G
Gorgias
Guest
They died. What did you think happened to them?
(And, just to make sure we’re on the same page: they would be physically indistinguishable from Adam, so there’s no “fossil record” of unensouled hominins… )
- Status
(And, just to make sure we’re on the same page: they would be physically indistinguishable from Adam, so there’s no “fossil record” of unensouled hominins… )
E
edwest211
Guest
Based on what I’ve read and seen in illustrations, so-called pre-humans had distinguishing features that made them different from homo sapiens. And they are identified with different names.
T
Techno2000
Guest
And what happened to the previous 10 stages of transitional hominids that came before them…what caused them to die out ?
B
buffalo
Guest
Adam had cousins? Are they among us still?They died. What did you think happened to them?
T
twf
Guest
All reputable scientists are satisfied that the evidence is overwhelming. Recent Popes likewise…
G
Gorgias
Guest
Old age.Gorgias:
And what happened to the previous 10 stages of transitional hominids that came before them…what caused them to die out ?
Of course not… they’re dead.
OK… here’s the question that I think ya’ll are trying to ask, but aren’t quite getting around to it: are there living descendants of any of the unensouled hominins who were alive at the time of Adam?
I have two answers; pick the one you like better.
- Yes. They play hockey for the Washington Capitals
- No – if God ensouls a person who is the child of an ensouled (i.e., “true”) human being, then the descendants of those populations of unensouled hominins are (presumably) assimilated into the population of true (i.e., ensouled) humans by virtue of their progeny having become parents (along with their ensouled mates) of ensouled humans.
- Ooh! Yick! The very notion of ensouled humans and unensouled humans bearing children together is abhorrent! Why, it’s so much more reasonable to conceive of the notion that Eve gave birth to children not only by Adam, but also by her own sons!
D
Dan123
Guest
Old age? Disease? Cold? Sabre tooth tiger attack?
R
Richca
Guest
I’ve never read or heard of a christian who believes in monogenism that either Adam or Eve begot children by their own children.
- Ooh! Yick! The very notion of ensouled humans and unensouled humans bearing children together is abhorrent! Why, it’s so much more reasonable to conceive of the notion that Eve gave birth to children not only by Adam, but also by her own sons!
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK, young earth creationists! The gauntlet has been thrown down! @Richca wants to know:
if we all came from Adam and Eve, (and the Bible doesn’t say that Eve gave birth to girls), then: where did all the people mentioned in the first few chapters of Genesis come from?
Who was the first girl (besides Eve), who gave birth to all these people (including daughters)?
(BTW, @Richca: even if they claim “Eve gave birth to a daughter who isn’t recorded in Scripture”, they still have to explain why brother-sister incest is a good thing (since we know that it runs counter to God’s Natural Moral Law.)
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
That means there are some among us that were born with partial original sin or none at all?
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. There’s no such thing as “partial original sin.” If you have a soul, then you have inherited the consequences of sin.
R
Richca
Guest
It is not I who wants to know. It’s obvious that Eve had daughters by Adam her husband:Richca:
OK, young earth creationists! The gauntlet has been thrown down! @Richca wants to know:
if we all came from Adam and Eve, (and the Bible doesn’t say that Eve gave birth to girls), then: where did all the people mentioned in the first few chapters of Genesis come from?
Who was the first girl (besides Eve), who gave birth to all these people (including daughters)?
(BTW, @Richca: even if they claim “Eve gave birth to a daughter who isn’t recorded in Scripture”, they still have to explain why brother-sister incest is a good thing (since we know that it runs counter to God’s Natural Moral Law.)
‘The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters’ (Gen. 5:4). It is also not the intention of the sacred writer to get involved in minor details which any reasonable person ought to be able to discern for themselves.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
The Book of Jubilees (Lesser Genesis)
- And these four kinds He created on the sixth day. And there were altogether two and twenty kinds.
- This law and testimony was given to the children of Israel as a law for ever unto their generations.
Code:
Cain and Abel and other children of Adam, 1-12. Enos, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, 13-15. Enoch and his history, 16-25. Four sacred places, 26. Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, 27, 28. Death of Adam and Cain, 29-32. Shem,Ham, and Japhet,32. (Cf. Gen. iv-v.)http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/4.htm
B
buffalo
Guest
And if you have no soul? Are there among us humans without original sin?
J
John1944
Guest
Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4).
