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

[kama3]

Cain and Abel are referred to as being actual human persons twice:

Except that if you read the narrative by itself, it’s pretty obvious that it takes place in a larger population:

14Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Like… who will kill him? In a literalist interpretation, the only other people around are Adam, Eve, and Cain’s wife (and when did she come from)?

15Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him.

The same. Why put a mark on the guy, if anyone else alive witnessed the event?

More to the point, the story makes perfect sense if Cain and Abel were the leaders of their own populations. You have this:

• Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. 3In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. *

There is an eternal conflict between the cattle herders (Abel) and plant growers (Cain), because cattle is better food, but requires more land than growing plants, and, Abel’s cattle will eat Cain’s plants. So Cain really gets the short end of the stick here, gets really pissed off and kills Abel. That would make no sense if they were only them around with all Earth to use. But if the text describes two competing populations in a fertile valley in present-day Turkey (Eden), than this is exactly what would happen. So, it looks like Cain’s group takes on the Abel’s group, and kills their leader. Then the conflict ends with one group (the plant growers) forced out of the valley:

16Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

And then we have:

17Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

Aha! So agriculture allowed Cain’s followers to build a town. That matches what we know from archeology: the herders move together with their cattle, but plant growers must stay in one place to look afetr their plants and eventually build towns. Some generations forward…

*19And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. *

Oh, look at that! We have domesticated the animals!

• 21His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.*

Excellent. We now have enough extra food so some of us can be making music and stuff, instead of working on the farm. Okay, fast forward…

22Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron.

Mining! Industry! Metal workers must east something, so Trade! with those that make food. We’ve made a Civilization!

So – for me that one makes perfect sense. It’s entirely conceivable that the original human community in Eden finally split into two factions, led by Cain (the plant grower) and Abel (the cattle herder), and violence followed.

So Cain and Abel could very well be existing persons, except that they got mistakenly identified as children of Adam by some priest redacting the text.

While we’re at it, the absurdly long lifetimes in given in the genealogies in the next chapter suddenly start making sense if they refer to dynasties, and not to individuals.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And there was an interesting exchange between the panelists on the existence of Adam and Eve. Cardinal Pell expressed the view that they were not historical individuals, but mythological figures in a story designed to communicate religious truth. To which Dawkins responded, If they didn’t really, historically, exist, where did Original Sin come from? Ironically enough, on the site on which I found the video, some conservative religious comboxers take Dawkins’s side: If no Adam and Eve, no Original Sin; if no Original Sin, no need for Christ’s Redemption; if no need for Christ’s Redemption, no Christianity; therefore there must have been an Adam and Eve. (I have actually, in the past, encountered the very same argument from e-mailers responding to my own Corner posts on Biblical interpretation: Pull that thread, of admitting that one set of verses in the Bible are not intended literally, and the whole thing will fall apart like Kleenex.)

But the fact of the existence of Original Sin does not depend on the historical existence of Adam and Eve. To say that it does seems to me the equivalent of declaring that if Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was not, in fact, responsible for the Great Chicago Fire, then the Great Chicago Fire must not have happened at all. Original Sin is a fundamental choice in which man declares his prideful rebellion against God, and we see that choice in our own hearts. (Chesterton once called original sin “the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”) As to where, specifically, it started, your guess is as good as mine; the story of Adam and Eve is a masterful account of the meaning of what happened.

nationalreview.com/corner/295816/cardinal-pell-and-richard-dawkins-michael-potemra

 

[buffalo]

Except that if you read the narrative by itself, it’s pretty obvious that it takes place in a larger population:

14Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Like… who will kill him? In a literalist interpretation, the only other people around are Adam, Eve, and Cain’s wife (and when did she come from)?

The fact anyone else was not mentioned does mean they were the only ones around.

Cain married his twin sister.

