Where was the Garden of Eden located?

[edwest2]

They are not myths but rather '‘myth narratives.’ Myth narrative does not mean pure fiction.
There is an element of truth in all myths, even the most embellished.

The myth narratives of Genesis served an essential purpose and crucial to passing on believes, morals and many other things that held ancient cultures together. They are termed myth narratives to identify the form of writing they are, not to denote there is no truth in them. The purpose relating these myth narratives was to pass on truths, and those who related the stories and wrote them were not concerned about accuracy of minuscule details because such details were not important to them. What was important was the reason the narrative was told. This is why I find it hard to understand why some are of the opinion they should be given a literal reading, and not to do so is in some way rejected the truth they contain.

From a Catholic Answers tract:

"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).”

The Bible was written by men but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. From the Catechism:

"II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

"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

"III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

"109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

"110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

"111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.“77”

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I would guess there were lots of things that were not an issue in the past that are now. There were also lots of things that were an issue in the past that are not now. For example, I believe Thomas Aquinas had to be guarded by archers when he gave some of his lectures?

Has it been infallibly defined Genesis gives the exact geographic location of the Garden of Eden?

No. The Bible does give specific names of rivers but it is acknowledged that after The Flood, certain landmarks were wiped out.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Memaw]

They are probably Americans who have been heavily influenced by what was traditionally a very conservative Protestant culture. Pope St. John Paul and Pope Emeritus Benedict were definitely theistic evolutionists. Pope Emeritus Benedict, at the time Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in his commentary on Genesis that the common descent of all living creatures (including man) is “virtually certain”.
Adam and Eve certainly existed, but when and where is unknown. Personally I believe that God set apart two hominids, a male and female, somewhere in ancient pre-historic Africa, and “breathed one them” (to use the language of Genesis), endowing them with souls: thus Adam and Eve came to be. Catholic scholars certainly agree that the Sacred Writer employed various symbolism and metaphors in writing the account of the Fall of man in Genesis. Did Adam and Eve rebel against God? Yes, original sin is a dogma of the Church…but did the story literally take place in a garden with a talking snake? Not necessarily.

Then why don’t we just rewrite the Bible to suit ourselves. Others have!. I think God is intelligent enough He doesn’t need to used second hand things to create man and women. HE started with Nothing. I can wait till I get to Heaven to find out all the details. No need to second guess GOD. God Bless, Memaw

 

[twf]

Then why don’t we just rewrite the Bible to suit ourselves. Others have!. I think God is intelligent enough He doesn’t need to used second hand things to create man and women. HE started with Nothing. I can wait till I get to Heaven to find out all the details. No need to second guess GOD. God Bless, Memaw

I am in the company of recent popes with my views. Pope St. John Paul certainly seemed to subscribe to a theistic evolution understanding of Genesis, as did Benedict (Ratzinger). The Catholic Church has officially taught that there is no conflict between evolution and Genesis since Pius XII. No one is rewriting the Bible. It is a matter of proper interpretation. God often works through secondary causes…he created me from an egg from my mother and a sperm from my father. My physical body arose through the natural processes God put in place, yet He still gave me a soul. That being said, I don’t believe this is an issue that should divide us as the Church doesn’t bind us either way… one way or another Adam and Eve were our first parents and they rebelled against God, regardless of when, where, and how that happened.

 

[Memaw]

I was taught the opposite in Catholic school. The Garden of Eden was a literal place in a certain place. The fruit, though never called an apple in the Bible, was literal. And Eve was created from Adam’s side after God put him in a deep sleep.

Peace,
Ed

Did you ever wonder why men have one less rib than women. To this day!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Hans_W]

Did you ever wonder why men have one less rib than women. To this day!!! God Bless, Memaw

I assume that this is a joke!?

 

[Memaw]

I assume that this is a joke!?

No it isn’t, ask any DR. God Bless, Memaw

 

[SyroMalankara]

Men & Women have 12 pair, 24 ribs. No difference between male and female.

 

[minkymurph]

From a Catholic Answers tract:

"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).”

The Bible was written by men but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. From the Catechism:

"II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

"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

"III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

"109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

"110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

"111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.“77”

Peace,
Ed

I’m not sure what the point of this very long quote from the catechism is. Could you be more specific?

