S
- Status
S
simpleas
Guest
To be clear, I’m not speaking for the church, I am no where near able to do that.
I have the Jerusalem bible, which clearly uses the word tempted. The link you provided, when I read the line The snake tricked me, so I ate it. it seems so very odd because I am used to reading serpent and tempted
I do remember thinking before I came on CAF that A&E were tricked by the serpent into sinning, but I was corrected. Tempted does sound more plausable really, because to be tempted means : entice or try to entice (someone) to do something that they find attractive but know to be wrong or unwise.
Which sounds like Eve knew because she recites Gods command.
Also the word is in the CCC :
Man’s first sin
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Questions are certainly welcome.
The answer is no, of course not.
Simpleas was quoting a bible to show what Eve said. Simpleas also tied the scripture quote to official church teaching; therefore, the bible in question must either have an ecclesiastical approbation, or else I think simpleas is overstating his case. I am suspicious that the bible in question has been twisted to a wrong sense and is not respectful of church teaching. That’s why I’m asking so intently.
I agree with you, there is not much reason to be concerned with Eve. But in your earlier post to me, it sounded as if you were concerned with Eve as a matter of church teaching.
I just wanted you to read the footnote for reference so that you can see the basis that CCC 404 is claiming for it’s teaching when it says “by yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.”
I’m pretty sure that whoever wrote CCC 404 had to be speaking loosely because (at very least) Original sin happened before the woman was named Eve; Therefore, the sentence is imprecise even if accurate. CCC404 could also be referencing sins after the fall in addition to the fall itself; and that would be consistent with the sentence not talking about origin (per se) but only propagation AKA “transmission.”
The CCC is already in it’s second edition because there were imperfections that were serious enough that they led people to believe wrong things in the first edition… so keep in mind that the CCC isn’t an infallible document although it’s very good; so we need to refer questions on ambiguities back to infallible documents when possible.
The CCC tells us that the source of the theology for CCC404 is the infallible council of Trent and the Compendium of the Catholic Church for CCC404 gives us as the quote from Trent:
So: I agree with you, Granny, Eve is not the original human. That pretty much sums up the inferences that can be made from Trent.
Trent distinguishes between Adam “prevaricating” the original sin, and the “whole Adam” (Eve and Us) being affected by that sin. Trent (at least in English) also does not say God threatened them with the punishment, but only “him”. eg: Trent is consistent with the logic of Eve not existing when the law was given.
At the time the law was given, there existed Adam, the angels (also ascribed a male gender in scripture), and God as the three persons; those are the only sentient beings in existence that Adam could potentially have known about when interpreting whom the law applied to.
The law, when examined after the fall; shows that the punishment of Adam and the winged serpent/dragon are both related directly to the ground; but the punishment of the woman is always RELATIVE to her husband.
The only possible exception I see is a pun where the serpent’s punishment is said to become a “crawler” on the belly (eg: a euphamism for womb). Genesis 3:14 as he eats dust/death as his bread. But still, the context makes clear that the primary intention is the ground itself.
S
simpleas
Guest
From post # 250 :
You said :
God said that Adam was to be Lord over his wife Eve. That’s headship right there.
So, Adam and Eve aren’t part of your world. OK. But, that’s a dream world…
Everyone has people in authority over them. The entire Church is hierarchical.
*Unless you’re really a protestant who pretends it isn’t… *
Just a reminder…no biggy…life is to short…
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
From post # 250 :
You said :
God said that Adam was to be Lord over his wife Eve. That’s headship right there.
So, Adam and Eve aren’t part of your world. OK. But, that’s a dream world…
Everyone has people in authority over them. The entire Church is hierarchical.
*Unless you’re really a protestant who pretends it isn’t… *
Just a reminder…no biggy…life is to short…
And just to be clear, you haven’t said anything along the lines of “I go direct to God, and there’s no priest I have to go to confession to.” Correct? So you do understand that I wasn’t accusing you of being a protestant, yet. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop; and evidence of one kind or the other to be made manifest.
Also, I replied to GrannyMH before I read your previous post; I really wasn’t trying to snub you a third time. But I do encourage you to read castii connubi, and also humani Generis before reading too much into the Jerusalem bible’s footnotes.
