Did we literally come from Adam and Eve?

[Hermione]

I have read here catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp that the Church teaches that Adam and Eve are our literal parents.

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).

Does this mean that Adam and Eve had children, and they in turn had children? (i.e. there would have been marriages between relatives)

Or can we believe that after Adam and Eve got kicked out of paradise, the generation of future human beings did not come from relationships between relatives.

Thanks!

 

[Ahimsa]

Perhaps Adam and Eve’s children intermarried with other existing “exactly-like-Adam-and-Eve-but-lacking-a-human-soul” creatures. Then, the children of those unions would still be descendants of Adam/Eve, but they would also have non-Adam/Eve ancestry.

 

[RichSpidizzy]

To answer your question, check out Jim’s reply to a question in the Ask an Apologist forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38567

The answer is that Cain married his sister (ewwwww):
Jim Blackburn:

Although not explicitly recorded in Scripture, Adam and Eve had other children, including daughters – Cain married his sister. This was necessary (for a time) to propagate the human race. St. Augustine explained this in The City of God, book XV (see chapter 16). (Note: When the necessity for sibling marriage ended so, too, did God’s allowance of it.)

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Hermione,

Have you read any medical science journals about “mitochondrial eve”? Mitochondrial organels are within each human cell. They transform food into energy for the body. Mitochondrial DNA, unlike all other cellular DNA, is duplicated only from a person’s mother. There is no gene DNA recombination from the father’s sperm in the formation of mitochondrial organels. Your mitochondrial organels are exact clones from your mother’s mitochondrial organels. Different liniages have slightly varying mitochondrial DNA from mutation through time. Scientists have considered the average DNA mutation and tracked mitochondrial DNA back to one and only one woman about, according to their calculations on mutations, 60,000 years ago. This is far closer to a biblica Eve than past calculations that first man originated millions of years ago.

Animal mitochondrial DNA also is duplicated through the mother’s DNA only. Scientist have found no original source in any of the animal mitochondrial DNA they have studied.

According to the recent discoveries of modern science there is one mother of all mankind.

I thought you might be interested.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Ahimsa:

Perhaps Adam and Eve’s children intermarried with other existing “exactly-like-Adam-and-Eve-but-lacking-a-human-soul” creatures. Then, the children of those unions would still be descendants of Adam/Eve, but they would also have non-Adam/Eve ancestry.

It is dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that the whole of mankind arose from two people. If children resulted from other grandparents, that would no longer be the case. I seem to remember a scientific study that traced all the human race back to one female but not yet to one male. I don’t need that study to believe that we all came from just one set of parents.

 

[carol_marie]

I believe we literaly came from Adam & Eve - it’s what the Bible says.

 

[marineboy]

when i was in college i studies the issue–father william most in “catholic apologetics today” deals with the issue of polygenism and monogenism–he doe argue that in reading Pius XII’s argument in humani generis that it says–“it is in no way apparent how this can be reconciled with the faith.” he goes on to say that some thelogians couldargue that if one ay we couldfind a way to reconcile it to the faith then it could be acceptable to belioeve in polygenism

 

[Ghosty]

It is dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that the whole of mankind arose from two people. If children resulted from other grandparents, that would no longer be the case.

Not quite. If one set of my grandparents is Adam and Eve, and another set are human animals without human souls, then I still claim my descent directly from Adam and Eve. The Church simply says that “all true humans claim direct descent from Adam and Eve” and that no true humans DON’T claim descent from Adam and Eve (meaning there weren’t multiple “first human souls” beyond Adam and Eve). If my mother is the daughter of Adam and Eve, and my father is the son of animal souls in human bodies, then this still holds absolutely true. The Church does teach that true humanity derives only from Adam and Eve, as they were the first man and woman with human souls, but the Church is undecided on how our biology was transmitted. Again, if I were to marry a human-bodied-animal-soul, my children would be true humans with human souls, as would their children, and one could say that.

I seem to remember a scientific study that traced all the human race back to one female but not yet to one male. I don’t need that study to believe that we all came from just one set of parents.

You’re thinking of Mitochondrial Eve, but that’s not the same thing as an absolute Eve. The woman who was Mitochondrial Eve is simply one of the women we claim descent from, not the first woman. Mitochrial DNA is only passed through females, so if my grandmother only had daughters, then all my cousins on her side and myself would share her as our “Mitochondrial Eve”. That doesn’t mean she is the first female of our line, far from it. The biological “Mitochondrial Eve” shared a different “Mitochondrial Eve” with her brothers than we do today.

