Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

  • Thread starter Thread starter martinez7251
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What concerns me is how, in the Bible, it talks about Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel. It says that God would put a mark on Cain so nobody else would kill him. However, does this mean there were other people there already, that Adam and Eve weren’t alone, or weren’t first?

If someone were to ask me about this, I wouldn’t be in a position to defend the Bible right now. I don’t know the answer on that one.
 
What concerns me is how, in the Bible, it talks about Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel. It says that God would put a mark on Cain so nobody else would kill him. However, does this mean there were other people there already, that Adam and Eve weren’t alone, or weren’t first?

If someone were to ask me about this, I wouldn’t be in a position to defend the Bible right now. I don’t know the answer on that one.
How I’ve heard it explained is this:

Adam and Eve lived a long time (I’d have to look it up to say exactly) about 900 yrs. They obviously had many other children by the time Cain and Abel were grown. The Bible does not say how old they were when Cain killed Abel. What if they were 500 years old? How many people could be populating the earth by that time?

I don’t know if the Bible is an exact account or not. It really doesn’t concern me because the Church teaches us we can believe what we want about Creation as long as we know it was by God. I’m not smart enough to know who is ultimately right, there seems to be good arguments on both sides. I just figure I’d rather err on the side of the Bible until God revealls the truth.
 
It’s usually pretty easy to find the problem part. The one making all the noise.

If there is one thing I have noticed, it’s people who disagree with evolution speak their mind and tend to leave it alone. The evolutionists spin up and get busy beating a dead horse in the attempt to change someones mind as if repeating something over and over several times makes it true. I believe GKC had something to say about this.

The only thing I have to add to this discussion is I don’t second guess God. When He says something, I take Him at his word, even if I don’t fully understand.
I agree with Chesterton 100%, God Bless, Memaw
 
Adam and Eve were the first people. If science can’t get climate change right, which is observable, I have little trust in what they claim about something they can’t observe.
👍 well said Nacho

To the OP: If we pick and choose what we believe and dont believein the bible then we become cafeteria catholics.

The bible is gods word…and it says he created adam and eve as the first humans…even the jewish faith and muslim faith agree with that…(that adam and eve are the first humans )
 
The Bible is not a history book but a book that teaches a moral truth.

Where did you find that they were the only people in the world? Just because the bible only mentions them does not mean that there were not others, in fact in mentions that Adam and Eve had other children. However, as I have mentioned it is not a history book. What is intended is to show how sin came into the world and what resulted from that sin.

No we know this that there was a first couple in which God put immortal souls(making them the first humans) this couple disobeyed God(original sin) because God revealed this to us through His Holy Word.
Trust me I understand what you are saying.
 
Hello,

I was always taught that Adam and Eve were the first human beings that god created, but after reading the bible I now think otherwise. Scientist have always argued that the the creation story of the bible and the scientific and archeological evidence don’t coincide with one another. But I really feel like they are wrong. Supposedly Genisis 2 explains more in detail of the part of Genisis 1 when god created human beings. I don’t believe this to be true because in Genisis 4 where did Cains wife come from? Why did he build city if there were no other people in the world besides Cain, Adam, and Eve?

Another thing the young earth creationist crowd is also wrong. The bible doesn’t say that the earth is 6,000 years old. In Genisis 1 god created and heavens and the earth. Then his spirit hovered over the earth for an unknown amount of time. That could have been a couple of millions years. There is no way to really know. The creation story is so vague that it’s really impossible to put an age to the earth using the bible and it’s also impossible to say that Adam and Eve were the first human beings.
From our perspective, in order to understand Adam & Eve in Genesis, we have to look at the New Testament…

See how many times in the Gospels Christ uses storytelling as a teaching method. So much of His teaching comes down to us in the form of parables. This is no accident. The Jewish method of answering questions (big and small) was to tell a story that illustrated the point. When someone asked Christ “who is my neighbor?” He answered with the parable of the Good Samaritan. He did this because that’s the Jewish teaching style. It was not like the modern style of giving a short, direct answer to a question.