I went upstairs and found my sister’s Jerusalem Bible. I don’t generally read it because, well, it doesn’t have an imprimatur from a cardinal. There were some priests who recommended it back in the late 70’s for scholarship, which is why my sister got a copy of it (and left it collecting dust on my parent’s book-shelf…)
I do see that it says,
A couple of notes, the Name Yahweh, is a false name that probably has Jews laughing all over the place at Christians (or Jehovah withnesses via German pronunciation) who have been misled into thinking that’s God’s true personal name. The personal name of God has the letters YHWH, but the vowels a,e would definitely not be found in any of the original Hebrew texts and are known to be wrong. It was a scholar’s fad a few years back to claim YaHWeH is God’s personal name… but serious scholars know the vowels were changes made by the Masorites, who did so over a thousand years after Christ’s time to purposely obscure God’s name with a false rendering. I assume you go to a Catholic church and have noticed that a liturgical decree from the Vatican went out a few years ago forbidding any songs which use YAHWEH to be sung in church Liturgy. Now you know part of the reason why. Bad scholarship makes for bad liturgy. The name “Jesus” actually has a version of the pronunciation of God’s personal name in his own name. YHWH saves. An older pronunciation would be found in the name Joshua. And Jesus himself claimed the title from the Greek, eg: Lord.
So, the Jerusalem bible has a lot of scholarship in it which is worth investigating, but quite a bit of it is speculative and dated to the opinions of the 60’s; especially people who wanted exciting new religious revelations to pad out their college thesis, even if they risked false interpretations. The bible I have is (C)1966-1968; I do not know if later bibles were given approval by the Catholic Church or not. You’ll need to check the first few pages to see whether or not your copy has an imprimatur; but I think the Jerusalem bible is a less tried and traditional translation. It’s good for stimulating thinking, but not so good for stability and reliability of translation.
eg: Case in point: There is a difference between places in the Hebrew which say “adam” (as in red earth), and “The Adam” which is Hebrew for a definite man’s name. Yet the footnote I am reading on Genesis 3 in the Jerusalem bible does not clarify the distinction but claims
Although they aren’t exactly wrong; I don’t see how they could get that inference from the Hebrew itself; The reading “man” as in mankind, is from the Greek translation. But, in the Hebrew, the passage could be referring to God taking red earth and forming that particular kind of earth into an image of God, thus making both man and woman out of the same red earth.
So, what I’m saying is that you’re going to find some arguments I’ve been making more difficult to follow without checking the Hebrew sources that the Jerusalem bible is primarily translated from; or also checking other bible translations.
I’ll read the Jerusalem bible and try to be more sensitive to issues that translation adds to the thread from here on out. But the things I’ve been pointing out are still valid; Genesis 3:16 is used to define how government should operate, it is not strictly about lust and arbitrary domination.
The Catholic church in it’s members is the bride of Christ, and Catholic Priests acting in persona Christi are lords and kings of their respective churches. The church, too, is full of sinners; both lusting members and priests who lord it over their congregations in attempt to dominate rather than shepherd. (The pedophile priest scandals of the last fourty years is a very painful example of both.)
But: Jesus doesn’t negate the relationship established at creation, but does expect a higher standard of rulership from his priests: cf. Matthew 20:25, Even so, the reality is that many priests and some popes have clearly done exactly what Jesus forbade them to do.
S
simpleas
Guest
And just to be clear, you haven’t said anything along the lines of “I go direct to God, and there’s no priest I have to go to confession to.” Correct? So you do understand that I wasn’t accusing you of being a protestant, yet. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop; and evidence of one kind or the other to be made manifest.
Also, I replied to GrannyMH before I read your previous post; I really wasn’t trying to snub you a third time. But I do encourage you to read castii connubi, and also humani Generis before reading too much into the Jerusalem bible’s footnotes.
I went upstairs and found my sister’s Jerusalem Bible. I don’t generally read it because, well, it doesn’t have an imprimatur from a cardinal. There were some priests who recommended it back in the late 70’s for scholarship, which is why my sister got a copy of it (and left it collecting dust on my parent’s book-shelf…)
I do see that it says, A couple of notes, the Name Yahweh, is a false name that probably has Jews laughing all over the place at Christians (or Jehovah withnesses via German pronunciation) who have been misled into thinking that’s God’s true personal name. The personal name of God has the letters YHWH, but the vowels a,e would definitely not be found in any of the original Hebrew texts and are known to be wrong. It was a scholar’s fad a few years back to claim YaHWeH is God’s personal name… but serious scholars know the vowels were changes made by the Masorites, who did so over a thousand years after Christ’s time to purposely obscure God’s name with a false rendering. I assume you go to a Catholic church and have noticed that a liturgical decree from the Vatican went out a few years ago forbidding any songs which use YAHWEH to be sung in church Liturgy. Now you know part of the reason why. Bad scholarship makes for bad liturgy. The name “Jesus” actually has a version of the pronunciation of God’s personal name in his own name. YHWH saves. An older pronunciation would be found in the name Joshua. And Jesus himself claimed the title from the Greek, eg: Lord.
