Any young earth creationists out there?

[Richca]

Glark:

How can “man” in Genesis 5:1 be translated as "mankind? It appears to me to refer to one man, Adam.

KJV Genesis 5: 1 and 2. “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

The English Old Testament is a translation from the Hebrew, where Adam seems to be a plural noun. It is normally translated as people, mankind, humanity, or ‘man’ in its collective sense, and even when singularised, can usually be taken to refer to any one of a community rather than an individual. In some places, such as the “Adam and Eve” story, it appears to be treated as the proper name of an actual man, but in terms of the whole bible, this is an exception.

‘Adam’ which is the transliteration of the hebrew word first used for ‘man’ in the Bible (Gen. 1:26) occurs in the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament 552 times according to Strong’s Concordance. Grammatically speaking from the biblical hebrew , it is a masculine noun but from the little research I’ve done, I can’t tell if it is a singular or plural noun. At any rate, it can be taken either as the proper name of the first man Adam, a collective sense as mankind or singularized as you say and in the singular version which is used quite often it normally does not refer to any particular person as you say but simply man in general or any man. It depends on the context as well as whether the hebrew ‘adam’ comes with no article or a definite or indefinite article or what are called particle/accusative words which I find is often not translated into our english bibles, i.e, the definite or indefinite articles or the particle/accusative words.

There are other words in the hebrew/aramaic Old Testament that are also translated ‘man’ or ‘men’. One of the most frequent is the transliterated ‘iysh’ occurring 1639 times according to Strong’s Concordance. The first use of this word is in in Gen. 2:23-24:

Then the man ( hā·’ā·ḏām, the man, ha is the definite article ‘the’)said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman (ishshah)
because she was taken out of Man (‘iysh’).
Therefore a man (iysh) leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man (hā·’ā·ḏām) and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

‘iysh’ (man) denotes man’s maleness in relation to the female and husband/wife relation. ishshah (woman) denotes the femaleness in relation to man’s maleness or the distinction between the sexes as does ‘iysh’ and again wife/husband relation.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

Gen. 5:1 ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam.’ Here ‘adam’ means the first man ‘Adam’ in the context.

'In the day that God created man (adam), in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name man (adam), in the day when they were created.” (Gen. 5:1b-2). This text is referring back to Genesis 1 but also Genesis 2 and the first couple of the human race, Adam and Eve. ‘In the day’ are the same words of Gen. 2:4b from which follows the account of the creation of Adam and Eve. I’ve noticed not all bibles translate Gen. 5:1b ‘In the day.’ This is an interesting observation that I’ve not looked in too. Whatever the translation, I understand Gen. 5:1b-2 simply as making a reference to the creation of Adam and Eve, the first couple of the human race, and them being in the garden of Eden.

‘When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died’ (Gen. 5:3-5).

These verses immediately following verses 1-2 make it clear that we are talking about the individual and first man, Adam. The Adam of verse 1a, ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam.’

The reason why the word ‘adam’ is treated as the proper name of an actual man rarely is because Adam is the first man, ‘The man’ as it were. Other references to the first man Adam are:
Deut. 32:8; 1 Chr. 1:1; Job 31:33; Lk 3:38; a number of places in St. Paul’s letters including 1Cor 15:45 - ‘The first man Adam…’; Acts 17:26 - ‘From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth.’; Tob 8:6 - ‘You made Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung.’

 

[Richca]

(continued)

Interestingly, Genesis 2 uses a play on words between ‘adam’ (man) and ‘adamah’ (soil, ground, earth).

‘…then the Lord God formed man (ha-adam, the man, the ‘et’ particle/accusative is also here) of dust from the ground (ha-adamah).’ ‘adam’ (man) means from or out of the ground/soil/earth (adamah). Thus:

"In the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”(Gen. 3:19).

It is said or postulated that the root origin of both ‘adam’ and ‘adamah’ are similar to the root of the word in hebrew which means ruddy, red, or redness. Accordingly, ‘adamah’ which means soil/ground/earth may refer to reddish soil or clay so that the sacred writer is also possibly referring to the skin color of Adam.

 

[Gorgias]

Regarding 337, if the “six days” are presented “symbolically” in Scripture, how can they be interpreted literally? How can the word “symbolically” also mean “literally”, when their meanings are mutually exclusive and perfect opposites of each other?

Given the quote marks in 337, I would assert that the claim that it’s “symbolic” has to do with the “work” and “rest” of God. Taking a cue from Aquinas, I would say that these things are asserted neither univocally nor equivocally of God, but rather, in an analogous way.

So, I don’t think that the Catechism is asserting what you claim it’s asserting – namely, that the Catechism is claiming that there is only one possible approach to Genesis 1 (that is, a symbolic and not a literalistic one). Rather, it’s merely pointing out that “work” and “rest” are not to be understood in an equivocal way.

Likewise in 362: If the verse in question (Genesis 2:7) is written in “symbolic language”, how can it be interpreted literally? How can the word “symbolic” also mean “literal” when their meanings are mutually exclusive and perfect opposites of each other?

Two thoughts here:

• again, I think that the assertion is that we’re not literally dust. This seems to be a weakness of the literalist camp: on one hand, you want to say “evolution is incorrect because God created everything directly, and evolution contradicts this fact”, but on the other hand, if you’re really literalistic, then you’re admitting that God used intermediate forms to create beings.
• In addition, the tension here isn’t between “symbolic” and “literal” (as in "the literal sense of Scripture), but rather, between “symbolic” and “literalistic.” Catholics recognize that figurative language does have a literal meaning. However, those who insist on a literalistic hermeneutic find that there is an unavoidable tension between their approach and what the Church holds to be true.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

It seems that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here.

