If Adam and Eve were real people but existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, then what about Noah?

[catholic1seeks]

If we are able to believe that Adam and Eve were real people but didn’t believe only 10,000 years ago, then where does that put Noah and the deluge?

I’m not really that concerned with the characteristics of the deluge, but most scholars say it was a local flood. If it was a global flood, it must have required a series of miracles: the millions of animals, the fact that the animals would have to adapt to new climates, and, plus, there’s not much evidence of a universal flood.

Anyway, if Adam and Eve can be pushed back hundreds of thousands of years, can Noah be too? Or does Noah HAVE to fit so many years back to fit within some biblical genealogy?

 

[tobinatorstark]

If we are able to believe that Adam and Eve were real people but didn’t believe only 10,000 years ago, then where does that put Noah and the deluge?

I’m not really that concerned with the characteristics of the deluge, but most scholars say it was a local flood. If it was a global flood, it must have required a series of miracles: the millions of animals, the fact that the animals would have to adapt to new climates, and, plus, there’s not much evidence of a universal flood.

Anyway, if Adam and Eve can be pushed back hundreds of thousands of years, can Noah be too? Or does Noah HAVE to fit so many years back to fit within some biblical genealogy?

Noah was real and he was born 1056 years after Adam. I continue to stand by the fact that Adam was created roughly 6000 years ago. Genesis 5 gives a genealogical time line Adam to Noah.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Noah was real and he was born 1056 years after Adam. I continue to stand by the fact that Adam was created roughly 6000 years ago. Genesis 5 gives a genealogical time line Adam to Noah.

WHAT IF someone, like me, believes in evolution?

 

[juliamajor]

Noah was real and he was born 1056 years after Adam. I continue to stand by the fact that Adam was created roughly 6000 years ago. Genesis 5 gives a genealogical time line Adam to Noah.

Where the heck did you get that time line? Bishop Usher? New Earth. ??

 

[thistle]

Noah was real and he was born 1056 years after Adam. I continue to stand by the fact that Adam was created roughly 6000 years ago. Genesis 5 gives a genealogical time line Adam to Noah.

Frankly its ridiculous to say the earth is about 6000 years old.
Firstly the Church, to which God gave authority, does not teach that.
Second there is plenty of provable evidence to show it is around 4.6 billion years old.

 

[tobinatorstark]

WHAT IF someone, like me, believes in evolution?

If you believe in Evolution, that’s fine. I personally reject evolution. I know what the Bible state on the genealogy of Noah and the Bible is good enough for me.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Where the heck did you get that time line? Bishop Usher? New Earth. ??

Well 1. I know the genealogical timeline is from Genesis 5.
2. the 1056 years I mentioned comes from a chronology located in my Douay-Rheims from Baronius Press. The earthly timeline of 6000 years is located in my Douay-Rheims as well.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Frankly its ridiculous to say the earth is about 6000 years old.
Firstly the Church, to which God gave authority, does not teach that.
Second there is plenty of provable evidence to show it is around 4.6 billion years old.

I don’t believe it is rediculous to say the earth is 6000 years old. I do believe that it is reciculous to say the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The chronology in my Douay-Rheims indicates 6000 years.

 

[buffalo]

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

Interesting

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

The only way to treat Genesis is to think of it as a story of enormous cultural and theological value. But it is not scientifically true. It is an intellectually self-deluding act to believe in a 6000 year old Earth.

If science is wrong, then nothing would work. Mine exploration would not work, because the geology would be wrong. Nuclear medicine would not work, because radiometric dating of rocks would be wrong. [If the Earth is a mere 6000 yo, instead of 4.6 billion years old, then radiometric dating and stratigraphic methods are wrong, which means both geology and physics are wrong. That also means that biology is all wrong too, because evolution is wrong and fossil interpretations are wrong.

But all science is one, it uses basically the same methodology, and the same pre-suppositions. The different branches of science interlink, and agree with each other, because they are supported by a wealth of evidence in many different areas.

Evolution as both fact and theory is confirmed by evidence from geology [paleontology] physics [radiometric dating] microbiology, biochemistry, comparative physiology, genetics, embryology, taxonomy, and more besides.

And if biology is wrong, then medicine would not work. But it does work. [It’s not perfect, but nothing is]. I find biblical literalism [even when I believed] to be counter-productive to faith.

In any case, it is Catholic doctrine to accept evolution and science. They are two different modes of thinking and have different purposes. They are, as Stephen Jay Gould said :Non-Overlapping Magesteria".

If folks want people to take religion seriously, then biblical literalism is not the way to get it done.

As I said, I don’t believe in god…I find such things extremely unlikely. Yet, of course, not impossible. Well, I think that is as far as I can possibly go without folks perhaps misunderstanding me, and perhaps taking offense.

There are severe philosophical problems with god as a concept, never mind a reality. How can god be both omnipresent and omnipotent for example. Most if not all, of the “proofs” of god have logical fallacies built into them. So I don’t believe.

So why am I here? I don’t think religion will die, however, I think it can be made more rational and humane. Like with creationists and YECs.

I also want religious folks to understand and like science. it is a wonderful tool, and we face a lot of problems…environmental problems, medical problems, that we need to solve. There are, of course, political, social and economic hurdles to environmental problems. But for the technological aspects, we need science. So it is of deep concern to me that some religious folks fear, misunderstand, and are repelled by science, even to the point of assuming that science is evil, scientists are evil, and so on.

Fact: The world-wide biblical flood, in the manner described in the bible, never happened. Local floods of course, there is evidence for these. But the Genesis flood story is factually false. End of story. No ifs, buts, or anything else. Genesis is factually incorrect. Evolution is a fact, the age of the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Even the order that life forms appeared is wrong.