So, the Jerusalem bible has a lot of scholarship in it which is worth investigating, but quite a bit of it is speculative and dated to the opinions of the 60’s; especially people who wanted exciting new religious revelations to pad out their college thesis, even if they risked false interpretations. The bible I have is (C)1966-1968; I do not know if later bibles were given approval by the Catholic Church or not. You’ll need to check the first few pages to see whether or not your copy has an imprimatur; but I think the Jerusalem bible is a less tried and traditional translation. It’s good for stimulating thinking, but not so good for stability and reliability of translation.
eg: Case in point: There is a difference between places in the Hebrew which say “adam” (as in red earth), and “The Adam” which is Hebrew for a definite man’s name. Yet the footnote I am reading on Genesis 3 in the Jerusalem bible does not clarify the distinction but claims Although they aren’t exactly wrong; I don’t see how they could get that inference from the Hebrew itself; The reading “man” as in mankind, is from the Greek translation. But, in the Hebrew, the passage could be referring to God taking red earth and forming that particular kind of earth into an image of God, thus making both man and woman out of the same red earth.
So, what I’m saying is that you’re going to find some arguments I’ve been making more difficult to follow without checking the Hebrew sources that the Jerusalem bible is primarily translated from; or also checking other bible translations.
I’ll read the Jerusalem bible and try to be more sensitive to issues that translation adds to the thread from here on out. But the things I’ve been pointing out are still valid; Genesis 3:16 is used to define how government should operate, it is not strictly about lust and arbitrary domination.
The Catholic church in it’s members is the bride of Christ, and Catholic Priests acting in persona Christi are lords and kings of their respective churches. The church, too, is full of sinners; both lusting members and priests who lord it over their congregations in attempt to dominate rather than shepherd. (The pedophile priest scandals of the last fourty years is a very painful example of both.)
But: Jesus doesn’t negate the relationship established at creation, but does expect a higher standard of rulership from his priests: cf. Matthew 20:25, Even so, the reality is that many priests and some popes have clearly done exactly what Jesus forbade them to do.
I do remember saying this in another thread a while back, can’t remember which though, could you remind me? Although I’m unsure as to why you are using something I said on a different thread with regards to the topic of this one and the discussion on tempted v tricked in the bibles.
Also do you have a problem with protestants? I ask rather than accuse
I haven’t got time right now to check the bible, but I did hear about Jews being offended by the name YAHWEH. I remember the hymn very well as we used to sing it in the youth choir in the early 90’s.
I know that priests are persona Christi, but I never knew they were regarded as Lords and Kings…
S
simpleas
Guest
And just to be clear, you haven’t said anything along the lines of “I go direct to God, and there’s no priest I have to go to confession to.” Correct? So you do understand that I wasn’t accusing you of being a protestant, yet. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop; and evidence of one kind or the other to be made manifest.
Also, I replied to GrannyMH before I read your previous post; I really wasn’t trying to snub you a third time. But I do encourage you to read castii connubi, and also humani Generis before reading too much into the Jerusalem bible’s footnotes.
I went upstairs and found my sister’s Jerusalem Bible. I don’t generally read it because, well, it doesn’t have an imprimatur from a cardinal. There were some priests who recommended it back in the late 70’s for scholarship, which is why my sister got a copy of it (and left it collecting dust on my parent’s book-shelf…)
I do see that it says, A couple of notes, the Name Yahweh, is a false name that probably has Jews laughing all over the place at Christians (or Jehovah withnesses via German pronunciation) who have been misled into thinking that’s God’s true personal name. The personal name of God has the letters YHWH, but the vowels a,e would definitely not be found in any of the original Hebrew texts and are known to be wrong. It was a scholar’s fad a few years back to claim YaHWeH is God’s personal name… but serious scholars know the vowels were changes made by the Masorites, who did so over a thousand years after Christ’s time to purposely obscure God’s name with a false rendering. I assume you go to a Catholic church and have noticed that a liturgical decree from the Vatican went out a few years ago forbidding any songs which use YAHWEH to be sung in church Liturgy. Now you know part of the reason why. Bad scholarship makes for bad liturgy. The name “Jesus” actually has a version of the pronunciation of God’s personal name in his own name. YHWH saves. An older pronunciation would be found in the name Joshua. And Jesus himself claimed the title from the Greek, eg: Lord.
