Two questions about Adam and Eve

[triumphguy]

May I ask if this first answer (from post 53) has been accepted as literal?
*“answer. Genesis 1: 26-28. As Creator, God interacted with the two first human beings.” *

So, the first thing which needs to be established is whether or not the first answer is true. Is there a literal God Who is the literal Creator?

Please take your time with this question. This is Thanksgiving weekend and I will be having fun with family, including my grannykids.
:grouphug:

What makes a human being a human being - a particular form? An intellect, ability to know that one knows? An awareness of God?

I’m trying to find the quote from (then) Ratzinger where he said that Adam and Eve may not have been the first hominids (or whatever) but were the first individual man and woman to look up and contemplate their relationship with God.

John Paul II elsewhere said something like: God created us from clay, but that “clay” may have been our hominid ancestors.

It;s late and I’m tired - I’ll look for them another time.

 

[Kelt]

I don’t know what this means.

The Church doesn’t force anyone to believe anything.

It does not have a goon squad going after those who call themselves Catholic who do not believe the doctrines of the Church.

However, one puts their future happiness at risk by ignoring the truths of Church doctrines.

You are implying that to be a good and obedient Catholic who wants to go to heaven, you MUST believe ( even force yourself somehow) in this simplistic literal version of this particular creation story! I have never understood that to be the case!
IMHO the writers of the story would probably have laughed out loud if someone suggested it would be read literally. There are universal truths in the story - that’s the beauty of it. (Except for the misogynistic bit perhaps).

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know. I’d like to think there is…so for the sake of the argument, let’s take it as read that there is one God which created everything. Then we can move onto these first people and their Paradise.
I wish you a great celebratory weekend!

Thank you for your good wishes. Wherever you live, may you also celebrate the good that you have.

For the sake of the argument, we will consider that there is one God Who created everything. The author of the first chapter of Genesis believed the “everything” bit because everything is generally referenced from creeping things to lights in the dome of the sky. What I have noticed is that there is a dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26. It is a shift from the general universe to something that is intimate with the Creator, that is, two creatures who are given the honor of sharing in God’s own life.

To keep it simple, let’s simply say that the species of the first two people is peerless. Being peerless, it is reasonably possible that these two people, for convenience they are named Adam and Eve, have the ability to interact with their Creator. Actually, my answer to post 53 stipulates that the first two people could interact with their Creator.
Refer to “As Creator, God interacted with the two first human beings.” Interaction is a two way street.

Genesis 2: 15 describes the “Paradise” as a garden needing physical care. Personally, I am not too sure about the paradise tag. My idea of paradise is :tanning: Regardless of the description, because the two people are real, they would be living in a real place. When we talk about literal truth found in those first three Genesis chapters, we are understanding the literal truth of God’s existence and the first two person’s existence in a real environment.

Granted that we are choosing the above reality for the sake of argument. I do not wish to impose any particular beliefs. Rather, I am using the Genesis text as a source of reasonable literal reality. I will eventually, however, need to explain some pertinent Catholic beliefs.

What is your reaction or thinking so far? What would you add to the above?

 

[Kelt]

Thank you for your good wishes. Wherever you live, may you also celebrate the good that you have.

For the sake of the argument, we will consider that there is one God Who created everything. The author of the first chapter of Genesis believed the “everything” bit because everything is generally referenced from creeping things to lights in the dome of the sky. What I have noticed is that there is a dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26. It is a shift from the general universe to something that is intimate with the Creator, that is, two creatures who are given the honor of sharing in God’s own life.

To keep it simple, let’s simply say that the species of the first two people is peerless. Being peerless, it is reasonably possible that these two people, for convenience they are named Adam and Eve, have the ability to interact with their Creator. Actually, my answer to post 53 stipulates that the first two people could interact with their Creator.
Refer to “As Creator, God interacted with the two first human beings.” Interaction is a two way street.

Genesis 2: 15 describes the “Paradise” as a garden needing physical care. Personally, I am not too sure about the paradise tag. My idea of paradise is :tanning: Regardless of the description, because the two people are real, they would be living in a real place. When we talk about literal truth found in those first three Genesis chapters, we are understanding the literal truth of God’s existence and the first two person’s existence in a real environment.

Granted that we are choosing the above reality for the sake of argument. I do not wish to impose any particular beliefs. Rather, I am using the Genesis text as a source of reasonable literal reality. I will eventually, however, need to explain some pertinent Catholic beliefs.

What is your reaction or thinking so far? What would you add to the above?