When the ancient peoples (whom we would eventually call Hebrews, then Israelites, then Jews) asked important questions like “how did the world come to be?” or “why do bad things happen in the world?” they answered those questions with stories, just the same as Christ did.

The creation stories in Genesis are not meant to be “natural history” (a discipline that would not exist until recent centuries) but instead are meant to answer spiritual questions. The point of the 7 day creation story is to say that God created the world, and that He did so intentionally; this was specifically intended to contrast with all of the other ancient religious understanding of creation that it was an accident or a mistake on the part of the gods. The people of Abraham said “no, the world did not come about by accident, but God created the world because He wanted to, and it is not a mistake, He saw that it was good.” Creation is not chaos or mistake, but God’s plan—this idea intentionally contrasts all the ancient religions (Egyptian, Persian, Greek, far Eastern, etc.), who all claim that creation was either an accident or some kind of wrongdoing on the gods part.

It also shows that the things other people worshiped as gods (like the greater light and the lesser light) were not gods at all, but created things made by the One God. That’s why those things don’t have names. Genesis does not say that God created the Sun (because that would be using a proper name, in whatever language), but instead the greater light—so the sun is not a person, certainly not a god, but merely an object created by God, which does not even deserve a name, much less deserve to be worshiped.

The point is that the creation stories found in Genesis were never intended to be a literal history or a scientific explanation; no more than the parable of the Good Samaritan was meant to be an historical account. They are all stories meant to teach certain religious Truths. In order to understand them, we have to see them for what they actually are, what they were always intended to be, and not try to force them to be modern scientific textbooks.
 
The person of “Eve” in Biblical accounts is known to science as “Mitochondrial Eve” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
David, I’m surprised… you’re getting the science all wrong!

The ‘Eve’ of the Bible and ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ are not the same person! No one – scientist or theologian – is making that claim, nor should they!
Every human being is descended from Mitochondrial Eve, according to science. This is settled fact among all biologists.
This, too, is not exactly accurate. ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ is the forebear of every person currently living, not the matriarch of all humans who have ever lived! Scientists are not making a claim about her as the sole female in existence in her day, but rather, are making a claim about us, her descendants, in our relationship to her!
Adam is a bit more elusive, because the male does not pass mitochondrial DNA. But science has identified a potential male ancestor of all humanity, known as Y-Chromosome Adam
This one is even trickier to explain, and I hesitate to get into the details. Suffice it to say that ‘Y-Chromosome Adam’ simply explains a common ancestor, not the first human male
Scientific Eve and Adam never met.
Which makes not one bit of difference, nor does it say anything about the veracity of the Scriptural account. Scientific ‘Adam and Eve’ are not named this way because they correspond to the people in the Biblical account, but because they represent the furthest limit that we can trace back in our genetic history. It’s like genealogy a bit: the furthest back I used to be able to go in my maternal grandfather’s line was his father; but, a few years ago, I had a breakthrough, and traced his history back to the early 1800s. Whereas for me, the ‘Adam’ in his line had been a 20th century immigrant, it is now a 19th century European peasant farmer. In other words, calling people ‘mitochondrial Eve’ and ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ don’t mean anything in the context of the Scriptural story of Adam & Eve or the Catholic doctrinal teachings on the origins of humanity. 😉
The commonly accepted scientific idea differs from the Biblical accounts only in the nature of chronology. As far as modern science is concerned, the idea that all of humanity is the genetic product of one female and one male is almost universally accepted.
What?!?!?!? :eek:

No… according to modern science, the notion of a single ancestor pair is pretty well universally rejected…!
 
Hello,

I was always taught that Adam and Eve were the first human beings that god created, but after reading the bible I now think otherwise. Scientist have always argued that the the creation story of the bible and the scientific and archeological evidence don’t coincide with one another. But I really feel like they are wrong. Supposedly Genisis 2 explains more in detail of the part of Genisis 1 when god created human beings. I don’t believe this to be true because in Genisis 4 where did Cains wife come from? Why did he build city if there were no other people in the world besides Cain, Adam, and Eve?

