B
Bea263
Guest
this not meant to be facetious, but really wondering. If it began with Adam and Eve who “begat” Cain and Able who “begat” Enoch, who …etc etc. AND if there were truly cavemen - where do they fit in?
- Status
T
Thing
Guest
B
Bea263
Guest
excuse me, i do not understand.
What does this have to do with my serious question? I seem to be a bit dense here.
What does this have to do with my serious question? I seem to be a bit dense here.
O
OldeThom
Guest
Not sure what that post was all about Bea, but there is a very good paper on this at this link ewtn.com/library/humanity/evolutn.txt
“Caveman” is a rather fairytale, almost Hollywood, view of early homo type findings. There were early creatures that undoubtedly found refuge in caves, but many lived on the savannas or steppes or in areas were caves simply did not exist. But it is a convenient term.
I personally have been involved in this over the years, having been on digs in various locations around the world. There is simply too much physical evidence to suggest they did not exist, but there is not enough evidence to suggest they had anything to do with modern homo sapiens, in scientific terms, much less a connection to Adam and Eve, or their children, on a Biblical basis. The fact that they, in many ways, resemble man (God’s created image of Himself) is yet another example of God’s great mystery and simply has not yet been revealed to us, and may definitively never be revealed, as to their purpose - other than just being part of His Creation.
The paragraph at the end of the document link I posted above says it quite well:
“Catholics have nothing to fear from science’s honest inquiries, honestly explained. On the contrary, every new discovery is a source of wonder and a reason for giving praise to God. Of the Creator, we can say with St. Paul, " … from the foundations of the world, men have caught sight of His invisible nature, His eternal power and His divinity, as they are known through His creatures” (Rom 1,20).
Respectfully,
Thom
“Caveman” is a rather fairytale, almost Hollywood, view of early homo type findings. There were early creatures that undoubtedly found refuge in caves, but many lived on the savannas or steppes or in areas were caves simply did not exist. But it is a convenient term.
I personally have been involved in this over the years, having been on digs in various locations around the world. There is simply too much physical evidence to suggest they did not exist, but there is not enough evidence to suggest they had anything to do with modern homo sapiens, in scientific terms, much less a connection to Adam and Eve, or their children, on a Biblical basis. The fact that they, in many ways, resemble man (God’s created image of Himself) is yet another example of God’s great mystery and simply has not yet been revealed to us, and may definitively never be revealed, as to their purpose - other than just being part of His Creation.
The paragraph at the end of the document link I posted above says it quite well:
“Catholics have nothing to fear from science’s honest inquiries, honestly explained. On the contrary, every new discovery is a source of wonder and a reason for giving praise to God. Of the Creator, we can say with St. Paul, " … from the foundations of the world, men have caught sight of His invisible nature, His eternal power and His divinity, as they are known through His creatures” (Rom 1,20).
Respectfully,
Thom
T
Thing
Guest
People think because they are old they cannot be human. (To see cave homes for sale now on a real estate page narrows the gap between cavemen and yourself.)
Does it say anywhere that Adam and Eve were homo sapiens. Do Cain and Abel and all their decendants make an unbroken chain to ourselves. No?
The account of the creation of the world, the animals and the first people comes to us from revelation not historic memory.
B
brierpatch1974
Guest
In Genesis it talks about God creating man before he goes on to create Adam and Eve. Does this mean Cain and Abel married a woman from a differant race/breed of homosapien or did they mary their sisters?
And if they where a differant type of species like neandethals or something then why the differance? Or where they a proto type before God starting giving out souls to man?
I am not sure if what I am asking even makes any sense. Sory about that. Some things tend to get confusing and hard to keep up with at times for me lol. Thank you all for clearing this up for me.
BP
And if they where a differant type of species like neandethals or something then why the differance? Or where they a proto type before God starting giving out souls to man?
I am not sure if what I am asking even makes any sense. Sory about that. Some things tend to get confusing and hard to keep up with at times for me lol. Thank you all for clearing this up for me.
BP
T
TheDoctor
Guest
No need to apologize here. It may help to answer your question if you can post the exact passage(s) from Genesis that you are citing as well as the translation so we can see the words and context.
O
OldeThom
Guest
My caution in responding to questions of this nature comes from the fact that they are [not so cleverly] disguised attempts at racial discrimination and exclusion. Any discussion along those lines I absolutely abhor.
I am not an expert in Hebrew, but I do know that in Hebrew the tense of the verb is determined by its context. So in Genesis 1:24-26, the “sixth” day, we see that God “formed” [a] man (present tense), and that man was Adam[ah] - that is the context. In Genesis 2:7 (and elsewhere from Gen 2 onward in the narrative) the word “formed” (past tense) here should be interpreted as “had formed”, i.e., referring to the “sixth” day when it was actually done. It is important to note that the account in Gen 2 is not the creation story all over again, but rather an account of those things pertinent to the man, i.e., “Adamah” which in Hebrew, btw, means both “man” and “clay”.
