The Old Testament - is it for REAL?

[Art321]

Ok, I’m a bit late but I need to comment on this. I believe someone stated early on that one doesn’t have to believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve, but they are very wrong.

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

From this link, it says:

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).

God bless.

 

[razredge]

ddarko is either misinformed or inserting his own wishful thinking for what constitutes dogma - the Church DOES NOT claim that we have to take the story of Jonah as history (though some Catholics, for reasons beyond me, wish it did)

Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or as didactic fiction

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Jonah

Tim Staples has said this:

“Fiction” is not a good word to use in this context (in my opinion) in modern Western culture because folks often think of “Fiction” as equivalent to “not true.” The Church holds to the possibility that books like Jonah and Judith may well be extended parables or stories written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order to relate certain truths for our salvation. This does not mean that these books are “not true” any more than we would say Jesus’ parables are “not true” because they are… parables. In other words, the parables of Jesus are not intended to tell of, for example, an actual “householder who planted a vineyard” (Matt. 21:33). They are intended to relate certain essential truths of the Faith. The same can be said of Jonah and Judith. We should note here that Catholics are free to hold a more historical view of these books as well. The Church has not definitively declared the matter in either direction. So opinions in either direction should be respected. As St. Augustine said… “in matters non-essential, liberty…” Of course, we would also do well to remember the axiom of St. Augustine that says we should avoid an interpretation of Scripture that would render the Scriptures a laughingtock. We should be careful to heed GOOD biblical scholarship. Moreover, we should be careful not to fall into the trap of the defenders of a Fundamentalist approach to Scripture who say, “Jesus believed Jonah was literal history because he said ‘as Jonah was in the belly of the whale…’” (cf. Matt. 12:40) I may speak of a character in a play or movie as: “Then the Count of Monte Christo said…” This does not mean I believe the character to have actually existed. The final point I would make here is that we should be careful to admit freedom of inquiry and opinion in this matter until the Church declares one way or the other.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I love this it reminds me of this found in the CCC as well, it is one of St. Augustine’s quote, one my Confirmation saints.

8 - St. Augustine, Sermo 241, 2: PL 38, 1134.

Yes I see God’s beauty as well through his creation, in the rising and setting of the sun, in the rain that falls to the parched ground, in the starkness of a lone vulture flying against the burning sky at noonday, at night when the stars are ablaze, and many other places. I also see His beauty in His Word. We are truly blessed to have a God who loves us so much that He has left His beauty for those who are open to it, such as you and I, and many others.

If you need the document sources from the numbers in the CCC quotes let me know, and I will be glad to get them for you.

God bless you.

I think it is enough.
god Bless You.

 

[razredge]

You’re a trip.

As everyone can see, I never said I don’t believe in Adam and Eve. What I don’t believe in is the historicity of the story of creation. I don’t necessarily believe A&E are the first people, simply because humanity has been around for over 6,000 years. Adam and Eve are only 6000 years old. Unless of course, the 6,000 years thing isn’t accurate and they were actually around BEFORE then.

Debora, you are absolutely justified in rejecting the idea that we are all physically descended from Adam & Eve and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

There is absolutely zero evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and plenty of evidence to the contrary. If you look at what Catholic scientists on here, familiar with biology, like St Anastasia and Al Moritz believe - they most definitely do not believe in two biological parents for all humanity!

If the scientific and historical evidence shows that humans are not descended from just two biological ancestors (you can believe in two spiritual ancestors though) then you are justified in not believing that we are, as there can be no contradiction between reason and faith.

St Augustine said this about faith and reason/science:

“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”

• St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

And frankly, even without looking at the evidence, the required belief in a literal Adam & Eve is untenable unless you hold to the historicity of the rest of the Genesis account (ie Young Earth Creationism) - because if you beleive the account of God creating the world and the animals is allegorical, on what non-arbitrary basis do you decide that the Adam & Eve account is historical?

 

[Little_One0307]

Debora, you are absolutely justified in rejecting the idea that we are all physically descended from Adam & Eve and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

There is absolutely zero evidence for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and plenty of evidence to the contrary. If you look at what Catholic scientists on here, familiar with biology, like St Anastasia and Al Moritz believe - they most definitely do not believe in two biological parents for all humanity!

If the scientific and historical evidence shows that humans are not descended from just two biological ancestors (you can believe in two spiritual ancestors though) then you are justified in not believing that we are, as there can be no contradiction between reason and faith.

