Was Death Present in the Garden of Eden, before the fall?

[StAnastasia]

Creation does not stand apart from man. It was created *for *man, to offer up to God and become, with man through whom it is offered, more united with the divine nature.

Not all Christians agree with your anthropocentric take on creation.

It was through mis-use of his free will that creation fell into corruption with man.

Creation has experienced death and change since the moment of the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years before the symbolic “Adam” and “Eve” existed.

 

[StAnastasia]

check hull for non-native growth

Larkin, are you a sailor?

 

[JM3]

“Adam” and “Eve” represent all of humanity evolving out of our perhuman past, into the light of rationality, moral responsibility, and the knowledge of and love for God.

You are right to hold out for the provisional nature of all knowledge. There will no doubt be further changes in the theory of how life on earth developed. But the only thing that has happened in the 150 years since Charles Darwin first proposed his theory is that it has become stronger.

Creation has experienced death and change since the moment of the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years before the symbolic “Adam” and “Eve” existed.

newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm

Humani Generis
His Holiness Pope Pius XII
Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine
August 12, 1950

1. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[18]

 

[larkin31]

Larkin, are you a sailor?

no, but I enjoy fishing the lakes of Maine!

 

[grannymh]

“Adam” and “Eve” represent all of humanity evolving out of our perhuman past, into the light of rationality, moral responsibility, and the knowledge of and love for God.

The statement with the typo corrected “Adam” and “Eve” represent all of humanity evolving out of our prehuman past, into the light of rationality, moral responsibility, and the knowledge of and love for God. found in post 80 is an anti-God statement.

In other words, it reduces the true knowledge of God to a mechanical version of God. It eliminates the relationship of the Creator with the true human being. It ignores the fact that humans can participate in the spiritual world. This statement sounds like the “god of the gaps” theory. It illustrates the lack of knowledge as to how to distinguish human nature from other creatures such as birds, some of which came from a pre-bird past. It fools people into thinking that the only thing God created was anatomies which eventually decompose or turn into fossils; therefore, humans are only smarter anatomies. It limits God’s creative powers to the kind of life found in bacteria, plants and animals. The statement can only explain death as being the same thing for all living organisms including humans. Thus, death becomes a mechanical version of human life. This statement reduces the abilities of each person to the point where the consequence is that humans only half live.

Real Blessings,
granny

 

[StAnastasia]

The statement with the typo corrected “Adam” and “Eve” represent all of humanity evolving out of our prehuman past, into the light of rationality, moral responsibility, and the knowledge of and love for God. found in post 80 is an anti-God statement.

Granny, absolutely not! Mine is a very pro-God statement. Mine is not the God of the cartoons who poofs everything into existence in six days; my God is the Ancient of Days, the Word Incarnate in Creation, the Spirit hovering over the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[StAnastasia]

In other words, it reduces the true knowledge of God to a mechanical version of God.

That is completely false.

It eliminates the relationship of the Creator with the true human being. It ignores the fact that humans can participate in the spiritual world.

Not at all. Evolutionary theism offers a far more intimate view of the Creator-creation relationship than the theory you espouse.

This statement sounds like the “god of the gaps” theory.

Not at all. Do you understand what the term “god of the gaps” means?

It illustrates the lack of knowledge as to how to distinguish human nature from other creatures such as birds, some of which came from a pre-bird past.

Completely false. The not-to-be-mentioned “E” theory explains better why humans differ from other animals than does the “poof creation” theory.

It fools people into thinking that the only thing God created was anatomies which eventually decompose or turn into fossils; therefore, humans are only smarter anatomies.

Completely false.

It limits God’s creative powers to the kind of life found in bacteria, plants and animals.

Completely false.

The statement can only explain death as being the same thing for all living organisms including humans. Thus, death becomes a mechanical version of human life.

False – death is not a “version of life,” whatever that means.

This statement reduces the abilities of each person to the point where the consequence is that humans only half live.

Completely false.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Anastasia:

That is the claim of a largely illiterate, pre-scientific culture unaware of how vast the universe in fact is.

It’s the belief of those who are illuminated by God who is infinitely vaster than the universe. The ancients had no difficulty appreciating the vastness of creation, even if they could not scientifically measure it to the degree we can today.

“Adam” and “Eve” represent all of humanity evolving out of our perhuman past, into the light of rationality, moral responsibility, and the knowledge of and love for God.

The Church always has understood Adam to be one man, not a collection of generations of men.

