Oldest modern humans and Eve

[Stevereeno]

Neithan:

Keep in mind the Church has only been around for about 2000 years. Judaism has only been around for about 5000 years (?) and the laws for marriage in the old covenant are much different than in the new. Men lawfully had many wives.

You are suggesting Adam had many wives that were animals, not human wives.

Neithan:

Previous to the Law of Moses there were no set moral rules for procreation, and God’s only command was for humanity to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). So you cannot transpose Christ’s marriage laws onto the first human beings.

Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

Neithan:

Look carefully at Genesis 4:14-24. Cain is banished to Nod, East of Eden, and it is obvious that people live there, since God even puts a curse on whoever would kill Cain. Who were these people? Who was the wife of Cain in 4:17? His sister? That would be pretty unethical in itself. She must have been either a hominid brute (not a daughter of Adam and Eve) or another human being to whom God had given a soul.

In one breath you are destroying the “history of the nations”, and with your next breath, you are quoting it as literal truth.

Neithan:

The fact that we are not descended from one genetic pair is currently a scientific probability. One of the only explanations for this is that the first true humans procreated with human-like animals. A miracle would not be disprovable by molecular science, it would be unexplainable. IF it can be definitively proven that we are not all from one single original genetic pair by science, we can’t say that a miracle has taken place, which would make it seem as though there were a natural explication. This destroys our reasoning. As much as you dislike the argument that God cannot deceive us, it is a valid one.

Based on your theory, what was the purpose of creating both Adam and Eve. God would only have had to create Adam. Adam, alone, could then have gone and performed acts of beastiality to create the human race.

Who taught Adam to talk? If you say that Adam hadn’t developed his own form of speech, why would he care whether his companion (wife) had an eternal soul? Without speech, how would he even know the difference between Eve and one of the beasts? After God created Eve, which by the way made Adam extermely happy, why would he then continue to mate with the beasts? After Adam’s first daughter (from a beast) was born, why didn’t he just take her as his companion? She would have had a soul; she would have been “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh”.

 

[Neithan]

Originally posted by buffalo:
God allowed the incest as it was physically necessary at the beginning. This would only be unethical by today’s as well as our standards.

Along this line, my reasoning was that perhaps procreating with human-like animals (pseudo-bestiality, I suppose) was not as unethical as it is today, in the very beginning, distasteful as that idea is.

Originally posted by Stevereeno:
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

Because they were wholly evil and corrupted. I suppose procreating with human-like animals could have been a “necessary evil” in the very beginning, much like incest must have been, if one believes that the children of Adam and Eve procreated with one another.

Based on your theory, what was the purpose of creating both Adam and Eve. God would only have had to create Adam. Adam, alone, could then have gone and performed acts of beastiality to create the human race.

This is an excellent point. I would suppose that, since God initially intended Adam to live forever with his family in the garden of Eden, and that death was not intended for human beings, it was better for Adam to have a companion, as perfect as he was. Once death and sin entered the fabric of humanity, it would have been necessary to procreate as efficiently as possible to ensure the continuance of the human race.

Perhaps I’m being too liberal in my interpretations, but the scientific evidence still stands, gentlemen. Whether you decide to turn a blind eye to it or not. I’m merely trying to see, in the light of modern scientific observations, what the inspired author of Genesis is intending for us to believe, literally or figuratively, and in what proportion of each, while remaining within the bounds of orthodoxy. We’re all on a quest for the truth, but we have to recognize its manifestations in our own reasoning before we can grasp onto faith. Blind faith was never a Christian ideal, and certainly never a Catholic one.

JimG hit the nail on the head earlier. This is all speculation. A lot of the knowledge hidden in Scripture may never be explicitly known to us. Perhaps one day, when enough scientific evidence is compiled, biblical exegeses have been exhausted, and innummerable philosophical theories expounded, the Holy Spirit will grant us full understanding of our origins. Until then we can, and will, continue to speculate.

 

[Stevereeno]

Ghosty, don’t read this:

Humani Generis:
“37. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all…”

Well, according to Pope Pius XII, I guess Eve didn’t have babies with animals.

 

[Neithan]

If one of Adam’s children (Cain, for example) went off to Nod, and there procreated with human-like animals (who were the people mentioned in Genesis 4 anyway?), the offspring would be “naturally generated” from Adam.

 

[Stevereeno]

Neithan:

Perhaps I’m being too liberal in my interpretations, but the scientific evidence still stands, gentlemen. Whether you decide to turn a blind eye to it or not. I’m merely trying to see, in the light of modern scientific observations, what the inspired author of Genesis is intending for us to believe, literally or figuratively, and in what proportion of each, while remaining within the bounds of orthodoxy. We’re all on a quest for the truth, but we have to recognize its manifestations in our own reasoning before we can grasp onto faith. Blind faith was never a Christian ideal, and certainly never a Catholic one.

