Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

[grannymh]

For your information. Here is an old thread in the Catholic News Forum. I will not discuss it here, because I respect the ban on evolution discussion.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=664084&highlight=Cardinal+Pell%2C+Adam+Eve

Here is the transcript of the program… abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

Added note.

It is important to respect Cardinal Pell. The ABC’s Q & A program was intense pressure. The responses of the Cardinal were brief so that it is difficult to know what his true position is. I can imagine that in the days following the program, he was very busy handling phone calls.

Obviously, there are questions about some of the Cardinal’s replies; however, in charity, I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt due to the circumstances. I look at that program as a learning experience not only for the Cardinal, but also for myself.

Beyond the issue of the Cardinal, today we need to recognize that underneath some of the fancy use of words, there can be a modern wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m still trying to come to grips with the fact that Cardinal George Pell seemed unsure, when questioned, as to whether, or not the Bible tells us that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger.

Giving the cardinal the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was thinking of the second set of tablets – the ones that eventually were placed in the ark of the covenant – and not the first set that Moses smashed against the mountain.

 

[buffalo]

And we can believe (accept, affirm, confess, etc.) all of the above while still understanding that the book of Genesis is not a scientific textbook.

It may not be a scientific textbook but it surely does contain some science:

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

These science have just confirmed recently.

 

[buffalo]

And we can believe (accept, affirm, confess, etc.) all of the above while still understanding that the book of Genesis is not a scientific textbook.

If polygenism is accepted are there among us humans without original sin?

 

[FrDavid96]

If polygenism is accepted are there among us humans without original sin?

It’s non-sensical to try to force scientific explanations into the book of Genesis (or to look at Genesis to find science).

That’s not Christianity, it’s superstition.

It makes as much sense as looking in a dictionary for a recipe for chocolate cake.

Your question simply makes no sense because what you are trying to do is to force the book of Genesis to be scientific. That’s plain nonsense. It is not a science book. It was never intended to be a science book. It never will be a science book.

There are no human beings born without Original Sin (except Our Lord and His Blessed Mother).

Do you understand that different kinds of books contain different kinds of information? Do you understand that a dictionary is not a cookbook?

 

[Gorgias]

If polygenism is accepted are there among us humans without original sin?

That’s quite the red herring! After all, the assertion that Genesis is not a science book does not lead to the conclusion of polygenism!

 

[grannymh]

That’s quite the red herring! After all, the assertion that Genesis is not a science book does not lead to the conclusion of polygenism!

The assertion that the first three chapters of Genesis are not a science book is doublespeak for “Let’s eliminate annoying Catholic doctrines.”

Substituting the real meaning we have – Because the true meaning of “the first three chapters of Genesis are not science” is “Let’s eliminate the annoying doctrine of monogenism”, there is a pleasant path to polygenism meaning more than one first Adam.

When we actually explore Catholic teaching about the first two residents in the organic garden, we learn that as long as Adam remained in the Divine intimacy, he would have God’s extraordinary gift of immortality. (CCC, Man in Paradise, paragraphs 374-379)

We do know by Revelation that Adam’s original state of living in harmony with God was meant for all human nature. (CCC, 404) All Adam’s descendants would receive by propagation his original nature which includes the freedom of rational thought and the freedom to shape one’s own life. All woud enjoy God’s extraordinary gift of immortality.

Depending on Adam’s response to the temptation of Satan, all descendants would receive the extraordinary gift of immortality or not receive it . (CCC, 376) In order to maintain the truth of “all”, there could not be another human who had Adam’s same individual responsibility. Recall that all mankind is in Adam as one body of one man. (St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4, l; CCC, 404)

The second man, like Adam, would have a free intellect and will and could choose to deny God. Therefore, if Adam chose to remain faithful to God’s law, it would not be possible for all humanity to receive Adam’s gift of immortality at the same time that all humanity was contracting the second man’s state of separation from God which results in the loss of immortality. If both men made the same choice, then Occam’s razor or parsimony would apply. The creation of Adam’s “clone” would not be necessary.

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[edwest2]

Once again, my position is not at odds here!

Your quote from Humani Generis "polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.,

I do not posit polygenism, but monogenism!

