How to answer question regarding Cain's wife

[minkymurph]

I haven’t seen so much stretching since I got a Stretch Armstrong for Christmas many years ago!

I’ve never heard of Stretch Armstrong - but neither have I heard of stretching the words of a written text where it is cited exactly as written. Stating where the citing and analysis has gone askew would more persuasive than sarcasm alone.

 

[minkymurph]

It’s not biblical fundamentalism.
It’s procreation biology.

Everybody on earth is biologically related to their wife/husband - Cain was no different.

I’m biologically related to my husband! He’s my fourth cousin.

His granny is my second cousin, my father in law my third cousin, my brother in law is also my fourth cousin, and my nieces my are fifth cousins.

I think my great uncles were also my cousins.

 

[roamingitalian]

I didn’t think this was something that people would be interested in discussing! I was wrong.
I’ve gotten some excellent responses to answer the mystery of Cain’s marriage. I also noted how the DRV Bible states that Cain was afraid for his life, to me, this indicates that the earth was already greatly populated, so finding a wife wasn’t difficult at all. Plus, I read how Adam was 900+ years old when he died, he had a long time to have many sons and daughters and for them to multiply with their own offspring.
I showed my manager that passage in the Bible and I actually think it clicked to her!

 

[NonTimendum]

Certainly.

I am simply repeating what the Church teaches about the Bible and literalism. It is beyond me why so many Catholics ignore the Church on this and embrace biblical fundamentalism.

Stop. The Church does not teach that. Refusing to answer the question definitively does not mean they give a positive interpretation.

1900 years of Catholics read Genesis as history. It’s only the modern secular Catholics that put “science” above God.

 

[mVitus]

Stop. The Church does not teach that. Refusing to answer the question definitively does not mean they give a positive interpretation.

1900 years of Catholics read Genesis as history. It’s only the modern secular Catholics that put “science” above God.

And to that I’d also say: Stop. Catholics that don’t take Genesis as literal history are fully capable of doing so while being in line with Church Teaching as evolution does not need to contradict the faith. As a Catholic who sees evolution as reasonable, I’m not putting science above God, but seeing it as explain how God did it. If you believe in a Six Day Creation, more power to you, but please don’t disparage those of us that don’t.

 

[NonTimendum]

And to that I’d also say: Stop. Catholics that don’t take Genesis as literal history are fully capable of doing so while being in line with Church Teaching as evolution does not need to contradict the faith. As a Catholic who sees evolution as reasonable, I’m not putting science above God, but seeing it as explain how God did it. If you believe in a Six Day Creation, more power to you, but please don’t disparage those of us that don’t.

I’d disagree about evolution being in line with the Church but unfortunately the Church misplaced its spine about 100 years ago (maybe more) and they allow it, for now. Hopefully that will change once the Great Apostasy starts and the remnant sees what an utter mess we’ve made of things.

I’m not disparaging the Catholics who are misguided, I’m disparaging their misguided views.

 

[mVitus]

If we we are descended from one human pair and that is what Catholics are required to believe - then we are compelled to accept the incest argument. If we are descended from on human pair there is no way around that. You can get around it with Cain, but you can’t get around it altogether. That’s all I was saying.

The Neanderthal theory is only a theory. To my knowledge a recent theory. As such I don’t think there would be any Church teaching on it. Pius XII would not have been aware of it. I don’t know much about it myself other than a vague awareness from noticing a thread on this topic on CAF. I don’t say I buy it I was just alerting the OP to the fact it’s out there.

I’m only pointing out that it seems from Pope Pius XII that we should all be able to trace our ancestry to Adam and Eve. (And as such, suggesting Cain and Abel not being fathered by Adam would appear to be in contradiction with the faith, unless you were suggesting they were fathered by a descendent of Adam in which case I’ll bow out of that discussion.)

And as a personal note, I personally am hoping to find an answer that officially allows for genetic polygenism and spiritual monogenism. It’s just that for right now I’m not going to advocate for it in absence of Church documents.
And here is a link to an interesting CAF article on the matter: catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/human-origins-which-is-it-science-or-theology

 

[mVitus]

I’d disagree about evolution being in line with the Church but unfortunately the Church misplaced its spine about 100 years ago (maybe more) and they allow it, for now. Hopefully that will change once the Great Apostasy starts and the remnant sees what an utter mess we’ve made of things.

I’m not disparaging the Catholics who are misguided, I’m disparaging their misguided views.

What exactly is the source of this view coming from? Is it from a belief the Church teaching on the nature of Scripture is in error? Or that the Bible needs to be taken as literal history? I’m used to people personally believing in Six Day Creation or mentioning how not every single evolutionary model is in line with Church teaching, but this position is a rare one from Catholics.

 

[NonTimendum]

What exactly is the source of this view coming from? Is it from a belief the Church teaching on the nature of Scripture is in error? Or that the Bible needs to be taken as literal history? I’m used to people personally believing in Six Day Creation or mentioning how not every single evolutionary model is in line with Church teaching, but this position is a rare one from Catholics.

Church teaching is to refuse to address the issue. Maybe that’s wise, maybe not. I lean to the not wise side, but that’s because I look at things as black and white. The Bible is literal history insofar as when it says something happened, it did. The whole “message is what’s really important” nonsense that pervades “modern” thought has done more damage to the Faith than anything else ever has.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m only pointing out that it seems from Pope Pius XII that we should all be able to trace our ancestry to Adam and Eve. (And as such, suggesting Cain and Abel not being fathered by Adam would appear to be in contradiction with the faith, unless you were suggesting they were fathered by a descendent of Adam in which case I’ll bow out of that discussion.)

