Adam and Eve Literalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter CarmenParvus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
garvs said:
Evolution in no way contradicts the story of Adam and Eve. In fact, there is some evidence for it; humans show extremely little genetic variation compared to other animal species because there was a massive human population bottleneck in Africa around 70,000 years ago, and mitochondrial DNA shows that all of us descended from less than 50 women (and quite possibly 1). All of this fits quite nicely into Pope Pius XII’s teachings about the special creation of the human soul in Humani Generis, because that bottleneck could have squeezed our population down to 2, and THAT would be where the special creation of the soul took place.

See? Human evolution and Adam & Eve really CAN get along 😃

Also, someone previously said that Adam and Eve couldn’t have come from other humans according to Church teachings, and I for the life of me can’t find where they got that from. To my knowledge, all that Catholics must believe is that we descended from two people and that the soul was specifically created. In fact, Humani Generis specifically says that the human body could have come about through natural processes such as evolution.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Robertanthony said:
What is the penalty for not believing in a literal Adam and Eve if you are Catholic? Will God sentence you to eternal hell or make your Purgatory more intense?
Click to expand...
Some people cling to believing in literal Adam and Eve purely because they feel that this belief disappears, then the belief in Original Sin disappears as well and then the belief in the redemptive work of Jesus disappears as well. But it’s not that simple, as Duns Scotus or or St Irenaeus have shown. One can see the story of Adam and Eve as a myth, a primitive legend, without losing anything of the significance of Jesus’ Incarnation. So I don’t see why God would punish anyone for not believing in a literal Adam and Eve.
 
vames said:
Some people cling to believing in literal Adam and Eve purely because they feel that this belief disappears, then the belief in Original Sin disappears as well and then the belief in the redemptive work of Jesus disappears as well. But it’s not that simple, as Duns Scotus or or St Irenaeus have shown. One can see the story of Adam and Eve as a myth, a primitive legend, without losing anything of the significance of Jesus’ Incarnation. So I don’t see why God would punish anyone for not believing in a literal Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Please stop promoting a worldview that is entirely inconsistent with Church teaching. Adam and Eve are not myths or legends. If you believe that, it’s up to you. The Church teaches us quite clearly that Original Sin is passed on to all, and it began with the parents of all.

Peace,
Ed
 
Robertanthony said:
Adam can not have descended from anyone because the Bible, God’s inerrant word, says plainly that he was made with dirt, and that Eve was made with one of Adam’s ribs. I have no reason to think God would want to fool me (or anyone else for that matter).

What is the penalty for not believing in a literal Adam and Eve if you are Catholic? Will God sentence you to eternal hell or make your Purgatory more intense?
Click to expand...
This is the bit I like! The bible does say exactly that, but does not say specifically how long the process took or how the mechanics of the process worked. Gen 2:7a.
The next part of the verse goes onto say that man did not become a living soul until God gifted him with the divine breath of life. Gen 2:7b.

My question is this. Is it possible to interpret this verse in the following way and not be in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

I believe it is possible to interpret Gen 2:7a, as describing the evolutionary process of all biological life on earth, this is consistent with the current scientific view, that life developed spontaneously over millions of years originating in some kind of watery, moist or if you like slimy environment. And over time more complex life forms developed including our ancestors.
Gen 2:7b, At some point in this process a chromosome mutation or something similar occurred which gave our early ancestors conciseness and which set them apart from the other animals.

When this occurred I think it is reasonable to assume that over time this mutation developed until in one or if you like two ( male & female ) individuals the eureka moment occurred where it was fully formed and that those two individuals are Adam & Eve the Mother and Father of the Humane species were all other fully formed, self concise human’s originated.

To me this interpretation erk’s many people however it is consistent with the Bible, Evolution and Church teaching.

What do you think?
 
Matt_Guitar_Man said:
This is the bit I like! The bible does say exactly that, but does not say specifically how long the process took or how the mechanics of the process worked. Gen 2:7a.
The next part of the verse goes onto say that man did not become a living soul until God gifted him with the divine breath of life. Gen 2:7b.

My question is this. Is it possible to interpret this verse in the following way and not be in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

I believe it is possible to interpret Gen 2:7a, as describing the evolutionary process of all biological life on earth, this is consistent with the current scientific view, that life developed spontaneously over millions of years originating in some kind of watery, moist or if you like slimy environment. And over time more complex life forms developed including our ancestors.
Gen 2:7b, At some point in this process a chromosome mutation or something similar occurred which gave our early ancestors conciseness and which set them apart from the other animals.

When this occurred I think it is reasonable to assume that over time this mutation developed until in one or if you like two ( male & female ) individuals the eureka moment occurred where it was fully formed and that those two individuals are Adam & Eve the Mother and Father of the Humane species were all other fully formed, self concise human’s originated.

To me this interpretation erk’s many people however it is consistent with the Bible, Evolution and Church teaching.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Unless you can produce a peer reviewed, scientific paper titled: Explanations of Events in the Christian Bible book titled Genesis, this is just speculation.

I don’t know where this fantasy idea comes from since Science has no competence to study the soul or God. Consistent with what Church teaching?

biblehub.com/matthew/19-4.htm

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Unless you can produce a peer reviewed, scientific paper titled: Explanations of Events in the Christian Bible book titled Genesis, this is just speculation.