 

[Hermione]

The idea of the mitochondrial Eve is interseting, but…

Say there were 3 Eves, one of them had only male children, so her mitochondrial DNA was wiped out from history. The other two had some male and some female children, but then the female children of Eve2 died from another genetic abnormality she passed down to them… so Eve3 ends up being the mitochondrial Eve without being the first woman.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A very early fragment of Genesis found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (but suppressed by the Feminists) reveals what really happened:

20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man. 21 So the LORD God said to Adam, “I see you need a partner” 22 And Adam said, “Yes, Lord. Make me a partner with legs up to here, with long hair, and – well You know.” 23 And the Lord said, “Yes, Adam, I know. What else?”
24 And Adam said, “She should seek only to please me. She should laugh at all my jokes, no matter how many times I tell them. She should be the perfect partner.”

25 And the Lord said, “I can do that, Adam, but it will cost you an arm and a leg.”

1. And Adam thought it over. "How much could I get for just a rib?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Shinobu]

Steven Merten:

Hello Hermione,

Have you read any medical science journals about “mitochondrial eve”? Mitochondrial organels are within each human cell. They transform food into energy for the body. Mitochondrial DNA, unlike all other cellular DNA, is duplicated only from a person’s mother. There is no gene DNA recombination from the father’s sperm in the formation of mitochondrial organels. Your mitochondrial organels are exact clones from your mother’s mitochondrial organels. Different liniages have slightly varying mitochondrial DNA from mutation through time. Scientists have considered the average DNA mutation and tracked mitochondrial DNA back to one and only one woman about, according to their calculations on mutations, 60,000 years ago. This is far closer to a biblica Eve than past calculations that first man originated millions of years ago.

Animal mitochondrial DNA also is duplicated through the mother’s DNA only. Scientist have found no original source in any of the animal mitochondrial DNA they have studied.

According to the recent discoveries of modern science there is one mother of all mankind.

I thought you might be interested.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

I think I remember watching a program on this. Absolutely fascinating nontheless. Thank you for shareing that with all of us

 

[carol_marie]

cute Vern, very cute.

I like the other one that goes like this…

God created Adam, took one look at him and said, "Oh I think I can do better than this… so He made Eve.

 

[exoflare]

carol marie:

cute Vern, very cute.

I like the other one that goes like this…

God created Adam, took one look at him and said, "Oh I think I can do better than this… so He made Eve.

LOL I guess you never heard of the term “sophomore slump”?

ducking

 

[tuopaolo]

Ahimsa:

Perhaps Adam and Eve’s children intermarried with other existing “exactly-like-Adam-and-Eve-but-lacking-a-human-soul” creatures.

No, that would be the sin of bestiality.

@Ghosty

It’s impossible to have a human body without an associated human soul. What makes a body human is the very human soul that in-forms it. A pro-life spokesman for the US Bishops made this point while I was in attendance once.

 

[tuopaolo]

Hermione:

Does this mean that Adam and Eve had children, and they in turn had children? (i.e. there would have been marriages between relatives)

Yes that is what it means. Marraige between brothers and sisters is not contrary to the natural law. It’s an open question as to whether it is contrary to divine law but whether it is or not, it is contrary to ecclesiastical law and the practice of the Church is to never grant a dispensation from it.

Or can we believe that after Adam and Eve got kicked out of paradise, the generation of future human beings did not come from relationships between relatives.

No.

 

[Ghosty]

It’s impossible to have a human body without an associated human soul. What makes a body human is the very human soul that in-forms it. A pro-life spokesman for the US Bishops made this point while I was in attendance once.

That isn’t a matter of doctrine or dogma, I’m afraid. You’re thinking purely in holistic terms of “human”, in which I agree with you 100%. If you’re talking biologically, however, it’s a completely different matter, and one that is open for debate. To quote Humani Generis:

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

If there was no such thing as human biology without a human soul, then there would be no need to make the point of saying “true men”. By it’s very implication there are “untrue men”. The point that the spokesman was likely addressing was the question of fetuses at certain stages not having human souls, which until very recently was a stance that could be held by the orthodox and faithful (Thomas Aquinas made this argument, for example). That has since been over ruled by the Church. Also, we are not to believe that anyone today is “unsouled”, or not descended from the First Parents. It is perfectly acceptable to believe, however, that there was a time when there were creatures biologically identical to humans who did not yet possess the human soul and intellect, as the soul is not a biological construct. To further quote Humani Generis:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

Again the distinction is made between the origins of the human body, and the placement of the human soul within it. I remind you that Humani Generis is a Papal Encyclical, and the teachings in it have not been overturned in any way. We are free to take either opinion, namely that the first body was created at the same instant as the first soul, or that it was developed seperately and from pre-existing stock (read: human-like animals). That is the Pope’s direct word on the subject.

No.

