Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[Bubba_Switzler]

Pardon me, I did not mean “contrary to the spiritual soul”. What I said was: “In many circles, the scientific understanding of human anatomy is newspeak for no spiritual soul.” It does not make any difference if a scientist is non-theist or the Queen of England, natural science is what it is, no more, no less. While I have a great deal of respect for the evolution model, it cannot address human nature. Therefore, contemporary research, while valid in itself, is being used by some people to support an attack on the spiritual soul which dilutes Original Sin, big time.

Right, but:

1. The story of Adam and Eve (if regarded literally) is not merely a story about human nature, it is a claim about human history.
2. The fact that some may misuse contemporary research to attack the spiritual soul is not reason to assume that treating any use of contemporary research to evaluate human history and, therefore, the story of Adam and Eve is an attack on the spiritual soul.

A religious story about mythological characters may be sweet to the ears; however, it leaves out “image of God”. If humans are not in the “image of God” what happens to good people at death? Does anyone have an answer to that question?

That people are created in the image of God does not hinge on Adam being a real historical person or evolution being false. It may be that the story of Adam and Eve captures several truths, in spite of being myth, including that we are created in the image of God.

If we imagine that God was explaining human prehistory to Abraham or Moses we would not expect a lecture on evolution because it would be incomprehensible to them and irrelevant to God’s purpose. If the Hebrew priests selected from among creation myths when they assembled the books of the Bible we would expect them to choose the story that most closely reflects their understanding of God.

 

[grannymh]

Right, but:

Please pardon my being cranky (feminine of snarky) but it has been a long day and I have short answers.

1. The story of Adam and Eve (if regarded literally) is not merely a story about human nature, it is a claim about human history.

It is* both* about human nature and human history. One needs to approach Adam and Eve from the position of Catholic doctrines in order to avoid mistakes with the “literally” codswallop.

1. The fact that some may misuse contemporary research to attack the spiritual soul is not reason to assume that treating any use of contemporary research to evaluate human history and, therefore, the story of Adam and Eve is an attack on the spiritual soul.

I am not assuming. I’ve read the research or the summary which basically tries to locate faculties of the spiritual soul in the physical brain. What I have read is valid in itself. I am referring to those who misuse the research evidence to extrapolate to unwarranted speculations that a spiritual soul is not needed so it would not be there.

That people are created in the image of God does not hinge on Adam being a real historical person or evolution being false.

I do not recall saying that evolution is false. What I usually say is that I respect the evolution model and then indicate in some way that human nature is an exception.
“Image of God”, among other things, referrs to the spiritual soul. In something mythological?

It may be that the story of Adam and Eve captures several truths, in spite of being myth, including that we are created in the image of God.

What are these several truths?

If we imagine that God was explaining human prehistory to Abraham or Moses we would not expect a lecture on evolution because it would be incomprehensible to them and irrelevant to God’s purpose. If the Hebrew priests selected from among creation myths when they assembled the books of the Bible we would expect them to choose the story that most closely reflects their understanding of God.

I’m too tired to imagine anything.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is* both* about human nature and human history. One needs to approach Adam and Eve from the position of Catholic doctrines in order to avoid mistakes with the “literally” codswallop.

Yes, but if it is both human nature and human history then it is, at least in part, human history. And if the part that is human history is contradicted by scientific observation then that part, at least, is false. It may well be that the human nature part is still true.

So what do we call a story that is not an accurate description of historical events but which does, nonetheless, communicate valuable truths? We call that myth.

I am not assuming. I’ve read the research or the summary which basically tries to locate faculties of the spiritual soul in the physical brain. What I have read is valid in itself. I am referring to those who misuse the research evidence to extrapolate to unwarranted speculations that a spiritual soul is not needed so it would not be there.

If people use sports cars to speed it doesn’t mean that everyone who drives a sports car speeds.

I do not recall saying that evolution is false. What I usually say is that I respect the evolution model and then indicate in some way that human nature is an exception. “Image of God”, among other things, referrs to the spiritual soul. In something mythological?

