Back in 1984, would you have considered an iMac as the potential answer to your computing needs? Of course not: you only had an IBM PC or an original Macintosh as potential candidates.
Sorry, but I’m going to have to call you on this: you’re cherry-picking here. Let’s look in context:
"19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. "
The RSV-CE does say “so”, implying that the formation of the animals was the answer to God’s concern. Therefore, the statement “there was not found” refers back to the fact that God’s “first attempt” had failed.
I hope I’ve demonstrated that I have. If your interpretation hinges on your take on the ablative absolute, as it appears it does, then it’s an unconvincing argument. In addition, I’ve demonstrated that your appeal to the RSV-CE doesn’t help your case, but supports mine – that of a causal link between God’s desire for Adam’s helpmate and the failure of animals to fill this role.
Blessings,
G.
E
edwest2
Guest
Nice try. The statement was very clear: God literally did something only God can do. I realize that there are those who want to turn Genesis into myth, allegory and symbolism. Why? So they can have a God that has no power - A God Who Did Nothing.Ed,
Proof-texting is often dangerous, even when it’s done by Catholics.
I think it’s important to recognize the reason why Leo provided this synopsis of the Genesis account, and this can be found in the context of this quote, both immediately before and after it:
“[T]he purpose We have set before Us is… to speak about that family union of which marriage is the beginning and the foundation. The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all.”
“God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.”
So, why paraphrase the Biblical account? As an affirmation of a literal interpretation of Genesis 2? No, but rather… in service of the goal of his encyclical: a defense of Christian marriage!
I will believe as I was taught, the rib, or side, of Adam was used to literally form Eve. Period.
Peace,
Ed
G
Gorgias
Guest
To-may-to, to-mah-to. You say that he’s affirming a literal interpretation of Genesis 2, I say that he’s paraphrasing the Bible in order to support his thesis, which is that God intended marriage as an indissoluable union.
Thanks for telling me why I’m making the argument I’m presenting. It was getting so confusing not knowing what I was thinking. Thank goodness you can read my mind…
(Of course, if you could read my mind, then you’d realize that I’m not arguing for the strawman you’ve set up: “A God Who Did Nothing”; rather, I’m simply suggesting that God, who did create the first man and first woman, doesn’t necessarily have to be understood as doing it in the precise fashion that Genesis 2 presents, in its description as provided by the inspired author of Scripture.)
As is your right; the Church doesn’t require it, though, so what you can’t do is demonstrate that this is the only way to interpret Genesis 2, which is what you’ve been claiming, it seems. (Likewise, of course, I can tell you that I believe you’re mistaken, but not that the Church disallows your perspective.)
Happy Easter!
Blessings,
G.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Who said God has no power?
A
Aloysium
Guest
I thought I’d weigh in here. There are few points I would like to make about the significance of Eve being made from Adam’s side:
We talk about our kids as being our flesh and blood; we are all of the same flesh and blood. We are one body, first in Adam, eternally in Christ.
God made man, and with the creation of Eve, man became male and female; as man, individually we are incomplete without the other.
We are constructed self-and-other. What was on our outside (rib) is given over to (poor choice of words unfortunately) the other. We communicate as we think: in words and images.
We are other to the other’s self, and with the spread of sin, we are not trusted and do not trust. We are whole again when we love, reincorporating, if you will, the other in holy union.
While this sounds like a symbolic abstraction, it actually points to what is truly real.
Eve came from Adam, and that is why we are who and what we are as spiritual beings, also having a physical nature.
God is a spiritual being. He is the ultimate true Reality.
Spirit is more “concrete” than matter. Jesus in His glorious body did not go through walls because he was less real. Smoke does not go through brick; it is a brick that finds no problem going through a fog.
Eve came from Adam. How this happened physically is actually unimportant, or else it would have been described in detail.
Again, the reality is that she, as a unity who is both physical and spiritual, was created from Adams rib, as described. This is not an allegorical, symbolic, metaphorical. figurative, imagined, a non-literal, illusory, dreamt up, or a psychotic representation; it is the reality of what took place at the beginning of man.
