Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

[Michie]

A museum worker cleans the floor in front of true to scale copies of the paintings "Adam" and "Eve" by Hans Baldung Grien, the apprentice of German Renaissance painter Albrecht Duerer, during a pre-view of the Duerer exhibition at the Staedel museum in Frankfurt October 22, 2013. | Reuters/Kai Pfaffenbach

Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25% of Catholic and mainline Protestant pastors say they firmly believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Among Evangelical pastors, the numbers are somewhat better, but a notable portion still express doubt or uncertainty about whether Adam and Eve were real historical figures.

For some, this may seem like a minor theological point in the broader narrative of Scripture. But in truth, whether Adam and Eve were real people has profound implications for the authority of the Bible, the doctrine of original sin, the credibility of Jesus’ teachings, and the very foundation of the Gospel itself.

Genesis presents Adam and Eve not as metaphorical symbols but as literal individuals created uniquely by God. Genesis 2:7, ESV, says, “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

This verse isn’t written in the style of myth or parable. It’s a clear and deliberate account of the origin of humanity. Later, in Genesis 2:22, the creation of Eve is described in similarly specific terms: “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Continued below.

Why Believing in a Literal Adam and Eve Matters

Dismissing Adam and Eve as mere symbols of human imperfection may win intellectual approval, but it undermines the Bible’s authority, distorts the doctrine of sin, and strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message. Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25 percent...

www.standingforfreedom.com

 

[BobRyan]

A museum worker cleans the floor in front of true to scale copies of the paintings "Adam" and "Eve" by Hans Baldung Grien, the apprentice of German Renaissance painter Albrecht Duerer, during a pre-view of the Duerer exhibition at the Staedel museum in Frankfurt October 22, 2013. | Reuters/Kai Pfaffenbach

True to scale - -- to what scale? The size of the painting??

Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25% of Catholic and mainline Protestant pastors say they firmly believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

how sad.

Among Evangelical pastors, the numbers are somewhat better

well at least that is "something"

, but a notable portion still express doubt or uncertainty about whether Adam and Eve were real historical figures.

For some, this may seem like a minor theological point in the broader narrative of Scripture. But in truth, whether Adam and Eve were real people has profound implications for the authority of the Bible, the doctrine of original sin, the credibility of Jesus’ teachings, and the very foundation of the Gospel itself.

True.

IT is a house of cards - as they say. Because various texts, Bible writers refer to Bible history in a way clearly designed to lead the reader to believe that that text is reporting actual facts of actual history..

If we contrast the "Trees elect a king" parable in Judges 9:8-15 that clearly reads as a parable as compared to the account of the creation of the world in Gen 1-2 (see Gen 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven"

Rom 5 treats the creation of Adam as fact.
So also does Christ in the gospels
So also in 1Tim 2:13 Paul says that even the detail of Adam created first and then Eve - is accurate

Genesis presents Adam and Eve not as metaphorical symbols but as literal individuals created uniquely by God. Genesis 2:7, ESV, says, “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

This verse isn’t written in the style of myth or parable.

True.

But notice how the efforts to insert disbelief into the Bible seek to "soften the idea" that scripture is merely myth - by saying "myth is merely a term referring to old literature before the modern age"

"Myths are not simply fictional tales; they are often considered to be sacred and fundamental to a society's worldview"

Myth Contrast with Legend:
. While myths and legends are both traditional narratives, legends are often based on historical events, even if embellished, while myths tend to be more focused on explaining fundamental truths and origins.

It’s a clear and deliberate account of the origin of humanity. Later, in Genesis 2:22, the creation of Eve is described in similarly specific terms: “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Continued below.

Why Believing in a Literal Adam and Eve Matters

Dismissing Adam and Eve as mere symbols of human imperfection may win intellectual approval, but it undermines the Bible’s authority, distorts the doctrine of sin, and strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message. Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25 percent...

www.standingforfreedom.com

True.

