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

[grannymh]

Now, listen: God talks to us in different ways. Till Galileo, people thought that the Sun turned around the Earth. God taught us, through Science, that it was not so. So, through a very painful process, Christians had to re-interpret the Bible and it was good, for we we interpreting it wrong. Now, we thought that Adam and Eve were our first Fathers. God, through Science, says no. Through another painful process, we have to re-interpret the Bible for God is talking to us through Science and both MUST BE in conformity for THERE ARE NOT 2 GODS.

We do learn the glory and power of God from a simple human observation of our universe.

But when it comes to issues of faith, morals, and our spiritual souls, God teaches us through the Catholic Church and not through science.

Whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun is a matter which humans, through scientific research, can determine to some extent. When humans did not know how to research the sky and they did not have telescopes, their opinions were the best that could be offered at that time. Still, it must be remembered that the heavenly bodies of planets and stars are part of the material/physical universe and they are not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Note that the humans who did offer their opinions were speaking freely from their own knowledge of the material/physical universe.

High ranking clergy have the right to free speech and consequently they can give their opinions about the natural environment. But this is not the same as a major Ecumenical Church Council operating under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These Councils deal with matters belonging to God’s spiritual realm. Divine Revelation is about God Who is a transcendent, supernatural Pure Spirit. Divine Revelation is about humans who are created with a spiritual soul, in the image of our Creator. This “image” is why we have to capability to respond to God calling us to share in His life for eternity.

Over the centuries, humans have tried to make up their own “divine revelation” about this or that in the material/physical world. The Catholic Church does not call a major Church Council about this or that in the material/physical universe. On the other hand, major Church Councils have discerned Divine Revelation when issues from the purely material/physical realm conflicted with Divine Revelation. The issues of Adam’s reality and the reality of his Original Sin were settled centuries ago with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Please refer to the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, for the promise of the Holy Spirit.

 

[grannymh]

So I start anew with midrash which moreover, was given to me by my Professor of Old Testament.

My view is simple: as long as you are not an atheist, as long as you say what the Bible says that God created the Universe and created Men, then you could say whatever from the body, that comes from clay, from the rib of Adam, from a monkey, that just parachuted from an ET engine (which should be created by God too)…just joking but my emphasis is: God first. The details? God knows.

Even if God incarnated a Soul into an animal which is my favorite theory, to know where, when how, it is a terribly hard task.

I would have liked to have your Professor of the Old Testament teach me. I learned Catholic doctrine before opening a Bible. It is recently that I learned about midrash (though not that name) and how various strains were combined to teach God’s Divine Revelation. Thus, when Adam was discussed on CAF, I first went to Catholic teachings. Using the footnotes of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, I learned how the Catholic Church made Catholic doctrines more explicit in order to better understand the depth of Divine Revelation.

I also had to learn some basic principles about natural science. When science is conducted properly and Catholic doctrines are properly understood, then the truth of God is evident.

 

[grannymh]

Given the topic of this thread, it was hardly unexpected that someone would post the widely popularized claim that Adam and Eve were “impossible” in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially regarding the Human Genome Project. Many succumb to the modernistic tendency to “adjust” Church teaching to fit the latest findings of science – thus scandalizing Catholics into thinking that fundamental revealed truths are not well founded.

The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are part of unchanging Catholic doctrine. Central to St. Paul’s teaching is the fact that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and through the God-man, Jesus Christ, redemption came (Rom 5:12-21). The Catechism cites St. Paul, and speaks of Adam and Eve as of a single mating pair who “committed a personal sin” (CCC, 399-404).

We must be careful not to confuse the technical concept of average effective population size estimates, which vary from as high as 14,000 (Blum 2011) to as low as 2,000 (Tenesa 2007) depending on the methods used, with an actual “bottleneck” ( a temporarily reduced population) which may be much smaller. We must also realize that these calculations depend on many assumptions about mutation rate, recombination rate, and other factors, that are now known to vary widely, and that all depend on retrospective calculations about events in the far distant past, for which we have almost no information.

A famed study by Ayala (1995) led many to believe that a bottleneck of two was impossible at any time in the human lineage after the Homo/Pan (human/chimp) split some five million years ago. However, Ayala’s claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors. The number of lineages was subsequently adjusted by Bergström (1998) to just seven at the time of the split, with most of the genetic diversity appearing in the last 250,000 years.