I could rant some more, but that’s what I think. The truth is something like that.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
LOL You are really reaching here! God was simply teaching Adam & preparing him for a wife by showing him how all of the animals have a mate of their own species to make Adam see it and begin to think about it. Once Adam understood it God put him to sleep to form his mate for him. He didn’t want to spring a female on Adam out of the blue. He was teaching him.Look at the text of Genesis 2:18-22 …
If you want to believe in it literally (which, as some have noted, the Church doesn’t prohibit you from doing), you have to accept that God created only animals as “a helper suited to” Adam. And then, only after seeing that “none proved to be a helper suited to” him, God created Eve. Therefore, as the inspired writer wrote it up, God had an “oops, time for a ‘Plan B’” moment. That would imply that God isn’t all-knowing; rather, He didn’t realize that animals wouldn’t be a good fit.
So, yeah: I’m saying that there are certain problematic issues that result when we attempt to look at this passage literally.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
Exactly! God was teaching Adam. Showing him how all of the specials of animals came in pairs and 2 genders and letting Adam begin to think and form the reasoning in his own head about why he didn’t have another person of his species. God was training him and preparing him as opposed to just springing her on him out of the blue. It wasn’t like Adam grew up in a family with a mother and father and siblings like we all did. He was the first human.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
God demonstrated to Adam the need and reason for a help mate of his own by creating **examples **of animal species who all had a help mate of their own. God wanted to give Adam a help mate, so he formed examples of animals with help mates to help Adam understand. He started by teaching Adam the purpose and reason for a help mate by using animals as an example.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
For those who think things in the Bible were not literal, how do you pick and choose what you believe is literal? That’s what I don’t understand. You don’t believe creation was literal, you don’t believe Adam & Eve were literal, you don’t believe the flood of Noah was literal, so why do you believe Jesus dying on the cross was literal or that Mary literally got pregnant as a virgin? Or that Jesus was literally God and man? I mean those things sound like something impossible yet you believe those are literal (at least I hope you do). So how do you pick and choose what things in the Bible are literal and what things are not?? You just pick what you want to believe and the rest you choose not to believe and disguise it as a "you don’t have to believe it literally " belief? That’s what I don’t get. Why do you believe the miracles Jesus did were literal? That Jesus literally raised people from the dead etc. Or that He took people up without them having to die like Elijah and Enoch or giving Moses the 10 commandments, the parting of the Red Sea etc. How do you pick which ones you want to believe are literal? To me, you either believe the Bible or you don’t. I don’t understand the wishy washyness. If you believe some things literally then why is it so hard to believe God literally took one of Adam’s ribs to form Eve?
You don’t believe creation was literal, you don’t believe Adam & Eve were literal, you don’t believe the flood of Noah was literal, so why do you believe Jesus dying on the cross was literal or that Mary literally got pregnant as a virgin? Or that Jesus was literally God and man? I mean those things sound like something impossible yet you believe those are literal (at least I hope you do). So how do you pick and choose what things in the Bible are literal and what things are not?? You just pick what you want to believe and the rest you choose not to believe and disguise it as a "you don’t have to believe it literally " belief? That’s what I don’t get. Why do you believe the miracles Jesus did were literal? That Jesus literally raised people from the dead etc. Or that He took people up without them having to die like Elijah and Enoch or giving Moses the 10 commandments, the parting of the Red Sea etc. How do you pick which ones you want to believe are literal? To me, you either believe the Bible or you don’t. I don’t understand the wishy washyness. If you believe some things literally then why is it so hard to believe God literally took one of Adam’s ribs to form Eve?
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
That is a wonderful reflection on the meaning behind Genesis 2!
It’s not what the narrative says, so you’re adding to the story, but nevertheless… it’s a wonderful reflection on what ‘helpmate’ means…!
G
Gorgias
Guest
I love it when people tell me what I think and believe! Thank you! First Copland (I think that Genesis is a ‘myth’), then QNDNNDQDCE (I think that Genesis is a “hackjob of various contradictory sources”), then Ed (I want a “God Who Did Nothing”), and now you!For those who think things in the Bible were not literal, how do you pick and choose what you believe is literal? That’s what I don’t understand.
I believe that God literally created the heavens and the earth… but not literalistically that it was a six-day process. I believe that there were literally a first pair of humans into whom God breathed the spirit of life… but not literalistically that they had to have the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’. I believe that there literally was a super-regional flood that many people experienced, and which the inspired writer used in order to tell us about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people… but not literalistically that it was global.
Hope that helps.