Myths can tell truths about human nature. Saying that Adam and Eve is a mythological story does not discount that they tell truths about human nature or God.

What are these several truths?

That man was created in the image of God, that man suffers from original sin, that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary to redeem man from sin.

I’m too tired to imagine anything.

I’m just trying to draw your attention to the issue of how and why the Adam and Eve story came to be part of the Bible (and the CCC). It is not the case that everything in the Bible is historical fact. Job is (probably) not. Jesus’ parables are certainly not. It’s generally accepted now that the two creation stories are not.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, but if it is both human nature and human history then it is, at least in part, human history. And if the part that is human history is contradicted by scientific observation then that part, at least, is false. It may well be that the human nature part is still true.

Sorry, but I am too tired to stop laughing. I keep imagining a scientific observer watching Adam eat an organic apple. And consequently, the observer with her or his notepad, misses the actual Original Sin, i.e., what the apple is referring to.

So what do we call a story that is not an accurate description of historical events but which does, nonetheless, communicate valuable truths? We call that myth.

One starts with Catholic doctrine and we call that truth.

Myths can tell truths about human nature. Saying that Adam and Eve is a mythological story does not discount that they tell truths about human nature or God.

Of course myths can deal with anything spiritual. As I keep saying, one starts with Catholic doctrine and finds the truths in the first three chapters of Genesis. Catholic doctrine says that God is real even though some people think that He deals with mythological people… Is God real in the first three chapters of Genesis?

The reason I like the Catholic Church is that it has the guts to declare what is real in the first three chapters of Genesis.

That man was created in the image of God, that man suffers from original sin, that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary to redeem man from sin.

I must really be tired and cranky. Please explain how a mythological man is created in the image of God. By the way, Catholic doctrine gives the full explanation of Original Sin which is a whole lot more than “man suffers”. In addition, Christ’s salvific mission was to repair the relationship of man with God.

I’m just trying to draw your attention to the issue of how and why the Adam and Eve story came to be part of the Bible (and the CCC). It is not the case that everything in the Bible is historical fact. Job is (probably) not. Jesus’ parables are certainly not. It’s generally accepted now that the two creation stories are not.

Thank you for drawing my attention to some interesting expectations.
Seriously, when I am awake, I do spend time learning what people think the first three chapters of Genesis contain. Since I am interested in defending Catholic doctrine, it is important to know what other people know.

:yawn:

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Sorry, but I am too tired to stop laughing. I keep imagining a scientific observer watching Adam eat an organic apple. And consequently, the observer with her or his notepad, misses the actual Original Sin, i.e., what the apple is referring to.

Or watching Adam and missing mankind.

Of course myths can deal with anything spiritual. As I keep saying, one starts with Catholic doctrine and finds the truths in the first three chapters of Genesis. Catholic doctrine says that God is real even though some people think that He deals with mythological people…

Right, but the question before us is not whether God is real or whether original sin is real but whether Adam and Eve are real.

Is God real in the first three chapters of Genesis?

One of my favorite movies is Bruce Almighty starting Jim Carrey as Bruce. It is fictional comedy, of course, but communicates some sophisticated theological ideas. Morgan Freeman plays God. Is God real in that movie?

I must really be tired and cranky. Please explain how a mythological man is created in the image of God.

Well, of course, man is created in the image of God and the story of Adam and Eve would be a myth that communicates this truth.

Thank you for drawing my attention to some interesting expectations.
Seriously, when I am awake, I do spend time learning what people think the first three chapters of Genesis contain. Since I am interested in defending Catholic doctrine, it is important to know what other people know.

Here is an interesting book on the subject: Who Wrote the Bible?. It’s (mainly) about the pentateuch, not just the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[The_Rock]

I am just trying to picture how this theory of polygenism would work…

God at some point created a soul in the first humans, because without a soul they would not be human (body+soul).

So the scientists look at fossils and try to guess when the human race came into being??? I never imagined that walking upright was indicative of the presence of a soul.(or any other fossil record)

So God must have watched the primates evolve and said to Himself…Look there is a group of about 1200 primates that have bodies that are upright enough, I will implant souls in them.

