Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[jmcrae]

I think the problem is that you are assuming that science is true, and that we have to make our faith fit with science.

In reality, science makes no claim to be true - it is a set of hypotheses, which change and shift from day to day. Faith comes from God, and remains eternally the same.

Therefore, it is far more rational to begin by assuming that the faith is true, and that where the science appears to contradict faith, the problem is not with faith, but with science.

 

[rossum]

ITherefore, it is far more rational to begin by assuming that the faith is true, and that where the science appears to contradict faith, the problem is not with faith, but with science.

Here is a verse from the Bible: Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall sing praise before you, and all the trees of the country shall clap their hands.”

Now there is a contradiction between the Bible saying that trees having hands and science saying that trees do not have hands. Are you seriously trying to tell us that we are to accept the Bible and ignore science in this case? That is a sure way to hold Christianity and the Bible up to ridicule.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Personally, I prefer *Isaiah 55: 6-9. *However, there is a great song which includes
Isaiah 55: 12. Don’t recall the title, but its joyous singing can raise any roof.

This Bible versus Science thing is so general, it has become meaningless when common sense is applied .:banghead:

Science goes from archaeology to zoology.
The Bible goes from historical events to beautiful poetry.
Talk about comparing apples to zebras.

 

[buffalo]

Here is a verse from the Bible: Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall sing praise before you, and all the trees of the country shall clap their hands.”

Now there is a contradiction between the Bible saying that trees having hands and science saying that trees do not have hands. Are you seriously trying to tell us that we are to accept the Bible and ignore science in this case? That is a sure way to hold Christianity and the Bible up to ridicule.

rossum

rossum, really now…

 

[larkin31]

I think the problem is that you are assuming that science is true, and that we have to make our faith fit with science.

In reality, science makes no claim to be true -

That is not an accurate summary.

 

[rossum]

rossum, really now…

There is a serious question in there. The “trees with hands” example is accepted by everyone as poetic language because we can see scientifically that trees do not have hands. Equally clearly scientifically we can see that the world was not made in six 24 hour days less than 20,000 years ago yet there are some people who will take the literal text over the evidence of science.

What is it about one example that is different from the other? In both cases a literal interpretation of the text contradicts science yet in one case science is taken as correct and the text interpreted poetically but in the other case some people excoriate the science and take the literal text as correct.

What is the reason for this difference?

rossum

 

[grannymh]

There is a serious question in there. The “trees with hands” example is accepted by everyone as poetic language because we can see scientifically that trees do not have hands. Equally clearly scientifically we can see that the world was not made in six 24 hour days less than 20,000 years ago yet there are some people who will take the literal text over the evidence of science.

What is it about one example that is different from the other? In both cases a literal interpretation of the text contradicts science yet in one case science is taken as correct and the text interpreted poetically but in the other case some people excoriate the science and take the literal text as correct.

What is the reason for this difference?

rossum

Regarding the two mentioned passages.

The difference is in purpose according to the Catholic Church. I cannot speak for other Christian faiths.

A contributing factor is that some people (including Catholicism and other belief systems) simply refuse to understand how the visible Catholic Church operates in the spiritual realm of faith and morals.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[buffalo]

There is a serious question in there. The “trees with hands” example is accepted by everyone as poetic language because we can see scientifically that trees do not have hands. Equally clearly scientifically we can see that the world was not made in six 24 hour days less than 20,000 years ago yet there are some people who will take the literal text over the evidence of science.

What is it about one example that is different from the other? In both cases a literal interpretation of the text contradicts science yet in one case science is taken as correct and the text interpreted poetically but in the other case some people excoriate the science and take the literal text as correct.

What is the reason for this difference?

rossum

Can you cite an Early Church Father or any Church document that shows they believed trees had hands?

 

[jmcrae]

Here is a verse from the Bible: Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall sing praise before you, and all the trees of the country shall clap their hands.”

Now there is a contradiction between the Bible saying that trees having hands and science saying that trees do not have hands. Are you seriously trying to tell us that we are to accept the Bible and ignore science in this case? That is a sure way to hold Christianity and the Bible up to ridicule.

rossum

Can you not recognize poetry when you see it?

By contrast, there is nothing in Genesis to signify that the writer is attempting to write poetry.

 

[wltdc]

For your education…we didn’t “come from monkey’s”.

Human’s share a common ancestry with chimps. Our DNA is about a 98% match. In fact, we are more closely related to a chimp, than a chimp is to a gorilla. Their DNA match is about 97%.

The idea that there was 2 people who were the “first human’s” is unsupported by evolutionary biology. The change from primate to human was gradual and over a very, very long period of time.

Of course, the whole idea of a “god” implanting a “soul” in the first human is impossible as there was no “first human”. The changeover took place over millions of years.

It is flat out wrong for a religious person to claim that there were 2 first parents. The concept of “mitocondrial Eve” does not refer to 1 female at all. I’m not an expert in evolutionary biology, but I’m versed in the basic concepts.

The Genesis account is simply religious myth.

