Adam and Eve in a world of so many races?

[garysibio]

My area of interest is the reality of Adam and Eve. Right off the bat, the important break in Genesis comes at Chapter three. This is why you are not getting a sound answer to the issue of history in chapters 1 -11 as a whole.

Those who wish to tumble Catholicism know full well that the vulnerable point is human origin per se. Weaken the Catholic position on human nature origin and there is a straight shot to the heart of Catholicism which is the salvific mission of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, many, not all Catholics have learned about Adam and Original Sin from the cutesy children’s books which picture a smiling couple peeking out between branches with lots of leaves. Thus, they are unaware of the Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. Literally, they do not know how to deal with the real historical events in these chapters.

My humble suggestion is to frame your questions in the confines of the first three chapters of Genesis. Chapters four to eleven are simply not on the same level as the first three.

OK. What specifically about the division between Gen 3 & 4 says figurative before and literal after? You said you see a division there but didn’t elaborate.

 

[grannymh]

OK. What specifically about the division between Gen 3 & 4 says figurative before and literal after? You said you see a division there but didn’t elaborate.

Chapters four through eleven are not on the same level as chapters one through three because the foundational teachings of the Catholic Church flow from the real events in chapters one through three. These teachings concern the origin of humanity, the nature of a human, the relationship between God and Adam, the limitations of a creature, the meaning of Original Sin, the reality of Satan, the Protoevangelium, and so on.

Recommended reading are paragraphs 355-421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. By using the cross-references in the margin, one gains further information about the doctrines. Also, the citations in the footnotes are great sources for additional research.

 

[garysibio]

Chapters four through eleven are not on the same level as chapters one through three because the foundational teachings of the Catholic Church flow from the real events in chapters one through three. These teachings concern the origin of humanity, the nature of a human, the relationship between God and Adam, the limitations of a creature, the meaning of Original Sin, the reality of Satan, the Protoevangelium, and so on.

Recommended reading are paragraphs 355-421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. By using the cross-references in the margin, one gains further information about the doctrines. Also, the citations in the footnotes are great sources for additional research.

None of what you said provides a valid reason for not taking chapters 1-3 at face value. With the exception of the last few decades the Church has taught that it was literal history. The text didn’t change.

 

[Jehannette]

None of what you said provides a valid reason for not taking chapters 1-3 at face value. With the exception of the last few decades the Church has taught that it was literal history. The text didn’t change.

The existence and creation of Adam & Eve were miracles – two fully-grown individuals do not appear ex nihilo possessing thought and speech. Only a miracle could explain such an event. It should come as no surprise that modern genetic evidence and evolutionary theory could not “account” for the existence of Adam & Eve any more than such theories could explain how Christ could have been conceived and born of a Virgin, turn well-water into wine, walk on water that was deeper than the length of his body, or be clinically dead for no less than 36 hours and return to life in a resurrected body that was able to pass through solid matter, appear and disappear, and rise to Heaven on its own volition out of the gravity well of the Earth. As with Adam & Eve, such things are scientifically and medically impossible, which is why such events are referred to as miracles.

It should come as no surprise to anyone as to why modern genetic evidence contradicts the fact that all human beings descend from two original individuals, Adam & Eve – the children of Eve were also miracles, in that they had DNA completely distinct from both that of their parents. (Eve’s eggs were all completely unique in their DNA, as was Adam’s sperm.) No doubt if a modern geneticist tested the DNA of Eve’s children, he/she would find that they were “not” the offspring of Eve, and not only were they “not” her biological children (even though she gave birth to them), but that they were “not” even related to each other! This would explain the modern genetic diversity that is seen today while retaining the absolute fidelity to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

 

[garysibio]

The existence and creation of Adam & Eve were miracles – two fully-grown individuals do not appear ex nihilo possessing thought and speech. Only a miracle could explain such an event. It should come as no surprise that modern genetic evidence and evolutionary theory could not “account” for the existence of Adam & Eve any more than such theories could explain how Christ could have been conceived and born of a Virgin, turn well-water into wine, walk on water that was deeper than the length of his body, or be clinically dead for no less than 36 hours and return to life in a resurrected body that was able to pass through solid matter, appear and disappear, and rise to Heaven on its own volition out of the gravity well of the Earth. As with Adam & Eve, such things are scientifically and medically impossible, which is why such events are referred to as miracles.

