Adam and Eve : Real people or allegorical myth?

[buffalo]

Thank you, buffalo. I think there are some here that don’t believe in God that are honestly searching for the truth, while, sadly, there are some who appear to present this theory as carved in stone and we must accept it. That is illogical as your example shows. And it is illogical in the sense that new discoveries are constantly being made, like your example above. It is only an assumption that science is only strengthening this theory. The exact opposite appears to be occurring.

Here’s a great example of something scientists say was conserved - for no particular reason - for 400 million years. This, in my view, is a serious blow to previous claims that things like digits in animals came about through gradual processes and novel pathways that required all that time. It strongly suggests that all the information was front-loaded in the beginning and only required certain switches to activate at certain times.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

Peace,
Ed

Posters interested should look at Facilitated Variation

This theory concerns the means by which animals generate phenotypic variation from genetic change. Most anatomical and physiological traits that have evolved since the Cambrian are, we propose, the result of regulatory changes in the usage of various members of a large set of conserved core components that function in development and physiology. Genetic change of the DNA sequences for regulatory elements of DNA, RNAs, and proteins leads to heritable regulatory change, which specifies new combinations of core components, operating in new amounts and states at new times and places in the animal. These new configurations of components comprise new traits. The number and kinds of regulatory changes needed for viable phenotypic variation are determined by the properties of the developmental and physiological processes in which core components serve, in particular by the processes’ modularity, robustness, adaptability, capacity to engage in weak regulatory linkage, and exploratory behavior. These properties reduce the number of regulatory changes needed to generate viable selectable phenotypic variation, increase the variety of regulatory targets, reduce the lethality of genetic change, and increase the amount of genetic variation retained by a population. By such reductions and increases, the conserved core processes facilitate the generation of phenotypic variation, which selection thereafter converts to evolutionary and genetic change in the population. Thus, we call it a theory of facilitated phenotypic variation.

---

Life has around 500 or so conserved “immortal” components of which just about anything can be built, it just has to be turned on in the right combinations. (programming). These were there at the beginning and passed on to offspring through the mother.

 

[Hunter24]

If the human race began with only Adam and Eve, where did their sons find wives? From what I’ve herd every human being can be traced back to one of seven prehistoric family’s or clans. I’m not christian, but you have to realize here that some of the things the bible says are disproved by modern science. This dosn’t mean you religion is false or wrong, just that a litteral interpretation of the bible is in some places wrong. Some of the stories in the bible are even just Jewish adaptations of other myths (namely Noah’s ark, which is an adaptation of a Babylonian myth) like Jesus’s parables, they are not ment to have ever detail take as literaly having happened, but are there to illustrate a point. The point of the creation story is that god was responsible for the creation of the universe and the human race, you are getting caught up on the unimportant details of how they were created and how many. These arent important, they are just filler to make it a story.

Ancient Jews beleaved god created the earth but new nothing of evolution or of astrophysics. If the story were written today and not 2500 years ago the writer would likely have detailed god subtly guiding the big bang, formation of the cosmos, and evolution of life up until man at which point man reached a level of intelligence where he rejected god.

Again I’m not Christian but that would be the realistic way of looking at it from a Christian point of view.

 

[sedonaman]

If the human race began with only Adam and Eve, where did their sons find wives? From what I’ve herd every human being can be traced back to one of seven prehistoric family’s or clans. I’m not christian, but you have to realize here that some of the things the bible says are disproved by modern science. This dosn’t mean you religion is false or wrong, just that a litteral interpretation of the bible is in some places wrong. Some of the stories in the bible are even just Jewish adaptations of other myths (namely Noah’s ark, which is an adaptation of a Babylonian myth) like Jesus’s parables, they are not ment to have ever detail take as literaly having happened, but are there to illustrate a point. The point of the creation story is that god was responsible for the creation of the universe and the human race, you are getting caught up on the unimportant details of how they were created and how many. These arent important, they are just filler to make it a story.

Ancient Jews beleaved god created the earth but new nothing of evolution or of astrophysics. If the story were written today and not 2500 years ago the writer would likely have detailed god subtly guiding the big bang, formation of the cosmos, and evolution of life up until man at which point man reached a level of intelligence where he rejected god.

Again I’m not Christian but that would be the realistic way of looking at it from a Christian point of view.

Good post. If the story were written today, undoubtedly there would also be a part that said God reversed entropy.

