A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Adam certainly is the natural head of all of us, from whom we derive our (fallen) human nature. No one here is trying to get around that.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Several problems that need addressing.
The molecular clock rate - an assumption - now we know it needs to be calibrated and varies.
DNA actively fights mutations
Epigenetics
Initial starting assumptions.
The lookback horizon
Man’s origin’s research is very speculative.
The Viability of Intelligent Design - Craig vs Ayala
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
This is a commonly misunderstood point. The idea of “genetic Adam” is very different from the Christian idea of Adam.
It’s not that the evidence points to a single man living about 10,000 years ago (or 142,000-60,000 years ago, to use more mainstream numbers) who was the only man of his time from whom we are all descended. “Genetic Adam” is the most recent man from whom all modern men are descended through the direct father to son lineage. Following what’s often called a “literal” interpretation of Genesis, “genetic Adam” would in fact be Noah. There were more than two people alive during the time of Noah, even after the Flood, and modern humans would be descended from all of those who did survive the Flood. In terms of male ancestors, before the Flood there would have been the fathers of the wives of Noah’s sons: three men, most likely, who were contemporaries of Noah perhaps unrelated for many generations back, from whom modern humans are also descended. Just not through the direct male line.
This makes sense of the fact that “genetic Adam” and “genetic Eve” (the woman from whom all modern women are descended from through direct mother to daughter descent) seem to have lived thousands of years apart. This again would be the case in a “literal” reading of scripture, since “genetic Eve” would not be the wife of Noah (whose unique mitochondrial genes would have gone extinct as she only had sons) but the first female from whom the wives of Noah’s sons were all descended through their exclusively female line: perhaps the wife of Seth or a later woman, or, alternatively, perhaps Eve herself.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
These sorts of things are relevant in terms of the precise dating of genetic events, but wouldn’t be expected to cover up a massive genetic bottleneck.
M
Miguelita
Guest
I didn’t realize my question would spark an old debate again; I’m sorry.
I have my answer. I feel that Julia Mae is correct in that he is not teaching heresy, and this was merely a less-then-wonderfully worded approach to something I don’t yet understabd.
I have my answer. I feel that Julia Mae is correct in that he is not teaching heresy, and this was merely a less-then-wonderfully worded approach to something I don’t yet understabd.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
The Church does not teach that Scripture is the “infallible word of God” in any sort of literal sense.
The Church does not teach that Adam was a “true man and father of the human race.” The Church teaches that someone was and that the story in Genesis tells us Truth in symbolic language.
If you would take the 6 minutes or so out of your life it would require to listen to Fr Barron talk about Scripture, and what Adam represents, then you would have a clearer understanding of what the Church does teach. Which varies from what you said. Or read the Catechism.
I’m sure you are very sincere but factually you are a bit off the baseline.
B
buffalo
Guest
Fr Barron has sort of taken the common way out that many have taken over the last 50 years. However, it might be a good idea for them to come current with the latest science. They might get their Catholic voice back.
M
Miguelita
Guest
…Implying that one of the most knowledgeable, orthodox and open-armed modern ministers doesn’t have a Catholic voice?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
The problem with Fr Barron is that he both intellectual and a bit of a mystic as well as a theologian. The only problem with that is he tends to speak over the heads of we average folks.
Once you accept that the story is symbolic, that it is teaching us something hugely important about our relationship with God and the nature of reality, that something happened, but we don’t know precisely what, then I think, you get more out of it.
Fr Barron, someplace on Youtube, did an hour long lecture on this topic at a college I saw once. It was the college that posted it. I wish I knew where it was because he explains more.
M
Miguelita
Guest
Oh, I’d love to find that as well! I’d go youtube surfing, but I find so many “related videos” bashing the church and its believers, that it really saddens me, and I get too stressed out to keep looking.
I’d always known the story was symbolic, but I’d also been taught that Adam, our first human ancestor, was indeed a true, living person, and i was concerned about the wording Father presented it in. I feel sort of silly now,really. I know there are a lot of heretic priests outt here, but to assume that someone with so much esteem and so much love for the truth would be one of them…I feel sheepish now.
Anyway,I’m done here. I have my answer, thank you Julia. I hope I didn’t reignite something volitile.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
OK. And it’s always smoldering away around here, you’re fine.
B
buffalo
Guest
Scripture is like an onion with many layers. Peel them and there is so much more. But to say it is only symbolic does violence to:
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
E
ethereality
Guest
I wanted to make the following two additional comments in that video, but the lousy website fails to function properly (throws an error while I’m trying to post).
The first post I made was
D
djeter
Guest
I think he meant what he said, i.e., that Genesis is not science but is a theological reflection on faith:
On one level, these [Genesis] stories offer explanations for different aspects of the human condition as we experience it, in the same way that the myths of Israel’s neighbors did. But on a more fundamental level, they are concerned with the establishment of relationship.
They are not meant to be reports about what actually happened “in the beginning,” in the long ago past. They mean to speak about the God from whom and with whom the world now and always has life and future. This makes speaking about creation and creatureliness very different from speaking simply about existence or contingency.
In fact, the biblical stories about creation are best understood as answers of faith, born of Israel’s experience of God, to the basic and terrifying questions raised by our threatened, contingent existence. It is God and God alone whose hand holds back both Pharaoh’s charioteers and the primal watery chaos, leading God’s creatures to fullness of life and freedom. It is only in relationship with this God that the world and those who dwell in it can find real life, life that lasts:
I don’t think any Church teaching obviates the above nor Fr. Barron’s reflection. He makes the point that criticizing Genesis as “bad science” is akin to criticizing the Wasteland as a bad sci-fi novel. You, on the other hand, are confusing what he says with assertions the Church makes in its teachings about Adam - sort of extending and multiplying the mix. As someone once famously criticized the Freudians: “Sometimes a banana is just a banana.” My advice is to back off and let them both be.
Here is a reading selection from John Randall Sach’s wonderful little book The Christian Vision of Humanity which contains its reflections on scripture and Christian anthropology. It serves the same mode of thinking that Fr. Barron was engaging in. Once you see these connections, your Catholic faith will expand byleaps and bounds.
In Christ,
dj
S
someperson555
Guest
wow, this is one of those deja vu moments, i was actually going to post fr barron’s video as a response to you in the creationist thread.
NO, the human race does NOT stem from a single pair of people. that is contrary to logic and morality (since if that were the case incest would have had to occur at some point)
fr barron is flawless in his reasoning, he very astutely points out that the bible is a book of morals and ethics, it is NOT a science textbook.
the funamentalists who misinterpret genesis because of their lack of education in philosophy and science are driving people away from christianity, they are the source of atheism today.
S
someperson555
Guest
the bible uses figurative language in genesis. it is not a scientific interpretation of history. the human race did not come descend from two people, the earth is older than 6,000 years, and there was never a flood that covered the entire earth. these biblical stories are all metaphor, not to be taken literally.
fr barron is spot on.
youtube.com/watch?v=pxLKzQ5Rr2s&feature=relmfu
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Read your OT. Brothers married sisters. At least for the first few generations.
S
someperson555
Guest
so can i marry my mom?Read your OT. Brothers married sisters. At least for the first few generations.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I don’t think that’s what he said. He explains that there are a variety of writings and we have to approach each as the kind of writing it is. The Garden story is not science, certainly, but he never gave a blanket characterization of Scripture, I believe that’s what he was trying to stop people from doing.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
More importantly, do you want to?so can i marry my mom?
- Status