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

[Julia_Mae]

To lessen the confusion, my question in post 366 only refers to the first three chapters of Genesis.

As for the final redactor, I use the commentary on the Book of Genesis, Saint Joseph Edition, The New American Bible. It says – “Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible. These are the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E) and Priestly (P) sources, which in turn reflect older oral traditions (see Introduction to the Pentateuch)”.

The reference to the “final redactor” does not refer to a literal single person. Neither does the “Yawist” or “Eloist.” These are just scholarly conventions which come from the style of writing from the two Hebrew subcultures. Your question, therefore, taken literally has only one answer:

From post 366. The question for anyone remains.
“How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?”

Obviously, they didn’t.

 

[grannymh]

The reference to the “final redactor” does not refer to a literal single person. Neither does the “Yawist” or “Eloist.” These are just scholarly conventions which come from the style of writing from the two Hebrew subcultures. Your question, therefore, taken literally has only one answer:

---

From post 366. The question for anyone remains.
“How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?”

---

Obviously, they didn’t.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I continue to learn from your various insights.

Nonetheless, since my question involves some interesting Catholic doctrines and interesting comments from the Australian article linked by the OP, I am sure that there could be another way to answer the question.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

One question for anyone

How did the final redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, relationship between Adam the created human and his Creator, original sin, and the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?

I think that the final redactor, I think it was a compiler, had a culture very different from ours. He interpreted literally the first 5 Books of Pentateuch.
I do not think he had a clue about the coming of Jesus Christ.
He talked through the words of God, not knowing the full extension of what he was saying.

 

[grannymh]

I think that the final redactor, I think it was a compiler, had a culture very different from ours. He interpreted literally the first 5 Books of Pentateuch.
I do not think he had a clue about the coming of Jesus Christ.
He talked through the words of God, not knowing the full extension of what he was saying.

If I may repeat what I have said – To lessen the confusion, my question in post 366 only refers to the first three chapters of Genesis.

Because of the Midrash, – am I using this word correctly – the final redactor(s) needed to preserve God’s message for future generations. One of the messages given to the first man Adam is found in Genesis 3: 9-15. After Adam had broken his relationship with God, he was not abandoned by God. God calls out to Adam, asking him where he is since he left God’s protective side. With the inspiration of God, the redactor chose to explain this particular situation from Adam’s point of view and thus, since we are Adam’s descendents, from our point of view. Genesis 3: 6-8.

Sin is our choice to move away from God, to hide from God because we recognize our own sinfulness (nakedness indicating that the relationship between Adam and God was not there). Yet, God continues to seek us.

Within the passage of Genesis 3: 9-15 is one of the main Catholic doctrines which is that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is promised as the One Who will repair the damaged relationship between God and man. It is known as the Protoevangelium, the “first gospel” in that it announces the Messiah and Redeemer.
I will agree with you that the writer of that passage would not have known the full extent of Christ’s salvific mission. What the writer did know was that Adam’s descendents had retained the gist or meaning of God’s conversation with Adam that took place after Adam’s Original Sin. At the same time that God explained the basic effects of that first sin, God promised Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ began to preach, the listeners remembered the first three chapters of Genesis and “the dots were connected.” St. Paul proclaims the connection of Jesus Christ with the first man Adam in Romans, Chapter five.

Yes, some of Adam’s descendents as they migrated did lose the message of God and consequently invented their own supernatural explanations of life’s meanings. Nonetheless, they remained religious beings in that they had an inherent sensitivity of the supernatural. We call the “sensitivity” our spiritual soul directly created by God.

My question asked how did the redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He did it through God words to a real person. Only his explanation was not the complete explanation. It remained for God to reveal Himself slowly through the Old Testament prophets because man’s mind is not equal with God. With the Incarnation, the Divine Revelation which began with Adam is completed in Jesus Christ.

Another Catholic doctrine is that God is a personal God Who calls each of us to share in His life though knowledge and love. The redactor(s) explained this by example. Notice the shift from the first verses in chapter one which describe God’s actions. In verse 28, God starts talking personally to Adam and Eve. This verse does not contain all the Catholic doctrines regarding God’s relationship with us. God starts out by blessing our first parents and He continues to bless us as He calls us to His presence in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

With God’s inspiration, the redactor’(s) of those first three chapters laid the foundation for what is often called the Economy of Salvation. For information, refer to both the Index and Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

The way the Catholic Church formally declares Divine Revelation as doctrine is through serious study of Scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ and His first followers, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, traditions connected to the liturgical practices of Catholicism, writings of saintly women and men and the declarations of previous major ecumenical Church councils. This is just the beginning.

