Can we be sure Adam and Eve truly existed?

[Darryl_B]

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?

I don’t believe in evolution, I believe in devolution. When God made man, they had pure genetics, and as time goes by the dna is gradually introducing errors (which is why you can no longer marry your sister), though God did make some corrective mechanisms to fix them, we as humans are still digressing into proneness to sickness, and proneness to being, well dumb, stupid. I think eugenics would want to change that direction, and that is actually the entire focus of the movement. Genesis was written on multiple clay tablets over time. The history was not oral it was written on clay tablets which are very time insensitive.

 

[SeekingTruth33]

Hey Darryl,
That’s an interesting theory. One question though: How do you know that the history was written on clay tablets, instead of being oral? This is not what I’ve learned.

 

[Darryl_B]

Hey Darryl,
That’s an interesting theory. One question though: How do you know that the history was written on clay tablets, instead of being oral? This is not what I’ve learned.

Because there is some fairly mundane things in there. eg Abraham going down to Egypt this is my sister and the kings name is? Those are things that were important at the time but would not have been transferred orally. Oral tradition usually only remembers acts of valour, not acts of mistake. We don’t want to sit around a camp fire and hear the story how Abraham made a mistake.

Genesis has a number of beginnings. This is the book of the generations of …

 

[Darryl_B]

My apologies. I posted prior to knowing this topic was banned.

The reason this topic is banned is because we, the users of the forum are unable to conduct ourselves in a civil manner, there is an over-ruling passion that is instead exhibited. I for one am not going to get into such believe-me-or-else discussions, but it would be nice if this subject could be approached in a caring civil manner (as it currently is), passionate about one’s beliefs but not passionate about belittling opposing views. It is unfortunate that this topic usually ends ad hominem.

 

[SeekingTruth33]

I don’t know that I’d necessarily agree with that. Often, oral traditions are passed on not for entertainment, but as a way for a people to remember their history and bloodlines. So it’s presented in a repetitive fashion (like this man beget that man beget that man, etc). Also, I’d say that there are some acts of valor in Genesis, like Noah’s Ark and Joseph in Egypt. The stories of mistakes could be used as lessons.

It’s also possible that those who wrote down the stories in Genesis drew upon both details that had already been recorded (names and genealogies) as well as stories that had been told among the Jewish people for a long time.

 

[Darryl_B]

I don’t know that I’d necessarily agree with that. Often, oral traditions are passed on not for entertainment, but as a way for a people to remember their history and bloodlines. So it’s presented in a repetitive fashion (like this man beget that man beget that man, etc). Also, I’d say that there are some acts of valor in Genesis, like Noah’s Ark and Joseph in Egypt. The stories of mistakes could be used as lessons.

It’s also possible that those who wrote down the stories in Genesis drew upon both details that had already been recorded (names and genealogies) as well as stories that had been told among the Jewish people for a long time.

I believe you have grabbed hold of something really important, something that was far more important in those ancient days, than what we tend to do these days. That is remember their history and bloodlines. Now if you were alive back then would you not find a means of writing it down, rather than relying on transmission of word of mouth to the next generation.

So when a chapter begins “This is the book of the generations …” does that not imply a written account, and that is the beginning of that account. Moses did a really nice job of compiling the clay tablets onto parchment.

 

[SeekingTruth33]

However, I think that there is a good chance that the history of bloodlines were oral before they were written, simply because the vast majority of the population were illiterate for a long period of time, and these people still needed to remember the information.

Now, I want to be clear that I’m not claiming there were no aspects of Genesis that were written down before the records were compiled into the Torah around 450 BC. In fact, by that time, most of it probably had been written down. What I’m saying is that, in most cases (with some exceptions in the cases of exact numbers of people in armies and such) I think most of the stories (about Noah, Abraham, etc) were oral before they were written.

As concerns this thread, I’m focusing on the story of creation (Adam and Eve). In this case, I’d claim that this story would have to have been oral before it was written, since after all, writing wasn’t even around in this area of the world until 4000 BC.

 

[Darryl_B]

However, I think that there is a good chance that the history of bloodlines were oral before they were written, simply because the vast majority of the population were illiterate for a long period of time, and these people still needed to remember the information.

Now, I want to be clear that I’m not claiming there were no aspects of Genesis that were written down before the records were compiled into the Torah around 450 BC. In fact, by that time, most of it probably had been written down. What I’m saying is that, in most cases (with some exceptions in the cases of exact numbers of people in armies and such) I think most of the stories (about Noah, Abraham, etc) were oral before they were written.

As concerns this thread, I’m focusing on the story of creation (Adam and Eve). In this case, I’d claim that this story would have to have been oral before it was written, since after all, writing wasn’t even around in this area of the world until 4000 BC.