Since the Class II region where HLA-DRB1 resides recombines only rarely, the region behaves as a unit during reproduction. It is inherited as a block, referred to as a haplotype. It is now known that there are only five basic haplotypes (Andersson 1998), and their particular identity is specified by which HLA-DRB1 allele they carry. Depending on the accuracy of the dating and tree drawing, there may have been between three and five haplotypes at the time of the Homo/Pan split. We share four of them with chimps. Since a single mating pair could pass on a maximum of four haplotypes, the most recent studies appear potentially compatible with a literal Adam and Eve. *

The point of all this is to show that the science which is so dogmatically employed to undermine Catholic doctrine regarding Adam and Eve is itself not definitive. Catholic doctrine trumps in any event, but even more so when the science itself is far from settled.

What is most important for purposes of this thread is the realization that, since the same God is Author of both human reason and authentic revelation, legitimate science will never contradict Catholic doctrine – and Catholic doctrine firmly teaches a literal Adam and Eve.

In my book, Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, second edition, 2003), I offer extensive analysis of the interface between evolutionary theory, philosophy, and theology – including a most detailed explanation of how the existence of a literal Adam and Eve remains rationally credible, even to well educated Christians at the beginning of the twenty-first century.*

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

grannymh:
Impossible the Adam and Eve exactly as the Bible says in the literal terms. Only they existed as a teaching of God about Christian Doctrine.
Anyhow, their literal existance is useless in terms of Christian Doctrine.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I would have liked to have your Professor of the Old Testament teach me. I learned Catholic doctrine before opening a Bible. It is recently that I learned about midrash (though not that name) and how various strains were combined to teach God’s Divine Revelation. Thus, when Adam was discussed on CAF, I first went to Catholic teachings. Using the footnotes of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, I learned how the Catholic Church made Catholic doctrines more explicit in order to better understand the depth of Divine Revelation.

I also had to learn some basic principles about natural science. When science is conducted properly and Catholic doctrines are properly understood, then the truth of God is evident.

My Teacher of Old Testament was a German, methodical and exact. Swam everyday for one hour in the sea of Hong-Kong. Very good teacher.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

We do learn the glory and power of God from a simple human observation of our universe.

But when it comes to issues of faith, morals, and our spiritual souls, God teaches us through the Catholic Church and not through science.

Whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun is a matter which humans, through scientific research, can determine to some extent. When humans did not know how to research the sky and they did not have telescopes, their opinions were the best that could be offered at that time. Still, it must be remembered that the heavenly bodies of planets and stars are part of the material/physical universe and they are not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Note that the humans who did offer their opinions were speaking freely from their own knowledge of the material/physical universe.

High ranking clergy have the right to free speech and consequently they can give their opinions about the natural environment. But this is not the same as a major Ecumenical Church Council operating under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These Councils deal with matters belonging to God’s spiritual realm. Divine Revelation is about God Who is a transcendent, supernatural Pure Spirit. Divine Revelation is about humans who are created with a spiritual soul, in the image of our Creator. This “image” is why we have to capability to respond to God calling us to share in His life for eternity.

Over the centuries, humans have tried to make up their own “divine revelation” about this or that in the material/physical world. The Catholic Church does not call a major Church Council about this or that in the material/physical universe. On the other hand, major Church Councils have discerned Divine Revelation when issues from the purely material/physical realm conflicted with Divine Revelation. The issues of Adam’s reality and the reality of his Original Sin were settled centuries ago with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Please refer to the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, for the promise of the Holy Spirit.

There are small nuances that make much difference.
In the 16 century, people took the Bible literally. There was no science. If the Bible said that the sun stopped for Joshua to go on with the battle, then it is a sign that the sun goes around the Earth and that was a Teaching of the Church, a dogma (there was no infallibility yet). So say that it was Science then is a bad conclusion for there was no Science, all was in the Bible.

Now it is the same thing. Evolution is a question of Science not a question of the Bible. God tells us clearly through Science that Man’s Body came through evolution and we should learn God’s truth through Science.

Now the Bible says that God created Man, that is the Soul, directly.

If the tales of the Bible were true we should distinguish: which is true? The Yahwist or the Elohist account as they are so different?

 

[itullian]

Hugh Ross and his staff believe in Adam and Eve. as created from clay. not evolved.

they’re smart credentialed men.

 

[grannymh]

There are small nuances that make much difference.
In the 16 century, people took the Bible literally. There was no science. If the Bible said that the sun stopped for Joshua to go on with the battle, then it is a sign that the sun goes around the Earth and that was a Teaching of the Church, **a dogma (there was no infallibility yet). **So say that it was Science then is a bad conclusion for there was no Science, all was in the Bible.

Emphasis of words in bold is mine.

