Adam and Eve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matt33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John_Russell_Jr said:
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
Click to expand...
Very interesting speculation. However, because Jesus called God His Father, and taught us to pray thus, I think that Jesus was provided with the necessary genes relating to masculinity through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is within man’s calling to be the head, the point of authority. This is different than the calling of the feminine as the nuturing element of creation, although both sexes exhibit extensive triaits that cross over. This is merely my opinion of course. I would like to research this more, time permitting.
 
grannymh said:
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.
Click to expand...
But, IMHO, it seems that Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel as their first children, so there shouldn’t be other “people”, “humans,” around yet. Right? Unless there are “humanoids,” “proto-humans,” or descendents from the branch that died out.

If my understanding is at fault, I’m sorry about that. Just conjecturing here.
 
4Horsemen said:
But, IMHO, it seems that Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel as their first children, so there shouldn’t be other “people”, “humans,” around yet. Right? Unless there are “humanoids,” “proto-humans,” or descendents from the branch that died out.

If my understanding is at fault, I’m sorry about that. Just conjecturing here.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, going from Genesis, Chapter 3:24 to Chapter 4:1 does not exclude other offspring of Adam and Eve. Genesis 4:2 does give the idea of succession from Cain. “Next she bore his brother Abel.” Nonetheless, Old and New Testament writers had the annoying habit of including only the important people or events. There still could be uninteresting children between Cain and Abel.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:31
 
rossum said:
The difference with the standard interpretation of the Genesis story is that there were other humans alive at the same time who were not descended from that couple. It is just that their descendants intermarried with the descendants of the ancestral couple so all subsequent children can trace back to that ancestral couple.rossum
Click to expand...
Yes, there were 3,000-10,000 other breeding pairs of humans at the time. Genetic science has shown that monogenism ― in the sense of the descent of our entire species from one set of parents, Adam and Eve ― is genetically impossible. In-breeding reduces population viability because the resulting lack of genetic diversity makes the population more susceptible to disease and trauma. When a species falls below a certain threshold of breeding pairs, it reaches what is called a “genetic bottleneck,” carrying the risk that the population will suffer irreversible genetic degradation. Humans appear not to have suffered any catastrophic bottlenecks within the last ten thousand years, although the climatic results of Sumatra’s Mt. Toba eruption were severe enough to reduce the population significantly. It is estimated by some that the minimum population during the tens of thousands of years of it took hominids to evolve into full human consciousness was between 3,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs.

The European bison, the cheetah, and the giant panda are all animals with very low heterzygosity, and thus are suffering severe bottlenecks. See Ridley, Evolution 3rd. ed., (Blackwell Publishing), 151 - 153; Menotti-Raymond and O’Brien, “Dating the Genetic Bottleneck of the African cheetah,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 90, 3172-3176, (1993). John Hawks, et al. “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:2-22 (2000); Xiong et al, “No severe bottleneck during human evolution; evidence from two apolipoprotein C II alleles’, Am J Hum Genet 48, 383 -389. Stanley H. Ambrose (1998). “Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans”. Journal of Human Evolution 34 (6): 623–651. Alec MacAndrew, “Misconceptions around Mitochondrial Eve: A Critique of Carl Wieland’s AiG article on Mitochondrial Eve,” at evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm.
 
Catholicism places humanity at the pinnacle of creation because human nature is an intimate, unique unification of the rational/corporeal, spirit/matter, material body and the immaterial spiritual soul. Catholicism teaches the truth about eternal life.

On the other hand, the prevalent philosophy is that all reality is only matter. Animals are made of matter which decomposes. Thus, genetic science limits its study to man as a material being, an animal with higher degrees of certain abilities. Scientists are free to study primates and other kinds of animals in order to find similarities to humans with the conclusion that humans belong in the brute animal kingdom.

Catholicism teaches that the human person is different in kind, i.e., he and she are a separate species from brute animals. We are made for the eternal kingdom of God.

Is genetic science a bad thing? No way. Natural science is an amazing gift from God. By all means, science has produced wonders in the material and physical realm.

However, limited science cannot study the true, fully complete human nature. The spiritual soul is beyond the proverbial microscope. And since we have the same nature as our ancestors, those ancestors do not belong within scientific research limited to material aspects of animals. Therefore, it doesn’t make any difference how many breeding pairs of animals existed before Adam and Eve – none were truly human.

Because of the human being’s immaterial, immortal, spiritual soul, the human species has a separate origin from animals. The separate origin guarantees the difference between chimps descended from some pre-history animal and children descended from human parents. Two sole parents of the human species guarantee that all descendents will have a spiritual soul.

Blessings,
granny

Human life deserves protection from the moment of conception.
 
StAnastasia said:
Yes, there were 3,000-10,000 other breeding pairs of humans at the time. Genetic science has shown that monogenism ― in the sense of the descent of our entire species from one set of parents, Adam and Eve ― is genetically impossible.
Click to expand...
Do you mean impossible right now, or always has been and always will be impossible?

The reason I ask this strange question is that you insist on the one hand that “It is impossible” due to “Genetic science” (or should I say “Genetic Science”). And on the other hand, you continually say that theories are updated, Science is provisional, always looking for more facts, and so on.

Even with the range of 3K to 10K shows that this “theory” is far from being a fact. I assume that this theory replaced some other theory which had different conclusions or error bands (but which previous incarnations of StA were no doubt calling fact as well.)

You still don’t realize that you contradict yourself regularly.
 
