Literal Rib?

[Skye_Ariel]

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…!

Thanks!

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?

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).

I don’t mean literal in the protestant word for word way, but literal in the sense that God created Adam & Eve and we didn’t evolve from some kind on non human life forms. You don’t have to believe it word for word but I do believe things the Bible said happened really happened. God really put Adam to sleep and took some part of him and formed Eve with it. As opposed to Eve evolving or coming into existence some kind of way other than God forming her from Adam’s rib, side, dna or whatever was used. I don’t think we should take the Bible word for word literally but I do believe we shouldn’t just throw out whole events and say nothing like that happened at all. I mean literal in the sense that something like that happened maybe not word for word but it did happen, instead of just saying it’s all allegory or symbolic and the whole event never actually happened.

 

[marymary1975]

Thanks!

I don’t mean literal in the protestant word for word way, but literal in the sense that God created Adam & Eve and we didn’t evolve from some kind on non human life forms. You don’t have to believe it word for word but I do believe things the Bible said happened really happened. God really put Adam to sleep and took some part of him and formed Eve with it. As opposed to Eve evolving or coming into existence some kind of way other than God forming her from Adam’s rib, side, dna or whatever was used. I don’t think we should take the Bible word for word literally but I do believe we shouldn’t just throw out whole events and say nothing like that happened at all. I mean literal in the sense that something like that happened maybe not word for word but it did happen, instead of just saying it’s all allegory or symbolic and the whole event never actually happened.

Exactly, which is exactly what I believe, that what the bible says is “truth”. That God created Eve out of Adam and that everything in the Bible is truth and indeed happened (i dont agree either yhat we came from a different life form God indees created men) I just made the clarification because the word “literal” specially if used with a Protestant may cause confusion as to them literal is word by word, and we gotta be careful not to send the wrong message so keep in mind that when many catholics say “I don’t agree with an interpretation literally” what they mean is precisely that they dont agree with the fundamentalist word by word style which is used by reformists.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Exactly, which is exactly what I believe, that what the bible says is “truth”. That God created Eve out of Adam and that everything in the Bible is truth and indeed happened (i dont agree either yhat we came from a different life form God indees created men) I just made the clarification because the word “literal” specially if used with a Protestant may cause confusion as to them literal is word by word, and we gotta be careful not to send the wrong message so keep in mind that when many catholics say “I don’t agree with an interpretation literally” what they mean is precisely that they dont agree with the fundamentalist word by word style which is used by reformists.

Okay

 

[Faith1960]

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.

Gorgias, I was reading another thread, an old thread, about this topic and three things bother me.
A) Someone said it’s “infallible true teaching” based on what I read, that Eve came from Adam’s rib, or side, based on the encyclical Arcanum from the year 1880.

B) Supposedly Pope Pius XII said we " must retain as certain that Genesis teaches the first woman was in some way derived from the man."

C) According to something else I read online on ezinearticles.com, it would be impossible, according to the science of embryology, for a male (Adam) to have come first, before the female Eve.

Can you please weigh in on this?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, I was reading another thread, an old thread, about this topic and three things bother me.
A) Someone said it’s “infallible true teaching” based on what I read, that Eve came from Adam’s rib, or side, based on the encyclical Arcanum from the year 1880.

If memory serves, I’ve already addressed this point earlier in this thread. Leo XIII does cite Genesis in his encyclical, as someone pointed out here; but, in context, we see that he was simply re-stating the Scriptural narrative in order to introduce his real point: marriage is part of God’s plan for humanity.

B) Supposedly Pope Pius XII said we " must retain as certain that Genesis teaches the first woman was in some way derived from the man."

I’ve never seen this assertion before. I tried Googling it, and couldn’t find it anywhere.

C) According to something else I read online on ezinearticles.com, it would be impossible, according to the science of embryology, for a male (Adam) to have come first, before the female Eve.

Do you have a reference we could read?