What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dovekin said:
I am not really sure what your question about Moses time is looking for.
Click to expand...
Based on your writings, it is clear that you believe Adam and Eve represent man, but are not real historical figures. You take myth to mean fictional stories. I told you before that you are misunderstanding the meaning of myth. Both Dogma and Doctrine tell us with certainty that Adam and Eve are real historical figures and our our first parents. I’ll get to that later. Let’s look at how Catholics define myth. George Johnston of the Catholic Education Resource Center writes:
While they do not teach science, the early chapters of Genesis are history and not myth. But they are not history as it would be written by a modern historian. … You might say that they are history written in mythic language a poetic compression of the truth, as it were.
Click to expand...
In the National Catholic Register , Mark Shea writes:
How can Genesis use figurative language, but still affirm a primeval event? It can do it because mythic language is precisely the best way to affirm such an event, an upheaval that inflicted incalculable spiritual damage to the whole of the human race. It’s exactly what the prophet Nathan does when he confronts [King David] … whose sin inflicts incalculable damage on his descendant,s (see 2 Samuel 12). … Is Nathan’s story of the rich man and the ewe lamb false? No. It is a perfectly true account, but it is not told using newspaper language. Genesis’ account of the fall does the same sort of thing. It uses figurative language to describe a real event which took place here in the real world … mythic language is truer language than newspaper language, because it brings us to the heart of what happened.
Click to expand...
Bernard F. Batto Ph.D., specializes in the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible within its ancient Near Eastern cultural and historical context. He writes:
In everyday usage today, myth carries a meaning of something untrue, a fable, a fiction, or an illusion. That usage has a long history, traceable back to certain Greek philosophers. Anthropologists and historians of religion, however, use the term ‘myth’ with a quite different meaning. For them myth refers to a traditional story… that has paradigmatic significance for the society in which the story is operative.
Click to expand...
Msgr. M. Francis Mannion writes:
To speak of the stories in Genesis of the creation and fall as “myth” is very misleading, and they are certainly not myth in the sense that most people understand the term. In common usage, myth means a story that is the figment of someone (or some group’s) imagination and that communicates a message that is only vaguely reliable at best … Catholic teaching and the thinking of the best and most reliable Scripture scholars hold that these stories are symbolic narratives that communicate divinely inspired truths. As divinely inspired, they are not the figment of someone’s imagination but the result of the Holy Spirit’s influence on the biblical authors. These stories are not untrue or vaguely reliable or childish, but rather the means by which profound truths about the origin of creation and humankind are communicated.
Click to expand...
 
Only one of the quotes you present says that Adam and Eve were historical figures. The others express the same understanding of myth as I use.

And I would never say myth is fictional. It is a genre of story that tells profound beliefs. Those beliefs may be true or not. We believe Genesis is true. But the way it is true is not the way history is true, and to read it as historically accurate is to misunderstand what really is true.

Nathan’s parable is an excellent example. None of the historical details in it are true, or need not have been. But the relationships portrayed were so powerfully true that it moved David to repent.
 
According to John Paul II:
Dovekin said:
The second chapter of Genesis constitutes, in a certain manner, the most ancient description and record of man’s self-knowledge. Together with the third chapter it is the first testimony of human conscience. A reflection in depth on this text - through the whole archaic form of the narrative, which manifests its primitive mythical character - provides us in nucleo with nearly all the elements of the analysis of man
Click to expand...
I agree with this description. Does that answer your question?
 
Dovekin said:
I agree with this description. Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...
So you do say that Adam and Eve are mythical figures? Was the wife of Cain also a mythical figure? I don’t see where she came from in the Genesis account?
 
AlNg said:
Was the wife of Cain also a mythical figure? I don’t see where she came from in the Genesis account?
Click to expand...
Very much like the theory of evolution, lots of detail is missing. Where did the first life come from if there is no God?
 
AlNg said:
So you do say that Adam and Eve are mythical figures? Was the wife of Cain also a mythical figure? I don’t see where she came from in the Genesis account?
Click to expand...
Not a very well developed figure.

One point of the story, as stated by CCC 360 is:
Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”
Click to expand...
So perhaps Cain’s wife exemplifies that even apparent exceptions are included in the human race?

IDK. Why do you think she is in the story?
 
AlNg said:
So you do say that Adam and Eve are mythical figures?
Click to expand...
‘Mythical’ in the sense that they stand for our two first human parents.
Was the wife of Cain also a mythical figure? I don’t see where she came from in the Genesis account?
Click to expand...
Umm… they were one, big, happy family. (wink wink) (Ahem… 😳)
 
That wasn’t very nice. I like Thor comic books. The old ones.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
And I would never say myth is fictional.
Click to expand...
When you say that Adam and Eve are not historical, then you are saying it is fictional relative to the characters. As to King David and Nathan, are you saying they are not historical. Because if you are, then I beginning to wonder how much of Scripture is historical. Could you answer that question? Please be specific as to what Books are historical.

I have much more to dialogue with you about, but unfortunately I don’t have the time right now.
 
Nathan told David a story about a poor man who had little more than an ewe that he treasured. When a traveler came, a rich man took the poor man’s animal instead of using one of his own. After David condmens the rich man, Nathan declares “You are that man.” And David comes to see how wrong it was to take Bathsheba from her husband.

The point is that Nathan told a story where the historical details were irrelevant. There was no particular village with a rich man and a poor man, no beloved ewe, etc. The relationships were the truth Nathan told, not the history.

That story is similar to the story of Adam and Eve. The point of the story is not that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve lived in a garden in Iraq. Rather, conscience, sin, free will and suffering are the focus of the story, not the historical details. The story from Nathan gives us an example of a prophetic story, An inspired story that is not true with respect to facts, but which is true in other significant ways.

So no, I was not saying Nathan and David were not historical, just that the story Nathan told was not historical.

And I assure you, I am not likely to have said that a myth is “fiction.” You are welcome to disagree with me on whether myth is fiction, but that will not change that I did not say it. But that is really a complaint about others misreading my words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top