Adam and Eve?

[4Horsemen]

Please try not to understand the story literally, you’ll confuse yourself. Its a Parable!
The story of Adam and Eve is just in fact that, a story. In the information age we live in we tend to look for sientific evidence for everything. Ask yourself this, Does it really matter if they were real?

The point of the story is not to make you doubt that they were real. The point of the story is to understand the meaning behind it. The meaning: we are now of a fallen human nature after original sin that was perpetrated by **the first Man and Woman… **And we are all in need of a divine saviour, God. At some point in human history we rejected God and heaven on earth. This is portrayed in the story of adam and eve. Dont take it so literally, you have to see past and understand the metaphors in the story in order to find the meaning.

Do you know the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”? If so, do you question if there was ever in history a person this story is based from? And again, Does it matter?? The point isn’t that the boy was real and historical, the point is the MEANING and the LESSON you learn from the story. It doesn’t matter if the boy was real or not, the lesson it teaches matters. The same applies to the story of Adam and Eve. And all of Jesus’ parables for that matter…

You mentioned “the first Man and Woman”. What’s the difference if we call them Adam and Eve, or first Man and Woman? I think the word “Adam” means first man, and “Eve” means something like “from man” as she was created from the rib of Adam. I can see how that can be figurative, but it could be literal. Science helps us to understand how things happen in our world, but it can’t explain miraculous or divine events.

 

[buffalo]

Could not God have added a human soul to a pre-existing hominid? Genesis seems to describe a two-stage process with the use of clay followed by God breathing. Evolution would equate to moulding the clay and ensoulment to the breathing. It is obvious that God does not physically breathe so at least part of this passage is not literal in the simplistic sense.

rossum

Adam was created and God breathed life into Him at once.

God created man and woman together and willed each for the other.

The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

“God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning, “male and female he created them” (*Gen *1:27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons” (GS 12 § 4).

 

[edwest2]

You mentioned “the first Man and Woman”. What’s the difference if we call them Adam and Eve, or first Man and Woman? I think the word “Adam” means first man, and “Eve” means something like “from man” as she was created from the rib of Adam. I can see how that can be figurative, but it could be literal. Science helps us to understand how things happen in our world, but it can’t explain miraculous or divine events.

The difference is this. We are told that by one man, sin entered the world. One man. See Romans 5:12.

Where did Original Sin come from? Why was Jesus born, suffered, died and rose again as a sacrifice for all men? The literal Jesus was sent by the Father because of an actual event.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Could not God have added a human soul to a pre-existing hominid? Genesis seems to describe a two-stage process with the use of clay followed by God breathing. Evolution would equate to moulding the clay and ensoulment to the breathing. It is obvious that God does not physically breathe so at least part of this passage is not literal in the simplistic sense.

rossum

It’s an interesting thought but does not seem to follow what the Church teaches, namely monogenism.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Adam was created and God breathed life into Him at once.

God created man and woman together and willed each for the other.

Here I disagree. God created Adam. Then Adam went through all the animals giving them names and failing to find a companion. Only after enough time to accomplish that task had passed did God create Eve. The two of them were created at different times; they were not created together. There was a time when Adam was without Eve.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It’s an interesting thought but does not seem to follow what the Church teaches, namely monogenism.

As I understand it, monogenism teaches that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. Under my scenario all humans are descended from Adam and Eve.

If we define a human as “a human body with a human soul” then God can give the initial two souls to Adam and Eve. Since souls are not inherited but created directly by God then God can give a soul to all descendants of Adam and Eve. Where a souled human mates with a non-souled human the God can give the offspring souls so they are also human and descended from Adam and Eve.

At no time is there a human (in both body and soul) who is not descended from Adam and Eve. Any proto-humans, with a human body but without a soul, are not descended from Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were initially the only two humans alive, all the others were proto-humans without souls.

What part of this scenario is against Church teaching?

rossum

 

[ricmat]

At no time is there a human (in both body and soul) who is not descended from Adam and Eve. Any proto-humans, with a human body but without a soul, are not descended from Adam and Eve.

How would you distinguish today between the remaining proto-humans, and the real humans?

 

[edwest2]

As I understand it, monogenism teaches that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. Under my scenario all humans are descended from Adam and Eve.

If we define a human as “a human body with a human soul” then God can give the initial two souls to Adam and Eve. Since souls are not inherited but created directly by God then God can give a soul to all descendants of Adam and Eve. Where a souled human mates with a non-souled human the God can give the offspring souls so they are also human and descended from Adam and Eve.

At no time is there a human (in both body and soul) who is not descended from Adam and Eve. Any proto-humans, with a human body but without a soul, are not descended from Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were initially the only two humans alive, all the others were proto-humans without souls.

What part of this scenario is against Church teaching?

rossum

The thing I’m picking up on here, even in unrelated discussions, is the idea of an “everybody wins” scenario. Religion gets the soul and Adam and Eve, and everybody else gets the biology textbook version minus a soul and Adam and Eve.

A big complicating factor is the miraculous creation of Eve from Adam’s side. Such an incident is outside of the power of nature.