Consider:

“Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…” (Romans 5:12)

“But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!” (Romans 5:15-17)

Of course – we truly live!

They truly lived in the sense that Adam and Eve were real, distinct persons, not a collection of persons under the names “Adam” and “Eve”.

That’s essentially true, except that with humans we have the possibility of creation coming to be aware of God.

Could you please explain this further.

The Fathers were not scientists.

The knowledge of the Fathers comes from their experience of God. They were not scientists in the modern sense. Science is one way of exploring reality. There are others, not necessarily religious in nature (e.g. philosophy, literature, art)

You are right to hold out for the provisional nature of all knowledge. There will no doubt be further changes in the theory of how life on earth developed. But the only thing that has happened in the 150 years since Charles Darwin first proposed his theory is that it has become stronger.

The theory of evolution has become much more refined. Scientists have proposed solutions to the problems presented by the worldview being constructed. The difficulty is that, historically, there always are anomalies that evade explanation and even contradict the rest. These become important in the rejection of the old paradigm and the construction of a new one, with a new foundation of new basic laws. A scientific discipline often experiences a paradigm shift when it appears most stable.

 

[WmJackP]

Dead hair and skin particles are not “death” as such. There’s no reason why hair and skin could not be the same pre-Fall.

Dead skin and dead hair is not the same as a dead human or a dead animal.

I must beg to differ. You claim that a gamet is human, do you not? If not a gamete, then certainly a zygote. Certainly, the case can be made for similarity or you risk being inconsistent with your own theory of life.

 

[StAnastasia]

The ancients had no difficulty appreciating the vastness of creation, even if they could not scientifically measure it to the degree we can today.

The ancients conceived of the cosmos as small, geocentric, and focused on human beings.

The Church always has understood Adam to be one man, not a collection of generations of men…They truly lived in the sense that Adam and Eve were real, distinct persons, not a collection of persons under the names “Adam” and “Eve”.

You’re going to have tough sledding to maintain this thesis against anthropology and genetics in the next century. There is no evidence in the human genome that the number of ancestors ever sank to a single breeding pair. For your theory to be true, two things would be necessary:
(1) God would have planted all the fossils of pre-human hominids to fool scientists.
(2) God would magically erased all evidence of our shared ancestry with the other great apes. But God didn’t erase this; we see ample evidence of shared genetic history with chimpanzees, bonobos, etc.

A scientific discipline often experiences a paradigm shift when it appears most stable.

Can you offer any evidence at all that the paradigm of evolution is failing?

 

[Wowbagger]

Wisdom 1:13

Interesting reply, JM3, but I’m afraid I don’t quite know what you mean. Perhaps if your response to my several-hundred-word post were a bit longer than two words and a smiley face, your point would be a little clearer. As it stands, I can think of only a few ways to interpret your Bible-verse post. Please let me know which meaning it is.

It is possible that you are suggesting that either there were no dinosaurs, that dinosaurs did not antedate humans, or that dinosaurs did not die. Thus the plain facts of the observable world are flatly wrong, and the Bible verse in question literally true. You are arguing against the existence of dinosaurs. Of course, since arguing against the existence of dinosaurs is a bit like arguing against the existence of Paris, and denies the Scholastic method, and denies the ability of reason to discern truth (since reason here would be flatly contradicting the Biblically revealed truth), that position has little root in the Catholic intellectual tradition. Possibly, you are indeed arguing that man does not have the power to know things by apprehension, like Berkeley or the Modernist and Post-modernist philosophers. Is that the case?

It is possible, to the contrary, that you are actually arguing against Scriptural authority. Reality clearly presents us with the existence of and death of dinosaurs. A literal interpretation of Wisdom 1:13 denies this reality. Therefore the Scriptures must be false, or at least not infallible. Is that what you are suggesting? That Scripture is wrong?

Or perhaps you are arguing – as I would – that both science and scripture are correct, that Faith and Reason are compatible. This would require a slightly less literal interpretation of Wisdom 1:13. However, finding this less-literal interpretation of the passage is not really very hard. Within the context of Wisdom 1 (an interesting chapter, on the whole), it is plain to any honest reader that the text is referring to human life, and not necessarily to beastly life. Is that what you mean to say? If so, I don’t know why you frowned at me, since we are basically in agreement.