 

[johnnyjones]

If the human race began with only Adam and Eve, where did their sons find wives? From what I’ve herd every human being can be traced back to one of seven prehistoric family’s or clans. I’m not christian, but you have to realize here that some of the things the bible says are disproved by modern science. This dosn’t mean you religion is false or wrong, just that a litteral interpretation of the bible is in some places wrong. Some of the stories in the bible are even just Jewish adaptations of other myths (namely Noah’s ark, which is an adaptation of a Babylonian myth) like Jesus’s parables, they are not ment to have ever detail take as literaly having happened, but are there to illustrate a point. The point of the creation story is that god was responsible for the creation of the universe and the human race, you are getting caught up on the unimportant details of how they were created and how many. These arent important, they are just filler to make it a story.

Ancient Jews beleaved god created the earth but new nothing of evolution or of astrophysics. If the story were written today and not 2500 years ago the writer would likely have detailed god subtly guiding the big bang, formation of the cosmos, and evolution of life up until man at which point man reached a level of intelligence where he rejected god.

Again I’m not Christian but that would be the realistic way of looking at it from a Christian point of view.

What has been disproved in scripture by modern science? If your referring to miracles, God can do whatever he wants. You can put no restrictions on Him.

 

[Hunter24]

What has been disproved in scripture by modern science? If your referring to miracles, God can do whatever he wants. You can put no restrictions on Him.

Not at all. I believe in miricles, and I’m not trying to debate any of the acts of Jesus. What I’m talking about is things like the creation of the universe in seven days, it didn’t happen in 7 days it took millions of years for the first stars to form and millions more for Sol (our sun) to do so. After that millions more for earth to form from space debris, more for life to form, and for modern man to evolve. This doesn’t mean that the ultimate reality didn’t have any effect on these things, just that it didn’t happen in 7 24 days.

The same works for the crossing of the red sea. While study’s have shown that it is possible for one area of the red sea to open up, this requires a sustained wind in excess of 300 MPH. Just stop and think, how feisable is it that the entire Jewish population of Egypt could walk the whole way across the red sea in a 350+ MPH headwind. And let’s not forget that a wind that powerful would generate a sandstorm able to literaly tear a mans skin off like a giant sand blaster.

I’m not saying that if the judeo-Christian god can’t do that, I’m just saying it wouldn’t make sense.

 

[johnnyjones]

Not at all. I believe in miricles, and I’m not trying to debate any of the acts of Jesus. What I’m talking about is things like the creation of the universe in seven days, it didn’t happen in 7 days it took millions of years for the first stars to form and millions more for Sol (our sun) to do so. After that millions more for earth to form from space debris, more for life to form, and for modern man to evolve. This doesn’t mean that the ultimate reality didn’t have any effect on these things, just that it didn’t happen in 7 24 days.

The same works for the crossing of the red sea. While study’s have shown that it is possible for one area of the red sea to open up, this requires a sustained wind in excess of 300 MPH. Just stop and think, how feisable is it that the entire Jewish population of Egypt could walk the whole way across the red sea in a 350+ MPH headwind. And let’s not forget that a wind that powerful would generate a sandstorm able to literaly tear a mans skin off like a giant sand blaster.

I’m not saying that if the judeo-Christian god can’t do that, I’m just saying it wouldn’t make sense.

It does seem as though you are denying miracles. Why are you applying the laws of science to the Red Sea parting for example? God can make things happen so that they work how He wants it. Why doesn’t it make sense.

You must understand that the crux of Christianity is based on the resurresction of Jesus. His resurrection goes against the laws of nature , that someone dead and beaten to a pulp can come alive again. By saying what you are saying you are downgrading Christianity to a fable. You can’t pick and chose the parts you want.

Millions of years is your perspective and it is not a certainty. Men of science are not some magical people with all the answers. In fact they can easily jump on board academic bandwagons to “preserve” the integrity of their belief. It is an insult to God to say he couldn’t make the Earth in six days. He could have done it in one day.

 

[edwest2]

If the human race began with only Adam and Eve, where did their sons find wives? From what I’ve herd every human being can be traced back to one of seven prehistoric family’s or clans. I’m not christian, but you have to realize here that some of the things the bible says are disproved by modern science. This dosn’t mean you religion is false or wrong, just that a litteral interpretation of the bible is in some places wrong. Some of the stories in the bible are even just Jewish adaptations of other myths (namely Noah’s ark, which is an adaptation of a Babylonian myth) like Jesus’s parables, they are not ment to have ever detail take as literaly having happened, but are there to illustrate a point. The point of the creation story is that god was responsible for the creation of the universe and the human race, you are getting caught up on the unimportant details of how they were created and how many. These arent important, they are just filler to make it a story.

Ancient Jews beleaved god created the earth but new nothing of evolution or of astrophysics. If the story were written today and not 2500 years ago the writer would likely have detailed god subtly guiding the big bang, formation of the cosmos, and evolution of life up until man at which point man reached a level of intelligence where he rejected god.

