Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

[Abu]

Here is a realistic consideration of Genesis.

A NEO-PATRISTIC RETURN TO THE FIRST FOUR DAYS OF CREATION
by Msgr. John F. McCarthy
PART II. THE LITERAL SENSE OF GENESIS 1:1-5: THE FIRST DAY OF CREATION
‘Since Genesis is an inspired writing, it is inerrant even on a technical level. We cannot know how much technical knowledge Moses had of the physical development of the universe, and we do not need to know, because what he wrote was guided by divine inspiration, however much he knew. Moses could have reflected only on the level of the popular images without attempting to supply in his mind any technical models. But it is the inspired text that is the subject of our study, not the mind of Moses. And the inerrancy of that text is very important, seeing that our faith is rooted in reality, not in warmed-over mythology. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that our neo-Patristic approach “identifies biblical statements too closely with the changing and shifting theories of modern science,” 36 because any model offered by modern science that it holds up in comparison with the text is only ambiguously confirmed at best. Neither does the text of Genesis 1 teach any technical model nor can any true technical model contradict it.” ’
Note:
36. R. Bandas, Biblical Questions, p. 58.
rtforum.org/lt/lt46.html

 

[Nacho45]

One of the many problems with evolution is the idea of evolution seems to consume its victim no matter who that victim is or what their position. It consumes them to the point that if someone disagrees, which everyone did from the very beginning until Mr. Darwins followers decided he was smarter than God, an immediate and energetic campaign is dispatched. An onslaught of posts (in this type of format) is generated in the attempt to create submission of those who disagree with the idea of evolution. If submission is not granted, the discussion usually devolves into ad hominem or attempts of witty (but empty) comments most often directed at a person’s education level of lack of basic scientific knowledge. If that doesn’t work, parts of a post will be cherry picked, usually out of context, and the discussion is rammed down various rabbit holes creating a never ending vortex and topic hopping. It’s a very elementary playground mentality. It’s a mentality where the victim, who is consumed with the idea of evolution, must, MUST have agreement and be told they are correct or their heads will pop off. Okay, they won’t really pop off, but you see where I am going with this. There is no toleration of opposition, the same opposition which was itself held as factual until recently when “science” created something from nothing…an evolution of sorts. Now we know how it works.

Science, when conducted properly, is an amazing and wonderful exploration of our existence, a fantastic tool to try to understand our surroundings; however, modern “science”, or scientism (really the worship of science), is a pathetic and sickly creation attempting to take on the appearance of properly applied science. When a theory is unable to pass the scientific method, this speaks about the theory itself. More importantly, when people claim its ok not to believe (notice this is the word usually used rather than “accept” revealing it truly is a belief on faith) in evolution, but never leave well enough alone, it shows they have become the victim of the idea. When the Church teaches or declares neither and allows the faithful to choose which they believe is truth, but proponents never leave well enough alone, it shows they have become the victim of the idea. I have even had people beg me, after I decline to go into detail as to why I do not believe in the magic of evolution and tell them I know where the discussion will go, to converse with them on the issue only to have the results I expected and mentioned above. Their way or the highway. These same people, ever so slowly, take parts of Scripture and piece by piece begin to take it down and turn it into a fictional story which does nothing more than to teach some lesson. This will eventually end in the entire collection of Holy Scripture being nothing more than a morality story for people to follow and live a nice little happy life, so long as they accept everyone else and the things they do no matter how vile they may be.

So, now, I simply express my views and let others rant about how little I know and how much smarter they are than those silly creationists. Of course, these are my observations from my personal experience. I am certain there are some rational evolutionists who don’t spin themselves into a frenzy when they meet a creationist and understand even within creationists there are various ideas of what exactly took place. I just haven’t met any in my travels. Once people realize it doesn’t matter and they can believe what they think is right without an official declaration of the Church, these “debates” will end. I apologize for the long post. I had not intended on posting again in this thread, but I could not resist. I have no intentions of placing another here so please feel free to respond, but understand I will not.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Is it possible that you would share with me the spiritual truths which come from the first three chapters of Genesis? When it comes to spiritual truths in the first three chapters of Genesis, I do not need literal scientific proof so technically that puts me on the same page as you are. However, as you know, I support the reality of two, sole, real, fully-complete human parents as founders of humankind. Those sweet first two humans are so fascinating. Every so often I see paintings of this loving couple.

