Adam & Logic

[Linusthe2nd]

You mean there isn’t anything at all requiring one to believe in the first parents being Adam and Eve?
I am sorry but I am limited to going any farther than this in replying to you as the science of Evolution by Natural Selection is a banned topic.

This was not the point at issue and even if it was it would be O.K, to speak of it.

But since you asked here are the references: If you have a copy of " The Catholic Catechism " by the Servant of God, Fr. John A Hardon, S.J., you will find it on pgs 92 & 94. The first is from a speech by Pius XII, " An Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences ( Nov 30, 1941): you will find it in Denzinger # 2285; also in the encyclical Humani Generis; Denzinger, 2327 { alternate numbering 3896}.

The second is from Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, # 4. Denzinger 1797 ( alternate numbering 3017 ).

It is best to give the information as Hardon gave it, since otherwise the key points might be missed. The Pope identified three " elements ( that ) must be retained as certainly attested by the sacred author ( of Genesis ), without any possibility of an allegorical interpretation. * These are:

1. The essential superiority of man in relation to other animals, by reason of his spiritual soul.
2. The derivation in some way of the first woman from the first man.
3. The impossibility the immediate father or progenitor of man could have been other than a human being, that is, the impossibility that the first man could gave been the son o fan animal, generated by the latter in the proper sense of the term…" Only from a man can another man descend, whom he can call father and progenitor.
4. Polygenism condemned:

" 37. 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] ( Humani Generis) "

1. Human soul, is form of the body, immortal, unique to each individual, infused, and thus not passed on. And if infused and not passed on, it is created by God.

For the soul not only truly exists of itself and essentially as the form of the human body, as is said in the canon of our predecessor of happy memory, pope Clement V, promulgated in the general council of Vienne, but it is also immortal; and further, for the enormous number of bodies into which it is infused individually, it can and ought to be and is multiplied. This is clearly established from the gospel when the Lord ( Lateran Council V )

6, The soul has the faculties of intellect, free will, and memory.

For all the above and more see pars 355-368 in the CCC.

Linus2nd,*

 

[grannymh]

Today is our wedding anniversary. So you will have to be a tad patient with my romantic thinking.

I can imagine what Eve must have thought when she saw Adam and there were not any other men around to choose from. One guy, who is already sleeping on a couch, probably did not look too appealing. He probably hadn’t shaved since he hadn’t seen any women yet. As for taking a shower after working in the sunny garden…

Eve probably said to God. “O.K. God, if that is the best You can do, I will take over and shape up this sloppy slouch.” What a surprise greeted Eve when Adam’s sparkling eyes looked at her with unbelievable depths of love. Adam probably whispered tenderly that she was his soul mate, bone of his bones. He would care for her as if her flesh was his flesh. Out of the corner of her eye, Eve saw God winking at her as He blessed her and her husband Adam with the gift of harmony within themselves and with each other.

As descendants of Adam and Eve, we ask God for His original blessings through the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony. One difference between Eve and us is that because of Original Sin, we women have to shape up our own “Adam”, hand him a razor, and point him toward the shower.

While we know that as man and wife we are not always perfect, at the same time, we know that our human nature, because it comes from only one human couple, is the best nature ever. This is because of God’s blessing to Adam and Eve. We know that we are capable of deep love for each other because we descended from the first couple created by God out of His divine love.

 

[wmw]

Way to granny up those romantic shower & shaving lessons mh! Maybe Adam wasn’t so hairy as us genetically drifted 115,885 to 115,996 grandsons. He probably didn’t smell as bad until he ate meat after being cast out of Eden. They likely didn’t have very good teeth for eating meat either. Our teeth aren’t that great at it still and part of the reason it has to be cooked.

This is all based on the idea that the transition from Eden to Earth was a simple move of local. I’m not sure that the transition wasn’t more than that. Indeed the animals talked. Was it years later they lost this? Did Adam lose his ability to read their minds? It is a huge transition, of not just ourselves but all creation and not limited in the dimension of time. I think that not only did his future change, but his past as well, though not enough that his decision was changed.

How did God do this? It’s beyond me. Is God deceiving us by changing Adam’s past? No, but God seems to us a crazy Jeannie come out of the bottle giving us just what we asked for, but we had no idea what had to happen to make Adam’s wish come true and it changed everything.

 

[wmw]

Way to granny up those romantic shower & shaving lessons mh! Maybe Adam wasn’t so hairy as us genetically drifted 115,885 to 115,996 grandsons. He probably didn’t smell as bad until he ate meat after being cast out of Eden. They likely didn’t have very good teeth for eating meat either. Our teeth aren’t that great at it still and part of the reason it has to be cooked.

