Adam and Eve : Real people or allegorical myth?

[Andromedus]

No misunderstanding, Genesis does not have to be science. Does the resurrection have to be science?

No it doesn’t have to but a literal understanding of the first chapter in Genesis contradicts science and since the Church allows us to believe in evolution I think we should because we have evidence which seems to indicate that evolution is real and that the world is older than 6000 years.

Your not making sense. The church frees me up to believe in creation if I want, why would you wan to dispute that? Why except the miracles of the Nt but not the miracles of the OT?

You can believe that if you want to and I don’t dispute that you have that right but I think the correct one is the evolutionary view which the Church also accepts Catholics to have. I never said anything about the miracles in OT but the creation being done in seven days, but I am a bit skeptical about some miracles though, you are correct about that.

Your wrong about Hebrews12 :24 . The real blood of Jesus saves. Do you think a comparison with real blood is being made with mythological blood. You wouldn’t say the blood of Jesus is better than something that NEVER existed. In addition Abel is mentioned with Zechariah who was real from Chronicles (Matt23:35) Is Zechariah false too?

The author perhaps believed that Abel existed, perhaps Abel did exist, note that I only said that I don’t know whether he existed or not, however I don’t think it is important. Christ is the focus in the text, not Abel.

 

[1voice]

The author perhaps believed that Abel existed, perhaps Abel did exist, note that I only said that I don’t know whether he existed or not, however I don’t think it is important. Christ is the focus in the text, not Abel.

You, that accept evolution, ignore completely … the genealogy of Jesus recorded in the Bible. Either that genealogy, and the people associated with the stories connected to them is true … or false.
If you can question the name/ validity … of one individual recorded in the Bible … you can question them all.

If Able is a myth … why is king David an historical figure … or Abraham …, or Moses … Or Matthew … Or Jesus? They are all recorded in the same Bible.

 

[Gaber]

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).”

Faith=belief=opinion=supposition and do not equal, necessarily, facts or knowledge. If anything is disturbing, it is that folks, however sincere and pious, mistake faith for knowledge. You may have a great deal of detailed knowledge about a faith, but it is about the faith, not about actual fact or knowledge, however they might at times appear to coincide. Dig deeper, and see, if you wish. Or not and be happy in your disturbance. the Universe is way larger than one religion about it, and some will insist on looking for more accurate representations.

 

[edwest2]

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

eeeeeewwwwww… or to put it another way, eeeeeeeewwwwwww.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

“no true scientist”? So what? I don’t look to science to limit what God can do.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gaber]

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

eeeeeewwwwww… or to put it another way, eeeeeeeewwwwwww.
Peace,
Ed

No wonder, even from this relatively mild example, why there isn’t a question about gay marriage effecting the sanctity of the institution!

 

[edwest2]

In this day and age of modern science, despite some flaws, it really is a silly, and dangerous thing indeed to teach that Adam and Eve actually existed as some guy called Adam who God pulled literally out of the dirt.

I accept the theory of evolution is the most probable way God created humanity. “Adam and Eve” I see as the first two people who had awareness of God and an immortal soul as a result yet turned from him in some way known only to them and God. No apple. No magical tree. No fancy garden with Lions hanging out with lambs.

Kinda like those old bones they dig out of the ground in Africa and they give names to like “Steve” and “rose” or whatever, they weren’t really their names!

The whole world being 6000 years old is just absolute nonsense. God gave us brains. Society has evolved science to give us incredible insight into the workings of our reality. 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, people were kicking about in the desert with their goats and their no pork rule - you think those barely literate people would understand the inner workings of evolution? Adam and Eve is an age appropriate creation story.

We really need to claim evolution as a Christian concept to pull in athiests. I have an atheist friend, former Catholic, who can’t get over teh Adam and Eve thing, another Protestant friend who beleives the bible is 100% literal and thinks my athiest friend and myself are going to burn in Hell for accepting evolution. My atheist friend was very surprised to learn I accept evolution - i explained it in a Christian context with the Bibical example as a story, and she sort of started to see my perspective.

That fella, Penn, he wrote the best way to make an atheist, get them to read the Bible. That’s very true - if you don’t give them the knoweldge and the context and the ability to place Bibical expression in modern context.

I think we’d save a lot of souls if we just start saying outright, more loudly, that Adam and Ever are just the names we give the first people to be aware of God or whatever, not created as stated in the Bible.

