Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

[edwest2]

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.

There is no scientific evidence for a soul, so there is no scientific support for this strange combination. Our minds just self-upgraded as time passed as a purely bio-mechanistic development, nothing more.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

Connecting man with lemurs is false.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302131719.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Thorns]

No, it’s literal. It’s actually 930 years.

biblehub.com/genesis/5-5.htm

Peace,
Ed

I forget where its written, but doesnt God say He will limit human life to 120 years?

Secondly, the link just reiterates what you said. It doesnt say that its literal. Why is 6 day creation not literal but Adams life lived is?

“To God 1 day is a thousand, and a thousand days 1” or something along those lines.

Im confused.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Divine Providence is indeed excluded by leading scientists.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Peace,
Ed

And it is indeed included by others.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Then these hominids were animals and resembled humans much like chimpanzees do today. They were not human beings at all.

Peace,
Ed

It depends on the definition of “human being” you use. One simply includes any individual of the “Homo” genus; another is more specific indicating an individual that is a “Homo Sapiens.” Context matters.

 

[Abu]

The following orientates the “sciences”, and refutes errors.

May 2009
REGARDING THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION
Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.
“7. On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission replied to the following questions:
*Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things as well as the complete order of creation, but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adapted to the senses and to the mental preparation of the persons, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these affirmations, to seek for scientific exactitude of expression. *
Answer: In the negative (DS 3518).

“*Whether the word yôm (day), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken either in its proper sense as the natural day or in an improper sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free debate on this question is permitted among exegetes. *
Answer: In the affirmative (DS 3519)”

“20. Genesis 1:27: And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Man is created in the image of God as a rational animal with intelligence and free will. Not only is the special creation and infusion of a human soul needed for the first man, it is needed for the coming into existence of the first woman and of every other individual man and woman. Thus is confirmed the historical fact of the infusion by God of a living soul into previously existing matter (cf. Gen 2:7) and the exclusion of the idea that all things were created from the nothingness both of themselves and of a subject from which they sprang.

OBJECTIONS TO A POSSIBLE SECOND LITERAL MEANING OF THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION
“25. Recourse to the idea of substantial forms is unscientific.
**Answer: **Immanuel Kant and, in general, all empiricists falsely limit the concept of “science” and the knowledge of reality to what is observed by the physical senses. Thus, for them, intellectual concepts, reasoned conclusions, and spiritual things are not real. Thomas Aquinas more lucidly explains that “science,” that is, “the certified knowledge of reality,” is broader than the perception of material things and exists on different levels. Thus, there is the real knowledge of philosophical science; and there is the real knowledge of theological science.13 Of these, the knowledge of substantial forms pertains to philosophical science, and, therefore, it is not unscientific. In our day it has become customary to use the Kantian definition of science in common parlance, and thus to distinguish, on the one hand, between theology and science and, on the other hand, between philosophy and science. But this usage is damaging to the reality of the objects of faith and reason.

“34. When some theistic evolutionists conjecture that the ‘dust’ from which, according to Gen 2, God created man was a lower biological species, they are assuming that God uses secondary causes to create.
Answer: That God formed Adam from a lower biological species is a historical theory, not an established historical fact, but to have created Adam from a lower biological species would not mean that the lower species was a secondary cause, because the infusion of a human soul, especially in this first instance, by which the human species was instituted, was a direct act of creation having no secondary efficient causes. Thus, if this theory be true, the lower species was just the subject of the creation, and the human substantial form replaced the lower substantial form.

“36. Insufficient attention is being paid in these days on all levels of study to the gaps and weaknesses in the theories of the Big Bang and of the evolution of species.
**Answer: **Granted, and this is why these theories should be recognized as mere historical theories and not as certified historical facts.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt141.html

 

[edwest2]

I forget where its written, but doesnt God say He will limit human life to 120 years?

Secondly, the link just reiterates what you said. It doesnt say that its literal. Why is 6 day creation not literal but Adams life lived is?

“To God 1 day is a thousand, and a thousand days 1” or something along those lines.

Im confused.

When did I write a 6 day creation is literal? If you want to go with a day to God is a thousand years then the earth is about 6,000 years old. There is no place in the Bible where God tells us how long the average human will live.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

It depends on the definition of “human being” you use. One simply includes any individual of the “Homo” genus; another is more specific indicating an individual that is a “Homo Sapiens.” Context matters.

It sure does. If there were hominids, they were not human beings, just animals. As I wrote earlier, there are two birds alive today that look almost identical but they can’t mate, so they are classified as different species.

Ed

 

[Protector]

onemangang;11756987] 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!

I watched a DVD series called “The 7th Day” one time. Hal Holbrook (Film star) was the narrator. He made a comment relevant to your post:-

“Biblical Creation Theology does not attempt to provide a scientific description of God’s Creative acts; Instead it suggests the meaning, the purpose, and the goal of Creation”

Also on the program was George Murphy Ph.D. (Physicist and Theologian) who said,

“Science can talk about how the Universe behaves, how things take place within the Universe (but) it cannot explain why something exists rather than nothing.”

Protector.

 

[Miguelmdza]

Ergo you cannot be a Christian & accept Evolution.
At some point, sentient creatures disobeyed God. We call them the first true humans
knowing right from wrong.

