Adam and Eve - a fictional Love Story

71

By cascoly

Illuminated manuscript, in medieval library, Florence, Tuscany, Italy
Illuminated manuscript, in medieval library, Florence, Tuscany, Italy


The question asked was whether Adam & Eve are real or fictional. There are many common misconceptions and answers with faulty logic that accompany this question. Here are some responses to these mistakes:

uncorrectedvision says To relegate the Judeo-Christian creation story to mere fiction is to disregard the significant cultural and religious function served by the story. The creation story separates Judaism from all the surrounding religions. The story of Adam and Eve is meant to teach about humanity and human nature.

But this is irrelevant and begs the question - many myths serve societal purposes, but that is never a reason to show their reality. Many aspects of all religions probably have evolutionary positive effects which increase the chances that individual will pass on their genes. This is the subject of books like The evolution of God by Richard Wright. The answer to THIS question is still that Adam & Eve are fictional. There were never just 2 people in the world - that would have taken an act of creation, and would violate everything we know about science. The significance of this particular myth is an entirely different question.

Zubair Ahmed says The question is do you believe the Bible to be Gods word? If so then there is no doubt that Adam and Eve are real

Again, the conclusion does not follow from the assumption. The answer given here confuses science with belief. [Another example of this line of argument is the 'evolution is just a theory' or 'science is just your belief' line where the English words theory and belief are not recognized to have multiple semantic meanings.] Unless you take the bible as literally true in all facts. If you allow that the earth is much older than the bible claims, or if you allow that many of the bible's statements are allegories, metaphors or other rhetorical devices, then nothing in the bible can be taken as fact JUST because it says so. In this case, there is overwhelming scientific fact that disproves the statement.

enmarcha says...

On the other hand, evolutionary theories tell us that the humans have been around longer than that. However, there is a path that joins this two seemingly conflicting answers. We share genes from our parents who in turn inherited them from their parents and so on. Well, it turns out that scientists have discovered, through DNA investigation, that at some point in time, all the people in the world share common ancestors. All the humans alive today owe their DNA to a single man that lived around 65 000 years ago, and to one woman who lived between 150 000 to 200 000 years ago. If scientists are right, they obviously were never a couple but the idea of all humans sharing one single common mother and one single common father is fascinating to me.

Once more, you've misinterpretted what was said - the 2 theories do not say that all humans shared a common father AND a common mother. they also do not imply there was only 1 person of that sex at the time. the wiki page enmarcha quoted actually explains this fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Not the only woman

One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time. However nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below some tens of thousands; there were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but somewhere in all their lines of descent there is at least one generation with no female offspring (and men do not pass on their mothers' mitochondrial DNA to their children). By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes at least one line of descent to each person which is purely matrilineal.

Not a contemporary of "Adam"

Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. However there is no such parallel with the Biblical story. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.




  • Life's Dominion -

    Not light reading or a polemic, but rather a carefully and closely reasoned investigation of how one comes to decisions about matters involving the taking of life, with particular emphasis on doing so under the US Constitution - 3 months ago

  • Creed or Chaos - The Book of Mormon

    David Brooks' Creed or Chaos' (in the April 22 NY Times) seems to suggest that religious orthodoxy is necessary for an ethical society. Leaving aside the many arguments for an ethics that requires no god at all, or only a 'virtual' god such as Kant's, Brooks' definition of 'rigorous theology' doesn't accomplish what he claims. - 11 months ago

  • Why guns differ from other objects that may cause accidents

    we as a society have decided that certain items are not going to be availble to the general public - eg anthrax spores, chemicals used to manufacture illegal drugs, machine guns, missles, etc. In each of those cases, someone's liberty has been curtailed. - 12 months ago

Comments

AKA Winston profile image

AKA Winston Level 5 Commenter 15 months ago

cascoly,

Well-presented thoughts. The creationists have jumped on the bandwagon because of the misguided term "Mitochodrial Eve", and have already begun to spin fairy tales and provide misinformation about what MRCA means.

cascoly profile image

cascoly Hub Author 15 months ago

thanks - also interesting that several of the responders seem to think that if you don't believe the literal truth of every word in the bible then you must be an atheist! i always wonder what language such literalists are reading their own bibles in!

tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 15 months ago

"i always wonder what language such literalists are reading their own bibles in!" Exactly! The whole question of Biblical literalism is so fraught - does the literalism refer to the New English Bible, the New International Version, the Zulu bible, the Tagalog Bible the King James Version, the Greek New Testament or Old Testament. Literalism is in fact nonsense. All writing is metaphorical and almost every story in the Bible is mythical.

The myth of Adam and Eve is exactly what you call it - a fictional (read mythical) love story. To claim otherwise is to fly in the face of reality.

Thanks for this awesom Hub.

Love and peace

Tony

Kenshin 9 months ago

Well since you're trying to use logic to prove that science is proof for the fictionality Of the bible and creation story(because of the fact that modern science conflicts with religion). And because judeo-Christian beliefs are a philosophical belief, that conflict with your 'science' you make the assumption that science trumps philosophy. well. Sorry to be the one to break it to you guys. but science makes epistemological presuppositions and therefore is just a philosophical belief itself. assuming that science is the end all answer to everything is ignorant. and you know what assuming does. It makes an ass out of you.

Kenshin 9 months ago

And just so you know Zubair Ahmed's comment was not a fallacy. You're a retard.

Kenshin 9 months ago

Also, everything in the bible is to be taken literally. most things in the bible will explain things in literal terms and then a proceeding poem will be written after where metaphors are used to convey abstract ideas. So yes I do "take the bible to be true in all facts"

cascoly profile image

cascoly Hub Author 9 months ago

so, who gets to decide which sentences in the bible are literal and which are metaphors?

Submit a Comment
Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.



    • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
    • Comments are not for promoting your Hubs or other sites

    Please wait working