Other men at the time of Adam and Eve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bettina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn’t it written in Leviticus that brothers and sisters could no longer marry? I know that at first brothers and sisters could marry so they could populate that globe. Science proves that the genes could handle this remarkably well (unlike say the English Royal family today). I think by the time Leviticus was written brother/sister marriages wouldn’t have been very useful.
 
40.png
garysibio:
in Scientific American which did the math. In 125 years there would be over a million people.
Click to expand...
I am wondering if this was a snide hit piece on religion? I finally gave up on my subscription to Scientific American because of the constant evolutionary theory articles. It seemed to me that over half the magazine was devoted to proving evolution. I was disappointed they did some good articles on quite a number of subjects other wise.

Benjamin
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Pope Pius XII was pretty clear and explicit on this. See his encyclical Humani Generis.
Click to expand...
Thank you, and I will look this up. I’m still left wondering if it comes as a surprise that Catholics like myself often look to places like the CCC and the Bible for answers to questions of faith and morals, such as the issue we are discussing here. For every Catholic who is willing to move beyond the Catechism, to a place like this forum, to further research an issue, there are many more who will stop at the Catechism. On this particular issue there seems to be a note of ambiguity in the CCC that is not found on many other issues of faith and morality.

Maybe I’m just being defensive because I apparently allowed myself to fall into some bad theology for 9+ years 😉
 
**DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU **
Click to expand...
Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Promulgated On September 30, 1943
Click to expand...
Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order “to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”[1] This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals. No wonder herefore that, as she received it intact from the hands of the Apostles, so she kept it with all care, defended it from every false and perverse interpretation and used it diligently as an instrument for securing the eternal salvation of souls, as almost countless documents in every age strikingly bear witness.In more recent times, however, since the divine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defense and protection. The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.”[2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and – as they contended – in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
Click to expand...
 
I just finished reading Humani Generis and the 1943 encyclical posted by Beng. Both were very worthwhile. The Pope did seem to modify his position on the study of the physical sciences a bit between 1943 and 1950, at least it seemed that way to me. He was very clear, however, in stating that polygenism was not to be taught because at that time there was no way to reconcile it to the doctrine of original sin. I saw something during my search that indicated John Paul II had reiterated this position against polygenism not too many years ago himself, while acknowledging that evolution was more than a theory by his time.
 
Isn’t it written in Leviticus that brothers and sisters could no longer marry?
Click to expand...
Yes, but not because collateral relations (i.e. between siblings) is intrinsically evil, but because it was not preferrable and so God saw fit to forbid these relations with Israel.

There are many things in Leviticus which are not intrinsically evil, but are forbidden for other reasons.

I think the Church is very wise to maintain the prohibition, but I think its possible she could lift it for a serious reason. She could never, however, allow incest in the direct line (i.e. between parents and children). This would violate the relationship thats presupposed by the 3rd commandment (“Honor thy father and thy mother . . .”).
 
Yes, as Mr. Keating said, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Remember, when they lived that long and each of their kids had many children…the population could grow really quickly…so there could already have been thriving communities in the time of Cain and such…however, the Bible doesn’t say that people were already living in the land Cain moved off to…he may have simply built a city for his own family (which could have either been very large…long life-span…or he was anticipating a large one). The Cain and Abel incident may have happened decades, or even centuries, after original sin…there may have been thousands or people on the earth already (all from Adam).

Marrying one’s sister wouldn’t have been a problem, as they would still be very genetically pure…very few mutations would have accumulated at that time (remember that the vast majority of mutations are bad…), so the chances of defects in the offspring would be very low. They probably would have had more genetic diversity within a small population as well. (Many Indian families, for example, have a wide variety of skin tones, from near-black to light brown…since they are, generally speaking, a ‘medium-brown’ pigmented people, they have the genetic potential for a wide range of skin pigmentations).

(Even Abraham, many centuries after the time of Cain and Abel, married his half-sister, in a pre-Law time).
 
Since we are obligated to believe that Adam/Eve were the first people, I wonder what that does to evolution theories?

I assume we are allowed to believe that Adam/Eve had their physical bodies derived from some sort of animal…but does that really make any sense?

:confused:
 
Actually, there were a few Fathers (Saint Augustine, for example) who speculated that the body of the first man underwent some kind of development before reaching its mature state. They comment on Genesis 2:7, which tells us that Adam’s body was formed from the dust of the earth, and speculated as to how it was we went from “dust” to a full-grown body. It is possible that the “dust” underwent evolution before it became Adam’s body.

