What can we make of the huge gap in time after Adam and Eve

[EndTimes]

The purpose of the Book is a spiritual guide, not to be a manual on biology or astro-physics.

I’m with you on that .

It’s about God… Creation… Man . The Fall … Original Sin. The need for the Redeemer.
’
It’s a tremendous Metaphor of Reality

I’m just being sure that we’re on the same page.

E.G. Adam and Eve are indeed the first parents of HumanKind - Agreed?

_

 

[Gorgias]

But we do know that homosapiens and neanderthals interbred in the distant past, and presumably they would have all had rational souls.

How do you figure that?

The alternative is that some did and some did not

Or that neither did.

With everything we know about how sacred the marital act is and how infinitely valuable children are, this doesn’t seem like it would be the case.

On a physical level, there’s nothing wrong with it. Using the term ‘animal’ tends to be an attempt to shape the discussion in a certain direction.

we wouldn’t be able to make a case that all humans from every corner of the globe had a certain common ancestor.

Of course you can. It’s called “Mitochondrial Eve”. (Yeah, it’s a horrible name, and wildly inaccurate, for what it’s trying to say. But, yeah: it’s the term meaning "the woman from whom all currently living humans are descended.) Same sort of idea with the so-called “Y-Chromosome Adam”.

Weather Adam & Eve were homo-sapiens and/or neanderthals, would any of it matter, weren’t they all killed in the flood from Noah’s time. Weren’t Noah’s family the one’s that repopulated the earth.

If the flood was truly global? Sure. But what if it were merely “super-regional”?

According to Catholic Teaching - Genesis is never “myth”…

Actually… no. And, it all depends on what you mean by ‘myth’. If you mean “untrue story”, then no. If you mean “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events”, then yes.

 

[TK421]

Of course you can. It’s called “Mitochondrial Eve”. (Yeah, it’s a horrible name, and wildly inaccurate, for what it’s trying to say. But, yeah: it’s the term meaning "the woman from whom all currently living humans are descended.) Same sort of idea with the so-called “Y-Chromosome Adam”.

One has to go far back into pre-history to arrive at a Mitochondrial Eve.

 

[Gorgias]

One has to go far back into pre-history to arrive at a Mitochondrial Eve.

About 150,000 years ago. That’s also roughly the same timeframe as some of the neandertals.

 

[EndTimes]

According to Catholic Teaching - Genesis is never “myth”…

Actually… no. And, it all depends on what you mean by ‘myth’. I

Actually … yes…

There’s no common definition of “Myth” which would satisfy a ‘no’…

_

 

[Gorgias]

According to Catholic Teaching - Genesis is never “myth”…

I’m with you in thinking that “myth” is a term we shouldn’t use – but only because it has the connotation of “something that’s not true.” However, it is a genre of literature, and that genre is present in Genesis. So, if we mean the term in its proper sense, then it is that genre! But, since some will construe it to mean “untrue story”, we can defer using the term.

I think you’re railing at the inaccurate definition, IMHO.

 

[goout]

Genesis is literal. It’s a book after all. It has a primary literal sense.
But the inspired Truth in Genesis is not conveyed through literalist scientific or historic genres. Genesis conveys saving Truth through symbolism. The account of Genesis is steeped in human history, and has observations about the world around the writers, but it is not using rigid history or science to convey truth.

God uses human language to convey truth, but God is not limited to human understandings of the journalistic details.
That fundamentalist literalist idea is peculiar to our modern age (well, starting a few centuries ago)

 

[TK421]

I think we should just take back the meaning of the word instead of not using it.

If somebody doesn’t want to understand something you can’t do anything to make them understand. It doesn’t matter what words you use.

 

[goout]

EndTimes:

According to Catholic Teaching - Genesis is never “myth”…

I’m with you in thinking that “myth” is a term we shouldn’t use – but only because it has the connotation of “something that’s not true.” However, it is a genre of literature, and that genre is present in Genesis. So, if we mean the term in its proper sense, then it is that genre! But, since some will construe it to mean “untrue story”, we can defer using the term.

I think you’re railing at the inaccurate definition, IMHO.

Correct. Myth has attained a negative connotation in our modern understanding, because it is held in opposition to the scientific and journalistic accuracy that we have come to expect from those disciplines.
Myth is definitely a vehicle to convey Truth in scripture.

