Did God create people before Adam and Eve?

[savedsinner]

Well, in either case, the point of the two stories at least in my mind are the two views of how God interacted in creation.
In one story, he is distant, and just say’s the word and it is created, while in the other version, he is a hands on God, creating a loving relationship with man. They are sharing two different aspects of God in the one act of creation.

The stories were passed down through the ages before Moses wrote them down under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
I think you would have to look at the different native American stories which seem to be telling the same story, but they are a little different in their content. They were passed down, and shared over thousands of years, yet they are very close in their content.

 

[Cory_G]

Would Noah’s wife be a descendant of Adam and Eve? How are we sure of that?

I don’t know. I thought we were.

If it was found out that she was not a decedent of Adam and Eve, I don’t think it would matter. If original sin was passed through, like genes, even if the mother didn’t have it, all decedents of Noah would since he was in the direct line from Adam (Genesis 5).

I just wrapped up my course work. I have an hour or so before dinner, I am going to research and I will post back in an hour or so.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I will have to do a little searching but I think St. Augustine kicked that thought around in the City of God.

Cave men and other similar beings come to mind. But when I get a little more time tonight or tomorrow I will dive into this more. Interesting topic!

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, in either case, the point of the two stories at least in my mind are the two views of how God interacted in creation.
In one story, he is distant, and just say’s the word and it is created, while in the other version, he is a hands on God, creating a loving relationship with man. They are sharing two different aspects of God in the one act of creation.

Brilliant!!! Simply Brilliant!!!

Note: “The measure of a man’s intelligence depends almost entirely on how much he agrees with you” - Mark Twain

 

[buffalo]

That’s all you got the Toledots?

Any points you would like to debate?

 

[redhen]

The Church teaches that this is an acceptable theory. BUT… these people would have died out by the time of Adam.

According to the Church, we must believe that Adam and Eve are ultimately our ancestors. Else, Original Sin would only be applied to those who are descendants of Adam and Eve and not to those descended from these soulless beings.

Well, there’s a problem then. Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for almost 200,000 years. The latest homo neanderthalis fossil is dated at approx. 28,000 y.a., and homo florensis at about 13,000 years ago. So you’re saying all these other recent hominids who had art, burials, speech, culture, had no immortal souls?

 

[COPLAND_3]

Well, there’s a problem then. Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for almost 200,000 years. The latest homo neanderthalis fossil is dated at approx. 28,000 y.a., and homo florensis at about 13,000 years ago. So you’re saying all these other recent hominids who had art, burials, speech, culture, had no immortal souls?

Yes, I would venture to say that they did not have immortal souls but are similar to those of animals.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, there’s a problem then. Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for almost 200,000 years. The latest homo neanderthalis fossil is dated at approx. 28,000 y.a., and homo florensis at about 13,000 years ago. So you’re saying all these other recent hominids who had art, burials, speech, culture, had no immortal souls?

You might ask yourself how every human can trace one gene back to the same individual person? What is it called, the mycardial gene?

 

[NotWorthy]

So you’re saying all these other recent hominids who had art, burials, speech, culture, had no immortal souls?

I didn’t know what had to have an immortal soul to have any of these traits.

 

[Cory_G]

Well, there’s a problem then. Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for almost 200,000 years. The latest homo neanderthalis fossil is dated at approx. 28,000 y.a., and homo florensis at about 13,000 years ago. So you’re saying all these other recent hominids who had art, burials, speech, culture, had no immortal souls?

I could be wrong, but from what I remember reading dating old fossils is an art not a science. Just like finger printing, something that is subjective that is passed off as an exact science.

 

[Island_Oak]

I could be wrong, but from what I remember reading dating old fossils is an art not a science. Just like finger printing, something that is subjective that is passed off as an exact science.

And the fairy tale allegory about 1 man and 1 woman created out of dust and the parents of all mankind–thus no contemporaries to record all ofthese “facts” is not the least bit subjective or unscientific…

 

[NotWorthy]

And the fairy tale allegory about 1 man and 1 woman created out of dust and the parents of all mankind–thus no contemporaries to record all ofthese “facts” is not the least bit subjective or unscientific…

Well, of course its unscientific. But at least we aren’t passing it off as science…

 

[redhen]

I didn’t know what had to have an immortal soul to have any of these traits.

Well, burial grave goods indicates the concept of an afterlife, does it not?

But since these archaic humans had no immortal souls, homo sapiens could merrily slaughter them without it being considered murder. Am I reading you correctly?

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, burial grave goods indicates the concept of an afterlife, does it not?

Yes, just as every tribe in the world has had a concept of an after-life. That, as you well know, doesn’t make it necessarily so. Group agreement does not create truth.

But since these archaic humans had no immortal souls, homo sapiens could merrily slaughter them without it being considered murder. Am I reading you correctly?

