Many Adams and Eves?

  • Thread starter Thread starter awatkins69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ThomasToo said:
Thanks.

Though I’m not quite sure it’s fair to say that science cannot comment on the contents of the Bible. Where the bible makes historical or factual claims (e.g. a bunch of Egyptian slaves rose up and were freed/fled the Egyptians–without getting into the miracles) science–including anthropology–can comment as it would on any other claim of the kind. I’m not saying there is any reason to doubt that story, frankly I haven’t looked at the data so I’m not qualified to say, but simply saying any claim made in that book are out of bounds from examination isn’t quite fair.
Click to expand...
There are no scientific, peer reviewd papers about the Christian God, Vishnu, The Vedas or anything similar. The only people that insist on applying science to the Bible have no scientific research to back them up. Finally, God is recognized as God, which simply means He can do extraordinary things. Otherwise, He is the God that needs to be proven and the Bible that needs to be proven – by science. The science I am constantly told cannot comment on God/gods/beliefs.

And it’s not just a matter of belief. God, whether you consider Him real or not, does intefere with actual events to this day. To be a saint, a dead person needs to have two miracles attributed to them. They get investigated, it can take years, experts in all relevant fields are consulted. Recent example: a man is about to have surgery on his eyes. The doctor tells him he might see slight improvement or go blind. The man was not deeply religious but he stopped at a Church to pray to a candidate for sainthood. “If you can help, I would appreciate it greatly.” The next day, the doctor asked him what he did. Puzzled. He tells him he didn’t do anything. His eyes are so improved, he doesn’t need the surgery. His sight goes back to about normal.

I study history and specialize in the history of technology. I appreciate science. But here, science is put to a use that it was not designed for. I hope you understand.

God bless,
Ed
 
sulkow82 said:
Fair enough. 🙂

I agree with you here.

Then going by this, I have not re-invented Adam. My OP was to intended to agree with what you say. It was to say that the granting of intellect (and everything that goes with it) to two (2) individuals is the exact and very act of God which made them different then any other individual present. That is the act which made him Adam and her Eve.

God be with you.
sulkow82 SFO
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve were not just two animals that were given something. Both were immortal and both communicated with God directly. Eve was made by God from Adam’s side.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
There are no scientific, peer reviewd papers about the Christian God, Vishnu, The Vedas or anything similar. The only people that insist on applying science to the Bible have no scientific research to back them up.
Click to expand...
I never said science has studied the stories of the Bible but only that, in a very narrow sphere, that it can. Certainly things can be done that have yet to be done.

Also trying to write a paper about your God, about Vishnu, about Agni or about any one of hundreds of other deities is not the duty or realm of science. Writing about the factual (in the case I used as an example above, historic) claims of the Bible–including the Tanakh–the Koran, the Vedas–though I am unsure if they make historical claims–or any other book be it sacred of profane certainly is the sphere of human intellectual activity (i.e. science in the loose sense).
edwest2 said:
Finally, God is recognized as God, which simply means He can do extraordinary things. Otherwise, He is the God that needs to be proven and the Bible that needs to be proven – by science. The science I am constantly told cannot comment on God/gods/beliefs.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say anything about miracles or any sort of divine intervention of any sort. The Bible makes historical claims. As a historian do you argue that these must simply be accepted as fact or is it possible that there may be historical evidence for (some of) them?
 
ThomasToo said:
I never said science has studied the stories of the Bible but only that, in a very narrow sphere, that it can. Certainly things can be done that have yet to be done.

Also trying to write a paper about your God, about Vishnu, about Agni or about any one of hundreds of other deities is not the duty or realm of science. Writing about the factual (in the case I used as an example above, historic) claims of the Bible–including the Tanakh–the Koran, the Vedas–though I am unsure if they make historical claims–or any other book be it sacred of profane certainly is the sphere of human intellectual activity (i.e. science in the loose sense).

I didn’t say anything about miracles or any sort of divine intervention of any sort. The Bible makes historical claims. As a historian do you argue that these must simply be accepted as fact or is it possible that there may be historical evidence for (some of) them?
Click to expand...
Sadly, the word faith has come to mean ‘something with no evidence.’ The Bible tells us that faith is evidence. In fact, Christian faith hinges on an actual event is history. Sure, it’s been two thousand years and to quote the Bible “where is the promise of His coming?” A real, physical Jesus will return to earth.

Historians, like scientists, look at purely material events, OK? And if God appeared to you right now, what would you do? Christopher Hitchens replied that if he saw a miracle he would doubt his own senses. The Secretary of State saw the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and asked who painted it. It was not painted. Experts who have examined it say it has the qualities of a photograph as opposed to a painting.

God knows the depth of our unbelief, which is why He has sent Mary in history to appear to people with His messages.

There is a magazine called Biblical Archeology. You may want to pick it up. Places that critics said never existed have been found.