One more thing. In the past, when I have asked for these “spiritual truths”, the answers were rather general so naturally they were true. What I am really looking for are the “spiritual truths” which are actual Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. Flowing in the sense that the “doctrines” are not necessarily completed. For example, one can recognize the beginning concept of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, but this doctrine is not formalized until the presence of Jesus Christ on earth. (CCC, 54-55; CCC, 65-67)

 

[edwest2]

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?

That is true. The Church allows for either view.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

So the Church has not decided, which is fine with me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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!

Of course it does. According to science, there were hominids or pre-humans or almost humans around before Adam, and here is where the scientifically unprovable part gets added: God gave two random almost humans a soul. There is zero science to back that idea. And these two humans became the two individuals from which all true (whatever that means) humans alive today owe their ancestry. Meanwhile, what about the pre-humans or hominids and almost humans? What happened to them? Certainly, they could breed and have more children, but without souls, they would not have Original Sin.

Today, there are two birds who appear almost exactly alike but they cannot interbreed so they are classified as different species.

Why others are so worried about Genesis not being a science book is no concern of mine. I believe what the Church teaches. That’s all I need to know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

One of the many problems with evolution is the idea of evolution seems to consume its victim no matter who that victim is or what their position. It consumes them to the point that if someone disagrees, which everyone did from the very beginning until Mr. Darwins followers decided he was smarter than God, an immediate and energetic campaign is dispatched. An onslaught of posts (in this type of format) is generated in the attempt to create submission of those who disagree with the idea of evolution. If submission is not granted, the discussion usually devolves into ad hominem or attempts of witty (but empty) comments most often directed at a person’s education level of lack of basic scientific knowledge. If that doesn’t work, parts of a post will be cherry picked, usually out of context, and the discussion is rammed down various rabbit holes creating a never ending vortex and topic hopping. It’s a very elementary playground mentality. It’s a mentality where the victim, who is consumed with the idea of evolution, must, MUST have agreement and be told they are correct or their heads will pop off. Okay, they won’t really pop off, but you see where I am going with this. There is no toleration of opposition, the same opposition which was itself held as factual until recently when “science” created something from nothing…an evolution of sorts. Now we know how it works.

Science, when conducted properly, is an amazing and wonderful exploration of our existence, a fantastic tool to try to understand our surroundings; however, modern “science”, or scientism (really the worship of science), is a pathetic and sickly creation attempting to take on the appearance of properly applied science. When a theory is unable to pass the scientific method, this speaks about the theory itself. More importantly, when people claim its ok not to believe (notice this is the word usually used rather than “accept” revealing it truly is a belief on faith) in evolution, but never leave well enough alone, it shows they have become the victim of the idea. When the Church teaches or declares neither and allows the faithful to choose which they believe is truth, but proponents never leave well enough alone, it shows they have become the victim of the idea. I have even had people beg me, after I decline to go into detail as to why I do not believe in the magic of evolution and tell them I know where the discussion will go, to converse with them on the issue only to have the results I expected and mentioned above. Their way or the highway. These same people, ever so slowly, take parts of Scripture and piece by piece begin to take it down and turn it into a fictional story which does nothing more than to teach some lesson. This will eventually end in the entire collection of Holy Scripture being nothing more than a morality story for people to follow and live a nice little happy life, so long as they accept everyone else and the things they do no matter how vile they may be.

So, now, I simply express my views and let others rant about how little I know and how much smarter they are than those silly creationists. Of course, these are my observations from my personal experience. I am certain there are some rational evolutionists who don’t spin themselves into a frenzy when they meet a creationist and understand even within creationists there are various ideas of what exactly took place. I just haven’t met any in my travels. Once people realize it doesn’t matter and they can believe what they think is right without an official declaration of the Church, these “debates” will end. I apologize for the long post. I had not intended on posting again in this thread, but I could not resist. I have no intentions of placing another here so please feel free to respond, but understand I will not.