Yeeees…I think I’m with you OK so far!
Are you thinking that these two individuals were the first to ‘look up’ and wonder - or something like that - quoted on a previous post on this thread? By Triuphguy? That they were evolving? That I can accept even tho’ I wouldn’t be inclined personally, to accept the reality of it in such a simple literal way - ie evolve, evolve…zap! This one’s human!! I just think it’s a good story to illustrate the human condition. ( except the rib bit!)
(I like your Paradise…but how would they enjoy it without a good book? )
I think I agree with your doubts about Paradise, if I’m reading you correctly. I prefer your ‘real place’.
What doesn’t stack up about the literal ‘paradise’ with two perfect people in it is that everything that makes us human comes after what they call ‘the fall’. So before it, they weren’t human. So, this is my understanding of the ‘truths’ in the myth. Animals live in the world without understanding it. They eat, drink and get some pleasures - while they have learned (evolved) to be on the lookout for danger. However, they don’t ‘know’ what the dangers really are…it’s just that the ones which weren’t wary often didn’t get to pass on their genes! The world is their Paradise - it has everything they need and they have no obligations to it. They have no concept of right and wrong, and while some pair-bond, they are unsophisticated about sex.
You might say my sheepdog knows when he’s done wrong - he seems clever as he’s trained to round up sheep etc, but we have only tapped into his instincts and he only wants to please us - his ‘pack-leader’. He doesn’t lie awake at night feeling guilty about biting a sheep!
When we started to become intelligent enough to realise our own mortality, then develop a concept of right and wrong and wonder ‘why’ as well as ‘how’…then we became human. We developed more sophisticated relationships with others…we saw our world become full of contradictions and (altho’ it didn’t materially change) it wasn’t Paradise any more.

 

[grannymh]

Yeeees…I think I’m with you OK so far!
Are you thinking that these two individuals were the first to ‘look up’ and wonder - or something like that - quoted on a previous post on this thread? By Triuphguy?

Yes. As a descendant of Adam and Eve, I still look up and wonder.

That they were evolving? That I can accept even tho’ I wouldn’t be inclined personally, to accept the reality of it in such a simple literal way - ie evolve, evolve…zap! This one’s human!! I just think it’s a good story to illustrate the human condition. ( except the rib bit!)

I have trouble with the concept of evolving simply because the current science of human evolution does not allow for the possibility of two founders of the human species.

(I like your Paradise…but how would they enjoy it without a good book? )
I think I agree with your doubts about Paradise, if I’m reading you correctly. I prefer your ‘real place’.

That makes two of us who prefer reality when it comes to where Adam and Eve started out as humans.

What doesn’t stack up about the literal ‘paradise’ with two perfect people in it is that everything that makes us human comes after what they call ‘the fall’.

The difficulty is that so many people exaggerate the nature of Adam and Eve. Perfect? I do not see that in the first three chapters of Genesis. I also do not find anything to contradict Adam and Eve having a real human nature before the Fall.

So before it, they weren’t human.

If I had a dime for every time I defended the humanity of Adam and Eve before the Fall I would be in paradise with lots of good books. ,

So, this is my understanding of the ‘truths’ in the myth. Animals live in the world without understanding it. They eat, drink and get some pleasures - while they have learned (evolved) to be on the lookout for danger. However, they don’t ‘know’ what the dangers really are…it’s just that the ones which weren’t wary often didn’t get to pass on their genes! The world is their Paradise - it has everything they need and they have no obligations to it. They have no concept of right and wrong, and while some pair-bond, they are unsophisticated about sex.

I would be delighted if you were my “ghost writer.” There are so many wonderful points in the above.

You might say my sheepdog knows when he’s done wrong - he seems clever as he’s trained to round up sheep etc, but we have only tapped into his instincts and he only wants to please us - his ‘pack-leader’. He doesn’t lie awake at night feeling guilty about biting a sheep!

Is your dog a Border Collie? This breed is simply outstanding. I continually am amazed.

When we started to become intelligent enough to realise our own mortality, then develop a concept of right and wrong and wonder ‘why’ as well as ‘how’…then we became human. We developed more sophisticated relationships with others…we saw our world become full of contradictions and (altho’ it didn’t materially change) it wasn’t Paradise any more.

What you described above is what I see as instantly part of human nature. A significant number of verses in the first three chapters of Genesis lend support to the idea that our rationality is an inherent part of human nature. Catholic translation of that point is that it is God Who is responsible for creating the spiritual soul (spiritual principle). Thus, there are no legitmate grounds for saying that the soul evolved or emerged from the material nature (realm of science) of humans acting in a developing population. If Adam had human parents, he would not be original. The answer is Genesis 1: 26-27.

I suspect that our conversation will continue. Especially since I would want Adam and Eve to be Catholic. See question 1. in post 1.

 

[Kelt]

Yes. As a descendant of Adam and Eve, I still look up and wonder.

I have trouble with the concept of evolving simply because the current science of human evolution does not allow for the possibility of two founders of the human species.

That makes two of us who prefer reality when it comes to where Adam and Eve started out as humans.

