What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians

[stephenSTOSS1]

Reply 1: Fiction versus non-fiction: Part Two​

Continued from Reply 1: Fiction versus non-fiction: Part One

J.R.R. Tolkein self-describes his story, The Lord of the Rings , as a myth written in the style existing during the Hellenistic Greek period. Let’s compare genres: 1) His epic is a myth (like yours); 2) it contains fictional characters (like yours); 3) it contains fictional gardens (like yours); 4) it teaches its readers truth about “conscience, sin, free will, and suffering” (what a coincidence, it is so like yours that I used your exact words). Worth noting, Tolkein was a staunch Catholic who attempted to incorporate and teach the truths of the Catholic Church and the Bible through his mythic story.

By your definition, Tolkein’s story would be classified as non-fiction because it teaches morals and truth. It makes a point, as you like to phrase it. There isn’t a literary expert in the world, I believe, that would classify Tolkein as non-fiction. Nor would your interpretation of mythic language when applied to Genesis. All four of the Catholic definitions of myth, or mythic language, that I quoted in an earlier post would not agree with your definition of myth as applied to the ancient Hebrew Bible.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker wrote, “Because we say a story is myth does not mean that we think it is a fabrication, a fable, a fairy tale and a fiction . Because a story is myth does not necessarily mean it did not happen.” Dr Bernard Batto wrote, “In everyday usage today, myth carries a meaning of something untrue, a fable, a fiction, or an illusion.” Your understanding of myth qualifies as both fable and fiction. As I quoted earlier, Batto also wrote that a myth “Has paradigmatic [emphasis mine] significance for the society in which the story is operative.” Dr.Batto has his PhD in linguistics of the ancient Hebrew Bible. In linguistic science, paradigmatic means: Paradigmatic relations describe the identity of a linguistic unit in a given language. Example: The sun is shining to other nouns that could substitute for it, as star or light. Note that all three identify a true cosmic fact. Another example comes from modern science. According to Batto, the term Big Bang is mythical language that uses paradigmatic substitution. The mythical language involving paradigmatic substitution describes hermeneutics which are perfectly in line with official Church teaching on the proper interpretation of Genesis, i.e. that the historical narrative of Genesis communicates divinely inspired truths about actual primeval events.

 

[Edgar]

It’s been well established since the 50’s that the Church’s teaching on Creation and the scientific theory of evolution need not necessarily conflict with one another.

Well, I believe they are in error. Adam was created from inanimate matter - end of story. Evolution is a fairy tale invented by Satan and has contaminated the Church. The good news is, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, so eventually the error will be corrected and the Church washed clean of this particular stain.

 

[Edgar]

God just dropped souls into random beings? No support from science or Scripture for that idea.

Not so fast … I saw something like that in a movie once.

 

[Edgar]

The Catholic Church has played an important role in scientific progress throughout human history. For example, a Belgian priest came up with the Big Bang Theory.

The theory that humans evolved from a bacteria hasn’t contributed to the progress of science one little bit. It’s just a worthless story invented by atheists.

 

[Edgar]

Is the Vatican always right when it comes to scientific knowledge or did they ever make a mistake ?

These days, the Church can’t be trusted to even interpret Scripture correctly. The erroneous, evolution-enabling interpretation of Genesis 2:7 is a case in point. And apparently its ok now for Catholics to interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis figuratively - what?!

 

[Edgar]

You prefer God dropped souls into random mud and dust?

That’s what Genesis 2:7 says - and it precludes evolution.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Reply #2 – Magisterial Documents: Part One​

I have noticed a pattern to your replies. When somebody proposes a Magisterial teaching or document, you response is utter silence (except for the crickets in the background). I find your silence to be deafening. For example, I asked you to cite one magisterial document that supports your belief that Adam and Eve are not historical people. Crickets. I cited Humani Generis where Pope Pius XII specifically names Adam (the historical person). He talked about before and after Adam. Fictitious people don’t have “before”s or “after”s.

