Why should i believe that there was a literlal Garden of Eden?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindOverMatter2

Guest
Is the literal existence of the Garden of Eden a core teaching of the faith? If so, am I to believe that the garden still exists somewhere in Iraq with an angel wielding a flaming sword? That sure is a pretty garden they got there:rolleyes::D.

I have to say this is one of the reason I am not a creationist.
 
There is no reason to believe in a literal Garden of Eden, any more than Christians should be required to accept the story of Adam and Eve literally. These are part of early Hebrew mythology which should be respected for its moral teaching, but certainly should not be viewed as authentic history. The notion that Christians must believe the first eleven chapters of Genesis has (along with othber scriptures) driven many from the church.
Code: 
To me, there are far more troubling parts of scripture. Did God actually command Joshua to slaughter every inhabitant of Jericho once the walls came tumbling down? Did God order Saul to murder every remaining Amalekite? Should we rejoice, as we read in the Bible, that Saul has killed his thousand but David has killed his ten thousands? And what aboujt passages from Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23? Or, Ex. 22, verses 18 and 20? We could go on and on.

 Even Noah and the Flood. As a child I wondered how God could drown everybody but eight people. How many innocent children died as a result, not counting millions of innocent animal?. Cute story, until you begin to analyze it. It was more like genocide. 

 And was Joshua really able command sun to stand still so that night could be postponed and he could slay more Amorites? Joshua 10:12-14.

Biblical literalism is an enemy of true Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount is the heart of its message.
 
Roy5 said:
There is no reason to believe in a literal Garden of Eden, any more than Christians should be required to accept the story of Adam and Eve literally. These are part of early Hebrew mythology which should be respected for its moral teaching, but certainly should not be viewed as authentic history. The notion that Christians must believe the first eleven chapters of Genesis has (along with other scriptures) driven many from the church.
Click to expand...
Not all its moral teaching! Otherwise I agree with you. 🙂
 
Roy5 said:
There is no reason to believe in a literal Garden of Eden, any more than Christians should be required to accept the story of Adam and Eve literally. These are part of early Hebrew mythology which should be respected for its moral teaching, but certainly should not be viewed as authentic history.
Click to expand...
I am always curious when anyone says something regarding the persons of Adam and Eve. For example: “These are part of early Hebrew mythology which should be respected for its moral teaching…”

Please, what moral teaching are you actually referring to?
 
There was such a place. There is no reason to believe there was not.

"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
 
Roy5 said:
There is no reason to believe in a literal Garden of Eden, any more than Christians should be required to accept the story of Adam and Eve literally.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about the garden but there is a perfectly good reason to believe in a literal existence of two people - commonly named Adam and Eve - from whom all men originate. That reason is that the Church established by Jesus Christ - and therefor by God himself - with sole authority on earth to interpret Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradtion and to teach on matters of faith and morals based on that interpretation has said so.

Non-Catholics may or may not like it. Human intellect and reason may not be able to understand it. Catholics may find it hard to accept. But the fact is that the Magesterium of the Holy Catholic Church established by Christ himself has infallibly taught that Adam and Eve are not myths.

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.
Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, Paragraph 37
Roy5 said:
To me, there are far more troubling parts of scripture.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, matters of Christian truth and authoritative intepretation of scriputre have not been delegated to you personally by God, nor to me for that matter.
Roy5 said:
Biblical literalism is an enemy of true Christianity.
Click to expand...
Slavery to literal interpretations of scripture without knowlege of the historical, economic, social and political context under which the authors of sacred scripture and their intended audience operated certainly has damaged Christianity. Then again, so has your slavery to the reduction of every supernatural act of God recorded in scripture to mere spiritual allegory.

-Tim-
 
edwest2 said:
**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).

(CCC 390)."

Ed
Click to expand...
Nobody is trying to defend polytheism.
 
Roy5 said:
There is no reason to believe in a literal Garden of Eden, any more than Christians should be required to accept the story of Adam and Eve literally. These are part of early Hebrew mythology which should be respected for its moral teaching, but certainly should not be viewed as authentic history. The notion that Christians must believe the first eleven chapters of Genesis has (along with othber scriptures) driven many from the church.
Code: 
To me, there are far more troubling parts of scripture. Did God actually command Joshua to slaughter every inhabitant of Jericho once the walls came tumbling down? Did God order Saul to murder every remaining Amalekite? Should we rejoice, as we read in the Bible, that Saul has killed his thousand but David has killed his ten thousands? And what aboujt passages from Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23? Or, Ex. 22, verses 18 and 20? We could go on and on.

