Adam was born how many years ago?

[adamhovey1988]

Hi Adam. I’m Zaccheus and I’m ::inarticulatemumble:: years of age.

I either remember when I was your age, or look forward to being your age.

 

[Mountie]

Lower than a conciliar document, to be sure. Right below it, though. So, I would say that “there is a certain requirement” is really, really tap dancing around the question. By that description, it would seem that you’re saying “yeah, I get it that this is a formal papal explanation of doctrine, but this is really a lower level communication that I only have a certain requirement to listen to…”

Encyclicals belong in the third level of teaching. At best, they are non-definitive guides that contribute to a correct understanding of the Word of God. At worst, they are prudential admonitions. I’m not downplaying their significance, but they are in no way definitive.

No. It’s not. It’s the “first sin”, but “original sin” is what we inherit. I thought you were getting those confused!

Original sin is the first sin that has generational effects. Original sin is the first sin committed by Adam and Eve and it is the sin that we inherit. It honestly feels like we are talking past each other here.

If I said that I thought you were saying that “one doesn’t need to believe in a literal first two fully human parents to believe in original sin”, would you still assert that objection? Would you say that the Church doesn’t teach a “literal first two fully human parents” who commit the first sin, and the consequences of that literal sin of literal people are what we inherit as a ‘fallen nature’?

To be fair, I never said that I personally support those objections. They were merely set out to provide a response to your initial argument (that we got way off track from!). I think that your re-articulation is more in tune with what the Church thinks and is a better way of looking at the issue.

You’re seriously asking that? Really?
They were waiting for a Messiah who would release the Jews from external bondage and restore Israel to her glory.

I had to ask that because my point was that Jews await a savior despite not recognizing original sin, which you never really acknowledged. I’ll also add that Eastern Orthodox have a different conception of original sin than Catholics do yet wholeheartedly believe in Jesus as the savior.

 

[Mountie]

Agreed. Yet, you’re downplaying Catholic teaching.

I don’t think that I’m downplaying Catholic teaching, but presenting a different perspective that is entirely valid and is maintained by some theologians.

“affirms a primeval event… that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” Literal history, expressed in a figurative narrative.

I think that you misinterpret what your quote actually says. The word “literal” is what I have a genuine problem with. It’s primordial (or primeval) history, not literal history. That’s a careful distinction that changes the meaning drastically.

Yes, I’m familiar with the breed of theologians who claim that the Bible is really just plagarism from other sources, and no, their claims do not reflect the teaching of the Church!

Actually, these theologians are in the majority scholarship of the Church. Read the Enuma Elish and read Genesis 1. Tell me what’s different and what’s similar. They’re almost identical in structure. It isn’t plagiarism. It was a way of using popular religious texts and trying to convey truths about God. Remember, much of the Old Testament was written or edited during the Babylonian Captivity. Some Jews began turning toward the Babylonian religion and using those texts. What a better way to evangelize than follow the same structure that they would have been familiar with?

This conversation may have just jumped the shark. The kind of speculative theology you’re peddling might be fun in certain corners of the Church, but it’s not mainstream Catholic thought.

We’ve gotten far off track. My comment “exactly that” was to say that your interpretation was exactly correct, not that Jesus died for dolphins and chimps. I can see the confusion lol. VERY poor word choice.

There’s been a lot of discussion about that kind of topic around here. It would come down to the question “what do you mean by ‘animal will’?” I would nuance that slightly: animals certainly make choices; they do not have free will, however.

I would agree with you. I just don’t think that question is as simple as some make it. And who knows, maybe one day they’ll evolve to the point that their natural bodies have the capacity for “human reason.”

 

[BT3241]

Its suggested that Abraham adopted the old Sumerian stories of Adam and Eve and the great flood with a different variation that he heard as a child. Thats what I think.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not downplaying their significance, but they are in now way definitive.

They are, however, authoritative magisterial teaching.

Original sin is the first sin committed by Adam and Eve and it is the sin that we inherit. It honestly feels like we are talking past each other here.

I agree. We are. “Original sin” is what we inherit, but is not the personal sin of Adam & Eve. Maybe we can just agree that we’re using different terms in ways that obscure understanding?

I think that your re-articulation is more in tune with what the Church thinks and is a better way of looking at the issue.

Cool.

I had to ask that because my point was that Jews await a savior despite not recognizing original sin, which you never really acknowledged

Fair enough. Yet, that speaks to a difference between the notion of “messiah” and of “savior”, among Jews and Christians, respectively.

I don’t think that I’m downplaying Catholic teaching, but presenting a different perspective that is entirely valid and is maintained by some theologians.