It is also possible that God may have slightly altered the genes of a newly conceived hominid baby, introducing a spiritual, immortal soul and thus the first human Adam came into existence. He would have been genetically different from his apelike mother and essentially different from her in that he had an immortal soul. Adam could have been brought up by apelike parents, until God called him to rule alone in Eden. This interpretation might give added meaning to Genesis 2:24, because if Adam was specially created he would never have had a father and mother.

On the other hand, God may have directly created Adam without recourse to such a process.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Actually, there were a few Fathers (Saint Augustine, for example) who speculated that the body of the first man underwent some kind of development before reaching its mature state. They comment on Genesis 2:7, which tells us that Adam’s body was formed from the dust of the earth, and speculated as to how it was we went from “dust” to a full-grown body. It is possible that the “dust” underwent evolution before it became Adam’s body.

It is also possible that God may have slightly altered the genes of a newly conceived hominid baby, introducing a spiritual, immortal soul and thus the first human Adam came into existence. He would have been genetically different from his apelike mother and essentially different from her in that he had an immortal soul. Adam could have been brought up by apelike parents, until God called him to rule alone in Eden. This interpretation might give added meaning to Genesis 2:24, because if Adam was specially created he would never have had a father and mother.

On the other hand, God may have directly created Adam without recourse to such a process.
Click to expand...
I’ve thought about this as well…I believe there were other primitive human-like creatures…but Adam and Eve were the first to have a “spiritual, immortal soul”…, etc. I’ve also thought…that maybe these other primitive creatures over time…may have evolved into
an advanced form like Adam and Eve…and they incurred the penalities from Adam and Eve, etc. Wither you’re born in a womb…or test tube…you still incure the penalities. I hope this makes sense. At any rate…Adam…the belief in original sin, etc. is intact.
 
If you’re suggesting that all humans are not direct descendents of Adam and Eve, then the teachings of the Church do not allow for that. We are all one blood (Acts 17:26), and only the sons of Adam can be saved. (The whole First and Last Adam thing…plus Christ became a son of Adam to allow the other sons of Adam to be reconciled with God). There is scientific evidence to support the notion that we are all have common ancestors as well…for one the simply fact that all living human beings are so incredibly similar at the genetic-level (regardless of what ‘race’, a term that is really not a part of modern human biology as, genetically speaking, you can not classify people into neat little ‘races’, you belong to) all sharing about 99.8% of our DNA with every other human. As well, a study using mitochondria DNA (when we inherit from our mothers) suggests that all humans could share a common ‘mother’ (though it is still possible that other lines mixed in, but our theology doesn’t allow for that.

Just look up the section on original sin in your Catechism. (Starting at 388). I’m not sure where in the Catechism it actually states that all mankind are direct descendents of Adam, but it is implicit in the section on original sin that we inherit original sin because we are all the literal children of Adam. (I’m very certain that the Magisterium has defined that all nations come directly from Adam).

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.
God bless,
Tyler
 
40.png
twf:
If you’re suggesting that all humans are not direct descendents of Adam and Eve, then the teachings of the Church do not allow for that. We are all one blood (Acts 17:26), and only the sons of Adam can be saved. (The whole First and Last Adam thing…plus Christ became a son of Adam to allow the other sons of Adam to be reconciled with God). There is scientific evidence to support the notion that we are all have common ancestors as well…for one the simply fact that all living human beings are so incredibly similar at the genetic-level (regardless of what ‘race’, a term that is really not a part of modern human biology as, genetically speaking, you can not classify people into neat little ‘races’, you belong to) all sharing about 99.8% of our DNA with every other human. As well, a study using mitochondria DNA (when we inherit from our mothers) suggests that all humans could share a common ‘mother’ (though it is still possible that other lines mixed in, but our theology doesn’t allow for that.

Just look up the section on original sin in your Catechism. (Starting at 388). I’m not sure where in the Catechism it actually states that all mankind are direct descendents of Adam, but it is implicit in the section on original sin that we inherit original sin because we are all the literal children of Adam. (I’m very certain that the Magisterium has defined that all nations come directly from Adam).

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.
God bless,
Tyler
Click to expand...
Must we also bring up Galileo? Johannes Kepler?