St Augustine said this about faith and reason/science:

• St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

And frankly, even without looking at the evidence, the required belief in a literal Adam & Eve is untenable unless you hold to the historicity of the rest of the Genesis account (ie Young Earth Creationism) - because if you beleive the account of God creating the world and the animals is allegorical, on what non-arbitrary basis do you decide that the Adam & Eve account is historical?

I have a question for you. If you say that you are not required to believe that Adam and Eve existed and you don’t believe that they did, where does Original Sin fit in and why did Christ come?

God bless.

 

[MorningSong51]

I have a question for you. If you say that you are not required to believe that Adam and Eve existed and you don’t believe that they did, where does Original Sin fit in and why did Christ come?

God bless.

I think I had asked that question and then I added that God took the rib out of Adam and created Eve, so - Yah! Again, you don’t have to believe - but it probably wouldn’t hurt.

Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, **and they become one flesh. **

This is just a thought
Mary

 

[exnihilo]

Debora, you are absolutely justified in rejecting the idea that we are all physically descended from Adam & Eve and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise…

It seems to me hardly controversial to believe in an Adam & Eve. Even science has borrowed from the Abrahamic religions and has Mitochondrial Eve. There are scientific stories about mankind’s oldest human ancestor implying some common descent. I believe that In general cross bred animals are sterile, mules for instance. I imagine the name of the male and female origin of many modern breeds of dogs is known. I dont see how the story of Adam and Eve is controversial, especially for one who believes in God.

 

[razredge]

I have a question for you. If you say that you are not required to believe that Adam and Eve existed and you don’t believe that they did, where does Original Sin fit in and why did Christ come?

God bless.

Well, you can either say Adam & Eve were spiritual first parents rather than biological first parents and so their sin was transmitted to their spiritual descendants.

Or you can look at alternate theories of Original Sin, like the relational model proposed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger which are perfectly compatible with non-belief in a literal Adam & Eve.

What I don’t get is why people keep insisting that the historicity of the story is more important than the message of the story. Do they also value Jesus’ parables less because they didn’t actually happen?

 

[razredge]

It seems to me hardly controversial to believe in an Adam & Eve. Even science has borrowed from the Abrahamic religions and has Mitochondrial Eve. There are scientific stories about mankind’s oldest human ancestor implying some common descent. I believe that In general cross bred animals are sterile, mules for instance. I imagine the name of the male and female origin of many modern breeds of dogs is known. I dont see how the story of Adam and Eve is controversial, especially for one who believes in God.

Please read the articles you link to - it says:

Common fallacies
** Not the only woman**

One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.* Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. *

Not a contemporary of "Adam
Like mitochondrial “Eve”, Y-chromosomal “Adam” probably lived in Africa; however, this “Eve” lived much earlier than this “Adam” – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.

So this Eve is like the biblical Eve in name only and does not support the case for her.
However, if you want to believe in a literal Adam & Eve then that is up to you - it’s just that modern science and archaelogy doesn’t support that.

Also, this is what the International Theological Commission, in its 2004 document ‘Communion and Stewardship’ said on the matter:

“In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”

“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”

“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. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called ‘an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.’”

vox-nova.com/2011/02/11/moving-forward-with-polygenism/

So the Church is definitely moving forward towards ways of reconciling polygenism with other doctrines (like Original Sin), rather than ignoring the evidence and insisting on a literal descent from two biological first parents.

 

[TMC]

Ok listen. First, I never said anything to you. I merely pointed out an observation of the OP and her views with respect to the Church.

You barged in and said I was the one trying to get people to agree with me. So that was out of the blue on your part considering I am not even stating “my position” but the “church position”.

Dei Verbum is a document that also talks about Tradition and Authority of the Church. Somehow, these finer points have been missed by many.

So somethings have been decided by the Church and held by the church through Tradition to BE FACT-narratives i.e. REALLY HAPPENED. So its not acceptable for a Catholic to say its legend with just an important message.

But Edwin claims them to be ok to be interpreted as legend. That is not what Dei Verbum says and that is not what the Church states. One needs to not forget Dei Verbum sections on Tradition and Authority of the Church. Also, one needs to remember that there are other actual doctrines and dogma other than Dei Verbum.

The story of Jonah for an example is a fact-narrative for Catholics. In-fact, the idea that it is fiction has been condemned in Providentissimus Deus.