I might agree to “maintained by some theologians” more than “entirely valid different perspective”. That’s a matter of opinion, of course, though, right?

The word “literal” is what I have a genuine problem with. It’s primordial (or primeval) history, not literal history. That’s a careful distinction that changes the meaning drastically.

How is “primeval history” different than “literal history”? In fact, how is “history” not “literal history”? I can see the distinction between “literal history, expressed literally” and “literal history, expressed figuratively”, but not “history that’s not literally true”.

Actually, these theologians are in the majority scholarship of the Church.

They’re really not, although I appreciate that you perceive them as such.

Read the Enuma Elish and read Genesis 1. Tell me what’s different and what’s similar. They’re almost identical in structure.

That’s the whole point: the inspired writer (presumably, post-exilic) was literally pointing out the differences between the Babylonian epic and God’s revelation. Are there correspondences? Of course. That’s the point. Does that mean that he’s merely retelling stories already present in the Levant? Not at all.

And who knows, maybe one day they’ll evolve to the point that their natural bodies have the capacity for “human reason.”

Yep. Maybe they will! And yet, that will not mean that they get immaterial, immortal souls in the “imago Dei”!

 

[Mountie]

They are, however, authoritative magisterial teaching.

Agreed.

I agree. We are. “Original sin” is what we inherit, but is not the personal sin of Adam & Eve. Maybe we can just agree that we’re using different terms in ways that obscure understanding?

It seems to me like we agree but are using different terms/points of emphasis to describe original sin.

Fair enough. Yet, that speaks to a difference between the notion of “messiah” and of “savior”, among Jews and Christians, respectively.

We certainly have a different conception of the Messiah than Jews.

I might agree to “maintained by some theologians” more than “entirely valid different perspective”. That’s a matter of opinion, of course, though, right?

How is “primeval history” different than “literal history”? In fact, how is “history” not “literal history”? I can see the distinction between “literal history, expressed literally” and “literal history, expressed figuratively”, but not “history that’s not literally true”.

Primeval history is not recorded in the same sense that you or I would view history. Rather, they are similar to theological fictions, which maintains truth but presents the truth in a way that is not based on Post-Enlightment views of history. Can we gather that we have first parents through Genesis 2-3? Many certainly think so. Would a professional historian look at Genesis 2-3 like they look at other historical records? Not at all. You cannot remove the allegories and figurative language from these primordial histories. They are essential components. Maybe that’s the significant difference.

They’re really not, although I appreciate that you perceive them as such.

They absolutely are. I’m sure that you’ve immersed yourself in modern biblical scholarship. I can assume that you came across many more articles and lectures professing the view that I’m defending than another view. But I will point out, truth isn’t democratic. Just because one view is in the majority, doesn’t make it right. The Church has changed her mind over time on issues such as treatment of Jews and the death penalty.

That’s the whole point: the inspired writer (presumably, post-exilic) was literally pointing out the differences between the Babylonian epic and God’s revelation. Are there correspondences? Of course. That’s the point. Does that mean that he’s merely retelling stories already present in the Levant? Not at all.

That’s the point that I’m trying to argue. Whether successfully or not, maybe a disinterested spectator can attest to.

 

[Gorgias]

That’s the point that I’m trying to argue.

Fair enough. Yet, the way you argue it… it certainly reads like you’re trying to say something else entirely.

After all, the claim that the inspired writers are responding – to a certain extent – to the religious claims of their neighbors, is a whole lot different than saying that “[Genesis 1-11] are largely copies of other holy texts from the Levant”…!!!

 

[Mountie]

Yet, the way you argue it… it certainly reads like you’re trying to say something else entirely.
After all, the claim that the inspired writers are responding – to a certain extent – to the religious claims of their neighbors, is a whole lot different than saying that “[Genesis 1-11] are largely copies of other holy texts from the Levant”…!!!

That may be a fair assessment. But please do not leave out the latter half of my statement! Saying that some texts are copies of other texts is different that saying that some texts are copies but re-written to convey unique theology. Psalm 14:1 says that there is no God. However, that’s only true if you omit the “fool says in his heart” part.

Genesis 1-11 are copies of other texts insofar as they copy the same structure as a comparison tool. However, they are re-written to convey Jewish theological themes, such as the order of the world, the goodness of human beings, etc, which are in stark contrast to the other stories in the region.

Maybe my statement would be clearer if I said: some chapters in Genesis are written to convey uniquely Jewish theology, while showing influence and using other texts in the region to compare their theology with that of other cultures.

