What do we mean when we say Adam and Eve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doeco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
More and more I have grappled with the creation account in Genesis and what we mean when we talk about Adam and Eve and original sin. The problem I’ve been noticing is that Genesis is both interpreted symbolically and literally, and that this is done in a way that seems to pick and choose which parts are symbolic and which are literal. For example, most Catholics would agree that the 7 days given are not literal days of the week. So these are interpreted symbolically. Adam and Eve, however, seem to be interpreted literally. Or at least there is a belief in “the first humans” that brought original sin into the world.

What I find lacking in today’s theology is a description of important details of whether original sin occurred over a precise moment, whether it occurred over a long period of time as humanity developed, whether or not the church believes in a creationist account with humans simply being formed from clay, or whether we take an evolutionary approach, in which case it is hard to say just who the first humans were (and therefore hard to lay out exactly how original sin developed).

I guess what is disturbing to me, and maybe it is because I have not exposed myself to the best information available on this topic, is that it seems we Catholics are content to say “the first humans sinned and because of that we have inherited this original sin, the result of which is man’s flawed nature.” And that’s that. But that raises a whole host of questions that need answering. Who exactly was it who sinned? If we interpret Adam and Eve literally as actual people, then we must also interpret the rest of Genesis as literal - we can’t just pick and choose. Also, I apologize for my inability to convey my thoughts in a clear manner right now, I am writing in a bit of a rush and am getting very tired! Any help or links to information would be very appreciated!
From Humani Generis:

“37. 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 in 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.[12]”

From Catholic Answers:

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"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).”

Peace,
Ed
 
Got a source for that? Because I know of no science whatsoever that posits that any Adam or Eve existed, as in two humans from whom all of us descend but who had no human parents.
**Adam and Eve DID live in Africa at the same time - but they probably didn’t know each other
**
  • 'Y-chromosomal Adam’ is thought to have walked the Earth between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago
  • This places him nearer to Eve who was around 99,000 to 148,000 years ago
  • Researchers say it is ‘extremely unlikely’ they were exact contemporaries
Adam and Eve lived in Africa at the same time - but probably never met, scientists claim.
It was previously believed that ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ and ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ - the most recent common ancestors to males and females - lived at completely different times.

But a new study of 69 men from around the world found ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ walked the Earth between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, much earlier than previously believed.

It places him nearer to Eve who was around 99,000 to 148,000 years ago the analysis found.

But the researchers say it is ‘extremely unlikely’ they were exact contemporaries.

Initial estimates for the male MRCA ranged from between 50,000 to 115,000 years ago.
Geneticist Professor Carlos Bustamante, of Stanford University, California, said: **‘Previous research has indicated the male most recent common ancestor (MRCA) lived much more recently than the female MRCA. But now our research shows there is no discrepancy.’
**
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2382653/Adam-Eve-DID-live-Africa-time–probably-didnt-know-other.html#ixzz30mLnH68j
 
**Adam and Eve DID live in Africa at the same time - but they probably didn’t know each other
**
  • 'Y-chromosomal Adam’ is thought to have walked the Earth between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago
  • This places him nearer to Eve who was around 99,000 to 148,000 years ago
  • Researchers say it is ‘extremely unlikely’ they were exact contemporaries
Adam and Eve lived in Africa at the same time - but probably never met, scientists claim.
It was previously believed that ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ and ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ - the most recent common ancestors to males and females - lived at completely different times.

But a new study of 69 men from around the world found ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ walked the Earth between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, much earlier than previously believed.

It places him nearer to Eve who was around 99,000 to 148,000 years ago the analysis found.

But the researchers say it is ‘extremely unlikely’ they were exact contemporaries.

Initial estimates for the male MRCA ranged from between 50,000 to 115,000 years ago.
Geneticist Professor Carlos Bustamante, of Stanford University, California, said: **‘Previous research has indicated the male most recent common ancestor (MRCA) lived much more recently than the female MRCA. But now our research shows there is no discrepancy.’
**
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2382653/Adam-Eve-DID-live-Africa-time–probably-didnt-know-other.html#ixzz30mLnH68j
So the 50,000 year range of times for each overlap.
Wow, if that’s your standard then I can say I live at the same time as Jesus!

And this is irrelevent since both Mitochondrial Eve and and Y-chromosomal Adam had parents and plenty of contemporaries. Just like though my grandfather is the most recent common ancestor of myself and all my cousins on the paternal line, that doesn’t mean he’s the first man who ever lived. Mitochondrial Eve’s mother is also the ancestor of us all, but she is not the most recent common ancestor of us all. The most recent person of a group is not the first person of a group.

And if you had actually read the article, instead of just the headlines and whatever quotes you thought made your point, this would be obvious to you.
 
So the 50,000 year range of times for each overlap.
Wow, if that’s your standard then I can say I live at the same time as Jesus!

And this is irrelevent since both Mitochondrial Eve and and Y-chromosomal Adam had parents and plenty of contemporaries. Just like though my grandfather is the most recent common ancestor of myself and all my cousins on the paternal line, that doesn’t mean he’s the first man who ever lived. Mitochondrial Eve’s mother is also the ancestor of us all, but she is not the most recent common ancestor of us all. The most recent person of a group is not the first person of a group.

And if you had actually read the article, instead of just the headlines and whatever quotes you thought made your point, this would be obvious to you.
The point is that before this Adam and Eve were not contemporaries, separated by thousands and thousands of years. Now it is much closer. I suggested in the post that next thing we know they might have been married. What I am getting to is that science is now converging on what Scripture has said from the beginning.

Science says: Y - Adam and M-Eve - MRCA of all living things
Scripture says - Adam and Eve our first parents.

