If Orthodox Catholics believe that Adam and Eve had two sons, Cane and Abel,....

[Vagabond]

And they believe in Creation, how do they explain the human race?

I've always been too embarrassed to ask anyone else.

Mumsnetters..... please explain.

Adam's rib......? Seems a poor excuse, frankly.

Hmm, looking at that link Pan I think PrincessFiorimonde was right about our church bible. Based on the priest at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if they fell off the back of a lorry :o

The Common Bible does include the Catholic texts.

so presumably it's only (some?) ultra orthodox Jews who take the OT utterly literally?

or doesn't anyone?

Pan it is my solemn belief that a lot of the reglers have untold tabs on the go, frantically weaving away at 'em like modern Penelopes

I wasnt entirely wrong.........
orthodoxcatholicchurch

Quote from that link "The terms Orthodox Catholic and Orthodox Christian are synonymous"

But as I am clearly confused I will go to bed.

Depends on what you mean by ultra Orthodox. The Orthodox translation and commentary (like Rashi and Rambam) gives the simple/common understanding of Genesis creation as showing that everything comes from God, only one God from nothing, rather than a literal blow-by-blow account of events, with many underlying understandings as well. I don't know any major groups that take the Torah as literal (Word of God, yes - obviously, literal in our understanding of it, no, nothing is that simple) but you always get splinter groups that do take it more literal. Judaism also had an oral Torah tradition - which became written (due concerns about the Romans) mostly in the Midrash and Talmud, so no Jewish group thinks that the Torah as in the Genesis through Chronicles is sufficient to understanding.
The only Jewish related group that takes it literal is the Karaites, but they aren't really considered part of Judaism anymore.

They had other children too, sons and daughters. People married siblings for a few generations then began marrying cousins. Then the Watchers came down and it all went to hell with genetic mixing. Noah was the last pure man with his wife and sons which is why they were saved from the flood.

Read Jubilees, tell you much more than Genesis.

@threadeatcher Lots of churches describe themselves as Catholic. The CofE describes itself as catholic. I could describe myself as blonde. But I'm not.

I agree with Pan that the thread (title particularly) does seem unfair to Catholics. They're not the only group of people to use the Bible so why are they being asked to explain it? Would have been more appropriately addressed to Christians as a whole.

I am glad to find out that most major Christian groups now accept evolution, though It didn't seem like that when i was younger, so pleased to know it's all hip and groovy after all.

The knickers in the bath thing, I've never heard of before. I strongly suspect this is a peculiarity of the family rather than a Muslim tenet widely followed.

Lunamoon;

"we were never designed to give birth to live young. We evolved into humans and our pelvis is ridgid."

How do you think evolution happens without people giving birth to live young? Also ligaments in our pelvis soften during pregnancy to make the pelvis elastic, not rigid.

So where did these other tribes come from? Did God create tribes of non-believers just for fun?

Or, had these other tribes evolved from apes (Perish the though! ) while Adam and Eve were in fact created?

Disclaimer: I dont really believe that God was an Alien with DNA growing capabilities in his big science chamber in the sky.

SpringHeeledJack Thu 24-May-12 23:35:06

"what edition of the Bible do Catholics use?"

I have been told to use the Douai-Rheims edition for work; don't know if this is something practising Catholic still use for everyday purposes. It is based on the Vulgate Latin text rather than on Protestant translations made directly from the Hebrew and Greek originals.

OMG! We are an alien race put on this planet years ago as a means of colonization! And we dont even know!

thanks for your last post (re orthodox Judaism), Derby

this thread is fascinating

and yours, cory

What I have never understood is how people decide that the Adam/Eve thing is all just an allegory but the bit about Jesus on the cross was real. Does anyone believe the whole bible is one long allegory?

Oh, and while we're here, wasn't it Henry VIII who decided to throw out those bits in the bible about purgatory? Protestants think those bits are definately wrong. How does anyone go about deciding this?

Wiki says the Catholics now DO believe in evolution i.e. species change over time But this is directed by god i.e. they do NOT agree with evolution by natural selection Darwin-stuff. Many people I talk to about this topic are happy with evolution in animals other than humans but have great difficulty with the nitty gritty bit about humans evolving from apes.