Because the first chapters of Genesis are ‘pre-history’; they are expressed in ways that defy categorization as ‘historical’ (for instance, Genesis 1 is of the genre of epic poem); and because, even when reading the doctrinal teachings of the Church (for example, in the catechism), we see that it teaches the meanings of these stories, not the literalistic sense of them.so why do you believe Jesus dying on the cross was literal or that Mary literally got pregnant as a virgin? Or that Jesus was literally God and man? I mean those things sound like something impossible yet you believe those are literal (at least I hope you do).
On the other hand, the New Testament is historical. It tells the story of people whose historical existence can be demonstrated and verified. It is written down no more than 40-50 years after the events, by those who had first- or second-hand experience of them.
The decision of ‘literal’ or not isn’t based on credulity – after all, if it were really just a question of “do things like this happen in everyday life?”, then we’d have to discount Jesus’ miracles and resurrection, which Catholics do not do! – rather, it’s based on historicity and an examination of the types of literature that we’re looking at.
That’s a rather unfair accusation. I hope that you can see this.
That makes you a Scriptural fundamentalist. Congratulations.
Let’s see what the Pontifical Biblical Commission says about fundamentalism:
M
Moro_Rock
Guest
I’m not a language expert or a translation expert, but I believe, if we understood
the Hebraic roots and how the Jewish people understood the original texts of
Scripture it would clarify certain texts.
I believe someone once explained that while Adam slept that God removed some
of hs DNA to form a woman .
Interestingly , I was watching an interview with a Rabbi who said that in Genesis 2:18 " I will make him a helper like himself " should be translated as
" I will make him a helper against " - presumably against whatever he needed to be against . I think the implication is that God didn’t create the woman to be a
servant for the man but as his equal !
the Hebraic roots and how the Jewish people understood the original texts of
Scripture it would clarify certain texts.
I believe someone once explained that while Adam slept that God removed some
of hs DNA to form a woman .
Interestingly , I was watching an interview with a Rabbi who said that in Genesis 2:18 " I will make him a helper like himself " should be translated as
" I will make him a helper against " - presumably against whatever he needed to be against . I think the implication is that God didn’t create the woman to be a
servant for the man but as his equal !
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
The Latin text of the verse is,Thanks for this post! This is, truly, the basis for the problem I’ve identified! Now… I can’t speak to the Hebrew; I can only look at the Greek of the Septuagint and the Latin that followed it, and trust the creators of the Septuagint and St Jerome correctly translated the Hebrew.
Actually, no. Let’s look at the Greek and the Latin:
The Latin Vulgate for Gen 2:19 reads: “formatis igitur Dominus Deus de humo cunctis animantibus terrae”.
The Greek of that verse reads: “καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς ἔτι ἐκ τῆς γῆς πάντα τὰ θηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ”.
Now, Jerome seems to be translating ἔτι as igitur – “therefore” – which does, of course, indicate a causal link between the desire to create a helpmate and the creation of all animals.
And yet, it can be argued that the use of the ablative absolute doesn’t refer to an event in the remote past, but in the immediate past: God gives the animals to Adam to name, having just created them for this purpose. The ablative absolute would allow for this interpretation as well.
No; not ‘tested’, but identified as having failed to meet the purpose God had in mind. In the Greek, the word is ‘εὑρέθη’ – they “were found” not to be a suitable helper. Same conclusion, even if you don’t like the English word used in the NAB.
Formatis igitur Dominus Deus de humo cunctis animantibus terrae et universis volatilibus caeli adduxit ea ad Adam ut videret quid vocaret ea omne enim quod vocavit Adam animae viventis ipsum est nomen eius.
In the old Douay translation (which I have updated to reflect modern spelling),
Our Lord God, therefore, having formed of clay all beasts of the earth and fowls of the air, brought them to Adam that he migh see what to call them: for all that Adam called any living creature, the same is his name.
The first point is that the conjuction “igitur” does not apply to the creation of the animals but to the bringing them to Adam. “Formatis… de humo cunctis animantibus terrae et universis colatilibus caeli” is an ablative absolute, “absolute” meaning that it is independent of the rest of the sentence. "The conjunction “igitur” connects two clauses, but an ablative absolute is not, properly speaking, a clause. Therefore, it is impossible for the conjunction “igitur” to apply to the animals being formed. You can read about the ablative absolute here and here.
