Can we be sure Adam and Eve truly existed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekingTruth33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SeekingTruth33

Guest
Hello! I asked this same question of the Apologists on the site, but I also wanted to see if anyone else may have some insight into this question. Because this question pertains to Genesis, I’m posting it under this forum, but if there’s a better forum to ask this question, please let me know. Thanks! 🙂

I am trying to understand the Creation story in Genesis in the context of evolution. I know that according to Catholic doctrine, the principle of evolution is not in conflict with our beliefs. However, how do you reconcile Adam and Eve being real people with the way evolution works? The first human would have had to have been a female, and she would have been the mother, not wife, of Adam. Secondly, how can the Church be sure the Creation story is true in regards to Adam and Eve being real? In contrast to the accounts of Jesus in the Gospel, which were written mere decades after the fact, the Creation story began as an oral tradition, and would obviously have to have been around thousands of years after the fact. Wouldn’t anything from this part of Genesis be less verifiable as fact?
 
The point of the Creation story is mostly allegorical and not meant to be taken from a literal perspective.
 
Creation story is not just preserved by oral tradition alone, but more importantly through divine revelation, God revealed those things to Moses. Oral tradition is the human side to Scripture, but the Holy Spirit has brought a more powerful divine side. I think that people tend to either forget that or chose to only accept the human works to Scripture rather than look at how God worked through it by revealing His message through it.

As for how could Adam and Eve fit into evolution, I personally think that they are not necessarily the first walking and talking two legged people, but they are the first ones that have been given an immortal soul, while those before did not have an eternal soul, but souls like animals.
 
SeekingTruth33 said:
Hello! I asked this same question of the Apologists on the site, but I also wanted to see if anyone else may have some insight into this question. Because this question pertains to Genesis, I’m posting it under this forum, but if there’s a better forum to ask this question, please let me know. Thanks! 🙂

I am trying to understand the Creation story in Genesis in the context of evolution. I know that according to Catholic doctrine, the principle of evolution is not in conflict with our beliefs. **However, how do you reconcile Adam and Eve being real people with the way evolution works? ** The first human would have had to have been a female, and she would have been the mother, not wife, of Adam. Secondly, how can the Church be sure the Creation story is true in regards to Adam and Eve being real? In contrast to the accounts of Jesus in the Gospel, which were written mere decades after the fact, the Creation story began as an oral tradition, and would obviously have to have been around thousands of years after the fact. Wouldn’t anything from this part of Genesis be less verifiable as fact?
Click to expand...
You don’t reconcile Adam and Eve with the way evolution works. You reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve.

There are two people from whom all humans on earth are descended. That is dogma - truth revealed to us by God through his Church. You don’t try to understand it before you accept it. You accept it first and then reconcile everything else with that fact.

Accepting what God has revealed to us is the theological virtue of faith.

-Tim-
 
SeekingTruth33 said:
Hello! I asked this same question of the Apologists on the site, but I also wanted to see if anyone else may have some insight into this question. Because this question pertains to Genesis, I’m posting it under this forum, but if there’s a better forum to ask this question, please let me know. Thanks! 🙂

I am trying to understand the Creation story in Genesis in the context of evolution. I know that according to Catholic doctrine, the principle of evolution is not in conflict with our beliefs. However, how do you reconcile Adam and Eve being real people with the way evolution works? The first human would have had to have been a female, and she would have been the mother, not wife, of Adam. Secondly, how can the Church be sure the Creation story is true in regards to Adam and Eve being real? In contrast to the accounts of Jesus in the Gospel, which were written mere decades after the fact, the Creation story began as an oral tradition, and would obviously have to have been around thousands of years after the fact. Wouldn’t anything from this part of Genesis be less verifiable as fact?
Click to expand...
There are those who question Jesus being verifiable. Science is only a limited tool used by humans to study history. What is missing is the Word of God. Without that, if the reader is a Christian, we have a God who actually did nothing during Genesis. If a scientist from today stood next to Jesus when he raised the dead, what would he say? But back to your question.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Peace,
Ed
 
Thank you all for your responses. Am I allowed to continue this discussion on this thread? TJones80 said topics on evolution are banned. Where is the list of banned subjects so I can know what I’m allowed to talk about?
 
Again, thank you all for your responses. If we’re not supposed to talk about evolution, that’s fine—let’s just continue the discussion in terms of the creation story itself.

