Is the Adam and Eve story true?

Question

I just can't decide. It sounds pretty far fetched.

Answer 1

no

Answer 2

I believe the concept of adam and eve is true, meaning there was a man named Adam and women named Eve at the begining of time or whatever. What I do have a hard time believing is that a woman was made from a mans rib. I mean come on, I doubt God would have the first woman come from a man's body then change his mind and decide to flip the script making man come from a womans body. It just doesn't seem logical. If it started out that way then it would still be that way. I think the whole 'eve tricking adam into eating the apple' is a bunch of bull made up by men to give some supernatural excuse for all their f**K-ups in todays world and to forever blame woman for the wrongs in society. They say woman are giving monthly periods as punishment for giving him the okay to eat the apple, but menstral cycles make women stronger, so that they will be able to handle childbirth.(life is a blessing, being the vessel that brings life into to the world should never be seem as a punishment) I believe the story (if true) just provides biblical proof that men are weak. They obviously couldn't take the pressure of carrying, nurturing, and squeezing out another life so God gave the job to the one who could handle it, Women. and they obviously can either be easily presudeed or just can't think for themselves, She wasn't stupid enough to disobey God. For all we know Adam was trying to impress Eve. Adam could have been trying to prove how much of a man he was. Who knows what really happen. (OH and lets not forget about the talking snake. A talking snake RIIGHT) If a woman talked Adam into eating the apple that damned us all then we really need to take a long hard look at our MEN. If woman are to forever be judged by the acts of one being, then lets be fair. And call all Men what Adam was 'A ussy-wiped fool'.

Answer 3

The story is true, for certain values of 'truth'.

It is not physically possible for the entire Genesis story to be an accurate, literal, totally factual account of the origins of Earth, life and man. For one thing, the different chapters of Genesis aren't even compatible with each other. The old Battlestar Galactica had better continuity.

However, that doesn't rule out the truthiness of Genesis as an allegorical fable. Dr. Seuss' tale of the Lorax is not 'true' in the sense of factual, but the message it imparts is certainly meaningful, accurate, honest and authentic. In this regard, it could indeed by considered 'true'.

The factual, historical accuracy of Genesis, or other parts of the bible or other holy books of other religions should not be used as a gauge of the 'truth' of those scripts. The meaning and message of the scripts is far more important. If the story has meaning and significance to your life, then it is indeed true.

Taken as a testament of how to live your life and find meaning with the universe, then for some people the bible is definitely true.

Answer 4

Depends on what story, and how you interpret it..

Adam is (the archetypal) man, and Eve is (the archetypal) woman.

Their consumption of the Forbidden Fruit differentiates them from the animals (through sentience), and leads to their eviction from the bliss of bestial innocence.

As such, this is the parable how the first proto-humans evolved into humans. So, from someone who accepts evolution, I regard the core information of the story as true.

The details of the story are parts of the parable. The bible uses parables where the authors had to fail to convey their insights in direct text, where they left it to the audience to try and follow their experience of the insights. Such stories are called myths.

Archetypes in myth are sort of recurring soap opera characters who experience whatever experiences a culture had to pass on to their descendants, so lots of other core myths in the parable of Adam and Eve are truths - like the conflict between pastoralists (Abel) and farmers (Cain). And the decision of the God of the pastoralist Abraham to favor the pastoralist but not the farmer...

The text continues to give a list of the known patriarchs up to Noah. This may well be what little Abraham remembered of his ancestry, and as historically true as the author could collect. I note, though, that other founding heroes usually also cite a list of ancestors which at some point become archetypal or divine - e.g. the Romans whose Trojan ancestry (Aeneas) appears somewhat as constructed as the British Celts' inclusion of Caesar and Brutus in the ancestry of Artus.

So again: the myth contains the truths the authors wanted to convey - Man and Woman became self-aware, and lost the bliss of innocence, Pastoralists and Agriculturalists clashed, and the God of Abraham's pastoralist forefathers favored the pastoralists. At a time before he demanded exclusive worship (as revealed to Moses - who still recognized the existence of other gods, or even the ability of the Israel nation to create one (the golden calf), but said it was wrong to worship them).

Answer 5

That seems to be a theology based question, and one that is directed at only a small percentage of theological ideas.

It might also fall under the philosophy area, as it can be seen as an allegorical reference to human development.

If you are looking for how did humans come to be on this planet tales, consider the HOPI creation myth, the Egyptian creation stories, and some of the Earlier civilization creation myths- Etruscan, Babylonian, Assyrian, Tibetan, Hindu, Chinese, Maori, etc.

Answer 6

If you are interested in knowing how life began on earth, open a biology book - not a bible. Unlike a bible, a science text will have facts and evidence to back up it's claims, and it will present a much more logical explanation than does the bible. There is a significant difference between simply believing (religion) versus knowing something for certain (science).

Answer 7

Nope. I agree with the second answer. It is very far fetched not to mention scientifically impossible. Stick to your own beliefs about creation, because the story is just made up bull.

Answer 8

According to the Catholic and Christian church yes, Adam and Eve were once alive on this planet. Theoretically, it's kinda like greek Mythology, the retelling of story to answer questions that are not understood like good and evil, and the consequences for choosing evil over good.

Answer 9

Scientists are saying there's a "metachondrial Eve" meaning there was a first human woman, at least. They're still not sure about Adam.

Answer 10

Ameobas turning themselves into humans without any outside help over millions of years sounds pretty far-fetched to me too...

Answer 11

Consciousness refers to awareness of our own mental processes. Aristotle claimed that the only way to study thinking was by introspection. Because both agencies have limited capacity to represent what happened recently and partly because it takes time for agencies to communicate with one another. Quantitatively I am postulating that both agencies are parts of your brain. One part wants to beleive it the other doesn't. Do you quantify the reasons for your answers and qualify them in your consiousness?