So while the view is acceptable for Edwin, since he is not Catholic, it is not acceptable for a Catholic.

God Bless

So where in Providentissimus Deus did Pope Leo say that the Church has definitively declared the story of Jonah and the whale to be historically accurate?

 

[exnihilo]

Please read the articles you link to - it says…

I should have been clear. I understand what the term is supposed to mean. But why trade on the name of Eve? If it does not mean a common descent from a person then the name is dishonest. To borrow from religion and distort the meaning of a word is despicable.

So this Eve is like the biblical Eve in name only and does not support the case for her.
However, if you want to believe in a literal Adam & Eve then that is up to you - it’s just that modern science and archaelogy doesn’t support that.

Archaeology is not of much importance here. This field of study is always, necessarily, missing all of the evidence and therefore unable to make broad statements. They can say they found some things but they can never say they found all things. They suffer from always using inductive reasoning and if the scientific standard of falsifiability is used fail miserably.

Science in general also fails to have much knoweldge here if the standard is falsifiability. I do of course believe in the value of science but the many frauds in ancestry and the dishonest use of the name Eve make me skeptical. Not to mention even by modern science at some point you do have to have two creatures who are able to sexually reproduce who would be the ultimate ancestors of us all.

 

[Debora123]

Please Debora, how can you refute the evidence I have presented above?

You have clearly stated the following in post 51:-

"Of course, I believe that at one point we became “human enough” and got souls. But I don’t believe that we all came from Adam and Eve, and I don’t think the Church requires us to believe that either. "

Thus your position previously was not Catholic. The Catholic position necessitates that we all COME from Adam and Eve.

Now its no shame to say that now you believe in the truth and before you were holding an incorrect position. I do that all the time in some threads. Instead, to say that you were always right and NEVER said anything contrary is rather dishonest on your part.

God Bless

Sigh

As I have explained previously, what I meant by that is that I don’t believe they were the first man and the first woman. (humanity has been around longer than 6,000 years). I don’t believe they were the very first 2 human beings to have existed, that we all biologically came from 6,000 years ago.

If I am supposed to believe that they existed, fine. As I have stated in another post, I have no problem with believing that an Adam and Eve existed a long time ago and that they were ancestors of King David, Abraham, etc etc. Either way it doesn’t change the whole picture or the actual message of Genesis - God created all things, God gave men souls, God made men masters of all creatures on earth, Men were given free will and chose to sin - so it doesn’t effect my faith either way.

If I rejected the fact that A&E existed at all, I would have said so.

 

[Debora123]

ddarko is either misinformed or inserting his own wishful thinking for what constitutes dogma - the Church DOES NOT claim that we have to take the story of Jonah as history (though some Catholics, for reasons beyond me, wish it did)

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Jonah

Tim Staples has said this:

Yes, thank you.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

Scientific proof that homo sapiens (modern human form) have been around for around 200,000 years:

anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm
humanorigins.si.edu/
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

…This is evidence we can’t ignore, just as we cannot ignore evidence of dinosaurs. There are fossils, bones, ect ect.

And also, here’s what JPII has said about evolution:

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

We can believe in evolution while still believing in the whole message of Genesis 1-3. The important thing is that we believe in that message, regardless of HOW things may have happened.

 

[exnihilo]

Scientific proof that homo sapiens (modern human form) have been around for around 200,000 years…

This is evidence we can’t ignore, just as we cannot ignore evidence of dinosaurs. There are fossils, bones, ect ect…

We can believe in evolution while still believing in the whole message of Genesis 1-3. The important thing is that we believe in that message, regardless of HOW things may have happened.

What you are talking about is different from what I was talking about. The time of Genesis and the existence of other creatures are different issues. Genesis says that other creatures were created first. So there would be no contradiction with other creatures existing before man. How long any of this took could be taken as figurative and not literal days. The various estimations of how long ago Adam lived are just guesses.

The central point was that God created mankind and created a first man and first woman who have specific names. I dont see how science in any way could possibly refute that. There had to have been an original human couple. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. There is nothing in science that could possibly refute that as a literal fact.

 

[Art321]

So the Church is definitely moving forward towards ways of reconciling polygenism with other doctrines (like Original Sin), rather than ignoring the evidence and insisting on a literal descent from two biological first parents.