Point taken. I suppose that I get too emotional when people seem to be saying that beliefs I’ve held for 35 years may (or may not) be absolutely wrong. I suppose I should just ignore what the prognosticators are saying and wait for the inevitable papal decree that states as such. Too bad for my kids; how should I instruct them in the meantime? Sorry… off topic.

 

[Ghosty]

Chris W:

The Church is pretty clear on the teaching about the relationship between a man and a woman, and it always involves an intimate love, a relfection of the love between persons of the Triune God, or God and the Church. Is it reasonable to think that the first humans became one flesh in a loving relationship with soulless hominoid animal brutes? Or is it reasonable to think that God now expects this type of relationship between a man and a woman, but did not have this expectation in the beginning, and in fact by design intended for loveless procreation?

First off, such hominids would not be soulless, but would have animal souls. It is my understanding that animal souls are capable of love, though perhaps not on the same level as human love, just as human love is not on the same level as God’s love. That being said, I believe that in such a situation it would have merely been suitable at the time and not now, just as with the “Adam and Eve only” argument you necessarily have incest amongst their children even though such relationships are forbidden now. Indeed, in every conceivable origin, the rules would have to be different from the current ones.

Yet you also believe in the virgin birth which would definatley contradict genetics. Can you comment on why the same rules do not apply in the origin of Jesus and the origin of the human race?

Interesting question. I believe in the Virgin Birth because the Church says it is so, and I readily accept miracles. If I had the option to believe in it or not, I might not, though I might still; I really can’t say for sure. I believe that some strange miracle could account for genetic variation, but I am not obligated to believe that so I have chosen not to based on the possibility of other explainations. I don’t believe it’s wrong to believe in other miraculous explainations, however.

 

[Ghosty]

stevereeno: I’m certainly not saying that your view is wrong, I’m just saying that neither my view nor yours has been proclaimed right or wrong by the Magisterium. We can disagree and both remain orthodox and faithful. Obviously someone is wrong, if not both of us, but as of yet we have nothing from the Church that says who.

Now I have said that your views are not backed by science, which is true, but in the long run that doesn’t mean much in regards to the faith. Faith doesn’t rise or fall based on scientific discoveries. Your views are in line with the Church, as are mine, and that’s all that matters. I never intended to suggest that your views on Creation were out of line with the Magisterium; it is the attitude that my views are wrong which is out of line with the Magisterium, at least at this point in time.

 

[Stevereeno]

Ghosty:

stevereeno: I’m certainly not saying that your view is wrong, I’m just saying that neither my view nor yours has been proclaimed right or wrong by the Magisterium. We can disagree and both remain orthodox and faithful. Obviously someone is wrong, if not both of us, but as of yet we have nothing from the Church that says who.

Now I have said that your views are not backed by science, which is true, but in the long run that doesn’t mean much in regards to the faith. Faith doesn’t rise or fall based on scientific discoveries. Your views are in line with the Church, as are mine, and that’s all that matters. I never intended to suggest that your views on Creation were out of line with the Magisterium; it is the attitude that my views are wrong which is out of line with the Magisterium, at least at this point in time.

OK, Ghosty. I glad we cleared that up. Sorry if I was rude.

See ya somewhere else, maybe. I don’t really want to think about this particular subject anymore.

 

[Ghosty]

OK, Ghosty. I glad we cleared that up. Sorry if I was rude.

See ya somewhere else, maybe. I don’t really want to think about this particular subject anymore.

No hard feelings, and I don’t blame you. I’ll stick around for a while simply because the biological aspects are right up my alley working in medicine and all. My prayers and best wishes are with you

 

[Chris_W]

Sheesh, I’m away from the computer for 12 hours, and 17 posts later, the conversation has passed me by

Ghosty:

stevereeno: I’m certainly not saying that your view is wrong, I’m just saying that neither my view nor yours has been proclaimed right or wrong by the Magisterium. We can disagree and both remain orthodox and faithful. Obviously someone is wrong, if not both of us, but as of yet we have nothing from the Church that says who.

Now I have said that your views are not backed by science, which is true, but in the long run that doesn’t mean much in regards to the faith. Faith doesn’t rise or fall based on scientific discoveries. Your views are in line with the Church, as are mine, and that’s all that matters. I never intended to suggest that your views on Creation were out of line with the Magisterium; it is the attitude that my views are wrong which is out of line with the Magisterium, at least at this point in time.

You are fair and honest, Ghosty. Thank you for the dialogue.

I’ve enjoyed your (name removed by moderator)ut as well, Neithan.

Stevereeno, I’m encouraged there’s another who feels the way I do.

Thanks folks…I have more to ponder now.

I’ll be away from the computer till monday (you know that whole “work” thing), so I’m bowing out now too.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[buffalo]

Neithan:

Along this line, my reasoning was that perhaps procreating with human-like animals (pseudo-bestiality, I suppose) was not as unethical as it is today, in the very beginning, distasteful as that idea is.