And thus the human race was created. Perhaps others started to walk more upright many years later so He then implanted souls in them as well.

Since they now had souls they were able to sin, they all started sinning somewhat simultaneously. And this is the basis for the myth/symbol of original sin. Concupiscence must not have been a result of original sin but rather just a cultural influence?

Since original sin was not a definitive act by one man, we don’t need a definitive act by one God-Man to reconcile us. After all, it’s just a myth, right? Death, after all was in the world before the mythical original sin. So it’s a myth to believe one death by the God-Man destroys death and gains eternal life, right? (what did Paul say about this anyway, or was he a mythological figure as well?)

I am just trying to ferret out the theological implications of the polygenistic “scientific” model. I am certainly no theologian, so that must be why I can’t see the continuity between polygenism and Catholic theology :whacky:

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Well, I’m not in any danger of winning a Nobel Prize for anything, but I have certainly seen what LOOKS like genetic entropy. One can reflect on the fact that, for example, all purebred Tennessee Walking Horses are descended from two horses and thoroughbreds are “line bred” to an astonishing degree. All polled Herefords are descended from a small group of naturally polled horned Herefords. Lots of those are “line bred” too.

In fact, “line breeding” is done as a sort of test of the genetics of high-value breeding animals. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn’t. Some failures are spectacular. Even when it works, there can be little defects that don’t show up for generations.

One could say the potential defects are already there, despite successful “line breeding” and I wouldn’t argue with that. One could say genetic mutations can occur as a result of viruses, “gene swapping” with bacteria, radiation or any number of things.

So maybe genetic perfection can go awry if the perfection is not protected.

But regardless of all that, I don’t know that Pell can justify saying the Adam and Eve story is a “myth”. Nor do i think people can justify saying the first humans came from some apelike creature by evolutionary processes alone, or even by evolutionary processes at all. Nor do I think people can say, authoritatively, that in one moment there were no “pre-humans” at all, and God created modern man in an instant, exactly like he is now. But unless we believe the universe is eternal (which has its own problems) and that it somehow has its own order written it its structure that mandate certain kinds of development, God had to intervene in the process at some point. Maybe he created the string that created the Big Bang. Maybe he created the “branes” whose collision caused the string that caused the Big Bang. Maybe he created something that caused the “branes” to exist; the intersection of dimensions or something. Maybe the dimensions themselves.

Nobody knows any of that stuff, and probably never will; any more than we will, on this earth, really know how Adam and Eve came to be, exactly. But one has to admit that a God who can (however and whenever) create the universe (or all the universes, as you might prefer) is not disabled from creating a man out of dust and a woman out of a rib…just exactly like that. Nor is He disabled from doing a long evolutionary thing in which a chosen pair has the “Aha! moment”, alone among all the other ancestors of modern man.

So, while all of this is interesting to cogitate about, we’re all going to draw blanks in the end, because we don’t really know and, as I said, aren’t likely to know on “this side of Jordan”.

OK. I accept the horses and dogs and the like.
Now, Adam and Eve are not real.
Your reasoning is fine BUT you missed one step.
The human body came from evolution, OK? There is no doubt about it.
But the human soul or spirit is created by God when the spermatozoa enters the ovula.
I do not accept that the soul or spirit or the “thing” that makes a person be a person came from evolution.
What distiguinshes an ape from a person is the soul, created by God.
What is the soul or spirit?
It is me when I say “!” or “me”.
You are the spirit who is talking to me, the spirit thorugh the Internet.
Both of “us” were created by God.
But our bodies, God wanted it them to come through evolution.
No harm.
Except if God decided to incarnate the soul in a rat or in an elephant…Well, then, even so, God would know best…

 

[grannymh]

Or watching Adam and missing mankind.

Turning Adam into a myth is so sad because we miss the important teaching that we do see humankind in Adam. And by seeing humankind in Adam, we see one more instance of God’s tremendous, loving, creative power.

