Adam, Eve, and Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ayden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ayden said:
“Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own.” (Humani Generis 37)
Click to expand...
Actually I think he is talking about the archeological evidence that has been found. There were many hominids for millions of years. Scientific inquiry would have us believe that hominids evolved from apes, which would seem to contradict the biblical account.

Given the many recent finds of hominids, one has to wonder if God was experimenting!

Science has established that all living humans have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, so clearly, the Homo Sapiens that migrated from Africa to Europe were intimate with Neanderthal.

There are even some black people with blue eyes, whose ancestry can be traced back to a hominid that has not yet been identified. Genetic studies have confirmed that this hominid is extinct, but they are unsure where to place that ancestor in the developmental line.
 
Ayden said:
It sounds like the Church’s teaching has some relatively broad parameters around interpreting Genesis. Does anybody want to take a “fallible guess” at how humanity went from an evolving species to “Adam & Eve” to us? I’m puzzling over “the real life story.”
Click to expand...
You are right, and the reason that it is wide is because science still has much to discover. We accept what God has revealed to us by inspired and inerrant Word, and expect that it will be reconciled with science (which is also based on God’s revelation) will make sense of it.
edwest211 said:
Can you elaborate about what evidence science has for the third item?
Click to expand...
www.livescience.com

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

Both men and women can trace their origins to a man and a woman who lived about 135,000 years ago.
www.livescience.com www.livescience.com

 
edwest211 said:
You’re missing the point. There are certain defined Church teachings. Since Humani Generis, the goal has been to water down some definitive teachings, along with Divine Revelation. Science cannot study Divine Revelation. Sure, people can comment on it but that doesn’t make it true. An ideology has crept in to make some things symbolic only. Meaning, certain things never happened. Regarding Adam, let’s look for another reference that is not in Genesis.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think you are missing the point. The Genesis record is not about “how” God created the World. Genesis is about WHO created the world.

The Genesis story is symbolic. That is what the Church says. There are differing styles of writing in the Bible. Sometimes it is literal, other times it metaphorical, sometimes an analogy, sometimes myth (which does not mean fiction).

The writing style of the creation story is not to be taken as a literal matter-of-fact history.

The verses you quote have nothing to do with what is being discussed. Those verses are talking about Original Sin.

One can be a good Catholic and believe in a literal 6 days of creation. One can be a good Catholic and follow the conventions of biblical intpretation set down by the Church, and believe the 6 days are symbolic.

It does not matter. God can do what he wants – 6 days or 13 billion years – same difference. God is God and he can do it any way he wants.

My post merely presents a logical and theological proposal of how it might be. That is all.

I do not, and never have, challenged defined Church teachings.
 
No, Humani Generis is not infallible. There are only two ex cathedra proclamations made: Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption. That is it for this form of declaration. Most dogmas are determined by the Ordinary Magisterium.

You m,know when the Pope issues an infallible proclamation when:
  1. the teaching is on faith and morals
  2. it applies to the whole Church and not just to one part
  3. when the Pope indicates it is ex cathedra
Encyclicals are rarely used to make an infallible statement.

Here are the five levels of Church teaching.

And here are the 255 teachings that are infallible and 102 certain teachings not yet made infallible
 
Last edited:
You are funny. These are the infallible doctrines of the Church compiled in one spot. I shouldn’t have to say what is obvious,
 
Hominids were animals. God was not experimenting. And after Adam, did they all suddenly disappear?
 
The opening two sentences are false. Genesis records things God actually did. There are things only God can do.
 
edwest211 said:
Hominids were animals. God was not experimenting. And after Adam, did they all suddenly disappear?
Click to expand...
Scientifically speaking, homo sapiens is a hominid.

One cannot help but be amazed at the variety of dinasaurs and other creatures. God has an endless expression of creativity.

According to the fossil record non-human hominids co-existed on the planet before they became extinct. Do you think that Neanderthals were “animals”? Is Homo Erectus an "animal?
 
I agree that God is the creator. No one created the universe other than God. Genesis, however, does not tell us, and is not meant to tell us, the details.
 
Ayden, it seems you are getting some good advice and some bad advice. If Bishop Barron said anything to the effect that Adam and Eve were not real people, then he is dead wrong. I wrote a two-part blog relating to the science of mitochondrial Eve. I use science, Scripture, Humani Generis, and the writings of Pope Saint JP II to virtually prove that Adam and Eve were created pretty much as it is described in Scripture. If you want to get the whole story, so to speak, I suggest you read it. I’ll link to Part One … the link to Part Two will be at the end of Part One.

www.stossbooks.com

Mitochondrial Eve: Should Christians be Worried? – Part I

Does the discovery of mitochondrial Eve contradict Genesis? Did all humans descend from a woman in Africa who lived some 200,000 years ago? Was Eve literally taken from Adam's rib?
www.stossbooks.com www.stossbooks.com
 
Apes are animals even though they have a humanoid body plan. Science is also pushing the following:

www.sciencedaily.com

Bag-like sea creature was humans' oldest known ancestor

Researchers have identified traces of what they believe is the earliest known prehistoric ancestor of humans -- a microscopic, bag-like sea creature, which lived about 540 million years ago.
www.sciencedaily.com
 
Ayden said:
…
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 390 states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents”
 
Ayden, see my link later in the thread. Humani Generis says that the faithful do not have the option to believe anything that suggests that after Adam there existed other men who did not take their existence from Adam, or that Adam represents a group of men. This is in n. 37. What most people miss is located in n. 20. The Pope specifically raises this statement to the level of his Supreme Teaching Authority. In other words, we do NOT have the option of disagreeing with what he is saying.
 
Yes, that’s exactly right. I wonder what a scientist would say today if he saw Jesus raise multiple people from the dead.
 
edwest211 said:
Yes, that’s exactly right. I wonder what a scientist would say today if he saw Jesus raise multiple people from the dead.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Luke 16:
31 Then Abraham said, ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.’”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BroIgnatius said:
You are funny. These are the infallible doctrines of the Church compiled in one spot. I shouldn’t have to say what is obvious,
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter which ones are obvious. The Church has not and never has issued a list of infallible teachings or non-infallible teachings. You should see the number of threads in these forums where people ask for this. THERE IS NO SUCH LIST.
It is also irrelevant as we are bound by ALL teachings (infallible and non-infallible).
 
Actually, your opinion of this is false. How can we know the faith unless we know what the Church teaches. All of this items on the list are officially taught by the Church.

Yes we are bound to obedience. If you cared to read the doc on levels of teaching you would see that I repeated that several times.

emmm, you say we are bound. Bound by what, dear friend? By teachings? What teachings? List them. The Catechism is a LIST with commentary. All a list is, is a summary of that to which the list is for. sheesh

This a childish and ridiculous argument not of God. Have a good night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top