Other men at the time of Adam and Eve?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bettina

Guest
My fourth grade religion students asked “If Adam and Eve were the first,whom did their sons marry?” I didn’t know what to answer them.
 
I think that Adam and Eve had other children and that was whom their son’s married but I am not sure. Someone else help me on this.
 
40.png
Bettina:
My fourth grade religion students asked “If Adam and Eve were the first,whom did their sons marry?” I didn’t know what to answer them.
Their sisters.
 
There must have been femal children born to Adam and Eve. Only three children are named in the Bible (Cain, Abel and Seth) but that doesn’t mean that there were not others.

There was no need to be concerned about the genetic effects resulting from inbreeding since the curse would only just have begun.

It also wouldn’t be an issue for long. A while back there was an article in Scientific American which did the math. In 125 years there would be over a million people.
 
Is it possible to consider the Genisis story as more allegorical than historical? As transformative as opposed to informative? There seems to be two seperate creation stories in the early chapters of Genesis anyway and allusions to communities of people already in place at the condemnation of Cain.
 
40.png
Charles:
Is it possible to consider the Genisis story as more allegorical than historical? As transformative as opposed to informative? There seems to be two seperate creation stories in the early chapters of Genesis anyway and allusions to communities of people already in place at the condemnation of Cain.
Yes it is possible. When reading the Bible the type of literature should be taken into account.
 
There were children other than Cain, Abel, and Seth. Adam is said to have “had other sons and daughters” (Gen. 5:4). Their number is not given, but Adam lived a very long time and so may have had a great number of children.

“Who did Cain marry?” asks the child.

“He married Mrs. Cain,” comes the reply. It turns out that Mrs. Cain must have been one of his sisters.

Catholics are obligated to believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve. There were no other human beings preceding them, and no human beings who came after them were descended ultimately from anyone other than Adam and Eve. Although portions of Genesis may be taken allegorically, the existence of Adam and Eve may not.
 
One of the main reasons the story of creation was written was to diffuse a lot of the notions people had about the nature of the world at that time.

In ancient times, people believed that the world was a terrible place and that the gods created men for their own demonic pleasure. This could have been due to the lack of knowledge people had about God and nature, so they would make up stories to explain why things happened.

In any case, the creation stories had three main points. One being that there is only one God, two being that He created everything, and three being that everything God created is good. If you look at the first story of creation you will note that after God was done creating whatever he created that day, it would say, “And God saw that it was good.” then on to the next day…God created something, “And God saw that it was good.” etc. etc.

Trying to prove the creation or evolution theory from the book of Genesis is mostly futile because it was never written to say EXACTLY how everything was created. It could be close, it may not be. What we do know from Genesis is that:
  1. there is only one God
  2. He created everything
  3. Everything God created is good
 
Karl Keating:
Catholics are obligated to believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve. There were no other human beings preceding them, and no human beings who came after them were descended ultimately from anyone other than Adam and Eve.
This rejects the notion of several different pockets of humans springing up in diffferent places in the earth. So, The enitre human race comes from one location, and then spreads out.

Correct me if I’m wrong…
 
It goes back to that age old question: Did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons? :eek: :confused:

The poetic forms of expression in the earily books of the OT, I would speculate are more implied than actual fact. However, Noah’s Ark appears later in time and can be almost fact. (There are those who are contemplationg going up Mt Arriat this summer to see if the ark is there).

The idea of bibical genealogy is a wonder to me.

Right now all that matters is that God created us in HIS image and how HE wanted the story of creation in the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
And in God’s presence, we will have ALL the answers. You will talk to Adam and Eve personally!

Glory be to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him Forever! :bowdown: :bowdown2:
 
40.png
bemmel:
This rejects the notion of several different pockets of humans springing up in diffferent places in the earth. So, The enitre human race comes from one location, and then spreads out.

Correct me if I’m wrong…
By George, you’ve got it, Prof. Higgins! :clapping:
 
40.png
funkyhorn:
In ancient times, people believed that the world was a terrible place and that the gods created men for their own demonic pleasure. This could have been due to the lack of knowledge people had about God and nature, so they would make up stories to explain why things happened.
Says who? What evidence do we have that prehistoric man “believed that the world was a terrible place”? Those cave paintings in France suggest playfulness, said Chesterton, not fear.

Sure, prehistoric life was quite unlike ours, but in many ways it must have been much like the recent life of, say, the Bushmen of southern Africa, who are known for having a rather positive attitude toward life.
 
