Creation

[Gorgias]

What if there were actually LOTS of ancient ancestors at various stages of evolution walking around the planet doing their mating thing…and then one day, God “created” Adam and Even by giving a pair of them HUMAN souls instead of animal souls.

Right.

This is one of the possible solutions that’s proposed to resolve the dilemma of scientific inquiry into human origins vis-a-vis the Catholic teaching of monogenesis through Adam and Eve.

It’s possible, but isn’t (yet?) part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Until (and unless) the Church decides that this is its interpretation of the theology and science of the beginnings of humanity, it would be futile to assert that this is true. (Fun to argue for it, of course, but not possible to assert independently as a theological truth)

 

[simpleas]

Not according to the Catholic Church.

But wasn’t this declared in a time in church history that did not have the scientific theory we know today?

Yes I suppose that Adam and Eve could have been married, and then after sin came, it took many many years for humans to realise they should be married to each other and raise children within a structured family.

 

[simpleas]

What if there were actually LOTS of ancient ancestors at various stages of evolution walking around the planet doing their mating thing…and then one day, God “created” Adam and Even by giving a pair of them HUMAN souls instead of animal souls.

That was sort of what I was trying to say in post # 10.

Maybe it’s easier for the 21st century person to think about evolution of man kind with all the knowledge we have aquired. That God is still very much the creator of everything, and gave us the soul when we were ready.
It makes more sense( to me and my upside downside logic) that there were “peoples” around at the time of our first parents, that when they came to have the image of God, knowledge and curiosity to know God, and sinned, they had others around them to help see what they were to do as a creature made in the image of God, rather than just a creature.
But then I feel bad for the souless creature…

 

[Dick_Fischer]

If you all could come to Washington, DC I would be happy to give you a tour through the Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian Institute’s Museum of Natural History where I am a docent and show you six million years of human ancestry culminating in modern human beings beginning about 200,000 years ago. The biblical Adam, judging from the description in Genesis, lived in the Neolithic period no earlier than 10,000 years ago and was the progenitor of the Semitic race, not the human race. I know this revelation is a long time in coming, nevertheless, a mid course correction is long overdue. Read my book, Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham.

 

[Gorgias]

Dick,

Welcome to CAF!

I would be happy to … show you six million years of human ancestry culminating in modern human beings beginning about 200,000 years ago.

What’s the measuring stick, then, for calling those who lived 200K years ago “modern human beings”? What distinguishes them from their 200K+1 year-old ancestors whom you are not identifying as “modern human beings”?

The biblical Adam, judging from the description in Genesis, lived in the Neolithic period no earlier than 10,000 years ago

This assertion proceeds from what data? The ages of the patriarchs, as recorded in Genesis?

and was the progenitor of the Semitic race, not the human race.

That’s quite interesting, since Eve “was the mother of all living.” Certainly, you might make hay with the question of Cain’s potential adversaries; however, asserting that there were humans who proceeded from someone other than Adam leads to distinct theological problems. Are these non-Adamic humans inheritors of sin? If not, then do they require a savior as we sons and daughters of Adam do? If they do inherit original sin, though, doesn’t this suggest that God is unjust, since He would have lumped into sinful humanity not only those who proceed from Adam but also those who do not? Your assertion is interesting, but not easily defended…

Read my book, Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham.

Since I hope you haven’t joined us here simply in order to advertise your book, perhaps I might suggest that you sketch out your argument here for us?

 

[Dick_Fischer]

Round figures are approximations. Homo sapiens followed Homo heidelbergensis who followed Homo erectus, etc. However, paleoanthropology is not my field. The Neolithic Period contains the kinds of things that Genesis lists such as farming, livestock, tents, stringed musical instruments, implements of bronze that are mentioned prior to the flood. The Old Stone Age has long passed by the time we get to Adam’s generations. We can discern that just from reading the book of Genesis. The theological problems are largely generated by theologians, the problem does not lie with the inspired text. Adam’s sin was one of disobedience. He had a covenant relationship. He began an era of accountability in my opinion. Since Adam, we all are accountable, prior to Adam there was no penalty. There was a time God “winked at.”

Actually the ages of the patriarchs look to be fairly decent as far as I can tell although they vary between the Masoretic text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. My concern has been establishing the historicity of the Genesis narrative such that from all the evidence I have been able to accumulate, Adam fits in a comfortable niche at about 7,000 years ago in southern Mesopotamia. Everything else falls into place if you use that time and place. The world was populated in the tens of millions by that time. The aborigines have lived in Australia for about 40,000 years, for example,