Humani Generis gives the Church’s view:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Finally, even Cardinal Schoenborn in his book, Chance or Purpose?, indicates that no missing links have been found.

While this idea of proto-humans is interesting, I don’t know of any Church documents that specifically address the idea of pre-human beings aside from Humani Generis. If two individuals somehow naturally elevated from proto-human to full human status seems to be a question science cannot answer. Or if an answer is presented, it is about bottlenecks in the thousands of human breeding pairs.It also doesn’t address the idea of other proto-humans transitioning to full human status by themselves and becoming breeding pairs outside of Adam and Eve.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

How would you distinguish today between the remaining proto-humans, and the real humans?

All humans alive today are descended from Mitochondrial Eve so there are no proto-humans left.

In theory we could detect them by looking at their Mitochondrial DNA.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The thing I’m picking up on here, even in unrelated discussions, is the idea of an “everybody wins” scenario. Religion gets the soul and Adam and Eve, and everybody else gets the biology textbook version minus a soul and Adam and Eve.

What is wrong with that? The correct interpretation of scripture must be consistent with the correct interpretation of the world. If the two clash then one or both must be wrong.

A big complicating factor is the miraculous creation of Eve from Adam’s side. Such an incident is outside of the power of nature.

That event would have zero effects in the present compared to Eve merely being another member of Adam’s population. Science could not detect the miraculous addition of one member to a reasonable sized population.

Humani Generis gives the Church’s view:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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.” (emphasis added)

An unsouled proto-human is not a “true man”. All souled “true men” in my scenario are descended from Adam and Eve.

If two individuals somehow naturally elevated from proto-human to full human status seems to be a question science cannot answer. Or if an answer is presented, it is about bottlenecks in the thousands of human breeding pairs.It also doesn’t address the idea of other proto-humans transitioning to full human status by themselves and becoming breeding pairs outside of Adam and Eve.

The transition from proto-human to human is the infusion of a human soul by God. I do not think that proto-humans could do that “by themselves”, it would only be possible by the direct action of God in such circumstances as He chose.

The bottlenecks recognised by science refer to physical humans and/or proto-humans and not to the number of souled humans which cannot now be determined.

As I said, my scenario is unusual, but I cannot see anything in it that is actually contrary to Church teaching as I understand it.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

As I understand it, monogenism teaches that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. Under my scenario all humans are descended from Adam and Eve.

If we define a human as “a human body with a human soul” then God can give the initial two souls to Adam and Eve. Since souls are not inherited but created directly by God then God can give a soul to all descendants of Adam and Eve. Where a souled human mates with a non-souled human the God can give the offspring souls so they are also human and descended from Adam and Eve.

At no time is there a human (in both body and soul) who is not descended from Adam and Eve. Any proto-humans, with a human body but without a soul, are not descended from Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were initially the only two humans alive, all the others were proto-humans without souls.

What part of this scenario is against Church teaching?

rossum

Personally, I find difficulty with the idea of a non-souled human. Humans, by definition, cannot be non-souled because it is the spiritual component of the soul which makes the difference. In other words, any anatomy that was non-souled would be a brute animal without rational capabilities.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[rossum]

Personally, I find difficulty with the idea of a non-souled human. Humans, by definition, cannot be non-souled because it is the spiritual component of the soul which makes the difference. In other words, any anatomy that was non-souled would be a brute animal without rational capabilities.

The proto-humans were not human, they lacked a human soul. How close to modern humans they were physically would depend on how long ago they lived.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

How would you distinguish today between the remaining proto-humans, and the real humans?

All humans alive today are descended from Mitochondrial Eve so there are no proto-humans left.

In theory we could detect them by looking at their Mitochondrial DNA.

rossum

But in your scenario, there were large numbers of non-souled humans living at the same time as “souled” humans. It’s not clear to me how the non-souled human lineage disappeared, and only the souled humans remained.

The possible existence of non-souled humans would (IMO) present difficulties to church teachings.

 

[4Horsemen]

A biblical argument for proto-humans may be found in Chapter 4 of Genesis which relates the story of Cain and Abel. After God describes the punishement that will befall Cain, Cain says to the Lord:

“‘My punishment is too great to bear. Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid yur presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight.’” (Note that he says “anyone.”)

"‘Not so!’ the Lord said to him. ’ If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.’ So the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight. " (again: “anyone”). (The New American Bible, Fireside edition, Imprimatur Dec. 17, 1991)

Who are these “anyones”? People? Humanoid? Human beings? I doubt they are animals. Maybe they are a branch of hominid that died out and wa s never ensouled.

 

[rossum]

But in your scenario, there were large numbers of non-souled humans living at the same time as “souled” humans. It’s not clear to me how the non-souled human lineage disappeared, and only the souled humans remained.

