Adam. Man or Myth?

[I_Leatherman]

If there was an Adam, there would not be any of the evolutionary evidence to the contrary. Seeing as there are masses of evidence for evolution and none for an Adam, I’ll stick with evolution.

I do not believe there is any paleontological proof for the evolution of Man.

 

[Melchior]

The church teaches that we are all descended from one man and one woman. The stories concerning Adam and Eve in Genesis are myths - imaginative stories which explore a reality beyond the writer’s comprehension.

Forgive me for calling this statement silly, but it is. If the Church teaches there were two parents and scripture and tradition say they are Adam and Eve, it seems like a mere capitulation to scepticism than anything else, to assume they were myth yet a single pair of parents were not. It is not incomprehensible by any stretch to believe the general account of these two people. It takes more imagination to assume the opposite.

Mel

 

[steveandersen]

Forgive me for calling this statement silly, but it is. If the Church teaches there were two parents and scripture and tradition say they are Adam and Eve, it seems like a mere capitulation to scepticism than anything else, to assume they were myth yet a single pair of parents were not. It is not incomprehensible by any stretch to believe the general account of these two people. It takes more imagination to assume the opposite.

Mel

How so?

The archeological /paleontological /genetic record is fairly clear that the last time there was a possibility for common ancestors was 75,000 to 150,000 years ago. So the notion that a document that is less than 3,000 years old got every single detail correct is a bit of a stretch. And to my mind not very important to the story.

The lesson that story is trying to teach is that God made us and that common descent makes us all brothers and sisters and heirs to the same heritage (both good and bad).

 

[buffalo]

How so?

The archeological /paleontological /genetic record is fairly clear that the last time there was a possibility for common ancestors was 75,000 to 150,000 years ago. So the notion that a document that is less than 3,000 years old got every single detail correct is a bit of a stretch. And to my mind not very important to the story.

The lesson that story is trying to teach is that God made us and that common descent makes us all brothers and sisters and heirs to the same heritage (both good and bad).

Is God being a trickster again? Why would He let us go on believing falsehoods for so long?

 

[Melchior]

How so?

The archeological /paleontological /genetic record is fairly clear that the last time there was a possibility for common ancestors was 75,000 to 150,000 years ago. So the notion that a document that is less than 3,000 years old got every single detail correct is a bit of a stretch. And to my mind not very important to the story.

The lesson that story is trying to teach is that God made us and that common descent makes us all brothers and sisters and heirs to the same heritage (both good and bad).

If you believe it is God’s Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Church teaches there is nothing far fetched about it. Plus, the document is closer to 5,000 years old but that is neither here nor there. The story of Adam and Eve is essential Christian doctrine. If you allegorize it then you have to allegorize the Fall too, making the Incarnation a response to a fiction. Is it so hard ot believe in a real Adam and Eve and yet take all the other miracles and parodoxes in scritpture as historical narrative?

It is amazing to me how the details of the story get left out when one tries to make it pure myth with a message.

The lesson that story is trying to teach is that God made us and that common descent makes us all brothers and sisters and heirs to the same heritage (both good and bad).

That lesson is not even close to any historical understanding of Salvation history and the Fall of man that happened in time and space with real people involved. If we believe it happended at all then basic logic and reason would necessitate we accept the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall as prima facie, only recognizing that Genesis is historical narrative that is rich iliterary allusions when it makes the point clearer, ala Satan being represented as a serpent.

If the first Adam was not historically real there was no need of the second Adam. If you want to be consistent you should mythologize the Gospels as well. It is neccesary for the cohesion of your position. Thank God He does not judge us on our happy inconsistencies.

 

[patg]

Forgive me for calling this statement silly, but it is. If the Church teaches there were two parents and scripture and tradition say they are Adam and Eve, it seems like a mere capitulation to scepticism than anything else, to assume they were myth yet a single pair of parents were not.

I agree - the single pair of parents idea is also a myth. I was just mentioning what it was the church teaches.

It is not incomprehensible by any stretch to believe the general account of these two people. It takes more imagination to assume the opposite.

Not so - it merely takes an understanding of the literary form of the story and the intent of the author. Believing it to be anything related to history is what takes a very fertile imagination.

 

[steveandersen]

Is God being a trickster again? Why would He let us go on believing falsehoods for so long?

I’m not saying that they’re false. It is just that the details aren’t important to what the message is.

God isn’t a trickster. But sometimes when teaching, you have to start with simplified versions so the pupils can begin to follow along.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Please prove this claim.

Just as soon as you let me know how to prove it.

Proof relies on tangible evidence. Non-existent things are not tangible and can’t leave behind this required evidence.

The person making the claim for existence, has the burden of proof upon them.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not saying that they’re false. It is just that the details aren’t important to what the message is.

God isn’t a trickster. But sometimes when teaching, you have to start with simplified versions so the pupils can begin to follow along.

Quite true. But, we do know Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts. They were quite intelligent and this should be easy for them.

 

[R_McGeddon]

I do not believe there is any paleontological proof for the evolution of Man.

Try visiting a natural history museum then.

 

[Melchior]

I agree - the single pair of parents idea is also a myth. I was just mentioning what it was the church teaches.

Not so - it merely takes an understanding of the literary form of the story and the intent of the author. Believing it to be anything related to history is what takes a very fertile imagination.