No, biological human was TRUE MAN before Adam.

Adam was the first TRUE MAN, just not biologically!

The lineage of TRUE MAN starts with Adam first!

I do not think TRUE MAN existed before Adam, although I do believe biological humans existed, they were not TRUE MAN, being they did not have a rational intellect, will and spirit breathed into them by God.

Adam was a biological human, who became TRUE MAN, when God breathed the Nephesh into Adam!

Your next quote from Humani Generis "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. "

This does not contradict my post. It contains very important words true men, so my statement of biological humans, not being true MAN stands, while Adam was the first biological human to become*** true man ***.

One can be biologically human, yet not be *** true man ***.
True man has what biological humans lacked, a rational intellect, a will, and a spirit to commune with God.

So, once again, my statement stands, and remains compatible with their being theistic evolution, and a literal person of Adam, upholding the teaching of the Church, and much in line with Catholic thought of Both AND, rather than either or!

So you can see, theistic evolution is not at odds with the creation account!

God bless!

Your statement has no scientific basis whatsoever. The soul cannot be studied by science. What most people get in Biology class excludes that important fact.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

It’s non-sensical to try to force scientific explanations into the book of Genesis (or to look at Genesis to find science).

That’s not Christianity, it’s superstition.

It makes as much sense as looking in a dictionary for a recipe for chocolate cake.

Your question simply makes no sense because what you are trying to do is to force the book of Genesis to be scientific. That’s plain nonsense. It is not a science book. It was never intended to be a science book. It never will be a science book.

There are no human beings born without Original Sin (except Our Lord and His Blessed Mother).

Do you understand that different kinds of books contain different kinds of information? Do you understand that a dictionary is not a cookbook?

If polygenism (which evolution claims) is allowed (Humani Generis does not allow it) there could be humans on this earth without original sin.

 

[buffalo]

That’s quite the red herring! After all, the assertion that Genesis is not a science book does not lead to the conclusion of polygenism!

That is the conclusion of evo science. The conclusion of Scripture is Adam and Eve passed original sin to all humans after them.

 

[onemangang]

Your statement has no scientific basis whatsoever. The soul cannot be studied by science. What most people get in Biology class excludes that important fact.

Peace,
Ed

Correct, my statement is not a scientific one, but a theological one

Are all things accepted in science, tested by the scientific model?

If it is the scientific model is the only way to acquiesce truth, then why speak of things outside of science?

The resurrection can’t be tested scientifically, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true!

God bless!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Thanks to Father David for providing excellent commentary on the matter. The “arguments” against his post are simply an inability to understand what he is talking about.

As a side note, I would just note that regarding creation stories, Buddhism (major sects) doesn’t have one, or at least doesn’t concern itself on the matter.

---

With regard to some other comments in this thread, one that I see constantly among Catholics is the mixing up of science with faith and morals. The Church has authority of faith and morals, not science. Don’t mix them up.

 

[Abu]

As Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D. comments, some Catholics feel that a form of theistic evolution is true.

“The idea of theistic evolution is not contrary in itself to the notion of creation by God and was held tentatively in certain aspects by St. Augustine of Hippo, not as an upward transformation of species over immense periods of time, but as a kind of spontaneous generation from non-living matter into this or that living species. This theory was struck a severe blow from which it has never recovered when Louis Pasteur demonstrated that there is no observable spontaneous generation of living beings on any level in the natural world, in the sense that those instances which were thought to occur spontaneously were shown always to proceed from parents of the same species.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt72.html

 

[FrDavid96]

If polygenism (which evolution claims) is allowed (Humani Generis does not allow it) there could be humans on this earth without original sin.

You’ve convinced me.

You’ve convinced me that any attempts at a logical, thoughtful, reasonable, adult-level conversation is pointless.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If polygenism (which evolution claims) is allowed (Humani Generis does not allow it) there could be humans on this earth without original sin.

If you wish to take the Book of Genesis literally, you will have to explain how the various tribes currently walking the Earth that have been isolated for a period 10x the length of the genealogy in Genesis fit into the picture. Naturally, you will argue that that they have not been isolated that long, but then again, that opinion will not be rooted in any type of scientific reality.