 

[buffalo]

nationalreview.com/corner/295816/cardinal-pell-and-richard-dawkins-michael-potemra

God must have known he better be clear about the fact Adam and Eve were real otherwise the house of cards would fall. Genesis has much packed into it, don’t ya think? It sets a firm foundation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

God must have known he better be clear about the fact Adam and Eve were real otherwise the house of cards would fall.

I disagree for all the reasons previously discussed.

Genesis has much packed into it, don’t ya think? It sets a firm foundation.

I do agree with that. But this would be true whether or not it is historically accurate.

 

[kama3]

What genetic diversity was present in the first two humans? Do you know?

I don’t but there is a limit – if they were too diverse, they would not interbreed.

How many mutations are deleterious and produce malformations? Do you have a number?

Looking at the effects of ionizing radiation, looks like majority. We have no record of Chernobyl producing advantaged superhumans, but malformed children – yes.

According to the geneoalogies Adam may have lived around 12,000 years ago.

Say what? Adam’s time and place would roughly correspond to the emergence of Neolithic civilization – I don’t think that’s a coincidence:

Around 10200 BC, the first fully developed Neolithic cultures belonging to the phase Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) appeared in the fertile crescent.[1] Around 10,700 to 9400 BC, a settlement was established in Tell Qaramel, 25 kilometers north of Aleppo. The settlement included 2 temples dating back to 9650.[3] Around 9000 BC during the PPNA, the world’s first town, Jericho, appeared in the Levant. It was surrounded by a stone and marble wall and contained a population of 2000–3000 people and a massive stone tower.[12] Around 6400 BC the Halaf culture appeared in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, and Northern Mesopotamia and subsisted on dryland agriculture.
In 1981 a team of researchers from the Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, including Jacques Cauvin and Oliver Aurenche divided Near East neolithic chronology into ten periods (0 to 9) based on social, economic and cultural characteristics.[13] In 2002 Danielle Stordeur and Frédéric Abbès advanced this system with a division into five periods. Natufian (1) between 12000 and 10200 cal. BCE, Khiamian (2) between 10200-8800 cal. BCE, PPNA: Sultanian (Jericho), Mureybetian, early PPNB (PPNB ancien) (3) between 8800-7600 cal. BCE, middle PPNB (PPNB moyen) 7600-6900 cal. BCE, late PPNB (PPNB récent) (4) between 7500 and 7000 BC and a PPNB (sometimes called PPNC) transitional stage (PPNB final) (5) where Halaf and dark faced burnished ware begin to emerge between 6900-6400 cal. BCE.[14] They also advanced the idea of a transitional stage between the PPNA and PPNB between 8800 and 8600 BC at sites like Jerf el Ahmar and Tell Aswad.[9]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

 

[kama3]

The fact anyone else was not mentioned does mean they were the only ones around.

Absurd.

My biography of Joseph Stalin does not mention any of my grandparents. By your logic, I’d be forced to conclude that I don’t exist. Historical narratives will rarely mention anyone but the top people in power.

Cain married his twin sister.

Why the later prohibition on incest then?

 

[_Abyssinia]

While we’re at it, the absurdly long lifetimes in given in the genealogies in the next chapter suddenly start making sense if they refer to dynasties, and not to individuals.

Excerpt from ‘Humani Generis:’

“…the first eleven chapter of Genesis…nevertheless come under the heading of history; in what exact sense, it is for the further study of the exegete to determine. These chapters have a naïve, symbolic way of speaking, well suited to the understanding of primitive people. But they do disclose to us certain important truths, upon which the attainment of our eternal salvation depends, and they do also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and of the chosen people. It may be true that the ancient authors of sacred history drew some of their material from current popular stories. So much may be granted. But it must be remembered that they did so under the impulse of divine inspiration which preserved them from all error in selecting and assessing the material they used….“these excerpts from current stories, which are found in the sacred books, must not be put on a level with mere myths, or with legend in general…In the OT a love of truth and a cult of simplicity shine out in such a way as to put these writers on a distinctly different level from their profane contemporaries.”

