The True Creation Story

[grannymh]

Out of Africa (micocondrial eve) theory is inconsistent with a very recent paper on Y-chromosomes released in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) which confirms the denial of any African ancestry in Australia.

Is this the paper you are referring to? If not, I did find it interesting.
file.scirp.org/pdf/AA20120200004_71596882.pdf

I am not a scientist so I cannot evaluate the paper because I do not understand all the scientific descriptions including drawings, charts, etc. I usually understand the intention of the paper. For example: Francisco Ayala’s bombshell.

Nonetheless, this point in the paper caught my eye.
“A more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork.”

A common ancestor which separates, aka a speciation event, is basic evolution theory. Regardless of how the common ancestor and its descendants are described, the basic evolution model holds that new species evolve as a large population from large populations. This is where the Science of Human Evolution intersects with the Catholic teaching that the human species descended from a population of two.

I point to the original population of two, Adam and his spouse Eve, because there are some scientific possibilities regarding the human material decomposing anatomy which sound plausible. And some theistic evolution proposals forget that the evolution model is based on indiscriminate, random breeding large populations. Polygenism requires a large mixed genetic population.

From Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
37.
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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.”

In conclusion. While the Science of Human Evolution has some valuable fascinating information, we cannot set aside the evolution model.

 

[Vico]

Is this the paper you are referring to? If not, I did find it interesting.
file.scirp.org/pdf/AA20120200004_71596882.pdf

I am not a scientist so I cannot evaluate the paper because I do not understand all the scientific descriptions including drawings, charts, etc. I usually understand the intention of the paper. For example: Francisco Ayala’s bombshell.

Nonetheless, this point in the paper caught my eye.
“A more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork.”

A common ancestor which separates, aka a speciation event, is basic evolution theory. Regardless of how the common ancestor and its descendants are described, the basic evolution model holds that new species evolve as a large population from large populations. This is where the Science of Human Evolution intersects with the Catholic teaching that the human species descended from a population of two.

I point to the original population of two, Adam and his spouse Eve, because there are some scientific possibilities regarding the human material decomposing anatomy which sound plausible. And some theistic evolution proposals forget that the evolution model is based on indiscriminate, random breeding large populations. Polygenism requires a large mixed genetic population.

From Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
37.
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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.”

In conclusion. While the Science of Human Evolution has some valuable fascinating information, we cannot set aside the evolution model.

Theories keep moving the common point earlier in time.

About original sin and its solution:

• Adam, inaugurates creation. Second to sin mortally and transmits original sin through his seed.
• Eve, mother of all human descendants. First to sin mortally.
• New Eve, mother of the living.
• New Adam, inaugurates the new creation.

 

[grannymh]

Theories keep moving the common point earlier in time.

About original sin and its solution:

• Adam, inaugurates creation. Second to sin mortally and transmits original sin through his seed.
• Eve, mother of all human descendants. First to sin mortally.
• New Eve, mother of the living.
• New Adam, inaugurates the new creation.

And “theories” have an important role when examining events in the first garden. Fortunately, the Catholic Church operates with the wisdom of the promised Advocate. Chapter 14, Gospel of John. The reality is that the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth includes examining theories. Today’s theories about the first garden can be examined using the Catholic teachings which flow from the first three informative chapters of Sacred Scripture. *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *Index of Citations, page 689 and following, plus CCC 20-21.

So that this older than dirt brain can examine the depth of your comments “About Original Sin and its solution:”

Would you kindly tell me how Adam inaugurates creation?

As for sin in the first garden, how do you treat personal sin and Original Sin?

Is Adam’s seed a metaphor for human nature?

Thank you.

 

[edwest2]

From Catholic Answers:

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

“It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.”

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Ed

 

[Vico]

And “theories” have an important role when examining events in the first garden. Fortunately, the Catholic Church operates with the wisdom of the promised Advocate. Chapter 14, Gospel of John. The reality is that the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth includes examining theories. Today’s theories about the first garden can be examined using the Catholic teachings which flow from the first three informative chapters of Sacred Scripture. *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *Index of Citations, page 689 and following, plus CCC 20-21.

So that this older than dirt brain can examine the depth of your comments “About Original Sin and its solution:”

Would you kindly tell me how Adam inaugurates creation?

As for sin in the first garden, how do you treat personal sin and Original Sin?

Is Adam’s seed a metaphor for human nature?

Thank you.

I did not phrase it correctly for Adam, I mean he is the first human. Original sin of Adam and original sin of Eve are personal mortal sins. I don’t use the phrase Adam’s seed. That is a good question for someone that does.

 

[grannymh]

I did not phrase it correctly for Adam, I mean he is the first human. Original sin of Adam and original sin of Eve are personal mortal sins. I don’t use the phrase Adam’s seed. That is a good question for someone that does.

