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

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I am looking over my post 405 and some of my comments are not worded in the way I would like as I am learning a bit more about midrash. So feel free to give me a better meaning.

I keep going back to the two points – “Man is created for Happiness and Joy” and “The present state is one of Sin”. It seems to me that the Catholic Church may be one of the few faiths which explain what the state of sin is and how that can be reconciled with the fact that Man is created for Happiness and Joy. Since above it simply says that “God created Man”, achieving happiness and joy must be on God’s terms.

A friend of mine who is atheist said to me that the only religion that gives freedom to man is the Christianity, specially Catholicism.

I was surprised. Then I thought Calvinism where your freedom is zero. Buddhism where you are subject to the laws of Karma and reincarnations. Islam where you have freedom but only with your head cut.

Really, only in the RCC, where you have infallibility and dogma, are you totally free to act, accept, reject.

 

[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?

As has been said in previous posts, in charity, we cannot address the actual beliefs of Cardinal Pell simply because the style of the debate and the written article do not give enough adequate information in order to do that fairly.

On the other hand, the subject matter of the questions addressed to the Cardinal should be discussed in depth because basic Catholic doctrines are involved…as the OP pointed out. The question of Adam and Eve’s reality is important because of the connection to Original Sin and the need for the Incarnation of Jesus Christ Who subsequently founded our Catholic Church.

When the first three chapters of Genesis are discussed, someone always pipes up with – that isn’t science. What about the fact that Adam had a material anatomy which is in the domain of science? Of course, the writer(s) had a good idea of their own body and human nature. They may not have been genetic experts, but they certainly were not blind and deaf to the humanity surrounding them.

On another thread, there was a question about Adam being a person in his own right.
Seems to me that we can answer this question by looking for evidence that the Genesis writer(s) recognized Adam as a person in his own right. Now I am sure that there are many connotations of “in his own right” but generally we should be able to find evidence of this in the first three chapters of Genesis.

For a moment or two, please read the first three chapters of Genesis as evidence of the
writer(s) knowledge of humanity and consequently the knowledge that the material source of human anatomies is a person in his own right. When we see a “figure” as a person in his own right, we are talking about the material (scientific approach) anatomy of a real person. And yes, those writer(s) were also aware of the spiritual domain and yes, one can read those same Genesis chapters as evidence of the spiritual soul.

Am I right or wrong?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

As has been said in previous posts, in charity, we cannot address the actual beliefs of Cardinal Pell simply because the style of the debate and the written article do not give enough adequate information in order to do that fairly.

On the other hand, the subject matter of the questions addressed to the Cardinal should be discussed in depth because basic Catholic doctrines are involved…as the OP pointed out. The question of Adam and Eve’s reality is important because of the connection to Original Sin and the need for the Incarnation of Jesus Christ Who subsequently founded our Catholic Church.

When the first three chapters of Genesis are discussed, someone always pipes up with – that isn’t science. What about the fact that Adam had a material anatomy which is in the domain of science? Of course, the writer(s) had a good idea of their own body and human nature. They may not have been genetic experts, but they certainly were not blind and deaf to the humanity surrounding them.

On another thread, there was a question about Adam being a person in his own right.
Seems to me that we can answer this question by looking for evidence that the Genesis writer(s) recognized Adam as a person in his own right. Now I am sure that there are many connotations of “in his own right” but generally we should be able to find evidence of this in the first three chapters of Genesis.

For a moment or two, please read the first three chapters of Genesis as evidence of the
writer(s) knowledge of humanity and consequently the knowledge that the material source of human anatomies is a person in his own right. When we see a “figure” as a person in his own right, we are talking about the material (scientific approach) anatomy of a real person. And yes, those writer(s) were also aware of the spiritual domain and yes, one can read those same Genesis chapters as evidence of the spiritual soul.

Am I right or wrong?

Sorry, I could not understand what you said.
That Adam and Eve were persons? Yes.
That they did not exist really? Yes, they did not exist.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, I could not understand what you said.
That Adam and Eve were persons? Yes.
That they did not exist really? Yes, they did not exist.

I look at the first three chapters of Genesis in a variety of ways. This time I am looking for clues or evidence which says that Adam is a person. The phrase “in his own right” is a new phrase for me. As I understand it, it means that Adam is not a special non-human animal. Adam exists as a unique creation of God because God Himself creates the individual soul of a human being.