I have read that in ancient times long life spans were attributed to distinguished individuals. It was literary convention. But I have also heard suggested that after the Flood there was a decrease in life span as s consequence of sin which could be a punishment from God just as mortal death was. I do not think the Church as an official position on the life spans.

 

[johnnyjones]

1 Chronicals 1:1 ADAM, Seth, Enosh…" and a long list of historical persons

 

[_Abyssinia]

They couldn’t possibly teach that, of course!
Even the gospels differ in facts! I think three give different dates on when Jeshua was crucified?

What do you mean the ‘Gospels differ in facts?’ Do you mean the Gospels don’t line up line by line? That is actually one of the reasons historians consider the Gospels more trustworthy, if the gospels lined up perfectly the authors could be accused of colluding. I read on this forum once that the Gospel authors are like 4 reporters attending a White House function. Depending on the reporters’ readership, each will list those persons there and what happened according to his own perspective. So, one or two of them might leave out details or mention of persons that the others left out. It doesn’t mean the WH function never took place or that they colluded together to lie, but rather that they each reported what they believed would be of interest to their particular readership. It’s the same with the Gospel writers. They weren’t being modern historians,but rather they were being story-tellers. Story-tellers relating a true story as they saw it and understood it.

Do you mean date or hour when Jesus was crucified?

What hour was Jesus crucified?

Mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

This one takes more digging in the Bible. This difference,involves the Jewish times of the day,and our times of the day (the Roman time of day: 12am-11:59pm). Let’s look at the Jewish times of day in the New Testament time: (hours are approximate because the length of the hour was not “set in stone” until about the 18th century)

Third hour–6am-9am
Sixth hour–9am-12pm
Ninth hour–12pm-3pm
Twelfth hour–3pm-6pm
First Watch–6pm-9pm
Second Watch–9pm-12am
Third Watch–12am-3am
Fourth Watch–3am-6am

The Roman times of day,are just as English Time,the Third Hour would be literally the Third Hour, from 12am (3am). The Jewish Day starts at about Evening of one day (about 6pm or so), to the evening of the next day, whereas Roman time, the day starts at 12am.

In Mark 15:25 we see Jesus crucified in the Third Hour,which is about from 6am-9am. In John 19:14 it appears to be the Sixth hour,9am-12pm, when Pilate brought Jesus before the crowd, right before Jesus was sentenced to Crucifixion! Is there a contradiction? It honestly appears to be . . . but it’s not! The difference is the system of time that Mark wrote in, and John wrote in! Mark,wrote in the Jewish times of day, while John wrote in the Roman times of day! That might seem like a long-shot, but let’s look at the context (not to mention, more highly studied Biblical scholars have said Mark seemed to write more after the Jewish manner, and John more after the Gentile/Roman manner) to check if this makes sense.

workmenforchrist.org/Bible/BC_Jesus_Nets.html

 

[buffalo]

Absurd.

My biography of Joseph Stalin does not mention any of my grandparents. By your logic, I’d be forced to conclude that I don’t exist. Historical narratives will rarely mention anyone but the top people in power.

Why the later prohibition on incest then?

Should have been:

				Originally Posted by **buffalo** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9171447#post9171447) 				
			*The fact anyone else was not mentioned does **not **mean they were the only ones around.

Incest in the parent to child line is intrinsically evil. Between siblings it is not.

After the fall corruption entered the genome.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t have it in front of me, but as I recall, one of the books says he was crucified before passover or as passover was being prepared–to link it with the “sacrificial lamb” symbolism…and another has him being crucified after passover…(the following day?).

When was the Last Supper?

tektonics.org/lp/passovertime.html

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t have it in front of me, but as I recall, one of the books says he was crucified before passover or as passover was being prepared–to link it with the “sacrificial lamb” symbolism…and another has him being crucified after passover…(the following day?).