 

[buffalo]

The only way to treat Genesis is to think of it as a story of enormous cultural and theological value. But it is not scientifically true. It is an intellectually self-deluding act to believe in a 6000 year old Earth.

If science is wrong, then nothing would work. Mine exploration would not work, because the geology would be wrong. Nuclear medicine would not work, because radiometric dating of rocks would be wrong. [If the Earth is a mere 6000 yo, instead of 4.6 billion years old, then radiometric dating and stratigraphic methods are wrong, which means both geology and physics are wrong. That also means that biology is all wrong too, because evolution is wrong and fossil interpretations are wrong.

But all science is one, it uses basically the same methodology, and the same pre-suppositions. The different branches of science interlink, and agree with each other, because they are supported by a wealth of evidence in many different areas.

Evolution as both fact and theory is confirmed by evidence from geology [paleontology] physics [radiometric dating] microbiology, biochemistry, comparative physiology, genetics, embryology, taxonomy, and more besides.

And if biology is wrong, then medicine would not work. But it does work. [It’s not perfect, but nothing is]. I find biblical literalism [even when I believed] to be counter-productive to faith.

In any case, it is Catholic doctrine to accept evolution and science. They are two different modes of thinking and have different purposes. They are, as Stephen Jay Gould said :Non-Overlapping Magesteria".

If folks want people to take religion seriously, then biblical literalism is not the way to get it done.

As I said, I don’t believe in god…I find such things extremely unlikely. Yet, of course, not impossible. Well, I think that is as far as I can possibly go without folks perhaps misunderstanding me, and perhaps taking offense.

There are severe philosophical problems with god as a concept, never mind a reality. How can god be both omnipresent and omnipotent for example. Most if not all, of the “proofs” of god have logical fallacies built into them. So I don’t believe.

So why am I here? I don’t think religion will die, however, I think it can be made more rational and humane. Like with creationists and YECs.

I also want religious folks to understand and like science. it is a wonderful tool, and we face a lot of problems…environmental problems, medical problems, that we need to solve. There are, of course, political, social and economic hurdles to environmental problems. But for the technological aspects, we need science. So it is of deep concern to me that some religious folks fear, misunderstand, and are repelled by science, even to the point of assuming that science is evil, scientists are evil, and so on.

Fact: The world-wide biblical flood, in the manner described in the bible, never happened. Local floods of course, there is evidence for these. But the Genesis flood story is factually false. End of story. No ifs, buts, or anything else. Genesis is factually incorrect. Evolution is a fact, the age of the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Even the order that life forms appeared is wrong.

All Catholics are creationists by definition.

Our Catechism teaches us this:

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

Medicine is pretty much trial and error.

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

Catholics are creationists? The late Pope John Paul II begs to differ:-

Pope John Paul II
“…new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.”
— John Paul II, 1996 [8]

In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church’s position to accept evolution of the human body:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."[9]

In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:

"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

Source:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Buffallo wrote:

Medicine is pretty much trial and error.

That is such ridiculous distortion I won’t even dignify it with an answer!

 

[juliamajor]

Well 1. I know the genealogical timeline is from Genesis 5.
2. the 1056 years I mentioned comes from a chronology located in my Douay-Rheims from Baronius Press. The earthly timeline of 6000 years is located in my Douay-Rheims as well.

Chronology of DR is not infallible and you can’t prove it by genealogies because they are telescoped down to size. Only the most prominent ancestors are mentioned .The genealogies are all about tribes, and nations origins through a particular person.Just did a class on it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Thanks everyone for the posts. I really don’t want this to get into a creation vs. evolution thread, even though my question does include those details.

But remember, I’m considering the idea that our first parents, Adam and Even, existed over 150,000 years ago (or what ever better date scientists are able to present).

 

[SHW]

I don’t believe it is rediculous to say the earth is 6000 years old. I do believe that it is reciculous to say the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The chronology in my Douay-Rheims indicates 6000 years.

According to the Jewish calendar, it is Year 5769 this year in 2009.

I think that it is possible to have creation done in stages with evolution, but Adam is the first “person” to receive an immortal soul in the image and likeness of God and therefore he is the first of the species of Mankind.

And it is also possible that after the earth was made, which took billions of years, that on the day that it could support human life, God took some of the dust of this earth and created Adam directly from the dust within an instant.

The important point is that God is our heavenly Father and He created us in His image and likeness, and He loves us and He redeemed us. He desires for us to know, love, and serve Him on earth in return for His love for us, so that we can be happy in heaven with Him for eternity.

SHW

 

[tobinatorstark]

Chronology of DR is not infallible and you can’t prove it by genealogies because they are telescoped down to size. Only the most prominent ancestors are mentioned .The genealogies are all about tribes, and nations origins through a particular person.Just did a class on it.

so you are saying Genesis 5 is false??

 

[buffalo]

Catholics are creationists? The late Pope John Paul II begs to differ:-

Source:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Buffallo wrote:

That is such ridiculous distortion I won’t even dignify it with an answer!

Again I will repeat. Every Catholic is a creationist. We all believe in the Creator, and He created us and the universe.

Don’t bother with wiki’s, pull your documents from Catholic sources. Study the long Catholic history and what it has taught.

Good, then we don’t have to discuss it any more.

 

[juliamajor]

so you are saying Genesis 5 is false??

Did you read my words or do just like to jump to conclusions? TELESCOPED- whittled down so only major characters of major import and just uncle Shlomo or grandpa Seymor, who just lived and died without effecting Israelite history.

 

[Esquire0130]

Adam and Eve weren’t real. Undoubtedly, even ancient Hebrew children knew that it was fiction teaching theology.