Even Pope John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI agreed with evolution. Personally, I don’t believe in the whole bacteria-fish-lizard-rat-monkey-person thing (that is ignorant and unlogical), but I do believe in intelligent design because I believe that God, in His Mercy and Infinite Wisdom, would not allow His creatures to die, so He allowed His creatures to survive in tough climates, change overtime to adapt to their surroundings, etc.

 

[Origen52]

As amateur theologians and scientists it’s difficult for most of us to thoroughly understand all the issues involved in this debate. One of the wonderful things about the Catholic Church is that it is blessed with men and women of great faith and intellect in every age, to help us understand how faith and human knowledge are never in conflict when properly understood. In our generation we have been blessed to have one of the greatest theologians in church history, pope Benedict XVI. He has written extensively about Genesis and how to properly interpret the bible. The following are some of his writings on this subject. Rather than thrashing about and arguing with each other, it would be more productive for all of us to carefully read his works.

Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (book)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20110423_veglia-pasquale_en.html

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300496.htm

In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (book)

 

[Memaw]

Adam lived for 800 years? Are you sure thats not just allegory?

Are you sure it is??? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Dave_B]

Are you sure it is??? God Bless, Memaw

Hi MM, we can be sure be about as sure as that as we can be about anything. Thats just plain facts based on what we know today about human beings. We are not designed to live past 120 years.

 

[Memaw]

Hi MM, we can be sure be about as sure as that as we can be about anything. Thats just plain facts based on what we know today about human beings. We are not designed to live past 120 years.

Adam and Eve started with a perfect human body. There were no diseases then so it’s not surprising they lived a lot longer. They were meant to live forever, never die!!! What we know about human beings if full of guesses, (missing links,) . I will stay with God and the Church. God Bless, Memaw

 

[edwest2]

Even Pope John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI agreed with evolution. Personally, I don’t believe in the whole bacteria-fish-lizard-rat-monkey-person thing (that is ignorant and unlogical), but I do believe in intelligent design because I believe that God, in His Mercy and Infinite Wisdom, would not allow His creatures to die, so He allowed His creatures to survive in tough climates, change overtime to adapt to their surroundings, etc.

Your first sentence is misleading and inaccurate.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Arandur]

There is no scientific evidence for a soul, so there is no scientific support for this strange combination. Our minds just self-upgraded as time passed as a purely bio-mechanistic development, nothing more.

Peace,
Ed

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Sounds like you’re identifying some claims of some scientists that posit a purely materialistic human being (and thus upgrading of the mind).

I don’t see how that’s relevant to what I said. Of course there’s no material evidence for the soul–it’s immaterial. Thus physical science cannot remark on it, and can make no claims either way.

This is where metaphysics, philosophy, theology weigh in. We* can* observe the immaterial properties of the soul as they manifest in our lives–rationality, abstract thought, self-awareness, recognition of immaterial laws and principles, transmission of ideas, imagination, etc.

So science can only remark on the purely material, biological portion. It can describe this, while philosophical/theological knowledge describes the soul, and identifies the correlation between the anthropologically-observed “Great Leap Forward” with the infusion of the Soul–the general point in time in which it appears that God created Adam and Eve (taking a body that He may well have created from the dust of the earth through the process of evolution, and breathing into it a Soul in His image and likeness to create the first Human Beings).

 

[anthonymarie]

My understanding was that the Church “could not” take a doctrinal stance on the ***scientific ***nature of the origin of man but that does not mean that you are “free to believe in” creationism (or a literal interpretation of Genesis) except in as much as you are free to believe that the earth is flat. We are still bound by reason and diligence to the truth.

There is as much want of simplicity in the idea of the creation of distinct species as in those of the creation [of] trees in full growth (whose seed [is] in themselves) or of rocks with fossils in them. I mean that** it is as strange that monkeys should be so like men, with no historical connexion between them, as that there should be, or the notion that there was no history or course of facts by which fossil bones got into rocks**. … I will either go the whole hog with Darwin, or, dispensing with time and history altogether, hold, not only the theory of distinct species, but that also of the creation of the fossil-bearing rocks.

John Henry Newman

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of [Humani Generis], some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

John Paul II

We cannot say: creation or evolution. The proper way of putting it is: creation and evolution.

Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Are you sure it is??? God Bless, Memaw

I’d be careful with that line of thinking. I don’t see physical death as being relevant as it pertains to this issue, but rather spiritual death.

 

[grannymh]

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Sounds like you’re identifying some claims of some scientists that posit a purely materialistic human being (and thus upgrading of the mind).

May I gently suggest that some people are unaware of the current physical science pronouncements about our human materialistic being.

I don’t see how that’s relevant to what I said. Of course there’s no material evidence for the soul–it’s immaterial. Thus physical science cannot remark on it, and can make no claims either way.

One of the current scientific pronouncements is from physical science which has remarked on and made claims about what some humans refer to as the spiritual soul. Did Blessed Pope John Paul II agree with evolution? I don’t think so. He explicitly denied the physical science pronouncement of the emergence or epiphenomenon source of the spiritual soul.

Because the nature of the first designated humans is key to the Catholic doctrines surrounding Original Sin, one can easily understand the current attack on the reality of Adam and Eve. Interestingly, there is now an attack from our friendly wolves in sheep’s clothing.

 

[Memaw]

I’d be careful with that line of thinking. I don’t see physical death as being relevant as it pertains to this issue, but rather spiritual death.

Well then, what did the 800 years mean to you?? If not physical death!! God Bless, Memaw