There has to be a first human because none of the previous animals could create a spiritual soul. The soul is non-material; therefore it cannot evolve from something material. Therefore, the only way humanity could come into existence by propagation is through a definite real person whose anatomy is material. Somewhere there had to be the first parents who existed as true humans.

Because a human person has a material anatomy, scientists can check it out as to how it came to be. Obviously, the writer(s) of the first three chapters of Genesis recognized that humans were both material and spiritual. My position is that one can read those chapters and discover how the writer(s) described Adam as a unique person, one of a kind.

Scientists can apply all types of theories to the origin of the human anatomy. But scientists cannot account for everything which happened every day everywhere on planet earth going backwards for thousands of years.

As one reads the beginning of Genesis, one discovers information about the uniqueness of humanity in its relationship to our Creator. One discovers clues or evidence to the fact that Adam was a real person in his own right as an unique creation by God.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, I could not understand what you said.
That Adam and Eve were persons? Yes.
That they did not exist really? Yes, they did not exist.

Another way to look at post 408 is to view it as an attempt to balance the speculations of modern scientists with the observations of early peoples.

For example. Contemporary scientists focus on relatively small groupings of genes, out of 20,000 to 25,000 possible human genes. The ancient peoples focused on human beings as they saw them. In true science, which is open to all possibilities until proven false, both the conclusions of genetic research based on the validity of presuppositions and the conclusions found in literary (not literal) descriptions of human beings need to be considered.

 

[Zosimus41]

“Believe what you Read; Teach what you Believe; Practice what you Teach” (Rite of Ordination of Deacons)

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I look at the first three chapters of Genesis in a variety of ways. This time I am looking for clues or evidence which says that Adam is a person. The phrase “in his own right” is a new phrase for me. As I understand it, it means that Adam is not a special non-human animal. Adam exists as a unique creation of God because God Himself creates the individual soul of a human being.

There has to be a first human because none of the previous animals could create a spiritual soul. The soul is non-material; therefore it cannot evolve from something material. Therefore, the only way humanity could come into existence by propagation is through a definite real person whose anatomy is material. Somewhere there had to be the first parents who existed as true humans.

Because a human person has a material anatomy, scientists can check it out as to how it came to be. Obviously, the writer(s) of the first three chapters of Genesis recognized that humans were both material and spiritual. My position is that one can read those chapters and discover how the writer(s) described Adam as a unique person, one of a kind.

Scientists can apply all types of theories to the origin of the human anatomy. But scientists cannot account for everything which happened every day everywhere on planet earth going backwards for thousands of years.

As one reads the beginning of Genesis, one discovers information about the uniqueness of humanity in its relationship to our Creator. One discovers clues or evidence to the fact that Adam was a real person in his own right as an unique creation by God.

I would say: do not go that way.
You are on the right path when you say that Man is Person.
That is enough.
Go created an animal, thanks to God an ape-like animal and gave it a soul.
Animal+Soul= Man.
Now, God created to every son of a Man a Soul. Each Soul is created by God and Individual, Spiritual and Eternal and does not come from evolution.
Now, your argument that we do not know in every moment what happened in evolution is not good for you do not know what happened in every moment to your child, yet you recognize him every time he appears.

 

[grannymh]

“Believe what you Read; Teach what you Believe; Practice what you Teach” (Rite of Ordination of Deacons)

Is this a coincidence?

In post 408, there is the suggestion to look for the clues in the first three chapters of Genesis which point to the fact that Adam is a real person. Yet, this very early morning, I am thinking that first we need to believe what St. Paul wrote in Romans, Chapter 5. Each verse of that chapter needs thought-filled appreciation and our assent of faith.

Verse 17. “For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ.”

Unfortunately, there are some, not all, Catholics who feel intimidated by the exaggerated claims of their friends that scientific research papers rule out the existence of two people who lived thousands of years. Perhaps, I am saying to myself, perhaps these gentle people need to read St. Paul. Perhaps, we need to start with Chapter 5 in Romans. Perhaps we need to read verse 17 and the others slowly in the light of the Catholic Church.

So what do I see on this thread?
Post 412 says: “Believe what you Read; Teach what you Believe; Practice what you Teach” (Rite of Ordination of Deacons)

 

[ringil]

So I have a question,

For those who seem to be taking a more literal interpretation of Genesis- do you also believe that the early figures in the Bible lived hundreds of years?

 

[Nec5]

So I have a question,

For those who seem to be taking a more literal interpretation of Genesis- do you also believe that the early figures in the Bible lived hundreds of years?

