How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have not seen any good evidence for that, and even the communisque Wikipedia says: "...That said, the possibility of a severe recent species-wide bottleneck cannot be ruled out..."

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have a feeling you are having a false idea of what is being referred to here with "recent" and "severe".
It comes from this paper Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution

It deals with human evolution and discusses bottlenecks from ~2 million years ago, from the looks of it in context of speciation events in the human lineage and how it creates bottle necks through the founder effect.

"severe bottlenecks" still deal with substantial populations of a biologically viable group of individuals, off course.
So nothing like what is claimed in the biblical myths

The problem with your claim is that it is just an assumption, based on nothing meaningful.

It's based on independently verifiable genetic evidence. The very place where you should be finding evidence of near-extinction claims in the recent past of a species.

In Biblical point of view things were good at the beginning.

What things?
What are you talking about?

After God was rejected, everything has been corrupted and become weaker, for example people lived longer. To think what was the "bottleneck" should look like, one should know correctly what was the starting point.

You don't understand.
2 individuals can only have, and pass on, the genetic diversity that just 2 individuals can carry.
That is what the bottleneck is....

Consider the 2 individuals a red and blue one.
The individuals carrying the yellow, green, etc variations die without passing on their genes.
Only a red and blue one survive.
Now the yellows, greens, etc are no longer part of the population.
The genetic diversity before the event is greater then after it.

the whole "corrupted" bit does not make sense in context of this topic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wait a sec, DNA research world wide has proven that we're all descendants s of one woman and one man.

Um no.

Our descendants came from the sea.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish but the evidence can be found not just in fossils, but also within our own bodies.

www.bbc.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why should anyone believe that claim, when you have nothing substantial to support it?

Please when you say something so ignorant how do you expect a polite response?

When you do not know something ask questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that the opinions of high priests of science are in contradiction with the Bible. But, I hoped something more substantial, real scientific proof.

now you are once again projecting your flaws upon others. There are no "high priests of science". There is only evidence. Too bad that you are afraid to learn. Literalists have to live in fear all of their lives. They often try to instill fear into others would foolish arguments. That does not work when others have knowledge that trumps your fears. You believe in an evil God so of course you live in fear. You are afraid of him so much that you end up calming that he is a liar without knowing how you are doing that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um no.

Our descendants came from the sea.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish but the evidence can be found not just in fossils, but also within our own bodies.

www.bbc.com

That would be a neat trick.

I think that you meant to say that our ancestors came from the seas. Our descendants would be our sons and daughters.

 

[F1fan]

Please show one example.

Seriously? You are a Christian and never read anything about the history of the Bible? Jeez, do your own homework if you want to be a believer.

I think the error is in that people interpret. I don't think it is good. People should let the Bible explain what it means, without adding own ideas in it. But, that is not an error in the Bible, it is error that people make.

The Bible explains nothing. It is a collection of stories in two distinct sets. It is inevitable that people need to interpret what it means. The conservative interpretions, like yours, are not consistent with facts and reality. You surely are guided by obsolete assumptions that you adopted from other believers, and did so without critical thought.

Have you ever thought, if something doesn't make sense, maybe you have not understood it correctly?

Hahaha, oh the irony.

This is why critical thinking skills is a useful tool. You don't seem to understand this set of tools any better than you understand the history of the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

I mean, for instance, there are plenty of believers who accept Jesus Christ's divinity as fact, but still read much of the Bible --- the OT in particular --- as allegorical.

Is that not inconsistent?

I suspect the higher up you go on the educational ladder among Christians, the more Christians you'll meet who look at the bible that way.

I don't understand the import of that statement.

 

[Alien826]

Hey, but I'll tell you what. If you and I do find ourselves before judges that value reason and kindness and punish for rejecting that gift, I'll but a good word in for you. He knew not what he was saying. He was lied to and believed it.

That alone demonstrates the moral superiority of the humanist over the Fundamentalist believer.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's 2023, we're approaching 150 posts on whether or not "Adam & Eve is compatible with science," and some folks are actually surprised that society - and, in particular, U.S. society - is so pathetically dysfunctional.

 

[Alien826]

It does.
Why, because Jesus confirmed Adam's historicity.
If Adam was allegorical, and Jesus is historical, and Luke mentioned both as historical, then either Luke made an error in adding Jesus to the list, along with the mistake of adding Adam. Or, all the characters are allegorical... or Jesus lied.
In which case, Christianity is in trouble.

I said "In other words, if Adam is allegorical, it doesn't follow that Jesus is also allegorical". I don't see how you can claim that is not so. I can write a list of, well anything, and include some things that exist and some that don't.

In fact you put forward a number of possibilities that support that idea. Luke made a mistake and so on.

Do you really think Christianity is in trouble if the story of Adam and Eve is not literally true? Even if you are right and Christians that believe differently are wrong, how does that affect Christianity as a whole?

 

[exchemist]

I understand that the opinions of high priests of science are in contradiction with the Bible. But, I hoped something more substantial, real scientific proof.

"Scientific proof" is a contradiction in terms. Science deals in evidence, not in proof. And of evidence there is an abundance - though whether it contradicts the bible depends on what how you read the bible. Certainly it contradicts it if it is all read literally. But for centuries educated Christians have not done that.