 

[minkymurph]

Men & Women have 12 pair, 24 ribs. No difference between male and female.

But men do have an ‘Adam’s Apple.’

 

[John_Lazarus]

I spent a lot of time in the Marines along the Euphrates river, and I doubt the Garden of Eden was there.

newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/04/nearly-dried-up-marshes1.jpg

Maybe the Angel was careless with that flaming sword…

 

[John_Lazarus]

Men & Women have 12 pair, 24 ribs. No difference between male and female.

Unless removing the rib caused a mutation.

I mean, if I had my tonsils removed, it doesn’t mean my descendants would be born without tonsils.

OTOH, maybe Adam had an extra rib, just for that purpose. (You can’t say God didn’t see it coming.)

The burning question is – did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

 

[Hans_W]

The burning question is – did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Rivers of ink have been spent on this burning topic. If you think that this question has been settled, think again. This link might help you in case you haven’t considered all the possibilities:

landoverbaptist.org/sermons/navel.html

 

[Nanotwerp]

Did you ever wonder why men have one less rib than women. To this day!!! God Bless, Memaw

No offense, Memaw, but that is a fundamentalist myth.

 

[grannymh]

I am in the company of recent popes with my views. Pope St. John Paul certainly seemed to subscribe to a theistic evolution understanding of Genesis, as did Benedict (Ratzinger). The Catholic Church has officially taught that there is no conflict between evolution and Genesis since Pius XII. No one is rewriting the Bible. It is a matter of proper interpretation. God often works through secondary causes…he created me from an egg from my mother and a sperm from my father. My physical body arose through the natural processes God put in place, yet He still gave me a soul. That being said, I don’t believe this is an issue that should divide us as the Church doesn’t bind us either way… one way or another Adam and Eve were our first parents and they rebelled against God, regardless of when, where, and how that happened.

Please,

Where is your context and citation for St. John Paul II certainly seemed to subscribe to a theistic evolution understanding of Genesis.

As we all know, theistic evolution means a hundred different things to a hundred different people. That might be an exaggeration; however, I have noticed that some of the theistic evolution proponents have either deliberately dropped traditional Catholic teachings or are unaware of traditional Catholic teachings.

*******You are definitely correct that Adam and Eve are our first parents; but that is not part of the current science of human evolution one way or another. This is because traditional Catholic teaching is not only about our first parents, it is also about our sole parents. Current evolution holds that species evolve as populations from previous populations which diverged. That contradicts traditional Catholic teachings.

 

[twf]

Please,

Where is your context and citation for St. John Paul II certainly seemed to subscribe to a theistic evolution understanding of Genesis.

As we all know, theistic evolution means a hundred different things to a hundred different people. That might be an exaggeration; however, I have noticed that some of the theistic evolution proponents have either deliberately dropped traditional Catholic teachings or are unaware of traditional Catholic teachings.

*******You are definitely correct that Adam and Eve are our first parents; but that is not part of the current science of human evolution one way or another. This is because traditional Catholic teaching is not only about our first parents, it is also about our sole parents. Current evolution holds that species evolve as populations from previous populations which diverged. That contradicts traditional Catholic teachings.

I already quoted earlier in this thread my sources showing that then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict) supported the idea of “common descent” of all living things and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

Much earlier, in the 1950s already, Pius XII clarified that the idea of biological evolution can be reconciled with Catholic teaching- see:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

For St John Paul please see his address to the Pontifical Academy of Science where he lauds the academy for attempting to further harmonize theories of biological evolution / human origins with the faith: ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

Literal creationism is an American phenomenon promoted by fundamentalist Protestants. Are Catholics bound to subscribe to modern theories of evolution? No, but we are not bound to reject them either.

I certainly agree that there are certain tenants that we must accept as true, but I don’t pretend to know exactly how Adam and Eve fit into modern theories of the origin of man, only that the Church is open to further scientific inquiry.

 

[grannymh]

I already quoted earlier in this thread my sources showing that then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict) supported the idea of “common descent” of all living things and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

**And I responded to your post 61 **which stated. *Pope Emeritus Benedict, at the time Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in his commentary on Genesis that the common descent of all living creatures **(including man) **is “virtually certain”.