That’s just false.

Yeah, Penn of Penn & Teller. Those are the last guys on the planet I’d listen to. They’re not interested in saving souls.

"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).”

I don’t need science to validate my faith, or should all Catholic Churches hang a banner that reads: "Come inside - Adam and Eve never existed and we accept evolution!

Stop it, please. Just stop it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Andromedus]

“no true scientist”? So what? I don’t look to science to limit what God can do.

Peace,
Ed

Nor do I, but science can sometimes tell us what it seems like God actually did.

Peace to you too.

 

[rossum]

You are misquoting and or misunderstanding what was recorded.

How? Please note that I did say “kind” in my post, exactly as in Genesis. Also note that in Genesis 8:20 some of the clean animals and birds are sacrificed, thus reducing their numbers.

You refer to Woodmorappe. His figures are not reliable, see Review of Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study. I will also point out that Glenn Morton, the author of that review is a Christian.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Nor do I, but science can sometimes tell us what it seems like God actually did.

Peace to you too.

I’ve become more skeptical of science thanks to this forum. Are we going to put scientists in Catholic religion classes?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hunter24]

You’re not ignorant of how babies are made that you cannot answer your first query yourself.

There’s an Island here in the Pacific where a sailor from an English galleon was marooned for smuggling his Island woman aboard. As punishment, he was marooned with the Island woman he’d smuggled aboard on a desolate island without inhabitants or resources. About a century later, the island was ‘re-discovered’ and the now dead sailor was found to have been quite resourceful in populating the said island with over a hundred inhabitants. Although their facial appearance made it obvious they are related, they also had the same surname; that of the sailor! His namesake ‘flourishes’ still with those bearing his lineage and name now fully assimilated into the rest of world populace.

My point is that Adam and Eve can easily populate their region of the world in similar manner. Considering Adam lived to be about a thousand years, it isn’t too complicated.

Now you can attack the incestuousity necessary to make it a reality!

What I’m trying to point out here is that if the bible is taken literaly then Eve birthed 3 sons, Cain, Able, and Seth. so, if there was only Adam, Cain, and Seth, and Eve only birthed 3 sons, there is no way humanity could continue.

 

[Wandile]

Catholics are bound as a whole to accept Adam and Eve as real. Simple logic can explain this. If Adam did not exist, then Jesus’ genealogy in Luke is a Lie, if that is a lie then Jesus was a liar for claiming to be descended from Adam and claiming a mission which never really was real. Denying Adam means denying the purpose of Jesus’ coming. This makes us even doubt whether Jesus existed or not… For a more detailed explanation :

"Those are strong statements to make, but they are
the logical conclusion of saying that Adam and Eve
were not real. Let’s start with the New Testament
and work backwards. Jesus genealogy was traced
back to Adam in Luke 3:38 “ Which was the son of
Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the
son of Adam, which was the son of God.” How
could Jesus genealogy be traced back to someone
who did not exist? It could not. So we see that
Jesus lineage is one verification that Adam was
real and that Seth was his son. Luke gave us the
first witness to that fact. Now Paul is going tell us
that Adam was also very real. 1 Corinthians 15:45a,
says that Adam was the first man that God created
as a living soul. “ And so it is written, The first man
Adam was made a living soul.” He also tells us this
again in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 “For Adam was first
formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but
the woman being deceived was in the
transgression.” Then in a verse in Corinthians Paul
tells us the result of that transgression. 1
Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so
in Christ shall all be made alive.” Paul is saying that
because of Adam’s transgression all mankind is
cursed to die, not only physically, but we are born
spiritually dead, however in Christ we can have
both spiritual life and eternal life. Paul also tells us
in Romans 5:14 that death, which was brought
about by Adam reigned from Adam to Moses even
over people who had not sinned as Adam had.
“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over them that had not sinned after the
similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the
figure of him that was to come.”

Jude tells us that Enoch, the first man to be “raptured” or translated, was the seventh patriarch after Adam. Jude 1:14 “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” Jude was saying that Adam was a real person."

For more info see bibleconundrumsandcontroversy.blogspot.com/2012/02/were-adam-and-eve-real-people-or-just.html?m=1

 

[johnnyjones]

No it doesn’t have to but a literal understanding of the first chapter in Genesis contradicts science and since the Church allows us to believe in evolution I think we should because we have evidence which seems to indicate that evolution is real and that the world is older than 6000 years.

