Creation Story

  • Thread starter Thread starter dominikus28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dominikus28

Guest
It says in the bible that Adam and Eve commited the first sin. Those this literally refer to 2 people or not? What exactly does it refer to?
I read Genesis and I was trying to match science theory with it. I came up with this: when apes evolved into humans, at the moment Adam and Eve were banished from Heaven, 2 apes inhertied their souls. From here they lived their lives.
This theory is obviously flawed. How would itt of happened?
 
dominikus28 said:
It says in the bible that Adam and Eve commited the first sin. Those this literally refer to 2 people or not? What exactly does it refer to?
I read Genesis and I was trying to match science theory with it. I came up with this: when apes evolved into humans, at the moment Adam and Eve were banished from Heaven, 2 apes inhertied their souls. From here they lived their lives.
This theory is obviously flawed. How would itt of happened?
Click to expand...
Why do two apes have to inherit their lives? Maybe the first (and only) apes who evolved into man and woman were Adam and Eve. From there, the two humans were separated from the ape brothers and sisters.

Why couldn’t Adam and Eve have had children, who had children, etc., etc.
 
God created animals before he created humans. Why is it impossible for God to create a man and woman after the apes? O ye of little faith.
 
dominikus28 said:
It says in the bible that Adam and Eve commited the first sin. Those this literally refer to 2 people or not? What exactly does it refer to?
I read Genesis and I was trying to match science theory with it. I came up with this: when apes evolved into humans, at the moment Adam and Eve were banished from Heaven, 2 apes inhertied their souls. From here they lived their lives.
This theory is obviously flawed. How would itt of happened?
Click to expand...
What about the bottle-neck theory? Every heard of it? Some scientist are able to show that we as human beings come from 1 woman. In fact it is believed she was from Africa. We all share the same mother. Now how much harder is it to jump from there being one woman to there also being one man. Hence you have the Creation story of Adam and Eve.

It is not a fact that they descended from apes. That is simple a theory. Just as Evolution is a theory. It’s not a law of science so you don’t have to believe it. Now the law of gravity you have to believe. 😉
 
I see no inherent conflict in Adam and Eve being specific individuals and the eveolutionary theory as I understand it.

Personally, I find it stupendously awesome that God could guide billions of years of the development of the universe to form the Earth. Then guide the hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution to result in a single couple who were able to choose between obediance or disobediance.

God is truly an awsome God.
 
rpp said:
I see no inherent conflict in Adam and Eve being specific individuals and the eveolutionary theory as I understand it.

Personally, I find it stupendously awesome that God could guide billions of years of the development of the universe to form the Earth. Then guide the hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution to result in a single couple who were able to choose between obediance or disobediance.

God is truly an awsome God.
Click to expand...
ITA
 
dominikus28 said:
It says in the bible that Adam and Eve commited the first sin. Those this literally refer to 2 people or not? What exactly does it refer to?
I read Genesis and I was trying to match science theory with it. I came up with this: when apes evolved into humans, at the moment Adam and Eve were banished from Heaven, 2 apes inhertied their souls. From here they lived their lives.
This theory is obviously flawed. How would itt of happened?
Click to expand...
So who made the apes? If it was God why could God have not made the humans? If it was not God who developed conscious and soul, or are you with out one of these ?
 
rpp said:
I see no inherent conflict in Adam and Eve being specific individuals and the eveolutionary theory as I understand it.

Personally, I find it stupendously awesome that God could guide billions of years of the development of the universe to form the Earth. Then guide the hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution to result in a single couple who were able to choose between obediance or disobediance.

God is truly an awsome God.
Click to expand...
Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the same God.

These two points have to be reconciled with evolution.
  1. Preternatural gifts
  2. Eve coming from the side of Adam.
This and our faith point to Adam and Eve being supernaturally created by God and inserted into the timeline anywhere He wished, regardless of what else may or may not have been happening here on earth at the time.
 
kell0618 said:
God created animals before he created humans. Why is it impossible for God to create a man and woman after the apes? O ye of little faith.
Click to expand...
Actually, the one who is of little faith is the same who prefers to appeal to the opinion of the majority, being easily scared when a 60-year-old half bald white haired professor flashes his Ph.D. in your face, as opposed to defending the historical content of Genesis 1-11

Revelation 21:8: “But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

This includes actually reading what the professors say about evolution and not giving in to the popular scientific opinion.
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "359 “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”[224]
St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”[225]

360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:[226]
O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.[227]

390 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.[264] 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.[265]

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/part1_2.html
 
I think that the apes are given too much credit for creation. The dolphins must be beside themselves.
Anyway, the apes could have been ancestors of Cromagdens and Neanderthals which are two different species that coexisted for a while. Take your pick on how God did what He did.

mdcpensive1
 
How long did it take for wolves to become dogs?

100-200 years
500-1000 years
1000-5000
5000 -50000
50000 1000000
100000 Plus
 
mdcpensive1 said:
I think that the apes are given too much credit for creation. The dolphins must be beside themselves.
Click to expand...
On an almost completely unrelated topic, there is a song called “The Monkey” where the monkey ‘speaks his mind,’ explaining how he is appalled by the idea that man could be descended from him (I think it is a Dave Bartholomew song, but it’s performed by many, especially New Orleans musicians).
In a quick websearch I found the lyrics here: ireggae.com/themonkey.htm

But to get back on point, I have also heard that geneticists can trace human genes back to one woman and one man, but that the one man is considerably younger than the woman, something like 20,000 years. I could be way off on that number but the point is that they didn’t live at the same time as each other. So how is this to be explained? Noah. We are not descended directly from Adam and Eve, but through Noah, his three sons, and their wives. (Presumably four women, but it isn’t explicit.) Thus all male genes come from Noah, while all female genes come from the (probably) biologically unrelated women, and hence are traced back to Eve.