May I clarify that there can only be one Original Sin as described by the Catholic Church.

Yes, both Adam and Eve committed their first personal mortal sin. However, Eve is the second human on earth which means she is not the original person. “Original” Sin refers to the “Original” human man.

 

[Vico]

May I clarify that there can only be one Original Sin as described by the Catholic Church.

Yes, both Adam and Eve committed their first personal mortal sin. However, Eve is the second human on earth which means she is not the original person. “Original” Sin refers to the “Original” human man.

Yes because Adam as the head of the human race that transmitted Original Sin to the descendants.

The Council of Trent made that clear in session V:
3. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which is one in origin and transmitted to all is in each one as his own by propagation, not by imitation, …

 

[Vico]

May I clarify that there can only be one Original Sin as described by the Catholic Church.

Yes, both Adam and Eve committed their first personal mortal sin. However, Eve is the second human on earth which means she is not the original person. “Original” Sin refers to the “Original” human man.

Also good to remember that both Adam and Eve had original holiness and original justice, which was lost in turn by their personal mortal sin.

 

[grannymh]

The True Creation Story leads to our Catholic Church.

 

[Vico]

The True Creation Story leads to our Catholic Church.

And we can see there that God created man with the will and intelligence satisfied only with the The Good, not merely a good. So when the first parents lost original justice (supernatural gifts plus preternatural gifts) it lead to us not receiving original justice at conception, but still able to receive sanctifying grace, and delaying reception of original justice until our glorious resurrection.

 

[grannymh]

The True Creation Story leads to our Catholic Church.

I am referring to the need for the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to step into the sandals of Adam. John 3: 16-17

 

[Vico]

I am referring to the need for the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to step into the sandals of Adam. John 3: 16-17

And with St. John of Damascus I say:

For in no other respect did the Father and the Holy Spirit take part in the
incarnation of God the Word than according to good will and
pleasure But we hold that to the whole of human nature the whole
essence of the Godhead was united. For God the Word omitted none
of the things which He implanted in our nature when He formed us in
the beginning, but took them all upon Himself, body and soul both
intelligent and rational, and all their properties. For the creature that
is devoid of one of these is not man. But He in His fulness took upon
Himself me in my fulness, and was united whole to whole that He
might in His grace bestow salvation on the whole man. For what has
not been taken cannot be healed.

DE FIDE ORTHODOXA: An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: L.2, CHAPTER VI

 

[grannymh]

The True Creation Story leads to our Catholic Church.

There is another way to approach The True Creation Story.

It is called common sense Catholicism or logical Catholicism. One difficulty here is that most CAF participants are too young to have been educated by the dead generation or they began life in a modern geographic location. Another difficulty is that some, not all, persons are so smart that they can ignore the beginning of human history.

Common sense or logical Catholicism begins with three essential truths, axioms.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

 

[grannymh]

Common sense or logical Catholicism begins with three essential truths, axioms.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

When we say 1. God as Creator exists, we are not looking for proofs of God’s existence which would be in the Apologetics Forum. Instead, we should put our feet up, maybe have a cold one, and mentally walk through those first two chapters of Genesis.

Personally, I like seeing God in the Garden, probably showing Adam how to cultivate it. Maybe, I would tell God that some of His “creeping things of the earth” should stay outside. Or maybe I would think deeply into the fact that we are created in the image of God.

What I am suggesting is that it can be good to leave our hectic world for a few minutes and relax knowing that God loves us. It would be a good suggestion to skip Genesis chapter three when we start our first stroll in the Garden of Eden. Getting to know God as He truly is will help us later when we have to face the nasty Original Sin.

Please, dear friends, post some of your ideas…

Ideas do not have to be perfect. Maybe you have a favorite tree. Maybe you like weeds. Some can be pretty. Maybe the Garden is a good place to share your heart with God.

Or maybe the Garden is a good place where God can hug you.

 

[grannymh]

There is another way to approach The True Creation Story.

It is called common sense Catholicism or logical Catholicism. Common sense or logical Catholicism begins with three essential truths, axioms.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

When we say 1. God as Creator exists, we are not looking for proofs of God’s existence which would be in the Apologetics Forum. Instead, we should put our feet up, maybe have a cold one, and mentally walk through those first two chapters of Genesis.

Personally, I like seeing God in the Garden, probably showing Adam how to cultivate it. Maybe, I would tell God that some of His “creeping things of the earth” should stay outside. Or maybe I would think deeply into the fact that we are created in the image of God.