I don’t know where this fantasy idea comes from since Science has no competence to study the soul or God. Consistent with what Church teaching?

biblehub.com/matthew/19-4.htm

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I think you are confirming my point, which is that the creation narrative describes what God does in quite some detail however except for the use of his Word it is rather sparse on how he does it.
So if literalists want to say God sat down like a potter and shaped us out of clay, good luck to them, however with the absence of detail I think we are free to speculate on how the creative process may have worked.
I thought the Church teaching we are discussing here is that 1. God is/was the Creator and Created the universe and all that is in it from nothing. and 2. A literal Adam (1st man ) & Eve (1st women ) did exist and were created by God and are the origin of all other Human Beings (Monogenesis).
My speculation is not contrary to either of these teachings.
 
Matt_Guitar_Man said:
At some point in this process a chromosome mutation or something similar occurred which gave our early ancestors conciseness and which set them apart from the other animals.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to require that ensoulment be connected to genetics. Genetically, Homo sapiens evolved 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. However, historically speaking, until 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens was just another animal in the world, nothing special or important in any way. Then something happened (I think ensoulment) that elevated a small group of Homo sapiens in Africa to be the ancestors of the future rulers of the Earth.
 
Matt_Guitar_Man said:
I think you are confirming my point, which is that the creation narrative describes what God does in quite some detail however except for the use of his Word it is rather sparse on how he does it.
So if literalists want to say God sat down like a potter and shaped us out of clay, good luck to them, however with the absence of detail I think we are free to speculate on how the creative process may have worked.
I thought the Church teaching we are discussing here is that 1. God is/was the Creator and Created the universe and all that is in it from nothing. and 2. A literal Adam (1st man ) & Eve (1st women ) did exist and were created by God and are the origin of all other Human Beings (Monogenesis).
My speculation is not contrary to either of these teachings.
Click to expand...
There is zero scientific basis for this kind of speculation. We? No, it appears a handful of people bring up this unsubstantiated - in any way - concept on a regular basis in order to sell it. I’m not buying it. Jesus, by His word, yelled, “Lazarus! Come forth!” And a dead, decaying man walked out of his tomb. No need to look around for a scientific explanation as to the process. The best explanation? Being God, Jesus had God-like powers.

Peace,
Ed
 
Just_Lurking said:
There is no reason to require that ensoulment be connected to genetics. Genetically, Homo sapiens evolved 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. However, historically speaking, until 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens was just another animal in the world, nothing special or important in any way. Then something happened (I think ensoulment) that elevated a small group of Homo sapiens in Africa to be the ancestors of the future rulers of the Earth.
Click to expand...
There is no science to back this up. None. Science does not study ensoulment.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
There is no science to back this up. None. Science does not study ensoulment.
Click to expand...
God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the world in Genesis 1:26. So I think it’s a natural question to ask when, historically, mankind made it to the top of the food chain. It turns out that was around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, well after the evolution of Homo sapiens. At around 100,000 years ago, Homo sapiens fought Homo neanderthalis in an attempt to break out of Africa, but lost the battle. Historically, something must have happened after that loss to elevate the status of Homo sapiens vis a vis the rest of the world’s animals.
 
Evolution is a banned topic. This is just a “what if” thread with no proof.

Peace,
Ed
 
If there was not a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall, does this not obviate the need for Christ’s atoning sin?
 
Ok, will someone please tell me where they are finding all of these supposed belief requirements? Because I can only find two.
1)The soul was specially created
2)We all descended from 2 Human beings

Also, evolution, not even “atheistic” evolution, directly contradicts the idea that we could have all descended from two people; as I have explained above, scientific evidence actually supports it.

PS if someone could tell me specifically where, in at least a Papal encyclical, the church definitively says that Adam and Eve were the first humans, spontaneously created by God. Because Humani Generis says otherwise.
 
Scientific evidence fatally contradicts Adam and Eve. This is classic apologetic fake science. It’s like Young Earth creationists who claim geology supports their contention that the Grand Canyon was created during Noah’s Flood.
 
Just_Lurking said:
There is no reason to require that ensoulment be connected to genetics. Genetically, Homo sapiens evolved 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. However, historically speaking, until 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens was just another animal in the world, nothing special or important in any way. Then something happened (I think ensoulment) that elevated a small group of Homo sapiens in Africa to be the ancestors of the future rulers of the Earth.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Ensoulment Gen 2:7b, by the breath ( spirit ) of God.
 
garvs said:
Ok, will someone please tell me where they are finding all of these supposed belief requirements? Because I can only find two.
1)The soul was specially created
2)We all descended from 2 Human beings

Also, evolution, not even “atheistic” evolution, directly contradicts the idea that we could have all descended from two people; as I have explained above, scientific evidence actually supports it.

PS if someone could tell me specifically where, in at least a Papal encyclical, the church definitively says that Adam and Eve were the first humans, spontaneously created by God. Because Humani Generis says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Humani Generis states Catholics are to believe monogenism.

From Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII:

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church

"# 375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . . divine life”.

“# 390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top