So, the Jerusalem bible has a lot of scholarship in it which is worth investigating, but quite a bit of it is speculative and dated to the opinions of the 60’s; especially people who wanted exciting new religious revelations to pad out their college thesis, even if they risked false interpretations. The bible I have is (C)1966-1968; I do not know if later bibles were given approval by the Catholic Church or not. You’ll need to check the first few pages to see whether or not your copy has an imprimatur; but I think the Jerusalem bible is a less tried and traditional translation. It’s good for stimulating thinking, but not so good for stability and reliability of translation.
eg: Case in point: There is a difference between places in the Hebrew which say “adam” (as in red earth), and “The Adam” which is Hebrew for a definite man’s name. Yet the footnote I am reading on Genesis 3 in the Jerusalem bible does not clarify the distinction but claims Although they aren’t exactly wrong; I don’t see how they could get that inference from the Hebrew itself; The reading “man” as in mankind, is from the Greek translation. But, in the Hebrew, the passage could be referring to God taking red earth and forming that particular kind of earth into an image of God, thus making both man and woman out of the same red earth.
So, what I’m saying is that you’re going to find some arguments I’ve been making more difficult to follow without checking the Hebrew sources that the Jerusalem bible is primarily translated from; or also checking other bible translations.
I’ll read the Jerusalem bible and try to be more sensitive to issues that translation adds to the thread from here on out. But the things I’ve been pointing out are still valid; Genesis 3:16 is used to define how government should operate, it is not strictly about lust and arbitrary domination.
The Catholic church in it’s members is the bride of Christ, and Catholic Priests acting in persona Christi are lords and kings of their respective churches. The church, too, is full of sinners; both lusting members and priests who lord it over their congregations in attempt to dominate rather than shepherd. (The pedophile priest scandals of the last fourty years is a very painful example of both.)
But: Jesus doesn’t negate the relationship established at creation, but does expect a higher standard of rulership from his priests: cf. Matthew 20:25, Even so, the reality is that many priests and some popes have clearly done exactly what Jesus forbade them to do.
FYI
It has Imprimatur + John Cardinal Heenan
Westminster 4th July 1966
I was given it as a birthday present because I had asked for a Bible, and it was given by a Sister, (religious).
G
grannymh
Guest
This extensive source of information is from wmw, post 262. It replies to post 261.
From granny’s post 261.
“This is a good place to stop and let others search out the beauty in those amazing three chapters, both that which is apparent and that which follows Divine Revelation. There are numerous Catholic teachings flowing from those first three chapters.”
I read Post 262 Scripture references for Genesis 1: 26-27. In my opinion, it is helpful to read the context of Ephesians 4: 20-24. My own bible’s footnote for verse 24 is that “put on” refers to “in Baptism.”
From usccb.org/bible/ephesians/4
20
That is not how you learned Christ,
21
assuming that you have heard of him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus,
22
that you should put away the old self of your former way of life, corrupted through deceitful desires,q
23
and be renewed in the spirit of your minds,r
24
and put on* the new self, created in God’s way in righteousness and holiness of truth.s
For me, the beauty in Ephesians 4: 24 is that God’s way in righteousness and holiness of truth is like the beauty in the State of Sanctifying Grace. Adam was created in this State aka the State of Original Holiness and Justice. Both “names” mean that a person is sharing in the divine life of the Trinity. (CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898) Sharing in God’s life happens because of Genesis 1: 27.
Wikigallery helped me find a picture of the beauty in the first three chapters of Genesis.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Hands_of_God_and_Adam.jpg
Hand of God Giving Life to Adam
Sistine Chapel, fresco, Michelangelo
S
simpleas
Guest
There seems to be someone missing from the above picture!
C
cfauster
Guest
Re. Rom. 5:12, as I’m sure many have seen before:
"Augustine read the Bible from the Latin Vulgate, and in it Romans 5:12 reads, ‘All die because in Adam all sinned’. The original Greek is more accurately rendered, ‘death spread to all because all have sinned.’
