Polygenism and Cain's wife

[elvisman]

steveandersen:

Stick to the message in the text
Don’t get sidetracked in science debates. The Bible and the CCC are not science texts.
.

Agreed.
My original response had to do with whether or no Adam and Eve existed, this having been brought into question by BrianH:
Originally Posted by BrianH
I am…speechless. I would not know where to even begin.
BH

I then responded to BrianH’s response:
*Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianH
*

Catholic fundamenalist literalist… I would like you to meet non-catholic, nonliteralist, believer in Christ…everyone shake hands and come out fighting !!! *

*As for the argument about hominids, the fossil record and the age of the earth - that came from Mike O - the original poster of this thread.

My orginal assertion (which went unanswered, by the way), was addressed to BrianH and dealt with his facetious statement about the existence of Adam & Eve, Can, Set, et al. They are mentioned in the Gospel of Luke in the genalogy narrative.
BrianH claims to be a believer in Christ. If so, how could he deny the verses in Luke which identify these people as having been ancestors of Jesus Christ?
This makes the following statement by St. Jerome all the more valid . . .

"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ" - St. Jerome

 

[BrianH]

Elvis, I will briefly respond…not that an indepth answer is not warranted, but I strongly suspect that differing presuppositions will make consensus futile…

I am not a innerantist(I have not been since the very first time I read the NT through…over 20 years ago), many many Protestant…and Catholics are not.

I am willing to concede that Luke may have thought he had actually traced it back to Adam.

I without a doubt feel that Luke is a biased historian…his accounts of Paul directly(and that is a whole other argument) contradict Paul’s writings on some matters.
You say I “claim” to be a Christian.
Would you have me renounce my faith in Christ because I do not agree with you? What should I do? Just curious.
If you have spent years examining the contradictions and reading higher criticism and have come to your conclusions…so be it. We could easily spend days going over every verse.
I do not reach my conclusions through lack of study sir.
I have not responded because most of what occurs here obviously reflects a different view of scripture.

Brian

 

[steveandersen]

elvisman:

…
My orginal assertion (which went unanswered, by the way), was addressed to BrianH and dealt with his facetious statement about the existence of Adam & Eve, Can, Set, et al. They are mentioned in the Gospel of Luke in the genalogy narrative.
BrianH claims to be a believer in Christ. If so, how could he deny the verses in Luke which identify these people as having been ancestors of Jesus Christ?..

Well, I don’t mean to answer for BrainH BUT as I pointed out above, yes Luke provides a genealogy, Mathew however provides a different genealogy.

Thus my contention that the details of the text are not important to what the story is trying to convey

The fact that neither genealogy and other texts are compatible with observable data (e.g. human remains and artifacts from before 10,000 BC, no apparent genetic bottleneck, no evidence of global flooding, etc) is just sauce for the goose

And despite your misgivings it is quite easy to believe in Christ and hold such views.

 

[Mike_O]

steveandersen:

Well, I don’t mean to answer for BrainH BUT as I pointed out above, yes Luke provides a genealogy, Mathew however provides a different genealogy.

Thus my contention that the details of the text are not important to what the story is trying to convey

The fact that neither genealogy and other texts are compatible with observable data (e.g. human remains and artifacts from before 10,000 BC, no apparent genetic bottleneck, no evidence of global flooding, etc) is just sauce for the goose

And despite your misgivings it is quite easy to believe in Christ and hold such views.

Be careful with this. There is evidence for a large-scale flood (though the details about its global nature I am unsure of).

Jimmy Akin has explained the genealogy differences on his site. In lieu of suggesting you fish through there, I will summarize the point; as you probably know, a man who saw his brother die was obligated to take his brother’s wife and procreate with her. Hence, it is possible to have “2 fathers” in a genealogy; one is the deceased and the other the actual father. Some simply choose one over the other.

The 10,000 BC business is not something expressly suggested by Scripture. I suggest again reading a recent article by Mr. Akin on his site that deals with the Framework Interpretation of Genesis 1.

I am very much interested in hearing an apologist comment on “pre-Fall” death; can or did this occur? Human beings could not die before the fall, but could animals?

 

[AugustineFL]

BrianH:

So…you guys really think Adam, Even, Cain, Seth, etc are literal historical figures

Of course! God says so in his Holy writings and the Holy Catholic Church teaches it as the truth…therefor it is the truth.

BrianH:

and that human beings have only been around 6000 years? Just curious and slightly fascinated!
Brian

I have no idea how long we’ve been around. I think that millions of years or 6000 years is irrelavent.