**How Do We Explain the Passover “Discrepancy”? **

catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-explain-the-passover-discrepancy

 

[sedonaman]

I’d like to nominate this for post o’ the day.

Thx.

 

[Dirt]

these sort of arguments remind me of this Scripture:
The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, Ch. 1

"[21] For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. [22] For both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: [24] But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. [25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[25] The foolishness: That is to say, what appears foolish to the world in the ways of God, is indeed most wise; and what appears weak is indeed above all the strength and comprehension of man.

[26] For see your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble: [27] But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong. [28] And the base things of the world, and the things that are contemptible, hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his sight. [30] But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption:

[31] That, as it is written: He that glorieth, may glory in the Lord."

And Ch. 2

"[6] Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought; [7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory: [8] Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory. [9] But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. [10] But to us God hath revealed them, by this Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

[11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. [15] But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man."

I find that a Simple faith, without doubts and questions, is the easiest to maintain.

Scripture from: drbo.org/

 

[grannymh]

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?

Denying that Adam was not an actual person who committed an actual original sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity – is part of the modern (secular) theological movement to change some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Long range, this attack on Adam leads to a denial of human nature and the inherent dignity of each person. In its worst form, eventually this attack on the uniqueness of Adam could possibly lead to an attack on the Divinity of Jesus Christ Who is the foundation for the Catholic Church. The idea that Jesus Christ is only a human prophet among other human prophets has already been accepted in some areas.

 

[M-Dent]

One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time – from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established.** Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing**: God created the world.

A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall
(Resourcement) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1995)

 

[_Abyssinia]

Just because science may not be able to prove there was a real Adam and Eve does not mean they did not exist, science can not prove the Resurrection either but there is evidence for it and Catholics have faith. We have to remember that.

 

[Dirt]

For anyone who wishes to understand where this will lead, try reading this little ditty from H.H. Pope St. Pius X; papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

In 1907 Pope St. Pius foresaw the effects that “modern” thinkers would have on the Faithful. now, 105 years latter we see the same!

 

[M-Dent]

THE WAY OF THE LORD JESUS

Volume One
CHRISTIAN MORAL PRINCIPLES

by Germain Grisez

The Reverend Harry J. Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics
Mount Saint Mary’s College – Emmitsburg, Maryland
with the help of

Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., Basil Cole, O.P., John M. Finnis
John A. Geinzer, Jeannette Grisez, Robert G. Kennedy,
Patrick Lee, William E. May, and Russell Shaw

Copyright © 1983 by Franciscan Herald Press.

Nihil Obstat: Rev. John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S., Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur: Rev. Msgr. John F. Donoghue
Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington
June 2, 1983

1. Following Genesis, Christians have usually thought of the human race as being descended from a single pair of individuals. This view is called “monogenism.” However, evolution theory points to the need for a sizable, interbreeding population at the origin of any organic type as complex as the human. This theory is called “polygenism.” Both Pius XII and Paul VI warn that polygenism, which evolution theory seems to demand, appears incompatible with the Church’s teaching. However, it is not clear that either of these popes proposed monogenism as the position to be held definitively. Hence, if a Catholic can show how polygenism is compatible with the essential elements of the Church’s teaching on original sin, then he or she may admit polygenism on the basis of the evidence in favor of it.
2. There is nevertheless no evidence requiring us to suppose that the present human race descended from more than one interbreeding population. Like Genesis, biological theory points to a single group at the beginning of humankind. …

1. Thus, there is no incompatibility between the Church’s doctrine concerning original sin and the scientific view that, insofar as they are organisms, human beings had subpersonal antecedents. Nor does the theory of evolution either require one to think or offer evidence for thinking that the first humans were semibestial or childlike, and incapable of serious sin. Whatever their antecedents, they were able to sin as soon as they were able to make free choices. If there were earlier, childlike, human beings, not yet capable of free choice, we have no social and moral solidarity with them