There are two things that I think are very important to the origins. The first is that there are two creation accounts, not just the one. That would indicate two separate clay tablets. If you are handing down information through word of mouth, you will probably not have two separate accounts, you would only have one. That to me is a sure indicator that there were written records on clay tablets, each knowing the origins.

The second is that the people of Israel lived in Egypt as slaves for some 430 years. During that time they had not only forgotten their histories and bloodlines, but they had also forgotten, God. Who are you? I Am. You could not forget God, and still retain an oral tradition that included God.

So I believe what happened is, history was recorded by people in a legacy attempt written on clay tablets, each tablet was easy copied by inverse impression. Clay was easy to produce and harden in the sun. The history was important because it documented origins. That information was lost orally during the 430 years of captivity in Egypt, but the clay tablets still existed in the hands of the eldest of the eldest of the eldest, and then Moses collated them onto parchment during the 40 years where there was nothing much to do.

 

[SeekingTruth33]

In regards to the two creation accounts, you could say the following: There were multiple oral traditions that had the same theme but were slightly different depending upon the particular tribe they came from, separated by distance. Later, priests wrote down these stories, and then when the Torah was compiled, two of the stories (at that point written on tablets) were selected.

Now in regards to how the Israelites lived in Egypt 430 years, forgot God and their history, and were therefore unable to pass along oral tradition, you’ve got me there. I’m not sure how that would have happened, unless as you’ve said, there were tablets passed on by the elders. That being said, I have heard that Exodus itself is more of a myth, since there isn’t much evidence of the Jews being there during the supposed time period. However, I’m not sure that I’m ready to believe it didn’t happen.

Still though, this doesn’t resolve the questions regarding the creation story. There were many thousands of years between the origin of humanity and the time of Moses. And the beginning of humanity happened way before the origin of any kind of writing, I believe. Who would you say wrote the creation story? Adam himself?

 

[Darryl_B]

In regards to the two creation accounts, you could say the following: There were multiple oral traditions that had the same theme but were slightly different depending upon the particular tribe they came from, separated by distance. Later, priests wrote down these stories, and then when the Torah was compiled, two of the stories (at that point written on tablets) were selected.

Now in regards to how the Israelites lived in Egypt 430 years, forgot God and their history, and were therefore unable to pass along oral tradition, you’ve got me there. I’m not sure how that would have happened, unless as you’ve said, there were tablets passed on by the elders. That being said, I have heard that Exodus itself is more of a myth, since there isn’t much evidence of the Jews being there during the supposed time period. However, I’m not sure that I’m ready to believe it didn’t happen.

Still though, this doesn’t resolve the questions regarding the creation story. There were many thousands of years between the origin of humanity and the time of Moses. And the beginning of humanity happened way before the origin of any kind of writing, I believe. Who would you say wrote the creation story? Adam himself?

The person who documented the creation story has to have either been there or known someone who had been there. In the creation Adam had a special relationship with God, and there are not many people who would know that specifically. I put it down to the same thing as the NT, who wrote the NT? people who knew, it was not Jesus who wrote it, same with Genesis.

 

[SeekingTruth33]

I see what you’re saying, but I’m not sure it’s the same with Genesis as it was with Jesus. For a person to have known someone who had been there, it would still be far before the invention of writing.

 

[edwest2]

what would you say to JPII

An often used and totally incomplete quote. Read the Pope’s entire statement.

Peace,
Ed

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.

Every time this subject is brought up, and it’s brought up often here, I become more, not less, convinced that this question does not revolve around truth but is actually a propaganda strategy aimed at full compliance by using the standard rules of propaganda.

In this case, I can only trust the Church. This does not mean I do not follow science almost daily, which I do, but science, by its own pre-set boundaries, cannot include non-material explanations in anything. The default answer will always be materialism, which is then taught to a new group of scientists. In the end, the only available trajectory for studying this subject will be pure materialism, and I have seen all the earmarks of a “full compliance” program going on here. These threads will appear endlessly until the materialist only explanation is the accepted answer.

I’ll only trust the Church to answer this question since the default goal: full compliance, is the only thing I’m seeing promoted here, with the rare exceptions.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

I’ll wait on the Church, while watching the ongoing campaign for full compliance since I’m a student of psychological warfare.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I believe you have grabbed hold of something really important, something that was far more important in those ancient days, than what we tend to do these days. That is remember their history and bloodlines. Now if you were alive back then would you not find a means of writing it down, rather than relying on transmission of word of mouth to the next generation.

So when a chapter begins “This is the book of the generations …” does that not imply a written account, and that is the beginning of that account. Moses did a really nice job of compiling the clay tablets onto parchment.

