Is the Adam and Eve story true?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Is the Adam and Eve story true?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Justin
 
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 10:30 am
Is the Adam and Eve story true? Adam and Eve story make up a large portion of whether or not we believe in what's written in the bible. Considering that the Adam and Eve story puts a lot of weight on Religion and our being created in the image of God, it's important that this story of Adam and Eve have some validity instead of just biblical storytelling.

In this thread, let's come to a conclusion and offer conclusive evidence that supports or debunks the story of Adam and Eve.

Previous discussions on Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve noted in the traditions of religions in Wiki

So the question remains: Do we have enough evidence to actually believe in this story and if we don't believe in it, how much of the bible can we really believe in?

On a side note, the story of Adam and Eve was written thousands of years after the supposed experience in the Garden with God. Based on scientific findings of fossils, it doesn't add up. What are your thoughts?

Here are some reasons why I don't believe Adam and Eve:

  • Archaeologists, biologists and scientists have all proven that humans share homologous traits with chimpanzees which would have made Adam and Eve chimpanzees.
  • The story was written many many years afterward almost as if it were a Sidney Sheldon novel.
  • The notion of the early days when women were suppressed so to make the story of Adam and Eve real to all the real men, Adam was good, Eve was Evil. This supported the anti-female logic within the church. - Women, obey your masters! LOL.
  • It was a creation myth. This myth was supposedly written by Moses while he was in the wilderness of Sinai and claimed that he wrote it through God's vision.
  • The big men of those days needed explanation of what they interpreted were Good and Evil and what better a story than one that makes women the one who brought evil into this world base on her eating of the forbidden fruit in the tree of life.
  • The Hebrew scriptures during that time were written by MEN and were written to bind communities of faith together not to be truth. Truth is one thing, faith is another.

The last reason is because we, humans actually create the good and evil in this world. We create or co-create it with our thoughts and actions and always have. Adam and Eve is simply a story written by a man to explain things that could not be explained at the time. During this time, the world was flat and small and knowledge of science and physics were obsolete. Still today, any evil in the world is created by humankind, not by God and not by a Devil. Nature shows us balance in the perfect sense and also shows us the imbalance that we, humankind bring to the table with our messed of way of creating silly stories to place the burden on something other than ourselves and our own actions. No wonder we have so many religions.

Those are just a few reasons. My thoughts are that if Adam and Eve can logically be debunked, then so can Moses, the great floods and all these silly religions we've created based upon the tradition of creation and the story of good and evil based solely upon the story of Adam and Eve.
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 10:44 am
@Justin,
If your a fundamentalist you have to answer the question who did Adam and Eves children marry,without them committing incest, a cardinal sin.
If you see it as a story to explain mans ascension from a primeval origin, then it has many truths.When you consider we all originate from one African women ,who by becoming human left a certain innocence behind her.Animals do not sin ,its a preserve of us humans.
I did not vote as it i can not agree with any of the answers.
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 11:14 am
@Justin,
Hi Justin,

I have no idea how it all started. It is a deep mystery. Different cultures have their own stories, but interestingly they many suggest very similar ideas. Adam and Eve, for example, representing the Yin and the Yang of the world. I remember reading some very interesting allegorical interpretations of the story, and it might be interesting to discuss the story - not necessarily literally, but allegorically. For example, the story of Lilith and Adam and Eve.

The Myth

I think ancient stories are beautiful in what they might tell us, even if they have evolved along with everything else.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-10-2009 at 12:17 PM ----------

Justin;82335 wrote:
Is there another answer that should be added to the poll?


Hi Justin,

I don't know how to phrase it, but I think that the story of Adam and Eve is far more than just fiction. It says something about who we are and how it all began, albeit in an allegorical fashion.

