Do you believe in Adam and Eve?

[Hans_W]

One of the problems I have with the Adam and Eve story is where do Neanderthals fit in? I’ve done DNA testing at the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project, and they determined that 2.1% of my genome was composed of Neanderthal DNA which shows that some of my distant ancestors were Neanderthals. Most people with ancestors outside of Africa have some Neanderthal DNA showing that humans interbred with the Neanderthals. So were both the Neanderthals and the Homo sapiens sapiens (humans) descended from Adam and Eve?

Also the Genesis stories seems rather confuses. In Genesis 1:24-26, God created animals first and then He created man:

But Genesis 2: 15-19 says that God created man first and then created animals:

These two version of creation cannot both be true. So why should we believe either one?

That’s a typical example of what happens if you dissect Genesis with logic and science. Everything fits nicely. God made Adam and Eve. And then you discover that you have Neanderthal DNA. Your neighbour hasn’t got Neanderthal DNA and all your scientific-theological theories break down. Your scientific reasoning tells you that you need to find a passage in the Bible or the Catechism which can explain that. And you spend sleepless nights until you can mesh the two together.

Can’t we stop treating the Bible like a scientific textbook?

 

[grannymh]

One of the problems I have with the Adam and Eve story is where do Neanderthals fit in? I’ve done DNA testing at the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project, and they determined that 2.1% of my genome was composed of Neanderthal DNA which shows that some of my distant ancestors were Neanderthals. Most people with ancestors outside of Africa have some Neanderthal DNA showing that humans interbred with the Neanderthals. So were both the Neanderthals and the Homo sapiens sapiens (humans) descended from Adam and Eve?

In addition, the recent fossil finds indicate that other possible species, currently being analyzed, interbred with Neanderthals. Then there are our chimp cousins. What all this tells us is that vertebrates share some similar genes. Thus, it is quite reasonable that the descendants of Adam and Eve, the original human vertebrates, would have similar genes as some other functioning vertebrates. We should consider the nature of matter when talking about our own decomposing anatomy.

At the same time, the Catholic Church teaches that " it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature." (Information source. Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC 364-366)

Because of the argument (degrees vs. difference in kind) over the intellective difference between a true human and similar decomposing anatomies, I do not formally speculate about the other highly sentient distinct species. Yes, I know that paleoanthropologists are in agreement with the artifacts; however, this cranky granny wants more substantial evidence which, by the way, is difficult to find going millions of years backwards. Thus, I do not venture to date the first appearance of the first two sole real truly-complete humans lovingly known as Adam and Eve. I cannot honestly answer the question about the exact nature of Neanderthals.

Also the Genesis stories seems rather confuses. In Genesis 1:24-26, God created animals first and then He created man:

But Genesis 2: 15-19 says that God created man first and then created animals:

These two version of creation cannot both be true. So why should we believe either one?

The first thing to do is to study the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26.

The author of the first three chapters of Genesis is not a Ph.D. scientist. Yet, in a sense, he followed the scientific (inductive) method which starts with the principle – observe without prejudice. Genesis 2: 20 reflects the rational intelligence of the first human. Do I dare say that Genesis 2: 20 is also basic biological science?

The amazing shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26 calls for multiple views of human nature. To do this, the author chose to use Genesis 1: 24 as a base for comparing animal nature with human nature. Because of the obvious significance of Genesis 1: 28, the exact order in creation took a back seat similar to the beginning verses trying to describe a universe that was wonderful beyond words.

 

[grannymh]

That’s the problem with many people, including Christians. Science has been so successful in the last 400 years, so we need to put the Bible under the microscope, Genesis in particular, and analyse it with logic.

God made the world and gave us souls by “breathing” them into us. That’s all I need to get out of Genesis.

The Catholic Church is not putting the first three chapters of Genesis under the scientific microscope.

Instead, the Catholic Church, beginning with the theologian St. Paul, (Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22) discerns Divine Revelation with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 14, Gospel of John). It is Divine Revelation, not the evolution model, which becomes the base for Catholic doctrines that flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.

There are various geographic locations where people are using the evolution model to deny basic Catholic doctrines. Because of this, authors like Dr. Bonnette continue to demonstrate the credibility of Adam and Eve as defined by Catholic doctrines.