 Even Noah and the Flood. As a child I wondered how God could drown everybody but eight people. How many innocent children died as a result, not counting millions of innocent animal?. Cute story, until you begin to analyze it. It was more like genocide. 

 And was Joshua really able command sun to stand still so that night could be postponed and he could slay more Amorites? Joshua 10:12-14.

Biblical literalism is an enemy of true Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount is the heart of its message.
Click to expand...
I agree with mostly everything your saying. I started a thread on the old testament a little while back, which brings up many of the concerns of which you are speaking about now. The thread is still running.
 
Scientists have actually “proved” that the whole of humanity as it exists at the moment are desended from two people - who they have nicknamed Adam and Eve. However, Eve existed several thousand years before Adam. I don’t know a lot about the research, but I have heard the term “mitochondrial Eve” before.

However yes, no Christian is expected to accept Creationism as literal. You’re welcome to, but you don’t have to. I know some Catholics who believe in creationism because, as they say “I can’t understand how we could have evolved from monkeys.” I think its a bit sad that some people only believe in creationism because they cannot understand/can’t be bothered to research the opposing idea (which is not denied by the Church either). Just as sad for people to reject creationism because they think they are being forced to believe in it.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Is the literal existence of the Garden of Eden a core teaching of the faith? If so, am I to believe that the garden still exists somewhere in Iraq with an angel wielding a flaming sword? That sure is a pretty garden they got there:rolleyes::D.

I have to say this is one of the reason I am not a creationist.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t know if you have to. I think you have to believe in Adam and Eve, or at least Monogenism + the creation events (fall, meeting God, creation of soul, etc. not in that order). So, since that stuff could happen elsewhere (anywhere with trees and water), I guess you don’t have to believe in the Garden of Eden per se, as a place where they got booted out of. If you do have to believe in it, you certainly don’t have to believe some Cherub is sharpshooting people who wander off the hiking trail too far to keep it alive today. That’s allegorical. I guess it means the inability to heal the changes in human nature and the sin itself prior to baptism which is suffered as a result of the sin of disobedience to God.
 
TimothyH said:
Slavery to literal interpretations of scripture without knowlege of the historical, economic, social and political context under which the authors of sacred scripture and their intended audience operated certainly has damaged Christianity.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
It also depends on what one means by slavery. The buying and selling of human beings for free labour is not moral under any circumstance. If that’s not what Jewish people were doing in the bible, then there’s no problem. There are in deed other kinds of servitude such as being a prisoner for a crime. But, its not simply the fact of having slaves that is being called into question, it is the way those slaves were treated as if they were not persons but objects that can be owned just like sheep or a house. All this creates difficulties. Its up to you then to show us that what they were doing was not slavery as we understand it.
 
Why worry it?
Someday for each of us we will understand it all! :)Peace, Carlan
 
Is this really that important to your faith?

Seriously, would it rock the foundations of your world to know that that Garden of Eden was real? Wasn’t real?

Who cares?
 
Rascalking said:
Is this really that important to your faith?

Seriously, would it rock the foundations of your world to know that that Garden of Eden was real? Wasn’t real?

Who cares?
Click to expand...
The questions asked another way - as modernists continue to deconstruct the Bible verse by verse would it rock your foundations? Who cares?
 
LemonAndLime said:
Scientists have actually “proved” that the whole of humanity as it exists at the moment are desended from two people - who they have nicknamed Adam and Eve. However, Eve existed several thousand years before Adam. I don’t know a lot about the research, but I have heard the term “mitochondrial Eve” before.

However yes, no Christian is expected to accept Creationism as literal. You’re welcome to, but you don’t have to. I know some Catholics who believe in creationism because, as they say “I can’t understand how we could have evolved from monkeys.” I think its a bit sad that some people only believe in creationism because they cannot understand/can’t be bothered to research the opposing idea (which is not denied by the Church either). Just as sad for people to reject creationism because they think they are being forced to believe in it.
Click to expand...
The Church has left the door open, so to speak:

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed
 
buffalo said:
The questions asked another way - as modernists continue to deconstruct the Bible verse by verse would it rock your foundations? Who cares?
Click to expand...
Personally, people who are going to deconstruct the bible are going to do so. Their hearts are hardened, sadly.
 
But how could you not believe that the bible should be taken literally?

1 peter 1:21 - For prophecy never had it’s origins in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they we carried along by the holy spirit."

and 2 timothy 3:16 - For all scripture is God breathed…

I take this to mean that all scripture is from God and should be taken literally.

You don’t have to believe in a literally creation if you don’t want to but I don’t think it is a stupid, crazy, mythology either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top