A farmer has a large herd of sheep. Each sheep is tagged and DNA tested. The Farmer puts a spot of purple dye onto one ram and one ewe. These two mate and produce lambs. Their lambs also get purple spots. The Farmer keeps the original two together and does not let either of them mate with other sheep. Their lambs are allowed out into the flock to mate normally. Every time a new lamb is born in the whole flock it is DNA tested and tagged. If either (or both) of the new lamb’s parents had a purple spot then the new lamb gets a purple spot – the Farmer can tell its parents from the DNA testing. Every sheep with a purple spot is descended from the original two. Eventually, after enough generations, all the sheep in the flock will have a purple spot. If the Farmer is encouraging certain matings and picking other sheep for slaughter then that time will come sooner.

The possible existence of non-souled humans would (IMO) present difficulties to church teachings.

There are no non-souled humans. A human must have a human soul. Without a human soul an essential component of being human is missing and so those organisms are not human. They may have the physical appearance of humans, but without a soul they are not true humans. To quote 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 (Emphasis added)
Something that lacks a human soul cannot be called a “true man”, no matter what its physical appearance.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

A biblical argument for proto-humans may be found in Chapter 4 of Genesis which relates the story of Cain and Abel. After God describes the punishement that will befall Cain, Cain says to the Lord:

“‘My punishment is too great to bear. Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid yur presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight.’” (Note that he says “anyone.”)

"‘Not so!’ the Lord said to him. ’ If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.’ So the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight. " (again: “anyone”). (The New American Bible, Fireside edition, Imprimatur Dec. 17, 1991)

Who are these “anyones”? People? Humanoid? Human beings? I doubt they are animals. Maybe they are a branch of hominid that died out and wa s never ensouled.

Of course they were real people. Genesis wasn’t meant to include everyone who was ever descended from Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[ricmat]

A farmer has a large herd of sheep. Each sheep is tagged and DNA tested. The Farmer puts a spot of purple dye onto one ram and one ewe. These two mate and produce lambs. Their lambs also get purple spots. The Farmer keeps the original two together and does not let either of them mate with other sheep. Their lambs are allowed out into the flock to mate normally. Every time a new lamb is born in the whole flock it is DNA tested and tagged. If either (or both) of the new lamb’s parents had a purple spot then the new lamb gets a purple spot – the Farmer can tell its parents from the DNA testing. Every sheep with a purple spot is descended from the original two. Eventually, after enough generations, all the sheep in the flock will have a purple spot. If the Farmer is encouraging certain matings and picking other sheep for slaughter then that time will come sooner.

There are no non-souled humans. A human must have a human soul. Without a human soul an essential component of being human is missing and so those organisms are not human. They may have the physical appearance of humans, but without a soul they are not true humans. To quote 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 (Emphasis added)Something that lacks a human soul cannot be called a “true man”, no matter what its physical appearance.

rossum

Well, we agree totally on the second part of your post.

But your scenario seems to be in opposition to the quote from HG. Your scenario actually has both “true” and “non-true” living at the same time (although you provide a mechanism by which eventually the are all “true”.)

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

My dear friend

This is not all church teaching. But in my opinion Adam and Eve were created exactly as said. First Adam then the deep sleep then one rib taken out to form a companion because Adam was lonely.

Brlow is a question that is just that, not catholic teaching.

A point worthy of consideration is did Adam have both masculinity and feminity in the beginning? And God took out the femininity to form Eve? If so, then the new Adam which is Jesus may well be like the first Adam before Eve was created. Did Jesus have both masculinity and feminity if this is the case? Is it possible to say Jesus was both man and woman in one man given he may have had masculinity and femininity as the first Adam in the beginning? I’m not sure on this.

If this were the case that Jesus also had femininity and He is our eternal high priest and God, then is this an argument someone could use for women priests? I know I’lm going to get a lot of fan mail on this one but I’m asking for good answers to thoroughly explain all this if any have them. I’m genuinely seeking good answers if any have them. No hate mal over the women priest question please. Just clarification if possible.

God bless all:thumbsup:

John

 

[rossum]

Well, we agree totally on the second part of your post.

But your scenario seems to be in opposition to the quote from HG. Your scenario actually has both “true” and “non-true” living at the same time (although you provide a mechanism by which eventually the are all “true”.)

Humani Generis says nothing about “non-true” men. It requires that all “true men” are descended from Adam (and presumably Eve). The descent of “non-true” men is not specified as so is presumably open to different opinions.

I merely suggest one possible option that has the advantage of not conflicting with the genetic evidence from science.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Humani Generis says nothing about “non-true” men. It requires that all “true men” are descended from Adam (and presumably Eve). The descent of “non-true” men is not specified as so is presumably open to different opinions.

I merely suggest one possible option that has the advantage of not conflicting with the genetic evidence from science.

rossum

Looking at Humani Generis 37. Non-true man would be part of polygenism. Adam is considered monogenism. Anything or anyone in addition would take away his monogenism and make Adam part of polygenism which is not in keeping with Catholic teaching.

As for genetic evidence from science, the more I read research, the more assumptions I find. Then there are the assumptions which either replace or correct earlier assumptions. I am not denying the value of individual research or its contribution to knowledge. I’m beginning to think that some interpreters have read more into research than can be validly justified.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is a message of hope sent by the Creator.