It should come as no surprise to anyone as to why modern genetic evidence contradicts the fact that all human beings descend from two original individuals, Adam & Eve – the children of Eve were also miracles, in that they had DNA completely distinct from both that of their parents. (Eve’s eggs were all completely unique in their DNA, as was Adam’s sperm.) No doubt if a modern geneticist tested the DNA of Eve’s children, he/she would find that they were “not” the offspring of Eve, and not only were they “not” her biological children (even though she gave birth to them), but that they were “not” even related to each other! This would explain the modern genetic diversity that is seen today while retaining the absolute fidelity to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

Why on Earth would you think that the children of Adam and Eve would be genetically dissimilar to their parents? It makes no sense and has nothing to do with whether or not Gen 1-3 is historical.

 

[kbwall]

I apologise if this has already been asked or if this is question was posted in the wrong area but for lack of time i thought i would just seem what the teaching is.
The church teaches that genesis expresses figurative language and that the time period of genesis may not be literal i.e the earth is billions of years old. however the one thing that the church teaches is Fact that Adam and Eve are “real people” and that god did not create other people beside these two and their natural offspring.

**I was wondering, since the church teaches that Adam and Eve are “real people” then how does the church reconcile the observable diversity of race, skin colour etc? **its just something that i find hard to fathom.

Different races coming from one couple is actually one of the most scientifically plausible parts of Genesis. One actually doesn’t need to jump through hoops such as Adam and Eve having magic DNA. It’s quite simple really. After several generations, the children of Adam and Eve began to travel. At the risk of oversimplification, the ones that went sunnier regions, such as Africa, developed more melanin, and therefore became black. The ones in less sunny areas, such as England and such, didn’t develop as much melanin, and therefore were white. This is more or less the same story than mainstream science has as well.

 

[fms]

The Tragic Story of how a White Girl Born Black Tore a Family Apart

When we think ourselves wise, God steps in and shows us how foolish we are…

 

[jcrichton]

I apologise if this has already been asked or if this is question was posted in the wrong area but for lack of time i thought i would just seem what the teaching is.
The church teaches that genesis expresses figurative language and that the time period of genesis may not be literal i.e the earth is billions of years old. however the one thing that the church teaches is Fact that Adam and Eve are “real people” and that god did not create other people beside these two and their natural offspring.

**I was wondering, since the church teaches that Adam and Eve are “real people” then how does the church reconcile the observable diversity of race, skin colour etc? **its just something that i find hard to fathom.

…can you fathom a monkey-like female being the progenitor of not only the human race but of the lesser primates? …well… that’s what the purported African missing link is! As you, science cannot see Adam and Eve as comprising all of the human gene pool (a matter that is possible since they were Created by Yahweh God Who put into place the whole complex existence–seen and unseen); yet, it eagerly accepts a monkey-like creature as the mother of all human (inclusive of all races and diversities of ethnicities and skin) and all monkeys.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Scientists know nothing of creation!

…hey, what about decaf?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nelka]

…hey, what about decaf?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[fred_conty]

…can you fathom a monkey-like female being the progenitor of not only the human race but of the lesser primates? …well… that’s what the purported African missing link is! As you, science cannot see Adam and Eve as comprising all of the human gene pool (a matter that is possible since they were Created by Yahweh God Who put into place the whole complex existence–seen and unseen); yet, it eagerly accepts a monkey-like creature as the mother of all human (inclusive of all races and diversities of ethnicities and skin) and all monkeys.

Maran atha!