There is more to the importance of Adam’s reality. The OP asked: “Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?” Personally, I prefer not to deal with heresy per se. I would expand the difficulties with a “symbolic something” by pointing to the Catholic doctrines which are connected to our first parents.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I think that the final redactor, I think it was a compiler, had a culture very different from ours. He interpreted literally…

He didn’t interpret anything. It was just written together, like the Pershitta later on.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

If I may repeat what I have said – To lessen the confusion, my question in post 366 only refers to the first three chapters of Genesis.

Because of the Midrash, – am I using this word correctly – the final redactor(s) needed to preserve God’s message for future generations. One of the messages given to the first man Adam is found in Genesis 3: 9-15. After Adam had broken his relationship with God, he was not abandoned by God. God calls out to Adam, asking him where he is since he left God’s protective side. With the inspiration of God, the redactor chose to explain this particular situation from Adam’s point of view and thus, since we are Adam’s descendents, from our point of view. Genesis 3: 6-8.

Sin is our choice to move away from God, to hide from God because we recognize our own sinfulness (nakedness indicating that the relationship between Adam and God was not there). Yet, God continues to seek us.

Within the passage of Genesis 3: 9-15 is one of the main Catholic doctrines which is that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is promised as the One Who will repair the damaged relationship between God and man. It is known as the Protoevangelium, the “first gospel” in that it announces the Messiah and Redeemer.
I will agree with you that the writer of that passage would not have known the full extent of Christ’s salvific mission. What the writer did know was that Adam’s descendents had retained the gist or meaning of God’s conversation with Adam that took place after Adam’s Original Sin. At the same time that God explained the basic effects of that first sin, God promised Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ began to preach, the listeners remembered the first three chapters of Genesis and “the dots were connected.” St. Paul proclaims the connection of Jesus Christ with the first man Adam in Romans, Chapter five.

Yes, some of Adam’s descendents as they migrated did lose the message of God and consequently invented their own supernatural explanations of life’s meanings. Nonetheless, they remained religious beings in that they had an inherent sensitivity of the supernatural. We call the “sensitivity” our spiritual soul directly created by God.

My question asked how did the redactor (author or compiler) of the first three chapters of Genesis explain Catholic doctrines regarding the mission of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He did it through God words to a real person. Only his explanation was not the complete explanation. It remained for God to reveal Himself slowly through the Old Testament prophets because man’s mind is not equal with God. With the Incarnation, the Divine Revelation which began with Adam is completed in Jesus Christ.

Another Catholic doctrine is that God is a personal God Who calls each of us to share in His life though knowledge and love. The redactor(s) explained this by example. Notice the shift from the first verses in chapter one which describe God’s actions. In verse 28, God starts talking personally to Adam and Eve. This verse does not contain all the Catholic doctrines regarding God’s relationship with us. God starts out by blessing our first parents and He continues to bless us as He calls us to His presence in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

With God’s inspiration, the redactor’(s) of those first three chapters laid the foundation for what is often called the Economy of Salvation. For information, refer to both the Index and Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

The way the Catholic Church formally declares Divine Revelation as doctrine is through serious study of Scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ and His first followers, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, traditions connected to the liturgical practices of Catholicism, writings of saintly women and men and the declarations of previous major ecumenical Church councils. This is just the beginning.

There is more to the importance of Adam’s reality. The OP asked: “Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?” Personally, I prefer not to deal with heresy per se. I would expand the difficulties with a “symbolic something” by pointing to the Catholic doctrines which are connected to our first parents.

Only question of “real” is que point of discussion.
Mickey Mouse gives more jobs than General Motors.
Is Mickey Mouse real?
Attention: no comparison of MM with the Bible. Just an example to prove that what is not real may be more real than what is real so the word “real” is to be taken no lightly.

 

[Julia_Mae]

There is more to the importance of Adam’s reality. The OP asked: “Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?” Personally, I prefer not to deal with heresy per se. I would expand the difficulties with a “symbolic something” by pointing to the Catholic doctrines which are connected to our first parents.