That is accurate. An onslaught of posts on a regular basis to convince others that science can tell us more than God can or that the Church can. If Genesis is not science, then the matter should be settled but it’s not. And it will not be until full agreement with science is achieved. Science is not designed to study theological truths or the soul or God.

The debates - if you can call them that - will not end until full acceptance is achieved.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

the assertion that Genesis is not a science book does not lead to the conclusion of polygenism!

Of course it does. According to science, there were hominids or pre-humans or almost humans around before Adam

No… because you’ve unilaterally decided to add an assertion to the equation; namely, that the assertion that Genesis isn’t a science book means that scientific theories have something to say about theological truths. That doesn’t follow; and therefore, your assertion doesn’t work.

Yet, you’re addressing interesting points…

, and here is where the scientifically unprovable part gets added: God gave two random almost humans a soul. There is zero science to back that idea.

And why should there be “science to back that idea”? After all, science doesn’t deal with souls… so why should we expect that science might have anything interesting to say about ensoulment?

And these two humans became the two individuals from which all true (whatever that means) humans alive today owe their ancestry. Meanwhile, what about the pre-humans or hominids and almost humans? What happened to them? Certainly, they could breed and have more children, but without souls, they would not have Original Sin.

Which is, of course, not a problem… since they would be hominids, and not human. What’s the issue you’re seeing here?

Or, is your problem the notion that we wouldn’t be able to tell hominids from humans, and therefore, we would have no guarantee that there aren’t hominids among us today?

Today, there are two birds who appear almost exactly alike but they cannot interbreed so they are classified as different species.

And this is relevant… why? They aren’t identical; and therefore, they are different species.

I believe what the Church teaches. That’s all I need to know.

Me too. And the Church teaches that there were two first humans. Good enough for me.

 

[edwest2]

No… because you’ve unilaterally decided to add an assertion to the equation; namely, that the assertion that Genesis isn’t a science book means that scientific theories have something to say about theological truths. That doesn’t follow; and therefore, your assertion doesn’t work.

Yet, you’re addressing interesting points…

And why should there be “science to back that idea”? After all, science doesn’t deal with souls… so why should we expect that science might have anything interesting to say about ensoulment?

Which is, of course, not a problem… since they would be hominids, and not human. What’s the issue you’re seeing here?

Or, is your problem the notion that we wouldn’t be able to tell hominids from humans, and therefore, we would have no guarantee that there aren’t hominids among us today?

And this is relevant… why? They aren’t identical; and therefore, they are different species.

Me too. And the Church teaches that there were two first humans. Good enough for me.

Allow me to put it another way: I believe what the Church teaches about the origin of the first man and woman.

As the title of the thread states: Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings. That is nonsense. And if Genesis contains no science then why bother bringing it up at all?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gorgias]

Allow me to put it another way: I believe what the Church teaches about the origin of the first man and woman.

As the title of the thread states: Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings. That is nonsense.

Yep, I’m with you! The title of the thread says something that’s both definitive and contrary to Church teachings. However, the problem is that, when folks start discussing the issue, they add other conditions to the discussion that cloud the issue – as an example, it seems that some want to presume that “first human beings” also means “first hominids”, which is an assertion that seems unwarranted.

And if Genesis contains no science then why bother bringing it up at all?

This is another statement which, to my mind, is too vague to allow for constructive discussion. The statement that seems more reasonable is “the first three chapters of Genesis aren’t intended as scientific discussions”. Of course, even that assertion will cause some folks’ temperature to rise…

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

That is accurate. An onslaught of posts on a regular basis to convince others that science can tell us more than God can or that the Church can. If Genesis is not science, then the matter should be settled but it’s not. And it will not be until full agreement with science is achieved.