 

[Gorgias]

Maybe my statement would be clearer if I said: some chapters in Genesis are written to convey uniquely Jewish theology, while showing influence and using other texts in the region to compare their theology with that of other cultures.

Yep. That does make your case quite a bit more clearly!

 

[Wesrock]

Gorgias:

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.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I’ve made the same argument.

So then, how do you explain away the massive, indisputable evidence that evolution is true and Adam never existed?

Many modern theologians now claim that to resolve the above, there must have been one individual in the ancient past that God decided to give the first “soul”. This first soul then rejected God. All other genetic lines died and only his progeny survive today.

That is what the concept of Original Sin has devolved into.

One additional comment: Jesus never claimed to be the savior we say he is. That interpretation grew over time. So I wouldn’t say Jesus was a liar. He may never have claimed that.

Well, the proposal you’re probably referring to isn’t that all other lines died out, it’s that Adam and Eve’s descendants spread out and mixed such that at some point all living humans could claim descent from them. But people can have very many great-great-great-…-great grandparents, not just a single pair.

 

[buffalo]

And we know evolution is true because it has been proven over and over again.

No, it has not. There are other threads that will bring you up to date.

 

[buffalo]

It is one of the three most validated scientific theories ever discovered:

Oh my. …

 

[buffalo]

If the massive amount of evidence proving evolution still has not convinced you, I have no way to change your mind. It’s ridiculous to claim otherwise. My typical response to the very few people I run into that still deny evolution (my father for one, actually), is to simply tell them not to get a flu shot any longer. Modern immunology is based on evolution - don’t get a flu shot if you think evolution is false, you are wasting your time.

Might start researching this yourself. No doubt your education has convinced you.

I do not get a flu shot and it has nothing to do with evo.

This should go to another thread. Some have gone over 10k posts.

 

[buffalo]

It just blows my mind that evolution occurs every day and people still deny it. Seriously, please answer what ELSE needs to be shown that would convince you evolution is true?
If you can’t provide one thing, your position isn’t rational.

You may be confusing micro-evolution (adaptation) with universal common descent. No one argues it.

 

[Gorgias]

We don’t have indisputable proof that Santa Claus or unicorns don’t exist either, but every scientific discovery, experiment and logical extrapolation has shown that such a person could not have existed.

Pardon me? Umm… what “scientific discovery… has shown that [Adam] never existed”? What experiment has done so? What is the “logical extrapolation” to which you refer that has done what you claim it has? Sorry… your assertions here are devoid of merit. Nevertheless, if you have anything to back up your claim – that science has disproven “Adam” – please show it! (In advance, I’m going to inform you that scientific assertions which show other things than that which you claim they show will be pointed out to you as such. )

There is not a single bit of evidence supporting the instantaneous appearance of a the first human from non-organic material

Umm… who ever made that claim?!? That’s not even what Genesis claims, even on its literal face!

When combined with the massive amount of evidence for evolution across all scientific disciplines and historical records, it becomes untenable to claim Adam was a real person.

“Evolution” doesn’t disprove “the theological narrative of Adam”. It’s disappointing to see that you continue to assert this claim.

If you have references where the Catholic Church official claims Adam was a real person and evolution is false, please provide.

“Adam was a real person” does not imply “evolution is false”. The Church claims the first, and not the second. Your A->B is in error.

 

[buffalo]

Why would anyone NOT subscribe to evolution in the 21st century? There is no rational argument against it.

Oh there is plenty. The top evo’s are struggling themselves

Royal Society Meeting - Modern Synthesis is Broken​

Read a report on the Royal Society Meeting

“The Modern Synthesis, while undoubtedly productive for a time, is a misconception of reality that has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The problems are fundamental. No amount of cosmetic surgery is going correct them.”

“To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species. It is collaboration in its various forms that causes biological evolution. Hence I’m sur prised by calls for extending the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis. You can’t extend something that is broken. Surely what is needed now, after 65 years, is using the empirical evidence to develop a new paradigm for biological evolution.”

"If you want the definition of the Modern Synthesis, take a look at how Neil deGrasse Tyson explains evolution in the 2014 remake of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series. Tyson, an astrophysicist, is unaware that he is misinformed, as are most in science, academia, government, literature, the arts, and the public by this outmoded theory of evolution."

“Shuker tried to interrupt but Noble held his ground:
‘No, YOU need to listen. I used to think exactly like you. I embraced the reductionist mindset for years. When I got out of school I was a card-carrying reductionist. Reductionism is powerful and it’s useful. I am not dissing it. Many times we need it. But it is not the whole story.’ Noble described how bacterial regulatory
networks rebuilt those genes in four days by hyper-mutating, actively searching for a solution that would give them tails and enable them to Nind food. Natural selection did not achieve that. Natural genetic engineering did.’”