Why not? That’s no harder to believe than Christ turning water to wine or raising the dead with a command or Moses parting the Red Sea or the Resurrection.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Why not? That’s no harder to believe than Christ turning water to wine or raising the dead with a command or Moses parting the Red Sea or the Resurrection.

It’s not harder to believe; but it’s also not necessary.
The calendar for the year in many ancient reckonings had 10 months;
That’s easy to see in the last three names of our year’s months eg: Deca-cember (10), Nona-vember (9), Octo-ber (8), Sept-ember (7)…

A Roman emperor added August, and shortened other months and re-namings also happened for other famous people, etc. But traces of the original bible calendar(s) are still noticeable.

We might (awkwardly) say that a person it 25.4 years old… (Weird, but possible);

For whatever reason, they did something similar;and appear to have counted the months from a point in time which was NOT a person’s birth. (Eg: Even today the Chineese count from conception, not birth… so this isn’t unheard of…).

A person who reached 900 years old, in this system, then, would be roughly 90 years old and no months.

Now don’t go asking for the missing decimal point – that wasn’t invented until after Jesus’ time, let alone Noah’s. Divide the extreme ages by 10, and you will have a ballpark figure (not an exact figure) of the person’s age. The calendar did change at some point in the bible – but no one made a “note” of when this happened. (Likewise, a similar problem shows up in the clock/times mentioned in the NT which are a mixture of Hebrew and Roman reckoning – Hence the same “hour” are often different times of the day… which causes newbies endless confusion…!)

In various translations between ancient languages, the ages were typically kept as a total, the same – but the age of Puberty and of conceiving a first child was varied between translations. Whatever the exact reasoning for these changes, I don’t know; but they do point to differences in similar calendars of that time-period and verify that the ancients understood a meaning to these ages that wasn’t completely arbitrary.

 

[grannymh]

So I have a question,

For those who seem to be taking a more literal interpretation of Genesis- do you also believe that the early figures in the Bible lived hundreds of years?

That is a fair question considering the doctrinal importance of the thread’s topic.

To answer the question,” do you also believe that the early figures in the Bible lived hundreds of years?” in post 415. The first thing I would do is to point out that the “literal interpretation of Genesis” in post 415 would cover 50 chapters.

Then someone could point out that everybody knows that when someone talks about the literal interpretation of Genesis, they really mean Adam and Eve.

To which I would reply – 0.K,. but the real issue is the doctrine of Original Sin committed by a real person. This takes place in the first three chapters of Genesis, so why am I being asked about something in the other 47 chapters?

Then someone could say that the question about the life span of early figures in the Bible is a way to determine literal truth.

To which I would reply – Of course how ancient people figured the length of a year is very important. See post 417. And knowing how long a year is does give a clearer picture of a Biblical account of important figures. But it is not the literal age of Adam which is important in the Original Sin doctrine. What is important is the literal truth that Original Sin is a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. The beginning of mankind’s history is told in the first three chapters of Genesis.

What I hope to demonstrate is that the person who defends the Catholic doctrine of monogenism needs to keep the basic discussion of Divine Revelation where it belongs. But one first needs to understand the actual Catholic Doctrine. This does not mean that everyone will accept the Doctrine. It means that if one is going to defend, deny or change a doctrine, one should at least know what is being defended, denied or being changed.

The trick is to match Catholic doctrines with possible literal descriptions in the first three chapters of Genesis. For example, should the serpent be taken literally? No and yes.

Catholicism says that the devil tempted Adam. In the words of the snake, the devil uses a bit of literal truth regarding the relationship between the created and the Creator by bringing up a human desire to know as much as the Creator. Is the serpent tempting Adam? When one “listens” to the serpent “talking”, one can figure out the analogical truth that the devil tempted Adam. Instead of getting hung up on a talking snake, the person defending Catholic doctrine needs to go to the heart of the issue which is that a real devil tempted the real first parent to scorn his Creator though a real disobedient act.

I realize that it is hard to tell a friend to save the other 47 chapters for another day. But Catholic doctrine needs to be properly understood in its context in the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Please answer this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Another way to look at post 408 is to view it as an attempt to balance the speculations of modern scientists with the observations of early peoples.

For example. Contemporary scientists focus on relatively small groupings of genes, out of 20,000 to 25,000 possible human genes. The ancient peoples focused on human beings as they saw them. In true science, which is open to all possibilities until proven false, both the conclusions of genetic research based on the validity of presuppositions* and* the conclusions found in literary (not literal) descriptions of human beings need to be considered.