So let’s step it up a bit. The Dogma of Original Sin was defined by the Councils of Orange and Trent. The Council of Trent wrote:

1. “If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, […] and that the entire Adam […] was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.” Fictitious people don’t have body’s or soul’s. By the way, anathema basically means the non-confessor can be excommunicated.
2. “If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema.” By the way, a fictitious person can’t be described in a Dogmatic document as “by himself alone.”
3. “If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ […] let him be anathema.”

The above is a defined Dogma. A Dogma is given the theological certainty rating of de fide. In other words, it is infallible Truth. Dovekin, do you assent to this infallible teaching?

Let’s talk about typology. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, typology is “a person, a thing, or an action, having its own independent and absolute existence, but at the same time intended by God to prefigure a future person, thing, or action.” Notice that there is a parallelism being established in typology: an individual person to another individual person. Comparing a real person to a group of unspecified persons is not valid typology. In multiple passages (e.g. Romans 5:14-19) in Scripture, Adam is described as a “type” of Jesus, who is the “antitype.” Adam cannot be considered a “type” unless he has his “own independent and absolute existence.”

Continued in Reply #2 – Magisterial Documents: Part Two

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Reply #2 – Magisterial Documents: Part Two​

Continued from Reply #2 – Magisterial Documents: Part One

Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote The Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine . It is widely used around the world to teach theology to seminarians. He writes: “The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa. [ Sententia certa means that the teaching is a doctrine, and it’s a theologically certain Truth. ]). […] the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the whole human race [which] is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption.” In other words, it is in the mind of the Church that it is theologically certain that Adam and Eve are real historical people.

Both St. Hildegard of Bingen and St. Catherine of Siena, in her book Dialogue , experienced long visions in which they conversed with God. They wrote those conversations down. Both of these saints have been declared Doctors of the Church because of their writings. In her book Scivias , St. Hildegard said that she was writing, verbatim, the words of God. She said that anybody who knowingly adds, deletes, or alters a single word would put their soul in danger. So let’s look at what God said to these two saints regarding Adam.

1. “This is why I gave the Word, my only-begotten Son. The clay of humankind was spoiled by the sin of the first man, Adam, and so all of you, as vessels made from that clay, were spoiled and unfit to hold eternal life” [ Dialogue , p.51]. Whose clay did we ALL get? The real Adam’s clay.
2. “But because of Adam’s sin the garden where first there were fragrant flowers, innocently pure and so very sweet, brought forth thorns. Everything had been obedient to Adam, but because of his sin of disobedience, he found rebellion in himself and in all creatures” [ Dialogue , p.288].
3. “For [Satan] would not have known that this tree was forbidden them unless he had proved it by guileful questioning and by their answers. […] Eve—whose soul was innocent, for she had been raised out of innocent Adam, bearing in her body the whole multitude of the human race, shining with God’s preordination—was invaded by the Devil through the seduction of the serpent for her own downfall. […] he saw that Adam burned so vehemently in his holy love for Eve that if he, the Devil, conquered Eve, Adam would do whatever she said to him” [ Scivias , 77].

From the Catechism we read:

Paragraph 371 – God created man and woman together and willed each for the other .

375 – The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice" [Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511].

399 – Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness [cf. Rom. 3:23].

 

[StandUp4Truth]

Well, I believe they are in error. Adam was created from inanimate matter - end of story. Evolution is a fairy tale invented by Satan and has contaminated the Church. The good news is, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, so eventually the error will be corrected and the Church washed clean of this particular stain.

Well Edgar, you’re entitled to your own personal beliefs (as am I), but when you state that the Church’s teachings on this subject are in error, you’re taking the discussion into uncharted territory (and I don’t care to follow).

Good luck with that “Church of Edgar”, though - let me know how that works out for you!