“It’s appropriate that this meeting is being held at the Royal Society, whose motto, we were reminded yesterday, is “Nullius in verba”: Accept nothing on authority."

“Not one whit of empirical evidence shows that new species arise from the neo-Darwinian mechanism. To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species.”

 

[buffalo]

The Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis​

A powerful must see video:

The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism

The Similarity Between Science and Magic

1. Science as religion
2. Science as credulity
3. Science as power

Evolution is an alternative religion

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It just blows my mind that evolution occurs every day and people still deny it.

Evolution is supposed to take long periods of time and any changes done is a lifetime are likely negligible. But that part is irrelevant anyways, since it is the origins of humanity that has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Gorgias]

Literally all of them.

Umm… literally none of them.

If you can show a scientific, peer-reviewed paper that discusses Adam’s existence, I’d love to read it. Otherwise, we can agree that your assertion is void… right?

But to be fair, digging up and analyzing the fossil record to start. Then biology. Then move on to genetics. Then sociology, zoology, psychology, anthropology, history, etc.

None of these speak to who ‘Adam’ is: “our first true human (i.e., ensouled) parent”. Please show where fossils, biology, genetics, sociology, zoology, psychology, anthropology, or history, can address his status as such.

An example of logical extrapolation is that no one has ever seen a fully grown human form out of dust, therefore we can extrapolate that such an event has never occurred.

Umm… no one has ever seen any of the things that evolution asserts, but that doesn’t keep us from assenting to that theory’s assertions, right?

Literally the first result on Google:

Thank goodness that Google is here to teach us theology!

That’s a really nice attempt, though. However, it ignores Genesis 1:24 – all the animals are created from the earth. If Adam is created from one of them, isn’t he, also, created “from the earth”? So… no; your exegesis fails to hold. Sorry.

Are you of the school that Adam was the first proto-human to realize God existed, but then immediately rejected him, thus effectively committing “original sin”. Henceforth, all other human genetic lines died out, such that only his progeny remain?

Your first statement does not imply – let alone require! – your second! So, let’s deal with each statement individually. But, let’s recognize that I deny your implicit assertion that the first implies the second!

So: I assent to the claim that Adam was the first human – mind you, human, not proto-human! – who sinned by rejecting God.

But, I do not claim that this implies that “all other human genetic lines died out”! It’s time for you to recognize something rather important: my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather is my ancestor – but it does not follow that all his other lines died out in order for me to make this claim! All his other progeny can claim him, too! That’s all that the doctrine requires: that we are all related to Adam; not that all other progeny in his line died out. So… try again.

Don’t think that gets you off the hook though.

It doesn’t. It puts you on the hook.
jan10000:

For instance - if you claim Adam was a real person and evolution is true - all other genetic lines MUST die out.

No. It only requires that all lines merge.
jan10000:

This also means Adam had the first soul - which means his parents (and every other person he lived with) did not have souls.

Yes. It does. Why is that a problem for you?

 

[Zaccheus]

We have reached the point in intellectual discourse that anyone that believes evolution in the general sense is false is not longer taken seriously.

No. We have reached the point that the theory of evolution is very popular and some people will claim that anyone who doubts it can’t be taken seriously.
Further I am not denying the possibility of ‘evolution in the general sense’. I dispute your claim that Adam never existed.

The Catholic Church itself no longer denies the reality of evolution.

Incorrect.
The Church has never positively stated that “Evolution” itself is true or false. The Church does not make such proclamations on purely scientific issues.

Someone in authority in the Church has determined that one version of the theory, commonly known as ‘theistic evolution’ is not actively contrary to Church teaching, so Catholics are free to believe in it.

Of course if you claim that “evolution” proves atheism, the Church will contradict you on the ground that since atheism is false, no scientific theory will prove atheism to be true.

These variations do not invalidate the general concepts laid down by Darwin.

Nor have I claimed they do. The point I dispute is your claim that if evolution is true Adam cannot have been a single person. My position is that if evolution is true then God used evolution to develop life on Earth but God still made the first man and the first woman as individuals. Life may have evolved but mankind did not.

There is not a single bit of evidence supporting the instantaneous appearance of a the first human from non-organic material, from which all other humans were born.

“No evidence that you will accept” is not the same thing as “no existing evidence.” And what kind of evidence could there be anyway, other than credible testimony? It’s not like we’re going to find the fossilized skeleton of the first man or carbon-datable remnants of the dust God used as raw material.

I’m dropping out of this discussion. May God bless and comfort you even if you don’t believe He’s real.