Many Adams and Eves?

[Vimy_Ridge]

WOW! What tremendous insight!
Maybe we should all tune in to the broadcasts of the mothership!
Wait, my receiver isn’t working…
**Aw… man… I’m one of those white devils!!! **

Yep, me too. In fact a black man put his feet up beside me on the subway today, I felt disrespected but hey I’m just a white devil and probably deserved it. Didn’t stop me from shaking my head and moving to another seat though. :slapfight:

 

[redneck22]

To be honest I just find wacky alternative human origin stories more entertaining.

I agree…especially Charles Darwin’s theory…"…or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" talk about wacky. His Descent of Man is great for a laugh if it wasn’nt so sad, here is an excerpt from page 168

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p.236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

 

[marymichael10]

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?

I believe the Adam and Eve story shouldn’t be taken so literally; rather, we should find in the story the reason for why humanity isn’t immediately in a state of grace at our birth: that is what we should take to heart.

What is clear from the story is that:

1. God is the beginning of the universe. God created the heavens, planets, stars, ect., created the clouds, the sea, all animals, and utimately made man in His own image. God is our very beginning, and since existence is everything to us, we owe everything to God.
2. Human beings, sometime along the way, sinned (rather, we messed up). The figure of the tree that God forbid to eat from signifies what led us astray, and the serpent who led us astray. I, personally, believe that lust is probably what led us away from God, considering it’s probably the oldest and most far reaching sin man has ever faced (but that’s never been taught…just an opinion). Clearly, along the way, we chose the instincts of our bodies and rejected the instincts of our souls, which separates us from all other animals.
3. God never left. Angry though He was, He didn’t abandon us to our sins, but rather made an opportunity to show His mercy. He, as always, brought about good from evil; first in the covenant with descendants of Abraham, then ultimately, through Jesus.

This is a matter of Religion vs Science, not Religion and Science reaching a mutual conclusion. In such a conclusion, I think that the Big Bang is possible (though, probably unlikely, but nontheless not a contradiction to God’s creation), and evolution is possible, and neither undermines God’s role in creation. But, no matter what, science can only speculate on such things; they will never know, because science is man made. God however, doesn’t want us to speculate, but just to accept that creation is due to Him. Science, though it may try, can never prove things like existence of the soul, or eternal life, because God has not made it possible for them to. He has left us creation to ponder, but not to lead us astray from Him with man made theories. This is something that science can never prove.

 

[grannymh]

p here in Canada some geneticists made a study and it shows according to them that all human DNA proves we all go back to one original mother they haven’t found any evidence yet about the father

Evidence for our first parents, mother and father, is found in Catholicism.
Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[fnr]

I agree…especially Charles Darwin’s theory…"…or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" talk about wacky. His Descent of Man is great for a laugh if it wasn’nt so sad, here is an excerpt from page 168

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p.236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

There’s no excuse for the Victorian racism that Darwin supplied, but on the other hand, this publication was before DNA had been established as the carrier of most inherited information. We now understand very well that there’s no scientific basis to “race,” any more that there’s a cultural one (e.g., in Brazil, three children in the same family from the same parents can be considered three different races). Statements like this one of Darwins, unsupported by any factual basis, are at best “conjectural hypotheses” that subsequent scientific inquiry have soundly disproved.

Henry Ford was into white supremacy, but people still drive his cars. W.E.B. du Bois was an advocate of eugenics, but he was still a visionary of racial equality.

The theory of evolution isn’t “Darwinism,” it’s the theory of evolution that was first proposed by Darwin, and has since been modified to account for such information as DNA and, more recently, epigenetics.

 

[StAnastasia]

The theory of evolution isn’t “Darwinism,” it’s the theory of evolution that was first proposed by Darwin, and has since been modified to account for such information as DNA and, more recently, epigenetics.

When I hear people speak of “Darwinism” I know they are not educated in science. It is akin to speaking of modern astronomy as “Galileanism.”

 

[buffalo]

When I hear people speak of “Darwinism” I know they are not educated in science. It is akin to speaking of modern astronomy as “Galileanism.”

Yeah - it is kinda like pro-choice vs abortion. The public accepts pro-choice because of the clever use of words.

 

[grannymh]

I just received my Ignatius Study Bible (NT) today in the mail. By sheer coincidence, I opened it up to a page on which “type” is defined in a “word study” box. Here is part of what it says:

“In Biblical theology, a type is a person, place thing, event, or institution in Scripture that points to a future mystery. Romans 5:14 is a classic example: Paul shows that Adam, who shaped the first destiny of man for the worst, was a type of Christ, who reverses the tragic effects of sin by hi righteousness. Adam thus showed us in advance how the saving work of Jesus, the new Adam, would affect the entire world.”

My apology for typo’s – I am on a granny-unfriendly computer that is ignoring my need for spell check.