The prodigal son was a story, for God’s sake (pun intended).
Using the standard by which many judge, Jesus ought to be laughed out of town for proposing something that didn’t really happen.

Don’t limit God to your own understanding of journalism and literature.

 

[EndTimes]

I think you’re railing at the inaccurate definition, IMHO.

No…

It’s common to hear those whom do not Absorb Genesis as it’s intended to be by the Author - raise up that “myth” term…

Nothing whatsoever in any of the OT and NT - dare to suggest that Genesis is anything other than what it is… SACRED…

 

[Theo520]

Genesis is literal.

So you are a young earther?

 

[Gorgias]

It’s common to hear those whom do not Absorb Genesis as it’s intended to be by the Author - raise up that “myth” term…

Right: they say ‘myth’, meaning ‘untrue story’. That’s what I said…

goout:

Genesis is literal.

So you are a young earther ?

Ahh, here we go…

@goout also mentioned that Genesis (like all of Scripture) has a “literal sense” which is primary.

Whenever this conversation comes up, folks tend to conflate “the literal sense of Scripture” with the question of whether a text is “literal, historical narrative”. The two don’t mean the same thing!!! The definition of the “literal sense of Scripture” can be found in the Church document “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”:

It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors–what is called the “literal” meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).

The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. “Let your loins be girt”: Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms (“Be ready for action”). When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.

The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf. Divino Afflante Spiritu : Ench. Bibl. , 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary ( ibid. 560).

 

[EndTimes]

Right: they say ‘myth’, meaning ‘untrue story’. That’s what I said…

Indeed…

Which is why “myth” should never be attached to any of Sacred Scriptures;
if one seeks God…

_

 

[annad347]

If the flood was truly global? Sure. But what if it were merely “super-regional”?

Genesis 6:7
7 And he said, “I will blot out from the face of the earth all mankind that I created. Yes, and the animals too, and the reptiles and the birds. For I am sorry I made them.”

Genesis: 6:17 - 21
17 “Look! I am going to cover the earth with a flood and destroy every living being—everything in which there is the breath of life. All will die. 18 But I promise to keep you safe in the ship, with your wife and your sons and their wives. 19-20 Bring a pair of every animal—a male and a female—into the boat with you, to keep them alive through the flood. Bring in a pair of each kind of bird and animal and reptile. 21 Store away in the boat all the food that they and you will need.”

I say they all died… well maybe none of the animals in the sea, they might have survived… but homo-sapiens and neanderthals, all dead.

so for that matter it wouldn’t matter where Cane’s were cause if they were not on the Ark, they also died.

 

[twf]

The problem with this is we don’t see any evidence of a major genetic bottleneck at some point in our pre-history. If all humanity was reduced to a single family, we should see a major genetic bottleneck.
I believe the flood narrative happened in some manner, and I believe there was a Noah, but I’m not sure how the story actually unfolded in a historical sense.

 

[Theo520]

I already said the Bible is true, just not literal.

I think you are saying the same thing when you qualify with “literal sense” and not just the word literal.

 

[Gorgias]

I already said the Bible is true, just not literal.

I think you are saying the same thing when you qualify with “literal sense” and not just the word literal.

I think I’d assert that there are historical narratives among those in the Bible, but there are narratives that aren’t strictly historical. When I say “literal sense”, I mean precisely what the Church means: the intent of the author. That could mean “historical narrative” in certain contexts, and “allegorical narratives” in others.

So, I think it’s inaccurate to say that “the Bible is true but not literal.” There are places where it is literal (as in “historical”).

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy. (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church)

There must be something in that document that talks about how the word of God is veiled, and how the Church attempts to interpret scripture apart from the literary and historical research. For example, the parables that Jesus told require a certain amount of interpretation which is mostly beyond what literary and historical research can provide.

I think there are several references, or even some typology, that use phrases like “those who can hear” or something similar to that.

 

[annad347]

It’s all good, we all have free will to believe what we want.

Just remeber there are many things that make no sense… they just are what they are… or rather is what it is.

 

[EndTimes]

and I believe there was a Noah, but I’m not sure how the story actually unfolded in a historical sense.

In the dim history of modern man - legends from all over spoke of one humongo flood.

Taking into account the geo-history of how even recentish Ice Glaciations
way impacted upon all lifeforms across huge areas of Earth…
I cannot see how a long-term non-interrupted happy go lucky emergence of Man - occurred.