Yet, the “reality” is that there is no dogmatic necessity that a mated pair of Homo sapiens committed the first sin. Or, none that I find in the CCC, which, while not exhaustive, does contain all that is dogmatic.

 

[grannymh]

Yet, the “reality” is that there is no dogmatic necessity that a mated pair of Homo sapiens committed the first sin. Or, none that I find in the CCC, which, while not exhaustive, does contain all that is dogmatic.

The way the Catholic Church formally declares Divine Revelation as doctrine is through serious study of Scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ and His first followers, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, traditions connected to the liturgical practices of Catholicism, writings of saintly women and men and the declarations of previous major ecumenical Church councils. This is just the beginning.

The Gospel of John, Chapter 14 guarantees the truth of Divine Revelation. In verse 26, Jesus says: “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.” The many ways that the Holy Spirit teaches are listed in the above paragraph. Hours of study and especially hours of prayer continue.

At a particular, individual point in time, those entrusted with the ministry of leading the Church gather together in review of the issues in question. This is the time of preparation which takes place under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Finally the major Council itself takes place. With the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, doctrines or individual sections of a major doctrine are proclaimed via the Council’s protocol.

Those who have a hard copy or paperback* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* will be able to trace doctrine formation via footnotes; cross-references in the margins; and the Index of Citations which follows paragraph 2865. When reading the CCC, it is most helpful to review paragraphs 18-22 which contain practical directions for using this Catechism. Another good source about the Catechism is the Apostolic Letter which begins on page XIII and the Apostolic Constitution which begins on page 1.

In addition, for those who are curious about footnotes, etc., the primary source is:
The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
ISBN 0-89870-450-2 (HB); ISBN 0-89870-451-0 (PB)*

 

[Zosimus41]

I saw Pell’s argument with Dawkins, Pell argues some rather ‘strange’ points which had me lifting my eyebrows.

I live in the Houston/Galveston Diocese in order to teach RE or go through the deacaton program you have take a class instututed by Cardinal Dinardo instituted its called ftcm.

They teach there are different types of authors to the bible Preist, poets etc…

As in the story of Adam and Eve its more poetic way of getting the point of God’s creation across than a fundamental truth this ideology also goes for the parting of the red sea.

I said how long is it before we believe Jesus death and ressurection is just a poetic story?

 

[grannymh]

Yet, the “reality” is that there is no dogmatic necessity that a mated pair of Homo sapiens committed the first sin. Or, none that I find in the CCC, which, while not exhaustive, does contain all that is dogmatic.

I acknowledge that there are many, not all, posters who do not like the CCC. That is a free choice. However, in my humble opinion, it is important to understand the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on Earth both as to how doctrines are declared and as to why this particular Cathechism is valuable.

This is the beginning of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum by Pope John Paul II. It begins on page one of the Catechism.

To my Venerable Brothers the cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and to all the People of God.

GUARDING THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH IS THE MISSION WHICH THE LORD ENTRUSTED TO HIS CHURCH, and which she fulfills in every age. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which was opened 30 years ago by my predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, had as its intention and purpose to highlight the Church’s apostolic and pastoral mission, and by making the truth of the Gospel shine forth to lead all people to seek and receive Christ’s love which surpasses all knowledge (cf. *Eph *3:19).

---

The issue of the Deposit of Faith is an underlying one whenever one sees the
phrase –
“And it’s a religious story told for religious purposes.” Link from Post 1.
theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

Reactions to the Adam and Eve segment of the debate will naturally vary. When these reactions, good or bad, are expressed, we have the opportunity to learn from others through discussion. In addition, we have the opportunity to learn Catholic teachings through the Catechism. We have the opportunity to choose.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The way the Catholic Church formally declares Divine Revelation as doctrine is through serious study of Scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ and His first followers, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, traditions connected to the liturgical practices of Catholicism, writings of saintly women and men and the declarations of previous major ecumenical Church councils. This is just the beginning.

The Gospel of John, Chapter 14 guarantees the truth of Divine Revelation. In verse 26, Jesus says: “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.” The many ways that the Holy Spirit teaches are listed in the above paragraph. Hours of study and especially hours of prayer continue.