I was suggesting they were fathered by a descendant of Adam.

 

[minkymurph]

And as a personal note, I personally am hoping to find an answer that officially allows for genetic polygenism and spiritual monogenism. It’s just that for right now I’m not going to advocate for it in absence of Church documents.
And here is a link to an interesting CAF article on the matter: catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/human-origins-which-is-it-science-or-theology

This is a good article.

According to this article Pius XII argued against polygenism but seems to have left the question open to further development.

I agree an answer that allows for genetic polygenism and spiritual monogenism cannot be advocated as the Church’s position in the absence of Church documents.

 

[lao_tzu]

Have the “Eve” genetic studies been revised? The UNESCO team reviewing the basic studies - in the 'Big 80’s" if memory serves, agreed with the ‘one maternal’ origin extrapolation. The Chinese attempted to provide counter evidence but those studies would have been likely lost in the Himalayan earthquake predecessor event.

Anyone have a pulse on this research?

Dear mkoopman,

A few years back, I was in correspondence with a graduate student of Rebecca Cann, one of the original researchers involved with mitochondrial Eve, who was continuing her work. I took advantage of the chance to clarify the issues uncovered in the research, if only for myself.

First and foremost, it should be stressed that mtEve is a moving target. This generation’s mtEve is likely not the same as our parents’ generation’s mtEve. Moreover, no mtEve should be considered a common ancestor for anything other than our mitochondria.

(Mitochondrial DNA is distinct from our nuclear DNA, forms a tiny proportion of our genetic inheritance, and has nothing to do with physical features like eye color, height, or skin color. By removing and replacing the nuclear DNA from an egg, and fertilizing with sperm, it is possible to have a child with three parents. In fact, this is legal in the UK, and an option that the parents of Charlie Gard may wish to consider.)

Other men and women both prior to and since mtEve remain our most recent common ancestors for portions of our nuclear DNA. Some of these men and women were Denisovans and others were Neanderthals.

Some years back, I contributed to discussions on CAF relating to Adam, Eve, and evolution. From this, I understand there is a preference among Catholics for some form of monogenism, rather than polygenism, in order to harmonize with a moral, or even literal, understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, but population genetics supports the other conclusion.

There is too much diversity in our genetic markers and alleles to support the existence of a founding pair.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Tim_D]

The Bible is literal history insofar as when it says something happened, it did.

You are wrong. You are completely wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong. Your view is not a Catholic one; it is in the tradition of Christian fundamentalism that arose in the late 19th century in response to the discoveries about biblical history and scientific examination of the bible. Your view is the default for people who, lacking the scholarship and knowledge, simply proclaim the Bible in its entirety to be literally “true” while having no idea or concept as to what exactly that means. If believing every letter of the Bible as being “true” makes you feel good, then by all means, continue on that path but don’t try to falsely accuse others who know better and who are completely in line with what Catholic scholars and the Church teaches as being outside of the mainstream.

 

[Tim_D]

Stop. The Church does not teach that. Refusing to answer the question definitively does not mean they give a positive interpretation.

1900 years of Catholics read Genesis as history. It’s only the modern secular Catholics that put “science” above God.

Are you aware that even the great St. Augustine did not take the Genesis story of creation as literal? The same can be said for Pope Benedict XVI. Do you consider them to be “modern secular Catholics?”

 

[Tim_D]

Hopefully that will change once the Great Apostasy starts and the remnant sees what an utter mess we’ve made of things.

You just showed your hand.

 

[mVitus]

There is too much diversity in our genetic markers and alleles to support the existence of a founding pair.

Science like that is one of the reasons I wish I could find an official stance on the idea of genetic polygenism with spiritual mongenism. Other than that, the only thing I could think about is how far back Homo sapiens might go. Considering that relatively recently there was a discovery which pushed it back 100,000 years in one go, it makes me intrigued.

 

[NonTimendum]

You are wrong. You are completely wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong. Your view is not a Catholic one; it is in the tradition of Christian fundamentalism that arose in the late 19th century in response to the discoveries about biblical history and scientific examination of the bible. Your view is the default for people who, lacking the scholarship and knowledge, simply proclaim the Bible in its entirety to be literally “true” while having no idea or concept as to what exactly that means. If believing every letter of the Bible as being “true” makes you feel good, then by all means, continue on that path but don’t try to falsely accuse others who know better and who are completely in line with what Catholic scholars and the Church teaches as being outside of the mainstream.

Since you refused to answer the question on the last thread, I’ll repeat it here:

Did Jesus Christ believe that Noah was a real person?

 

[NonTimendum]

Are you aware that even the great St. Augustine did not take the Genesis story of creation as literal? The same can be said for Pope Benedict XVI. Do you consider them to be “modern secular Catholics?”

I’m not sure where you got that about Augustine. Or is this more of the same: pretend saying one thing actually means the other? Anyway, St. Augustine, unfortunately, was not without error.

Benedict was born in 1927. Seems pretty modern to me.

“I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. 'For I am not ashamed of the Gospel”
-St. Basil