Wrong again. If you look at my last post, you will see a link that has the teaching of the Catholic Church on this.

Here is another: catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=2472

Here is the part I wanted to show you:

Those who hold that there were multiple sets of first parents go against the teaching of the magisterium on the doctrine of original sin. In fact, there are even logical difficulties in accounting for original sin if that calamitous falling can’t be traced to a single man, Adam

.

 

[Little_One0307]

Well, you can either say Adam & Eve were spiritual first parents rather than biological first parents and so their sin was transmitted to their spiritual descendants.

Or you can look at alternate theories of Original Sin, like the relational model proposed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger which are perfectly compatible with non-belief in a literal Adam & Eve.

What I don’t get is why people keep insisting that the historicity of the story is more important than the message of the story. Do they also value Jesus’ parables less because they didn’t actually happen?

Hi,

Could you accurately summarzie the “relational model” proposed by Cardinal Ratzinger[Pope Benedict XVI] or rather link me that source? This is the first time I have heard of it and would like to peruse before commenting on it any further.

What I don’t get is why people cannot accept that Adam and Eve were our first parents, when Church Tradition, writings of the Early Church Fathers, Magisterial Teaching, writings of the saints, Dogmas, continually say that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Don’t people value the Teaching Authority of the Church, which is given by Jesus Christ, the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity, who himself is referred to by St. Paul as the “New Adam”?

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

So the Church is definitely moving forward towards ways of reconciling polygenism with other doctrines (like Original Sin), rather than ignoring the evidence and insisting on a literal descent from two biological first parents.

Here is what Vox Nova has to say on its disclaimer page.

Each post at Vox Nova expresses solely the views of its respective author and does necessarily reflect a consensus of any number of Vox Nova‘s contributors. Vox Nova does not engage in group commentary on socio-political matters including political candidacies, political organizations and movements, and national identities.

The content of the linked blogs and organization websites does not necessarily reflect the views of Vox Nova and its contributors, especially if this content is not aligned with the intellectual and spiritual tradition of the Catholic Church.

Why would we want to refer to other’s opinions when we have the wealth of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, the writings reguarding the Councils of the Church, Dogmas, Church Tradition, Sacred Scripture, approved exegetes, writings of the saints? To me their opinion really does not matter if it is not in line with that which Holy Mother Church Teaches.

Not everything on Vox Nova is in line with the Teaching of the Church. I would not go and get any answers from that site or in good conscience pass it off as a source to cite when discussing Church Teaching.

Here’s what they say on their About page.

Vox Nova is a Catholic group blog. Our contributors come from a wide range of backgrounds, but we all try speak to the world from the heart of the Church.

It is our goal to investigate and discuss how the church can better carry out its mission in the world. To do this we present our ideas in the areas of politics, economics, ethics, theology, philosophy, history and more in the hope of engaging our readership in substantive conversation. We do this through a combination of writing from regular contributors and guest posts from members of our reader community. (To submit a guest post, email voxnovablog@gmail.com)

We try to approach issues of concern to the Catholic faithful in a way which transcends the usual divisions that plague the discussions of the Church in America. Our hope is that you are challenged through our writing and that we are likewise challenged through our readers to become more thoughtful and more faithful Catholics.

Yet this blog nor any of its contributors does not represent the Official Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I will address the article that you linked when I have had sufficient time to go and consider it as I am loathe to comment on things off the cuff.

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

So the Church is definitely moving forward towards ways of reconciling polygenism with other doctrines (like Original Sin), rather than ignoring the evidence and insisting on a literal descent from two biological first parents.

When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom. For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the Magisterium of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own. (Humani Generis 37) Pope Pius XII

God bless.

 

[Debora123]

CAF’s apologists never referred to a church document. They merely gave a piece of writing from Karl Keating. Apologist CAN make mistakes. The church DOES NOT.

So you are suppossed to listen to the Church. Not an apologist. This should be common sense but it appears that it isn’t so I am just reminding you.

The apologist is not here to give their own opinions on questions that have a definitive Catholic answer. They are here to tell us what the Church’s stance is. The Church DOES NOT say we are obligated to believe in the historicity of the OT, including the story of Jonah.

Karl Keating is not just some random person giving his own opinion either. His book is consistent with the teachings of Catholicism, and is advertised here on CAF.

See this link:
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Jonah

You have severely misunderstood the Church’s stance on this issue, ddarko.