And that’s it. If we take a contextual view of Wisdom 1 as a whole, the magisteriums of faith and reason are reconcilable. If we take a literal interpretation of Wisdom 1:13, stripped of any context, then either our faith in Scripture is wrong or reasonable conclusions about dinosaurs are wrong. Which position do you take, JM3? Do you doubt the Bible, the dinosaurs, or (using a contextual interpretation) neither?

Or did I miss a possible interpretation of your post? That’s always a possibility.

EDIT: Briefly replying to Madaglan’s post.

There was no sensual pleasure or pain in Adam before the fall, according to the Fathers. The food that sustained life was doing the will of God.

Really? I’ve never heard this before. Do you have any citations for it? Does any of it bear the weight of infallible teaching, or is it (like Augustine’s speculations on the fates of the unbaptized infants, or St. Thomas’s arguments against the Immaculate Conception) mere opinion?

Creation does not stand apart from man. It was created for man, to offer up to God and become, with man through whom it is offered, more united with the divine nature.

This is certainly true. But the fact that Creation was created for Man, is perfected by the divinely-appointed labors of Man, and is offered back up to God by Man, does not imply that Creation is or ever has been incorruptible. I don’t see the link between our close and God-given relationship to nature and Man’s own specific preternatural incorruptibility.

I am also curious: how do you reconcile this belief with your belief in dinosaurs?

 

[grannymh]

I ask this question, because hair is made up of dead cells, and Adam was naming animals, many of which I am sure had hair, as I am sure he had hair. So cells were dying, and multiplying,.

What, which, or whose kind of death is the OP refering to?


It may be important to figure out the purpose of the Garden of Eden.

 

[JM3]

Interesting reply, JM3, but I’m afraid I don’t quite know what you mean.

What Wisdom 1:13 means is between you and God. Have you asked Him, or do you prefer to dictate your terms of belief?

As for the ‘sad’ face, it was for the things that you said. The fact that the Church you claim to be faithful to has less authority than your ‘sacred’ magisterium of science is very sad.

Have you ever considered that with a mere passing thought, God can change your ‘reality’?

 

[Wowbagger]

Science originates in reason. Reason is man’s power to apprehend Truth. If a claim contradicts reason, it is false. If the Bible said, “The world is flat,” then the readily observed fact that the world is round would prove the Bible wrong. If the Bible said, “There were no dinosaurs,” then the readily observed fact that there were dinosaurs would count against the Bible, not against reality. (Time to look into the Koran!)

If Catholic teaching did not conform to reality, we would be morally obligated by our own teachings to abandon it and seek out the real truth. This is not “dictating terms” of belief, as you suggest. It is an embrace of the fundamentally reasonable creatures we were made to be. We are designed to seek truth, reject falsehoods, and defeat apparent contradictions. To believe despite reason pointing against it would not be belief, but foolish fantasy. Worse: according to Catholic teaching, it would be immoral. Every Catholic saint would agree that Reason must conform to the Faith, and the Faith must conform to Reason. We must allow Reason to guide us, hopefully with the assistance of God’s grace.

I have not prayed for God to send down a pamphlet with an explanation of Wisdom 1:13, if that’s what you mean. I’ve tried that sort of thing before, and He only went along with it the first time. But I have prayed for wisdom, humility, and the grace of enlightenment to the true meaning of His words here and elsewhere. I believe, with His help, that I have come to understand the meaning of this particular passage. Many good and holy people did much work during the last century to make sense of the strange new revelations of scientific truth in light of the eternal religious truth found in the Sacred Deposit. These fellow Catholics (and their new interpretations of ancient teachings) were much help to me, too.

However, getting back on topic, you claim that “What Wisdom 1:13 means is between you and God.” That, my friend, is absolutely false. As Catholics, we believe that the words of Scripture have objective, public meanings. We are not a bunch of Baptists running around thinking that the Bible means something different to everyone who reads it. So I ask you again, in the spirit of Christian charity and a desire for honest, reasonable fraternal correction, if I have erred: do you deny reason, do you deny faith, or have you found some way of reconciling the two in the case of death and the Garden of Eden? Are you here to have a conversation about apologetics, or to argue against the authority of reason, which is the very heart of apologetics?

Have you ever considered that with a mere passing thought, God can change your ‘reality’?