Pardon me. But that kind of “type” needs clairification. The “word box” above reads like a declaration rather than a creative description. St. Paul by the way is an extremely creative person only I can’t quote him nor the Catechism since I am traveling without my resources…

As I recall, St. Paul showed that Adam and Christ are a type of something else, like their position as the cause of their actions – not specifically a type of each other. I think St. Paul used the words “just as” or that may have been the source quoted as an explanation in the Catechism. In any case, in my humble opinion, Adam, the created human, cannot be considered flat out that he is a type of the divine Christ Who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the one, triune God the Creator. More likely, Christ may be considered a type of Adam. Reverse “type” may not always be valid. As I recall, the word “type” is used in Scripture. In my humble opinion, the author was using the word as a teaching tool or explanation, or as a contrast.

It was God, not Adam, Who in Genesis points to the mystery of a Redeemer. Adam hid. What showed how the saving work of Jesus would affect the entire world was not Adam, but God Who created the human species from one source. This is considered the unity of humanity. This is why Jesus could die for ALL.

The distinction concerning types can be tricky. However, I have seen writing which started out using Adam as a type of Christ and then used type in the sense that Adam and Christ were a type of each other as if the “reverse” is always true. All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass. Obviously, the writer disagreed with the reality of Adam’s human nature and the complete reality of Jesus. In fact, type was used as symbol and eventually the reality of Adam and the correct understanding of original sin was lost.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

I just received my Ignatius Study Bible (NT) today in the mail.

As I try to catch up on missed posts…

Since this thread may close before I get home. It is close to limit. Hopefully we can find a place to discuss Adam as a type both as he appears in Scripture and how modern interpreters are discussing him.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[ricmat]

My apology for typo’s – I am on a granny-unfriendly computer that is ignoring my need for spell check.

Pardon me. But that kind of “type” needs clairification. The “word box” above reads like a declaration rather than a creative description. St. Paul by the way is an extremely creative person only I can’t quote him nor the Catechism since I am traveling without my resources…

As I recall, St. Paul showed that Adam and Christ are a type of something else, like their position as the cause of their actions – not specifically a type of each other. I think St. Paul used the words “just as” or that may have been the source quoted as an explanation in the Catechism. In any case, in my humble opinion, Adam, the created human, cannot be considered flat out that he is a type of the divine Christ Who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the one, triune God the Creator. More likely, Christ may be considered a type of Adam. Reverse “type” may not always be valid. As I recall, the word “type” is used in Scripture. In my humble opinion, the author was using the word as a teaching tool or explanation, or as a contrast.

It was God, not Adam, Who in Genesis points to the mystery of a Redeemer. Adam hid. What showed how the saving work of Jesus would affect the entire world was not Adam, but God Who created the human species from one source. This is considered the unity of humanity. This is why Jesus could die for ALL.

The distinction concerning types can be tricky. However, I have seen writing which started out using Adam as a type of Christ and then used type in the sense that Adam and Christ were a type of each other as if the “reverse” is always true. All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass. Obviously, the writer disagreed with the reality of Adam’s human nature and the complete reality of Jesus. In fact, type was used as symbol and eventually the reality of Adam and the correct understanding of original sin was lost.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

I thought that the idea of “type” as used in “typeology” was a fairly established and solid idea. Perhaps I jumped the gun on that.

For example, Isaac is also characterized as a “type of Christ” since he was the only son of the father, who voluntarily gave himself up for execution, and even carried his own wood up the mountain to do it with (as did Christ). Moses is a type of Christ in that he led his people from bondage (physical) through a wilderness filled with temptations, and eventually to a promised land. Just like Christ, except that Christ does this with perfection, whereas Moses is merely a “prototype.”

Etc.

“Types” are imperfect foreshadowings of more perfect realities which appear later in time. So obviously everything that points to Christ appears first, and in a less perfect form than Christ.

Noah’s flood is a type of baptism, as was Joshua crossing the Jordan before entering the promised land.

Joseph is also a type of Christ because he managed to bring some great good out of an evil act (getting sold into slavery).

The passover lamb is a type of Christ…

The manna is a type of Eucharist…

(I’m going through the references to “typeology” in this book.

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Church teaches two sole parents for all human beings. Revelation trumps.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

I thought that the idea of “type” as used in “typeology” was a fairly established and solid idea. Perhaps I jumped the gun on that.

.

Typeology is well established and has been for some time. Used properly as foreshadowing, it adds to the richness of Catholic doctrine. Personally, I think of typeology as a method. Unfortunately, I’ve seen type misused on CAF.

One time, I disagreed with some ugly symbolism that looked like an attempt at typeoloygy. My mistake was that I mentioned the word typeology. Afterwards, the word was misused not only regarding Catholic teaching but in just plain old ugly gross ways regarding the Old Testament and the Eucharist.-- of course, my comments were considered personal opinion…

Unfortunately, with Adam and Christ, there have been opinions on the forums that Jesus is sinfull because of Adam and/or because of our human nature. Of course, everything goes down the drain when Adam is considered a symbol or figurative for some kind of truth about something having to do with some kind of consequences of sinning or humans becoming human as in becoming conscious of sinning without the benefit of a spiritual soul or…

By the way, the Catechism has some interesting paragraphs on the ark (Noah’s) and the Church. As I recall these were in the form of suggestions for deeper meditative meanings. You may have to refer to paragraph 20 or a paragraph in that section. But I am not home to find the reference.

