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

[_Abyssinia]

Adam would be 5000 years old and humanity existed much before that.
So, Adam is excluded automatically.

How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Source?

I don’t believe a source is necessary for common scientific knowledge. The rate of genetic degradation increases with each successive generation when those generations are the result of inbreeding.

 

[gilliam]

I don’t believe a source is necessary for common scientific knowledge. The rate of genetic degradation increases with each successive generation when those generations are the result of inbreeding.

Logically looking at evolution of humans, there must have been a time when our ancestors were a single mating pair, or something similar to that. Unless you believe we popped into being by the thousands. Research has shown inbreading did in fact occur in our ancestors. But, of course, we don’t know who the original group of our ancestors were right now.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I see. I was, indeed, interchanging the two.
Yes, I guess those things could be considered evidence, then. And it’s up to each person whether they consider it “good enough” evidence to believe it and then consider it proof. I think I was jarred, though, because I feel that she implied it was definite proof in her wording.
Most religions base their faith on some kind of evidence, I supposed…they don’t usually come outta nowhere, a vacuum.

Here is a great article on evidence in science and religion by an atheist philosopher:

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/evidence-in-science-and-religion-part-two/?hp

Judging from the comments, his NYT readers were not very happy with him.

 

[buffalo]

Do you need a source? Pretty commons scientific knowledge.

Yes - I would like to look over your source.

 

[buffalo]

That is a mixture of Bible with science.
Corruption entering the DNA?
Strange, no?
what would be a perfect DNA?

So?

Yes - genetic entropy.

No.

What would be perfect DNA? Created DNA before any mutations.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t believe a source is necessary for common scientific knowledge. The rate of genetic degradation increases with each successive generation when those generations are the result of inbreeding.

Is this an admission of genetic entropy?

 

[grannymh]

I am in this camp. If the science is reasonable and reliable then theology must conform to it. I say that realizing that you are not warm to that position.

I would like to line up your position with this comment from the article linked in the OP.
theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

In reference to an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell commented. – … it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.[sic]
Note: The copy of the Australian article did not use quotation marks for this particular Cardinal Pell comment.
This comment refers to the well known separation of science which operates in the material/physical world and theology which operates in the spiritual world.

So what happens if the science is reasonable and reliable as Bubba Switzler posed, but it conflicts with Catholic theology that Adam is an actual person who deliberately broke his relationship with his Creator?

There is another option. One does not have to consider science and theology as
an either-or situation. One can start with the proposition that both science and theology seek the truth found in human life. God is both truth and Creator of the truth found in His creation.

The following is a brief summary of how both science and Catholic theology can lead to truth. When science is conducted properly and theology is properly understood, both will lead to a larger truth.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I would like to line up your position with this comment from the article linked in the OP. theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

In reference to an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve, Cardinal Pell commented. – … it was not a matter of science but rather a beautiful mythological account.[sic]
Note: The copy of the Australian article did not use quotation marks for this particular Cardinal Pell comment. This comment refers to the well known separation of science which operates in the material/physical world and theology which operates in the spiritual world.

I don’t knw Cardinal Pell, I can only guess that he took the position that Adam and Eve were mythological in order to align with some other truth claim, most likely scientific evidence of evolution and/or poygenism. I would certainly not support calling Adam and Eve mythological, beautiful or otherwise, lacking some good reason to do so.

In order to play the spiritual vs. material/physical card, theology must abandon claims about the material/physical world and limit itself to spiritual claims that cannot be tested by science. I am not a fan of that bifurcation because I think it cedes too much to atheism and consigns religion to an intellectual ghetto.

So what happens if the science is reasonable and reliable as Bubba Switzler posed, but it conflicts with Catholic theology that Adam is an actual person who deliberately broke his relationship with his Creator?

Consider: Christianity make a positive material/physical claim about Jesus: he died and rose from the dead. If archeologists find Jesus’ bones in an ossuary the jig is up and Christianity has been falsified. I am confident that this will not happen but I must concede that it is not impossible and, indeed, because it is not impossible I have more confidence in Christianity because I know that it is based upon human observations. People just like you and I watched Jesus be crucified and rise from the dead! (Anyone can invent a religion divorced from reality.)