We cannot know the full depth of God because we are not God – no matter how much we try to fool ourselves. “But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.” “The whole human race is in Adam ‘as one body of one man’.” Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 404

Because Adam is real, we know that God also calls us, as Adam’s direct descendents, to share by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It is for this end that we are created and this is the fundamental reason for our dignity. Source: CCC 355 - 421.

 

[ChesterBeach]

Plants and Animals also have souls albeit different from human souls.

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 3:8-9[/BIBLEDRB]

If this is NOT an allegorical story - how can Adam and Eve hide from an omnipresent and omniscient being?

 

[buffalo]

The human body came from evolution, OK? There is no doubt about it.

I do not agree.

 

[grannymh]

Plants and Animals also have souls albeit different from human souls.

[bibledrb]Gen 3:8-9[/bibledrb]

If this is NOT an allegorical story - how can Adam and Eve hide from an omnipresent and omniscient being?

That my friend (Genesis 3: 8-9) is analogical to the situation of an actual man, having committed an actual sin, and who now wants to run bloody fast.

For example. If you used a string of nasty four-letter words to describe someone who is
6 feet, 9 inches tall with 293 pounds of muscle, what would be your reaction when you see that person walking toward you?

 

[ChesterBeach]

That my friend (Genesis 3: 8-9) is analogical to the situation of an actual man, having committed an actual sin, and who now wants to run bloody fast.

For example. If you used a string of nasty four-letter words to describe someone who is
6 feet, 9 inches tall with 293 pounds of muscle, what would be your reaction when you see that person walking toward you?

I know why Adam would want to hide. That is not the issue. Why can’t God find him?

Because it’s allegorical.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Turning Adam into a myth is so sad because we miss the important teaching that we do see humankind in Adam. And by seeing humankind in Adam, we see one more instance of God’s tremendous, loving, creative power.

We cannot know the full depth of God because we are not God – no matter how much we try to fool ourselves. “But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.” “The whole human race is in Adam ‘as one body of one man’.” Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 404

Because Adam is real, we know that God also calls us, as Adam’s direct descendents, to share by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It is for this end that we are created and this is the fundamental reason for our dignity. Source: CCC 355 - 421.

I just don’t see why anyone should think any of this is endangered by a mythological interpretation of Genesis. You yourself have repeatedly stated that whatever the CCC says is true. So how does a mythical view of Genesis undermine what the CCC says?

 

[grannymh]

I know why Adam would want to hide. That is not the issue. Why can’t God find him?

Because it’s allegorical.

I understand your concerns. There is figurative language in the first three chapters of Genesis. And I mean the following in a respectful manner. God did find Adam when one continues reading…

Of course, anyone can put their own spin on Scripture. And right now, Catholics who should know better, are doing just that. This is why I constantly go back to authentic Catholic teaching. And subsequently I prefer the Catholic Church because it has the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Gospel of John, chapter 14).

As to “Why God can’t find him?” With due respect to God, His time of fame is in the first verses in Genesis, chapter 1. After this, the focus of Divine Revelation shifts to human origin, human nature, Original Sin, wounded human nature, and the continual personal love of the Creator for all, yes all, descendents of Adam. Obviously, not all the aspects of these essentials are spelled out perfectly in the first three chapters of Genesis. Humankind has to travel through the years of Scripture to reach the fullness of Revelation in Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. St. Paul was not born east of Eden.

Unfortunately, we are living in the age of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Consequently, it becomes easier and easier to resort to mythology as a cover-up of truth. My heart breaks.

 

[grannymh]

I just don’t see why anyone should think any of this is endangered by a mythological interpretation of Genesis. You yourself have repeatedly stated that whatever the CCC says is true. So how does a mythical view of Genesis undermine what the CCC says?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I am concerned about ordinary folk who are being bullied with mountains of evidence against the basic reason for the salvific mission of Jesus Christ.

I am concerned about ordinary folk who are being pressured to ignore the basic purpose of their spiritual soul.