God bless,
Ed
 
I’ve always thought that it was the position of the Church, that God cannot contradict Himself; and that because both lines of truth, Revelation and reason, come from God there cannot even possibly be any conflict. A lot of you guys seem to be presenting the opposite approach?
 
awatkins69 said:
I’ve always thought that it was the position of the Church, that God cannot contradict Himself; and that because both lines of truth, Revelation and reason, come from God there cannot even possibly be any conflict. A lot of you guys seem to be presenting the opposite approach?
Click to expand...
Divine Revelation presents truth. Reason is a way to seek truth. Reason, being a tool of man, is subject to error. When reason is used as it is intended then it finds the same truth which is revealed by God. Thus, the truth being secured is not in conflict.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature, spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, is the pinnacle of God’s creation.
 
edwest2 said:
Adam and Eve were not just two animals that were given something. Both were immortal and both communicated with God directly. Eve was made by God from Adam’s side.
Click to expand...
Ed - the Church explicitly teaches that we must consider the genre and context of Scripture passages in determining their literal meaning. The creation accounts in the first chapters of Genesis describe an event/time to which there were no human eyewitnesses in language that was comprehensible by the people who received it.

You can choose to believe that the seven-day creation account (with mankind as the culmination of creation) is literally true and that the alternative version (with mankind being created before all the animals) is an explanation, not an alternate version - but you may not assert that this is the official position of the Church without ignoring recent teaching of Pope and Council.
 
NHInsider said:
Ed - the Church explicitly teaches that we must consider the genre and context of Scripture passages in determining their literal meaning. The creation accounts in the first chapters of Genesis describe an event/time to which there were no human eyewitnesses in language that was comprehensible by the people who received it.

You can choose to believe that the seven-day creation account (with mankind as the culmination of creation) is literally true and that the alternative version (with mankind being created before all the animals) is an explanation, not an alternate version - but you may not assert that this is the official position of the Church without ignoring recent teaching of Pope and Council.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are referring to here. I am aware of the literary forms in the Bible. Who wrote the Bible? Who spoke through the prophets? Men?

This web site, Catholic Answers, has a good summary of the Church’s position:

catholic.com//library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I have no idea what you are referring to here.
Click to expand...
Sorry, should’ve quoted. I was responding to your statement in post #102
Adam and Eve were not just two animals that were given something. Both were immortal and both communicated with God directly. Eve was made by God from Adam’s side.
Click to expand...
I am aware of the literary forms in the Bible. Who wrote the Bible? Who spoke through the prophets? Men?
Click to expand...
This web site, Catholic Answers, has a good summary of the Church’s position:
Click to expand...
It is in fact a good summary. If I may:
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.
Click to expand...
and
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing.
Click to expand...
and
The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
Click to expand...
Which means that you cannot assert that the Church requires belief in a literal 6-day creation or a literal creation of Eve from the rib of Adam/Adam from clay or that the earth is only 6000 years old. You can choose to believe those things and remain a Catholic, or you can belief that language is symbolic or metaphoric or that it is couched in terminology that would be comprehensible by people four or five thousand years ago, and still remain a Catholic. Because the Church teaches that the “literal” meaning of the Biblical text has to be understood with reference to the context and genre of the text.
 
Nice try, but all you’ve written is a rephrasing of the constant, ridiculous propaganda being posted here constantly. “They was stupid, we is smart. Smart wins.”

Evolution is not the new circumcision, a requirement for entering, or being allowed to stay, in the house of God. Do you think someone should stand at the door of every Church to confirm that each Catholic holds the correct scientific beliefs?

I think too many people own a copy of The God Who Did Nothing – How To Use Scientific Claims To Deny Divine Revelation.

The Following is from Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII:

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

A fanatical defense of the god of science is really a defense of the new idol – the mind of man.

God bless,
Ed
 
awatkins69 said:
Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans, but a small group of humans with the population at lowest being 1000. Offiial Church teaching contradicts this, and says that the faithful must accept that we are descended from a literal Adam and Eve. Is this a contradiction between faith and reason?
Click to expand...
Stated this way it is a contradiction. That’s why many of us read the Genesis stories symbolically rather than literally.
 
StAnastasia said:
Stated this way it is a contradiction. That’s why many of us read the Genesis stories symbolically rather than literally.
Click to expand...
Please don’t add me to the “many of us” category by proxy. Adam and Eve were two unique individuals.

From Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII:

“Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Please don’t add me to the “many of us” category by proxy. Adam and Eve were two unique individuals.

From Arcanum by Pope Leo XIII:

“Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ok… we’ve seen you give the quote from 1880, we get it. As respectfully as possible, we don’t need to see it again.
 
Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!

A major storm of protest against the myth of evolution has been building for many years, as proved by almost a thousand major scientists, all with doctorates who have signed on to the following statement as of 2010: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

more…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top