 

[exchemist]

It does.
Why, because Jesus confirmed Adam's historicity.
If Adam was allegorical, and Jesus is historical, and Luke mentioned both as historical, then either Luke made an error in adding Jesus to the list, along with the mistake of adding Adam. Or, all the characters are allegorical... or Jesus lied.
In which case, Christianity is in trouble.

I'm sure you know your bible better than I do. I'm aware that Jesus refers to Adam, but where does he confirm Adam's historicity?

 

[Quagmire]

Is that not inconsistent?

Inconsistent with your beliefs probably, if you believe the Bible is the actual word of God, and that every word included is there by his will.

But even then you have to look at the fact that the Bible itself openly uses allegory as a device:

Exodus 19:4
New International Version
"You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself".

Unless you literally believe that the ancient Hebrews were flying around on giant eagles, it should be obvious that God himself [again, if you believe the Bible is the word if God] uses allegory.

Paul gives an allegorical reading of at least one story from the Old testament:

Galatians 4:
22"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all".

That's not to say he didn't believe the story was literally true, I don't know if he did or not, but he's obviously demonstrating that the real value of the story lies in it's allegorical interpretation.

He also interprets elements of the Law allegorically in at least one place that I know of.

I don't understand the import of that statement.

I'm just saying that, in my opinion, people who are prone to trying to understand the deeper meaning behind literature, as well as it's moral relevance, tend to read much of the Bible allegorically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure you know your bible better than I do. I'm aware that Jesus refers to Adam, but where does he confirm Adam's historicity?

I think that he is referring to Mark 10 6-7:

6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b]

Pretty weak.

 

[exchemist]

I think that he is referring to Mark 10 6-7:

6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b]

Pretty weak.

There's nothing about the historicity of Adam in that. It just says that God's creation has involved sexual reproduction from an early stage. He must mean something else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's nothing about the historicity of Adam in that. It just says that God's creation has involved sexual reproduction from an early stage. He must mean something else.

You would think so, but then there are many that think the phrase "In the days of Noah" was an example of Jesus stating that he believed in the flood myth. To me it is akin to someone saying "She is as old as the hills". Both work as figures of speech, neither work if read literally.

 

[nPeace]

I'm sure you know your bible better than I do. I'm aware that Jesus refers to Adam, but where does he confirm Adam's historicity?

Mark 10:6-9

 

[exchemist]

Mark 10:6-9

Ah, so @Subduction Zone was right.

That says nothing about the historicity of Adam. It does not even mention Adam at all. It just says God made male and female. Nor does it say when, just "at the beginning", whatever one takes that to mean.

The context makes clear that what Christ is saying here is that sex is has always been a natural urge ordained by God, and that is why sexual creatures have sexual relations - and why human beings change from living with their parents to forming now bonds and living as man and wife.

 

[nPeace]

Inconsistent with your beliefs probably, if you believe the Bible is the actual word of God, and that every word included is there by his will.

But even then you have to look at the fact that the Bible itself openly uses allegory as a device:

Exodus 19:4
New International Version
"You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself".

Unless you literally believe that the ancient Hebrews were flying around on giant eagles, it should be obvious that God himself uses allegory.

Paul gives an allegorical reading of at least one story from the Old testament:

Galatians 4:
22"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all".

That's not to say he didn't believe the story was literally true, I don't know if he did or not, but he's obviously demonstrating that the real value of the story lies in it's allegorical interpretation.

He also interprets elements of the Law allegorically in at least one place that I know of.

I'm talking about people here.
People considered by other people as living beings - who actually existed in history.
If a person professing to be a Christian, considers the person whom the founder of Christianity, as well as his early followers, as historical figures, rather than mythical, and allegorical, then that person is not in agreement with the founder of Christianity, and his early followers.
Therefore, ____________________________________________________________________________

I'm just saying that, in my opinion, people who are prone to trying to understand the deeper meaning behind literature, as well as it's moral relevance, tend to read much of the Bible allegorically.

Yes. Some people do "go beyond the things written" 1 Corinthians 4:6, and, or, "add and take away from what is written". Revelation 22:18, 19
I understand that does happen. I remember Luther speaking about that scourge. Why it happens though, is an important question.
Why do you think it happens?

I think one reason is that most persons do not follow the arrangement of God.
As I recall, God's arrangement went like this... Luke 8:1 -> Luke 10:1 -> Matthew 28:19, 20
I'm not aware of that being no longer a requirement.
Actually I always reflect with admiration on that guy from Africa.

The spirit said to Philip: “Go over and approach this chariot.” Philip ran alongside and heard him reading aloud Isaiah the prophet, and he said: “Do you actually know* what you are reading?” He said: “Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” So he urged Philip to get on and sit down with him. Acts 8:29-31

If it were not for his humility, he likely would have paid no mind to Phillip - a disciple of Jesus, who was having a full share in the arrangement of God.
If more people were like him, there would be less of what you described. What do you think?

 

[nPeace]

Ah, so @Subduction Zone was right.

That says nothing about the historicity of Adam. It does not even mention Adam at all. It just says God made male and female. Nor does it say when, just "at the beginning", whatever one takes that to mean.

The context makes clear that what Christ is saying here is that sex is has always been a natural urge ordained by God, and that is why sexual creatures have sexual relations - and why human beings change from living with their parents to forming now bonds and living as man and wife.

Suit yourself B. Don't mind me.