This is all based on the idea that the transition from Eden to Earth was a simple move of local. I’m not sure that the transition wasn’t more than that. Indeed the animals talked. Was it years later they lost this? Did Adam lose his ability to read their minds? It is a huge transition, of not just ourselves but all creation and not limited in the dimension of time. I think that not only did his future change, but his past as well, though not enough that his decision was changed.

How did God do this? It’s beyond me. Is God deceiving us by changing Adam’s past? No, but God seems to us a crazy Jeannie come out of the bottle giving us just what we asked for, but we had no idea what had to happen to make Adam’s wish come true and it changed everything.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Revised Response.

But since you asked here are the references: If you have a copy of " The Catholic Catechism " by the Servant of God, Fr. John A Hardon, S.J., you will find it on pgs 92 & 94, 105,106. The first is from a speech by Pius XII, " An Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences ( Nov 30, 1941): you will find it in Denzinger # 2285; also in the encyclical Humani Generis; Denzinger, 2327

The second is from Vatican 1, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, # 4. Denzinger 1797

It is best to give the information as Hardon gave it, since otherwise the key points might be missed. The Pope identified three " elements ( that ) must be retained as certainly attested by the sacred author ( of Genesis ), without any possibility of an allegorical interpretation. " I did not find the quoted statement in the Address.

1. The essential superiority of man in relation to other animals, by reason of his spiritual soul.
2. The derivation in some way of the first woman from the first man.
3. The impossibility the immediate father or progenitor of man could have been other than a human being, that is, the impossibility that the first man could gave been the son o fan animal, generated by the latter in the proper sense of the term…" Only from a man can another man descend, whom he can call father and progenitor.

( 1-3 represent a synopsis of paragraphs of the Address entitled : " God, Teacher of Man " and " Man’s Greatness. While not formally expressed in Defined Dogma, they are a part o f the Deposit of the Faith, universally held by the Bishops and the Popes as far back as we can go and have been constantly upheld by Magisterial Teaching. It is my opinion that they are thus Infallible Teaching. )

---

A. Polygenism condemned:

" 35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
2. 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 either that 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]

( Humani Generis) " ( It is clear from the entire context that this teaching is Infallible)

B. Human soul, is form of the body, rational, immortal, unique to each individual, infused. ( And if infused and not passed on, it is created by God. My deduction. The entire text should be read.)

" For the soul not only truly exists of itself and essentially as the form of the human body, as is said in the canon of our predecessor of happy memory, pope Clement V, promulgated in the general council of Vienne, but it is also immortal; and further, for the enormous number of bodies into which it is infused individually, it can and ought to be and is multiplied… " ( Lateran Council V )

Item " B " would be Defined Dogma, as is clear from the context.

C. The sould is created immediately by God. ( Infallible teaching from Humani Generis and from Scripture, Tradition and constant Magisterial Teaching such as Humani Generis.)

D. The soul has the faculties of intellect, free will, and memory.
( Infallible, based upon Tradition and constant Magisterial Teaching, speculatively by St. Thomas and the Scholastics.)

For all the above and more see pars 355-368 in the CCC.

Linus2nd,

 

[StrawberryJam]

@ Grannymh,

Dear Granny,
I wish you both the very best at your anniversary even though it is a belated wish, I’m guessing that your lives together were not marked by exact dates, but by experiences shared together over the years.
I was late to the party, but could not let a celebration of life go by without sending you and your spouse my warmest regards.
Thank you for your effort and interest in a topic that draws us into the questions of life. And thank you for being kind and courteous every single time I have ever seen you speak to anyone regardless of their position.

 

[grannymh]

@ Grannymh,

Dear Granny,
I wish you both the very best at your anniversary even though it is a belated wish, I’m guessing that your lives together were not marked by exact dates, but by experiences shared together over the years.
I was late to the party, but could not let a celebration of life go by without sending you and your spouse my warmest regards.
Thank you for your effort and interest in a topic that draws us into the questions of life. And thank you for being kind and courteous every single time I have ever seen you speak to anyone regardless of their position.

Thank you for your good wishes. Yes, long marriages share many kinds of experiences. I can still tell my husband that I am glad I married him. And thank you for appreciating my efforts in communicating with people. I try to imitate my Dad, knowing I will never match him.

One thing I learned well from my Dad is to never give up a dream which will benefit people. He was a Village Trustee and later spearheaded a project to provide the first Senior Housing in our area.