I should point out that I heard this from someone who read someone else’s writings on this theory, and therefore I have no way to back any of this up.

AND also that I don’t really buy into this theory, as I’m not one that holds to the Noah story as fully literal. But I thought it might be interesting for this thread to post this idea.

Peace
 
First of all, you’ve established a firm credit with the story, “The monkey speaks his mind”!!! Dirty Dozen does a fabulous rendition of that.

But… we MUST descend from Adam in order to validate the doctrine of Original Sin. St. Paul is clear that we inherited this condition through Adam, not Eve.

P.S. Now, I’m going to have that song going through my mind all day. Thanks! 👍

“The Monkey Speaks his Mind!!! Yeeeeaaaaahhhhh!”
 
As a Catholic you must believe…
“…that this sin of Adam, which is one in origin and is transmitted by propagation, not by imitiation…”-Council of Trent, 5th session, Decree in Original Sin (1546).
This would be considered an infallible definition.

What does it mean? This statement was an outlining of the argument against Pelagianism. Pelagian believed sin was only by imitiation, that is, we learn sin from each other. This is refuted by Trent, who says Original Sin is “propagated” through humanity. Therefore this is the intention of the canon, to refute Pelagianism.

Now, this leaves us with the issue of exactly what “propagation” means. Augustine would have had a biological view of it, we pass it on almost with our genes. However, more modern understanding would think of it as something deeper: Propagation happening through the communion of all humanity which we have, although which is obscured from us by sin itself.

In short, it would in my opinion not be neccessary to say we all descended from Adam and Eve. One can hold the Dogma of Original Sin, and propagation, but through the communion of humanity, in a way which at this stage is unseen by us, yet we understand exists through communion theology.
 
cialovesyou said:
As a Catholic you must believe…
“…that this sin of Adam, which is one in origin and is transmitted by propagation, not by imitation…”-Council of Trent, 5th session, Decree in Original Sin (1546).
This would be considered an infallible definition.

What does it mean? This statement was an outlining of the argument against Pelagianism. Pelagian believed sin was only by imitiation, that is, we learn sin from each other. This is refuted by Trent, who says Original Sin is “propagated” through humanity. Therefore this is the intention of the canon, to refute Pelagianism.

Now, this leaves us with the issue of exactly what “propagation” means. Augustine would have had a biological view of it, we pass it on almost with our genes. However, more modern understanding would think of it as something deeper: Propagation happening through the communion of all humanity which we have, although which is obscured from us by sin itself.

In short, it would in my opinion not be necessary to say we all descended from Adam and Eve. One can hold the Dogma of Original Sin, and propagation, but through the communion of humanity, in a way which at this stage is unseen by us, yet we understand exists through communion theology.
Click to expand...
What is bing done here is the words in Genesis being minced like the protestants do the Gospel according to St. John, Chapter 6. It isn’t at all important where we come from as long as we know where we are headed. This topic can not lead us to Christ or Heaven. Remember the narrow road, this isn’t it.
 
mgrobertson79 said:
What is bing done here is the words in Genesis being minced like the protestants do the Gospel according to St. John, Chapter 6. It isn’t at all important where we come from as long as we know where we are headed. This topic can not lead us to Christ or Heaven. Remember the narrow road, this isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Sometimes as you walk down the narrow road, there are people who are walking the other way. You ask them, “Where are you going?” And their reply is, “Well, this road goes nowhere, see. They’ve proven it all wrong, Darwin and all. You might as well turn off this narrow road, because it seems a whole lot easier going the other way.” You inquire further and they respond that Genesis can’t be true, and therefore there is doubt on the rest of the story.

I guess my point is that this mincing of words is just the topic of discussion among those of us as we walk together down the narrow path, and more importantly, if we don’t think about these things how can we expect to answer those we pass who have turned and gone the other way because of these questions?

Peace
 
I want to stress that I am going way out on a limb while theologically speculating, so please critique my ideas and logic. I will gladly step aside for more learned and articulate individuals.

After reading this thread this morning, I was pondering on this topic and an idea came to me. Does Genesis ever explicitly say that Adam and Eve were the only humans God created for the Garden of Eden? Could there have been more than one man and woman? The reason that this might be possible is that the only way for man to be expelled from that paradise is to have sinned. Therefore, Adam and Eve were expelled as Genesis tells us, then they had a bunch of kids and a line of descendants in whom original sin was ‘propagated.’ But a few days after Adam and Eve were sent out, so were Michael and Nancy, and later Julia and Marcus, then Nathan and Marcia who didn’t meet until after the garden. Each of these hypothetical couples created lines of descendants who inherited original sin, because in order for their descendants to be here interacting on Earth and not inside the locked Garden of Eden, their parents must have sinned and been expelled.

What I understand that Tradition teaches we must believe is that all humans have original sin that we have inherited from our original parents, who are named Adam and Eve in Genesis. But essentially those original parents are just humans who sinned against God and were expelled. Hence there are multiple lines of people who are all descended from parents who committed an original sin. This would help explain how Cain is able to leave the land where his parents were living and find a wife.

Does this make sense to anybody else? Again, I am just speculating, and I only just came up with this less than an hour ago, so I am still threshing it out in my mind.

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top