Rich
 
jgweed
 
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 11:36 am
@Justin,
It isn't necessary to believe a myth or allegory to be an actual event to find it poetically truthful or insightful. But it is a myth nonetheless, and should be understood in that light.
 
hadad
 
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 07:18 pm
@Justin,
Justin;82330 wrote:

Here are some reasons why I don't believe Adam and Eve:

  • Archaeologists, biologists and scientists have all proven that humans share homologous traits with chimpanzees which would have made Adam and Eve chimpanzees.

[/LIST] Don't know if you know, but we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, we only share a common ancestor.
 
Lily
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 03:53 am
@Justin,
I often wonder, those who belive in a literal truth in the Bible, which one of the creations myths do they belive, the first chapter or the second?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 05:32 am
@Justin,
As Lily, I think, refers to, there are two creation myths in the Bible. Karen Armstrong's current work Case for God makes it clear that in pre-modern times, these myths were freely adapted, made up, discared, embellished, dramatised, and so on, hundreds of times over. Every culture has First Man and Creation of Earth Myths. They are neither to be scoffed at or simply believed in but interpreted.

The whole idea of 'the Bible as literal truth' is very recent and largely promoted by those who are terrified of the pace of change of human society and don't understand where we are heading so want to 'get back to the fundamentals'. I understand why they feel like that although I think they are sadly mistaken. The Church Fathers knew the Bible was allegorical in the first century (for heaven's sake!)

If I were Christian, I would have no hesitation in embracing allegorical readings of the Bible. The myths of the Fall speak to an existential truth. Of that I have no doubt at all.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 07:33 am
@Justin,
Justin;82330 wrote:
Here are some reasons why I don't believe Adam and Eve:

  • Archaeologists, biologists and scientists have all proven that humans share homologous traits with chimpanzees which would have made Adam and Eve chimpanzees.
To be fair, we DID NOT descend from chimpanzees. Modern humans and modern chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor. But then again, we have common ancestry with all primates, all mammals, all vertebrates, all chordates, all animals, all unikonts, and possibly all eukaryotes. We have some degree of genetic homology even with bacteria.

My point is that there's no way to superimpose evolutionary biology onto the Adam and Eve story.

With one exception:

Mitochondrial DNA, which is transmitted solely matrilineally, can be used to study the maternal ancestry of populations. And there IS a mitochondrial "Eve". In other words, within the timeline of Homo sapiens, all extant humans can be traced back to a mitochondrial "mother". However, this does not prove that it was a single person -- it was more likely a small population. I believe they've done the same with some patrilineally-inherited Y chromosome determinants too.


Justin, I think you're being a bit uncharitable with religious allegory. All religions have creation stories, and all societies have foundation stories. The historicity of Adam and Eve (very doubtful), Abraham (more likely), Moses (yet more likely), King David (very likely), etc is irrelevant to the belief system in which they take part. And while for centuries some people have thought of the world as 6000 years old (even Shakespeare mentions this), it's only been a major contention in the last couple hundred years.

Societal constraints on women are rationalized by the Adam and Eve story, but if it weren't that it would be something else.
 
William
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 08:01 am
@Justin,
Justin;82330 wrote:
Is the Adam and Eve story true? Adam and Eve story make up a large portion of whether or not we believe in what's written in the bible. Considering that the Adam and Eve story puts a lot of weight on Religion and our being created in the image of God, it's important that this story of Adam and Eve have some validity instead of just biblical storytelling.....................Here are some reasons why I don't believe Adam and Eve:


  • [QUOTE=Justin;82330]Archaeologists, biologists and scientists have all proven that humans share homologous traits with chimpanzees which would have made Adam and Eve chimpanzees..[/QUOTE]

Justin, in my opinion this statement can be false as it says "proven" when it has not "been proven". Yes there are homologous traits between man and ape, but IMO, they are just that; physiological similarities that are necessary to "live" on the planet Earth. Furthermore it is the innanity of the allegory as depicted in the bibles interpretation of "creation" that forced man to "find another way" that made biological sense necessitating a "natural convergence" of animal (beast) to mankind and that fossil record that would prove it's theory of which none, nada, zilch has been found in an effort to find that "missing link" when there is none!!!!!!!!! It doesn't exist, never has.