E
edwest211
Guest
Concerning recent Popes, that is not accurate.
E
edwest211
Guest
I see ‘emotion words’ attached to this subject on a regular basis but only the facts matter. What I am seeing is a lot of speculation. As research continues, the human genome is turning out to be more and more complex than once thought. The odds of this happening through ‘natural’ forces has reached zero.
R
Richca
Guest
If brother-sister marriage were not a good thing in the beginnings of the human race, then you and I wouldn’t be here today nor anybody else.
Secondly, what woman can claim to be more akin to a man than Eve was to Adam, since of her did he say:
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
Yet Eve was joined to Adam in marriage by God himself.
The fact is that the degrees within which consanquinity have been an impediment to marriage have varied according to the various historical times. We find among the Old Testament patriarchs and ancient Israelite history recorded therein marriages between persons that would not be allowed today according to the laws of the Church and some state/human laws. Abraham’s wife Sarah was his half-sister, his father’s daughter but not from the same mother. Jacob married his first cousins, his mother’s brother - Laban’s daughters.
Later, the Old Law given by God to Moses for the Israelites prohibited or permitted various degrees or lines of consanquinity involving lawful marriages. As St Thomas Aquinas remarks, the prohibitions appear to involve mostly all those persons who were wont to live together in one household in order to curb concupiscence or lust:
‘Wherefore as Rabbi Moses says (Doc. Perp. iii, 49) all those persons were debarred from marrying one another who are wont to live together in one household, because if a lawful carnal intercourse were possible between them, this would prove a very great incentive to lust. Yet the Old Law permitted other degrees of consanguinity, in fact to a certain extent it commanded them; to wit that each man should take a wife from his kindred, in order to avoid confusion of inheritances: because at that time the Divine worship was handed down as the inheritance of the race’ (ST, Suppl., Q. 54, art.4).
Upon the inaugeration of the New Law of Christ and his founding of the Church in which Christ instituted the sacrament of marriage, the Church has set which degrees of consanquinity are prohibited for lawful sacramental marriages and these degrees have varied according to the various times in the history of the Church.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
To make a long story short, I hold following St Thomas Aquinas that brother-sister marriage is not absolutely against the natural moral law for these kind of marriages were absolutely necessary for the propagation of the human race in the beginning and to fulfill God’s command ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.’ The only prohibition absolutely against the natural law is marriage or carnal union between mother/son or father/daughter for which reason from the beginning it is said:
‘Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24).
Upon the initial propagation of the human race in which only the mother/son and father/daughter was prohibited by natural law and/or God’s express word (Gen. 2:24), further degrees or lines of consanquinity became established through the course of time and some even by nature as it were but accidentally and as a consequence of the sin of our first parents. For example, it has been long known that brother/sister carnal union can be detrimental to offspring such as birth defects. Genetic defects, however, are generally the result of many generations accumulated through the course of time. I believe that Adam and Eve were created perfectly and immediately by God without any defects and with created genetic diversity; Adam from the dust/clay of the earth, Eve from his rib or side. Consequently, the genetic birth defects in the offspring of brother/sister unions which may now transpire from very many generations would not have been an issue with Adam and Eve’s daughters and sons and who knows how many generations after them.
To make a long story short, I hold following St Thomas Aquinas that brother-sister marriage is not absolutely against the natural moral law for these kind of marriages were absolutely necessary for the propagation of the human race in the beginning and to fulfill God’s command ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.’ The only prohibition absolutely against the natural law is marriage or carnal union between mother/son or father/daughter for which reason from the beginning it is said:
‘Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24).
Upon the initial propagation of the human race in which only the mother/son and father/daughter was prohibited by natural law and/or God’s express word (Gen. 2:24), further degrees or lines of consanquinity became established through the course of time and some even by nature as it were but accidentally and as a consequence of the sin of our first parents. For example, it has been long known that brother/sister carnal union can be detrimental to offspring such as birth defects. Genetic defects, however, are generally the result of many generations accumulated through the course of time. I believe that Adam and Eve were created perfectly and immediately by God without any defects and with created genetic diversity; Adam from the dust/clay of the earth, Eve from his rib or side. Consequently, the genetic birth defects in the offspring of brother/sister unions which may now transpire from very many generations would not have been an issue with Adam and Eve’s daughters and sons and who knows how many generations after them.
Last edited:
- Status