This comes from a non-Catholic source, so Catholics might or might not find this relevant.
If interested in pursuing, see my source here.
S
simpleas
Guest
Interesting write up, thanks for sharing.
I thought this was pretty clever :
Could it work the same for the species as a whole? Perhaps God held Homo species 500,000 years ago responsible for some things; species 200,000 years ago for more; 30,000 years ago even more; and when the law was given to Moses, God held the people accountable in a new way. Perhaps that is an evolutionary reading of Romans 5:13, “sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged to anyone’s account where there is no law.” For people before Moses, we might still say the law was “written on their hearts”, but they became gradually and more fully aware of that over time. - See more at: biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/evolution-and-the-fall#sthash.YHzrWL3S.dpuf
G
grannymh
Guest
This post has some interesting points.
I am looking forward to how all this is related to the thread’s topic of Adam.
Unless I missed it…I would suggest that the link skips the basic original (actually a tad logical) relationship between the creature Adam and his Creator. While contemporary authors discuss this about Augustine and that about Paul, the Catholic Church, guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit, has already determined what is what.
S
simpleas
Guest
Sorry, I forgot this thread is about God and Adam only.This post has some interesting points.
I am looking forward to how all this is related to the thread’s topic of Adam.
Unless I missed it…I would suggest that the link skips the basic original (actually a tad logical) relationship between the creature Adam and his Creator. While contemporary authors discuss this about Augustine and that about Paul, the Catholic Church, guided by the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit, has already determined what is what.
Just wanted to say it was an interesting write up, one that includes all humans.
So, best go back to the original topic then.
Thanks.
S
simpleas
Guest
PS
I just reread what I wrote and I hope it did not come over as sarcastic or something, I just meant it as factual as regards to the threads title.
Thanks.
I just reread what I wrote and I hope it did not come over as sarcastic or something, I just meant it as factual as regards to the threads title.
Thanks.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for understanding.
C
cfauster
Guest
Indeed, my focus was on Romans 5, especially verse 12.
I think the Catholic understanding is solid, especially if one considers the entire chapter.
My caution is to not place too much emphasis on the translation of one verse (5:12) because the Latin translations available to Augustine (which, by the way, might not have been Jerome’s Vulgate, but ones similar to it) might not have accurately rendered the Greek original of Romans 5.
In any case, here’s a Catholic study of much of the chapter:
thedivinelamp.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/father-callan-on-romans-512-19-for-the-first-sunday-of-lent/
Again, I think despite the minor mistranslation of verse 12 in the Vulgate, the Council of Trent probably had a pretty good handle on what St. Paul meant in Romans. And, despite being Lutheran myself, I agree with Catholics that original sin wounded us, but did not totally deprave us (But, we are still totally dependent on Christ for our salvation).
I think the Catholic understanding is solid, especially if one considers the entire chapter.
My caution is to not place too much emphasis on the translation of one verse (5:12) because the Latin translations available to Augustine (which, by the way, might not have been Jerome’s Vulgate, but ones similar to it) might not have accurately rendered the Greek original of Romans 5.
In any case, here’s a Catholic study of much of the chapter:
thedivinelamp.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/father-callan-on-romans-512-19-for-the-first-sunday-of-lent/
Again, I think despite the minor mistranslation of verse 12 in the Vulgate, the Council of Trent probably had a pretty good handle on what St. Paul meant in Romans. And, despite being Lutheran myself, I agree with Catholics that original sin wounded us, but did not totally deprave us (But, we are still totally dependent on Christ for our salvation).
G
grannymh
Guest
The original relationship between Adam, the first human creature, and God, the Creator of al things visible and invisible, is a true relationship between unequal beings.
Genesis 1: 26-27. CCC 355.
Genesis 1: 26-27. CCC 355.
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding BioLogos website
From biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/were-adam-and-eve-historical-figures/
“When multiple interpretations of Scripture are possible, the church can benefit from considering what God has revealed in the natural world, because a proper interpretation of Scripture will not conflict with what we find there. At BioLogos, we are persuaded by the scientific evidence that human beings evolved, sharing common ancestors with all other life on earth. Furthermore, it increasingly appears that the genetic diversity among humans today could not have come from just two individuals in the past, but a population of thousands.”