What I am suggesting is that it can be good to leave our hectic world for a few minutes and relax knowing that God loves us. It would be a good suggestion to skip Genesis chapter three when we start our first stroll in the Garden of Eden. Getting to know God as He truly is will help us later when we have to face the nasty Original Sin.

Please, dear friends, post some of your ideas…

Ideas do not have to be perfect. Maybe you have a favorite tree. Maybe you like weeds. Some can be pretty. Maybe the Garden is a good place to share your heart with God.

Or maybe the Garden is a good place where God can hug you.

 

[buffalo]

Out of Africa (micocondrial eve) theory is inconsistent with a very recent paper on Y-chromosomes released in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) which confirms the denial of any African ancestry in Australia.

Just read about the “out of Europe” view.

 

[buffalo]

I would like to ofer a slightly different interpretation of Genesis 1:1, courtesy of Dr. Scott Hahn–The eternal love story of Scripture begins very simply: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). … “the heavens and the earth” point to the two main realms within creation. the spiritual and the material. The first one refers to the immaterial realm that is occupied by pure spirits, “heavenly hosts” we call angels; while the second one points to the earthly habitat God made for humanity. Unlike the heavens, however, earth was still in an incomplete state of formlessness and emptiness. After these words, the rest of this chapter narrates God’s creative response to, and resolution of, both of these problematic features of earth’s primordial chaotic condition. God transforms earth—from chaos to cosmos—according to his power and plan.

—Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture (Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, Servant Books, 1998), p. 43.

Earth, in Dr. Hahn’s reading, would be the whole material universe (including all space as well as this planet) that exists within time. Note that this reading would also give us a handle on when the angels were created, something that is otherwise an unknown.

Scripture has layers of meanings.

 

[grannymh]

Common sense or logical Catholicism begins with three essential truths, axioms.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

When we say 1. God as Creator exists, we are not looking for proofs of God’s existence which would be in the Apologetics Forum. Instead, we should put our feet up, maybe have a cold one, and mentally walk through those first two chapters of Genesis.

Personally, I like seeing God in the Garden, probably showing Adam how to cultivate it. Maybe, I would tell God that some of His “creeping things of the earth” should stay outside. Or maybe I would think deeply into the fact that we are created in the image of God.

What I am suggesting is that it can be good to leave our hectic world for a few minutes and relax knowing that God loves us. It would be a good suggestion to skip Genesis chapter three when we start our first stroll in the Garden of Eden. Getting to know God as He truly is will help us later when we have to face the nasty Original Sin.

Please, dear friends, post some of your thoughts…

Ideas do not have to be perfect. Maybe you have a favorite tree. Maybe you like weeds. Some can be pretty. Maybe the Garden is a good place to share your heart with God.

Or maybe the Garden is a good place where God can hug you.

 

[simpleas]

Common sense or logical Catholicism begins with three essential truths, axioms.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

When we say 1. God as Creator exists, we are not looking for proofs of God’s existence which would be in the Apologetics Forum. Instead, we should put our feet up, maybe have a cold one, and mentally walk through those first two chapters of Genesis.

Personally, I like seeing God in the Garden, probably showing Adam how to cultivate it. Maybe, I would tell God that some of His “creeping things of the earth” should stay outside. Or maybe I would think deeply into the fact that we are created in the image of God.

What I am suggesting is that it can be good to leave our hectic world for a few minutes and relax knowing that God loves us. It would be a good suggestion to skip Genesis chapter three when we start our first stroll in the Garden of Eden. Getting to know God as He truly is will help us later when we have to face the nasty Original Sin.

Please, dear friends, post some of your thoughts…

Ideas do not have to be perfect. Maybe you have a favorite tree. Maybe you like weeds. Some can be pretty. Maybe the Garden is a good place to share your heart with God.

Or maybe the Garden is a good place where God can hug you.

I very much find a peace and love while out in nature that can only come from God, that I don’t always find elsewhere.

Now to some silly thoughts.

While out on my dog walk yesterday, I was walking on a path way which is lined with many large trees, and at some spots it can feel like you are in a forest.
I took a moment to stop and listen to the birds, insects and the little animals like mice /squirrels that you can’t always see, but you hear the rustle or creek of a branch and you know something is there.

I then imagined some creature larger than mice/birds. Perhaps a Tiger, elephant walking past me, made me think about the creation story, Adam stood or working in the garden and all the larger animals passing through.
Instead of imaging Adam, I placed myself in Adams place.

Some fantasy thoughts really, but I would have loved to have been able to stand beside a Tiger and us both be able to communicate in the way the first people may have. Both un afraid of the other, no need to kill or protect either living being. Both sharing a love of the other.

 

[goout]

Bp Barron on Genesis and genre:
youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

And on original sin:
youtube.com/watch?v=Fdmsnbz1-EE