Another thing the young earth creationist crowd is also wrong. The bible doesn’t say that the earth is 6,000 years old. In Genisis 1 god created and heavens and the earth. Then his spirit hovered over the earth for an unknown amount of time. That could have been a couple of millions years. There is no way to really know. The creation story is so vague that it’s really impossible to put an age to the earth using the bible and it’s also impossible to say that Adam and Eve were the first human beings.
I think you’re missing one important verse:

Adam lived eight hundred years after he begot Seth, and he had other sons and daughters. (Genesis 5:4)

It doesn’t say when all these other sons and daughters were born. But at least one daughter was born before Cain took a wife. 😉
 
From our perspective, in order to understand Adam & Eve in Genesis, we have to look at the New Testament…

See how many times in the Gospels Christ uses storytelling as a teaching method. So much of His teaching comes down to us in the form of parables. This is no accident. The Jewish method of answering questions (big and small) was to tell a story that illustrated the point. When someone asked Christ “who is my neighbor?” He answered with the parable of the Good Samaritan. He did this because that’s the Jewish teaching style. It was not like the modern style of giving a short, direct answer to a question.

When the ancient peoples (whom we would eventually call Hebrews, then Israelites, then Jews) asked important questions like “how did the world come to be?” or “why do bad things happen in the world?” they answered those questions with stories, just the same as Christ did.

The creation stories in Genesis are not meant to be “natural history” (a discipline that would not exist until recent centuries) but instead are meant to answer spiritual questions. The point of the 7 day creation story is to say that God created the world, and that He did so intentionally; this was specifically intended to contrast with all of the other ancient religious understanding of creation that it was an accident or a mistake on the part of the gods. The people of Abraham said “no, the world did not come about by accident, but God created the world because He wanted to, and it is not a mistake, He saw that it was good.” Creation is not chaos or mistake, but God’s plan—this idea intentionally contrasts all the ancient religions (Egyptian, Persian, Greek, far Eastern, etc.), who all claim that creation was either an accident or some kind of wrongdoing on the gods part.

It also shows that the things other people worshiped as gods (like the greater light and the lesser light) were not gods at all, but created things made by the One God. That’s why those things don’t have names. Genesis does not say that God created the Sun (because that would be using a proper name, in whatever language), but instead the greater light—so the sun is not a person, certainly not a god, but merely an object created by God, which does not even deserve a name, much less deserve to be worshiped.

The point is that the creation stories found in Genesis were never intended to be a literal history or a scientific explanation; no more than the parable of the Good Samaritan was meant to be an historical account. They are all stories meant to teach certain religious Truths. In order to understand them, we have to see them for what they actually are, what they were always intended to be, and not try to force them to be modern scientific textbooks.
Sooo, do you believe that Adam and Eve are just a “Story”!!! Could the Church actually be wrong all these years. Could Jesus have redeemed us for something that never really happened??? I don’t think so. I trust God, not science. Unless of course it agrees with God. God Bless, Memaw
 
Sooo, do you believe that Adam and Eve are just a “Story”!!! Could the Church actually be wrong all these years. Could Jesus have redeemed us for something that never really happened??? I don’t think so. I trust God, not science. Unless of course it agrees with God. God Bless, Memaw
You don’t understand the point.

We have to read the book of Genesis in the way in which it was intended to be read (or heard, since the oral tradition predates the written).

The book of Genesis is not a scientific textbook. It was never intended to be that.
 
You don’t understand the point.

We have to read the book of Genesis in the way in which it was intended to be read (or heard, since the oral tradition predates the written).

The book of Genesis is not a scientific textbook. It was never intended to be that.
You still didn’t answer my question. Do you believe that Adam and Eve are just a ‘story’?? God Bless, Memaw
 
If God brought about humans from what we would perceive as theistic evolution ( which I believe He did) that does not rule out a literal Adam and Eve!