Obviously, God cannot perform miracles, and Eve was not created from Adam’s side. The Deposit of Faith held by the Church means something, not dogmatic scientism.

God bless,
Ed
 
grannymh said:
Because of the human being’s immaterial, immortal, spiritual soul, the human species has a separate origin from animals. The separate origin guarantees the difference between chimps descended from some pre-history animal and children descended from human parents. Two sole parents of the human species guarantee that all descendents will have a spiritual soul.
Click to expand...
Granny, as genetics demonstrates, humans and chimps descend from a common ancestor. You are free to reject that of course, but then you are rejecting genetic science. That is your right, but you cannot claim to accept the value of genetic science and simultaneously reject what it tells us. That is no more possible than saying you accept geological science and simultaneously insisting on a literal global flood 4,000 years ago.

StAnastasia
 
ricmat said:
And on the other hand, you continually say that theories are updated, Science is provisional, always looking for more facts, and so on…
Click to expand...
Indeed, what we know from science is provisional. Our approach to truth is asymptotic.
 
StAnastasia said:
Granny, as genetics demonstrates, humans and chimps descend from a common ancestor. You are free to reject that of course, but then you are rejecting genetic science. That is your right, but you cannot claim to accept the value of genetic science and simultaneously reject what it tells us. That is no more possible than saying you accept geological science and simultaneously insisting on a literal global flood 4,000 years ago.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
The fact that chimps and humans are less than 70% similar doesn’t bother you?
 
edwest2 said:
Obviously, God cannot perform miracles, and Eve was not created from Adam’s side. The Deposit of Faith held by the Church means something, not dogmatic scientism.God bless,Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, of course miracles are possible. But if the miraculous account of the creation of Adam is true, then it is also true that the creator faked a complete genome that reflects descent from a common ancestor with the other great apes. Perhaps God is a faker; perhaps not.
 
40.png
StAnastasia:
Broad statements are very misleading when compared with the assumptions in specific research. When methods, materials, and number of subjects are limited in specific research, universals, such as those broad statements, are not appropriate. All the exaggerated bluster surrounding specific polymorphisms, etc., can be considered codswallop in comparison with the total picture of true human nature.

In other words, the most sophisticated computer programming is not able to tract every action or event which ever occurred. The real Adam and Eve slipped under the radar.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred from the moment of conception.
 
grannymh said:
In other words, the most sophisticated computer programming is not able to tract every action or event which ever occurred. The real Adam and Eve slipped under the radar. Blessings, granny.
Click to expand...
“Tract”?

I’m not talking about computer programming, so I’m not sure why you mentioned that. I’m talking about genetic science, with which at every step of this discussion you have refused to engage. Your adherence to a literalist reading of the Bible forbids you to take science seriously.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
“Tract”?

I’m not talking about computer programming, so I’m not sure why you mentioned that. I’m talking about genetic science, with which at every step of this discussion you have refused to engage. Your adherence to a literalist reading of the Bible forbids you to take science seriously.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Modern science uses computers. The real Adam and Eve did not.
 
StAnastasia said:
Ed, of course miracles are possible. But if the miraculous account of the creation of Adam is true, then it is also true that the creator faked a complete genome that reflects descent from a common ancestor with the other great apes. Perhaps God is a faker; perhaps not.
Click to expand...
So, unless there is a scientific answer then God is a faker? No evidence means nothing happened?

Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes? Fake?

Or raises people from the dead? Fake?

How about rising bodily after dying? Jesus, that is.

All fake?

I am skeptical of any science that dogmatically expounds on a religious text yet admits the following:

Science is silent about God and the supernatural.

The Bible is not a science text. Indeed, there are no peer reviewed scientific papers analyzing Genesis from a scientific standpoint.

Therefore, I conclude that any attempts to make dogmatic statements about this subject do not flow from scientific studies since none exist.

God bless,
Ed
 
grannymh said:
Modern science uses computers. The real Adam and Eve did not.
Click to expand...
Modern people use toilet paper or tooth brushes. “Adam” and Eve" did not. What is your point? That toilet paper and tooth brushes cannot be trusted?
 
edwest2 said:
So, unless there is a scientific answer then God is a faker? No evidence means nothing happened?God bless,Ed
Click to expand...
No, Ed – you.re missing the point. The human genome says that humans descended as a group of 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs from a common ancestor with our ape cousins. Either (1) science can be trusted and what the human genome tells us is accurate, or (2) God faked that genome while instantaneously creating a single pair in 4004 BC.

It is certainly possible that (2) is correct, but if it is, the trustworthiness of science goes out the window.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
No, Ed – you.re missing the point. The human genome says that humans descended as a group of 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs from a common ancestor with our ape cousins. Either (1) science can be trusted and what the human genome tells us is accurate, or (2) God faked that genome while instantaneously creating a single pair in 4004 BC.

It is certainly possible that (2) is correct, but if it is, the trustworthiness of science goes out the window.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Let me see if I have this correct: If scientific data does not align with something written in the Bible (which cannot be studied scientifically) then science is no longer trustworthy?

The Bible tells us that it would take a great many books to record the other things Jesus did, but somehow, for this, unless the science agrees with what is written in the Bible, there’s a problem? I would like to point out miracles again to you.

When Pope John Paul II is made a saint after two miracles are attributed to him, what? Science stops getting done? I’m not following here.

There are things science cannot demonstrate as true. You believe in one of them.

God bless,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top