The difficulty is that so many people exaggerate the nature of Adam and Eve. Perfect? I do not see that in the first three chapters of Genesis. I also do not find anything to contradict Adam and Eve having a real human nature before the Fall.

If I had a dime for every time I defended the humanity of Adam and Eve before the Fall I would be in paradise with lots of good books. ,

I would be delighted if you were my “ghost writer.” There are so many wonderful points in the above.

Is your dog a Border Collie? This breed is simply outstanding. I continually am amazed.

What you described above is what I see as instantly part of human nature. A significant number of verses in the first three chapters of Genesis lend support to the idea that our rationality is an inherent part of human nature. Catholic translation of that point is that it is God Who is responsible for creating the spiritual soul (spiritual principle). Thus, there are no legitmate grounds for saying that the soul evolved or emerged from the material nature (realm of science) of humans acting in a developing population. If Adam had human parents, he would not be original. The answer is Genesis 1: 26-27.

I suspect that our conversation will continue. Especially since I would want Adam and Eve to be Catholic. See question 1. in post 1.

The ‘fall’ is not a single naughty deed - what kind of creator punishes his own creation just immediately after creating it, for being what he created it to be???
The fall is a metaphor for our innate capacity for, and ability to analyse, good and evil.
I think you don’t accept the science of our evolution because you can’t yet make it fit into a dogma?
As for collies - I have realised that people have bred OCD into them over the centuries…the best workers definitely have managed OCD!

 

[Kelt]

**

I suspect that our conversation will continue. Especially since I would want Adam and Eve to be Catholic. See question 1. in post 1.

How could this possibly be so??? Jesus and his followers weren’t even Catholic! It was invented way after Jesus’ death!

 

[grannymh]

The ‘fall’ is not a single naughty deed - what kind of creator punishes his own creation just immediately after creating it, for being what he created it to be???
The fall is a metaphor for our innate capacity for, and ability to analyse, good and evil.
I think you don’t accept the science of our evolution because you can’t yet make it fit into a dogma?
As for collies - I have realised that people have bred OCD into them over the centuries…the best workers definitely have managed OCD!

It makes more sense that Original Sin aka “Fall” is a single deed because then one can go on to understanding the single relationship between a single human and a single Creator. It is far easier to deal with a single relationship than to deal with thousands of possible relationships which would occur within an evolving population of breeding hominins. Probably one of the many reasons that the Catholic Church opposes the population based cladistics diagrams in the science of human evolution is that there would be chaos produced by a mass interbreeding population of questionable genetics. Consider that science now believes that the human lineage comes from a population breeding both humans and chimps. We did not descend from chimps. Both humans and chimps descended from the same interbreeding population which happened to split over time.

Even with two first humans, one claimed innocence by blaming the other. I hesitate to imagine a criminal claiming innocence because she or he descended from a thousand ancestors some of which were subhumans not capable of knowing the difference between good and evil. Obviously, today there are people who are not capable of discerning good from evil; yet, they are still human. Why? Because humans descended from two first humans and not from an ancient population of mixed genetics that eventually led to our cousin chimps. How can we be sure of our own nature if we descended from metaphors?

 

[grannymh]

How could this possibly be so??? Jesus and his followers weren’t even Catholic! It was invented way after Jesus’ death!

You are right.

I should keep my imagination to myself.

Note. Due to some family situations, I may not be able to post as often as I would like.

 

[Kelt]

You are right.

I should keep my imagination to myself.

Note. Due to some family situations, I may not be able to post as often as I would like.

Shame!!

 

[grannymh]

Shame!!

 

[Kelt]

You are right.

I should keep my imagination to myself.

Note. Due to some family situations, I may not be able to post as often as I would like.

No you’re right…I should be doing other stuff too…we must ration ourselves…

 

[tdgesq]

The fall is a metaphor for our innate capacity for, and ability to analyse, good and evil.

Catholics are not required to accept a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, regardless of what other opinions you might see here. We are required to accept the dogmatic teachings of the Church that are derived from the Scriptural writings. Whether an individual Catholic interprets Genesis as largely allegorical (like I do) or not doesn’t change that reality. There are more truths derived from the Genesis account than you’ve set forth here, but in my opinion none of them conflict with sound modern evolutionary theory.

I think you don’t accept the science of our evolution because you can’t yet make it fit into a dogma?

The phrase “science of our evolution” is a bit tricky because portions of evolutionary theory are constantly being falsified and refined, which is exactly what the biological sciences are supposed to do. That being stated, what is generally accepted by scientists today as sound human evolutionary theory does not strike me as being opposed to Catholic teaching. I think you will find that there are many Catholics here who are like-minded.

By the way, the answer is “yes” to the question: Did Adam and Eve’s descendants include the names Joseph and Mary?

