E
ElectricMayhem
Guest
Theologically, it is the same garden in john 18. In one unnamed garden, sin entered. In another unnamed garden, sin is taken away.
- Status
M
Memaw
Guest
Might have been the same garden! God Bless, Memaw
T
Tous_Logous
Guest
If Adam and Eve never existed, then there would have been no Fall. In which case there would have been no need for a redeemer (Jesus). How could this be explained otherwise?
To answer the opening post, the Garden was most likely probably somewhere in the Middle East since it describes 4 rivers. It’s easily possible for the exact location information to have been lost over thousands of years, despite a strong oral tradition that the Israelites and other ethnic groups continue to have. It’s also possible the location is not in the Middle East, and perhaps it doesn’t matter.
E
edwest2
Guest
S
suko
Guest
You guys are all wrong. It’s actually in my backyard. And no, u can’t come to my house to see it.
Z
z_0101
Guest
Lets see… you’re in TexasYou guys are all wrong. It’s actually in my backyard. And no, u can’t come to my house to see it.
… I’d bring the steak too! :
T
Timothysis
Guest
For whatever reason, many on this site take a very literal, fundamental view of the early chapters in Genesis. The odd thing is, though, that the Church herself does not teach a literalist interpretation. Those who have studied the stories and where they came from know exactly what they are; attempts to teach spiritual truths using stories and myths that were already well known in the ancient world, in the exact same way that Jesus used parables to teach the crowds instead of sitting down and writing a catechism. Those who think that the essentials are that Adam, Eve and Noah really existed totally miss the point.
A
andrewstx
Guest
A garden in Texas? Where?oh, no, God loves Texas, that has to be where the garden was
as for the second question… why? How does this improve anything?
IMNHO, it would lead to more divisiveness and hostility, something that surely God does not desire for our people and certainly not what our Lord Christ commanded in that we love one another as he has loved us. Mosses lead the twelve tribes out of enslavement, not as an individual twelve people but as God’s chosen… it was to be one holy priesthood… then that stupid calf showed up (Aaron… but Moses… IDK, the calf just popped out of the molten gold… I swear!)
The Mormons would swear the GOE is near Independence MO!
H
Hans_W
Guest
I thought so too, until I joined this forum. It’s still only a small minority of Catholics.
Z
z_0101
Guest
It’s at suko place in Tx.
Mormons… I guess I’ll have to go down and drag the family in… they took a wrong turn there on the trail. ( yes I have family that are Mormons… I’ve tried to convince them that God isn’t a man, turned divine creator. Last left them looking for proof of the "The Great Apostasy " Once I get them into the Garden at suko’s place in Tx they’ll attend the RCIA classes
)
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Seconded.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Knock knock …You guys are all wrong. It’s actually in my backyard. And no, u can’t come to my house to see it.
E
edwest2
Guest
That is not correct. Biblical interpretation is not that simple. From the Catechism:
"105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
"106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
"107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.“74”
"The senses of Scripture
"115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
"116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
"117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
"1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
"2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
"3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
"118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
Code:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
Code:
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89"Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
Catholic teaching is that Adam and Eve are real people. It is the location of the Garden which does not show up on Google.
G
grannymh
Guest
The Garden of Eden is only in the first three chapters – from which many Catholic doctrines flow – like the necessary Divinity of Jesus Christ. That doctrine is not open to free choice.
G
grannymh
Guest
I only do the first three chapters of Genesis so that eliminates Noah.
The really odd thing is that most, not all, people cannot explain those traditional spiritual truths which are in those myths.
G
grannymh
Guest
Like the Popes
T
Timothysis
Guest
And nothing that you posted stated anything in opposition to what I said. The Church does not teach that scripture is at all times literal and historical. There are many different literary devices that are employed in the sacred texts that have to be dealt with on an individual basis and understood in the context of what was intended to be conveyed.
I have always thought it funny that those people who hold to a literal reading of Genesis have no problem with Cain’s wife, even though we are only told of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel (and later, Seth) being in the world but nothing of this girl who Cain, after being a restless wanderer, stumbles across, marries and becomes the progenitor of earthly cities. The response is usually akin to “Oh, Adam and Eve had other children; the bible just doesn’t tell us about it.” If the bible can be so incomplete even in its earliest chapters, then what good is the rest of it?
R
Richca
Guest
“Most of us Catholics have gotten over the literalist reading of the Bible.” This is a very general statement and I would say a most dangerous statement if taken too literally. The literal sense of Holy Scripture is the most fundamental sense in which the bible should be read. As the CCC#116 states, all other senses of scripture are founded or based on the literal sense. For example, in the beginning of the bible, it reads “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.” This is to be understood literally, i.e., the heavens and the earth, the universe, was created by God and that this creation by God has a beginning.
On the other hand, where it is written “For His eyes are upon the ways of a man, And He sees all his steps” (Job 34:21), we are not to understand that God sees with the eyes of a body as he does not have a body but is a pure spirit. God sees all with the eyes so to speak of his intellect and this is the truth which God who is the principle author of Sacred Scripture is revealing to us through the inspired writer.
The literal sense of scripture should be understood I think according to the whole catholic faith, the Tradition of the Church, sound biblical exegesis, common sense, and where possible what we know for certain from the natural sciences. Where there is nothing to reasonably and certainly prevent us from understanding a passage or story in the bible in its literal sense, such as the parting of the Red Sea and the Israelites passing through it on dry ground at their departure from Egypt, then that passage or story should be understood literally. Otherwise, since the bible is the word of God and He is its principle author, we may find ourselves doubting God himself. I think if we are going to error in some literal understanding of scripture, it is better to error on our understanding of the literal sense of scripture than to hold scripture in doubt without a reasonable and certain cause. And this I believe, is how the fathers of the church, the doctors and saints of the church, and the Church itself reads Holy Scripture.
- Status