With regards to sexual relations among family members, the Church differentiates between “collateral relations” and “relations in the direct line.”

The direct line has to do with parents/grandparents/uncles and their children/grandchildren/nephews. Sexual relations in the direct line are always sinful.

Collateral relations (sex between siblings and cousins) are not necessarily intrinsically evil. This is why the Church, especially in Europe, frequently gives dispensations for first cousins to marry. I don’t see why the Church could not, theoretically, in a desperate situation, grant a similar dispensation to two siblings.

The fact that God not only allowed, but absolutely made it required, that Cain had to mate with his sister, shows that such relations are not intrinsically evil, even if not normally desirable.
 
Karl Keating:
Says who? What evidence do we have that prehistoric man “believed that the world was a terrible place”? Those cave paintings in France suggest playfulness, said Chesterton, not fear.

Sure, prehistoric life was quite unlike ours, but in many ways it must have been much like the recent life of, say, the Bushmen of southern Africa, who are known for having a rather positive attitude toward life.
Sorry for the confusion, but I didn’t mean to make that statement absolutely. I know a lot of eastern (asian) religions have a very positive outlook on life and the nature of things, but there were definately people and religions who thought otherwise. I was thinking specifically of a story (Babylonian, I think) that was floating around the middle east which depicted the creation of the world as some sort of an after-effect of a fight between the gods.
 
I was thinking specifically of a story (Babylonian, I think) that was floating around the middle east which depicted the creation of the world as some sort of an after-effect of a fight between the gods.
This is a very common pagan myth, and exists even in Hinduism.

I think what Keating was trying to say is that we really can’t paint any civilization with such a broad brush, and then use said brush to justify dissent from Church teaching.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
I think what Keating was trying to say is that we really can’t paint any civilization with such a broad brush, and then use said brush to justify dissent from Church teaching.
True dat, true dat…

Here’s the story I was thinking of.
 
Karl Keating:
Catholics are obligated to believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve. There were no other human beings preceding them, and no human beings who came after them were descended ultimately from anyone other than Adam and Eve. Although portions of Genesis may be taken allegorically, the existence of Adam and Eve may not.
This is good information, and if I’m obligated to believe it as a Catholic than I will believe it. But it does highlight a frustration I have had from time to time concerning which matters I am obliged to believe. I’ve been a Catholic for nine years now and I still get confused.

In this case it seems like the Church and the Bible could have been a bit more explicit on the issue of there being one true and literal Adam and Eve. There seems to be sufficient generalizations in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and the Bible to leave even reasonably well read people with room to believe that the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 refer to adam and eve as allegorical to humanity.

In the CCC I re-read the following verses today which were the basis of my previous understanding of this issue:

369: “Man and woman have been created…”

371: God created man and woman together…"

In neither of these paragraphs(and there are others) are Adam and Eve spoken of by name. When they are mentioned by name a few paragraphs later there is a seeming implication of symbolism for them:

375: “The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice.”…”

The remaining paragraphs in that section return to labeling the couple not by their names but in the generic man and woman.

283 and 284: extoll the scientific studies into the origin of the world and of man that have so “splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms and the appearance of man.” These paragraphs go on to state that while these endeavours are valid, it is not the place of science to interpret the “meaning of such an origin”. Again, the implication to me was that we are obligated to accept God as creator of all, but that our scientific understanding was valid to an understanding of how that creation occurred.

The most powerful statements of the one Adam one Eve position I found was in paragraphs 396 through 404. But even here paragraph 399 referred to Adam and Eve’s disobediance as a scriptural portrayal. My dictionary refers to the word portray as to describe vividly in words so as to bring out the character (italics mine) of. Portray is also defined as "to represent (a character) on the stage.

Finally, the differences between the creation stories of Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 had always left me with the impression that the purpose of the two stories was to emphasize and re-emphasize that humanity and the entire universe were created by God. I always accepted the doctrine of original sin but until now had not understood that I had to take the one man, one woman creations as literal.

Since becoming Catholic I have always been grateful for not having to look inward for my own interpretation of scriptures but instead relying on the Church to authentically interpret, without error, matters of faith and morality. It just seems, on this matter of faith at least, that the CCC has left some wiggle room and is reluctant to categorically speak out on this doctrine. When I contrast the CCC’s handling of this issue to things like the perpetual virginity of Mary or the True Presence in the Eucharist I do scratch my head a bit!
 
Pope Pius XII was pretty clear and explicit on this. See his encyclical Humani Generis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top