I am concerned about the ordinary folk who have become lukewarm toward the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass due to the fallout from the symbolism attack.

I am part of the ordinary folk who are too stubborn to give in to codswallop.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Unfortunately, we are living in the age of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Consequently, it becomes easier and easier to resort to mythology as a cover-up of truth. My heart breaks.

I am concerned about…

After all this discussion it remains unclear to me why you and others think that reading Adam and Eve as myth is cause for concern. You have many concerns, some of which I might even agree with. But I have yet to see the connection that you claim.

As I noted earlier, Paul himself recognized that Christianity hinged on the literal reality of Christ’s ressurection but I have yet to see any coherent argument as to why it should similarly hinge on the literal reality of Adam’s fall.

 

[ChesterBeach]

I understand your concerns. There is figurative language in the first three chapters of Genesis. And I mean the following in a respectful manner. God did find Adam when one continues reading…

Of course, anyone can put their own spin on Scripture. And right now, Catholics who should know better, are doing just that. This is why I constantly go back to authentic Catholic teaching. And subsequently I prefer the Catholic Church because it has the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Gospel of John, chapter 14).

As to “Why God can’t find him?” With due respect to God, His time of fame is in the first verses in Genesis, chapter 1. After this, the focus of Divine Revelation shifts to human origin, human nature, Original Sin, wounded human nature, and the continual personal love of the Creator for all, yes all, descendents of Adam. Obviously, not all the aspects of these essentials are spelled out perfectly in the first three chapters of Genesis. Humankind has to travel through the years of Scripture to reach the fullness of Revelation in Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. St. Paul was not born east of Eden.

Unfortunately, we are living in the age of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Consequently, it becomes easier and easier to resort to mythology as a cover-up of truth. My heart breaks.

If you read it literally - God can’t find Adam, who was hiding in the bushes. God created a rational animal with the power of speech other than man in the snake. Who’s sole purpose is to tempt man. No where in Gen dies it say the snake is Satan.

It makes our faith seem reduculous IMO. Talking snakes and a God that can’t find someone in the bushes.

 

[tm30]

Yes, speculating, but let’s be precise: we are not speculating about evolution, we are speculating about why God would choose to create through evolution.

I don’t think that’s a good way to put it, in fact it is a bit contradictory.

God obvioiusly acts indirectly in many ways but we do not say that God is acting inefficiently, only that God’s purpose in operating indirectly may be obscure.

For example, God could certainly teach the CCC more directly but has chosen to use the Church for this purpose. God could raise children directy but uses parents for this purpose.

But nowhere in the Creation narrative does it indicate that God created anything indirectly. Even Eve was created without the help of Adam (he was put into a deep sleep while God worked directly to create Eve). Because He acts indirectly in many ways, does not mean you get to infer that into Scripture where it is not at all evident, and IN FACT tells us He acted directly (“And God said… And God said… And God said…”)

 

[grannymh]

If you read it literally - God can’t find Adam, who was hiding in the bushes. God created a rational animal with the power of speech other than man in the snake. Who’s sole purpose is to tempt man. No where in Gen dies it say the snake is Satan.

It makes our faith seem reduculous IMO. Talking snakes and a God that can’t find someone in the bushes.

This is exactly why Catholics should learn Catholic doctrine regarding their first parent, Adam.

I do realize that it is near impossible to convince some, not all, Catholics that Catholic doctrines are more than those cutesy children’s books with enough leaves to cover the elephant in the room.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But nowhere in the Creation narrative does it indicate that God created anything indirectly. Even Eve was created without the help of Adam (he was put into a deep sleep while God worked directly to create Eve). Because He acts indirectly in many ways, does not mean you get to infer that into Scripture where it is not at all evident, and IN FACT tells us He acted directly (“And God said… And God said… And God said…”)

This is true. And so we have the classic conflict between what we can see with our eyes and what we read in Genesis.

Now theolgians will debate what it means for God to act directly or indirectly. For example, some would assert that every instant of creation is so because of God’s ever present hand. But I am assuming here that you regard evolution as an indirect creation.