Knowing that Adam, a sinner, is a real person loved by God assures us, Adam’s descendants, that we, too, are deeply loved to the point that Jesus hung bleeding on a cross. So that we stay firm in the belief that Jesus conquered death for us as worthy individuals, God blessed Adam and Eve so that all humans would descend from the one couple receiving God’s first announcement of salvation. Even though our human nature is wounded as an effect of Adam’s Original Sin, it is still the same basic human nature of our first human parents. It is the same human nature, body and soul, as that of the first two people lovingly created by God.

Therefore, we know for sure that God’s personal invitation to Adam and Eve, which was to share in His life because of their spiritual souls, is also a personal invitation to us. There is no doubt that we belong at the foot of the cross, which Jesus, by His obedience, used to open the gates of heaven. Opening the gates of heaven is another way of saying that Jesus, being True God and True Man, repaired the damage caused by the first man.

My own faith was shaken when someone told me that Adam and Eve never existed. I knew they existed because I trust the Catholic Church, and being just as determined as my Dad, I set out to demonstrate, in one way or another, their existence. Knowing that our first parents are real assures us that we will always be loved by God. Knowing God’s love for humankind, you and me, helps to bring peace in our lives. Knowing that Jesus came to earth solely to bring us to God and to heaven in spite of the awful sin of Adam, gives us hope and faith in our future. John 3:16.

.

 

[wmw]

There are so many roads to travel that allow Science and Catholic Theology to remain very separate disciplines. The confluence of a word that both use can stir apparent impasses where in reality both are talking about two very different things.

Also, I’m not fitting the below into any grand view of the first couple that I entertain though I use a narrative example to explain what I mean about the “many roads” of apparent conflict that may not actually be in conflict.

I think Catholic theology and the scientific disciplines may have two very different definitions of “polygenism” considering the soul is missing within scientific inquiry.

Diving into this difference can we say we are not “enjoy[ing] such liberty” as Catholic theology’s polytheism, but without self-contradiction entertain a scientific view of polygenism?

Stark example:
Imagine that this takes place within a tribe of non-souled near-humans that may have given birth to a least Adam. There is one en-souled pair of first humans, Adam and Eve. These and their children that are en-souled later intermarry only with the en-souled, with exception of banished humans such as Cain that later die off by natural or supernatural disaster.

Then given the Pope’s statement of “polygenism” is this a theory of polygenism of only a physical/scientific definition, but also remaining true to not enjoying a Catholic theology’s definition of polygenism?

 

[grannymh]

I think Catholic theology and the scientific disciplines may have two very different definitions of “polygenism” considering the soul is missing within scientific inquiry.

With respect to the ban on evolution discussion, the definition of polygenesis is “development from more than one source” and the definition for polygenetic is “having many distinct sources” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition)

Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950, begins # 37 with
“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.”

That was written 45 years before the popular published research paper denied the possibility of Adam and Eve. Apparently, Pius XII was well aware of the direction that science was going in the 1940’s. The concept of polygenism in the dictionary citation above, is the same for the scientific position and for the Catholic theological position.

The difference between then and now is that there are some people who are trying six ways to Sunday to update Catholic theology, ever so little, so that it will accommodate scientific speculations. It is this century’s adaptation of the Heresy of Modernism.

Staying away from violating the evolution discussion ban, I will simply say that Pius XII was extremely intelligent so that he did dig deep into proposed theories so he could logically find the common denominator. Pius XII recognized that the doctrines (plural intended) of Original Sin logically need one sole person who commits the sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with divinity. No matter what theory is proposed, then or now, the common doctrine which is being attacked is the real existence of Original Sin and the subsequent doctrine which calls for the Divinity of Christ. (refer to CCC 389)

Humani Genesis # 37 ends with
“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.”
Footnote is Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
Please note that the word "apparent’ is not permission to modify Divine Revelation.

For all these years, Catholics still cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that “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…”

 

[wmw]

I’m glad you cleared up that the definition of “polygenesis” is not what is really in disagreement, but how to count what is a single source or many.

I still think that the scientific measure of a large group of near humans and Adam and Eve (them being the only ones with human souls) would be declared a multiple source for there is no physically measurable difference. While those that hold that souls are the determinate of what is human would see the singular source within this example.

So, there still seems to be two different views possible in one description. Even if the definition of the word is well agreed upon.

Therefore, I see this example as still agreeing with both camps of thought. Still, go on and explain that I’m wrong. I’d love to hear how my thought experiments are daft.