Because the evolution of plants and ants according to populations evolving from populations is possible, the Catholic Church has made it clear that humans are in an entirely different category from plants and ants. This is seen in the Church’s insistence that humans descended from a population of two.

 

[truetofaith]

The Catholic Church opposes the current scientific position that there was an originating humanizing population in the thousands.

The Catholic doctrine is that the originating human population is a population of two. :extrahappy:

If there was a whole population of humans that God selected 2 from & “Breathed a soul into them”…why doesn’t the Bible say that??

It would have been easier for the ancient people to understand than God making a man out of the dust & having him name all the animals, then putting him to sleep & taking a rib from him to form a female companion!

Why would God make up ( lie ) a story, when the Truth would have been sufficient.

 

[truetofaith]

The biggest problem with our descent is not are we from 2 parents or a whole population of humanoids…but as God’s Word says… He made the man first then formed the woman from the rib of the man.

NO POPULATION OF MEN & WOMEN!!!

 

[Dorothy]

If there was a whole population of humans that God selected 2 from & “Breathed a soul into them”…why doesn’t the Bible say that??

It would have been easier for the ancient people to understand than God making a man out of the dust & having him name all the animals, then putting him to sleep & taking a rib from him to form a female companion!

Why would God make up ( lie ) a story, when the Truth would have been sufficient.

Dear “truetofaith”,

None of us have to be confused or wonder why this or that about God. Thanks be to Him the Incarnation took place, He lived, died, rose, and ascended!!!

I am not expert in science or theology, but am aware that whatever He does is infinitely perfect!

We are finite and cannot adequately wrap our minds around His doings.

I pray to trust Him always!

May He bless all of us abundantly!

Dorothy

 

[truetofaith]

Dear “truetofaith”,

None of us have to be confused or wonder why this or that about God. Thanks be to Him the Incarnation took place, He lived, died, rose, and ascended!!!

I am not expert in science or theology, but am aware that whatever He does is infinitely perfect!

We are finite and cannot adequately wrap our minds around His doings.

I pray to trust Him always!

May He bless all of us abundantly!

Dorothy

Thank you for your post, Dorothy, but I’m not confused. I’m perfectly fine with what I read in Genesis.
I’m confused as to why others on here don’t accept the scriptures. If they don’t believe what the Bible says about Adam & Eve then how can they accept the miracles of Jesus or His Resurrection?

 

[Contarini]

My question is as simple as that. I’m curious.

It isn’t as simple as that.

The simple, slightly flippant answer to your “simple question” would be, “No, I believe in God the Father Almighty, in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit!”

If you mean “believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve” the question is still complex. I do not believe that the early chapters of Genesis should be read as a historical narrative. Pope Pius XII came down pretty strongly in favor of the view that there was one original pair of human beings, but decades ago Frank Sheed argued that there might be some wiggle room in the Pope’s statement, and Fr. Robert Barron clearly does not think Humani Generis prevents him from agreeing with the mainstream scientific view that there is no one original human couple.

So I’m not sure. I certainly am inclined toward believing in an original couple if the scientific evidence will allow it, but it is not something on which I am dogmatically committed.

Edwin

 

[Hans_W]

Thank you for your post, Dorothy, but I’m not confused. I’m perfectly fine with what I read in Genesis.
I’m confused as to why others on here don’t accept the scriptures. If they don’t believe what the Bible says about Adam & Eve then how can they accept the miracles of Jesus or His Resurrection?

Two groups of people have it easy with Bible interpretation:

One lot thinks that the Bible is all nonsense, concocted by a bunch of goat herders from the bronze age.
The other group thinks that every word must be taken literally.

The challenge is learning how to read the Bible properly in order to discover the underlying truth.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for your post, Dorothy, but I’m not confused. I’m perfectly fine with what I read in Genesis.
I’m confused as to why others on here don’t accept the scriptures. If they don’t believe what the Bible says about Adam & Eve then how can they accept the miracles of Jesus or His Resurrection?

Why would you ask this?

To my mind it’s like asking, “If you don’t believe Peter Rabbit was real, then how can you believe that Abraham Lincoln was real.” There is no reason I can see to make the connection you’re making.

Edwin

 

[grannymh]

It isn’t as simple as that.

The simple, slightly flippant answer to your “simple question” would be, “No, I believe in God the Father Almighty, in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit!”

