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

[severntofall]

Check my signature.

St. Augustine: “Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race… They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” (City of God, 12:10)

The Epistle of Barnabas: “Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, “He finished in six days.” This implies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years… Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. “And He rested on the seventh day.” This means: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.” (Ch. 15)

Talmud: “The first thing to know is that history will last only 6,000 years.” (Sanhedrin 97a)

Hebrews 4:9 “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God”

Blessed Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich: “I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time that I beheld Jesus teaching on the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Pharisees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He told them that the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was Himself thirty one years old.” (1.1.9 - Rev. Schmoger)

This only proves that foolish people say foolish things.

 

[Luke65]

This only proves that foolish people say foolish things.

If the world doesn’t hate us we must not be walking in the footsteps of our Lord very well. Thank you for proving the point.

 

[catholic1seeks]

But if you believe the earth is billions of years old, as the deceived teach, then you make God the Author of death and suffering when God told us we are the author of death and suffering.

**You can still believe in evolution and man’s first sin. **
Paul speaks that death came into the human world by original sin. Death could have still been present among other creatures (e.g., animals) before the fall.

Only man is created in the image and likeness of God. Adam and Eve were created in that state of grace which prevented suffering and death.

**Also, though the Church Fathers are helpful in proving Catholic points of doctrine, they are not each individually infallible. We consider them as a great witness to the Church’s Apostolic and Sacred Tradition because of their consistent teaching. “Small” things such as the number of years the Earth has existed was not something universally taught or assented by the early Church leaders. Also, it is not a matter of faith or morals. It’s not necessary for salvation. In fact, we don’t even have a reason to believe that a belief in the amount of years the Earth has existed was passed on by the Apostles – unlike all of the Deposit of Faith.

If we really believe that the Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth and is in fact everything it says it is, we should trust its current teachings on Creation. For we have good reasons to believe that our faith has been handed down by the Apostles and their successors. Current teaching includes the choice between a belief in a God-guided evolution or the belief of a literal 6-days. God’s the Creator in either case. There was a true Adam who committed a true sin that brought death into the human world.

 

[severntofall]

If the world doesn’t hate us we must not be walking in the footsteps of our Lord very well. Thank you for proving the point.

and thank you for proving mine.

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Beware the dangers of scientism.

Genesis was written in plain language for people of the time. Now many would say that this is not sufficient in light of our modern science and reasoning. I would say that precisely becuase Genesis was written in plain language it’s message is for all time. The plain language meaning means the same as the ancients understood it as well as today.

Plain language is a strength of Genesis.

Remember that science tells us ‘how’ the universe was made, theology tells us ‘why’. Ask any Jesuit how old the Earth is. The covenant between God and man started around 6000 or 10,000 years ago, but not the Earth and not the universe. The Bible is the written covenant between God and man.

 

[diggerdomer]

Everything I quoted is from Church tradition, except the Talmud which is Jewish tradition.

No. Bl. C. Emmerich is not considered part of Church tradition.

Cheers

 

[shuzo1189]

This Thread has reminded me of a quote.

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”~Saint Thomas Aquinas

I have a hard time accepting “Young Earth Creationism”. I find to do do so rather undermines the whole field of Geology and pretty much throws out every aspect of the Fossil Record.

catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

 

[StAnastasia]

I have a hard time accepting “Young Earth Creationism”. I find to do do so rather undermines the whole field of Geology and pretty much throws out every aspect of the Fossil Record.

shuzo1189, how do you know God didn’t invent the “fossil record” as a way to trick us, to convict us of human arrogance?

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

shuzo1189, how do you know God didn’t invent the “fossil record” as a way to trick us, to convict us of human arrogance?

StAnastasia

The fossil record is like having 10 pieces of a million piece puzzle and having the audacity to tell us what the puzzle looks like.

 

[buffalo]

Please, answer my question. I know what you were doing, but I asked what you’re saying.

Cheers

Jesus referred back to Moses which minimally establishes His authority and Divine Inspiration.

So where did Moses get his material? The Toledoths show that tablets were one of the sources. These tablets are a record of history.

The Council of Trent upholds the Divine authorship of Genesis as well as the 1906 PBC decree upholding Mosaic authorship.

The question then is what do the genealogies mean? They are a record of the generations since Adam.

The only way out of this conundrum is to deny the Bible and Tradition.

Also, then the question is who wrote the first tablets?

 

[diggerdomer]

Jesus referred back to Moses which minimally establishes His authority and Divine Inspiration.

Sorry I’m not clear on what you’re saying here. Jesus refers back to Moses…yes, ok…which establishes His authority—whose? Jesus’ or Moses’? Jesus referring back to Moses does not establish Jesus’ authority. Nor would that establish Moses’ authority…it was already established. Also, what are you referring to about Divine Inspiration? That Jesus, or Moses, or Scriptures are divinely inspired? Sorry if I’m being obtuse, I just don’t understand what you’re saying here. Thanks for any help.