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Reply #3 – Dust of the Earth: Part One​

Dovekin, it is my sincere hope that you will abandon your stubborn clinging to a belief that is not supported by any Magisterial teachings and, in fact, is contrary to that teaching. By doing so, you are missing out on a much deeper understanding of the theology contained in Genesis, as well as other parts of Scripture. Let’s look at a couple of examples of how the correct understanding of myth (and paradigmatic relationships) can enhance your understanding of Genesis.

In Genesis 2:7, man is described as being made from the dust of the ground. In his book, In the Beginning , Dr. Bernard Batto tells us that most creation myth motifs of Genesis’ time involved the creation of man from one of three possible primeval substances. The three substances were water, the desert (dust), or clay infused with some divine substance. Incidentally, all three are historically and scientifically accurate. The Hebrew author of Genesis 2 uses dust. The “dust of the ground” passage is the paradigmatic substitution. The literal truth it conveys is this: From the tip of our toes to the ends of our hair, man is made from dust (together with water). Every cell of our body contains the dust of the ground. What, exactly is this dust? It is the dust of DNA. God, through a divinely inspired human author, described exactly the substance of which Adam was formed. We know He is talking about Adam’s individual creation (as opposed to man in general) because he was the first man, and also a “type” of Jesus. Remember, the science of typology requires that the type and antitype be real and distinct persons.

The Hebrew word for dust in Genesis is aphar, which translates as "dust (as powdered or gray); hence, clay [primeval substance], earth, mud [ Strongs 6083]." Even Richard Dawkins, a committed atheist, has admitted that Genesis may have, indeed, accurately described how man was made. There isn’t enough room for me to go into detail here. I give a more detailed explanation, as well as the significance of this relative to Scripture in the article: Is DNA in Scripture.

Continued in Reply #3 – Dust of the Earth: Part Two

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Reply #3 – Dust of the Earth: Part Two​

In Gen. 19:26 we see that Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt. The “pillar of salt” is the paradigmatic substitution. What is the literal meaning? Turns out that DNA is not only dust, it is also dust that is a biological salt. It is the result of an ion of metal (e.g. sodium) bonding with an ion of acid (the phosphate backbone of DNA). God didn’t change Lot’s wife’s human substance into a pillar of salt. If he had, He would have taken away her human nature. Even the fallen angels didn’t have their angelic nature taken away. We are all pillars of salt. The difference between us and her is that she’s a dead pillar of salt because she was likely encased by molten sulphur. Lot’s wife is also a type of Jesus, the antitype (both real persons).

Here is the theological significance. In Genesis 17, God entered into a covenant of salt with Abraham. Lot’s wife was a signpost of the beginning of the covenant and the consequences for breaking it. She became a pillar of salt on the shores of the Salt/Dead Sea. The Salt Sea is a symbol of fallen mankind. Sodom and Gomorrah were also next to the Dead Sea. These two cities were destroyed by God. When is the next time the Dead Sea plays a significant role in Covenants? In Ezekiel dream in Chapter 47, we read about the newly rebuilt Temple (the resurrected body of Jesus) from which flowed Living Water down to the Salt Sea. Upon reaching the sea, the waters of the sea were immediately purified and became life-giving. Lot’s wife was the sign of the beginning of the Covenant, Jesus’ resurrected body was a sign of the fulfillment of the final Covenant.

 

[Dovekin]

So, do you believe Adam and Eve were our first parents? Do you believe there were pre-humans or hominins?

God created animals before creating humans. Why is that controversial? (besides the fact that the 2 creation accounts have different positions on it)

You claimed that this idea is new, so I posted from Aquinas showing that he believed there were creatures before God immediately created a human.

 

[Dovekin]

Thank you for clarifying what I was saying.

 

[Bradskii]

You are welcome.

It does appear that a large enough group has assembled, consisting of at least @Glark @buffalo @Techno2000 @Aloysium @Cruciferi @YoungCatholicGuy @steve-b that a team of dedicated individuals can now be formed to respond to posts discussing Creation in order to provide a traditional viewpoint. This mission is most holy and pious.