I would think not. Look at someone and tell me how you KNOW they have a soul.

But even if its obvious that they are soul-less, is it not sinful simply to go around and slaughter any livestock simply for the joy in it?

One more note: Wouldn’t this line of thought be better placed in another thread? The OP was questioning whether others were created in Genesis 1, whereas Adam and Eve were created in Genesis 2. This line of thought, though it sounds in line with the OP’s question title, is totally irrelevant to the topic.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Well, burial grave goods indicates the concept of an afterlife, does it not?

But since these archaic humans had no immortal souls, homo sapiens could merrily slaughter them without it being considered murder. Am I reading you correctly?

I am no expert in the area of cave men and Neanderthals but from what I have found concerning it is that there is no proof that they had religious beliefs, scientists are totally uncertain about it. So we could sit here and debate whether they had souls or not but I am not going to rely totally on your speculations and premesis that there is proof of religion when in fact it is purely speculative.

en.allexperts.com/q/Anthropology-2291/neanderthal-religion.htm

The evidence on Neandertal religion is equivocal. A lot of what was once considered evidence for this is now believed to be natural phenomena misinterpreted or over-interpreted by archaeologists.
Head Cult: some isolated finds of Neandertal skulls (e.g., Monte Circeo) were once thought to indicate a religious belief. Now we think these reflect the separation of skulls from the rest of the skeleton by geological processes or animal scavengers.
Cave Bear Cult: Now thought to reflect geological mixing of cave bear bones and human artifacts.
Burial: Many Neandertal bodies appear to have been buried, but this could as much be for hygenic reasons as for religious ones. Claims of “grave goods” usually involved animal bones and artifacts very similar to those in the surrounding sediments, which makes is possible that they were accidentally juxtaposed with the Neandertal skeletons during burial.
This is about it for >90% of the evidence. But, keep in mind that Neandertals were very intelligent, social creatures with brains as large as our own. Personally, I would be astonished if they lacked some form of religious belief. The problem is that there is no clear and convincing evidence for it.

 

[KingAlfred]

I consider the story of Adam and Eve to be a myth. It’s a great allegory, but not much else. Its bottom-line: don’t defy God.

 

[Cory_G]

Would anyone be able to pass along some links regarding the Catholic teaching on preadamites, beside what is in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I did numerous searches, but the only Catholic teachings I can find are reproductions of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I don’t full understand what is written the encyclopedia, so I am looking for something that expands on it.

 

[Bran]

Recently I’ve been delving into the Church’s stance on evolution and its implications for the interpretation of Genesis and original sin. From what I have read, I get the impression that theologians are trying to work-out a reconciliation between modern science and the scriptural account of creation and the fall.

Our current Catechism contains Augustine’s theory of original sin and the origin of humankind, which is irreconcilable with modern science. According to scientists, modern homo sapiens arose in Africa about 150 thousand years ago and spread throughout the world in a series of mass migrations. And according to geneticist FJ Ayala, the population of homo sapiens has never been below 10 000.

We need to understand the implications of evolution. We cannot simply say that human beings are physically descended from lower life forms, but at some point (no more than 10 000 years ago according to the genealogies in the Bible) God inserted a rational soul into Adam and Eve and the rest of soulless humankind went extinct. What about the humans who have been in North America for about 11 000 years? Or the aborigines of Australia and New Guinea who have been there for about 50 000 years? And according to evolution all life can trace itself through an unbroken lineage to the first single-celled organisms. So Adam and Eve had parents - were their parents soulless humans?

The need for redemption through Christ does not depend on common descent from Adam and Eve. All humans are united not in Adam and Eve, but in the small group of humans that inhabited Africa 150 000 years ago. The Church needs to develop a theology that is in harmony with the facts of modern science, because it is embarrassing that the Catechism says that all humans are descended from one couple and that many Catholics still believe this.

Let us pray that Catholic theologians work quickly so that our antiquated Augustinian theories do not continue to serve as a stumbling block that prevents scientifically-educated people from finding Christ in His holy Church.

Read this article in the Jesuit magazine “America” to see why descent from Adam and Eve is not a necessary component of Catholic doctrine: americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1205

Peace.

 

[Cory_G]

The need for redemption through Christ does not depend on common descent from Adam and Eve. All humans are united not in Adam and Eve, but in the small group of humans that inhabited Africa 150 000 years ago. The Church needs to develop a theology that is in harmony with the facts of modern science, because it is embarrassing that the Catechism says that all humans are descended from one couple and that many Catholics still believe this.

The problem here is that you are using the word fact when nothing you have stated is a fact but merely theory. Science is always changing and correcting itself. What is scientific truth today may not be next year.

 

[Bran]

Electricity is a theory too. So is gravity. They are also facts. Just like it’s a fact that all life arose through the process of evolution, and that our species is over a 100 000 years old and originated in Africa.