Actually – and this is more or less a side point – He cannot do any such thing. This is for the simple reason that the words “change” and “passing” have no meaning when appended to a timeless eternal being. All God’s thoughts are eternal. There are no “passing thoughts.” They just are. This is not to say that God cannot perform acts which transcend the created order, but it does mean that, by definition, God can’t press some cosmic “undo” key and change what He has already wrought. See also the Summa Theologica, at I.Q25.A4. This all goes back to the point that God is a reasonable creature. Incomprehensible, but fundamentally acting in accord with Reason. The chaotic, irrational eldritch God you describe bears a much closer resemblance to Cthulhu.

So, no. The possibility that everything I know from science and reason is wrong and that everything I’ve heard from hardline literalists is right has not been a grave concern of mine. It is eminently clear that death took place on this Earth prior to the Fall. The changes this has forced in how mainstream Catholics understand the infallible teachings of the magisterium have been slight even by recent standards. Our Church’s reassessment in light of Copernican truth was much more difficult.

I hope that doesn’t sound too harsh. I’m enjoying this conversation.

 

[JM3]

This all goes back to the point that God is a reasonable creature.

God is not a ‘creature’.

You can use ‘several hundred words’ or several trillion. There is nothing you can say that will ever make me worship science.

Period.

 

[grannymh]

What Wisdom 1:13 means is between you and God. Have you asked Him, or do you prefer to dictate your terms of belief?

As for the ‘sad’ face, it was for the things that you said. The fact that the Church you claim to be faithful to has less authority than your ‘sacred’ magisterium of science is very sad.

Have you ever considered that with a mere passing thought, God can change your ‘reality’?

The true authority of the Catholic Church is in the area of salvation of souls. This means that its doctrines concern faith and morals. Catholicism is not solar scriptura.
It is guided by the Holy Spirit in promoting Divine Revelation,

However, individuals have free speech no matter what their title. This means that from the Pope on down to us, there can be various speculations as to what happened thousands of years going backwards.

The Catholic Church teaches Genesis 1:1. That is important for salvation. Knowing what happened every day of every year, all over the earth, going backwards according to one’s desires, and then giving awkward meanings to scripture verses out of context and away from the intent of the particular book is simply a matter of human pride.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

Science originates in reason. Reason is man’s power to apprehend Truth. If a claim contradicts reason, it is false. If the Bible said, “The world is flat,” then the readily observed fact that the world is round would prove the Bible wrong. [/qutoe]

I know what you are trying to say. But don’t think that someone’s interpretation of a particular verse will make every book in the Bible wrong. Catholicism should not be confused with fundamentalism and solar scripture. Please keep in mind that Divine Revelation concerns the eternal purpose of you and me. How one measures the earth is incidental. My advice is to concentrate on going to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. How old the earth is, while nice to know, cannot compare with receiving the Real Presence of the earth’s Creator in Holy Communion.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[grannymh]

Science originates in reason. Reason is man’s power to apprehend Truth. If a claim contradicts reason, it is false. If the Bible said, “The world is flat,” then the readily observed fact that the world is round would prove the Bible wrong.

Please don’t think that someone’s interpretation of a particular verse will make every book in the Bible wrong. Catholicism should not be confused with fundamentalism and solar scripture. Please keep in mind that Divine Revelation concerns the eternal purpose of you and me. How one measures the earth is incidental. My advice is to concentrate on going to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. How old the earth is, while nice to know, cannot compare with receiving the Real Presence of the earth’s Creator in Holy Communion.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[grannymh]

This may help clear up the confusion regarding Science and Divine Revelation.

In his time, St. Thomas Aquinas reasoned that God is the author of all truth. He observed that the aim of scientific research should be the truth.
What he was proposing is that we understand Catholic teachings properly. He was also proposing that science be conducted properly. If those conditions are met, then both would lead to the same truth.

Properly is the operative word.

The Catholic Deposit of Faith contains doctrines based on faith and morals – this is the truth. When scientific research is conducted consistently and rigorously – that can lead to truth. The Catholic Doctrine of Genesis 1:1 should not be confused with the age of the earth or how non-human creatures lived in pre-history. Science per se is not part of the Catholic Faith; rather it aids in understanding God’s creation so that we can be proper stewards.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[grannymh]

You can use ‘several hundred words’ or several trillion. There is nothing you can say that will ever make me worship science.

Period.

I’ve lived a long time and CAF is the first time I’ve heard people talk about worshiping science. In my experience, I’ve seen plenty of misinterpretations of science. I have seen non-theists place the misinterpretations of science above Catholic teaching. Is that what this worship science means? If so, that is a choice by an individual.
I simply don’t comprehend the reverse–that science is automatically detrimental for people who worship God.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1