What do we mean when we say Adam and Eve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doeco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ngill09 said:
You need to look up what that actually means. And if somebody deliberately misunderstands or lies about scientific articles over and over again, it is not illegitimate to acknowledge that.
Click to expand...
You need to justify your **libel **that the person has deliberately misunderstood or lied about scientific articles over and over again. Otherwise retract it before it is reported.
 
tonyrey said:
You need to justify your **libel **that the person has deliberately misunderstood or lied about scientific articles over and over again. Otherwise retract it before it is reported.
Click to expand...
Reread the thread.

Claim: “The latest science is - “Adam and Eve were contemporaries but didn’t know each other””

Truth: Scientists now claim that our most recent common ancestor on the patrilineal line and our most recent common ancestor on the matrilineal line lived within 50,000 year time periods that overlap.

Clearly a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said. But I would be willing to rescind my assertion that he was deliberately lying if he admits that his summary of the article was grossly misleading.

But I’m curious as to why you’re so quick to defend someone who is spewing falsehoods in the name of God. I would think you would be the first to chastise him for being so irresponsible. In the words of St. Augustine:
On the Literal Meaning of Genesis:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the
other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size
and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of
the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the
meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance
in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual
is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held
such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of
our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian
mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his
foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters
concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of
heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves
have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent
expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren
when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by
those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their
utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture
for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their
position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they
make assertion.
Click to expand...
 
Doeco said:
If we interpret Adam and Eve literally as actual people, then we must also interpret the rest of Genesis as literal - we can’t just pick and choose.
Click to expand...
It does not logically follow that if Adam and Eve were actual people (which they were), then we must also “interpret the rest of Genesis as literal.” Many of the Church Fathers utilized allegorical interpretations, while all maintained the historical truth of Adam & Eve. For example, St. Augustine concluded that Creation did not occur over six literal days, but at once in time.

The CCC teaches that Genesis uses figurative language. Perchance no none in this thread has recommended this book, I will do so: In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, by Cardinal Ratzinger.
 
thomas_yo said:
It does not logically follow that if Adam and Eve were actual people (which they were), then we must also “interpret the rest of Genesis as literal.” Many of the Church Fathers utilized allegorical interpretations, while all maintained the historical truth of Adam & Eve. For example, St. Augustine concluded that Creation did not occur over six literal days, but at once in time.

The CCC teaches that Genesis uses figurative language. Perchance no none in this thread has recommended this book, I will do so: In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, by Cardinal Ratzinger.
Click to expand...
Were Adam and Eve as depicted in Genesis our sole progenitors?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Were Adam and Eve as depicted in Genesis our sole progenitors?
Click to expand...
All human beings are descended from one pair of primal parents, Adam and Eve. The Faith teaches that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

And from an evolutionary point of view, a correct notion of common descent is consistent with this divinely revealed fact.
 
thomas_yo said:
All human beings are descended from one pair of primal parents, Adam and Eve. The Faith teaches that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

And from an evolutionary point of view, a correct notion of common descent is consistent with this divinely revealed fact.
Click to expand...
A correct notion?

From an evolutionary point of view?

That is blatantly false.
 
thomas_yo said:
All human beings are descended from one pair of primal parents, Adam and Eve. The Faith teaches that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

And from an evolutionary point of view, a correct notion of common descent is consistent with this divinely revealed fact.
Click to expand...
In this century, common descent is depicted in cladograms in which species as populations diverge from a common population; for example, the homo/pan split. The operative words “as populations” directly intersects and denies the Catholic doctrine of monogenism which means that humanity’s origin is from a single first human being and his spouse sharing his true human nature consisting of a decomposing material/physical anatomy and a rational immortal spiritual soul. Note: Adam and Eve’s immortality was God’s special gift to them. This gift depended on Adam’s obedience to his Maker.

In other words, the correct notion of common descent only works with non-human species. It directly denies the possibility of two, true, sole, fully complete human parents of humankind. And it directly denies the Catholic doctrine that God immediately creates each human’s soul. (CCC, 366) Instead, the common descent theory includes the theory of emergence or epiphenomena as explanation for those feelings that some people like to call spiritual. These feelings are usually defined as good or bad by the population’s culture. St. John Paul II is noted for his opposition to this “science” substitute for Divine Revelation.
 
StrawberryJam said:
A correct notion?

From an evolutionary point of view?

That is blatantly false.
Click to expand...
You are correct. See post 49.

What many people do not realize, because they do not have direct access to actual research papers, is that Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell has been reviewed in the light of different ways HLA genes can be analyzed. While the genetic inheritance problem as of 2012 has not been totally resolved, it can be safely concluded that the original 1995 estimations are not definitive. While scientists may say that Adam and Eve are not probable, they cannot dogmatically deny the possibility of Adam and Eve. As my Irish mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
 
grannymh said:
You are correct. See post 49.

What many people do not realize, because they do not have direct access to actual research papers, is that Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell has been reviewed in the light of different ways HLA genes can be analyzed. While the genetic inheritance problem as of 2012 has not been totally resolved, it can be safely concluded that the original 1995 estimations are not definitive. While scientists may say that Adam and Eve are not probable, they cannot dogmatically deny the possibility of Adam and Eve. As my Irish mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Click to expand...
Scientists can’t really dogmatically deny the possibility of anything. But our common ancestry with other great apes is almost certain given our genetic record. Look up human chromosome #2 for just one strong bit of evidence.
 
