Adam was born how many years ago?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Miguel2

Guest
Apparently it’s possible to trace Adam’s offspring to Jesus in a way that we can discover that Adam was created in about 6000-4000 B.C.

The problem is that we know that humanity has existed for much longer than that.

Perhaps the genealogies are incomplete. Maybe the genealogies only shows the important people. I don’t know.

What do you think?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
No conflict between evolutionary theories and Catholicism. Were Adam and Eve the first humans? Yes. Is evolution true ? We don’t know.
 
Trick question: Adam wasn’t born; he was created as an adult.
 
christismylord said:
Seems like God created mankind in His image, from dust not from another animal, apart from every other creature…? How does evolution fit into this? Unless we just disregard scripture?
Click to expand...
Genesis is figurative poetry, not literal encyclopedic facts.
 
:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: you beat me to it.

Who’s buried in Grant’s tomb?

No one. It’s a TOMB.

Who’s IN Grant’s tomb?

Ulysses Grant AND his wife.

🤔 So shouldn’t it them be the Grants’ Tomb?

Poor Adam. No navel, no birthday, no Mother. Got kicked out of heaven. Only “benefit” he and Eve had was … no need to remember sending a Mother’s Day Card. Good thing I suppose because there was nothing much to make them with, and no refrigerator door(s) to post them on.

Thanks for posting this thread. I needed a break from the clashing with evil ones. 👍:facepunch:
 
Last edited:
We simply do not know. As it is not something we need to know, God has not revealed this.

We can all propose a theory, none of it is doctrine or dogma except that there WAS a first parent.
 
Miguel2 said:
Perhaps the genealogies are incomplete.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🤣 I just watched this movie last weekend.

Meme aside, Genesis is not “history” in the same way as modern history books. Genesis, and the rest of the Penteauch (sp?), show how God claimed a people for Himself. It’s not meant to be a complete historical record, AFAIK.
 
@Miguel2, if you look for them, you’ll find an enormous number of old threads discussing this exact same question. Here’s just one of them, from this time last year:
40.png
How many Catholics are YEC Philosophy
I know there are those who consider Genesis to be a reasonably factual description of the begining of the world. But how many are actually YECs?
Click to expand...
 
jan10000 said:
Why do you believe it necessary to have Adam be a real person for Christianity to be true?
Click to expand...
If Adam isn’t real, then neither is ‘original sin.’
If original sin isn’t real, then there’s no need for a Savior.
If there’s no need for a Savior, then Jesus is a liar.
If Jesus is a liar, then Christianity is not true.

I think that about covers it. 😉
 
It is possible that the genealogies have gaps, people that are not mentioned. Also, it is possible that humans existed without souls, and Adam was the first one to have a soul.
 
Dan_Defender said:
Also, it is possible that humans existed without souls, and Adam was the first one to have a soul.
Click to expand...
I am confused…God made humans without souls first? If they are human, by definition they are made in His image? And would they not have a rational soul like God?
 
Your “geneology” is a false starter; your= are starting with an unproven assumption - actually, at least 2: 1) tht the geneology has no gaps; and 2) that the people writing the geneology(ies) thought as you think; that is that every last familial trace was done to show exactly who was directly lineally related to whom. Meaning, no jumps.

You can’t prove either point; you can only say "Well this is what I think is true becuase the Scripture is true>

Except there is more than one definition of what “true” means in Scripture.

The Catholic Church is not literalist; it is contextualist.
 
Oh - and Adam was born how many years ago?

So many, the mind of man remembereth not.
 
jan10000 said:
So then, how do you explain away the massive, indisputable evidence that evolution is true and Adam never existed?
Click to expand...
Who said it is indisputable or that all of evolutionary theory is true?
jan10000 said:
One additional comment: Jesus never claimed to be the savior we say he is.
Click to expand...
Hmm, where do we go to find out who Jesus claimed to be?
 
Well, Adam was created a very long time ago - for reference, even before I was.

Genealogies, while interesting, have everything to do with our Savior and nothing to do with our salvation.
 
If Adam isn’t real, then neither is ‘original sin.’
If original sin isn’t real, then there’s no need for a Savior.
If there’s no need for a Savior, then Jesus is a liar.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I’m not sure that these premises are true.

Adam doesn’t have to be “historically real” for there to be original sin. I’ll try and put it this way. If Adam figuratively represents the first humans, then the moral of the story is that all humans share in a common sin: an inability to trust God. I think that is true whether we have historical first parents or not. Our parents were sinners. We’re sinners. Our children will be sinners. We all choose to participate in that original sin when we place ourselves above God. That’s what sin is.

In regards to the second premise, Jews don’t believe in original sin as Christians do, yet the Pharisaic tradition holds that they needed a Messiah to rescue them from the bonds of sin. Our original sin is wiped away by Baptism. Yet we still sin after Baptism. Even if we reject the concept of original sin (which I emphasize that I am not arguing for), we would still need to be saved from our other sins.

For the third premise, this one is a little more interesting. While my approach is not likely what you were implying, I still think that it is a good theological question. Let’s suppose that humans never sinned and do not sin. Would Jesus still have entered the world? St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, argued yes. Humans are sensible creatures, meaning that we best see the world through our physical senses. Since we are made for communion with God (and others), it seems fitting that God would come into the world physically to enter into relationship. Now, the Incarnation has different theological causes, and of course sin was one reason that it is necessary, but think about God in the garden. It seems like God was walking among man and there was a harmony that was lost after the fall. Just food for thought.

Just as a retroactive disclaimer, my comment is not to argue whether Adam has any historical basis, but my comment is intended to raise a challenge to the argument that you proposed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top