When we say "Adam" and "Eve," are we referring to actual names?

[WileyC1949]

“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that he books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.**
[/quote]
Again… read the last line… _"for the sake of salvation"
Genesis 16:16 states: “Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael”
Genesis 17:24-26 states: “Abraham was ninety-nine yeas old when his foreskin was circumcised. Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when his foreskin was circumcised.” So the two texts agree… history, right?

Now look at Genesis 21:5: “Abraham was one-hundred years of when Isaac was born to him.” How old is Ishmael? 14 years old. After a while Sarah insisted that Abraham drive away Hagar and Ishmael because she wanted to be sure that her son would be considered the first-born. Abraham agreed.

Now tell me if this sounds like a 14 year old… Genesis 21:14-19: "Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the Desert of Beersheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there, she began to sob.God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid;God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink."

In this version Ishmael seems to be a toddler no older than three years old. Both of these versions of the story cannot be correct, therefore one (or both) are in error. But if every word of the Bible is inspired by God then there can be no error. The only solution one can arrive at is that not everything in the Bible is inspired. The Church’s understanding today is that what IS inspired are as the Catechism states: that which is necessary to know for salvation. This story contains nothing that applies to the message of salvation.

 

[buss0042]

A slight answer to that - in that particular time and geographic location, there were two celebrated “new years” in what would today be considered one calendar year. So in this part of Genesis, the ages that are given are in reality twice as old as we would consider. For example, when Abram was 86, he was really 43, and Ishmael is actually 7. As the Church holds, the entirety of the Bible is the word of God in human words. This points to a further need for an understanding of historical context in understanding Scripture, especially the Old Testament.

 

[WileyC1949]

Science (true knowledge) is of course not an enemy, but “knowledge (science) falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20) is.

Absolutely true. There are many theories which have been proven not to be true. The concept that the universe was both infinite and eternal was held for thousands of years until in the 1920’s when a Belgian priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre, introduced the concept which is today called the Big Bang and is now accepted by almost all scientists. It has been proven that Galileo told the truth about the Earth orbiting the sun even though the Church jailed him for saying it. So was the Church wrong in its beliefs?

 

[WileyC1949]

For example, when Abram was 86, he was really 43, and Ishmael is actually 7.

So instead of God making a mistake about whether or not Ishmael was 14 or a toddler, He made a mistake the age of Abraham. You cannot say that the entire Bible is inspired and then substitute one mistake for another.

 

[buss0042]

I’m afraid I don’t see the second “mistake” you’re alluding to

 

[Juvenal]

No, they didn’t speak Hebrew, and neither are Adam and Eve Hebrew names. Adam and Eve are translations into English of Hebrew names which are surely translated from the languages of cultures prior to the emergence of the Hebrew language itself.

In Hebrew, Adam means dirt, or earth if we’re feeling more prosaic, and to my mind signifies the materials of his creation. I don’t know of any cognates for Adam from prior civilizations, but Eve has a fascinating and somewhat amusing history. In Akkadian myth, perhaps a thousand years prior to the founding of Israel, the equivalent Mother of All Living was known as Nin-ti, a goddess rather than a human, but here’s the amusing part … Nin-ti also translates to Woman of the Rib.

The celebrated Assyriologist Samuel Noah Kramer detailed this and a considerable number of similar, assorted syncretisms in his popular books.

 

[WileyC1949]

I’m afraid I don’t see the second “mistake” you’re alluding to

BOTH versions are in the Bible. No matter if there were two New Years or not (a concept I have never heard of before) Ishmael is depicted as both a 14 year old and a toddler at the time of Hagar’s dismissal. Both cannot be correct.

 

[buss0042]

14=7, so certainly quite young. I don’t see the word “toddler” in the passage, so I believe that’s you endorsing a view of a child who can’t exactly take care of themselves. I don’t know about you, but I know very few kindergarteners who can act the way an adolescent can.

Which would conclude that there are not, in fact, contradictions in the Bible, meaning that it is all the inspired word of God written in human words, no?

 

[WileyC1949]

He (Aquinas) wasn’t the only one, and he (Aquinas) also carries the Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat and was made known as the “Angelic Dr.”.