Blessings,
granny
human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Desertsailor]

Yes, we are united as one species, but we did not all descend from only two parents, except in the realm of mythology.

Adam was created by God and Eve was made from Adam’s rib. We are all descended from them. Any other opinion is heresy.

 

[StAnastasia]

Adam was created by God and Eve was made from Adam’s rib. We are all descended from them. Any other opinion is heresy.

That would be news to Pope Benedict.

 

[grannymh]

Etc.

“Types” are imperfect foreshadowings of more perfect realities which appear later in time. So obviously everything that points to Christ appears first, and in a less perfect form than Christ.

Noah’s flood is a type of baptism, as was Joshua crossing the Jordan before entering the promised land.

Joseph is also a type of Christ because he managed to bring some great good out of an evil act (getting sold into slavery).

The passover lamb is a type of Christ…

The manna is a type of Eucharist…

(I’m going through the references to “typeology” in this book.

Would it be possible to say why something or the action or status of someone is considered a foreshawdowing of the New Testatment? The area of connection?

Considering that without a real Adam…

 

[ricmat]

Typeology is well established and has been for some time. Used properly as foreshadowing, it adds to the richness of Catholic doctrine. Personally, I think of typeology as a method. Unfortunately, I’ve seen type misused on CAF.

One time, I disagreed with some ugly symbolism that looked like an attempt at typeoloygy. My mistake was that I mentioned the word typeology. Afterwards, the word was misused not only regarding Catholic teaching but in just plain old ugly gross ways regarding the Old Testament and the Eucharist.-- of course, my comments were considered personal opinion…

Unfortunately, with Adam and Christ, there have been opinions on the forums that Jesus is sinfull because of Adam and/or because of our human nature. Of course, everything goes down the drain when Adam is considered a symbol or figurative for some kind of truth about something having to do with some kind of consequences of sinning or humans becoming human as in becoming conscious of sinning without the benefit of a spiritual soul or…

By the way, the Catechism has some interesting paragraphs on the ark (Noah’s) and the Church. As I recall these were in the form of suggestions for deeper meditative meanings. You may have to refer to paragraph 20 or a paragraph in that section. But I am not home to find the reference.

Blessings,
granny
human life is meant for eternal life.

I’ve seen Noah’s ark proposed as a “type” for the future church - it’s probably in my Navarre commentary but I’m pressed for time right now and can’t look it up.

Also my understanding of “type” is that the thing/object/person/event which is the “type” is always less good, less perfect, less clear, less holy, less significant than the thing it foreshadows. So I definitely wasn’t trying to make any point that because Adam sinned, then Jesus did too.

 

[redneck22]

I thought that the idea of “type” as used in “typeology” was a fairly established and solid idea. Perhaps I jumped the gun on that.

For example, Isaac is also characterized as a “type of Christ” since he was the only son of the father, who voluntarily gave himself up for execution, and even carried his own wood up the mountain to do it with (as did Christ). Moses is a type of Christ in that he led his people from bondage (physical) through a wilderness filled with temptations, and eventually to a promised land. Just like Christ, except that Christ does this with perfection, whereas Moses is merely a “prototype.”

Etc.

“Types” are imperfect foreshadowings of more perfect realities which appear later in time. So obviously everything that points to Christ appears first, and in a less perfect form than Christ.

Noah’s flood is a type of baptism, as was Joshua crossing the Jordan before entering the promised land.

Joseph is also a type of Christ because he managed to bring some great good out of an evil act (getting sold into slavery).

The passover lamb is a type of Christ…

The manna is a type of Eucharist…

(I’m going through the references to “typeology” in this book.

All of which were real historical events, just like the perfectly good created creature in the first year of it’s life was sacrificed to make a covering for Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden.

 

[ricmat]

All of which were real historical events, just like the perfectly good created creature in the first year of it’s life was sacrificed to make a covering for Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden.

It looks like you’re trying to argue with me. I’m not sure why.

So far as the covering of Adam and Eve, it is the first spilled blood (and first death) mentioned in the Bible. I haven’t been following this thread closely, so if you made that comment with something else in mind, I apologize for missing it.

 

[grannymh]

I’ve seen Noah’s ark proposed as a “type” for the future church - it’s probably in my Navarre commentary but I’m pressed for time right now and can’t look it up.

Also my understanding of “type” is that the thing/object/person/event which is the “type” is always less good, less perfect, less clear, less holy, less significant than the thing it foreshadows. So I definitely wasn’t trying to make any point that because Adam sinned, then Jesus did too.

You did fine. It is just that I am very aware of dissent by other posters. And I am very, very sad.

 

[redneck22]

When I hear people speak of “Darwinism” I know they are not educated in science. It is akin to speaking of modern astronomy as “Galileanism.”

So you would agree with all those thousands of scientists that say Darwinism is dead.