My point is that there is a well-coordinated effort to get Bible accounts of actual history - to be re-cast and considered "myth" so as to open the readers to increased levels of distrust in sacred scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

When AI is confronted with this statement "Catholic church allows members to accept creation as fact and history"

It responds this way:

"The Catholic Church does not require its members to interpret the creation story in Genesis literally, and it allows for acceptance of evolution as a valid scientific theory. The Church acknowledges the scientific evidence for evolution while also upholding the belief in a divine creator and the creation of the universe. The Church emphasizes that the creation narratives in Genesis are not meant to be taken as literal historical accounts, but rather as symbolic expressions of theological truths about God's relationship with creation"

==================

when AI is confronted with this statement "The Seventh-day Adventist church allows members to accept creation as fact and history"

IT responds this way

"Yes, the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that its members should accept the biblical account of Creation as a
literal and historical event.

Here's a breakdown of their perspective on Creation:

• Basis in Scripture: They believe the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, provides the authentic and historical record of God's creative activity.
• Six-Day Creation: Seventh-day Adventists understand the Creation week as consisting of six literal, 24-hour days, followed by God resting on the seventh day.
• Foundational Belief: The doctrine of Creation is considered a core belief for Seventh-day Adventists, forming the basis for other important aspects of their faith, including the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.
• Intelligent Design: They emphasize the idea of intelligent design, believing the intricate nature of the world points to a purposeful Creator.
• ....

 

[BobRyan]

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=679&whichpage=2

Franciscan Monk in Seminary - writes​

​

"This is where you show that you have no clue of what you're saying. The Church does not have a teaching on this. How can I attack the Catholic Faith when it doesn't have a clear teaching on Genesis? As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II agrees with evolution, so does Cardinal Dulles who is a well-known theologian. I'm a seminarian studying to be a Franciscan Priests and if you go to a seminary and claim that Adam and Eve were made on the 6th day and that a snake spoke to them, you will be laughed at. "Read this http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT​

​

​

-----------------------------------------------​

​

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis." ​

​

"In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576)."​

​

"It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory." [/B]​

​

​

Pope John Paul II​

Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences​

22 October 1996​

​

[/quote]​

"So having shown from RC sources themselves that not ONLY are the mythologies of evolutionism accepted and taught in the RC science class but ALSO in the RC seminary – the question remains, “What does this compromise with evolutionism do to the Gospel of Jesus Christ”?[/quote]​

​

​

========================= My Most recent research shows​

​

The Creation, Nature and Fall of Man | EWTN

https://www.

ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/creation-nature-and-fall-of-man-215

"Pope Pius XII in Humani generis in 1950 told us we may consider as a possible--not as something proved--that God established some natural laws that would bring about this evolution from lower to higher. Even so, the whole process would depend on God's creative power. This is true especially of the human soul, which, being spiritual, cannot have evolved. We would call this theistic evolution, that is evolution involving the power of God at so many points.

"The scientific evidence for bodily evolution is almost non-existent. "Research News" in Science, November 21, 1980, reported that the majority of 160 scientists at a conference at the Field Museum in Chicago said Darwin was wrong in supposing there had been many intermediate forms between species, e.g., between fish and birds. The fossils do not give one clear case of that. So the scientists decided on, "Punctuated equilibria", the theory that a species might stay the same for millions of years, and then suddenly by a fluke leap up into something higher. No solid proof was reported as offered at the meeting."

"Pius XII also noted that Catholics must believe, as a consequence of the doctrine of original sin, that all men have descended from the same two first parents. Science News, August 13, 1983, reported that Allan Wilson, of the University of California, Berkeley, said his study of specimens of mitochrondrial DNA from all over the world, showed all existing humans come from one mother, who lived 350,000 years ago. More recent studies by many scientists agree that there was only one mother, but lower the age to 200,000 years (cf. Newsweek, January 11, 1988).

===================================

By contrast to the above - I agree with Michie that the only sound argument here - is for full and complete acceptance of the Genesis text since the Bible begins to fail once we starts cutting things out and calling them fiction. Things that other parts of the Bible rely on as being true.

Even the Ten Commandments rely on the literal acceptance of the Genesis text saying "Ex 20: 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (sanctified it)".

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Always a good conversation to bring up.

God bless.

 

[bling]

I believe they actually existed, but do not make it a salvation issue with those I am presenting the gospel to.
I think you can get the messages of the story, without believing in a literal Adam and Eve.

 

[public hermit]

Surely, literalism is fringe amongst Catholics, no?

 

[Michie]

What do Catholics believe about Adam and Eve? | Commonweal Magazine

www.commonwealmagazine.org

 

[linux.poet]

As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II agrees with evolution

That’s not what I read in Man and Woman He Created Them, where Pope John Paul II broke down the creation passage of Adam and Eve in detail. The man wrote an entire book of sermons on the creation of Adam and Eve where he took the whole thing literally as a passion project.

