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

[Bubba Switzler]

And there was an interesting exchange between the panelists on the existence of Adam and Eve. Cardinal Pell expressed the view that they were not historical individuals, but mythological figures in a story designed to communicate religious truth. To which Dawkins responded, If they didn’t really, historically, exist, where did Original Sin come from? Ironically enough, on the site on which I found the video, some conservative religious comboxers take Dawkins’s side: If no Adam and Eve, no Original Sin; if no Original Sin, no need for Christ’s Redemption; if no need for Christ’s Redemption, no Christianity; therefore there must have been an Adam and Eve. (I have actually, in the past, encountered the very same argument from e-mailers responding to my own Corner posts on Biblical interpretation: Pull that thread, of admitting that one set of verses in the Bible are not intended literally, and the whole thing will fall apart like Kleenex.)

But the fact of the existence of Original Sin does not depend on the historical existence of Adam and Eve. To say that it does seems to me the equivalent of declaring that if Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was not, in fact, responsible for the Great Chicago Fire, then the Great Chicago Fire must not have happened at all. Original Sin is a fundamental choice in which man declares his prideful rebellion against God, and we see that choice in our own hearts. (Chesterton once called original sin “the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”) As to where, specifically, it started, your guess is as good as mine; the story of Adam and Eve is a masterful account of the meaning of what happened.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ichael-potemra

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by kama3

Except that if you read the narrative by itself, it's pretty obvious that it takes place in a larger population:

14Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Like... who will kill him? In a literalist interpretation, the only other people around are Adam, Eve, and Cain's wife (and when did she come from)?

The fact anyone else was not mentioned does mean they were the only ones around.

Cain married his twin sister.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ichael-potemra

God must have known he better be clear about the fact Adam and Eve were real otherwise the house of cards would fall. Genesis has much packed into it, don't ya think? It sets a firm foundation.

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by buffalo

God must have known he better be clear about the fact Adam and Eve were real otherwise the house of cards would fall.

I disagree for all the reasons previously discussed.

Genesis has much packed into it, don't ya think? It sets a firm foundation.

I do agree with that. But this would be true whether or not it is historically accurate.

[kama3]

Originally Posted by buffalo

What genetic diversity was present in the first two humans? Do you know?

I don't but there is a limit -- if they were too diverse, they would not interbreed.

Originally Posted by buffalo

How many mutations are deleterious and produce malformations? Do you have a number?

Looking at the effects of ionizing radiation, looks like majority. We have no record of Chernobyl producing advantaged superhumans, but malformed children -- yes.

Originally Posted by buffalo

According to the geneoalogies Adam may have lived around 12,000 years ago.

Say what? Adam's time and place would roughly correspond to the emergence of Neolithic civilization -- I don't think that's a coincidence:

Around 10200 BC, the first fully developed Neolithic cultures belonging to the phase Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) appeared in the fertile crescent.[1] Around 10,700 to 9400 BC, a settlement was established in Tell Qaramel, 25 kilometers north of Aleppo. The settlement included 2 temples dating back to 9650.[3] Around 9000 BC during the PPNA, the world's first town, Jericho, appeared in the Levant. It was surrounded by a stone and marble wall and contained a population of 2000–3000 people and a massive stone tower.[12] Around 6400 BC the Halaf culture appeared in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, and Northern Mesopotamia and subsisted on dryland agriculture.
In 1981 a team of researchers from the Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée, including Jacques Cauvin and Oliver Aurenche divided Near East neolithic chronology into ten periods (0 to 9) based on social, economic and cultural characteristics.[13] In 2002 Danielle Stordeur and Frédéric Abbès advanced this system with a division into five periods. Natufian (1) between 12000 and 10200 cal. BCE, Khiamian (2) between 10200-8800 cal. BCE, PPNA: Sultanian (Jericho), Mureybetian, early PPNB (PPNB ancien) (3) between 8800-7600 cal. BCE, middle PPNB (PPNB moyen) 7600-6900 cal. BCE, late PPNB (PPNB récent) (4) between 7500 and 7000 BC and a PPNB (sometimes called PPNC) transitional stage (PPNB final) (5) where Halaf and dark faced burnished ware begin to emerge between 6900-6400 cal. BCE.[14] They also advanced the idea of a transitional stage between the PPNA and PPNB between 8800 and 8600 BC at sites like Jerf el Ahmar and Tell Aswad.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

[kama3]

Originally Posted by buffalo

The fact anyone else was not mentioned does mean they were the only ones around.

Absurd.

My biography of Joseph Stalin does not mention any of my grandparents. By your logic, I'd be forced to conclude that I don't exist. Historical narratives will rarely mention anyone but the top people in power.

Originally Posted by buffalo

Cain married his twin sister.

Why the later prohibition on incest then?

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by buffalo

1. The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or "Christian Anthropology"

1. The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
2. The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
3. Man consists of two essential parts--a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
4. The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
5. Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
6. Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
7. A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
8. The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
9. God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
10. Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
11. The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
12. The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
13. The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
14. The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
15. Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
16. Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
17. Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
18. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
19. Adam's sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
20. Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
21. Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
22. In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
23. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

...i can't find the answer to the question in here.
Is there an answer to the question in here?

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by buffalo

We have not seen an original picture or drawing of Adam.

Thinking out loud - The fist Adam and the second Adam. Wouldn't it be interesting if the first Adam was the image of the second.

This is a picture of the Chapel of Adam. It is below the Chapel of Golgatha.



Another photo of the altar is seen below with the rock of Golgotha behind the glass. The crack in the rock continues down to the chapel of Adam on the lower floor, and according to tradition the blood of Jesus dripped down the crack to the skull of Adam.

