Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

reply to post by Jordan River


I see. Well, just got to wait a couples of years, when archeologists will dig there, and see if we find Adam and Eve body. It will solve alot of questions.

reply to post by FutureThinker


All we know is that we know nothing. You think the Church knows? You think this new scientist guy knows? B%ch Please!

Yes, we are stupid that much is true because like Eve and Adam, we keep falling for the same snake tricks and lies. Maybe that story (Adam and Eve) is not so out of touch as we think. Maybe, just maybe. It doesn't matter if it happened or not....maybe it's.............a lesson!!!!! And not a historical record! If Moses and Jesus didn't exist then I shall kill, lie, cheat and knock up the neighbors wife? And it's ok? The origins of man are UKNOWN. Besides, a religion is based on FAITH not facts FAITH. which means they can believe in what ever they want. Thats what believing is for!

What does that statement prove? That we can't use stories to give a moral or two. History are stories their HIS STORY. Get it....Religion and science always trying to divide.........again..........*palm in face*

reply to post by starheart


You don't seriously believe that man only started existing 6000 years ago? Or do you?

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by paradox

 

And now you are demonstrating the #2 beef that Atheists have with Christians- closed mindedness. Bravo.

How? Because I do not accept anything as fact without a shred of evidence to support it?

reply to post by CaptainBeno


He's right. Adam and Eve are a creation myth.
He's expressing his viewpoint, and this is not official Catholic teaching.
For it to be 'official' it would have to come from the Vatican with an official stamp on it.

However, by his saying that Adam and Eve were a creation myth he violates one of the
main church teachings .. that Catholics are supposed to believe in Original Sin. Without
Adam and Eve there is no 'original sin'. So what he is saying is definately against
church teaching.

That being said .. he's in his 70s so the church may give him slack on this and have him
'retire' from the public instead of slapping him for it.

reply to post by LaborofLove

Nope, just saying ''if'' to illustrate what i was saying. Humans started long time ago ( 2 millions years according to scientists, and 600 millions years according to ufologists, and 450 000 years according to Zecharia Sitchin).
And cities were found 8000 years ago, so no, humans weren't created 6000 years ago.

Originally posted by FutureThinker

I copied this statement from the OPs link, Yahoo News

"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them."

So, is the Church trying to cover thier butts, because from the statement above, all I get is that incest took place, and thats how we all got here, that seems to be what the story of Adam & Eve is saying.

How could we have been so stupid to believe that we all came from just two humans, does anybody else get this too.

How is the Adam and Eve story much different from what is taught from a non religious perspective?

en.wikipedia.org...

Looks to me like some serious revisions need to be made there too then.

If you take the creation of Adam and Eve and put it into what we are capable of doing today, it doesn't seem to far fetched,

God the creator/scientist, cloned Eve from the rib of Adam,

The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Adam a-dam. It is of Hebrew origin, and the meaning of Adam is "earth". From "adama". In Hebrew, it is a generic term for "man". Biblical: in the Genesis account, he was the first man created from the red earth of Eden.

Genesis and Genes.

Composition of the human body

The average 70 kg adult human body contains approximately 6.7 x 1027 atoms and is "composed of" 60 chemical elements. In this sense, "composed of" means that a trace of the element has been identified in the body. However, at the finest resolution, most objects on Earth (including the human body) contain measureable contaminating amounts of all of the 88 chemical elements which are detectable in nearly any soil on Earth. The number of elements thought to play an active positive role in life and augmentation of health in humans and other mammals, is about 24 or 25.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Now as I have come to understand it, there were people before Adam and Eve, and I think this is about bloodlines.

And no not all stories in the Bible are myth,many archeological digs have confirmed historical events that are found in the Bible, names, places, Kings and Kingdoms.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org...

Is it misunderstood and misinterpreted? Yes.

But investigating the Bible in historical context is fascinating, and you do yourself a disservice by discounting it .