From what I have read of Catholic popes so far, they seem to take one position in one communication and deny the same belief in another, possibly for the purposes of inclusivity.

However, that can be infuriating to the American Protestant perspective, because we expect our leaders to be consistent in their beliefs and actions and walk in a straight line, and also to be honest about what they actually believe. From that perspective papal communication looks like manipulation and corruption, and it’s part of why we question the authority of the RCC.

For the record, I join you in believing that Adam and Eve are literal history, along with the entirety of Genesis.

 

[Valletta]

That’s not what I read in Man and Woman He Created Them, where Pope John Paul II broke down the creation passage of Adam and Eve in detail. The man wrote an entire book of sermons on the creation of Adam and Eve where he took the whole thing literally as a passion project.

From what I have read of Catholic popes so far, they seem to take one position in one communication and deny the same belief in another, possibly for the purposes of inclusivity.

However, that can be infuriating to the American Protestant perspective, because we expect our leaders to be consistent in their beliefs and actions and walk in a straight line, and also to be honest about what they actually believe. From that perspective papal communication looks like manipulation and corruption, and it’s part of why we question the authority of the RCC.

A much better case could be made for the opposite. Protestants have disagreed so much that there are thousands upon thousands of denominations. What is defined as Catholic dogma cannot be changed. We can come to a deeper understanding. Now there are subjects that we simply do not know the answer to and thus are matters of speculation. What we do know is that there was a first man and first woman and there was a falling away from God. How literal the Garden of Eve story is we don't know.

 

[trophy33]

For me, the literal existence of Adam and Eve is not important. Nothing changes regarding Christ, God or gospel.

Yes, the view of the Bible or some theological frameworks (like the original sin) may shift for some people, but that is life. We are not forbidden to update our views when we learn new facts.

 

[trophy33]

That’s not what I read in Man and Woman He Created Them, where Pope John Paul II broke down the creation passage of Adam and Eve in detail. The man wrote an entire book of sermons on the creation of Adam and Eve where he took the whole thing literally as a passion project.

“The account of the creation of woman from the rib of man is a figurative expression, which uses the language of the time to express a profound truth about the origin and nature of woman.”
General Audience on November 15, 1978

“The Bible itself speaks of the creation of the first man and woman in a way that is not to be taken as a scientific account but as a theological and symbolic expression of the truth about humanity.”
Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1996

 

[Rose_bud]

When AI is confronted with this statement "Catholic church allows members to accept creation as fact and history"

It responds this way:

"The Catholic Church does not require its members to interpret the creation story in Genesis literally, and it allows for acceptance of evolution as a valid scientific theory. The Church acknowledges the scientific evidence for evolution while also upholding the belief in a divine creator and the creation of the universe. The Church emphasizes that the creation narratives in Genesis are not meant to be taken as literal historical accounts, but rather as symbolic expressions of theological truths about God's relationship with creation"

==================

when AI is confronted with this statement "The Seventh-day Adventist church allows members to accept creation as fact and history"

IT responds this way

"Yes, the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that its members should accept the biblical account of Creation as a
literal and historical event.

Here's a breakdown of their perspective on Creation:

• Basis in Scripture: They believe the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, provides the authentic and historical record of God's creative activity.
• Six-Day Creation: Seventh-day Adventists understand the Creation week as consisting of six literal, 24-hour days, followed by God resting on the seventh day.
• Foundational Belief: The doctrine of Creation is considered a core belief for Seventh-day Adventists, forming the basis for other important aspects of their faith, including the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.
• Intelligent Design: They emphasize the idea of intelligent design, believing the intricate nature of the world points to a purposeful Creator.
• ....

Hi Bob Ryan

Not planning to participate in this thread. Just thinking that it makes sense that the SDA has a more stringent requirement for this
as it has a much greater bearing on their doctrine than on Catholics because of bullet 3.

 

[linux.poet]

Protestants have disagreed so much that there are thousands upon thousands of denominations.