But I do not place the same confidence in the Adam and Eve story. I would not be shocked if one day scientists showed that polygenism is a historical fact. It would not cause me to question my Catholic faith. Not even my belief in Original Sin. My belief in Original Sin does not rest on Adam and Eve being real historical persons.

There is another option. One does not have to consider science and theology as
an either-or situation. One can start with the proposition that both science and theology seek the truth found in human life. God is both truth and Creator of the truth found in His creation. The following is a brief summary of how both science and Catholic theology can lead to truth. When science is conducted properly and theology is properly understood, both will lead to a larger truth.

I subscribe to this approach but, as noted above, I reject the idea that science and theology are orthogonal pursuits of truth. They will often intersect and interact in interesting ways.

Thus we have good reason to conduct archeological digs in modern Israel expecting to find evidence of biblical Israel, as has been the case since the 19th century.

 

[kama3]

The Catholic theological doctrine of monogenism is that all humanity descended from a single human couple. We all have the same first parents. In contrast, basic polygenism describes the current population as descendents from a variety of parent ancestral sources. With the concept of polygenism, the unity of the human race is shattered into sections.

There is little doubt about the unity of human race, since it has been demonstrated that we have had a common male ancestor and a common female ancestor. They just weren’t contemporaneous. It may be problematic to demonstrate that we are descended from a single couple (i.e. that our female MRCA reproduced with only one partner), but on the other hand, I do not see why we necessarily need that. Except for trying to twist the reality to fit the Biblical worldview, which is a doomed endeavor anyway.

Within philosophical and theological circles, there has been an effort to conform Catholicism to scientific polygenism. The effort has failed to close the doctrinal gap between a single source of humanity and many sources for human persons…

The real problem is Augustine’s idea that original sin is inherited. That requires all humanity to be directly descended from Adam, who sinned. Thus, not only a common ancestor is required – a specific ancestor, involved in a certain historical event, is required.

Paradoxically, evolution is very good at giving us common ancestors. The conflict only arises, because a naive interpretation of Genesis makes some very specific claims about that common ancestor.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The continuing discussion of the topic of Original Sin begun in the first post of this thread, whether Adam and Eve are myth or real, itself a contentious issue, has touched on other related contentious topics including evolution and the relationship between theology and science. I would like to urge everyone to continue the charity we’ve seen in this discussion so far.

Granny’s argument is that a “very sophisticated mythology’” (as in article linked in post 1) will dilute Original Sin. Her comments are:

I have been searching my memory bank regarding Catholic history. As far as I remember, theologists have tried to change the effects of Original Sin around the time of the Reformation and later so that now there are extremes. – 1.we are born as sin machines in that human nature was totally corrupted and 2. original sin per se does not exist because we are born good but not perfect. Catholicism is in the middle.

I am not sure how to say this correctly…But the diluting of Original Sin has always been primary. With the advent of evolution theories, those who objected to Original Sin on a theological basis now have the ammunition of science. In addition, in the last century, there were those who symbolized Adam and Eve, perhaps without using a scientific basis. I have seen posts by Catholics who have been influenced by this. It seems to me that the few who actually posted the “truth” of symbolization also generalized original sin. However, my memory is failing me on these posts.

On the other hand, I was shocked by the lack of knowledge of original sin on CAF. My guess is that with the influence of “symbolism” original sin had been watered down in Catholic education.

There are probably theologians who have tried to explore mythologized Adam and Eve without diluting Original Sin. I have been out of the intellectual loop for many years so I cannot name them. However, they would find themselves in conflict with basic Catholic doctrine because for Original Sin to retain its full meaning, it has to be transmitted by propagation to all people, from the first parents, biblically known as Adam and Eve.

I am not well researched in this field but I am surprised by one comment you make: that evolution was used as a justification to water down Original Sin. This doesn’t make sense to me. My impression is that the trend to emphasize natural born goodness was an Enlightenment idea epitimized by Rousseau who essentially blamed sin on civilization’s corruption of natural man. I have seen Jewish criticism of Christianity on the issue of Original Sin but it always seems to rest on Enlightenment ideas, not pre-Enlightenment Judaism.

I am also vaguely familiar with the extreme (Calvinist, I believe) view of man as hopelessly corrupted so that no effort to be good is possible by man. Often Jewish criticism of Christian Original Sin is in reference to this.