Look, grannymh, I think that is a hopeless way to fight for Adam real existence.
You may do it, but you turn out justifying things that are had to justify, as that Adam is around 5000 years old.

When we look at Adam under the point of view of midrash (see my former post in this thread) we learn much more than to think that women came from the ribs of Adam !!!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Please answer this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

 

[grannymh]

Please answer this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

As a reader of the Australian article, I think to myself what do I want to share with other readers and how do I want them to respond to me. Which is more valuable, my talking or their listening? I am very interested in what is being said on your link.

I often come back to this line of poetry.

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[grannymh]

Look, grannymh, I think that is a hopeless way to fight for Adam real existence.
You may do it, but you turn out justifying things that are had to justify, as that Adam is around 5000 years old.

When we look at Adam under the point of view of midrash (see my former post in this thread) we learn much more than to think that women came from the ribs of Adam !!!

Going back to posts 410 and 411, my first sentence is: I look at the first three chapters of Genesis in a variety of ways. I need to add another sentence – I look at the field of science in a variety of ways.

My preference is to approach the origin of human nature from the Catholic Deposit of Faith. This means that I use the actual Catholic doctrines to determine what is real in both the first three chapters of Genesis and what is real in the field of science.
For example, what is the truth about the idea that Eve came from the ribs of Adam? Does Genesis explain exactly how God “fashioned” Eve from Adam’s rib once Adam was asleep. (CCC 371) How did God take out one of Adam’s rib and then close up its place with flesh? More to the point, how did God build a woman with the same human nature as Adam? Was this the first stem cell transplant in history?

Why does Genesis, chapter 2, emphasize the difference in nature between Adam and the animals he named. Why, after this particular emphasis of the difference between Adam and animals, is there a strong emphasis on the “sameness” of Adam and his spouse?

What all these questions are trying to do is to put into human language the unequaled power of God.

Please refer back to post 404
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9307115&postcount=404
which looks at Adam from the point of view of midrash.
Here are some of the points of midrash regarding the origin of man.

God created the Universe
God created life
God created Man
God thinks that it is worthwhile living for God enjoyed the works of His creation
Man is created for Happiness and Joy

What Catholicism does is to look at the teachings in Genesis, such as the above points, along with the teachings from the Catholic tradition. Consequently, over the centuries, the Catholic Church has defined certain individual teachings as official doctrines of Divine Revelation. People refer to these official doctrines as the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

My first question as a high school student was why did it take so long to put Divine Revelation into regular human language? As I subsequently learned, the “Catholic doctrines” were always present in Scripture, including the teachings found in Acts, letters from Apostles, plus the writings of the Early Church Fathers and traditional understandings often expressed in liturgies. When people would stray from Divine Revelation, the promise of the Holy Spirit became actual in major Church Councils.
Please refer to the Gospel of John, chapter fourteen.

I believe that the above bit about Church history is important to know because it helps us to understand the first three chapters of Genesis and the line between how God accomplishes something and the truth of God’s accomplishments.

To be continued.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Look, grannymh, I think that is a hopeless way to fight for Adam real existence.
You may do it, but you turn out justifying things that are had to justify, as that Adam is around 5000 years old.

When we look at Adam under the point of view of midrash (see my former post in this thread) we learn much more than to think that women came from the ribs of Adam !!!

Adam lived to 930/10 = around age 93.
Eg: see Genesis 5:4.

That talking snake is more difficult to understand…
Don’t forget, midrash is NOT scripture. It is the opinions of rabbis of a much later age on methods of interpretation of the stories. Midrash is a good place to look in order to find HOW people thought about the ideas in scripture – but it isn’t an official and undisputed teaching about them. Midrash, in many ways, corresponds to Hermeneutic and is rabbi dependent. (I’m not saying everything in Midrash is wrong…!) Do, please, note the methods of midrash, but don’t expect readers to accept all conclusions without question.

Also, don’t forget, Genesis is Law (Torah); It isn’t just a “story”, it is a set of laws given by example. For this reason, later ideas also show up earlier in the text – for it isn’t interested in chronology so much as in correlation of ideas.

A decent example is that in Babylon (the place of the final writing down of Genesis) whore’s would use serpent symbols as advertisement. Ergo: the sign of a Serpent is also a sign of a pagan fertility cult. This cultus appears in virtually all ancient societies that I have studied – From Egypt (the Pharaoh’s crown), through Israel’s history (the serpent in the desert), through Babylon, and even in Greek history (certain rites of orgies…!). Hence, the idea “serpent” has a universal appeal as a the idea of sexual seduction, and destruction BY seduction.