I look at it this way you can have proto-humans, and even those that would be considered modern day physical human beings, but they were all lacking one thing the Human soul. People may have been physically human prior to Adam, but they were much more simple creatures, animals if you will, until God breathed the Soul (the Nephesh) into Adam. God breathed a soul into Adam, and it is at that point a physical human, became Man as we know it!

God made each creature according to its kind, Adam became man, when God breathed into him, a soul, all other “humans” prior to Adam lacked a soul, and therefore could not be fully human, albeit they still could have been physically human, they lacked the ability to commune with God, as Adam could.

I believe the pre Adam humans were living creatures, (or living organisms,) lack of being a Trichotomy

Trichotomy
Literally anything that has three parts. In the Bible, St. Paul’s doctrine abouth the threefold division in the human beings, composed of body (soma), soul (psyche) and spirit (pneuma). The body is the living organism, the soul is the rational intellect and will, *and the spirit is that innermost part of one’s being where the Spirit of God abides.
*

I see theistic evolution being true, and a literal Adam and Eve, and see no contradiction in terms!

God bless!
 
The Catechism twice [28, 360] quotes Acts 17:26-28:
“From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth…” That the Catechism refers to a single person is confirmed in footnote number 226 [360] which cites Tobit 8:6, “Thou madest Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung…” Thus, the “one ancestor” could only be Adam. This is confirmed in [359] which quotes St Peter Chrysologus, “St Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first man, Adam,…was made by the last Adam.” The Catechism clearly teaches that polygenism is irreconcilable with Catholic Tradition.

For an opening to a whole new world of faith, reason and sanity see:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html

Infallible doctrine is: Adam & Eve were our first parents, by direct divine intervention and Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body (*Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII, 1880). Polygenism is impossible. [LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine]](LT98 - Did Woman Evolve From The Beasts? Part II - A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine])

Then from the Pontifical Biblical Commission in its response of 30 June, 1909, On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis, the declaration:
a) that those pseudoscientific exegetical systems elaborated for the purpose of “excluding the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis” are not based upon solid arguments (EB 324; DS 3512).

So as Fr Harrison rightly points out in Did The Human Body Evolve Naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration:
“We are not dealing here with a mere Allocution, a Motu Proprio, a Brief, an Apostolic Exhortation, or a Nuntius, but a fully-fledged piece of pontificating endowed with no less inherent or formal authority than *Humani Generis *or Providentissimus Deus: the Encyclical Letter *Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII on Christian Marriage, dated 10 February 1880.
rtforum.org/lt/lt73.htm
 
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/What%20Catholics%20believe%20about%20Creation.htm
WHAT CATHOLICS MUST BELIEVE ABOUT CREATION
Magisterium of the Catholic Church has defined what Catholics must believe about the history of creation:
The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time
The special creation by God of man
Formation of woman from man
Unity of the human race
The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice
The divine command laid upon man by God to prove obedience
Transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent
The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence.
The promise of a future redeemer
Humanae Generis, Pope Pius XII [also see: Dr. S. Hahn: Genesis 1-22: The Covenant as a Family Affair; Pope Pius X: Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Sept. 8, 1907].
The Catholic Church rejects the theory that the first chapters of Genesis are pure myth. For what the catechism teaches about creation see the Catechism of the Catholic Church #s 198, 279-327.
everything else is just the details
 
Every story is a particular kind of story, so what kind of "particular"story would you say Adam and Eve is???
The kind of story that tells the truth of God’s self-revelation through allegory. 😉
 
Sooo, do you believe that Adam and Eve are just a “Story”!!! Could the Church actually be wrong all these years. Could Jesus have redeemed us for something that never really happened??? I don’t think so. I trust God, not science. Unless of course it agrees with God. God Bless, Memaw
I agree with memaw…if adam and eve didnt really exist then there is no original sin…and if there is no original sin then jesus had no reason to be born and die for us…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top