Again I’m not Christian but that would be the realistic way of looking at it from a Christian point of view.

I don’t understand why you wrote what you wrote. Here is the proper way of looking at it from a Christian point of view.

"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).

"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

 

[edwest2]

Not at all. I believe in miricles, and I’m not trying to debate any of the acts of Jesus. What I’m talking about is things like the creation of the universe in seven days, it didn’t happen in 7 days it took millions of years for the first stars to form and millions more for Sol (our sun) to do so. After that millions more for earth to form from space debris, more for life to form, and for modern man to evolve. This doesn’t mean that the ultimate reality didn’t have any effect on these things, just that it didn’t happen in 7 24 days.

The same works for the crossing of the red sea. While study’s have shown that it is possible for one area of the red sea to open up, this requires a sustained wind in excess of 300 MPH. Just stop and think, how feisable is it that the entire Jewish population of Egypt could walk the whole way across the red sea in a 350+ MPH headwind. And let’s not forget that a wind that powerful would generate a sandstorm able to literaly tear a mans skin off like a giant sand blaster.

I’m not saying that if the judeo-Christian god can’t do that, I’m just saying it wouldn’t make sense.

Why apply science to God? Science can’t study God, and Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead. I don’t know where you’re going with all this. Pope John Paul II has one miracle attributed to his intercession with just one more to go and then he can be declared a saint.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hunter24]

It does seem as though you are denying miracles. Why are you applying the laws of science to the Red Sea parting for example? God can make things happen so that they work how He wants it. Why doesn’t it make sense.

You must understand that the crux of Christianity is based on the resurresction of Jesus. His resurrection goes against the laws of nature , that someone dead and beaten to a pulp can come alive again. By saying what you are saying you are downgrading Christianity to a fable. You can’t pick and chose the parts you want.

Millions of years is your perspective and it is not a certainty. Men of science are not some magical people with all the answers. In fact they can easily jump on board academic bandwagons to “preserve” the integrity of their belief. It is an insult to God to say he couldn’t make the Earth in six days. He could have done it in one day.

I am just putting it as I see it. I am not Christian and I see the divine in a very different way than you do. I personally don’t beleave the bible is the word of god, so to me it’s just another book.

 

[johnnyjones]

I am just putting it as I see it. I am not Christian and I see the divine in a very different way than you do. I personally don’t beleave the bible is the word of god, so to me it’s just another book.

I understand your not Christain. All the more reason not to put out unsubstantiated claims like “modern science” has proven the bible wrong. If you believe in miracles, modern science has no bearing on the power of God.

 

[ExCatholicGuy]

Of course they were real. For those lacking in faith, I just happen to have a photo:

http://redriverpak.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/b8c5a0e472619e7471c4c4d6f3758579.jpg

 

[Hunter24]

I understand your not Christain. All the more reason not to put out unsubstantiated claims like “modern science” has proven the bible wrong. If you believe in miracles, modern science has no bearing on the power of God.

That’s the thing. You see them as things beyond science, I see them as science we do not yet (and may never) understand. I don’t beleave the ultimate reality takes sides, and therefore all “miracles” are acts of of the different parts of the ultimate reality such as spirits, demons, magical forces, ect. You see such things as seperate from the laws of sciens but I see them as science we don’t yet grasp.

 

[johnnyjones]

That’s the thing. You see them as things beyond science, I see them as science we do not yet (and may never) understand. I don’t beleave the ultimate reality takes sides, and therefore all “miracles” are acts of of the different parts of the ultimate reality such as spirits, demons, magical forces, ect. You see such things as seperate from the laws of sciens but I see them as science we don’t yet grasp.

If it’s science we don’t or may not understand, it is indistinguishable from a miracle. If you can’t grasp it, why did you attempt to apply the laws of science to it. It’s out of our hands, it’s Godly, a miracle.

 

[1voice]

Why do some Catholic reject the idea of Adam and Eve being real persons as recorded in Genesis?

This kind of thinking disturbs me

An author (Whom I agree with) of An article from Catholic Answers had this to say :

"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."

He goes on to say :

“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).”

Jesus family history/ genealogy begins with Adam. If Adam is contrived … the entire story of the Bible becomes a myth.

 

[1voice]

Not at all. I believe in miricles, and I’m not trying to debate any of the acts of Jesus. What I’m talking about is things like the creation of the universe in seven days, it didn’t happen in 7 days it took millions of years for the first stars to form and millions more for Sol (our sun) to do so. After that millions more for earth to form from space debris, more for life to form, and for modern man to evolve. This doesn’t mean that the ultimate reality didn’t have any effect on these things, just that it didn’t happen in 7 24 days.