There are some that believe to say…that to deny that God created the world in 7 days (literally)…is blasphemy, etc.

We could argue about this forever…I believe science and religion can co-exist…but to me personally…I believe the most important factor within the Adam and Eve story…was that original sin occurred…and it was Jesus (God incarnate) that opened the gates.
 
Here is the part of Genesis that trips me up:

Genesis 4:13-15

“Cain said to the Lord: ‘My punishment is too great to bear. Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight.’ ‘Not so!’ the Lord said to him.
‘If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.’ So the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight.”

I often wonder…exactly who were these people Cain was so afraid of?
 
Karl, you said:" Catholics are obligated to believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve." I always thought that this was so and told someone on another discussion board. He said I was wrong and asked me to provide a source for the statement. I couldn’t. Can you help me out? :confused:
 
Karl Keating:
Catholics are obligated to believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve. … Although portions of Genesis may be taken allegorically, the existence of Adam and Eve may not.
Click to expand...
It is interesting to note that (unless it has since been discredited) that genetic research recently strongly asserted that all humans have DNA from one woman, probably of African origin. Might Eve be African? I don’t think the location of Eden is dogmatic, is it?

Regards.
 
40.png
the_geezer:
It is interesting to note that (unless it has since been discredited) that genetic research recently strongly asserted that all humans have DNA from one woman, probably of African origin. Might Eve be African? I don’t think the location of Eden is dogmatic, is it?

Regards.
Click to expand...
The genetic research is inconclusive. As far as location…inconclusive. We are all also only 3-5% different from chimps…but, that’s not saying much.

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary is interesting on this matter…here are some highlights…(most we already know)

“The biblical writers have produced a version of a common
Mesopotamian story of questions about God and humanity through narrative.” (New Jerome Biblical Commentary)

"“Gen. 1-11 then is a single story, an unusually sustained “philosophical” and “ theological” explanation of the human race - its relation to God, its institutions
(marriage, languages, ethnic and national divisions, metal working, animal husbandry, etc.), its flaws, its destiny - and of God and God’s justice and abiding fidelity to the race.” (New Jerome Biblical Commentary)

“Childbearing, a constituent part of woman’s nature will be attended with great pain, symbolizing the loss of original ease with oneself and one’s environment. Woman’s original equality with her “correspondent,” the man, is part of the loss, suggesting that the subordinate place of the woman in Israelite society was not intended by God, but is rather a result of human sin. The man is not cursed, but the earth is cursed because of the man’s misdeed; his tilling and tending of it will be laborious.” (New
Jerome Biblical Commentary)
 
Agname: Of course science and religion can co-exist, this is what the Church tells us. I was saying that there is nothing in science that says all humans do not descend from a common mother (or father). Why are you uncomfortable with the idea, may I ask? The Church has spoken, the fact that we descend from Adam and Eve is a matter of faith, not the Church interfering in science, Galileo is not a parallel case, it’s completely different. The Church allows you to believe in God-guided evolution if you want, but you must have Adam and Eve as our literal parents (whether they evolved to reach that point or not is irrelevent). Most scientists today would agree that we all come from the same small group…see ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ379.HTM for Galileo.
 
yinekka

… " Catholics are obligated to believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve." I always thought that this was so and told someone on another discussion board. He said I was wrong and asked me to provide a source for the statement. I couldn’t. Can you help me out?

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, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

HUMANI GENERIS (37)

POPE PIUS XII, 12 August 1950
 
One book on this subject that I found fascinating was “The Science of God,” written by Gerald L. Schroeder, a Jewish MIT professor. He postulated that the account of Genesis is not in conflict with some “evolutionary” theories. For instance, he discussed the significance of God “[blowing] into [Adam’s] nostrils the breath of life, and so man came a living being.” (Gen 2:7).

In the book, it is suggested that Adam could have been in existance as a primitive man and came to be a “living being” only after receiving the breath of life. Compare the times in Scripture to when God (or Jesus) “breathed” on humans…there is strong significance in the breath of God upon humanity.

The author suggests that maybe, through some form of “evolution,” a primitive man came to know God in a way that had never been experienced by another primitive man. Maybe at that moment, when the created realized the Creator, God became manifest to humanity and…the rest is history.

Just thought I’d throw my humble thoughts into the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top