 

[AugustineFL]

Mike O:

An additional question to add to this discussion:

What does the Church say about current biological variation; Asians, Europeans, Africans, Latin Americans…all from two people. How is this explained?

We have proof that things evolve. Look at breeds of cats and such. That is not evolution of the species (from ape to man). But I would say that it is very easy to see how different features can evolve.

You can see evolution with in a very short time if you look at how bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus becomes drug resistant.

Note however that Staphylococcus aureus is never going to evolve to be a dog!

 

[AugustineFL]

Quebec2005:

Really, I don’t know if it is relevent to know that. I personnaly believe Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel were allegorical characters and have never existed. I have no problem to accept the idea that there was a primary couple, but all the debate on wether Cain’s wife was actually his sister or not is irrelevent to me…

It should be relevent to you! The Church teaches that Adam & Eve existed. By not beleiveing it you are going against what the Church says is true!

Quebec2005:

Will knowing this help me in my spiritual life and permit me to live as God intended ?

Yes, it will! Denying parts of the Holy Writ is not healthy to spiritual life! The Church has confirmed that it is true as well! When we start questioning these things what is next? I actually heard a priest say in a homily that “Jesus didn’t really feed the 5000. It was a lesson in sharing and they all had food with them that they shared”. Denying the miracle of Jesus isn’t far if we deny other things that the Church has said are literal in the scriptures. The Church is our guide to interpreting the bible; we have freedom to interpret it in differing ways as long as it doesn’t go against what the Church teaches. Denying Adam & Eve as literal persons is going against Church teachings.

If God could become man, die, and rise from the dead then surely he could make two humans and populate the entire world from them. If he couldn’t do the second than the former would be impossible for him.

Quebec2005:

All I need to know, is that God has created us, man and woman, that the first humans sinned and that Christ, the Son of God, has saved us by dying on the cross and by His resurrection.

Actually that is not all you need to know as a Catholic. As a Catholic you are bound under pain of sin to assent to all the Church teaches and holds to.

Quebec2005:

The devil is in the details, as we say…

Hmm, how do us fallible humans decide what ‘details’ to throw out? I stopped doing that when I stopped being protestant. I now assent to all the Holy Catholic Church teaches; even if it seems like an ‘insignificant’ detail to me. To do other wise would be for me to follow the devil into error.

 

[batteddy]

Monogenism means that all humans who have ever existed descended from Adam and Eve and ultimately took their (fallen) human nature and thus original sin from these first 2 parents.

But no where does it the Church teach that genetically we may not be descended from other people IN ADDITION to Adam and Eve. Human nature can be taken as somewhat analagous to a last name. Mr. X’s great-great-grandmother and great-great-grandfather X came over to American from Europe, and no other members of the X clan ever came over. The X children have always been boys for the past several generations, and their wives have a tradition of not changing their last name. Now everybody in America with the last name X is descended from the Original Gram and Gramps X. But that doesnt mean they are ONLY descended from them. Everyone has 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents etc…All X’s take their last name from that single original pair…but that doesn’t mean that anyone was interbreeding…genetically, women marrying into the family brought new genetic material. Mr. X is descended from the original pair and takes his last name from them…just like all other Xs in America. But he 15 other pairs of great-great-grandparents who are not in the direct paternal line…who did not have to be Xs, who could be different from other Xs in America’s other great-great grandparents. But they all share the original pair and take their name from them.

All humans take their human nature, and thus Original Sin, from Adam and Eve. There was not a group of several original humans with several distinct lines possible. No. Adam and Eve are common ancestors of all mankind today, and all mankind ever (in other words, this common descent today is not merely the result of several original lines all mixing). But just because all humans have Adam and Eve as their common ancestors (like all people with the last name X in America descend from the hypothetical original immigrants) doesn’t necessarily mean that their (fallen) children didn’t mate with non-souled hominids to supplement the genetic line. Such a bottleneck did not exist. Just like how all X children having the same last name X taken from the original pair doesn’t mean that they couldn’t take wives outside the family, their sons would still be descended from the original pair and take their last name from them, but they would ALSO be descended from their mother’s parents. There is no contradiction.

Now, that being said, we are speaking after the fall when Adam and Eve and their children, returned to a natural, brute state probably had no problem breeding with non-human hominids. It seems that you only need 1 ensouled parent to inherit human nature (like Jesus from Mary) so this presents no problem.

But IF there was no Fall, their children would have bred with each other.

Strictly speaking, incest is only in the DIRECT line of descent and ancestry. Because it is unnatural for a direct descendent or ancestor to marry because of the unbalance of reverence and power. Marriage is an equal partnership, which is impossible between parent and child because the parent is owed honor by the child and the child must be obedient to the parent. And grandchild and grandparent etc is similarly wrong because the grandparent could excercise a similar unbalance of power on the grandchild through their own children: the grandchild’s parents. That is not an equal covenant. One who gave birth TO a person, should not also give birth BY them.