The Church’s has authority over matters of faith and morals, NOT science. You may wish that the Church has authority over science, but that would be simply be substituting your own personal opinion for the Church’s opinion.

Science is not designed to study theological truths or the soul or God.

The debates - if you can call them that - will not end until full acceptance is achieved.

I believe that theology and science work hand in hand. That’s why Father David’s comments are correct. Taking the literal interpretation of the Old Testament implies that they don’t work hand in hand, because one has to either ignore scientific truths to arrive at that conclusion, or use wild speculation to attempt to prove otherwise.

Sorry folks. We are Catholics, not Protestants. Please learn what your own religion teaches on the matter.

 

[onemangang]

Of course it does. According to science, there were hominids or pre-humans or almost humans around before Adam, and here is where the scientifically unprovable part gets added: God gave two random almost humans a soul. There is zero science to back that idea. And these two humans became the two individuals from which all true (whatever that means) humans alive today owe their ancestry. Meanwhile, what about the pre-humans or hominids and almost humans? What happened to them? Certainly, they could breed and have more children, but without souls, they would not have Original Sin.

Today, there are two birds who appear almost exactly alike but they cannot interbreed so they are classified as different species.

Why others are so worried about Genesis not being a science book is no concern of mine. I believe what the Church teaches. That’s all I need to know.

Peace,
Ed

Since the scientific method is the only way to show scientific truths, than we must rule out for God being the creator of the universe, being that one can not scientifically prove God!

So I guess when I posit that Theistic evolution is true, and that there was a literal Adam, I can not appeal to science, but can we deduce what is most probable, without a scientific methodology?

Metaphysical truths, are not testable by the scientific method, like there are other minds besides my own!

So I could posit all those physical humans that were not True Man (having a rational intellect, will and spirit to commune with God) could have died by natural causes, or the flood!

I can’t deduce that scientifically, but it can deduce that theologically, just as I can not deduce scientifically, that God created the Heavens and the earth, but I can deduce that theologically, and in doing so, I would say that the cumulative evidence we have, that it is more probable, that there is an intelligence behind creation!

Can somebody scientifically prove the resurrection? No, but one can make a case for it by the cumulative forms of evidence, ie: eye witness testimony, martyrs, historical records, etc!

So what is your position on pre-human, humanoids?

Peace and Love in Christ!

 

[Memaw]

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

Are you sure he is, I’m not so sure and if sooo, I disagree with him at times. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

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.

Speak for yourself, John!!. Does he know more than the Church?? I go along with what the Church teaches, no matter who disagrees with Her. I certainly don’t think Granny was uncharitable at all. God Bless, Memaw

 

[grannymh]

Back to Basics

Title of thread is “Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings”
Adam is described in the Book of Genesis which is non-scientific literature.
The description of Adam occurs in chapter two of the Book of Genesis.

The question is – If Adam is not the first human being, what kind of living organism is he?

Authors of non-scientific literature do have the capability of describing the characteristics of a human being. Perusing chapter two, we discover that the Genesis author places Adam in time and space which is proper for a human being.

The author does not equate Adam with God. While that description is not always necessary today, we have to recognize that in ancient times there were all kinds of gods in the “super-natural” sense. Adam, unlike God, has to eat to stay alive.
Food is recognized as being a material substance since it comes from the material world of plants and trees. The need to eat tells us that Adam actually existed in the material world. Note: There are ancient cultures which did offer food to the gods. Some offered human sacrifices as a way to gain favor with the gods. What this tells us is that humans universally have recognized that communication between a human and a super-natural deity is possible.

Ancient peoples were not scientifically curious about the world. They knew that rain falls from the sky which is good for gardening. Ancients accepted their surroundings and dealt with them. If the surroundings changed detrimentally, for example a long drought, they migrated to greener pastures. Interestingly, the Genesis author has God acting on behalf of first humans by creating a garden not subject to droughts. The author describes the fact that God is carefully creating and sustaining the first human person as the pinnacle of His earthly creation. Considering this aspect, it is common sense that the first human abode would be special. To make sure that the reader knew that the garden was top drawer, four rivers, needed for gardening in times of drought, are described and the land has precious gold.