Spoken like someone who knows nothing of ancient Hebrew literature. No offense but you can’t make this statement and claim to have a grasp of Biblical literature.

 

[Melchior]

I agree - the single pair of parents idea is also a myth. I was just mentioning what it was the church teaches.

PatG,

You are rejecting Catholic dogmatic teaching with this statement.

 

[buffalo]

I agree - the single pair of parents idea is also a myth. I was just mentioning what it was the church teaches.

PatG,

You are rejecting Catholic dogmatic teaching with this statement.

patg has rejected several dogmas.

One should be on alert for his posts. He tries to speak authoritively but he is outside the Magisterium.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Try visiting a natural history museum then.

[SIGN]Still waiting for PROOF[/SIGN]

 

[steveandersen]

If you believe it is God’s Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit as the Church teaches there is nothing far fetched about it.

You can believe that it is God’s Word and still hold that it is not a science or history text.

Plus, the document is closer to 5,000 years old

the age estimates I’ve seen for the OT are 2500 to 3000 years but that doesn’t mean they weren’t transcriptions of older works (I don’t know, but I’ve been told that the texts doesn’t have the hallmarks of a transcribed oral work but I’m no scholar)

but that is neither here nor there.

Agreed, when talking about 10s or 100s of thousands of years a few centuries one way or another make no difference.

The story of Adam and Eve is essential Christian doctrine.

yes

If you allegorize it then you have to allegorize the Fall too

why?

, making the Incarnation a response to a fiction.

Fortunately Catholics have long been grounded in the Thomistic tradition which allows the use of analogy and for things to have multiple meanings. Just because something is allegorical doesn’t mean that it is a fiction.

Is it so hard ot believe in a real Adam and Eve and yet take all the other miracles and parodoxes in scritpture as historical narrative?

I believe that natural and special revelation cannot contradict. Any apparent paradoxes or incompatibilities are due to our limited nature to comprehend or reconcile.

It is amazing to me how the details of the story get left out when one tries to make it pure myth with a message.

I was doing a brief summary. Of course details are left out.
Why do you seem to equate “myth” with “untrue”?

The lesson that story is trying to teach is that God made us and that common descent makes us all brothers and sisters and heirs to the same heritage (both good and bad).

That lesson is not even close to any historical understanding of Salvation history and the Fall of man that happened in time and space with real people involved.

I think you missed my point. The Fall and the promise of Salvation are part of our common heritage.

If we believe it happended at all then basic logic and reason would necessitate we accept the story of Adam and Eve and the Fall as prima facie, only recognizing that Genesis is historical narrative that is rich iliterary allusions when it makes the point clearer, ala Satan being represented as a serpent.

Ah, so you do admit that there are literary allusions in the document.
I realize that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar but why are your interpretations of which parts are literary and which are not any better than mine?

If the first Adam was not historically real there was no need of the second Adam.

As I said above, a figure can be both historically real and mythological.

If you want to be consistent you should mythologize the Gospels as well.

why?

It is neccesary for the cohesion of your position.

Why?

Thank God He does not judge us on our happy inconsistencies.

For which I am always thankful.

 

[mikew262]

Yes and I believe that a tooth fairy comes along, takes children’s teeth and leaves money behind. I also believe that there are elves and pixies. Not forgetting the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot and the abominable snowman. Not to mention there are the unicorns, the Hobbits from Middle Earth, Merlin the wizard and finally Pinocchio the wooden puppet that became a real boy.

With a vivid imagination…

Ah, the last line of defense, sarcasm.

 

[steveandersen]

Quite true. But, we do know Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts. They were quite intelligent and this should be easy for them.

Well yes. BUT the Genesis wasn’t written for A&E (they knew the story after all and didn’t need to read about it in the papers). It was written for their non-preternatural descendants.

dumb guys like me.

 

[tdgesq]

I agree - the single pair of parents idea is also a myth. I was just mentioning what it was the church teaches.

PatG,

You are rejecting Catholic dogmatic teaching with this statement.

Could you please provide me with a citation? I hadn’t realized that the single parents idea was dogma.

 

[patg]

patg has rejected several dogmas.

One should be on alert for his posts. He tries to speak authoritively but he is outside the Magisterium.

Oh come on now - this is the first one I openly admit to! Everything else I’ve said in these post is perfectly in line with dogma.

I sincerely hope no one takes me or anyone else on these forums as “authoritative” - we are just here to discuss things of interest. I don’t expect to change anyone’s beliefs and I have yet to see an opinion that changes mine (well there was that guy who finally admitted I was probably right about the story of Barrabas being pure fiction, but that was a looooong time ago).

 

[bankerdavid]

Seeing as there are masses of evidence for evolution and none for an Adam, I’ll stick with evolution.

Do you really think that the story of Creation and Adam, and the theory (yes, it is still just a theory) of evolution are mutually exclusive? Sounds like my fundamentalist daughter.

Evolution is the scientific version of the Creation story. We went to the science exhibit at Epcot that explains how we got energy, my daugher mumbled audibly ‘Oh, that evolution garbage again’. Well, the way the Earth was formed, in fact, the Universe, and all the forms of life on earth, according to science, still very much supports the story of Creation, and the formation of the animals, plants and man. I believe the scientists get it right, at least until they try to say that we descended from apes.