Secondly, the word “igitur” does not always mean “therefore” (indicating logical sequence) though it can. For example, it can simply imply temporal sequence or resuming an interrupted thought. Keep that in mind in the future.
Third, moving away from “igitur,” the creation of the animals being prior to God’s statement that he wished to make a helper is implied by the Latin text. It does not say that God says, “let us make a helper,” and then he made the animals. Rather, it says that God expressed a desire to create a helper and then God brought the animals, having been made, to Adam. Vv. 18 and 19 are closely connected, and therefore it is enormously improbable that an event occuring inbetween them would have been indicated with just an ablative absolute. I am not even certain that it is a grammatical possibility even in an infinitesimal degree. If it meant to communicate such a thing, it would have said “therefore, God formed the animals and brought them to Adam,” but it doesn’t say that. Nothing I have said to this point is any
Finally, the first chapter of Genesis 1 records the creation of the animals before man, so it is preferable to interpret the two consecutive chapters as consistent rather than, as the documentary hypothesis proposes, that the supposed redactors were so stupid that they didn’t iron out any of the contradictions in the compiled text.
I will ignore your comments for now about the RSV since I already said that I thought it got this passage wrong. My point was only that the NAB uses subtle word choice to communicate a meaning that is not necessitated by the original texts. In fact, it was reading the RSV that initially made me think that the creation accounts in chapters 1 and 2 were inconsistent, and it was not until later that I realized that the RSV was mistaken (or at least misleading) on that account.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Exactly. I think what most people are missing here is that a literal interpretation of the text means exactly as it is written per the 2014 dictionary definition and to the exclusion of everything else - hence a literal interpretations means that God didn’t do a miracle as that is not what the text says. The word literally is frequently misused in the coloquoal sense and I think that people are confusing literal with truth. Saying the passage must be interpret literally means that each word must be interpreted per our current knowledge And word by word. This is a massive error as first the text was not even written in English and it should be read according to how Hebrew people at that time saw things and just like the Pope said you need to bear in mind what the text is talking about…marriage.
M
marymary1975
Guest
The question is what do you mean by literal: exactly word by word 2014 reading in English to the exclusion of everything else (which is what protestants do and which would be an actual problem as a reading of the bible literally basically means sola scriptural to the exclusion of cathecism and church doctrine) or do you mean that it is true?For those who think things in the Bible were not literal, how do you pick and choose what you believe is literal? That’s what I don’t understand.
There is a huge distinction there as Protestants do interpret the bible literally, catholics interpret the bible in the light of tradition and the cathecism. By saying is not literal what at least I …and I am sure others mean… Is that it is truth but you gotta read it in light of the tradition, the knowledge taught by our church and the cathecism. To give you an example, reading the bible literally means that Mary and Joseph had other kids and Mary was not a virgin because the bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters. That is the protestant position because they read it literally. The catholic church tells you on the other hand that Mary didn’t have other kids.
Gorgias last quote on post 75 explains this idea perfectly. Literally interpretation of the bible is fundamentalism which is a reformation/ Protestant thing which is you follow means that you would be in conflict with a good amount of the teaching of the church (Mary’s virginity being the best example of all).
N
Nita
Guest
If recorded events in the OT are not basically factual, how can they serve as prefigurements or types of future fulfilments.
St. John Chrysostom; Liturgy of Hours Good Friday Office of Readings
There flowed from His side water and blood. Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the eucharist flowed from His side, it was from His side that Christ fashioned the Church, as He had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam. Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: * Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!* As God then took a rib from Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from His side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep; and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after His own death.
Also, if certain Genesis events are not factual, then there are also some very distinct declarations contained in it that would have to be false (or be meaningless). For example,how could Eve be* “bone from my* bones and flesh from my flesh” if she came from someone other than Adam – let alone some animal?
St. John Chrysostom; Liturgy of Hours Good Friday Office of Readings
There flowed from His side water and blood. Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the eucharist flowed from His side, it was from His side that Christ fashioned the Church, as He had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam. Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: * Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!* As God then took a rib from Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from His side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep; and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after His own death.
Also, if certain Genesis events are not factual, then there are also some very distinct declarations contained in it that would have to be false (or be meaningless). For example,how could Eve be* “bone from my* bones and flesh from my flesh” if she came from someone other than Adam – let alone some animal?
- Status