Obviously, this Biologos “population of thousands” issue is in opposition to the basic Catholic Church doctrine on human origin. The Catholic teaching is that the human species originated from a population of two, Adam and Eve. This teaching is credible.
Catholic information links.
The new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”
amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette
Link to article published in Crisis Magazine on line.
crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist
Additional article on line.
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/
Informative Catholic website
drbonnette.com/
Blessings,
granny
Divine Revelation trumps.
From biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/were-adam-and-eve-historical-figures/
“When multiple interpretations of Scripture are possible, the church can benefit from considering what God has revealed in the natural world, because a proper interpretation of Scripture will not conflict with what we find there. At BioLogos, we are persuaded by the scientific evidence that human beings evolved, sharing common ancestors with all other life on earth. Furthermore, it increasingly appears that the genetic diversity among humans today could not have come from just two individuals in the past, but a population of thousands.”
Obviously, this Biologos “population of thousands” issue is in opposition to the basic Catholic Church doctrine on human origin. The Catholic teaching is that the human species originated from a population of two, Adam and Eve. This teaching is credible.
Catholic information links.
The new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”
amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette
Link to article published in Crisis Magazine on line.
crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist
Additional article on line.
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/
Informative Catholic website
drbonnette.com/
Blessings,
granny
Divine Revelation trumps.
W
wmw
Guest
Dr. Dennis Bonnette scientifically explains the possibility, though low probability given the data now considered scientifically valid, of the Catholic Doctrine:
Thinking that our current science of genetics has a good grasp of reality should be shaken by one of the few populations of animals that have shown the scientific models quite off in their powers of prediction; so, much so that this statement was included in the conclusions of the scientific study: “Our observations therefore differ dramatically from the model predictions, even though the mouflon population is in many ways ideally suited for that model (i.e. isolation, no mutation)”, this in a study of heterozygosity - “having dissimilar pairs of genes for any hereditary characteristic”. Expecting a loss of they instead found, “Heterozygosity measured using 25 microsatellite markers has actually increased over 46 years since the introduction, and exceeds the range predicted by neutral genetic models and stochastic simulations.”
see:ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1766376/
So, the leap of faith required is not really such a big one, more like “one small step”.
To abandon this statement is to abandon the Catholic faith. Faith sometimes requires the acceptance of things that may be of low probability, but how low that probability is should be in greater question even in purely scientific circles.
Thinking that our current science of genetics has a good grasp of reality should be shaken by one of the few populations of animals that have shown the scientific models quite off in their powers of prediction; so, much so that this statement was included in the conclusions of the scientific study: “Our observations therefore differ dramatically from the model predictions, even though the mouflon population is in many ways ideally suited for that model (i.e. isolation, no mutation)”, this in a study of heterozygosity - “having dissimilar pairs of genes for any hereditary characteristic”. Expecting a loss of they instead found, “Heterozygosity measured using 25 microsatellite markers has actually increased over 46 years since the introduction, and exceeds the range predicted by neutral genetic models and stochastic simulations.”
see:ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1766376/
So, the leap of faith required is not really such a big one, more like “one small step”.
C
cfauster
Guest
I respect the ban on evolution discussions within the threads on the forum, and therefore I will provide more details only via private messaging. But to be fair, given that multiple references have recently been provided, I should provide one reference to reliable scientific explanations using accessible, non-specialist terms and concepts.
The Kerguelen mouflon sheep study is very interesting, for lots of reasons. I’d be happy to discuss via private messaging with anyone interested in the genetic details. The anti-evolution group Reasons to Believe, the apologist William Lane Craig, and others have sought to portray this study as evidence that the diversity we see today among humans could be compatible with Adam and Eve as the sole ancestors of all humans at the origin of the human species (sometimes called biological monogenism), rather than allowing for theological monogenism combined with biological polygenism in which case Adam and Even would be a special pair chosen by God from among a larger number of biological ancestors of all humans.
The Kerguelen mouflon sheep study is very interesting, for lots of reasons. I’d be happy to discuss via private messaging with anyone interested in the genetic details. The anti-evolution group Reasons to Believe, the apologist William Lane Craig, and others have sought to portray this study as evidence that the diversity we see today among humans could be compatible with Adam and Eve as the sole ancestors of all humans at the origin of the human species (sometimes called biological monogenism), rather than allowing for theological monogenism combined with biological polygenism in which case Adam and Even would be a special pair chosen by God from among a larger number of biological ancestors of all humans.
- Status