Uh, the Torah was not written down? They had clay tablets. They carved things in stone. You don’t reduce the Word of God into a bunch of campfire stories. Moses got the tablets from God. And they were kept in the Ark of the Covenant. That way, nobody could say, “Oh, that’s not right. You remembered it wrong.”

Peace,
Ed

There are two things that I think are very important to the origins. The first is that there are two creation accounts, not just the one. That would indicate two separate clay tablets. If you are handing down information through word of mouth, you will probably not have two separate accounts, you would only have one. That to me is a sure indicator that there were written records on clay tablets, each knowing the origins.

The second is that the people of Israel lived in Egypt as slaves for some 430 years. During that time they had not only forgotten their histories and bloodlines, but they had also forgotten, God. Who are you? I Am. You could not forget God, and still retain an oral tradition that included God.

So I believe what happened is, history was recorded by people in a legacy attempt written on clay tablets, each tablet was easy copied by inverse impression. Clay was easy to produce and harden in the sun. The history was important because it documented origins. That information was lost orally during the 430 years of captivity in Egypt, but the clay tablets still existed in the hands of the eldest of the eldest of the eldest, and then Moses collated them onto parchment during the 40 years where there was nothing much to do.

The two creation accounts are complementary.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/catechesis_genesis/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19790919_en.html

Peace,
Ed

I see what you’re saying, but I’m not sure it’s the same with Genesis as it was with Jesus. For a person to have known someone who had been there, it would still be far before the invention of writing.

Catholics know that the Bible - the entire Bible - is the inspired word of God and free from error. In discussions of this kind, there is a tendency to reduce passages and parts of the Bible to mere instruction and to reject any possible historical explanation. When Adam and Eve were created, they had preternatural gifts. Since sin had not yet entered the world, God communicated directly with Adam who had infused knowledge. Adam named all the animals who were brought to him by God. After sin entered the world and death, Adam lived for hundreds of years and was not a stupid brute. Science cannot accept such concepts by its self-imposed limitations.

When writing began is highly disputed. Finally, God communicated directly with people in the Old Testament and even sent His angels. Since all of that falls outside of the realm of science, I don’t see how science can advance this discussion.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Darryl_B]

Uh, the Torah was not written down? They had clay tablets. They carved things in stone. You don’t reduce the Word of God into a bunch of campfire stories. Moses got the tablets from God. And they were kept in the Ark of the Covenant. That way, nobody could say, “Oh, that’s not right. You remembered it wrong.”

Peace,
Ed

We seem to agree entirely.

edwest2:

The two creation accounts are complementary.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/catechesis_genesis/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19790919_en.html

Peace,
Ed

We seem to agree entirely again, complementary, not contradictory.

edwest2:

Catholics know that the Bible - the entire Bible - is the inspired word of God and free from error. In discussions of this kind, there is a tendency to reduce passages and parts of the Bible to mere instruction and to reject any possible historical explanation. When Adam and Eve were created, they had preternatural gifts. Since sin had not yet entered the world, God communicated directly with Adam who had infused knowledge. Adam named all the animals who were brought to him by God. After sin entered the world and death, Adam lived for hundreds of years and was not a stupid brute. Science cannot accept such concepts by its self-imposed limitations.

When writing began is highly disputed. Finally, God communicated directly with people in the Old Testament and even sent His angels. Since all of that falls outside of the realm of science, I don’t see how science can advance this discussion.

Peace,
Ed

I agree. It can sometimes be thought that writing was a skill that was learned and developed eventually. When God is excluded from the equation, it must be assumed that is true. But when God is part of the equation, speech and writing can exist from the time of Adam. I also agree that Adam was not a stupid hairy brute who grunted occasionally.

 

[edwest2]

We seem to agree entirely.

We seem to agree entirely again, complementary, not contradictory.

I agree. It can sometimes be thought that writing was a skill that was learned and developed eventually. When God is excluded from the equation, it must be assumed that is true. But when God is part of the equation, speech and writing can exist from the time of Adam. I also agree that Adam was not a stupid hairy brute who grunted occasionally.

That follows Church teaching.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Moro_Rock]

Interestingly, about a week ago on a news broadcast they were saying that
scientists have now concluded that all human beings are descended from
one couple. Prior to that they believed that all humans on earth today
have descended from apx. five original couples.

 

[thistle]

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?

You can be sure they existed because it is a Church teaching which Catholics are bound to believe.

 

[Nelka]

Can we be sure Adam and Eve truly existed?

Because it is in the Bible.

As soon as you discount one thing you will discount the next and before you have it you will believe nothing.