One book I have read on this subject is The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucifer_Principle

amazon.com/The-Lucifer-Pr…/dp/0871136643

His general argument is that evil is a natural product of evolution and survival of the fittest.

So while I am fully willing to concede all that you write above, I am not persuaded that a mythological view of Adam and Eve or evolutionary view requires a dilution of Original Sin. It may be that, as you suggest, those who sought to dilute Original Sin seized on myth and evolution as means to that end.

 

[JMJSHJ]

It is a scientific impossibility that the entire human race descended from one couple. Our species would have gone extinct within a few generations because of the inbreeding that would be required for such a task.

Perhaps, but isn’t the resurrection of Jesus a scientific impossibility to you as well?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Where are you getting 5000 from? The Bible does not say the specific age of humanity.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

Creation and Genesis

I do not think it is accurate to add the age of the people / generations in the Bible and say that is the age of the earth.

I got it from the Bible. Just join the generations till Adam, make your calculations and it is around 5000 bC. Sorry, I did not read your quotes, I would prefer you to advance one date.

If

“I do not think it is accurate to add the age of the people / generations in the Bible and say that is the age of the earth.”

then what?

What is your solution if mine is bad?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?

Sorry, I do not read quotes. Only exceptionally. Otherwise I would do nothing else.
Would you mind to resume, please. Thanks.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Yes - I would like to look over your source.

Sorry. It was not my post but someone else.
Go to College of Medicine and study the semester of Genetics. Year One… It could be another Year depending on the Countries.
For Advanced Genetics, you have got Post Graduation Courses.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

So?

Yes - genetic entropy.

No.

What would be perfect DNA? Created DNA before any mutations.

Good- I liked it! Genetic Entropy all of a sudden, when they were expelled from the Eden. Good One…

So, could you describe the DNA before any mutations? I think you would receive the Nobel Prize. No. Yearly Nobel Prizes till the end of your life.

Boy, Paradise is not in this world. We are East of Eden…

 

[_Abyssinia]

I got it from the Bible. Just join the generations till Adam, make your calculations and it is around 5000 bC. Sorry, I did not read your quotes, I would prefer you to advance one date.

If

“I do not think it is accurate to add the age of the people / generations in the Bible and say that is the age of the earth.”

then what?

What is your solution if mine is bad?

I thought you probably added the generations, but it is not accurate for describing the age of humanity or the earth.

So where did that myth that the earth is 6000 years old get started?

An Irishman by the name of James Ussher, an Archbishop of the Anglican church during the early 17th century, started the rumor. His miscalculations placed the birth of the universe at 4004 BC. His chronology was included into the marginal footnotes of the Authorized Version of the Bible of that century, and was picked up in the Douay Bible in the 20th century. The miscalculation is still propagating.

What parts of the Bible did Ussher use to miscalculate the age of the universe?

Ussher used 1 Ki 6:1, Ex 12:40, the genealogical “begats” in Genesis, and the assumption that each day of creation is 24 hours.

What’s wrong with Ussher’s calculation?

Even as early as the 19th century, the Catholic church knew his calculations were grossly in error. The error is obvious, but it is only obvious when you know that ancient Middle Eastern cultures used genealogies as literary devices, not as exact accountings of generations. The average modern reader does not expect this.

Why can’t I use a Bible genealogy to place a date of an ancestor?

Bible genealogies, like those of other ancient Middle Eastern cultures, are telescoped. The story tellers purposely leave out relatively unimportant generations. Therefore, you cannot calculate any time span because of the missing generations.

Telescoping is an ancient Middle Eastern literary device used to emphasize the most important individuals in a family tree. Consider the Bible declaration: “Jesus, son of David” in Mt. 21:9. It looks like David is Jesus’s father, but we all know that David lived 900 years prior to the birth of Jesus. Mt. 1’s genealogy of Jesus is more extensive. It lists 28 generations between David and Jesus.

Every time you see “son of”, especially in a genealogy, replace it with the word “descendant”. Every time you see “father of”, especially in a genealogy, replace it with “ancestor of”. All you can say about verses like Ge 11:10: “when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad” is that when Shem was 100 years old, he became the ancestor of Arphaxad. In other words, when Shem was 100, he begat some ancestor of Arphaxad.