Now if you take the Book of Genesis as stories with spiritually truths, this is a non issue. Taking it literally means constantly fighting a series of ever-growing certainties.

I am personally of the opinion that we do not know everything, and more will be revealed in time, though we are reasonably certain that the Book of Genesis in not literal scientific proof.

 

[grannymh]

You’ve convinced me.

You’ve convinced me that any attempts at a logical, thoughtful, reasonable, adult-level conversation is pointless.

I’m glad to see your sunny smile.

This older than dirt, cranky (feminine of snarky) granny did notice that you did not provide any thoughtful, reasonable, adult level conversation about the comments on post 55. If a logical discussion is preferable, you can simply scroll to the last sentence.

I do apologize in advance for not reading all 50 chapters of the book of Genesis. I absolutely will not do Noah. And since I did not study the first three chapters of Genesis when I first learned flat out Catholic doctrines regarding events at the dawn of human history, I am having a delightful, energizing time digging through those initial chapters.

On the other hand, it is o.k. if you bypass my post. You certainly are not expected to discuss everything posted. And for a lot of people, the weekend can be a busy time.
Plus, I never discuss everything so it is a tad silly to expect that of others.

Those sweet first human beings, especially Adam, are so fascinating that I cannot understand how they could be some kind of spiritual truth symbol instead of blood and guts.

 

[10gr8kids]

FrDavid,

You have stated several times that a literal reading of Genesis is superstition. If that is true wouldn’t the Church be obliged to teach that we cannot read it literally? I was of the impression the Church taught we are free to believe in a literal creation account. I was also of the impression that Cathilics are not free to believe in superstition. Am I missing something?

 

[thistle]

I’m glad to see your sunny smile.

This older than dirt, cranky (feminine of snarky) granny did notice that you did not provide any thoughtful, reasonable, adult level conversation about the comments on post 55. If a logical discussion is preferable, you can simply scroll to the last sentence.

I do apologize in advance for not reading all 50 chapters of the book of Genesis. I absolutely will not do Noah. And since I did not study the first three chapters of Genesis when I first learned flat out Catholic doctrines regarding events at the dawn of human history, I am having a delightful, energizing time digging through those initial chapters.

On the other hand, it is o.k. if you bypass my post. You certainly are not expected to discuss everything posted. And for a lot of people, the weekend can be a busy time.
Plus, I never discuss everything so it is a tad silly to expect that of others.

Those sweet first human beings, especially Adam, are so fascinating that I cannot understand how they could be some kind of spiritual truth symbol instead of blood and guts.

Your comments are not very charitable especially as the poster you are commenting to is a priest.

 

[thistle]

I’m glad to see your sunny smile.

This older than dirt, cranky (feminine of snarky) granny did notice that you did not provide any thoughtful, reasonable, adult level conversation about the comments on post 55. If a logical discussion is preferable, you can simply scroll to the last sentence.

I do apologize in advance for not reading all 50 chapters of the book of Genesis. I absolutely will not do Noah. And since I did not study the first three chapters of Genesis when I first learned flat out Catholic doctrines regarding events at the dawn of human history, I am having a delightful, energizing time digging through those initial chapters.

On the other hand, it is o.k. if you bypass my post. You certainly are not expected to discuss everything posted. And for a lot of people, the weekend can be a busy time.
Plus, I never discuss everything so it is a tad silly to expect that of others.

Those sweet first human beings, especially Adam, are so fascinating that I cannot understand how they could be some kind of spiritual truth symbol instead of blood and guts.

Your comments are not very charitable especially as the poster you are commenting to is a priest and most certainly knows more about the topic than us.

 

[MrSnaith]

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!

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!

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…

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.

What?!?!?!?

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

As I read this exchange, admittedly being minimally knowledgable in the field of genetics, I am wondering if the “Y-chromosome Adam” might be Noah. As I understand this, since there is a time discrepency between the two, “mitochondrial Eve” may have produced several lines, but only one of those lines, that of “Y-chromosome Adam” survived to be our common ancestor. The suggestion to my mind is that this “Y-chromosome Adam” might be Noah, the sole progenitor of mankind (including his sons) after the flood.