If indeed the issue here concerns the number of interbreeding individuals (such that the monogenism would be theological but not biological), perhaps the essay by Kemp and the blog posts by Feser are indeed pertinent.

Feser’s second post on the subject contains the following:

“On the scenario proposed, the modern human population has the genes it has because it is descended from a group of several thousand individuals, only two of whom had immaterial souls. But only those later individuals who had this pair among their ancestors (even if they also had as ancestors members of the original group which did not have immaterial souls) have descendents living today. In that sense, every modern human is both descended from an original population of several thousand and from an original pair. There is no contradiction because the claim that modern humans are descended from an original pair does not entail that they received all their genes from that pair alone.”
 
grannymh said:
What many people do not realize, because they do not have direct access to actual research papers, is that Francisco Ayala’s 1995 bombshell has been reviewed in the light of different ways HLA genes can be analyzed. While the genetic inheritance problem as of 2012 has not been totally resolved, it can be safely concluded that the original 1995 estimations are not definitive. … As my Irish mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Click to expand...
Yes, and three independent ways give the same result: more than one couple as ancestors.
 
cfauster said:
Yes, and three independent ways give the same result: more than one couple as ancestors.
Click to expand...
I imagine that things were different at the beginning of time.
We are still now all brothers and sisters in Adam and Christ, but the family has a certain structure.
People at the beginning had different social connections.
But even if brother and sister relations then were incestuous, which I do not believe to be the case, it would be preferrable to bestiality.
Sex with a baboon? I really don’t think so.
Are married people writing these things, seriously!!
 
edwest2 said:
Divine Revelation is knowledge. All the speculation is speculation. We share genes with plants. There is no final conclusion to be drawn, except from Church teaching. Science is incapable, by its own rules, to comment on God or His works, including Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I prefer the approach taken by Kemp and Feser who stick with the philosophical and theological monogenism. I agree with them, and you, that science cannot detect or comment upon the metaphysical reality of the soul.

A previous post brought up specific scientific data re. human HLA alleles, and to the extent that is relevant to some people, related data are also relevant.

But I think Kemp and Feser make a strong case that the genetic data are irrelevant because the Church is concerned about theological/spiritual/metaphysical monogenism, not biological or genetic inheritance, when it comes to original sin.
 
cfauster said:
Indeed. I prefer the approach taken by Kemp and Feser who stick with the philosophical and theological monogenism. I agree with them, and you, that science cannot detect or comment upon the metaphysical reality of the soul.

A previous post brought up specific scientific data re. human HLA alleles, and to the extent that is relevant to some people, related data are also relevant.

But I think Kemp and Feser make a strong case that the genetic data are irrelevant because the Church is concerned about theological/spiritual/metaphysical monogenism, not biological or genetic inheritance, when it comes to original sin.
Click to expand...
No, it’s aware of debates like this and has had to make statements regarding human origins.

Humani Generis:

“7. 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Which is why scientific statements will remain insufficient explanations.

Peace,
Ed
 
cfauster said:
Indeed. I prefer the approach taken by Kemp and Feser who stick with the philosophical and theological monogenism. I agree with them, and you, that science cannot detect or comment upon the metaphysical reality of the soul.

A previous post brought up specific scientific data re. human HLA alleles, and to the extent that is relevant to some people, related data are also relevant.

But I think Kemp and Feser make a strong case that the genetic data are irrelevant because the Church is concerned about theological/spiritual/metaphysical monogenism, not biological or genetic inheritance, when it comes to original sin.
Click to expand...
Pardon me.

I cannot understand what is meant by “a strong case that the genetic data are irrelevant because the Church is concerned about theological/spiritual/metaphysical monogenism, not biological or genetic inheritance, when it comes to original sin.” in post 56.

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam was a biological human without ancestors with or without material souls. The Catholic Church is perfectly capable of addressing both the theological metaphysical aspects *and *the blood and guts of a first human being.

I have a sincere respect for scientists who are dealing with genetic data. I would never imply that their work is irrelevant when it comes to Original Sin which cannot be separated from the real first person (with twenty to twenty-five thousand genes) who committed it.

I believe it is time to discuss basic Catholic philosophy/theology when it comes to the first two humans, Adam and Eve.

Divine Revelation trumps!
 
Aloysium said:
I imagine that things were different at the beginning of time.
We are still now all brothers and sisters in Adam and Christ, but the family has a certain structure.
People at the beginning had different social connections.
But even if brother and sister relations then were incestuous, which I do not believe to be the case, it would be preferrable to bestiality.
Sex with a baboon? I really don’t think so.
Are married people writing these things, seriously!!
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything on that page about baboons? :confused:
 
agnes_therese said:
I don’t see anything on that page about baboons? :confused:
Click to expand...
“But only those later individuals who had this pair among their ancestors (even if they also had as ancestors members of the original group which did not have immaterial souls) have descendents living today. In that sense, every modern human is both descended from an original population of several thousand and from an original pair. There is no contradiction because the claim that modern humans are descended from an original pair does not entail that they received all their genes from that pair alone.”
Click to expand...
I may have misread this, but it is not clear from this that all humanity has only two original parents.
The quoted statement does not preclude the possibility that we would have sex with hominids, basically apes.
Would you do this?
I used “baboons” to convey a sense of repugnancy that such an act would have.
Animals may feel emotions of affection and lust, they cannot love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top