I think this post is just proving my point. If I'm a Protestant and I disagree with my pastor about something important, I can just walk down the the street to the next Protestant church and find a new pastor to agree with. This means that every pastor can say what they honestly believe, teach and argue it, and that's what is expected. We expect all of our worldviews to be entirely self-consistent, because we don't have to adapt them to harmonize with others, we just find the people who agree with us on major doctrines of importance and stay there.

If I'm Catholic and I disagree with the Pope, well, . Obviously the Pope wants to maintain the Catholic church as the single monolith that it is and not push people away who truly believe, so it just makes sense to agree with everyone, but not all at once.

Protestants are like a stack of bread crumbs while Catholicism is like an egg. One can argue that the egg is better than the stack - I don't care about that - my point has to do with the difference, and how Protestants view Catholics as a result.

Now there are subjects that we simply do not know the answer to and thus are matters of speculation. What we do know is that there was a first man and first woman and there was a falling away from God. How literal the Garden of Eve story is we don't know.

How can you not know? Do you trust God to tell an honest history?

Honestly, I think if God can't be trusted to tell the truth in the Bible from beginning to end, and provide accurate information, then how can He be trusted for any of it? If I can't trust that Genesis 1:1 is true, how can I trust that John 1 is true and that my salvation is not a scam?

The answer, is that I trust God for all of it - the same Jesus who became incarnate and died and rose again was at the Beginning and created the world as John said he did. "Without him nothing came into being that has come into being." I trust God to tell the truth.

 

[trophy33]

How can you not know? Do you trust God to tell an honest history?

Honestly, I think if God can't be trusted to tell the truth in the Bible from beginning to end, and provide accurate information...

Genesis was neither written nor narrated/dictated by God. So, this reasoning is a bit nonsensical.

Even if Genesis were written by God, He could still use various non-literal genres, mainly when communicating with an Iron Age tribe. But it was not, so the whole point falls apart from the start.

 

[Job 33:6]

A museum worker cleans the floor in front of true to scale copies of the paintings "Adam" and "Eve" by Hans Baldung Grien, the apprentice of German Renaissance painter Albrecht Duerer, during a pre-view of the Duerer exhibition at the Staedel museum in Frankfurt October 22, 2013. | Reuters/Kai Pfaffenbach

Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25% of Catholic and mainline Protestant pastors say they firmly believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Among Evangelical pastors, the numbers are somewhat better, but a notable portion still express doubt or uncertainty about whether Adam and Eve were real historical figures.

For some, this may seem like a minor theological point in the broader narrative of Scripture. But in truth, whether Adam and Eve were real people has profound implications for the authority of the Bible, the doctrine of original sin, the credibility of Jesus’ teachings, and the very foundation of the Gospel itself.

Genesis presents Adam and Eve not as metaphorical symbols but as literal individuals created uniquely by God. Genesis 2:7, ESV, says, “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

This verse isn’t written in the style of myth or parable. It’s a clear and deliberate account of the origin of humanity. Later, in Genesis 2:22, the creation of Eve is described in similarly specific terms: “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Continued below.

Why Believing in a Literal Adam and Eve Matters

Dismissing Adam and Eve as mere symbols of human imperfection may win intellectual approval, but it undermines the Bible’s authority, distorts the doctrine of sin, and strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message. Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25 percent...

www.standingforfreedom.com

Adam being made of dust is a literal historical account? Until you read about every other person in the Bible being made of dust.

Psalm 103:14 ESV / For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.

Ecclesiastes 3:20 ESV / All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.

Job 34:15 ESV / All flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust.

Genesis 18:27 ESV / Abraham answered and said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.

Psalm 104:29 ESV / When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.

Job 10:9 ESV / Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust?

1 Corinthians 15:48 ESV / As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

And of course, with Eve, what is the first thing that happens just before Eve is created? Adam falls into a deep sleep. A common occurrence throughout the Bible, including a few chapters later when Abraham falls into a deep sleep, that involves prophetic visions. Not literal history.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A museum worker cleans the floor in front of true to scale copies of the paintings "Adam" and "Eve" by Hans Baldung Grien, the apprentice of German Renaissance painter Albrecht Duerer, during a pre-view of the Duerer exhibition at the Staedel museum in Frankfurt October 22, 2013. | Reuters/Kai Pfaffenbach

Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25% of Catholic and mainline Protestant pastors say they firmly believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Among Evangelical pastors, the numbers are somewhat better, but a notable portion still express doubt or uncertainty about whether Adam and Eve were real historical figures.

