5773 years ago.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
That was not unsupported speculation, it was well supported science.I was looking for some help not unsupported speculation.
The physical human body evolved from earlier physical primate bodies. Souls did not evolve, and you will not find anything about the evolution of the soul in a biology textbook. Science can only date physical events.
rossum
F
farpinho
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Biblical Roots
According to Sacred Scripture, God instituted marriage as the pinnacle of creation. On the sixth day, in the first creation story, the Book of Genesis tells us: “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it’” (Genesis 1: 27-28).
In the second creation story, God says that “it is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.” (Genesis 2:18). This suitable helpmate was formed from the very rib of man and thus woman was “flesh of his flesh” (Genesis 2:22-23).
B
buffalo
Guest
Consider that Gen 1 seems to be written from God’s perspective and Gen 2 form man’s.So, as promised (and requested by a few of you), I’m back to elaborate on some of Dr. Gerald Schroeder’s ideas.
Before I address the primary question posed in this thread, I’ll need to give a little background information as Dr. Schroeder’s thesis encompasses all of cosmological history and doesn’t make much sense without taking it into consideration. I’ll return to the main topic in my next post.
Rather than rehash his thoughts in my own inadequate words, I’ll try to quote from Dr. Schroeder as much as possible. In my first post, I mentioned that a Jewish Bible scholar living over 8 centuries ago taught that homo sapiens already existed before Adam; that Adam was not physically created, but only spiritually so (“God breathed into his lungs…”). Well, this scholar, Nahmanides, also proposed an interpretation of the very first verses of Genesis that might look startingly familiar to the modern reader. Dr. Schroeder writes:
So we have just seen a Jewish scholar pretty much lay out the Big Bang Theory 800 years before it was scientifically proposed!
Now, the very first sentence of the preceding section contains a very important piece of information. “Nahmanides taught that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain “kol yemot ha-olam” - all the ages and all the secrets of the world.”
So here we have Nahmanides teaching that the Genesis days were both 24 hour days and yet ages long. How is this seeming contradiction to be resolved? Dr. Schroeder, no slouch in the realm of physics, found a solution in Einstein’s theory of relativity. For those who aren’t too familiar, the theory of relativity has to do with the passage of time, which increases or decreases depending on relative velocity and gravity. In fact, at the speed of light, time ceases to exist. (It seems our long-standing conception of both God and eternity as “light” is more than just an aesthetic nicety.) Dr. Schroeder explains:
It would take much too long to provide the specifics here, which can be found in “The Science of God” (and, for a more focused and exhaustive account of the particulars of relativity, in “Genesis and the Big Bang”) but Dr. Schroeder dedicates a significant amount of time to taking the best scientific knowledge we have to date regarding the age of the universe, the development of our planet, the emergence of life, etc. and lining it up against the six days of creation in Genesis, and then applying the math to see if, indeed, those 14-16 billion years and 6 24 hour days of pre-human history are the same thing:
I’ll give you a second to pick your jaw up from the floor.
And I will interrupt here to suggest that you go to your local library or bookstore and find a copy of “The Science of God”, as the charted comparison of the days and details as found both in the Bible and modern science reveal an uncanny correlation. If you can read this and think that the authors of Genesis did not have access to some form of superhuman information, I don’t know what to say.
Now visualize a rolled up tape measure 7 layers thick. God sees the entire tape at once, man who lives on the graduations has to look back past all of them.
Adding fuel for thought:
Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—
A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/arj/v3/Lisle-ASC-fig8.jpg
**Fig. 8.**A cone surrounding the past light cone of p at an infinitesimal angle ϕ is defined as those events simultaneous with p.
F
farpinho
Guest
I would normally agree with you on that but still one question remains: Does the concept of “time” really apply to God or God’s outside the time and space and therefore God created time in the Big Bang?
B
buffalo
Guest
I submit He created the time frame and is outside that frame of reference but still can see it, manipulate it and enter it.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
Come May 23!
Come May 23!
E
edwest2
Guest
"The Time Question
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
From the Catholic Answers Library.
Peace,
Ed
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
From the Catholic Answers Library.
Peace,
Ed
A
AnthonySorensen
Guest
S
someperson555
Guest
no, actually darwinian evolution is far more believable than a story about two people created directly from dirt who ate from a magic fruit tree after they were tempted by a talking snake.
the book of genesis uses symbolism to describe man and his nature as well as his relationship to God (as you put it). but it must NOT be taken literally. the old testament uses a lot of metaphor and symbolism. for example, the floods never happened as it was described in genesis, historical evidence has proven that only a very small area was actually covered by water, (i forgot the exact name of the location). but its ludicrous to assert that there was a flood that actually covered the entire globe and that noah actually saved all the animals. anyway, the story of the garden symbolises that man is born with a fallible nature. it symbolises the life of each individual person, we are born innocent (yet fallible) and in the course of our lives we sin thereby fall out of grace and so on.