You can believe that if you want to and I don’t dispute that you have that right but I think the correct one is the evolutionary view which the Church also accepts Catholics to have. I never said anything about the miracles in OT but the creation being done in seven days, but I am a bit skeptical about some miracles though, you are correct about that.

The author perhaps believed that Abel existed, perhaps Abel did exist, note that I only said that I don’t know whether he existed or not, however I don’t think it is important. Christ is the focus in the text, not Abel.

The resurrection contradicts all laws of nature yet I assume you embrace that.

The church does not teach an evolutionary view. Some in the church have expressed that view but early and doctrinal teaches hold to a literal Adam.

Your first argument was that Abel was only mentioned twice, now it’s he might have thought Abel existed. Did Luke think Adam wasn’t real? In Luke 3:38 he gives the geneology of Jesus tracing real people going back to Adam. Jesus’ geneology needs to be real otherwise he is not the messiah. Is Luke throwing in a mythological person that starts the lineage of Christ? When are Christians going to learn that you can’t get ride of Genesis, it invalidates the rest of scripture if you do so.

 

[Hunter24]

I’ve become more skeptical of science thanks to this forum. Are we going to put scientists in Catholic religion classes?

Peace,
Ed

They have. I went to a catholic school and we spent an entire semester of theology watching a series of lectures by this scientist who explaind christianity in relation to science and how it all is perfectly compatible with modern science if you take an inturprative aproach to the bible. It was like taking a science lecture more than a theo class’s but it made sense.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

They have. I went to a catholic school and we spent an entire semester of theology watching a series of lectures by this scientist who explaind christianity in relation to science and how it all is perfectly compatible with modern science if you take an inturprative aproach to the bible. It was like taking a science lecture more than a theo class’s but it made sense.

Without a literal Adam and Eve, there could not be a literal fall, and without a literal fall, there could not be original sin (unless it was inborn in the human race), and without a fall and original sin, there was no need for a saviour.

The story of Adam and Eve was the beginning of human history, which necessitated a saviour. They caused the problem, Jesus was the solution.

Without them, why did Jesus need to come?

“O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem”

 

[Hunter24]

Without a literal Adam and Eve, there could not be a literal fall, and without a literal fall, there could not be original sin (unless it was inborn in the human race), and without a fall and original sin, there was no need for a saviour.

The story of Adam and Eve was the beginning of human history, which necessitated a saviour. They caused the problem, Jesus was the solution.

Without them, why did Jesus need to come?

“O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem”

Couldn’t the fall simply be the point at which man reached the necessary level of intelligence to go against gods will?

 

[Gaber]

Couldn’t the fall simply be the point at which man reached the necessary level of intelligence to go against gods will?

how about the point where man could differentiate himself from the world, like the “age of reason” but for man as such. In other words, instead of being instinctual, man saw two: myself, not myself, as distinct from the animals reactivity. In other words, he had choice: this/that, here/there, right/wrong, etc, all the pairs of opposites that allow distinctions to be made necessary for the kind of life a human can have. It may have been more of a realization than a choice, but got put in a dramatic story to acknowledge God.

 

[1voice]

Couldn’t the fall simply be the point at which man reached the necessary level of intelligence to go against gods will?

Well then the Bible would have recorded that… man fell at the point at which man reached the necessary level of intelligence to go against Gods will.

 

[1voice]

how about the point where man could differentiate himself from the world, like the “age of reason” but for man as such. In other words, instead of being instinctual, man saw two: myself, not myself, as distinct from the animals reactivity. In other words, he had choice: this/that, here/there, right/wrong, etc, all the pairs of opposites that allow distinctions to be made necessary for the kind of life a human can have. It may have been more of a realization than a choice, but got put in a dramatic story to acknowledge God.

Anything…
ANYTHING …
… but it cant possibly be the story on the page, right?

 

[Deconi]

I’ve become more skeptical of science thanks to this forum. Are we going to put scientists in Catholic religion classes?

Peace,
Ed

Whilst scepticism is healthy, even more so you should be **more attentive **to scientific discoveries and claims based on them!

Scientific truth is truth and ALL truth stems from and belong to God who is the Source of Truth.