Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

  • Thread starter Thread starter martinez7251
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
May I gently suggest that a possible flaw is starting with the idea of a literal reading of Genesis which has 50 chapters and thousands of verses. It would be much easier to start with a Catholic doctrine about human origin and original sin and find a Scripture reference in the first three chapters of Genesis or in the rest of Scripture. St. Paul teaches the truth of Jesus Christ by referring back to Adam.

By starting with an actual Catholic doctrine, one sees that the Church is loud and clear that there cannot be any hint of superstition in its Scripture reference.
I would further suggest that the Bible be read in the context that it was written, which, BTW, the Catholic Church does (noted by Father David). A literal reading of the OT means one is reading it in a context that it was written, nor was not intended to be read.
 
“Genesis does not contain purified myths.” (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909).

Peace,
Ed
 
First, the word “reality” is used in only one of your references.

Second, the one reference to “reality” is actually qualified with by “this reality,” indicating a specific circumstance, or more properly a subset of reality.

There is only one “Reality.” That fact that others may talk about subsets of “Reality,” or have a different definition of it, doesn’t change that.
In the big picture, regardless of what references I posted, there are two realities which are taught by the Catholic Church. There is the material world and the spiritual world, both of which are real. CCC, 355 points to the fact that both real worlds are united in human nature. CCC, 364-365 describes that real union.

Personally, I find it very difficult to consider the spiritual world of God as a subset to our real material universe.😊 On the other hand, since I am somewhat confused by subsets, let’s go back to the original post I answered.

Here is your post 133.
“Science is our way of understanding reality. If someone attempts to limit it’s scope, that’s an issue with the person, not science.”

This is my response in post 137.
The Catholic Church teaches that human nature is an unique unification of two realities.
(CCC, 355-356; CCC, 362-366; CCC, 1730)

May I respectfully ask which reality or realities are you referring to?

So, if you wish to deal in subsets, then, please describe them and then, please describe what you mean by * There is only one “Reality.” *

Now I see what the problem is. I referred to human nature. One the other hand, human nature is real and so is the material world of humans and the spiritual world of God.
 
grannymh;11756320] Added note. It is important to respect Cardinal Pell.
As a fellow Christian of course he has my full respect.
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.
I wholeheartedly agree granny - I certainly would not like to be cross examined about Christianity in the public forum, as the Cardinal was. However, it did not come across to me that he was at all ill at ease, in fact quite the opposite. For instance the Cardinal, when speaking about Darwin said that Darwin was a theist. When Richard Dawkins retorted, “That is simply not true!”, quick as a flash the Cardinal snapped back a reply saying, “It’s on page 92 of his [Darwin’s] autobiography, go and have a look!”. Does that strike you as a man under duress?
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.
As do I granny.
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**.
Indeed there can, Things have not changed one iota since Paul penned those famous words,
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:13
Protector.
 
the Cardinal, when speaking about Darwin said that Darwin was a theist. When Richard Dawkins retorted, “That is simply not true!”, quick as a flash the Cardinal snapped back a reply saying, “It’s on page 92 of his [Darwin’s] autobiography, go and have a look!”. Does that strike you as a man under duress?
It struck me as a man who had someone walk straight into one of his talking points, and who then took the opportunity to spring the trap. 🤷
 
Gorgias;11765294] It struck me as a man who had someone walk straight into one of his talking points, and who then took the opportunity to spring the trap. 🤷
Exactly! Perhaps the Cardinal would make a good poker player.🙂

Protector.
 
I like how HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory explained it:
The body of humanity evolved, but at some point, God imbued two beings with souls, who (by definition) became the first humans. All human beings (body+soul) descended from these two.
But what of those not imbued with souls - where are their off-spring? Or is it to be understood that those others were another species that died out (consistent with evolution).
 
But what of those not imbued with souls - where are their off-spring? Or is it to be understood that those others were another species that died out (consistent with evolution).
Interestingly enough, the fossil record indicates that there were indeed many other hominids that walked the Earth, all of which are now extinct. Homo Sapiens seems to have been around 200,000 years or so, with behavioral modernity approximately 50,000 years ago.
 