As for Cain, his wife and the Land of Nod, I studied this extensively years and years ago, as I too was keenly interested this account. In Gen 4:16-17, we read that Cain “settled in the land of Nod” and that Cain “had intercourse with [knew] his wife” (New Jerusalem Bible), it does not say Cain’s wife came from the Land of Nod, but only that is where she conceived their children. In Hebrew we find that the Land of Nod is not a geographical location or people, but rather “Nod” is a verb that means “wandering”, as somewhere “east” of Eden, which means “pleasure”. After which he “existed” or created a city “dedicated” to Enoch, his son. It is likely that Cain took one of his sisters as his wife. But that is conjecture, based on the belief that no other created women existed with a soul [breathed] from God, and not fact, even though some protestant groups make this part of their dogma. I do not know what the Catholic Church teaches, I should have done my homework here, I am sorry.
What “Thing” said in response to his interesting link, is a good way to look at this, from the viewpoint of revelation and not from what the historical record has to say. There simply is not enough information to make an informed decision. The “historical record” that Moses used, and presumedly the writer of Genesis, was oral transmission as well as other written accounts perhaps from other cultures.
As for “cavemen”, whether they died out before Adam and Eve were created, existed during their lifetime and afterward, or if they have become part of our genetic lineage, we may never know. However, there is a tremendous amount of work being done right now trying to extract the DNA record from the fossil record, it will be an interesting journey to the truth, one I am sure the Church is keenly interested in and following.
Respectfully,
Thom
I am not an expert in Hebrew, but I do know that in Hebrew the tense of the verb is determined by its context. So in Genesis 1:24-26, the “sixth” day, we see that God “formed” [a] man (present tense), and that man was Adam[ah] - that is the context. In Genesis 2:7 (and elsewhere from Gen 2 onward in the narrative) the word “formed” (past tense) here should be interpreted as “had formed”, i.e., referring to the “sixth” day when it was actually done. It is important to note that the account in Gen 2 is not the creation story all over again, but rather an account of those things pertinent to the man, i.e., “Adamah” which in Hebrew, btw, means both “man” and “clay”.
As for Cain, his wife and the Land of Nod, I studied this extensively years and years ago, as I too was keenly interested this account. In Gen 4:16-17, we read that Cain “settled in the land of Nod” and that Cain “had intercourse with [knew] his wife” (New Jerusalem Bible), it does not say Cain’s wife came from the Land of Nod, but only that is where she conceived their children. In Hebrew we find that the Land of Nod is not a geographical location or people, but rather “Nod” is a verb that means “wandering”, as somewhere “east” of Eden, which means “pleasure”. After which he “existed” or created a city “dedicated” to Enoch, his son. It is likely that Cain took one of his sisters as his wife. But that is conjecture, based on the belief that no other created women existed with a soul [breathed] from God, and not fact, even though some protestant groups make this part of their dogma. I do not know what the Catholic Church teaches, I should have done my homework here, I am sorry.
What “Thing” said in response to his interesting link, is a good way to look at this, from the viewpoint of revelation and not from what the historical record has to say. There simply is not enough information to make an informed decision. The “historical record” that Moses used, and presumedly the writer of Genesis, was oral transmission as well as other written accounts perhaps from other cultures.
As for “cavemen”, whether they died out before Adam and Eve were created, existed during their lifetime and afterward, or if they have become part of our genetic lineage, we may never know. However, there is a tremendous amount of work being done right now trying to extract the DNA record from the fossil record, it will be an interesting journey to the truth, one I am sure the Church is keenly interested in and following.
Respectfully,
Thom
B
brierpatch1974
Guest
My caution in responding to questions of this nature comes from the fact that they are [not so cleverly] disguised attempts at racial discrimination and exclusion. Any discussion along those lines I absolutely abhor."
Well I am not sure what the original poster intended by his questions but as for my own I can promise you there is nothing racial or prejudice about it. I find it quite offending for someone to consider me a racist and to be so judgemental when you know nothing about me.
BP
Well I am not sure what the original poster intended by his questions but as for my own I can promise you there is nothing racial or prejudice about it. I find it quite offending for someone to consider me a racist and to be so judgemental when you know nothing about me.
BP
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Elijah!
O
OldeThom
Guest
My apologies if you took my opening statement as personal or referring to anything in this post or to these forums in general. It was not. It was a comment on how I involve myself in conversations. In my experience there are “signs” that indicate where a conversation is going and as to it’s original intent. I am just cautious not to involve myself in such things. I would not have posted a comment here if I thought otherwise.
Respectfully,
Thom
B
Bea263
Guest
Oh My !! See what I’ve done ! I MUST be a carrier of dissention !
I seem to cause this friction in my family too ! PLEASE let’s just close out this thread. I think we have beat it enough. I meant only to ask a “curious” question that I often wondered about. Anyway the referenced article and Thom’s explanation gave me food for thought. HOWEVER - why is it I could have said “ant” or “needle” or “bananna” and now days someone would have still cried “discrimination” I thought I would not find that type thought process on this site. But seems it is everywhere. Let’s close out the thread. I believe it has gone as far as it can go.
O
OldeThom
Guest
No, no … it is my fault for making a private concern a public matter. I meant no disrespect or imply anything. I just wanted to add some comments since it did not seem your question was being answered with the information it deserved. I am quite new to posting my comments anywhere on the web and I am learning. So again, my apologies but I am glad I helped even if but a little.
Yes, yes by all means, this thread should be closed.
Respectfully,
Thom
T
Thing
Guest
I think you should continue the quest, it has an answer somewhere.
B
Bea263
Guest
naah, I’lll just wait 'til I get to heaven.
T
Thing
Guest
- Status