Angel

If one accepts evolution from some primate, the infusion of the soul took place making that female a human. At that moment, that human would know the difference between a male animal and Adam. And the female animal may not yet be ready for mating until the infusion took place. So I don’t see this as a necessary problem. The church is still open to both evolution and actual creation.

Just a thought.

 

[tabycat]

If one accepts evolution from some primate, the infusion of the soul took place making that female a human. At that moment, that human would know the difference between a male animal and Adam. And the female animal may not yet be ready for mating until the infusion took place. So I don’t see this as a necessary problem. The church is still open to both evolution and actual creation.

Just a thought.

 

[ConstantineTG]

**I was wondering, since the church teaches that Adam and Eve are “real people” then how does the church reconcile the observable diversity of race, skin colour etc? **its just something that i find hard to fathom.

Look for the documentary series called The Human Journey (cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/humanjourney/)

Scientific evidence shows that we are all descended from one woman from Africa. From one African woman came all the races and ethnicities of the world

 

[grannymh]

Look for the documentary series called The Human Journey (cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/humanjourney/)

Scientific evidence shows that we are all descended from one woman from Africa. From one African woman came all the races and ethnicities of the world

Scientific evidence also shows that regardless of whatever nature that one African woman had, she was not the “Eve” who, with the first human man, together founded the human species. Please check out the “Common Fallacies” presented on Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Catholic doctrine of two, sole real human beings who founded humankind remains accurate.

 

[buffalo]

I apologise if this has already been asked or if this is question was posted in the wrong area but for lack of time i thought i would just seem what the teaching is.
The church teaches that genesis expresses figurative language and that the time period of genesis may not be literal i.e the earth is billions of years old. however the one thing that the church teaches is Fact that Adam and Eve are “real people” and that god did not create other people beside these two and their natural offspring.

**I was wondering, since the church teaches that Adam and Eve are “real people” then how does the church reconcile the observable diversity of race, skin colour etc? **its just something that i find hard to fathom.

Adaptation.

 

[jcrichton]

…(it was meant as a joke) science learned that if you manipulate Creation (including human mind/understanding) you can make new things out of the old (such as decaffeinated coffee)–what most scientist reject is the premise that there is a Creator.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If one accepts evolution from some primate, the infusion of the soul took place making that female a human. At that moment, that human would know the difference between a male animal and Adam. And the female animal may not yet be ready for mating until the infusion took place. So I don’t see this as a necessary problem. The church is still open to both evolution and actual creation.

Just a thought.

…the point I was attempting to make is that those who accept evolution and reject Creation have no problem accepting that a monkey-like creature somehow evolved and that from that monkey both human and the lesser primates evolved (as the super ooze waiting zillions of years for just the right atmospheric conditions to light it up and the ole single-cell creature emerge so that it could morph into both plant and animal then decide to leave its natural environment and morph into land creature then some return to the liquid environment while others would take to the air)–they see no “strech” there… but claim Adam and Eve, Created by God, as possessing the gene pool of the human race… they simply cannot find the “math” that would allow such possibility… science claims theories as fact (much like that “multiverse,” the “we cannot be alone” and “X millions of years till the sun expires/novas”) while rejecting anything that points to super-nature!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nelka]

…(it was meant as a joke) science learned that if you manipulate Creation (including human mind/understanding) you can make new things out of the old (such as decaffeinated coffee)–what most scientist reject is the premise that there is a Creator.

Maran atha!

Angel

Decaffeinated coffee is just coffee with reduced caffeine as it still contains a small amount of caffeine.

 

[porunga11]

Oh, of course god created Adam and Eve! And they mated with each other, and had children, who, necessarily, had to have children with their brothers, sisters, or parents. And yet, not one person of that offspring was handicapped or or deformed! Do you realize if that bible nonsense were true, most of us (or at least a good portion of us) would actually BE deformed?

 

[jcrichton]

Decaffeinated coffee is just coffee with reduced caffeine as it still contains a small amount of caffeine.

…that’s my point: take what has already been Created repackage, put a spin on the source or purported function… and… “I made this!” :yeah_me:

Maran atha!

Angel