Genesis 3:13 “The serpent beguiled [eg: seduced] me, and so I came to eat.”

The actual word for serpent describes something like “the thing with teeth” or “leviathan”, etc. (I haven’t studied it’s precise etymology, I just know variations from other scholars.)

However, the important thing to grasp is the correlation between sexual seduction, and the injection of “serpenthood” into the children. Original sin is associated with sexual reproduction – and so is the antidote (the woman shall be saved through her children.).

This is one of the historical ties of the idea of Adam transmitting original sin to all his offspring (Like a VD that his wife got from a snake…just for a different non-physical reason.)

When Pell talks about mythology, his idea is generally misinterpreted today to mean “empty story”, rather than a story relating the past Hi-story; There is an emphasis on a story as a vehicle for the message, but not as a self-contained and consistent relating of pure facts. There are Symbols in the text which require study. (That is what Midrash is about, anyhow…!)

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 422.

Not recognizing both the mystery of how God accomplishes something and the amazing truth of God’s accomplishments makes it very easy for Catholics to be intimated by the claim that Adam and Eve are not real people.

For example, the truth of God’s accomplishments is that ordinary human beings are peerless. In the past, how God accomplished this was not questioned because Catholics accepted that God existed as the Creator. Today, because there are some greatly exaggerated claims about the power of material anatomies to create soul-like material experiences, some, not all, Catholics are not so sure that God has the know-how capability to originate human nature.

What this means to ordinary folk is that interpretations of some research papers are seen as the power to displace God as the Creator of the human person. Obviously, individual interpreters of research papers can extrapolate conclusions beyond what is warranted by the evidence.

For example, in 1995, the results of research regarding a common set of genes was interpreted as excluding the possibility of two sole founders of humankind. Coincidentally, this worked well with the theological movement to get rid of Original Sin. Those who remember the early books of Matthew Fox know what I am referring to. Those who had the good fortune of ignoring Matthew Fox and his disciples came up against the so-called Catholic way of symbolically describing the hidden truth in the first three chapters of Genesis. Thus some Catholics are being intimidated, one way or another, into considering Original Sin as part of a very sophisticated mythology [non-reality of Adam] which attempts to explain the evil and the suffering in the world.

Catholics, who have a strong belief in the Catholic Church, as containing Divine Revelation protected by the Holy Spirit, dismiss the barbs against Adam. These Catholics know that research, by definition, cannot deny the existence of the spiritual. This is because natural science is limited not only to the material/physical environment but it is also limited to decomposing anatomies.

Because God is God and the spiritual is spiritual, natural science cannot deal with God and the spiritual because that is beyond its own material/physical realm. This does not mean that every scientist has to deny the existence of God. It does mean that scientists, as well as ordinary folk, need to use the Gift of Faith. It also means that rational humans can also use their human tools of reasoning which include, but are not limited to, observation, analysis, designed experiments, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. (Personally I like to include gut instinct and woman’s intuition.)

What I am trying to say in different ways is that ordinary folk can crawl out from under the mountains of evidence against Adam by realizing that those “mountains” are limited. God is not limited. Proof – He made us in His image.

The mountains of evidence against Adam’s existence are really speculations about “how” Adam came about. Their evidence is not powerful enough to get rid of the truth of God’s accomplishments.

Please note that I am not doubting the sincerity of women and men scientists. A lot of their very hard work benefits society. Natural science, which explains the processes of life, is a gift from God.

However, those who want to modernize the Catholic Original Sin doctrine by claiming that Adam is not science and therefore not real need to be respectfully challenged.
The first challenge is not really a challenge in its traditional sense. The first challenge is a simple declarative statement which a person says out loud or silently in her or his heart. This simple sentence is “I trust the existence of God as Creator.” Followed by “Divine Revelation trumps!”

Because of the push to modernize Adam in order to make Divine Revelation [Catholic doctrines] conform to human speculations regarding human origin, Catholics do need a tad more basic information about evolution theories.

 

[irishpatrick]

The Bible tells us that to God, a day is like a thousand years.

Adam lived to be 930 years old–just shy of one thousand years.

God told Adam that he would die the very day that Adam ate of the fruit in the Garden. Since God’s day is equal to a thousand years, Adam did die as God said.