  • [QUOTE=Justin;82330]The notion of the early days when women were suppressed so to make the story of Adam and Eve real to all the real men, Adam was good, Eve was Evil. This supported the anti-female logic within the church. - Women, obey your masters! LOL..[/QUOTE]

You are IMO, right on the mark here. As man offered "his version" based on a reality that clearly manifested "evil" is was necessary for "him" to blame somebody why not women as he noticed his "uncontrollable" attraction to her and autonomously speaking from that "masculine" viewpoint and his assumed superiority, she must be the blame.
  • [QUOTE=Justin;82330]It was a creation myth. This myth was supposedly written by Moses while he was in the wilderness of Sinai and claimed that he wrote it through God's vision[/QUOTE]

A continuation of he same thought as women washed his feet and where subserviant to him, Moses. I have no idea of the chronological order in which the books of the bible were written and I can imagine genesis could have been the last one, instead of he first, to give some validity to man's interpretation.
  • [QUOTE=Justin;82330]The big men of those days needed explanation of what they interpreted were Good and Evil and what better a story than one that makes women the one who brought evil into this world base on her eating of the forbidden fruit in the tree of life.[/QUOTE]

Ditto, see above.
  • [QUOTE=Justin;82330]The Hebrew scriptures during that time were written by MEN and were written to bind communities of faith together not to be truth. Truth is one thing, faith is another..[/QUOTE]

Ditto, see above.

Justin;82330 wrote:
Still today, any evil in the world is created by humankind, not by God and not by a Devil. Nature shows us balance in the perfect sense and also shows us the imbalance that we, humankind bring to the table with our messed of way of creating silly stories (natural convergence) to place the burden on something other than ourselves and our own actions. No wonder we have so many religions....(and scientific unproven theories)

Those are just a few reasons. My thoughts are that if Adam and Eve can logically be debunked, then so can Moses, the great floods and all these silly religions we've created based upon the tradition of creation and the story of good and evil based solely upon the story of Adam and Eve...


Justin, IMO, the reason why I highlighted the above is because one (adam and eve) begat the notion of evolutionist thought when they both come from the mind of "man" and his 'assumed autonomous superiority'. If I were a woman, I too would feel a little bit scorned, and we both know what that means. Huh? Again IMMHO.

William
 
Justin
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 08:18 am
@Justin,
Yeah, good points William. Lots of questions surround this and my contention is that if Adam and Eve aren't necessarily literal truth, then all of Christianity and all the other religions that base their religion on this original sin theory, are all debunked.

Believe what one will of what they see, hear and read but if the first book of the Bible isn't accurate enough to be a truth, then what of the rest of it that was also verbally passed on over the course of centuries by men who had no idea of the lack of knowledge they actually lacked.

Women were property back then. The root of all evil. Even today in many of the Churches including the one I was raise in, women are suppressed as the Man is the head of the household... The manly man of the fundamental, traditional, nonsense BS that was written in the Bible long ago by another man.

Still interested in hearing more. Oh, another reason... Was it ever mentioned in the bible by Jesus Christ? Adam and Eve, did he ever mention this in his verbally passed on quotes in red? My point is, if Adam and Eve remain in question... doesn't everything else???
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 08:38 am
@Justin,
Justin;82517 wrote:
My point is, if Adam and Eve remain in question... doesn't everything else???


Hi Justin,

For those of a given faith, probably not. Their belief probably rests on other grounds. From what I have seen, the comfort of belonging to a group has much more meaning to people of a given faith.

But as William suggested, is the belief in the story of evolution not also an act of faith at this time? There seems to be so many questions left unanswered no matter which way one chooses to look at things. Don't you think?