The writers leave out unimportant generations for a reason. They simply don’t want to bore their readers. For additional literary effect, they also manipulate the numbers of generations so that they come out to be multiples of 4, 7 or 10. 4, 7 and 10 are literary devices which mean fullness or perfection. The telescoped genealogies are not an error. They are just a literary device. Now note the number of generations in Luke 3 (21 generations 7 x 3); in Matthew (3 sets of 14 = 7 x 2 generations), in Ge 5 and 10 (10 generations each), and in Ruth (10 generations).

More: talusmusic.com/FOW/Pages/BibleCEFAQ.html

 

[_Abyssinia]

Sorry, I do not read quotes. Only exceptionally. Otherwise I would do nothing else.
Would you mind to resume, please. Thanks.

This is not from a Catholic website, so take the info with a grain of salt, but the information on James Ussher and his genealogies is correct I think.

James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, from 1625 to 1656. Archbishop Ussher took the genealogies of Genesis, assuming they were complete, and calculated all the years to arrive at a date for the creation of the earth on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. 2 Of course, even assuming the method was valid, such an exact date is not possible from the genealogies of the Bible (Ussher assumed all the years the patriarchs lived were exactly 365.25 days long and that they all died the day before their next birthday). There are a number of other assumptions implicit in the calculation. The first, and foremost, assumption is that the genealogies of Genesis are complete, from father to son throughout the entire course of human existence. The second assumption is that the Genesis creation “days” were exactly 24-hours in length. It turns out that both assumptions are false.

Incomplete genealogies

Although Archbishop Ussher assumed the Genesis genealogies were complete, it is clear from the rest of the Bible that those genealogies were telescoped (some names were left out for the sake of brevity), which is common in biblical genealogies but rare in modern genealogies. Similarly, the key genealogical terms (such as “son” and “father”) have much broader meanings in Hebrew than their corresponding English words. The Hebrew word translated “son” can also have the meaning of “grandson,” “great grandson,” “descendant,” etc.3 Likewise, the Hebrew word translated “father” can mean “grandfather,” “great grandfather,” “ancestor,” etc. 4 An accurate understanding of biblical genealogies is difficult, yet it is important for the understanding of Scripture. Having a proper understanding of biblical genealogies is a prerequisite to attempting to address the Genesis genealogies. By cross referencing the biblical genealogies with other events dated in the Bible, one can find instances where numerous genealogies were telescoped, resulting in the exclusion of numerous generations of individuals. When examining individual genealogies, one can find examples where individuals are excluded or added to the lists found in Genesis. The fact that the genealogies of the Bible are given symmetrically (where the numbers of generations in each group are identical) lends credence to the argument that they are representative of generations found throughout human history. More information about the biblical genealogies can be found in our article, The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?

More: godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

 

[grannymh]

Am I understanding correctly???

Knowing the birth date of Adam means that Adam is real and not a myth?

And if we do not know the birth date of Adam, how does that affect the sophisticated mythology referred to in the article on Cardinal Pell? By the way, the article topic of this thread is not James Ussher or the specific age of the earth.

Post 1 asks – " Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?" Those who know how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth will recognize that a number of Catholic doctrines are intertwined with the reality of Adam.

Granted that we do not know all that was in the mind of Cardinal Pell when he referred to Adam. However, the comments reported by The Australian are common in the United States and other countries.

The questions this thread needs to address revolve around Catholic doctrines found in the first three chapters of Genesis. For example. Was journalist Tony Jones referring to possible heresy? Or was he asking a trick question?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Am I understanding correctly???

Knowing the birth date of Adam means that Adam is real and not a myth?

And if we do not know the birth date of Adam, how does that affect the sophisticated mythology referred to in the article on Cardinal Pell? By the way, the article topic of this thread is not James Ussher or the specific age of the earth.

Post 1 asks – " Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?" Those who know how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth will recognize that a number of Catholic doctrines are intertwined with the reality of Adam.

Granted that we do not know all that was in the mind of Cardinal Pell when he referred to Adam. However, the comments reported by The Australian are common in the United States and other countries.

The questions this thread needs to address revolve around Catholic doctrines found in the first three chapters of Genesis. For example. Was journalist Tony Jones referring to possible heresy? Or was he asking a trick question?

Discussion of Adam and Eve which correlates with the OP is allowed on this thread.