Adawgj, that’s what I thought too for a long time. But I was recently told by a priest that the Creation story is not an allegory, because that would be like saying it’s not true. I also thought Adam and Eve were allegorical but am finding out that according to doctrine you must believe they are real people.

Copland, I thought that the Creation narrative was an oral tradition that existed long before Moses did. How were you made aware that God revealed this story to Moses? I will say that it would still make sense that an oral tradition itself could be inspired by the Holy Spirit, but if the creation in six days is allegorical and Eve being made from Adam’s rib is allegorical, couldn’t the whole story be an allegory? I do think your theory about Adam and Eve is interesting though.

TimothyH, you’ve touched upon something that has always been confusing for me about the nature of faith. I know that if I had been born a Muslim or Baptist or Orthodox Jew, I would be told the same thing—that I should accept dogma first and then reconcile everything else with the fact. But then I would believe things that are contradictory to what the Catholic Church believes. So apparently there are many people in this world who are accepting dogma first, but are wrong, since we can’t all be right. So how is it possible to know what God has revealed to us when so many people disagree on what exactly he has revealed to us?

Edwest2, I’m already aware of what the Catechism says about Genesis, but I’m trying to understand how the Church has come to its conclusions. I agree that science is a limited tool, but it’s still a tool that reveals realities about the universe. If a scientist from today stood next to Jesus when he raised the dead, what he would say would depend upon the person. One scientist may say that the man was in a coma the whole time. Another scientist would be speechless from shock. Still another scientist would say yes, miracles can happen.
 
Ok, thanks for the heads up Ed. Can I still ask the questions in regards to the Creation story that do not pertain to evolution on this thread, or will I have to open a new thread?
 
There was an interesting article published in the newspapers a couple of years ago.
It seems that the geological location of the Garden of Eden is set forth in Genesis. It lay in an area between three rivers, of which only one exists today.
Well, Scientists are able to track river beds of rivers that dried up many centuries ago through photography from satellites orbiting the Earth. They have located the riverbeds of the rivers cited in Genesis, and Scientists believe the area cited in the Bible is south of the port of Basra in Iraq, and is under the ocean.
This is another example of Biblical history being proven by modern science; and, if Eden did exist, why not Adam and Eve?
 
Sure, you can talk about Creation. My point would be the Catholic Church is right and we have received Divine revelation confirming we are right. My point is: God does not require science or technology to do anything. Jesus did not cure people using medicine. Lazarus had been dead to the point of rotting. Jesus called out for him to come out of the tomb and he did - alive.

Science is not capable of explaining the miracles attributed to the intercession of Blessed Pope John Paul II but he is about to canonized a saint. So this is an ongoing reality. God can, and does, perform miracles today. These miracles are carefully studied by a special Church body called the Congregation for Saints’ Causes. The examination of the cure must be rigorous and there are strict guidelines.

Science has set its own limits. It, by definition, cannot study the supernatural, God or the soul. So bringing science into the picture is problematic at best. There are no peer reviewed studies like “Explanation of Events in the book of Genesis in the Christian Bible.” I maintain that excluding God from Creation would lead to an incomplete and deviated study. God is as much a fact as the sun in the sky. But by excluding Him from the equation means science cannot provide the correct answer.

Put another way, Divine revelation is true, but there are no scientific resources available to study outside intervention, meaning purely materialistic causes are the default answer every time you try.

And this question has a physical and a spiritual component. God the Father draws us to Jesus, who then sends His Holy Spirit if we accept Him as our Lord and Savior, which goes beyond the purely intellectual, however:

biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

Peace,
Ed
 
George_Stegmeir said:
There was an interesting article published in the newspapers a couple of years ago.
It seems that the geological location of the Garden of Eden is set forth in Genesis. It lay in an area between three rivers, of which only one exists today.
Well, Scientists are able to track river beds of rivers that dried up many centuries ago through photography from satellites orbiting the Earth. They have located the riverbeds of the rivers cited in Genesis, and Scientists believe the area cited in the Bible is south of the port of Basra in Iraq, and is under the ocean.
This is another example of Biblical history being proven by modern science; and, if Eden did exist, why not Adam and Eve?
Click to expand...
There is some dispute about the location of Eden. The Bible mentions its boundaries, but that’s another thread.