Who is that woman showing us her posterior there???!!!!
Is that person meant to be there?
Are they praying?

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by kama3

While we're at it, the absurdly long lifetimes in given in the genealogies in the next chapter suddenly start making sense if they refer to dynasties, and not to individuals.

Excerpt from 'Humani Generis:'

“..the first eleven chapter of Genesis...nevertheless come under the heading of history; in what exact sense, it is for the further study of the exegete to determine. These chapters have a naïve, symbolic way of speaking, well suited to the understanding of primitive people. But they do disclose to us certain important truths, upon which the attainment of our eternal salvation depends, and they do also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and of the chosen people. It may be true that the ancient authors of sacred history drew some of their material from current popular stories. So much may be granted. But it must be remembered that they did so under the impulse of divine inspiration which preserved them from all error in selecting and assessing the material they used….“these excerpts from current stories, which are found in the sacred books, must not be put on a level with mere myths, or with legend in general…In the OT a love of truth and a cult of simplicity shine out in such a way as to put these writers on a distinctly different level from their profane contemporaries.”

I have read that in ancient times long life spans were attributed to distinguished individuals. It was literary convention. But I have also heard suggested that after the Flood there was a decrease in life span as s consequence of sin which could be a punishment from God just as mortal death was. I do not think the Church as an official position on the life spans.

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

The pertinent question is not whether the Chuch teaches Adam and Eve, it does, but whether it teaches that it is literal history. The Church teaches the creation story too but the teachings on it do not rely on its literalism.

My guess, not having reviewed all the relevant documentation, is that it has generally been assumed to be literally true. But that is not the same as making a affirmative declaration that it is literally true.

The Church doesn't even teach that the New Testament is historically accurate in every detail.

They couldn't possibly teach that, of course!
Even the gospels differ in facts! I think three give different dates on when Jeshua was crucified?

[johnnyjones]

1 Chronicals 1:1 ADAM, Seth, Enosh....." and a long list of historical persons

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

They couldn't possibly teach that, of course!
Even the gospels differ in facts! I think three give different dates on when Jeshua was crucified?

What do you mean the 'Gospels differ in facts?' Do you mean the Gospels don't line up line by line? That is actually one of the reasons historians consider the Gospels more trustworthy, if the gospels lined up perfectly the authors could be accused of colluding. I read on this forum once that the Gospel authors are like 4 reporters attending a White House function. Depending on the reporters’ readership, each will list those persons there and what happened according to his own perspective. So, one or two of them might leave out details or mention of persons that the others left out. It doesn’t mean the WH function never took place or that they colluded together to lie, but rather that they each reported what they believed would be of interest to their particular readership. It’s the same with the Gospel writers. They weren’t being modern historians,but rather they were being story-tellers. Story-tellers relating a true story as they saw it and understood it.

Do you mean date or hour when Jesus was crucified?

What hour was Jesus crucified?

Mark 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

This one takes more digging in the Bible. This difference,involves the Jewish times of the day,and our times of the day (the Roman time of day: 12am-11:59pm). Let’s look at the Jewish times of day in the New Testament time: (hours are approximate because the length of the hour was not “set in stone” until about the 18th century)

Third hour–6am-9am
Sixth hour–9am-12pm
Ninth hour–12pm-3pm
Twelfth hour–3pm-6pm
First Watch–6pm-9pm
Second Watch–9pm-12am
Third Watch–12am-3am
Fourth Watch–3am-6am

The Roman times of day,are just as English Time,the Third Hour would be literally the Third Hour, from 12am (3am). The Jewish Day starts at about Evening of one day (about 6pm or so), to the evening of the next day, whereas Roman time, the day starts at 12am.

In Mark 15:25 we see Jesus crucified in the Third Hour,which is about from 6am-9am. In John 19:14 it appears to be the Sixth hour,9am-12pm, when Pilate brought Jesus before the crowd, right before Jesus was sentenced to Crucifixion! Is there a contradiction? It honestly appears to be . . . but it’s not! The difference is the system of time that Mark wrote in, and John wrote in! Mark,wrote in the Jewish times of day, while John wrote in the Roman times of day! That might seem like a long-shot, but let’s look at the context (not to mention, more highly studied Biblical scholars have said Mark seemed to write more after the Jewish manner, and John more after the Gentile/Roman manner) to check if this makes sense.

http://workmenforchrist.org/Bible/BC_Jesus_Nets.html

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by kama3

Absurd.

My biography of Joseph Stalin does not mention any of my grandparents. By your logic, I'd be forced to conclude that I don't exist. Historical narratives will rarely mention anyone but the top people in power.



Why the later prohibition on incest then?

Should have been:

Originally Posted by buffalo
The fact anyone else was not mentioned does not mean they were the only ones around.


Incest in the parent to child line is intrinsically evil. Between siblings it is not.

After the fall corruption entered the genome.

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

What do you mean the 'Gospels differ in facts?' Do you mean the Gospels don't line up line by line? That is actually one of the reasons historians consider the Gospels more trustworthy, if the gospels lined up perfectly the authors could be accused of colluding.
Do you mean date or hour when Jesus was crucified?

http://workmenforchrist.org/Bible/BC_Jesus_Nets.html

I don't have it in front of me, but as I recall, one of the books says he was crucified before passover or as passover was being prepared--to link it with the "sacrificial lamb" symbolism....and another has him being crucified after passover...(the following day?).

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

I don't have it in front of me, but as I recall, one of the books says he was crucified before passover or as passover was being prepared--to link it with the "sacrificial lamb" symbolism....and another has him being crucified after passover...(the following day?).

When was the Last Supper?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/passovertime.html