But brother-sister, aunt-nephew, uncle-niece, cousin-cousin, though discouraged for social and medical reasons, is not strictly speaking against natural law…though civil or canon law are unlikely to ever allow especially the first. But at the beginning of history it could definitely have happened if needed, as it is not against the natural law like parent-child, ancestor-descendent is.

 

[batteddy]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

By the law of nature, it is universally conceded, marriage is prohibited between parent and child, for the reverential relation between them is recognized as incompatible with the equality of relations engendered by the bond of marriage. The universal sentiment of peoples is likewise opposed to marriage between all persons related in any degree in the direct line, thus between grandparent and grandchild.
Because of the acknowledged derivation of the human race from the common progenitors, Adam and Eve,** it is difficult to accept the opinion of some theologians that the marriage of brother and sister is against the law of nature**; otherwise the propagation of the human race [if there had been no Fall] would have begun by violation of the natural law. It is readily understood that, considering the freedom of intercourse between such persons, some effort would soon be made (in the interest of the social welfare) to prevent early corruption within the close family circle by placing a bar to the hope of marriage. Hence among all peoples there has arisen a natural repugnance to the marriage of brother and sister. Some theologians suppose herein a positive Divine law, but it is not easy to point out any such early Divine enactment. Abraham married Sarah who was his sister by his father, though of a different mother (Genesis 11; cf. Genesis 20:12). Marriage was allowed at Athens with half-sisters by the same father (Plutarch, Cim., iv; Themist., xxxii), with half-sisters by the same mother at Sparta (Philo, De Special. Leg., tr. Yonge, III, 306), and with full-sisters in Egypt (Diodorus Siculus, I, 27) and Persia, as illustrated in the well-known instances of the Ptolemies in the former, and of Cambyses in the latter, country (Herodian, III, 31). For a good summary of non-Christian customs in this respect see Melody, “Marriage of Near Kin” in “Catholic University Bulletin” (Washington, Jan., 1903, pp. 40-60).

 

[Mike_O]

batteddy:

But just because all humans have Adam and Eve as their common ancestors (like all people with the last name X in America descend from the hypothetical original immigrants) doesn’t necessarily mean that their (fallen) children didn’t mate with non-souled hominids to supplement the genetic line. Such a bottleneck did not exist.

I think it’s safe to say the bestiality theory is not in line with the Magisterium

The lack of discovery of a genetic “bottleneck” means nothing; it’s like saying something does not exist merely because scientists have not discovered it yet. 1500 years ago, by that measure, a number of planets “would not exist” because people did not have the means to ascertain their existence.

My question about death before the Fall remains open, if someone has an answer.

I am beginning to wish that the Church would lay this out more clearly; the back and forth and overall confusion on the part of practically everyone here (myself as much as anyone else) suggests that the Magisterium needs to better define certain points to reconcile faith with science.

 

[msproule]

Polygenism was explicitly condemned in Humani Generis (paragraph 37). It is part of the Modernism heresy, is it not?

 

[steveandersen]

Mike O:

I think it’s safe to say the bestiality theory is not in line with the Magisterium

I’ll take their word for it. When they give it. but this seems like one of those theological hot potatoes that wouldn’t be touched with an 11 foot crosier.
Mike O:

The lack of discovery of a genetic “bottleneck” means nothing; it’s like saying something does not exist merely because scientists have not discovered it yet. 1500 years ago, by that measure, a number of planets “would not exist” because people did not have the means to ascertain their existence.

Not really the best analogy since 1500 years ago we didn’t have the tools (physical or theoretical) to say anything definitive about planets.
Now we have very good tools in genetics and a map of the entire genome. So we can make much stronger statements with higher degrees of confidence. Exciting times
Mike O:

My question about death before the Fall remains open, if someone has an answer.

Of course things died before the Fall. Our museums are full or their bones and our gas tanks are full of their…organic material
Mike O:

I am beginning to wish that the Church would lay this out more clearly; the back and forth and overall confusion on the part of practically everyone here (myself as much as anyone else) suggests that the Magisterium needs to better define certain points to reconcile faith with science.

Well, since science can advance & change over the years it might be best for the Church not tailor a teaching too much.
We’re still taking (undeserved) flak for that Galileo thing

So IMHO it is probably best to stick with what we have. We don’t know explicitly what happened since we weren’t there. Something had to have happened since we’re here now…we just don’t know exactly.