Augustine said, “… we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. ”

Again, if Aquinas and/or Augustine were alive today and knew the scientific discoveries which have been made I am 100% certain they would not have made those comments. They are speaking from the understanding of the universe which was prevalent THEN. Was the Church correct in thinking that the Earth was flat? Later on, was the Church correct in thinking that the Sun orbited the Earth?

 

[Serpent_of_Paradise]

There names may be personal, or they may be used for there descriptive nature in general. Keeping in mind the Commandment “Honor your Father and Mother”, any names they went by should be treated with respect. Having said that you will find the answer to your question in the writings of Philo. You will have to get a copy and read it to obtain your answer.

 

[mVitus]

Adam and Eve are translations into English of Hebrew names

I’d be curious if you know the Hebrew version of Adam. I was able to find that Eve came from Chavah, but nothing about Adam other than Adam.

To mythologize, or allegorize Genesis, where do you start real history?

Question: Do you recognize that a faithful Catholic may hold to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis?

 

[mVitus]

Why hold to an error, when the truth is readily available, and plainly written, and believed all along the way and in the Commandments of God itself?

Before I continue, do you use the word “error” to mean heresy or to mean you think it’s incorrect about literalistic way things panned out?

Also, you list your religion as “following truth.” What denomination would that be? Catholic? Evangelical? (Just double-checking your religious background.)

 

[FloridaCatholic]

Probably not. Adam meant human being.

 

[Juvenal]

I’d be curious if you know the Hebrew version of Adam. I was able to find that Eve came from Chavah, but nothing about Adam other than Adam.

From the wiki.

אדמה


Adam tilling the earth.

Adamah (Biblical Hebrew : אדמה) is a word, translatable as ground or earth, which occurs …

 

[Dovekin]

If you take Genesis seriously, then you know the Tower of Babel led to “the LORD confused the speech of all the world.”

Adam in Hebrew means dirt, the ground, as Gen 2:7 tells us “ the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

If you believe Hebrew was the original language, then Adam could have been his name. If you believe the Lord confused the speech of the world, it is harder to make a case for Adam being the name used by Eve of her husband.

I would even go so far as to say that any claims about language used before Babel fell is “knowledge falsely so called.” Whether you take Genesis literally or allegorically or literalisticly, there is a truth told in the Babel story that calls for us to stop getting so tangled up in questions like this.

 

[Gorgias]

I simply ask: Even if we believe that Adam and Eve are the first two humans, do we usually mean these were their actual names ?

Actually, no. In the Septuagint, in Genesis 3, the name reported for Eve is ‘Zoe’. (She only gets called ‘Eve’ later in the Septuagint.)

Don’t the names Adam and Eve have distinct meanings?

Yep. Adam means “from the (red) earth”, and the name ‘Eve’ is meant to convey “mother of all living.”

 

[goout]

WileyC1949:

the Bible is not a history book

Couldn’t disagree with you more. And so also the ECF, Ante-Nicene, and many others after them.

The distinction to be made is between
1 history, and
2 literalist fundamentalist history, modern journalism style.

There is a huge difference. History conveys the life of a people through the passage of time using different genres of literature, and conveys a transcendent Truth. For the bible to be history, it does not have to conform with modern journalistic standards of fact, which unfortunately, many people try to do.

 

[buss0042]

The Bible isn’t all the same genre to begin with - there are specifically books in the Bible that are historical books (see Judges, Joshua, Chronicles, etc.) but there are also books that are most definitely not history. Psalms is literally a collection poetry. So there are books in the Bible that are, indeed, historical. But there are most definitely some that are not.

Other genres include: myth (not in the modern sense of it), poetry, narrative, history, letters, among others. To view them all as the same genre would lead to significant errors in interpretation.

 

[goout]

The Bible isn’t all the same genre to begin with - there are specifically books in the Bible that are historical books (see Judges, Joshua, Chronicles, etc.) but there are also books that are most definitely not history. Psalms is literally a collection poetry. So there are books in the Bible that are, indeed, historical. But there are most definitely some that are not.

Other genres include: myth (not in the modern sense of it), poetry, narrative, history, letters, among others. To view them all as the same genre would lead to significant errors in interpretation.

Even the poetry of the Psalms has historical elements. Genesis has historical elements. The key element of confusion is to take these historical elements and impost modern journalistic standards on them.
Which cannot work on literature like Genesis.

 

[buss0042]

Precisely. And the main point I think we’re both alluding to: the entire Bible is not historical truth