Peace,
Ed
 
Hello George,
I recently attended an RCIA class where the priest discussed the location between the rivers that I think you’re referring to. I think he said that the Jewish people had migrated west of this area early in their history. Apparently, this area had been part of the Babylonian empire and was known for its beauty and lush surroundings. So the area described in Genesis was supposed to evoke an image of natural beauty in the historical memory of the Jewish people. In this way, it would symbolize original Paradise very well. I’m just not convinced that this was the exact location where humanity began.
 
For one to be concerned over Adam and Eve’s existence in the face of evolution, one must first subscribe to evolution.

For the millions of rational and educated people who do not, there is no problem.

For the millions of rational and educated people who do, there is a problem they must feverishly work on to come to terms with the dilemma. The most common outcome is the idea Creation as told until about 60 years ago was a story to teach some sort of lesson, or something.

I prefer to believe God told the truth from the beginning, as has been taught for thousands of years to include the Church (Catholic and Orthodox). But I am sure that makes me some flat-earth, geocentric nut job.
Here is the line I draw. If you ask a bunch of scientists about this, you get a bunch of different answers. If you look to what God revealed, you get one answer. It’s up to you to decide what you are going to accept. I choose not to accept evolution not only as a result of this, but also as a result of the inconstancy of evolution, it’s unbelievable number of gaps and holes and its inability to stand up to the scientific method, but that’s just me. I don’t disparage people who accept evolution as true, I just do not understand the how or why. For me, it’s an either/or issue.
 
Nacho45 said:
For one to be concerned over Adam and Eve’s existence in the face of evolution, one must first subscribe to evolution.

For the millions of rational and educated people who do not, there is no problem.

For the millions of rational and educated people who do, there is a problem they must feverishly work on to come to terms with the dilemma. The most common outcome is the idea Creation as told until about 60 years ago was a story to teach some sort of lesson, or something.

I prefer to believe God told the truth from the beginning, as has been taught for thousands of years to include the Church (Catholic and Orthodox). But I am sure that makes me some flat-earth, geocentric nut job.
Here is the line I draw. If you ask a bunch of scientists about this, you get a bunch of different answers. If you look to what God revealed, you get one answer. It’s up to you to decide what you are going to accept. I choose not to accept evolution not only as a result of this, but also as a result of the inconstancy of evolution, it’s unbelievable number of gaps and holes and its inability to stand up to the scientific method, but that’s just me. I don’t disparage people who accept evolution as true, I just do not understand the how or why. For me, it’s an either/or issue.
Click to expand...
what would you say to JPII
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points… Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.
Click to expand...
 
Hello again Ed,
One thing I’d like to tease out is what is meant by science and what is meant by truth. Science is not truth itself. Science is an “enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge” (Wikipedia definition), and is therefore an activity used to arrive at truth. So you can use science to determine that water has two hydrogen atoms to every one oxygen atom, but the molecular composition of water is not “science”, it is truth.

History, if defined as the study of past events, is not truth in itself, but a method used to arrive at truth. Historical inquiry, through documentation, leads us to affirm that American colonies rebelled against Great Britain during the Revolution. This fact is the truth. I have also read compelling arguments that it is through historical inquiry (such as the documents of the New Testament) that we can affirm the existence of Jesus, as well as miraculous events such as his Resurrection and Ascension.

Now, the main arguments against what I have just said consist of either skepticism or relativism. If you believe that due to the natural limitations of the human mind and senses, there is nothing that can be affirmed to be true at all, you are a skeptic. If you believe that all claims of truth are valid, without regard to how verifiable the evidence is, or in spite of the contradictions among claims of truth, you are a relativist. I’m aware that the Catholic stance regarding truth is that neither relativism or skepticism are valid.

The very heart of the significance of Divine Revelation is that it is possible for human beings to know the truth. Divine Revelation is one way of knowing the truth. But so is scientific and historical inquiry (which also covers Divine Revelation). The fact that Jesus used miracles to cure the sick is the truth, as verified by historical record. The fact that medicine can be used to cure the sick is also the truth, as verified by evidence. Miracles don’t disprove the truth that science has uncovered. But I think to say that the Creation story is literal is like saying that medicine doesn’t work and that a water molecule does not consist of two hydrogens, one oxygen. It’s not about bringing science into the picture, it’s about bringing truth into the picture.

In the end, I don’t see how you can be skeptical of the truth that science reveals without being skeptical of the truth that anything can reveal, including Divine Revelation.
 
It’s ok, Nacho, I didn’t know either until a few hours ago. I wish we could just have a respectful discussion about it. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top