At a particular, individual point in time, those entrusted with the ministry of leading the Church gather together in review of the issues in question. This is the time of preparation which takes place under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Finally the major Council itself takes place. With the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, doctrines or individual sections of a major doctrine are proclaimed via the Council’s protocol.

Those who have a hard copy or paperback* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition** will be able to trace doctrine formation via footnotes; cross-references in the margins; and the Index of Citations which follows paragraph 2865. When reading the CCC, it is most helpful to review paragraphs 18-22 which contain practical directions for using this Catechism. Another good source about the Catechism is the Apostolic Letter which begins on page XIII and the Apostolic Constitution which begins on page 1.

In addition, for those who are curious about footnotes, etc., the primary source is:
The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
ISBN 0-89870-450-2 (HB); ISBN 0-89870-451-0 (PB)

This is good description of your personal process and how you came to your interpretations and beliefs.

I like the Catechism, in answer to your other post to me, I like it very much. The Church created a very good guide meant to be useful to almost all people, regardless of education or level of intelligence. This is why the Church isn’t hiding anything dogmatic. Whatever it is necessary to accept for our salvation is made simply and perfectly clear.

The Church does not require that we believe our first parents’ sin was committed by a mated pair of Homo sapiens. You can argue that it does by making inferences based on your interpretation of what you have read. I can argue it does not based on mine.

The Church isn’t trying to leave us in doubt, she simply allows us all to believe as we feel comfortable. I don’t wish to convince a literalist to believe as I do, the Church is fine with their beliefs. The Church is fine with my beliefs, also, and with yours. I think we just need to be okay with one another’s.

 

[grannymh]

This is good description of your personal process and how you came to your interpretations and beliefs.

I like the Catechism, in answer to your other post to me, I like it very much. The Church created a very good guide meant to be useful to almost all people, regardless of education or level of intelligence. This is why the Church isn’t hiding anything dogmatic. Whatever it is necessary to accept for our salvation is made simply and perfectly clear.

The Church does not require that we believe our first parents’ sin was committed by a mated pair of Homo sapiens. You can argue that it does by making inferences based on your interpretation of what you have read. I can argue it does not based on mine.

The Church isn’t trying to leave us in doubt, she simply allows us all to believe as we feel comfortable. I don’t wish to convince a literalist to believe as I do, the Church is fine with their beliefs. The Church is fine with my beliefs, also, and with yours. I think we just need to be okay with one another’s.

Thank you for your explanation of the church. It is a popular one these days and of course people can choose their own worldview depending on how comfortable they want to feel. Nonetheless, there is a purpose for the existence of the first human biblically known as Adam. It is my choice to believe.

 

[grannymh]

I saw Pell’s argument with Dawkins, Pell argues some rather ‘strange’ points which had me lifting my eyebrows.

I live in the Houston/Galveston Diocese in order to teach RE or go through the deacaton program you have take a class instututed by Cardinal Dinardo instituted its called ftcm.

They teach there are different types of authors to the bible Preist, poets etc…

As in the story of Adam and Eve its more poetic way of getting the point of God’s creation across than a fundamental truth this ideology also goes for the parting of the red sea.

I said how long is it before we believe Jesus death and ressurection is just a poetic story?

I understand what you are saying. And I am very worried.

However, I need to make a clarification. The first three chapters of Genesis are not on the same level as the parting of the red sea. This is because of the relationship between God the Creator and Adam, the first human creature.

My position is that the Australian article should be discussed both from what was written and from the point of view of the reader. I believe that readers of articles like the Australian one, should discuss the Catholic doctrines related to the “sound-bites” which appeared in this media report. Prime-time sound-bites are fine…but…it is important to understand what is being referenced.

The Catholic Church is not some wishy-washy institution going with the flow.

 

[grannymh]

From Post 377

CGDouglas;9165312:

I saw Pell’s argument with Dawkins, Pell argues some rather ‘strange’ points which had me lifting my eyebrows.

I live in the Houston/Galveston Diocese in order to teach RE or go through the deacaton program you have take a class instututed by Cardinal Dinardo instituted its called ftcm.

They teach there are different types of authors to the bible Preist, poets etc…

As in the story of Adam and Eve its more poetic way of getting the point of God’s creation across than a fundamental truth this ideology also goes for the parting of the red sea.