@LeBFG Catholics do not 'believe' in evolution. It's a scientific theory - you don't believe in those, you have scientific proof. You accept the evidence/proof as valid. Anyone who 'believes' in evolution actually doesn't get the whole 'scientific method' thing at all. We accept the whole of evolution theory as it currently stands, we don't say 'except for natural selection'. What we believe as part of our faith is that God created the universe - the let there be light/big bang thing, from which everything else flowed, and, crucially, that God created our souls intentionally - none of this is in conflict with evolutionary theory, souls are not physical things.

In the first paragraph of the wiki link: "the Church teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, actively guided by God." This is NOT Darwinian evolution as studied in universities and labs across the world.

I always chuckle when people say the Bible is full of metaphors not to be taken literally. Of course people did believe this stuff to be literally true until Darwin and Wallace came along and proved that it couldn't be. Then people adapted and decided it was "metaphorical".

Someone mentioned Lilith - I think Lilith is part of the Jewish tradition, not the Christian one, and she doesn't appear in Genesis.

In fact, the Christian tradition has a lot to answer for when it comes to interpretations of the Old Testament. There's no evidence that homosexuality was the vice for which the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God, for example. And Onan, who is so often associated with the "vice" of masturbation, wasn't a masturbator at all, just someone who engaged in coitus interruptus.

Anyway, that doesn't answer the original question. Someone earlier said that once Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise, they went to live with some other tribes, which is my memory too - though of course it doesn't make sense, as we are all supposed to be descended from Adam and Eve.

something else to bear in mind.....wikipedia is not the last accurate word on everything. . I know a wiki editor pretty well - he acknowledges that it is written and edited by humans....nothing devine about it at all. (and sometimes nothing accurate either.)

What I have never understood is how people decide that the Adam/Eve thing is all just an allegory but the bit about Jesus on the cross was real. Does anyone believe the whole bible is one long allegory?

They have different sources and purposes. The gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus as a written record of what happened.

The Torah was rewritten and expanded 4 times. Each of these sources have a distinct style and purpose, easily identifiable if you know about them. The story of Adam and Eve is from the oldest source (E) which was a written version of the campfire stories passed down by word of mouth for centuries.

The 7 day creation story is source (J) and was part of the rewrite while exiled in Babylon. It was influenced by the more advanced, scientific way of thinking of the Babylonians.

My favourite source is the 3rd one (D). They were the fire and brimstone brigade. They went through it adding angry rants. You get source (J) saying 'so this happened and then this and then this ...' and source (D) would edit it to 'so this happened and then this and then this SO NOW YOU'RE ALL GOING TO BURN IN THE FIREY PITS OF HELL FOR ETERNITY'. :o

Cory, I think the Douai-Rheims is the sort of RC equivalent of the King James Bible - revered, but many people tend to prefer other (more simply worded) versions for day-to-day use. And yes, I believe it's based on the Vulgate.

BFG - I like your point about 'when is an allegory not an allegory'. But as a lapsed Catholic, I couldn't possibly comment...

Some interesting posts here, esp. from Derby about orthodox Judaism, about which I know nothing.

I'm intrigued to know what MadamFolly was talking about (Watchers and Jubilees), but fear opening a can of worms here.

LeBFG: "Many people I talk to about this topic are happy with evolution in animals other than humans but have great difficulty with the nitty gritty bit about humans evolving from apes."

Humans didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor.

@LeBFG Wiki isn't always right, you know. There are wiki entries relating to things I have written (regulatory standards) which are factually and interpretively completely inaccurate.

@hackmum some people believe all sorts of stuff to be literally true. The OT hasn't been officially regarded as 'literally true' for hundreds of years. By Catholics.

In the book of Enoch, the Watchers are angels who intermarry with humans.

It all ends with God sending the flood to get rid of them and their monstrous offspring.

Thanks, PrincessFiorimonde, that's what I suspected- and tbh I don't blame them. Am finding the Douai-Rheims of limited use- often King James seems to give a more accurate idea even of the Vulgate text.