Is this your ‘A Team’? Seriously?

 

[Dovekin]

What is the point of posting 2 definitions for parable and for folklore? I use the second definition of parable, and your first definition of folklore. Neither includes the idea od “fictitious” or “false or unsubstantiated” on which your commentary depends.

This skews your analysis of Tolkien since I have not applied fiction to any detail of the Adam and Eve. It is not an important category for understanding the Genesis story imo. And as I said earlier, 3 of the 4 you quoted earlier agree with me, not you. Same with Dr Barto, in the quotes you give here. The only issue is whether the word “historical” belongs in your conclusion:

official Church teaching on the proper interpretation of Genesis, i.e. that the historical narrative of Genesis communicates divinely inspired truths about actual primeval events.

Nothing from Dr Barto justifies using “historical” as far as I can see. Not that I disagree with it with the word historical, just that it comes out of nowhere. Since that is the central issue in this discussion, it seems significant. Just to be clear, when I said Adam and Eve is a myth, I mean it uses paradigmatic substitution, not that it is non-historical or historical.

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin, do you assent to this infallible teaching?

Yes. I even agree with it in its simpler formulation in Romans, where St Paul contrasts the one Adam with the one Christ.
What I do not agree with is your glosses, which introduce the idea of fiction into the definition. There is nothing here that requires me to believe that the Adam and Eve story is fictitious or nonfictitious as you define it; it is simply not addressed.

Your discussion of typology is baffling. Typology has its earliest explanation in the Interpretation of the Song of Songs. While the important figure is the Bridegroom Christ, the Bride is variously identified as the Church or the Soul. That violates the “rule” you proposed. Similarly, “independent and absolute” existence is not there to affirm the reality of the type, but that its role as a type is not its only role. David was a type of Christ, but he was also King of Israel.

There is as much hermeneutics in the reading of Church documents as there is in the reading of Scripture. Ludwig Ott may have judged “The whole human race stems from one single human pair.” as sent. cert., but that does not mean “Adam and Eve are real historical people.” Generally, Ott formulates what must be believed in a way that leaves open other issues. Like the definition of the Assumption declares Mary was taken bodily into heaven, but leaves open whether she died first. “stems from one single human pair” leaves open whether that pair was “real, historical people.” Ott’s language is precise and parsimonious and should not be extrapolated as you have done.

That is why it seems like I do not comment on “magisterial documents.” There are levels of complexity that can be quite tedious, and I prefer engaging the substance here, rather than authority of a document. I could just say Ott is obsolete…

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Typology has its earliest explanation in the Interpretation of the Song of Songs

I have no idea where you are getting that conclusion from. I have never seen, anywhere, an attempt to equate the writings within Song of Songs as typology. Typology occurs throughout the entire Old Testament. Your example in Song of Songs is not typology. It’s allegory, poetic language … NOT typology.

There is as much hermeneutics in the reading of Church documents as there is in the reading of Scripture.

False. That is simply something someone would say who is trying to justify their own interpretation of Scripture instead of submitting to the Church’s interpretation. Sounds like the Protestant view of interpretation … I am my own exegetical authority.

Generally, Ott formulates what must be believed in a way that leaves open other issues.

Ott does not formulate anything. He merely explains Church Dogmatic teaching (infallible teaching).

I could just say Ott is obsolete…

You could say it, but it would be meaningless. Truth never becomes obsolete.

I am now convinced that even if Jesus appeared to you with Adam at his side, you would conjure a way to believe that Adam was merely an illusion. I will no longer waste my time trying to show you the error of your thinking. God bless you, Dovekin.

 

[edwest211]

This is a political broadside.

 

[buss0042]

*peer reviewed essay by a renowned expert on the subject, is what I think you meant

 

[edwest211]

I am a working editor so I deal with words on a regular basis. I have to critique manuscripts, which also means I need to research material for accuracy. What I meant is this is a thinly disguised political tract that involves a commodity. In this case, a mindset. It is highly biased and political.