I think it would be fun to work together on doing some bible studies based on archeology, and history, to many people now days think everything in the Bible is fiction, and that is just not true.

He probably denies the fact of a literal Adam and Eve, in which I do as well. Adam and Eve were, to me, avatars for early humanity [as detailed in the first chapter of Genesis], and then we split off into a singular Adam and Eve in chapter two, focusing on a male and a female, whom represent 'Adam and Eve'.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Deetermined

 

And you think there is such a thing as a literal tree of life, as opposed to a tree of the knowledge of good and evil? So in your mind, these are actual physical trees - and not literary instruments conveying abstract-archetypal concepts?

Just out of curiosity, what concepts do you think they convey based on the wording?

As for the Tree of Life, there was one in the Garden of Eden also, along with the Tree of Knowledge.

In Genesis 3, God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden so they couldn't go back and eat from the Tree of Life again. After he drove them out, he placed cherubim around the garden to guard it and keep them out.

Let me give a brief exposition on Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Seth

Adam is an androgynous human; he was neither male nor female, but both. Finally, when Eve was extracted from Adam's rib (Tzelem also means 'side') the androgyny of Adam was bifurcated into two: Ish and Ishah - man and woman. Man is the anterior state (the state nearer to the Adamic abstraction) while Ishah (woman) is a qualitatively different state. Adam comes from 'the dust of the earth' i.e., from a completely non-material origin, while Eve (or manifestation) derives from what's already made flesh/material (Adam's rib).

In ontological terms, Ish (or Adam, after the female was created) is the principle, while Ishah, or Eve, is the manifestation - hence, the manifestation is derived from the principle, as Eve was taken from Adam's side.

From the copulation of these two principles comes Cain and Able. Cain comes out first. The Hebrew word Cayin means 'to possess'. To possess something presupposes a desire to possess, therefore, Cain refers to the Ego, which is all about integration of external stimuli into it's personal composition. Abel, conversely, means 'vapor' - he is the second function, or the spiritual function that seeks self nullification.

Cain was a farmer - and a farmer works the soil of the earth - i.e. the feminine principle/manifestation, which is egoistic. When God (or, perhaps, the intuitive awareness of Gods activity in man's consciousness, which is the conscience) asks for a sacrifice, the Ego offers only that which it can produce on it's own (from the earth). Abel, or the desire towards self nullification, who worked as a shepherd (which implies a higher connection; working with animals alludes to man's own connection with the creator) gave up a lamb, which could be interpreted as the willingness to give up ones own life force (his anima) to the Absolute principle

The Absolute favors Abels sacrifice over Cains. Cain, the ego, which responds harshly to life's difficulties, rebels and despises his spiritual side - that part which the universe favors - that part which leads to personal peace, and grace, and so, the ego "kills it" - believing that it has no need to foster it's spiritual side (or to be his brother's keeper). But the Earth - in the sphere of manifestation - 'cries out' - and the ego soon faces the wrath of the universe - which 'banishes' him to Nod (Hebrew for wilderness), where, paradoxically, the ego "settles" itself. Here, the Ego builds cities (the ego is all about growth, and construction of outer reality, expanding it's influence outward and onward. The Hebrew word for city "Ir", is related to the word "arousal") for the sake of personal advancement (Enoch, Cains "son", the name of the city Cain built, means 'to educate') The Ego builds cities (or human collectives) for the sake of it's advancement via education/Enoch.

Thus, the side of Cain is the ontological story of the ego, and what it does for man.

As for Adam and Eve, after the first 'failure', or, rather, the establishing the reality of the conflict between ego (cain) and self nullification (Abel), Eve has another son (this time, rightly, she doesn't say she 'acquired' or "created" a son, but rather, that God has GIVEN her a son. The sphere of manifestation disclaims all credit for life, acknowledging herself as being contingent on the Universal) which she calls Sheth (meaning 'established') who was made in the image of Adam. Adam, again, is androgynous, meaning, he combines both aspects, both masculine and feminine within him; just as he was made in the image of his creator, Seth was made in the image of Adam. This mean's man must neither be too inclined to the egoistic or the self transcendent, but must be 'established' in both planes.