 

[grannymh]

Catholics are not required to accept a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, regardless of what other opinions you might see here. We are required to accept the dogmatic teachings of the Church that are derived from the Scriptural writings. Whether an individual Catholic interprets Genesis as largely allegorical (like I do) or not doesn’t change that reality. There are more truths derived from the Genesis account than you’ve set forth here, but in my opinion none of them conflict with sound modern evolutionary theory.

The phrase “science of our evolution” is a bit tricky because portions of evolutionary theory are constantly being falsified and refined, which is exactly what the biological sciences are supposed to do. That being stated, what is generally accepted by scientists today as sound human evolutionary theory does not strike me as being opposed to Catholic teaching. I think you will find that there are many Catholics here who are like-minded.

By the way, the answer is “yes” to the question: Did Adam and Eve’s descendants include the names Joseph and Mary?

The Catholic Church opposes the population concept within the science of human evolution where paleoanthropology is prominent. The Catholic Church does not oppose the population concept for ants and plants. May I respectfully suggest that it is time for Catholics to update themselves. We are no longer in the era of the Piltdown Man. We are now in the era of the Homo/Pan split.

 

[Kurisu35712]

1. Were Adam and Eve Catholic?
2. Did Adam and Eve’s descendants include the names Joseph and Mary?

1. *Were* they Catholic, I would say no, as the Church had not yet been established. However, I would argue that everyone in Heaven *is*, whether explicitly Catholic during their earthly life or not. So I would say that they are Catholic *now,* but were not during their earthly lives.

2. Yes. They also included the names Jeanne d'Arc, William Shakespeare, Cain, Abel, and so on.

Regardless of whether one believes Adam and Eve were literally the first two humans, or whether one believes Adam and Eve were some sort of collective “first homo sapiens”, question 2 would still have the same answer.

 

[grannymh]

1. Were they Catholic, I would say no, as the Church had not yet been established. However, I would argue that everyone in Heaven is, whether explicitly Catholic during their earthly life or not. So I would say that they are Catholic now, but were not during their earthly lives.

I forgot about that approach in Heaven. Thank you.

1. Yes. They also included the names Jeanne d’Arc, William Shakespeare, Cain, Abel, and so on.

Regardless of whether one believes Adam and Eve were literally the first two humans, or whether one believes Adam and Eve were some sort of collective “first homo sapiens”, question 2 would still have the same answer.

A founding population of two is not part of the lineage of Homo sapiens.

 

[tdgesq]

The Catholic Church opposes the population concept within the science of human evolution where paleoanthropology is prominent. The Catholic Church does not oppose the population concept for ants and plants. May I respectfully suggest that it is time for Catholics to update themselves. We are no longer in the era of the Piltdown Man. We are now in the era of the Homo/Pan split.

I’m not inclined to accept opinions about what the Church accepts or rejects on this specific topic without citations to Church authority. No offense to you personally.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not inclined to accept opinions about what the Church accepts or rejects on this specific topic without citations to Church authority. No offense to you personally.

I totally agree with the need for citations. Shall we start with these?

Citations:
Romans 5: 12-21
1 Corinthians 15: 21-22

 

[Kelt]

Catholics are not required to accept a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, regardless of what other opinions you might see here. We are required to accept the dogmatic teachings of the Church that are derived from the Scriptural writings. Whether an individual Catholic interprets Genesis as largely allegorical (like I do) or not doesn’t change that reality. There are more truths derived from the Genesis account than you’ve set forth here, but in my opinion none of them conflict with sound modern evolutionary theory.

The phrase “science of our evolution” is a bit tricky because portions of evolutionary theory are constantly being falsified and refined, which is exactly what the biological sciences are supposed to do. That being stated, what is generally accepted by scientists today as sound human evolutionary theory does not strike me as being opposed to Catholic teaching. I think you will find that there are many Catholics here who are like-minded.

Good, that’s what I’d always thought. I was surprised to find so much literalist belief on this site…and in my travels in US. I don’t know of anyone here in UK (apart from JW’s) who still believes this literal reading.

 

[grannymh]

Good, that’s what I’d always thought. I was surprised to find so much literalist belief on this site…and in my travels in US. I don’t know of anyone here in UK (apart from JW’s) who still believes this literal reading.

The obvious trouble with a general literal reading is that there are 50 chapters in Genesis. Not every verse in every chapter automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine.

Despite this fact which some ignore.-- the Catholic Church opposes the population concept within the science of human evolution where paleoanthropology is prominent. The Catholic Church does not oppose the population concept for ants and plants. May I respectfully suggest that it is time for Catholics to update themselves. We are no longer in the era of the Piltdown Man. We are now in the era of the Homo/Pan split.

Here is a recent evaluation of the Adam and Eve puzzle.

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist