What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. They’re working on the Terminator now. And exoskeletons will help young and old do the heavy lifting, even on the battlefield.
 
DARPA would disagree with you
all this cutting edge stuff gets developed through their programs, the funding is there.

It filters down to the world after a while

i.e. the Internet.
and that desert race
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, the real reason for our shrinking nuclear arsenal is the development of Antimatter Weapons…
 
exoskeletons were being created and were in use 20 years ago.
Their first applications were military
 
Wesrock said:
40.png
opop:
40.png
Wesrock:
As stated, we’re obligated to believe in a historical first man and a historical first woman who sinned, not that man in general collectively sinned. We are free to understand the related history to be told in a mythological style.
Click to expand...
Same answer than to ProdglArchitect: What is your source? The Church document I showed explicitely contradicts this. It clearly considers polygenism a viable option. And it is also what is said in many other catholic sources a read. For example this: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...city-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between biological polygenism and theological polygenism. Kenneth Kemp wrote an interesting proposal on how the two might be reconciled. As for source: Humani Generis.
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
While I think there are things Pope Pius XII did not consider about how the situation could be reconciled, the bolded are absolute truths about what Catholics cannot profess.

I would also direct you to my first post in this topic (post# 4): What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians - #4 by Wesrock
Click to expand...
This right here.
The information is current, it has weight, and it should be reflected upon and responded to.

It is interesting that in other threads, we see quotes from Pope Benedict addressing these issues, and they apparently are not worthy of response.

There are two main areas of ignorance:
The Church’s use of the word “literal”
and the meaning of the word “polygenism”.

Those two words are co-opted by fundamentalists.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
There are two main areas of ignorance:
The Church’s use of the word “literal”
and the meaning of the word “polygenism”.
Click to expand...
Straighten us out on these two meanings. Please give your definitions with Magisterial backup.
 
I don’t believe in aliens :alien: Life didn’t originate on Earth. It was created outside of our time and space. Whenever Elijah and Enoch are residing, that’s where we came from.
 
buffalo said:
Straighten us out on these two meanings.
Click to expand...
From The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church:
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
Click to expand...
 
Dovekin said:
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
Click to expand...
This.,…

The constant understanding and teaching from the beginning must be the foundation.
 
Last edited:
I am a fundamentalist when it comes to the first sentence in the Bible; In the beginning; God created the heaven and the Earth. I take this to be an absolute truth. The rest of the Bible is a life time journey of trying to understand the hows and whys of life.
 
Dovekin said:
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
Click to expand...
You left out a part of what is necessary to arrive at the literal sense.
The Pontifical Bible Commission also wrote: each biblical text [must be interpreted] in the light of the Canon of the Scriptures … Each individual book only becomes biblical in the light of the Canon as a whole.
Click to expand...
In other words, we can know the literal meaning of Adam and Eve in Genesis by what the rest of the Books of the Bible say about it. For example we could read from Hebrews where it says, “For he who sanctifies [ Jesus – SML ] and those who are sanctified [ all the descendants of Adam, the father of humanity – SML ] have all one origin” (Hebrews 2:11). Incidentally, the “one origin” is referring to Adam (see CCC #360). Hmmm? Wasn’t Eve in need of redemption? As I recall, she was the first one to “eat the apple.” If she wasn’t taken out of Adam, I guess she missed out on that whole redemption thing. I can, and will, go on with the Canon of Scripture if necessary.

You stated previously that you believe that Genesis is a mythical book. Well, according to your quote, we must look for the historical context of the text at the time it was written. This is what the science of linguistics (as part of the hermeneutical sciences) deals with. Do you believe that the meaning of myth is roughly the same now as it was in Moses time? What reliable Catholic source are you using to back up your understanding?

Here is another interesting thought about Genesis. God used two sciences (geology and biology) to describe what Adam was made of? He used those same two sciences to explain to us how Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt. Doesn’t sound like folklore to me. Can you name any Magisterial documents that state that Adam and Eve are not two real people created at roughly the same time?
 
Last edited:
stephenSTOSS1 said:
Do you believe that the meaning of myth is roughly the same now as it was in Moses time? What reliable Ca
Click to expand...
I am not really sure what your question about Moses time is looking for. Myth is a genre of teaching and telling stories, of sharing faith, that is descriptive of stories from Moses time as well as any other time.

In 1979, John Paul II began extended reflections on Genesis 2-3 that have been collected and discussed as a “theology of the body.” His early comments stated:
The second chapter of Genesis constitutes, in a certain manner, the most ancient description and record of man’s self-knowledge. Together with the third chapter it is the first testimony of human conscience. A reflection in depth on this text - through the whole archaic form of the narrative, which manifests its primitive mythical character - provides us in nucleo with nearly all the elements of the analysis of man, to which modern, and especially contemporary philosophical anthropology is sensitive. It could be said that Genesis 2 presents the creation of man especially in its subjective aspect. Comparing both accounts, we conclude that this subjectivity corresponds to the objective reality of man created “in the image of God.”
Click to expand...
There is a wonderful footnote on the nature of myth that is unfortunately not included on the Vatican website. EWTN may have it. I hope he is Catholic enough for you, not always a given around here.

Your reference to CCC 360 is a little strange. My edition identifies God as the one source of humanity, not Adam, compare Luke 3:38. (Eve btw is the Mother of all the Living, so she must be Adam’s mother, which I think means she needs to be redeemed)

As to folklore, you would have to define the term for me to understand you. Isn’t the creation account a story told by one generation to the next? I simply don’t see how the story of creation or Lot’s wife is not like folklore. What else could a story about a woman who lived over 3000 years ago be?
 
Eve was not born but fashioned from Adam’s side by God. And is the mother of all living.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top