The following narrative continues the ontological evolution of mankind.

Originally posted by dontreally
I think you have to be semi-retarded to insist that Adam and Eve were historical figures. Of COURSE THEY ARE MYTHS! Undoubtedly. Now, what does the word 'myth' mean to you? If it doesn't connote archetypal-metaphysical reality, then you are just not getting the significance of that biblical narrative.

The prime importance of the story is in it's mythological, or, if you will, metaphysical-ontological meaning. It's speaks about man's spiritual origin, not his material/physical origin.

Can any religious believer in the Bible/Torah really believe, in all intellectual honesty, that a tree of good and evil existed? Does this NOT SOUND LIKE A METAPHOR?

edit on 10-4-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Bravo to you! That's my opinion as well.

The whole of Christian Scripture is, to me, to theologically account for the evolutionary timeline of humanity from an unconscious [i.e. lacking knowledge of good and evil] being, to a conscious being [i.e. obtaining knowledge of good and evil], and finally culminating in the coming of Christ [i.e. the tree of life], where we eat from it and we've become like angels in that we are self-conscious of our eternal nature.

reply to post by dontreally


I love your post, dontreally.

reply to post by dontreally


Really? Then what's the point in creating a genealogy list?

Genesis 5:

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

3) And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: 4) And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5) And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 6) And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 7) And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8) And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. 9) And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: 10) And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: 11) And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died. 12) And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel: 13) And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: 14) And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died. 15) And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: 16) And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: 17And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died. 18) And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch: 19) And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

.....and the list goes on....

www.biblegateway.com...

What if Evolution is God? Adam literally means Mankind. The word Adumah means "Mankind", male and female. What if it's all the same thing in the end? Really who cares? Can't we all just get along? lol

It is interesting that science goes for a female progenitor, that way it doesn't have to deal at all with Adam and Eve, or rather the problematical Adam and Eve, in which they, or their first children would have needed to have indulged in incest as we call it. Without the incest, we would never have happened, (If you believe in Adam and Eve that is) and incest is degenerative, even though most Christians have to accept that is what happened, and still happens today anyway. Where the church has failed, is not make this an issue in sermons in regard to Adam and Eve. A much bigger question is, does the bible teach us to live better? Well it teaches us a better way of doing things, that's what it was intended to do in part. The presumption though is, that we did not already know as human beings what is right or wrong. In the past survival seemed to be a communial thing and people worked together for the common good, being disfunctional was not an option. So how far do you take the Adam and Eve thing? Most people seem happy enough to accept 'original sin' was really a polite way of saying A&E getting it off, encouraged by a third party, who was not God..that does not work at all.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Maybe something is coming and they need to change the story to fit their purpose yet again. Ah! well, ain't no wrinkle in my coin purse. As you were.

reply to post by smurfy


If we consider that God took a part of Adam to create Eve, and that its considered ''incest'', does that mean that when we'll come to make clones from one another (like the science seem to go), nobody will be able to marry each other?

reply to post by Lionhearte

Noah built it over a period of 100 yrs.

Over 100 years ....... over 100 years..... Really? No, seriously.....

hmmmmm .. let me get this straight.. You feel Noah being 300+ years old in this story is logical and plausible?
Am I to assume you believe that snakes can talk? Or a dead man can rise again? Once in a history books, THEN POW, no more interaction with god or his son

Ok, it seems we will never be able to find common ground. I am basing my opinion on facts and reality, while yours is based on unrealistic factors.

Some people have this intense need, for there to be more than life then death.. Apparently, reality and logic needs to be tossed aside to keep the hope alive..

good day sir.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


If Adam represented all of mankind, the Bible wouldn't say that he lived 930 years and then died.

2nd.