The Council of Trent upholds the Divine authorship of Genesis as well as the 1906 PBC decree upholding Mosaic authorship.

Again sorry if I’m misreading, but Trent did not uphold the PBC decree. And of course I agree that God is the author of Sacred Scripture.

The only way out of this conundrum is to deny the Bible and Tradition.

I don’t see any conundrum, but maybe I’m misunderstanding something.

Cheers

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

I have not read all the pages of this thread, but can already see the typical outlines of disputation between those who think evolution excludes what Genesis says about Adam and Eve and Original Sin, and those who defend Genesis by appealing to some form of Scientific Creationism.

I do not wish here to pronounce on the legitimacy of creation science. Rather, I am concerned about those who accept the conventional scientific embrace of evolution theory and the tracing of human origins back far further than 6000 years, but think this a scandal to Christian belief. Those who read the patriarchal genealogies as limiting human origins to 6000 years misread Genesis, since the term, “begot,” does not tell us the number of generations involved in the “begetting.” Most Catholic theologians now recognize that fact.

One of the key questions I address in my book, “Origin of the Human Species” (Sapientia Press, 2003,7), is whether it is rationally possible to reconcile conventional natural science (including evolution) with a legitimate reading of Scripture, preserving what the Church demands, namely, that Adam and Eve were two individual first parents who actually committed Original Sin. I maintain such reconciliation may be possible.

Most authors addressing this topic either (1) embrace conventional evolution while abandoning some key element of Catholic teaching, or (2) think it necessary to defend Catholic teaching by embracing a form of Scientific Creationism which rejects much of conventional natural science. I maintain that neither “extreme” is necessary. Anyone interested in seeing how this may be possible is invited to take a look at my web site at www.drbonnette.com There are two articles posted in full therein which explain in some detail how this reconciliation is possible.

 

[buffalo]

I have not read all the pages of this thread, but can already see the typical outlines of disputation between those who think evolution excludes what Genesis says about Adam and Eve and Original Sin, and those who defend Genesis by appealing to some form of Scientific Creationism.

I do not wish here to pronounce on the legitimacy of creation science. Rather, I am concerned about those who accept the conventional scientific embrace of evolution theory and the tracing of human origins back far further than 6000 years, but think this a scandal to Christian belief. Those who read the patriarchal genealogies as limiting human origins to 6000 years misread Genesis, since the term, “begot,” does not tell us the number of generations involved in the “begetting.” Most Catholic theologians now recognize that fact.

One of the key questions I address in my book, “Origin of the Human Species” (Sapientia Press, 2003,7), is whether it is rationally possible to reconcile conventional natural science (including evolution) with a legitimate reading of Scripture, preserving what the Church demands, namely, that Adam and Eve were two individual first parents who actually committed Original Sin. I maintain such reconciliation may be possible.

Most authors addressing this topic either (1) embrace conventional evolution while abandoning some key element of Catholi
c teaching, or (2) think it necessary to defend Catholic teaching by embracing a form of Scientific Creationism which rejects much of conventional natural science. I maintain that neither “extreme” is necessary. Anyone interested in seeing how this may be possible is invited to take a look at my web site at www.drbonnette.com There are two articles posted in full therein which explain in some detail how this reconciliation is possible.

Welcome aboard!

I visited in the past and found the articles to be very good.

I think this does a pretty good job on the genealogies.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Thank you. That is an excellent dialogue about the genealogies.

Dr. Bonnette

 

[missal]

If the question you’re not sure of is mine, well, again I’d reiterate what I posted in response to:

I have no idea how to interpret or understand what that person is trying to say.

If the “this question” is something else, well please be more specific so all of us reading this thread can understand and respond coherently.

Cheers

To the person who asked:" If Adam & Eve were real people but existed hundreds of years ago…",What exactly did you want to know about Noah? I’m still not sure of your inquiry???
View attachment 5404

 

[StAnastasia]

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.

You can if science is meaningless to you.

 

[StAnastasia]

The fossil record is like having 10 pieces of a million piece puzzle and having the audacity to tell us what the puzzle looks like.

Right – and we do know in large detail what the puzzle looks like.

 

[StAnastasia]

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

Correct, Buffalo – every Catholic is a creationist. But some of us creationists accept a 13.7 billion year history of the universe, and a 4.5 billion-year-old earth, and a 3.5 billion year evolutionary history of life on earth, and the descent of all life on earth from common origins.

StAnastasia

 

[shuzo1189]

shuzo1189, how do you know God didn’t invent the “fossil record” as a way to trick us, to convict us of human arrogance?

StAnastasia

I think that God must be very crafty and really have a thing for Large Lizards.

 

[buffalo]

Right – and we do know in large detail what the puzzle looks like.

Do you even realize what you have just said?

You do understand how a few fossils are found and someone gets an artist to make an a priori drawing of the supposed creature.