Rich
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 08:40 am
@Justin,
Justin;82517 wrote:
if the first book of the Bible isn't accurate enough to be a truth, then what of the rest of it
The rest of it is not contingent upon Genesis. Historians don't really doubt, for instance, that there was a first temple that was destroyed by the Babylonians. Historians don't really doubt that the Egyptians had Israelite slaves. The historical narrative has been mythologized, but none of this lives or dies with the truth of Adam and Eve, who are allegorical figures.
 
Justin
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 08:55 am
@Aedes,
Hi Rich,
richrf;82522 wrote:
For those of a given faith, probably not. Their belief probably rests on other grounds. From what I have seen, the comfort of belonging to a group as much more meaning to people of a given faith.

Sure, belonging is meaningful and certainly something people tend to want to do however, when ones entire life and entire philosophy is based upon God, Jesus, Good and Evil, it would seem to me there is some important significance in all of this and some very important decisions about which group one would lean towards. For me it's extremely important not to sell my soul to a fallacy.

richrf;82522 wrote:
But as William suggested, is the belief in the story of evolution not also an act of faith at this time? There seems to be so many questions left unanswered no matter which way one chooses to look at things. Don't you think?

Exactly. Yes I agree. That's actually getting to the point that many if not all of our beliefs are not exactly the accurate or truthful ones. One thing is for certain, true and unavoidable... Balance and love within the nature of creation. Another truth that I've discovered is that Adam and Eve aren't responsible for the good and evil in this world, neither is this deity called god or his fallen angel, Satan. We are. Although we've placed this burden upon the shoulders of a series of fallacies, the burden lies on us.

Aedes;82523 wrote:
The rest of it is not contingent upon Genesis. Historians don't really doubt, for instance, that there was a first temple that was destroyed by the Babylonians. Historians don't really doubt that the Egyptians had Israelite slaves. The historical narrative has been mythologized, but none of this lives or dies with the truth of Adam and Eve, who are allegorical figures.

Yes, I understand what you are saying Paul but,,... but... Good and Evil are contingent upon Genesis. The idea of a God as a being that spoke to Adam and Eve and the idea that Eve brought about sin into this world and listened to yet another fictitious creature called the snake or Satan. So technically, our idea of Good and Evil fully lives or dies with the story of Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve is in fact allegorical, then so would be the idea of a heaven and hell or a God and Satan.

In my world and the religions that I've been involved in and the Churches I've attended, it always reverts back to Adam and Eve. I've even spoken with the pastors and asked questions and they all seem to go back to the story of creation according to Moses. So if that story isn't there, then the weight of it is gone and likewise would change our entire perception of it all.

Historically you are correct, there are things that happened that we know happened. The origination of Sin however is not. So sin, IMHO originated with man, not with Adam and Eve. Good and Evil are something we think and do, not a force in nature with a heaven and hell to separate the cream. Those are my thoughts on it.
 
Labyrinth
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 08:56 am
@Justin,
My favorite story...hands down.

I believe it is based on true events or an era. It is not to be taken literally. Nomadic peoples would communicate these stories via oral transmission which undergo inevitable and dramatic transformation, i.e. a seafaring visitor becomes the Babylonian mythological figure of a fish-man who teaches people science and math. We are receiving a written record of a story very late in its life. In other words, we're hearing this from the last kid in line (a very long one at that) playing "whisper down the lane."

Guilt, shame of nakedness, recognition of death, and other factors are things that distinguish man from the rest of living creation. I don't think all these flooded into man's mind in one instant, but these ideas represent a "dawn of man" era. Curiously, they also are "milestones" (I couldn't think of a better word here) of individual development as well.

My opinion is that the blaming of the woman is simply a scapegoating, and it doesn't warrant as much looking into as would be initially thought. Man felt some unwanted guilt and wished to shed this onto another. We do this today as well. Blame someone else; it doesn't matter much who/what it is i.e. woman, unblemished 1 year old lamb/ram/bull, inanimate object you tripped over. I'm itching to read Rene Girard's take on this after I get through more pressing reading needs.