In God’s eyes, according to the Genesis author, humanity is destined to share in His life not only in heaven, but also on earth. This tells us that Adam also belongs in the spiritual world. In fact, the Genesis author separates the creation of man from the creation of all other living organisms from cattle to creeping things. The first created human is described as being in the image of God.

One of the prominent characteristic of a human being is his intellective, rational abilities. The tools of reason include but are not limited to observation, analysis, conceptual thought, self-reflection, logical evaluation, and creativity. The Genesis author does not describe Adam doing these things on his own which Adam certainly could have done. Rather, Adam exercises his mental capabilities in the presence of the Creator.

“In the presence of the Creator” leads us to the Divine Revelation that Adam is the real first human. If material anatomies were all that is necessary in order for a living organism to be rational as mentioned above, then birds not only could fly, but could also figure out how to land on the moon. When examining all the species, including the newly discovered ones, we find only one species which has all the human characteristics. That species had to begin from a first human being, because the defining characteristic of a spiritual soul in the image of God does not evolve from the material substances in the universe.

Obviously, “In the presence of the Creator” means that we have to believe in a Divine Creator Who can interact with a first human being. This means that we have to believe that Jesus Christ is truly God. And we cannot avoid St. Paul’s comparisons between Jesus Christ and the first human Adam. Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22

 

[buffalo]

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.

This all rests upon these two points.

Adam and Eve are the parents of all mankind, or they are not.
Original sin caused them to lose their preternatural gifts or it didn’t.

Both of these are dogma.

The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)

Polygnenism is contrary to Adam and Eve as being our parents. Either we have among us some without original sin or we need to explain what happened to them.

 

[buffalo]

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?

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
   118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
   The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
   The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
   But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[Memaw]

The Church’s has authority over matters of faith and morals, NOT science. You may wish that the Church has authority over science, but that would be simply be substituting your own personal opinion for the Church’s opinion.

I believe that theology and science work hand in hand. That’s why Father David’s comments are correct. Taking the literal interpretation of the Old Testament implies that they don’t work hand in hand, because one has to either ignore scientific truths to arrive at that conclusion, or use wild speculation to attempt to prove otherwise.

Sorry folks. We are Catholics, not Protestants. Please learn what your own religion teaches on the matter.

The Church has authority over all !!! If science doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church, guess who is wrong!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This all rests upon these two points.

Adam and Eve are the parents of all mankind, or they are not.
Original sin caused them to lose their preternatural gifts or it didn’t.

The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)

Polygnenism is contrary to Adam and Eve as being our parents. Either we have among us some without original sin or we need to explain what happened to them.

If you are to believe the timeline in Genesis literally, then you need to explain the existence of Homo Sapiens that predated that timeline. However, this is just physical evidence that the Book of Genesis in not discussed in a scientific matter.

FWIW, back in the day, I had taken Judaic study courses and we had read sections of the Bible in Hebrew. Some of what you read in the Old Testament is not correctly translated.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The Church has authority over all !!! If science doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church, guess who is wrong!! God Bless, Memaw

Christ gave the Church authority over matters of faith and morals. If He gave authority over science also, please cite the source.

 

[MrSnaith]

Christ gave the Church authority over matters of faith and morals. If He gave authority over science also, please cite the source.

Christ gave the Church infallible authority over matters of faith and morals. There is a difference between authority and infallible authority. The Church has authority over every area of life, but that doesn’t mean the Church is always correct about those other areas of life. However, given that we know it holds infallible authority in faith and morals, we can say with certainty that whenever one or another field contradicts either faith or morals (or both), that the Church’s faith and/or moral teaching trumps. Therefore, insofar as the areas of faith and/or morality extend over other fields of study, the Church’s authority is supreme. Where there is no contradiction, the Church still has authority, in wisdom, but not infallibly so (ie, take Her word seriously, but if it is proven to be false, that’s okay). This is because the Church is guided by the Spirit of Truth.