Yes, we can, so long as we don’t deny that all humans descend directly from Adam and Eve. We are not obliged by the Church to believe that we come from incestuous relationships, although that is one of a few possible explainations of our origins. We have a choice in the matter, and we are expected to make an informed decision based on reason and faith. Theologically, informed minds can disagree within certain very clear parameters.

 

[LittleLes]

Steven Merten:

Hello Hermione,

Have you read any medical science journals about “mitochondrial eve”? Mitochondrial organels are within each human cell. They transform food into energy for the body. Mitochondrial DNA, unlike all other cellular DNA, is duplicated only from a person’s mother. There is no gene DNA recombination from the father’s sperm in the formation of mitochondrial organels. Your mitochondrial organels are exact clones from your mother’s mitochondrial organels. Different liniages have slightly varying mitochondrial DNA from mutation through time. Scientists have considered the average DNA mutation and tracked mitochondrial DNA back to one and only one woman about, according to their calculations on mutations, 60,000 years ago. This is far closer to a biblica Eve than past calculations that first man originated millions of years ago.

Animal mitochondrial DNA also is duplicated through the mother’s DNA only. Scientist have found no original source in any of the animal mitochondrial DNA they have studied.

According to the recent discoveries of modern science there is one mother of all mankind.

I thought you might be interested.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

Hi Steven,

I’m afraid that the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis, which indicates that all mankind sprang from one mother is rather questionable but popular with the more fundamentalist groups who want to claim it is correct.

I do poorly with URLs, so if you’d like to read up on this controversy, type in under search:
Howard Hughes Medical Institute ask a scientist general biology eve. Sorry it’s long, but it will bring you to a good article with references.

LittleLes

 

[AlanFromWichita]

My high school children were taught in their religion classes in Catholic high school (under Bishop Thomas Olmstead btw), that Genesis is to be interpreted figuratively.

Go figure.

Alan

 

[tuopaolo]

Ghosty:

That isn’t a matter of doctrine or dogma, I’m afraid.

No it is a matter of doctrine and dogma. It has been infallibly defined by the Church that the soul is the form of the body.

We are not obliged by the Church to believe that we come from incestuous relationships, although that is one of a few possible explainations of our origins.

The relationships were not incestuous since incest in moral theology is defined as sexual relations between a man and woman who are related to one another by blood in a degree that is prohibited by Church law, divine law, or natural law. In the case of Adam and Eve’s children, their marriages were not so prohibited and so it was not incest.

We have a choice in the matter,

Yes we do. And my choice is: “As for me and my house, we shall follow the Lord.”

We can choose to be docile to the Church’s teaching and tradition or try to engage in gymnastics to make it fit secular evolution ideology. I choose the former.

and we are expected to make an informed decision based on reason and faith.

Reason is supposed to be enlightened by faith. Have you read Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II?

Please read the articles here to learn about the teaching of the Church:
www.kolbecenter.org

 

[Ghosty]

No it is a matter of doctrine and dogma. It has been infallibly defined by the Church that the soul is the form of the body.

It’s not as simple as all that. Are you saying that Humani Generis goes against Church doctrine when it says that the human body could have come from pre-existing living matter? Answer this directly, please.

The relationships were not incestuous since incest in moral theology is defined as sexual relations between a man and woman who are related to one another by blood in a degree that is prohibited by Church law, divine law, or natural law. In the case of Adam and Eve’s children, their marriages were not so prohibited and so it was not incest.

I was refering to the common definition, which is relations between close relatives. We are not required to believe that there were relations between close relatives, though we certainly can. Furthermore, our biology shows that such relations did not occur, but that’s a matter of science and not faith.

Yes we do. And my choice is: “As for me and my house, we shall follow the Lord.”

You do realize that you just implied that Humani Generis does not follow the Lord. Again, it says that we can faithfully believe that the human body is from pre-existing life forms. I’m not the one who’s trashing Papal decrees here, nor am I trashing Scripture.

Reason is supposed to be enlightened by faith. Have you read Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II?

Yep, many times. Your point? It seems that you are arguing for faith without reason, because you are so adamant that what reason shows us, which the Pope has said is indeed in line with faith, is false.

Please read the articles here to learn about the teaching of the Church:
www.kolbecenter.org

Funny, what I don’t see there is Impramatur and Nihil Obstat. Guess where you can find such an authoritative stamp:
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Funny enough, the Kolbe Center “responds” to Karl Keating’s (the head of these Forums) “false beliefs”, yet the tracts published by Catholic Answers have official clearance from Church officials. The Kolbe Center’s views are within orthodoxy, but so is theisitic evolution. Why do you have such a difficult time accepting that we share the same roof, and we both are nestled safely in the bosom of orthodoxy? I’m not saying your views on Creation are incorrect, only that your presentation that we must believe as you do is incorrect. Humani Generis supports my assertion.