 

[grannymh]

I’m glad you cleared up that the definition of “polygenesis” is not what is really in disagreement, but how to count what is a single source or many.

I still think that the scientific measure of a large group of near humans and Adam and Eve (them being the only ones with human souls) would be declared a multiple source for there is no physically measurable difference. While those that hold that souls are the determinate of what is human would see the singular source within this example.

So, there still seems to be two different views possible in one description. Even if the definition of the word is well agreed upon.

Therefore, I see this example as still agreeing with both camps of thought. Still, go on and explain that I’m wrong. I’d love to hear how my thought experiments are daft.

As I continue to read your “thought experiment posts 165 & 167,” I am now thinking that my post 166 is a tad off track. On the other hand, post 166 (not route 66 ) does get to the linchpin of Original Sin.

I liked your opening sentence in 167 that the real point is “how to count what is a single source or many.” I may be over-reacting to Humani Generis #36, but, my guess is that Pius XII was also considering sources, singular or plural. #35 & #36 are in post 162 above.

The key observation is that Adam and Eve have an unique nature (decomposing body and eternal rational soul) not like any other being on earth. (Genesis 2: 20)

Would you say that Adam’s physical presence as a fully-complete human person had to come from a single source?

Me – I would count one male mating with one female as a possible single source for Adam. Or, which seems more likely, God in His creative power used similar animal matter described as clay of the ground. (Genesis 2: 7)The recipe for Adam’s anatomy is not a Catholic doctrine. We do believe that Adam’s human nature, the same as ours, united both the material world and spiritual world. (CCC 355) Eve derived her human nature from Adam in a way known to God. Whatever the way, it preserved the “purity” of Adam’s nature. In my thought experiment, Adam’s nature is pure because it is the first human nature kind of like an Uncarved Rock (The Tao of Pooh). Eve as Adam’s spouse would be the second living human person.

Pius XII refers to humans as being after Adam (#37) but he does not refer to real humans before Adam. It would be illogical to say that the first human Adam had human parents because then Adam would not have been the first. What made Adam the first is the spiritual soul directly created by God Who is a transcendent Pure Spirit. (CCC 355-368) Humani Generis #36 states that Catholics hold that “souls are immediately created by God.” (CCC 366) Personally, I like CCC 365.
**“365 **The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.”

What I think is that we have to look at current humanity and examine whether or not our friends descended from the single source which would be the first man Adam or helter-skelter from many sources. Seriously, you have brought up “thoughts” which are similar to those shared by others.

The point of this thread is to logically sort out solutions which do fit with Catholicism.

 

[wmw]

I believe I’ve taken those points into account; so, on the whole Im taking your response as a positive one.

I’ve made an example that I’ve first attempted to fit to Catholic Theology. The scientific polygeneisis world would be a far second since I don’t allow intermarrage with Eve’s children and the non-souled near humans (you have noticed that I’ve never said they were humans).

I’ve tried to make a simple example that an 8-12 yearold could be taught, but I’d also include the part that this is just one possible solution to the confluence of Catholic Theology and scientific theory. Even for casual adult conversation we need more sound bite solutions rather than the seperate “islands” of established docternal points. Yet, at the same time say that this science is very much up for revision and the definte statements of Catholic dogma will remain steadfast make this story a doubtful, but possible version of reality.

 

[DaveE]

“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.”

The Church’s rejection of polygenism, as articulated above, is not a rejection of the idea that man existed before Adam. It demands that our understanding of God cannot remain true if it does not flow from the belief that we evolved from a single point of creation.

God created man, in His own image, male and female He created them. He blessed them and sent them out to multiply and have dominion over all living creatures, nourished by the whole earth.

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not concurrent variations of the same theme. They are consecutive. God did not rest on the seventh day at the end of Genesis 1. He rested at the beginning of Genesis 2, and observed His very good works. Then, continuing, He fashioned a man, whom He breathed into. Through this lineage, He passed down his Word.

Distilling Adam and Eve into an argument of creation versus evolution obscures the perfect works of God. The Church does not involve itself in this debate; it misses the point. The rejection of evolution is the argument of the heretic whose distortion of the Word passed down opened the pit of the bottomless depth and unleashed the locusts.

 

[wmw]

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not concurrent variations of the same theme. They are consecutive. God did not rest on the seventh day at the end of Genesis 1. He rested at the beginning of Genesis 2, and observed His very good works. Then, continuing, He fashioned a man, whom He breathed into. Through this lineage, He passed down his Word.

No, the six day narrative includes the creation of man.