I said how long is it before we believe Jesus death and ressurection is just a poetic story?

My apology but I couldn’t get the orignal post 377 to quote right.

---

I understand what you are saying. And I am very worried.

However, I need to make a clarification. The first three chapters of Genesis are not on the same level as the parting of the red sea. This is because of the relationship between God the Creator and Adam, the first human creature.

My position is that the Australian article should be discussed both from what was written and from the point of view of the reader. I believe that readers of articles like the Australian one, should discuss the Catholic doctrines related to the “sound-bites” which appeared in this media report. Prime-time sound-bites are fine…but…it is important to understand what is being referenced.

The Catholic Church is not some wishy-washy institution going with the flow.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Thank you for your explanation of the church. It is a popular one these days and of course people can choose their own worldview depending on how comfortable they want to feel. Nonetheless, there is a purpose for the existence of the first human biblically known as Adam. It is my choice to believe.

You’ve mistated what I wrote by trying to generalize it into meaninglessness. What we need to understand is the relationship between ourselves and God and the necessity of the Incarnation.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with “worldview,” but is the only Reality that is important. We get that understanding, in part, from the story of Adam and Eve, whether we are literalists or not, or are that in some degree. The process by which things happened is pretty much irrelevant; the Truth of the story is critical and ineluctable.

Truth is not negotiable.

 

[grannymh]

This post is a general one on the thread’s topic —not directed to any particular individual poster.

I woke up this AM with the thought that we older folk need to recognize that the evolution theory of 2012 is somewhat different from that of the 1940’s. Obviously, the basic principles of change and development in living organisms are still here with the difference that technology continues to produce better methods of learning about cell structure.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that in the early days, Christians opposed evolution because it implied that God was not necessary. Plus our human pride objected to the idea that we are only better primates. Because Catholicism views human nature as an unique unification of both the material world *and *the spiritual world, it became possible to view our anatomy as part of evolving matter. What made the material anatomy a person was the spiritual soul directly created by God.

By 1950, Pope Pius XII intellectually saw where the evolution theory was headed. Scientists were rightly exploring the origin of humanity by comparing fossils of archaic beings. The shift in human origin interpretation came as scientists looked at humanity as evolving from a number of previous populations over centuries. The line of demarcation between an animal primate and a human primate was based on physical evidence of the size of the scull, walking upright, toes instead of opposable thumbs, and so on. The missing data of this “modern” theory of human origin was the time when the human person became a reality.

The Catholic approach to the original appearance of humankind starts with the purpose of the human creature and his relationship to his Creator as revealed in the first three chapters of Genesis. God continued to reveal Himself during subsequent centuries until the Incarnation of Jesus Christ Who is the fullness of Divine Revelation.
Thus, Romans, chapter five, sheds light on the first three chapters of Genesis.

Naturally, Cardinal Pell can refer to Adam and Eve as a religious story told for religious purposes. However, the contemporary evolution theory of 2012 has changed the essential components of that “story”. Today, the “religious purposes” mean something different from the soul being directly created by God as was assumed in the early 20th century. Those familiar with the author George Orwell will recognize “newspeak” in the euphemism “a religious story told for religious purposes.”

 

[Julia_Mae]

Naturally, Cardinal Pell can refer to Adam and Eve as a religious story told for religious purposes. However, the contemporary evolution theory of 2012 has changed the essential components of that “story”. Today, the “religious purposes” mean something different from the soul being directly created by God as was assumed in the early 20th century. Those familiar with the author George Orwell will recognize “newspeak” in the euphemism “a religious story told for religious purposes.”

I thought it was an excellent post until I got here. Why is it necessary to diss a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by accusing him of “newspeak?”

The Scripture, the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is from an ancient oral Hebrew tradition. This story would have been told in camps for possibly hundreds of years, or more, before it was written down, it was part of the religion of the people, a religious story told for religious purposes. That’s just a statement of fact, not newspeak. It still is that.

The ancients weren’t less spiritually informed than we are, the underlying message, the one we glean today, was exactly the same for them. Nothing has changed, nor should it, because these are eternal Truths.

Evolution, either Darwinian or modern synthesis, cannot and does not change anything about the Truth conveyed by the story.