Which bit of what I said was wrong?

The rest of my post was an attempt to explain how Adam, as the first person created was both an individual person and at the same time all mankind, male and female. We are each of us expressions of what it is to be human, actualizing it in our own fashion through our existence.

To further explore the meaning of Adam, Richa has taken the trouble to present some of his research on the matter. It is a worthwhile read.

‘Adam’

 

[Glark]

Some IQs are more limited than others.

My IQ has been evaluated as 9. Is that above average?

 

[Glark]

Never read Shakespeare in school?

When I become Australia’s first dictator, I will make it a crime to teach Shakespeare to school kids. The time I wasted studying this useless, thespian tripe at school could have spent learning how to weld.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

My IQ has been evaluated as 9. Is that above average?

When I become Australia’s first dictator, I will make it a crime to teach Shakespeare to school kids. The time I wasted studying this useless, thespian tripe at school could have spent learning how to weld.

Two closely related statements, I feel.
Still, I would have thought 9 was quite high for an Australian Creationist…

 

[Glark]

God created lots of languages in the Tower of Babel episode.

I remember reading years ago about the remains of a very ancient port that archeologists discovered in the Middle East somewhere. They ascertained that it was visited by sailors from many different parts of the world, but also that there was only one language in evidence, used by all.

 

[Glark]

Two closely related statements, I feel. Still, I would have thought 9 was quite high for an Australian Creationist…

We are a just bunch of lowly convicts, after all.

I’m not happy with my “9” rating - I feel more like a 10, and a double-figures rating sounds so much more impressive.

 

[Glark]

What do bees do with all that honey, anyway? Do they sell it to other insects?

 

[Glark]

My understanding of the Pope’s “magic wand” statement is this: God did not “poof” creatures in existence in six days - as a magician might wave his wand and then pull a rabbit out of a hat. Rather, all creatures evolved from a simple microbe over billions of years. In other words, he believes evolutionary science has established that a literal interpretation of Genesis doesn’t reflect the truth of what actually happened.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

The Pope seems to be suggesting that God is not “able to do everything” - like create all creatures in six days. And here I was thinking that God is omnipotent and is indeed “able to do everything”. Silly me!

 

[Glark]

I don’t know, but one Pope - Honorius I - was condemned by the Church as a heretic and excommunicated posthumously.

 

[Glark]

"Today, most churchmen have chosen to be silent as the world of consensus science continues to spin more and more wild fantasies (about origins) that cannot be proven, tested or verified … The damage wrought by (a) misplaced confidence (in science) is incalculable. Millions of Catholics are led to doubt and dismiss Church teaching in favour of something deemed to be more accurate, true and reliable. Who is going to remain in a Church that has ben steeped in error from the beginning? …

Within her proper realm of autonomy, the Church has held that unaided human reason can rightly conclude that there is an all-powerful Creator (CCC 34,35; Romans 1:19-20). Thus, anyone, scientist or not, who denies the existence of God is not reasoning properly. It is well within the scope of our autonomy to correct those who misuse natural science to undermine our faith.

Instead, we have become intimidated by the very word “science” to the point of inviting open and avowed atheists to sit on our Pontifical Academy of Science. Instead of pointing out the theological and philosophical errors of modern scientific speculation, we have been willing to sacrifice even sacred dogma so as not to offend the scientific community. Rather than stand our ground in demanding proof from the natural sciences, we have cowered in fear of criticism from those outside the Church."

Fr. Thomas Hickey, “Thomistic Evolution”: Development of Doctrine or Diabolical Deception?, kolbecenter.org

 

[Glark]

No, presumably within a few generations all living members would be able to trace their ancestry back to Adam and Eve - on one side or another… and gradually the entire community, through that connection to Adam, would be ensouled.

Sorry, I don’t follow. I’m still wondering what happened to the race of hominids Adam supposedly descended from.

That’s the speculation I’ve seen

“speculation” - where would evolutionists be without this magical panacea?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I don’t know, but one Pope - Honorius I - was condemned by the Church as a heretic and excommunicated posthumously.

"Today, most churchmen have chosen to be silent … The damage wrought by (a) misplaced confidence (in science) is incalculable. Millions of Catholics are led to doubt and dismiss Church teaching in favour of something deemed to be more accurate, true and reliable. Who is going to remain in a Church that has ben steeped in error from the beginning? …

Interestingly, the anathematisation of Honorius I was due not so much to his alleged ‘heretical views’ which he may not have held, but because of his lack of sufficient clarity in espousing them. A churchman “choosing to be silent”, perhaps.

 

[Glark]

The Third Council of Constantinople declared in 680 (42 years after the death of Honorius), “And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas.”

According to Catholic Answers: His successor, Pope Leo II, did not agree with the condemnation of Honorius I for heresy (by the Third Council of Constantinople*), but should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.”

However this veiw is contradicted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which says Pope Leo II formally confirmed the decrees of the Council (“according to custom”), including the one passed on Honorius.

 

[Techno2000]

Sorry, I don’t follow. I’m still wondering what happened to the race of hominids Adam supposedly descended from.

Environmental changes cause them to have reproductive disadvantages.

 

[twf]

I don’t know where all this confidence and smugness comes from when you’re opposing both mainstream Catholicism and pretty much every discipline of modern science.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Yeah, I know of him.

Pope John XXII also taught heresy in a series of homilies I think, but had enough humility to correct himself and retract his statement on his deathbed.