 

[grannymh]

The idea that there was 2 people who were the “first human’s” is unsupported by evolutionary biology. The change from primate to human was gradual and over a very, very long period of time.

Speaking from a general view of science, molecular biology and genetics cannot rule out two sole parents of the human species.

Of course, the whole idea of a “god” implanting a “soul” in the first human is impossible as there was no “first human”. The changeover took place over millions of years.

There is a lot of debate within the scientific community as to when a true, fully-complete human appeared and where he appeared.

It is flat out wrong for a religious person to claim that there were 2 first parents. The concept of “mitocondrial Eve” does not refer to 1 female at all. I’m not an expert in evolutionary biology, but I’m versed in the basic concepts.

If you are saying that “mitochondrial Eve” is not the parent of the human species, you are correct. She is a research example of the coalescence theory applied to specific genes. If you wish to discuss the science issues, you can do so on this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

Blessings,
granny

The human being is the pinnacle of creation.

 

[wltdc]

Your are correct…they haven’t nailed that one down yet.

Some say that human 100,000 years ago closely resembled us…some say as long as 250,000 years ago.

My point remains intact. 1,2,3, 4, 5 millions years of evolution from our primate ancestors is a ridicously long time.

There was no first man and women.

 

[rossum]

Can you not recognize poetry when you see it?

By contrast, there is nothing in Genesis to signify that the writer is attempting to write poetry.

A talking snake with legs? Cannot you recognise a fable when you see it?

In scientific terms a tree with hands is as ridiculous as a 20,000 year old Earth. In the case of trees with hands you reject the literal interpretation and, correctly, recognise it as poetic licence. In the case of Genesis you do not. What is the difference - in both cases the literal interpretation is equally ridiculous. In both cases a non-literal interpretation is closer to the truth we observe in the world God made.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

A talking snake with legs? Cannot you recognise a fable when you see it?

In scientific terms a tree with hands is as ridiculous as a 20,000 year old Earth. In the case of trees with hands you reject the literal interpretation and, correctly, recognise it as poetic licence. In the case of Genesis you do not. What is the difference - in both cases the literal interpretation is equally ridiculous. In both cases a non-literal interpretation is closer to the truth we observe in the world God made.

rossum

What is the difference? In addition to purpose – the basic difference resides in the person or church who is doing the interpretation. The words remain words. But the interpretation – ah – it is in the eye of the beholder.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

​

 

[edwest2]

I think the problem is that you are assuming that science is true, and that we have to make our faith fit with science.

In reality, science makes no claim to be true - it is a set of hypotheses, which change and shift from day to day. Faith comes from God, and remains eternally the same.

Therefore, it is far more rational to begin by assuming that the faith is true, and that where the science appears to contradict faith, the problem is not with faith, but with science.

Science makes no claim to be true? What sort of statement is that? An astronaut who needs to get to the moon better have the true data to get there. That statement does not reflect reality. In designing electronic circuits, the science had better be 100% true or the circuit just won’t work. The science behind the Birth Control Pill is not true?

I don’t know where people get this idea. Right here, people are looking for a truth statement regarding the actual reality of Adam and Eve. The popular notion is that they did not exist and they claim to be using science that they believe is true.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

Can you not recognize poetry when you see it?

By contrast, there is nothing in Genesis to signify that the writer is attempting to write poetry.

Here is clear poetic writing:

*1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.*

 

[buffalo]

For your education…we didn’t “come from monkey’s”.

Human’s share a common ancestry with chimps. Our DNA is about a 98% match. In fact, we are more closely related to a chimp, than a chimp is to a gorilla. Their DNA match is about 97%.

The idea that there was 2 people who were the “first human’s” is unsupported by evolutionary biology. The change from primate to human was gradual and over a very, very long period of time.

Of course, the whole idea of a “god” implanting a “soul” in the first human is impossible as there was no “first human”. The changeover took place over millions of years.

It is flat out wrong for a religious person to claim that there were 2 first parents. The concept of “mitocondrial Eve” does not refer to 1 female at all. I’m not an expert in evolutionary biology, but I’m versed in the basic concepts.

The Genesis account is simply religious myth.

New data is showing chimp human similarities less than 70%. Do some research.

 

[buffalo]

Here is clear poetic writing:

*1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.*

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

It took thousands of years for science to confirm what the very first line of Genesis stated.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Hideous atheist though he is, Philip Pullman said something very profound, I think, when he put into the mouth or Lord Asriel these lines: *Adam and Eve are like imaginary numbers, like the square root of minus one… If you include it in your equation, you can calculate all manners of things, which cannot be imagined without it. *

 

[crazzeto]

Here is a verse from the Bible: Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall sing praise before you, and all the trees of the country shall clap their hands.”

Now there is a contradiction between the Bible saying that trees having hands and science saying that trees do not have hands. Are you seriously trying to tell us that we are to accept the Bible and ignore science in this case? That is a sure way to hold Christianity and the Bible up to ridicule.

rossum

His points stands well as written, the bible never claimed trees have hands to be clapped. Rather it would appear the person reading the passage in this particular case has used an erroneous literary sense.