If you mean “believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve” the question is still complex. I do not believe that the early chapters of Genesis should be read as a historical narrative. Pope Pius XII came down pretty strongly in favor of the view that there was one original pair of human beings, but decades ago Frank Sheed argued that there might be some wiggle room in the Pope’s statement, and Fr. Robert Barron clearly does not think Humani Generis prevents him from agreeing with the mainstream scientific view that there is no one original human couple.

So I’m not sure. I certainly am inclined toward believing in an original couple if the scientific evidence will allow it, but it is not something on which I am dogmatically committed.

Edwin

First, not every verse in the first three chapters automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrines, based on Divine Revelation, are defined in major ecumenical Church Councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (chapter 14, Gospel of John)

“if the evidence will allow it”

These two articles explore reasonable approaches to the credibility of Adam and Eve.

crisismagazine.com/2014/d…e-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-t…genesis-story/

The new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”

[http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Human-...9686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=14124676 70&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+spe cies++Bonnette](http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Human-...9686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=14124676 70&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+spe cies++Bonnette)

This is Dr. Bonnette’s website.
drbonnette.com/

Here is a new video.
youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg

 

[truetofaith]

Why would you ask this?

To my mind it’s like asking, “If you don’t believe Peter Rabbit was real, then how can you believe that Abraham Lincoln was real.” There is no reason I can see to make the connection you’re making.

Edwin

So, to your mind Peter Rabbit = Adam and Abe Lincoln = Jesus.

Therefore… Noah, Lot, Abraham & Moses are also in the Peter Rabbit category, since they are also in the Old Testament. May as well chuck out the 10 Commandments.

 

[Contarini]

So, to your mind Peter Rabbit = Adam and Abe Lincoln = Jesus.

Therefore… Noah, Lot, Abraham & Moses are also in the Peter Rabbit category, since they are also in the Old Testament. May as well chuck out the 10 Commandments.

No. You keep making non sequiturs.

Not all the OT is the same genre by any means.

Nor did my analogy imply that Adam and Eve are exactly like Peter Rabbit (though they did misbehave in a garden). Obviously Jesus is not exactly like Abraham Lincoln. Of course I was implying that in both pairs the first seems to be much less “historical” than the second. But my main point was simply that the Bible is a complex collection of literature (actually much more widely distributed in time than are the primary sources for President Lincoln and the works of Beatrix Potter) and that there is no logical reason at all to assume that everything mentioned in the Bible is the same in terms of historicity. There is in fact every reason to assume the opposite.

Edwin

 

[grannymh]

No. You keep making non sequiturs.

Not all the OT is the same genre by any means.

Nor did my analogy imply that Adam and Eve are exactly like Peter Rabbit (though they did misbehave in a garden). Obviously Jesus is not exactly like Abraham Lincoln. Of course I was implying that in both pairs the first seems to be much less “historical” than the second. But my main point was simply that the Bible is a complex collection of literature (actually much more widely distributed in time than are the primary sources for President Lincoln and the works of Beatrix Potter) and that there is no logical reason at all to assume that everything mentioned in the Bible is the same in terms of historicity. There is in fact every reason to assume the opposite.

Edwin

Just a reminder.
Not every verse in the first three chapters of Genesis automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrines, based on Divine Revelation, are defined in major Ecumenical Church Councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Adam and Eve, Genesis 1: 26-28, are historical just as Original Sin is historical just as the original relationship between humanity and Divinity is historical. When Adam freely chose to break apart the relationship with his Creator, all appeared lost because Adam, a human creature, did not have the capability of repairing a relationship made by the Divine Creator.

Genesis 3: 15 is often viewed as the first announcement of a person capable of restoring humanity’s relationship with Divinity because this person would be True Man and True God. Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22.

 

[carmenp1]

The bible is the Word of God. It is given to us by God. If you take some but not all of it as God’s inspired Word you will miss the message it holds. The world is a place where good and evil flourish, side by side.

Creation as described in Genesis was described by God as very good. So when did it change from very good to what we have now? Adam and Eve are factual and God’s recording of the events that took place, provide us with a clear, concise record which helps us to understand why we, and the world is made up of good and evil. Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence when they were created. But once they exercised their free to disobey a command God gave them for their protection, they suffered the consequences. And as the curse was inherited and inescapable through our own efforts, God uses His Word to lead us to His redemption.