But what of those not imbued with souls - where are their off-spring? Or is it to be understood that those others were another species that died out (consistent with evolution).
There are all the mammals and plenty of apes and assorted monkeys that we are said to be genetically related to, that have not died out. Not knowing anything about this, and facinated by science fiction in general, I also wonder whether Adam and Eve had a physical structure similar to lemurs of today. Genesis is pretty clear about things. I don’t have access to, but neither am i interested in looking at the raw data, and types of analyses that are used to arrive at such scientific determinations, but I am not sure whether my, newly invented lemur-theory is inconsistant with either. I’m not sure we can know and believe it does not matter anyway.
 
What does matter is the scientific mumbo-jumbo which has been presented as fact.

ROLLING BACK THE TIDE OF EVOLUTIONISM
Concerning Genesis 1 and evolutionism:

“Not only has the alleged transformation of species never been observed according to the standards of natural science, so that the “scientific” picture of evolution remains a pure historical conjecture that has never been substantiated, but even the reliability of the testimony regarding what has been observed is open to question. I am referring especially to the long history of downright dishonesty on the part of many “scientists” relating their findings amidst lies, distortions, unobjective selection of data, suppression of data that do not fit in with the desired results, and a pronounced overall bias in the way the investigations were first drawn up and afterwards reported. We are dealing here, on the historical level, not so much with a scientific process as with the unfolding of an emotional need, of a group obsession that has for well over a century captivated the minds of spiritually undisciplined persons.1”

“It seems that some kind of development from lower to higher forms of life is implicit in the text, but the Darwinian explanation, with its absence of finality, its spontaneous generation, and its random selection is excluded, both by Genesis and by biological science. To exclude divine Providence from the development means to exclude rational science itself.”
  1. Numerous exposes have been published of the dishonesty shown by many of those reporting evolutionary data and discoveries. See, for example, J.W.G. Johnson, The Crumbling Theory of Evolution (3rd printing, 1987: Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration Incorporated, P.O. Box 84595, Los Angeles, California 90073). See also Malcolm Bowden, *Science vs Evolution *(1st edition, 1991: Sovereign Publications, P.O. Box 88, Bromley, Kent BR2 9PF, England).
    rtforum.org/lt/lt37.html
 
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
There are many stories in the Bible. Many genres. They all illustrate and teach TRUTH.
The Bible is TRUTH.
There is nothing heretical about reading the Bible as it is intended.
There are parts that can be taken literally…the eyewitness accounts of the Apostles, for ex.
7 days? Who knows what constitutes 7 days in the life of our immortal God?
Is HE limited to our 24 hr. periods?

We need not fret over “stories”. They are the things that God wants us to know about Him and HIS TRUTH.
Peace
 
Interestingly enough, the fossil record indicates that there were indeed many other hominids that walked the Earth, all of which are now extinct. Homo Sapiens seems to have been around 200,000 years or so, with behavioral modernity approximately 50,000 years ago.
Yes, and it seems that the emergence of “behavioral modernity” also seems to point to a single geographical origination point (i.e., the Garden of Eden). Though this location seems to be central Africa (see “Out of Africa” theories).

Also called by some the “Great Leap Forward,” this sudden explosion of creativity and civilization coincides well with the belief in the infusion of a rational soul and the properties it gives man (superior to animals).

Thus, scientists have discovered evidence that corresponds well with the Genesis account, so long as we don’t impose on Genesis a modern scientific straightjacket for our interpretation, forcing on it timelines and locations or alternately filling the gaps in its descriptions with magic rather than biological explanations.

I often find that people often talk across each other, using different definitions of things like “evolution” so they’re not even talking about the same things. For instance, accepting evolution as a biological process, without any metaphysical assumptions that are really philosophy and not science, is perfectly marriageable with faith. As a biological process, evolution still requires a Creator and Designer, after all; it works by His laws, and is limited to the material forms, not having anything to do with the spiritual soul.

So: God created everything ex nihilo, generating and sustaining all physical laws and processes of the universe (including, probably, evolution), through which He created life and by which processes He generated the human body. Some 50,000 years ago, it appears, God took that human body (from among other hominids) and re-created it in His image with a spiritual soul, through Adam and Eve. The trail of physical evidence from our first parents appears to date back through their descendants to 50,000 years ago and is being described by modern “Out of Africa” and “Great Leap Forward” theories (and those like them).

There are still many other interesting questions, such as what happened to the other hominids, what their status was, whether there was interbreeding (as seems the case with Neanderthals–and which may help explain certain passages of Genesis such as those having to do with Cain or the Nephilim), etc.
 