E
edwest2
Guest
Who told you it must not be taken literally? Man is born with Original Sin.
From the Catholic Answers Library:
"Real History
"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.
"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.
"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).
"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
Peace,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
Whenever a talking snake is mentioned in conjunction with a magic fruit tree …
I am reminded of the familiar ploy to upgrade the Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis so that they follow someone’s personal favorite theory in natural science. In my humble opinion, this is hilarious!
S
someperson555
Guest
that makes no sense, there is no “gene” for sin. it cannot be passed down hereditarily. the catechism contradicts itself if it claims this, since at another part it clearly states that:
“each human soul is created directly by God, it is NOT passed down from parent to offspring”,
that is in the catechism too, so how can you believe that a sin is passed down when the soul is created directly by God?
you cant say God creates us sinful, since that is a heresey
you cant say the sin is physical since that is a heresey
so man is not born sinful, we are born FALLIBLE theres a big difference. the eastern orthodox interpretation is correct in this. since they say that we are not born guilty, we merely inherit the EFFECTS of sin.
S
someperson555
Guest
there is a magic fruit tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,Whenever a talking snake is mentioned in conjunction with a magic fruit tree …
I am reminded of the familiar ploy to upgrade the Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis so that they follow someone’s personal favorite theory in natural science. In my humble opinion, this is hilarious!
apparently if you eat from it you somehow magically know good from evil…makes perfect sense…NOT.
and come on now, dont pretend you dont know about the talking snake.
you have no right to be sarcastic, geez, nothing annoys me more than sarcasm without intelligence. what you said is basically like me saying:
“the earth is flat DUH!”
“youre dumb if you believe the earth is round! stupid geologists, stupid scientists, they cant prove prove anything ever, dont they know the bible says different
”come on, you cant seriously believe this. it is creationism which is driving people away from Christianity. so frankly i dont blame people for becoming atheists after they are told by some fundies they have to believe the story of creation literally.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Some of Genesis is LITERALLY true.
There really was a man named Adam and a woman named Eve that are the parents of us all.
If you don’t believe that then you don’t believe Catholic teaching.
Now I don’t know when you would date Adam and Eve–but they are REAL.
And yes there really was some kind of flood–I don’t think it is necessary to believe that it covered the entire globe–it probably was a local flood.
Once you get to Abraham you can pretty well date things in Genesis.
I personally do not think that Neanderthals had souls but that modern man that were a product of Adam and eve did have souls.
In other words I think you can believe in evolution up to the creation of Adam and Eve.
If the Eucharist can be REAL beneath the appearances of bread and wine–then the Garden of Eden being REAL under the appearances of present day Iraq is a snap!
Angels having sex with women is hogwash!
I never have been able to understand those who either don’t believe anything the bible says or those who think that every sentence of the bible is literally true?! Both sides are equally deluded!
But I will tell you this–all the miracles of Jesus or literally true and YES he did resurrect from the dead with a glorified body!
if you don’t believe that you’ve got a great chance of making it to Hell!
There really was a man named Adam and a woman named Eve that are the parents of us all.
If you don’t believe that then you don’t believe Catholic teaching.
Now I don’t know when you would date Adam and Eve–but they are REAL.
And yes there really was some kind of flood–I don’t think it is necessary to believe that it covered the entire globe–it probably was a local flood.
Once you get to Abraham you can pretty well date things in Genesis.
I personally do not think that Neanderthals had souls but that modern man that were a product of Adam and eve did have souls.
In other words I think you can believe in evolution up to the creation of Adam and Eve.
If the Eucharist can be REAL beneath the appearances of bread and wine–then the Garden of Eden being REAL under the appearances of present day Iraq is a snap!
Angels having sex with women is hogwash!
I never have been able to understand those who either don’t believe anything the bible says or those who think that every sentence of the bible is literally true?! Both sides are equally deluded!
But I will tell you this–all the miracles of Jesus or literally true and YES he did resurrect from the dead with a glorified body!
if you don’t believe that you’ve got a great chance of making it to Hell!
T
triumphguy
Guest
So there should be evidence of this high impact meteor then.:coffeeread:
M
minichibi
Guest
Reconciling “science” and “religion” is so tiring… 
uch:
uch:
T
thistle
Guest
CCC 404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
CCC 405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
CCC 406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).
- Status