Genesis 1:24-31

24
k Then God said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: tame animals, crawling things, and every kind of wild animal. And so it happened:
25
God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good.
26
l Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.
27
God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female* he created them.
28
God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.* Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.m
29

• n God also said: See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on all the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
  30
  and to all the wild animals, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the earth, I give all the green plants for food. And so it happened.
  31
  God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed—the sixth day.

This is the end of Chapter 1, Chapter 2 says all was complete and on the 7th day God rested. Then the second story picks up where nothing had sprouted and there was no man. So, literally the second story of man’s creation occurs at least for the human creation portion within the sixth day of the first narrative of seven days.

As to your point about a single first pair of human’s being the main requirement in the pope’s denouncement of polygenesis, I continue to think we are all in agreement.

 

[DaveE]

No, the six day narrative includes the creation of man.

Genesis 1:24-31

This is the end of Chapter 1, Chapter 2 says all was complete and on the 7th day God rested. Then the second story picks up where nothing had sprouted and there was no man. So, literally the second story of man’s creation occurs at least for the human creation portion within the sixth day of the first narrative of seven days.

As to your point about a single first pair of human’s being the main requirement in the pope’s denouncement of polygenesis, I continue to think we are all in agreement.

God created man in Genesis 1 (the six day narrative). He created a different man in Genesis 2, after resting on the seventh day.

 

[Aloysium]

God created man in Genesis 1 (the six day narrative). He created a different man in Genesis 2, after resting on the seventh day.

That’s not how I read it. “2” sounds like a more specific, focussed version; it provides another description, like the different Gospels in the NT.

 

[DaveE]

That’s not how I read it. “2” sounds like a more specific, focussed version; it provides another description, like the different Gospels in the NT.

Fair enough; we disagree. We both seek truth so let’s go a bit further. Consider Cain: Who did he think would kill him as he wandered the earth? Why did God thus mark him?

 

[grannymh]

Fair enough; we disagree. We both seek truth so let’s go a bit further. Consider Cain: Who did he think would kill him as he wandered the earth? Why did God thus mark him?

Welcome to CAF. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut about Adam.

To me, the interesting thing about Humani Generis #37 is this reference to men coming after Adam.

“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.”

At first glance at Genesis’s beginning chapters, we become curious about people coming after Adam – especially trying to figure out who would kill Cain. Logic tells us that there had to be a lot of people living at that time. Yet, only a few names are recorded.

In my childhood neighborhood there was this saying: Every family tree has a horse thief hanging from a branch. In other words, we like to list the best and famous of our ancestors so we skip horse thieves and ordinary folk. God blest Adam and Eve so that it did not take long before there were lots of descendants. It is like reading the obituary of a 90-plus person who started out with nine children. A number of generations can occur during that life span.

In addition, the descendants of Adam and Eve would be pretty much like our own descendants. Some will follow our teachings/advice and some will rebel and leave to do their own thing. Cain did not follow God’s warning. Can we be surprised at what happened?

As to why did God thus mark Cain. All I can offer is the reasoning in chapter 4.

 

[wmw]

That’s not how I read it. “2” sounds like a more specific, focussed version; it provides another description, like the different Gospels in the NT.

The point isn’t about how you or I read it. We are trying to focus on how wide a latitude does the magisterium allow us to fashion our views without going outside its Catholic teachings.

DaveE -Two separate creations of man is not such an option, but we still welcome fresh insights and don’t want to diminish your spirit of exploring ideas.

 

[DaveE]

Welcome to CAF. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut about Adam.

To me, the interesting thing about Humani Generis #37 is this reference to men coming after Adam.

At first glance at Genesis’s beginning chapters, we become curious about people coming after Adam – especially trying to figure out who would kill Cain. Logic tells us that there had to be a lot of people living at that time. Yet, only a few names are recorded.

In my childhood neighborhood there was this saying: Every family tree has a horse thief hanging from a branch. In other words, we like to list the best and famous of our ancestors so we skip horse thieves and ordinary folk. God blest Adam and Eve so that it did not take long before there were lots of descendants. It is like reading the obituary of a 90-plus person who started out with nine children. A number of generations can occur during that life span.

In addition, the descendants of Adam and Eve would be pretty much like our own descendants. Some will follow our teachings/advice and some will rebel and leave to do their own thing. Cain did not follow God’s warning. Can we be surprised at what happened?

As to why did God thus mark Cain. All I can offer is the reasoning in chapter 4.

So God marked Cain to protect him from his brothers and sisters?