Science says - MEve - mother of all living
Scripture says Eve - mother of all living

Pretty cool I say.
 
The point is that before this Adam and Eve were not contemporaries, separated by thousands and thousands of years. Now it is much closer. I suggested in the post that next thing we know they might have been married. What I am getting to is that science is now converging on what Scripture has said from the beginning.

Science says: Y - Adam and M-Eve - MRCA of all living things
Scripture says - Adam and Eve our first parents.

Science says - MEve - mother of all living
Scripture says Eve - mother of all living

Pretty cool I say.
It’s cool that science and scripture contradict eachother dramatically, even according to you? First off, Y-adam and M-Eve are not the MRCA of all living things but of most/all humans. And this is very different from being our oldest ancestors - it is our MOST RECENT ANCESTORS.

Apparently science and scripture only converge if you refuse to understand what the science actually is.
 
It’s cool that science and scripture contradict eachother dramatically, even according to you? First off, Y-adam and M-Eve are not the MRCA of all living things but of most/all humans. And this is very different from being our oldest ancestors - it is our MOST RECENT ANCESTORS.

Apparently science and scripture only converge if you refuse to understand what the science actually is.
My bad - should have said - humans…
 
This subject has been the real obstacle for me.
I will try to follow this thread even though I barely visit anymore due to this very topic.
Great question, and based on the replies I am not sure many here really understand the implications of what the Church is requiring you to believe here.
 
Great article on how the DNA of chimps and humans are nearly identical, but the difference is in the details of how it’s transcribed for eventual protein production. The details of the mechanisms are yet to be worked out; so, the details of how evolution occurs, how fast it can occur, and its relationships to mutations, is still very unknown.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm
 
Great article on how the DNA of chimps and humans are nearly identical, but the difference is in the details of how it’s transcribed for eventual protein production. The details of the mechanisms are yet to be worked out; so, the details of how evolution occurs, how fast it can occur, and its relationships to mutations, is still very unknown.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm
The human chimp similarities is now thought to be less than 80%.
 
This subject has been the real obstacle for me.
I will try to follow this thread even though I barely visit anymore due to this very topic.
Great question, and based on the replies I am not sure many here really understand the implications of what the Church is requiring you to believe here.
Hi Strawberry Jam,

Good to know that you still check in. PM me sometime when you are here. We need to catch up with each other. Maybe have some fun on the “warped sense of humor” thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=827601

Seriously, the only thing I have posted on this thread is #7. I have been tempted to post…

The OP raised some serious questions which do have a variety of implications for Catholic theology if Catholic doctrines are to remain as defined. Perhaps the word theology is scary. What the OP is referring to are Catholic doctrines. It is my understanding that “theology” explains or makes clearer these doctrines. And there is some weird “theology” out there that claims it is Catholic – but it sure looks like wolves in sheep’s clothing.

I better sign off before this turns into a cranky granny rant.

Blessings for all.
 
The mechanics of how God formed Adam from the clay/slime/earth of Eden are not described in Genesis. What this tells me is that
  • It doesn’t matter.
  • God created us as a holy being - matter and spirit, that is all we need to know.
  • We may, eventually through the grace of the Holy Spirit, understand how we physically came to be. However, we might never know because our intellect may lack the capacity to comprehend that complexity of being.
  • We are left to make a choice. Will we find the truth in what scripture has clearly revealed through the millennia or in what man (actually self-proclaimed atheists denying the existence of a human soul) has formulated in decades of research. Given the reality of how science works, I think this is a no-brainer.
In today’s Gospel, Jesus is at first not recognized and then disappears. I am certain that the people who are saying there were no two original parents will tell you that either this did not happen or that it was some form of hysteria.
It is God who is the Ground of our being, not matter. All that is, was, and will be emerges from His Word in eternity.
 
Hi Strawberry Jam,

Good to know that you still check in. PM me sometime when you are here. We need to catch up with each other. Maybe have some fun on the “warped sense of humor” thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=827601

Seriously, the only thing I have posted on this thread is #7. I have been tempted to post…

The OP raised some serious questions which do have a variety of implications for Catholic theology if Catholic doctrines are to remain as defined. Perhaps the word theology is scary. What the OP is referring to are Catholic doctrines. It is my understanding that “theology” explains or makes clearer these doctrines. And there is some weird “theology” out there that claims it is Catholic – but it sure looks like wolves in sheep’s clothing.

I better sign off before this turns into a cranky granny rant.

Blessings for all.
Dear Granny, good to see you. Will need to clean up my PM house so we can chat
Glad you did not give in to temptation.
Hope you had a very nice Easter.
 
The human chimp similarities is now thought to be less than 80%.
I’d like to read your source and if its true its even more to my point that their theories are sloshing about like a cake pan full of water on a rollercoaster.
 
I’d like to read your source and if its true its even more to my point that their theories are sloshing about like a cake pan full of water on a rollercoaster.
Given his track record of misunderstanding articles I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
 
Argumentum ad hominem.
You need to look up what that actually means. And if somebody deliberately misunderstands or lies about scientific articles over and over again, it is not illegitimate to acknowledge that.
 
Just as I suspected the difference lies in the ways the statistics are counted. I still conclude the current science is thinking in terms of all us hominids/apes having a very similar DNA story (I like how he used the Dickens text to explain that a few mutations can make a large string be deleted.) even between such distant cousins as humans and apes. I’m not in any way feeling this view is my own, but find it an interesting change in mindset jumping far away from, “we are our DNA”.

Lets not go any further into this squabbling of evolution, since it is banned and keep the discussion relative to the 23 points. That these points are what the Church has discerned must be part of a Catholic’s faith and this is the answer to the OP’s question about what is required doctrine of the true interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis and what we can pick and choose and more directly what we can NOT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top