There are problems with this theory. What about Adam and Eve’s alleged parents? Were they not humans? What about Adam and Eve’s alleged siblings? Were they not humans? What about the descendants of these alleged non-humans that were related to Adam and Eve? Did they all just die off leaving only Adam and Eve’s descendants to populate the earth?
Sure the Bible wasn’t made for a science class, as it does not get into scientific details or provide us with mathematical or chemical formulas. Whenever it comments on science, however, we can trust the information because the author of the Bible is the Holy Spirit, who created the universe and the laws of science.
you can believe what you want but the bible itself contradicts this interpretation in a couple of places at least. For one thing the bible says many times God’s time is not our time. to limit God to man’s understanding, especially the primitive understanding of pre-history, is in my mind blasphemy plain and simple (this is personal opinion not church teaching.See: ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/24hourdays.html
This one says that the seven days of creation. I don’t think I would encounter someone who would ask this, but here it is. Thanks a bunch!
Catholics must attempt to synthesize the creation account and the findings of modern science. I quoted the best scientific estimates for the ages of the universe and the earth in my earlier post. The Biblical account says something much different. Now, God is the author of all truth, so there can be no contradiction between the Faith and science. For a Catholic to hold to the literalistic six-day account found in Genesis, he would also have to believe in the philosophy of the double truths (i.e. that which is true in science is not necessarily true in religion, and vice versa). This worldview was condemned in the 13th century.
This objection has been refuted many times. I will provide you with Fr. Haydock’s refutation:
It does not matter if the Catechism favours symbolic 6 days over literal 6 days since my point is that literal days can be believed by a Catholic and is the belief that enjoys more patristic support.
Your argument that my interpreting “yom” as “day” will lead me to reject the perpetual virginity of Mary is lacking in any logical soundness.
You claim my assertion lacks any logical soundness, but you don’t explain why it would be logically unsound. After all, the crux of mainstream Protestantism’s argument against the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary rests on the verses that speak of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. If you’re going to take a modern view of the word “yom”, you should equally take a modern view of the word “adonai”. I’m not the one who is being logically unsound as it is I’m pointing out your inconsistent methodology.
Even if we translated it as “day”, that doesn’t necessarily signify 24 hours. Different cultures have had different yardsticks on what constitutes a day, a week, a month and a year. The writers of Genesis were writing under a cultural context significantly different to ours. Not only that, but even as a believer, you know that God’s time is not the time of humans. Indeed, “my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). It took 400-450 years before God freed the Israelites from Egypt. God was silent to Mankind for 400 years, marking the gap between the Old Testament and the New Testament. It took about 72 generations before Jesus entered into the world. Nowhere in the Bible, from what I’ve read, does it show God as doing anything fairly rapidly. He tends to take His time. Thus, the scientific view of the creation of the universe fits perfectly with the way believers believe God has operated, does operate, and will continue to operate.
Healings and other spontaneous miracles recorded in the N.T.?
My methodology is to refer to pertinent magisterial texts that exegete specific passages in the Bible. The magisterial texts tell me that “adonai” is not to be interpreted in a literal sense, but that “yom” may be interpreted in either a literal or symbolic sense. What is so incosistent about my methodology?
I would like to see the science that supports God putting a soul into any particular pair of human beings.
Excellent! I couldn’t agree more. I have never had a problem with science and my strict belief in God. I never could understand the all or nothing mentality of some Protestants regarding science and religion. I can accept the Big Bang theory and evolution and am convinced that Science only further proves the existence of God and Intelligent Design. Thanks for sharing!
did you not read this part? yes light was created first but the mechanism for a 24 hour terrestrial day was not in place until the 4th day, ergo, the “day” in this account is God’s time, not a terrestrial day
The point is that this light created on the first day served as the mechanism for a 24 hour terrestrial day until the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day. Your conclusion that before the fourth day is God’s time and after the fourth day some other time is your personal opinion and has no basis in the Fathers or Doctors - unless you can provide me with even one quote from the F and D supporting your conclusion . . .