Anticipating a lot of disagreement, I acknowledge all the above to be opinion, and I look to confirm and correct it with (much) further study. But, fire away if you wish! :Glasses:
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 09:01 am
@Aedes,
Aedes,i thought it was the case that our ancestory could be traced back to one individual,just like recent studies have reported, by those who study this subject, that all blue eyed humans are related to just one individual.I have always found it contentious that they could be so precise but i have been told on numerous occassions by knowledgable posters, it was true.
 
William
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 09:33 am
@Justin,
Justin;82517 wrote:

Still interested in hearing more. Oh, another reason... Was it ever mentioned in the bible by Jesus Christ? Adam and Eve, did he ever mention this in his verbally passed on quotes in red? My point is, if Adam and Eve remain in question... doesn't everything else???


Absolutely, in that IMO, the new testament was "man's" attempt to justify the old testament and the, "what could be conceived" a metaphor in it's interpretation of the "Christ" issuing a "rapture" of truth on his return or the awakening of that mind of "man/new age/understanding" and that the beginning of that "heaven" we were created to build; not some remote paradise that it insinuated. It can also be understood as to why some of those who were responsible for the compilation of the bible deny his existence which relieves them of any culpability of that evil in the world, that the "male, autonomous, interpretation CAUSED", as in those "christ" interpretations, Jesus fulfilled those prophecies as the gospels also insinuated that his purpose was "to die" for us, giving kind of morbid excuse justifying his horrible death, blaming the act on God himself. (Uh Oh!). Talk about justifying evil? Damn! This can also explain the mix messages Jesus stated, as it was written, from the cross; "why has though forsaken me" and "forgive them father, for the know not what they do." (paraphrasing). HMMM????????? Again, IMMHO. It can also be opined, that Jesus, if he did truly exist, didn't expect to be crucified.
William
 
Justin
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 09:53 am
@William,
William;82534 wrote:
Again, IMMHO. It can also be opined, that Jesus, if he did truly exist, didn't expect to be crucified.


LOL, good points. To the Jesus and crucifixion. I think there is greater meaning in it than we tend to see. The meaning I get from it is:
[INDENT]If mankind were to discover truth, he would crucify it.
[/INDENT]
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 10:02 am
@Justin,
Good and evil may be contingent upon the allegory of Adam and Eve, just as faith is demonstrated by the allegorical stories of Abraham nearly sacrificing Isaac, the story of Jonah, and the story of Job.

But inasmuch as things like good, evil, and faith are intangible things that are defined by traditions, the physical or historical implausibility of their source is immaterial.

---------- Post added 08-11-2009 at 12:27 PM ----------

By the way, the original poll does not offer the possibility of Adam and Eve being allegorical and traditional figures, which is decidedly different than "like any other novel".
 
William
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 10:48 am
@Justin,
Justin;82538 wrote:
LOL, good points. To the Jesus and crucifixion. I think there is greater meaning in it than we tend to see. The meaning I get from it is:
[INDENT]If mankind were to discover truth, he would crucify it.
[/INDENT]


Not all, some! IMO. I know what you are saying here my friend and I believe those to which you are referring are "innocent and gullible bystanders" who are truly afraid to think otherwise.

William
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 11 Aug, 2009 11:28 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;82542 wrote:
But inasmuch as things like good, evil, and faith are intangible things that are defined by traditions, the physical or historical implausibility of their source is immaterial.


Yes, I would agree. Rather than dismiss any aspect of our existence (human existence), I prefer to probe and better understand why it is there and what it means. How we judge other things is as much a reflection of ourselves as it is about what it might all mean.

For example, why do people embrace the notion of original sin?

Rich
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Is the Adam and Eve story true?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 04:15:35