The Bible is not a record of every historic event. God has kept the record as a continuous thread of relevance. It takes us from Adam & Eve’s fall to Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. The only sacrifice that could pay the price for all of man’s sins was the death of Jesus Christ, sinless, without blemish, the Son of God. This is the message the bible is meant to give us. That by believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins and rose again you will be saved. What will you be saved from? The bible spells out that the price for sin is death. It speaks of a spiritual death. We are born, we live, we die. But if we die without having asked God to forgive us our sins and accepted the grace that He offers us in believing that Jesus Christ is our Saviour, the One who took our place on the cross; we die in a sinful, unforgiven state. Missing the only thing that could reconcile us to God. Missing His grace. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. In our unforgiven state, that’s all we are. But once we have accepted Christ’s blood was shed for us, God breaths His life into us and we become sons of God. The spirit of His Son fills our heart, crying out Abba Father. You enter into relationship with God. Your life changes. God seals you with His promises and you know in your own heart that you have been saved. Fear of death no longer has its power over you as it once did.

The moment you have God’s forgiveness is a moment you will always recall. This moment becomes the line of distinction etched in your heart of when you were translated from the power of darkness into the light God shines on everything from that moment on. Satan is the ruler of this world. He is a deceiver and a lier. That is why God says you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

God is light. His Word is the truth. By faith, Abraham received the promise. So it is for you and me. God’s promises are written in His Word. Read it. In it you will see how those who are recorded in the Old Testament and the New Testament received those promises by believing God. By faith. Not by sight. God is true to His Word. Find out what He has for you. I would start at the New Testament.

If you read the bible thru to Revelation, God describes what He plans to do in restoring what we lost by Adam and Eve’s sin. But the first step is to read the gospels. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and the epistles which will show you what God wants us to do.
I hope this helps you.

Carmen

 

[truetofaith]

The stumbling block in this whole thread is not whether the Bible is True or where did God get the man & woman He calls Adam & Eve.

We start to stumble when we say God took 2, not fully evolved, primates and gave them souls to make them in His image & likeness.

God’s Word says after all the plants & animals were created, He made a ‘separate creation’ out of the ground, breathed His Life into his nostrils & called him Adam.
Now, after not finding a suitable mate for the man, Doctor God performs the first operation & forms a mate for Adam out of the man’s rib .Again, a ‘separate creation’ but Eve is from Adam’s own body.

This is what I don’t read in all these posts about Adam & Eve. :nope::coffeeread:

 

[Thorolfr]

The stumbling block in this whole thread is not whether the Bible is True or where did God get the man & woman He calls Adam & Eve.

We start to stumble when we say God took 2, not fully evolved, primates and gave them souls to make them in His image & likeness.

God’s Word says after all the plants & animals were created, He made a ‘separate creation’ out of the ground, breathed His Life into his nostrils & called him Adam.
Now, after not finding a suitable mate for the man, Doctor God performs the first operation & forms a mate for Adam out of the man’s rib .Again, a ‘separate creation’ but Eve is from Adam’s own body.

This is what I don’t read in all these posts about Adam & Eve. :nope::coffeeread:

It’s not in many of these posts because the story of Adam and Eve is not a literal account of what happened. If we believe that the Bible is a literal account, then the earth is only about 6000 years old. But we know from science that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and we know from DNA that humans and chimpanzees and other apes share a common ancestor millions of years ago. Humans are not a separate creation.

 

[truetofaith]

It’s not in many of these posts because the story of Adam and Eve is not a literal account of what happened. If we believe that the Bible is a literal account, then the earth is only about 6000 years old. But we know from science that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and we know from DNA that humans and chimpanzees and other apes share a common ancestor millions of years ago. Humans are not a separate creation.

As I’ve said before, why would God make up such an off - the - wall story about forming the woman from the man’s rib…and inspire His Bible writers to mislead the world?

We have a mischievous God, I guess.

 

[truetofaith]

Humans are not a separate creation.

Then you’re saying God is a liar or maybe, forgetful?

 

[grannymh]

It’s not in many of these posts because the story of Adam and Eve is not a literal account of what happened. If we believe that the Bible is a literal account, then the earth is only about 6000 years old. But we know from science that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and we know from DNA that humans and chimpanzees and other apes share a common ancestor millions of years ago. Humans are not a separate creation.

This is very interesting, but it is not, repeat not, Catholic teachings (plural intended).