The real difference is, if someone were to write it today, they would probably do it differently. But if inspired by the Holy Spirit, as this surely was, it would have exactly the same message.

There is nothing at all to criticize about cardinal Pell’s remarks except that he doesn’t know much about Neanderthals and their relationship to modern human. But then, he doesn’t have to, he is a Cardinal Archbishop of the Catholic Church and evidences the Magisterium.

 

[mazsa]

I’m not well-educated in science. I’m new to this site, and guess it’s time to wet my feet. I can’t debate all that I’ve read on the topic of “our first parents”. I hope I didn’t miss mention of what I’m about to comment on: Wasn’t it shown through mitochondrial DNA that we have indeed descended from one woman? (The “Real Eve” as a program on Discovery Channel termed it several years ago.) I believe I’ve heard that one woman is the mother/matrix of 7 billion people now on earth. I call her Eve, as does the Bible. Just curious…

 

[grannymh]

Naturally, Cardinal Pell can refer to Adam and Eve as a religious story told for religious purposes. However, the contemporary evolution theory of 2012 has changed the essential components of that “story”. Today, the “religious purposes” mean something different from the soul being directly created by God as was assumed in the early 20th century. Those familiar with the author George Orwell will recognize “newspeak” in the euphemism “a religious story told for religious purposes.”

To avoid confusion regarding Cardinal Pell…

Yes, Cardinal Pell is entitled to use the term “religious purposes”. Yes, Catholics may use this term as it is essentially a good term. Yes, anyone can use the term “religious purposes” to mean anything they want it to mean.

Therefore I am correct to write in post 383 – “Naturally, Cardinal Pell can refer to Adam and Eve as a religious story told for religious purposes.” The second sentence clearly indicates that there has been a change to the essential components of that “story.” In addition, the second sentence clearly indicates what --not who – is responsible for the change. Sentence two is – "However, the contemporary evolution theory of 2012 has changed the essential components of that “story”. Please notice that I am specifically talking about the contemporary evolution theory of 2012 and am not criticizing Cardinal Pell. The Cardinal is a person and not a contemporary evolution theory.

As I have pointed out above, anyone can use the term “religious purposes”. Thus, sentence three is correct in giving an example. “Today, the “religious purposes” mean something different from the soul being directly created by God as was assumed in the early 20th century.” This sentence focuses on the phrase “religious purposes” in use today and does not refer to a specific person. Frankly, this sentence begs many questions. (What is the “something”?) One could rightly critique this sentence as being ambiguous in regard to both scientific thought and Catholic theology, but, in no way, does it point to any individual person.

My last sentence did cite a specific person George Orwell and a specific use of the phrase “a religious story told for religious purposes”. I deliberately used the word euphemism to indicate an usage that is seen today. The definition for newspeak (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) includes euphemism. I did not use the words euphemism or newspeak as an adjective to modify the Cardinal’s comments.

My first sentence recognized the natural right of Cardinal Pell to refer to Adam and Eve as a religious story told for religious purposes. As readers of that news article, we have the natural right, independently of Cardinal Pell, to discuss the concept of a “religious story” plus what religious purposes really include.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not well-educated in science. I’m new to this site, and guess it’s time to wet my feet. I can’t debate all that I’ve read on the topic of “our first parents”. I hope I didn’t miss mention of what I’m about to comment on: Wasn’t it shown through mitochondrial DNA that we have indeed descended from one woman? (The “Real Eve” as a program on Discovery Channel termed it several years ago.) I believe I’ve heard that one woman is the mother/matrix of 7 billion people now on earth. I call her Eve, as does the Bible. Just curious…

Welcome to CAF.

This poor woman, known as Mitochondrial Eve, has suffered quite a bit of media abuse.

Wikipedia has some basic information about this Eve, but I am not sure how up-to-date it is. The original published research by Cann, RL; Stoneking, M; Wilson, AC (1987) has been debated on various grounds. From a Catholic position, this Eve is not the original Eve because this woman is part of an existing archaic population. On the other hand, in its own way, the Mitochondrial Eve may lend support to one, not all, of the many “mythological” and/or “scientific” theories regarding our first parents.

If you use this link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve please scroll way down to the section “Common Fallacies”.

As one poster said, Eve never had to worry about Adam cheating on her because she was the only woman in the garden.