Interestingly enough, the fossil record indicates that there were indeed many other hominids that walked the Earth, all of which are now extinct. Homo Sapiens seems to have been around 200,000 years or so, with behavioral modernity approximately 50,000 years ago.
So it is conceivable that God intervened at the moment Homo Sapiens appeared. Call it a cooperation between evolution and God. Evolution is thus kept whole and Adam and Eve are our (Homo sapien) first parents. But how is inbreeding among the offspring dealt with?
 
Rau #152
But how is inbreeding among the offspring dealt with?
From post #68:
684. Besides Adam and Eve we read only of Cain and Abel. Whom did Cain marry?
Your knowledge is inadequate. Had you read on, you would have seen in the fifth chapter of Genesis that Adam begot Seth, and after that lived on for some 800 years, begetting sons and daughters. Cain very probably married a sister. He could even have married a niece! But that would involve the marriage of a brother and sister at some stage, or indeed of several brothers and sisters. With the cessation of necessity, such close inter-relationship was forbidden. But special conditions naturally prevailed in such special circumstances as the starting of the human race. God exercised a special providence to safeguard the earliest human beings from the evils usually associated with close inter-marriage. And after all, a sister would not be so closely related to Cain as Eve was to Adam. Cain’s wife was not made out of his own rib! Whom Cain married precisely is not mentioned, as not being very important. One book cannot give all the names that have occurred in history, and the Bible gives but a summary outline of chief events.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Cain&db=1
 
What does matter is the scientific mumbo-jumbo which has been presented as fact.

ROLLING BACK THE TIDE OF EVOLUTIONISM
Concerning Genesis 1 and evolutionism:

“Not only has the alleged transformation of species never been observed according to the standards of natural science,
That would be false. There is scientific data/studies on this issue. The reason that people believe that there isn’t any is because studies are limited. Why? Because many scientists believe it is a settled issue, and don’t bother with further research. As expected, much of the data deals with plants and “lower” life forms, because they evolve much more quickly. It is an unreasonable standard to expect to witness a higher life form evolve in your short lifetime, which can take millions of years to occur.
To exclude divine Providence from the development means to exclude rational science itself.
You are assuming that Divine Providence is excluded from Evolution. That would be an incorrect assumption.

Do some believe that? Sure. But there are many of us that don’t.
 
From post #68:
684. Besides Adam and Eve we read only of Cain and Abel. Whom did Cain marry?
Your knowledge is inadequate. Had you read on, you would have seen in the fifth chapter of Genesis that Adam begot Seth, and after that lived on for some 800 years, begetting sons and daughters. Cain very probably married a sister. He could even have married a niece! But that would involve the marriage of a brother and sister at some stage, or indeed of several brothers and sisters. With the cessation of necessity, such close inter-relationship was forbidden. But special conditions naturally prevailed in such special circumstances as the starting of the human race. God exercised a special providence to safeguard the earliest human beings from the evils usually associated with close inter-marriage. And after all, a sister would not be so closely related to Cain as Eve was to Adam. Cain’s wife was not made out of his own rib! Whom Cain married precisely is not mentioned, as not being very important. One book cannot give all the names that have occurred in history, and the Bible gives but a summary outline of chief events.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Cain&db=1
Adam lived for 800 years? Are you sure thats not just allegory?
 
Interestingly enough, the fossil record indicates that there were indeed many other hominids that walked the Earth, all of which are now extinct. Homo Sapiens seems to have been around 200,000 years or so, with behavioral modernity approximately 50,000 years ago.
Then these hominids were animals and resembled humans much like chimpanzees do today. They were not human beings at all.

Peace,
Ed
 
That would be false. There is scientific data/studies on this issue. The reason that people believe that there isn’t any is because studies are limited. Why? Because many scientists believe it is a settled issue, and don’t bother with further research. As expected, much of the data deals with plants and “lower” life forms, because they evolve much more quickly. It is an unreasonable standard to expect to witness a higher life form evolve in your short lifetime, which can take millions of years to occur.

You are assuming that Divine Providence is excluded from Evolution. That would be an incorrect assumption.

Do some believe that? Sure. But there are many of us that don’t.
Divine Providence is indeed excluded by leading scientists.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

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