For some, this may seem like a minor theological point in the broader narrative of Scripture. But in truth, whether Adam and Eve were real people has profound implications for the authority of the Bible, the doctrine of original sin, the credibility of Jesus’ teachings, and the very foundation of the Gospel itself.

Genesis presents Adam and Eve not as metaphorical symbols but as literal individuals created uniquely by God. Genesis 2:7, ESV, says, “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

This verse isn’t written in the style of myth or parable. It’s a clear and deliberate account of the origin of humanity. Later, in Genesis 2:22, the creation of Eve is described in similarly specific terms: “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Continued below.

Why Believing in a Literal Adam and Eve Matters

Dismissing Adam and Eve as mere symbols of human imperfection may win intellectual approval, but it undermines the Bible’s authority, distorts the doctrine of sin, and strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message. Data from the National Survey of Religious Leaders reveals that only 25 percent...

www.standingforfreedom.com

From my vantage point, the question of whether or not Adam and Eve literally existed is a secondary issue, not a primary one. What's important is that we see the meaning in the message of Genesis 1-11 as it stood as a theological counterpoint to the competing worldviews which had existed abroad in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

 

[Bob Crowley]

The problem basically is the theory of evolution versus special creation. If the theory of evolution is correct, which particular couple fill the roles of Adam and Eve?

The problem for special creation is pinning down the evidence. There are arguments on both sides, and for myself I'm sitting on the fence.

I don't have any doubt God's intelligence was involved in creating the universe. Just looking at enzymes leads me to think that there was more than blind unguided chance at work.

The Central Role of Enzymes as Biological Catalysts - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

A fundamental task of proteins is to act as enzymes—catalysts that increase the rate of virtually all the chemical reactions within cells. Although RNAs are capable of catalyzing some reactions, most biological reactions are catalyzed by proteins. In the absence of enzymatic catalysis, most biochemical reactions are so slow that they would not occur under the mild conditions of temperature and pressure that are compatible with life. Enzymes accelerate the rates of such reactions by well over a million-fold, so reactions that would take years in the absence of catalysis can occur in fractions of seconds if catalyzed by the appropriate enzyme. Cells contain thousands of different enzymes, and their activities determine which of the many possible chemical reactions actually take place within the cell.

Literate civilisations also arose not far apart in terms of geologic time in Mesoptamia (3000 BC), China (1700 BC) and Central America (1000 BC). This is despite the distances between them and the lack of interaction.

Why did civilization appear everywhere simultaneously?

On thing is obvious however - humanity has a problem with "Sin" - right now there are two major wars, massacres in Nigeria, and despots rule several countries. To say nothing of domestic vilence, rape, murder, theft, social media scams, lying, torture, kidnapping, confidence tricksters, adultery, murdering unborn children and calling it "good", racism, sexism, pride, economic injustice, road rage, cruelty to animals, environmental abuse, tax avoidance, and war crimes.

Doing away with a literal Adam and Eve makes this difficult to reconcile.

 

[Job 33:6]

The problem basically is the theory of evolution versus special creation. If the theory of evolution is correct, which particular couple fill the roles of Adam and Eve?

The problem for special creation is pinning down the evidence. There are arguments on both sides, and for myself I'm sitting on the fence.

I don't have any doubt God's intelligence was involved in creating the universe. Just looking at enzymes leads me to think that there was more than blind unguided chance at work.

The Central Role of Enzymes as Biological Catalysts - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Literate civilisations also arose not far apart in terms of geologic time in Mesoptamia (3000 BC), China (1700 BC) and Central America (1000 BC). This is despite the distances between them and the lack of interaction.

Why did civilization appear everywhere simultaneously?

On thing is obvious however - humanity has a problem with "Sin" - right now there are two major wars, massacres in Nigeria, and despots rule several countries. To say nothing of domestic vilence, rape, murder, theft, social media scams, lying, torture, kidnapping, confidence tricksters, adultery, murdering unborn children and calling it "good", racism, sexism, pride, economic injustice, road rage, cruelty to animals, environmental abuse, tax avoidance, and war crimes.

Doing away with a literal Adam and Eve makes this difficult to reconcile.

Sin, or the existence of sin, does not depend on whether or not Adam and Eve are literal people. Sin enters the world through people everyday. Adam represents humanity typologically.