Reference Citation from post 66, relevant sentence.
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”
*Communion and Stewardship: *Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63

**My response was **
Please note that *Communion and Stewardship *was prepared by a subcommison of the International Theological Commission and is not Cardinal Ratzinger’s book “In the Beginning …”

Also note the words in bold from post 61 do not appear in the report.

Much earlier, in the 1950s already, Pius XII clarified that the idea of biological evolution can be reconciled with Catholic teaching- see:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Note to readers.

The important factual information regarding Catholic teaching on human origin and Original Sin is found in sections 35, 36, 37 in the above link to Humani Generis.

For St John Paul please see his address to the Pontifical Academy of Science where he lauds the academy for attempting to further harmonize theories of biological evolution / human origins with the faith: ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

Note to readers.

As I recall, one has to actually read toward the end of the address in the link above.This is where St. John Paul II is very clear that the emergence evolution theory or the epiphenomena evolution theory regarding the spirit (soul) of humans directly denies Catholic teachings based on Divine Revelation. Incompatible with the truth about man – is rather strong language!

This is from section 5 of the link.
As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

 

[Memaw]

**And I responded to your post 61 **which stated. *Pope Emeritus Benedict, at the time Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in his commentary on Genesis that the common descent of all living creatures **(including man) **is “virtually certain”.

Reference Citation from post 66, relevant sentence.
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”
*Communion and Stewardship: *Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63

**My response was **
Please note that *Communion and Stewardship *was prepared by a subcommison of the International Theological Commission and is not Cardinal Ratzinger’s book “In the Beginning …”

Also note the words in bold from post 61 do not appear in the report.

Note to readers.

The important factual information regarding Catholic teaching on human origin and Original Sin is found in sections 35, 36, 37 in the above link to Humani Generis.

Note to readers.

As I recall, one has to actually read toward the end of the address in the link above.This is where St. John Paul II is very clear that the emergence evolution theory or the epiphenomena evolution theory regarding the spirit (soul) of humans directly denies Catholic teachings based on Divine Revelation. Incompatible with the truth about man – is rather strong language!

This is from section 5 of the link.
As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

Thank You and God Bless, Memaw

 

[twf]

**And I responded to your post 61 **which stated. *Pope Emeritus Benedict, at the time Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in his commentary on Genesis that the common descent of all living creatures **(including man) **is “virtually certain”.

Reference Citation from post 66, relevant sentence.
“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”
*Communion and Stewardship: *Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63

**My response was **
Please note that *Communion and Stewardship *was prepared by a subcommison of the International Theological Commission and is not Cardinal Ratzinger’s book “In the Beginning …”

Also note the words in bold from post 61 do not appear in the report.

Note to readers.

The important factual information regarding Catholic teaching on human origin and Original Sin is found in sections 35, 36, 37 in the above link to Humani Generis.

Note to readers.

As I recall, one has to actually read toward the end of the address in the link above.This is where St. John Paul II is very clear that the emergence evolution theory or the epiphenomena evolution theory regarding the spirit (soul) of humans directly denies Catholic teachings based on Divine Revelation. Incompatible with the truth about man – is rather strong language!

This is from section 5 of the link.
As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

I am quite certain that the “virtually certain” language does appear in then Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis…I remember reading it sometime ago, but I need to find the full text. I will keep looking. Regardless, the report was certainly approved by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Of course the soul is created directly by God. That was the point of my earlier analogy of modern human conception, wherein each of our bodies is formed from pre-existing biological matter from our parents, through natural processes, but God still endows each of us with a soul.

I’m not sure what we are actually debating. My sole and only point is that Adam and Eve’s physical bodies likely evolved from pre-existing earlier Hominid forms. I didn’t advocate any particular theory of theistic evolution, only the general concept that biological evolution is not incompatible with Catholicism, nor does the Church require us to interpret the creation narrative in a strictly literal manner as long as certain fundamental truths regarding Adam, Eve, the soul, and original sin, as I thought I had already stated in an earlier post, are left intact. Pope St. John Paul definitely was not in any way opposed to studying biological evolution as it relates to human origins.
I never once suggested that the soul isn’t created directly by God.

 

[cmodrmac]

there was no Garden -it is a metaphor