The guarantee of the Catholic Church’s infallibility is stated in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14. Are there questions about this?

It can be said that historically, science began with the invention of the wheel.

Practically speaking, science is a “state of knowing”. Source: Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.

The state of knowing about the material/physical universe began with the first human who had a rational mind. There are no restrictions as to the name of this knowledge or the sources of information. As I recall, the observation of natural phenomenon was, at one time, part of philosophy and that the split into a separate Latin designation known as science is around the 14th century or perhaps the split formally occurred sometime around the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. Regardless of the date of the formal word science – The essential meaning is still that “science” is knowledge about the material/physical world.

Putting the word “science” to any kind of knowledge which is obtained by our senses does not automatically mean that any kind of knowledge is actual true fact. Our attempt at knowledge is not the same as observed phenomena in nature.
Rather “science” refers to the knowledge about what is being observed by our senses. At best, the interpretation of sense knowledge depends on the capability of the observer.

As I said above, there are no restrictions on the sources for information about the material/physical universe. Humans have always had free choice. A person is free to use the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis as a source of information about the material/physical environment, so be it. If the source of information about the material/physical universe comes from Midrash, so be it. Science, as a state of knowledge, normally is not set in stone.

Because science, as a state of knowledge normally not set in stone, is why general knowledge about certain matters in the scientific realm of the material/physical world are not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Because science, as a state of knowledge normally not set in stone, is why Genesis 1:1 is seen as Divine Revelation. And the workings of the material/physical universe are not declared part of Divine Revelation. God’s Divine Revelation is safeguarded from the twists and turns of [science] knowledge as it develops on into the future.

God does not speak through improvable human knowledge referred to as science.
“I [Jesus is speaking] have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name–He will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you.” Source: Gospel of John, Chapter 14.*

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hugh Ross and his staff believe in Adam and Eve. as created from clay. not evolved.

they’re smart credentialed men.

So was JP2, Cardinal Pell, Fr. Robert Barron and a lot of others who disagree with them.

 

[buffalo]

So was JP2, Cardinal Pell, Fr. Robert Barron and a lot of others who disagree with you.

So it is agreed that credentialed men can disagree about this and not be belittled?

 

[grannymh]

So was JP2, Cardinal Pell, Fr. Robert Barron and a lot of others who disagree with you.

When it comes to the material/physical anatomical composition of the first, real, human parent of humankind known biblically as Adam, the people mentioned, as well as others, are entitled to their opinions.

When it comes to Catholic doctrines regarding human origin as created by God, these teachings do not blow with the wind of human opinions. Further information about how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth can be found in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14.

 

[Julia_Mae]

So it is agreed that credentialed men can disagree about this and not be belittled?

Well, some people will belittle people and some won’t. The question in terms of the men mentioned is: what are their credentials in?

For instance, Barron has no particular expertise in evolutionary theory that I know of. He does, however, know that the mythological nature of the early chapters of Genesis was accepted by the early Church and it was only after the Dark Ages, or maybe during, that this insistence on literalism evidenced itself, as I recall from one of his videos. So, those credentials he does have give him the permission to accept the evolution of the species Homo sapiens.

I have no idea what credentials, unless they are in either the specific science of Paleoanthropology or Scripture scholarship have to do with the topic. As the only person I know of on this forum who has any credentials in the first is myself, and none of us are Scripture scholars, the thread is just an exercise in semi-informed opinions. In which case, people will believe whatever “authority” supports their personal wish to believe.

 

[Julia_Mae]

When it comes to the material/physical anatomical composition of the first, real, human parent of humankind known biblically as Adam, the people mentioned, as well as others, are entitled to their opinions.

So am I. Or anyone.

 

[buffalo]

Well, some people will belittle people and some won’t. The question in terms of the men mentioned is: what are their credentials in?

For instance, Barron has no particular expertise in evolutionary theory that I know of. He does, however, know that the mythological nature of the early chapters of Genesis was accepted by the early Church and it was only after the Dark Ages, or maybe during, that this insistence on literalism evidenced itself, as I recall from one of his videos. So, those credentials he does have give him the permission to accept the evolution of the species Homo sapiens.

I have no idea what credentials, unless they are in either the specific science of Paleoanthropology or Scripture scholarship have to do with the topic. As the only person I know of on this forum who has any credentials in the first is myself, and none of us are Scripture scholars, the thread is just an exercise in semi-informed opinions. In which case, people will believe whatever “authority” supports their personal wish to believe.

So credentialed men can be wrong, too. Worldview is also influential.