The same works for the crossing of the red sea. While study’s have shown that it is possible for one area of the red sea to open up, this requires a sustained wind in excess of 300 MPH. Just stop and think, how feisable is it that the entire Jewish population of Egypt could walk the whole way across the red sea in a 350+ MPH headwind. And let’s not forget that a wind that powerful would generate a sandstorm able to literaly tear a mans skin off like a giant sand blaster.

I’m not saying that if the judeo-Christian god can’t do that, I’m just saying it wouldn’t make sense.

If Jesus healed lepers in an instant (with all of the intricacies that it required) … as just one of many examples in the Bible … why is it so impossible for him to create the universe with all of it’s intricacies in 7 days … or 7 seconds?

 

[Hunter24]

You all seam to miss understand me. I’m not saying that (theoretically in my case sense I dont beleave in him) your god COULD’NT have made everything in 7 days or that we all COULDN’T have been descendant form 2 people. What I’m trying to say is not COULDN’T but DIDN’T. If God is how the bible describes him he is omnipotent, but just because he COULD make the earth in 7 days dosn’t mean he did, and intact we have compelling evidence to the contrary. You are arguing about can and cant, I am arguing about did and didn’t.

 

[rossum]

All the more reason not to put out unsubstantiated claims like “modern science” has proven the bible wrong.

Modern science has proven some interpretations of the Bible wrong. Other interpretations of the Bible are perfectly compatible with modern science.

Remember also that God is not deceptive, so the evidence we see in the world He created can be taken as reliable. Hence, we can discount the interpretation of Noah’s Flood as being a planet-wide flood. The interpretation of it being a large flood somewhere in the ancient near east is perfectly compatible with science. In this case, it is not the bible that is wrong – there was a flood – but the interpretation of “eretz” as meaning the whole planet, rather than just a part of the planet.

rossum

 

[johnnyjones]

You all seam to miss understand me. I’m not saying that (theoretically in my case sense I dont beleave in him) your god COULD’NT have made everything in 7 days or that we all COULDN’T have been descendant form 2 people. What I’m trying to say is not COULDN’T but DIDN’T. If God is how the bible describes him he is omnipotent, but just because he COULD make the earth in 7 days dosn’t mean he did, and intact we have compelling evidence to the contrary. You are arguing about can and cant, I am arguing about did and didn’t.

Your “did” and “didn’t” is based on YOU saying so. There is really no reason to discount OT miracles.One could then reject the miracles of Jesus which is the whole fabric of Christianity. It’s not a matter of “couldn’t” , it a matter of what God said, and he said He DID do it in the manner described.

 

[Andromedus]

Your “did” and “didn’t” is based on YOU saying so. There is really no reason to discount OT miracles.One could then reject the miracles of Jesus which is the whole fabric of Christianity. It’s not a matter of “couldn’t” , it a matter of what God said, and he said He DID do it in the manner described.

But he didn’t (or most likely didn’t) create the world in seven days and no true scientist believes that it was so at least that part is not something only based on what Hunter24 says.

 

[rossum]

Your “did” and “didn’t” is based on YOU saying so.

It is based on what we can see of the world God created, and the idea that God is not deceptive. We can see from the scientific evidence we have that God did not create the universe last Tuesday. The evidence shows us that the universe is a lot more than a week old. We do not consider that God is actually Loki/Trickster, and is falsifying the evidence. The evidence God provides is considered reliable.

Assuming the reliability of the evidence, than the Young Earth interpretation of Genesis is just as wrong as Last Tuesdayism. Could God have created the universe last Tuesday? Yes He could. Did God create the world last Tuesday? No He didn’t, and the evidence He provides shows that He didn’t.

It’s not a matter of “couldn’t” , it a matter of what God said, and he said He DID do it in the manner described.

It is also a matter of the correct interpretation of what God said. Genesis 1:6-8 talks about a waterproof firmament in the sky. Do you think we are to interpret that literally? We have ample evidence that such a literal interpretation of those verses of Genesis are incorrect.

Science tells us that we are all descended from one couple. Science also tells us that that one couple were not the only members of Homo sapiens alive at the time. Hence, an interpretation of Genesis which says we are all descended from one pair of humans is supported by the evidence and by science. An interpretation which says that those two were the only two Homo sapiens alive at the time is incorrect. An interpretation which says that they were the only two Homo sapiens with souls is allowed by science, though not evidenced. Souls do not fossilise, and nobody has yet linked a soul to a specific DNA sequence.

rossum