**371 **God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None of the animals can be man’s partner. **The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

**

 

[Vincent_Lewis]

From what I have heard and read recently about evolution I do not know how it can be believed. Now and again seems to be a missing link found only to find out it was false or there is a new missing link. Second, because of the complexity of the parts of the body no creature could come into existance without an intelligent designer. Lastly, where is the evidence of good mutations that make evolution possible?

 

[Br.Carlo]

God’s peace. I am a biologist (Ph.D.) and a teacher of biology, so naturally this thread interests me. But my interest here is Catholic, Franciscan, and theological, so I don’t want to get too deep into the biology of things. I find the Magisterial dogmas and the freedoms of belief permitted by the Church, with clearly-set but limited boundaries on evolutionary theory, to be a blessing after having been called an apostate so many times back in my Protestant days.

So far, no one has commented on the interesting passage in Gen. 6: 1-4, which deals with the “sons of God” mating with “the daughters of men.” Any thoughts? Blessings,

 

[Ghosty]

So far, no one has commented on the interesting passage in Gen. 6: 1-4, which deals with the “sons of God” mating with “the daughters of men.” Any thoughts?

Personally I like the Book of Enoch telling, although I realize it’s not Scriptural. The Book of Enoch is referenced by both Peter and Jude directly, and Paul references it indirectly, which lends it an air of credibility, IMO. In it, the “Sons of God” were rebellious angels who were attracted to human females and found a way to mate with them, producing the horrible Nephilim. These angels were punished by God, locked in chains in darkness for eternity, and the Nephilim mostly destroyed in the Flood.

Personally I find this interpretation to be most in line with the rest of Scripture, espescially since it is referenced by the writers of Scripture in a very matter-of-fact way.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Vincent Lewis:

From what I have heard and read recently about evolution I do not know how it can be believed.

It is NOT something that is “believed” in or not
It is merely what is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence
Vincent Lewis:

Now and again seems to be a missing link found only to find out it was false or there is a new missing link.

Exactly what “missing links” are you talking about?

With the exception of Piltdown Man; a hoax that was exposed by science because it was not consistent with available evidence I can’t think of any “false” findings

Are there new findings? Yes. That what science is all about.

There is a well documented line of transitional forms
The exact details are still being investigated and new discoveries mean that the fine points of the theory are subject to revisions but the basic idea hasn’t changed.

Don’t let pop-science/pop-media stories distort your view of the field.

A more cynical man than I would point out that there have been far more false prophets, eschatological whackos, and charlatans in the name of religion then there have been “false” evolution. I of course wouldn’t mention that.
Vincent Lewis:

Second, because of the complexity of the parts of the body no creature could come into existance without an intelligent designer.

That is an
argument from incredulity
Vincent Lewis:

Lastly, where is the evidence of good mutations that make evolution possible?

Sigh, happens all the time

Ask anyone who has an infection from antibiotic resistant bacteria

Or ever wonder why the flu vaccine has to change every year?

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[Benadam]

Ghosty:

Personally I like the Book of Enoch telling, although I realize it’s not Scriptural. The Book of Enoch is referenced by both Peter and Jude directly, and Paul references it indirectly, which lends it an air of credibility, IMO. In it, the “Sons of God” were rebellious angels who were attracted to human females and found a way to mate with them, producing the horrible Nephilim. These angels were punished by God, locked in chains in darkness for eternity, and the Nephilim mostly destroyed in the Flood.

Personally I find this interpretation to be most in line with the rest of Scripture, espescially since it is referenced by the writers of Scripture in a very matter-of-fact way.

The sons of God was the line of Seth that maintained the image of God as revealed in Adam. The daughters of men are the line of Cain who maintained Cains image as the image of God on earth.
Here it is the polygamous line of Cain tempting the monogamous line of Seth to share in the sin of polygamy.

This episode is the archetyp of the seduction of the Israelites by the idolatrous women who were instructed by Balaam. It is echoed throughout scripture and is the same force against the Son of God mentioned in Rev. as the Jezebel Jesus is giving a period of time to reform.

I would step out a bit and even say that it is the culture of death that seeks to destroy marriage and family through divorce which could be considered a form of polygamy. ( the sons of God marrying as many as they chose)

 

[Pensees]

Though I’ve taken college level anthropology and biology, am aware of the evidence in favor of common descent, have written an opinion article against the teaching of creationism, own several books on biological evolution, etc. I still cannot help but returning to the simplicity of Genesis. Granted, the earth is not less than 10,000 years old. Several church fathers noted that the ‘days’ of Genesis 1 are not to be understood literally. On the other hand, it is hard for me to ignore that ‘from the dust of the ground’ means ‘from the dust of the ground’. Though we share much of our DNA and morphological features with chimps, it is none the less still possible that we are a specially created species.