So how do we know what is truth? (an age old question)

Revelation has to be respected.

 

[Julia_Mae]

So credentialed men can be wrong, too. Worldview is also influential.

So how do we know what is truth? (an age old question)

Revelation has to be respected.

The question isn’t what the Truth is. The question is what the facts are.

Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? How do you know? Why would it matter?

How do you know what revelation is? Who do you believe and why?

The question is actually irrelevant. What did Jesus tell us to do?

We don’t need to know how cosmology works, or evolution works, or how much figurative language is in Genesis to do that.

 

[grannymh]

The question isn’t what the Truth is. The question is what the facts are.

Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? How do you know? Why would it matter?

How do you know what revelation is? Who do you believe and why?

The question is actually irrelevant. What did Jesus tell us to do?

We don’t need to know how cosmology works, or evolution works, or how much figurative language is in Genesis to do that.

It would be good to know the Creator/created specifics when it comes to the first human’s relationship with God. That is why we are seeking clarification and consequently offering discussion about the Australian article linked in the OP.

 

[Holly3278]

Adam and Eve were definitely real people. However, that does not mean that the rest of Genesis is to be taken literally.

 

[Julia_Mae]

It would be good to know the Creator/created specifics when it comes to the first human’s relationship with God. That is why we are seeking clarification and consequently offering discussion about the Australian article linked in the OP.

I read the whole thread and it seems like everyone wants to offer clarification but no one is seeking it.

The Church doesn’t require anyone to reject evolution of species or accept Adam and Eve as portrayed in Genesis as literal. And the Church isn’t going to be more clear than that. At least, not any time soon.

And BTW, that link stopped working and the OP stopped posting.

 

[grannymh]

I read the whole thread and it seems like everyone wants to offer clarification but no one is seeking it.

The Church doesn’t require anyone to reject evolution of species or accept Adam and Eve as portrayed in Genesis as literal. And the Church isn’t going to be more clear than that. At least, not any time soon.

And BTW, that link stopped working and the OP stopped posting.

Try this link. It can be touchy.

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

Personally, for me, the OP is asking for the clarification of the Catholic doctrines tied to the brief statements of Cardinal Pell. I, too, am interested in these Catholic doctrines. However, since science this and science that is primary when discussing Adam as a real creature loved by his Creator, I seek clarifications of the vaious scientific perspectives in addition to discussing the relationship between the first human and his Creator. I want serious discussions regarding clarifications, not general statements. I am grateful to the posters who are willing to discuss and debate deeper matters in a calm way.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Emphasis of words in bold is mine.

The guarantee of the Catholic Church’s infallibility is stated in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14. Are there questions about this?

It can be said that historically, science began with the invention of the wheel.

Practically speaking, science is a “state of knowing”. Source: Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.

The state of knowing about the material/physical universe began with the first human who had a rational mind. There are no restrictions as to the name of this knowledge or the sources of information. As I recall, the observation of natural phenomenon was, at one time, part of philosophy and that the split into a separate Latin designation known as science is around the 14th century or perhaps the split formally occurred sometime around the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. Regardless of the date of the formal word science – The essential meaning is still that “science” is knowledge about the material/physical world.

Putting the word “science” to any kind of knowledge which is obtained by our senses does not automatically mean that any kind of knowledge is actual true fact. Our attempt at knowledge is not the same as observed phenomena in nature.
Rather “science” refers to the knowledge about what is being observed by our senses. At best, the interpretation of sense knowledge depends on the capability of the observer.

As I said above, there are no restrictions on the sources for information about the material/physical universe. Humans have always had free choice. A person is free to use the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis as a source of information about the material/physical environment, so be it. If the source of information about the material/physical universe comes from Midrash, so be it. Science, as a state of knowledge, normally is not set in stone.

Because science, as a state of knowledge normally not set in stone, is why general knowledge about certain matters in the scientific realm of the material/physical world are not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Because science, as a state of knowledge normally not set in stone, is why Genesis 1:1 is seen as Divine Revelation. And the workings of the material/physical universe are not declared part of Divine Revelation. God’s Divine Revelation is safeguarded from the twists and turns of [science] knowledge as it develops on into the future.

God does not speak through improvable human knowledge referred to as science.
“I [Jesus is speaking] have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name–He will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you.” Source: Gospel of John, Chapter 14.*

Sorry, your thinking is limited.
When I talked about Science what experimental science done for the sake of it. Science as you define goes before the invention of the wheel. You knew I was not talking about that.
The Universe does not talk about God? Just Listen to Psalm 19:

---

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice** goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.*****