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 Original Sin, no need for Jesus Christ to be born, found His Church and die as a sacrifice so that sins may be forgiven. And rising again, showing us that we can gain eternal life with Him.
 
buffalo said:
Where did Eve come from?

Are there among us people without original sin?
Click to expand...
Well, the idea is that two physical beings are given a soul by God (thus creating “Adam” & “Eve”) and the story of Genesis picks up from that point, with Original Sin and everything else.

I’m not doing it justice with my brief explanation here, some theologians published books outlining the theory, if I will share a link here if I locate can locate them.
 
Presuming of course that original sin didn’t come from man’s inherent nature in general as sinners anyway ;).
 
edwest211 said:
There is no scientific basis for this. There is no Scriptural basis for this.
Click to expand...
Ed, I don’t have the references at hand, but will provide them if I can locate the books on the subject. These theologians laid out a compelling argument referencing both modern science and scripture.

It’s been well established since the 50’s that the Church’s teaching on Creation and the scientific theory of evolution need not necessarily conflict with one another.

Some Catholics prefer a literal interpretation of the Bible, some opt for less rigid interpretations, the Church doesn’t seem to have a problem with either (within reason).
 
God just dropped souls into random beings? No support from science or Scripture for that idea.
 
What I’ve been seeing here, for a long time, is mixing science with Scripture. “Soul” is not a scientific concept.
 
edwest211 said:
God just dropped souls into random beings? No support from science or Scripture for that idea.
Click to expand...
No, not “random beings”, still beings created by God according to His plan. The idea is that they were not truly complete human beings until they were graced with a soul.

I’ll admit, it’s not a perfect theory, but nothing is - which is why the debate continues.
However, it does provide a mechanism to reconcile the fossil record with biblical accounts (both of which I believe).

The Catholic Church has played an important role in scientific progress throughout human history. For example, a Belgian priest came up with the Big Bang Theory.

Why should we believe it impossible to be both a man of faith AND science?
 
Appealing to religious leaders, or priests, for confirmation of something scientific? I have seen no writings from the Popes to the Catechism that says “…not truly complete human beings until they were graced with a soul.” So, I still see no basis for this idea.

The Vatican has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
 
edwest211 said:
"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” ( Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
  • Catholic Answers
Click to expand...
Is the Vatican always right when it comes to scientific knowledge or did they ever make a mistake ?
 
edwest211 said:
God just dropped souls into random beings? No support from science or Scripture for that idea.
Click to expand...
You prefer God dropped souls into random mud and dust?

Soul and body form a single entity. There is nothing random about the body aligned with a specific soul. The notion that God chose to give a rational soul, instead of an animal soul, to one of his creations is certainly consonant with Scripture.
 
edwest211 said:
I have seen no writings from the Popes to the Catechism that says “…not truly complete human beings until they were graced with a soul.” So, I still see no basis for this idea.
Click to expand...
The man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a helper suited to the man. Genesis 2:20
Click to expand...
 
There is no mention of this in any writings from the Church. It is a relatively new idea and has no foundation.
 
edwest211 said:
There is no mention of this in any writings from the Church. It is a relatively new idea and has no foundation.
Click to expand...
land animals, from the higher perfection of their life, are, as it were, living souls with bodies subject to them. But the life of man, as being the most perfect grade, is not said to be produced, like the life of other animals, by earth or water, but immediately by God.
Click to expand...
It is hard to know what you mean from your short remarks, but this quote from Aquinas certainly seems to assert that land animal are living souls with bodies, while man is produced immediately by God. That means God dropped rational souls immediately into humans as one of the final steps of creation.
 
Really? According to the Church, first there was Adam, then there was Eve. She was formed by God from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. Aquinas tells us that man is produced by God.
 
Yes indeed. A human is created immediately by God “dropping a soul into a being,” or more precisely, God creates a being with a rational soul amongst many creatures with only animal souls.
 
So, do you believe Adam and Eve were our first parents? Do you believe there were pre-humans or hominins?
 
StandUp4Truth said:
This theory allows for belief in both the biblical account of Adam and Eve as well as the fossil record.
Click to expand...
We are told that the fossil record provides evidence that humans evolved form some kind of ape - I strongly suspect this is more atheist myth and wishful thinking than fact. Sadly, it seems that the Church has taken too much notice of the atheist folklore preached in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
The fossil record actually fits the theory of progressive creation much better than a contiguous process of evolution.
I am convinced Genesis 2:7 rules out any possibility that Adam was the offspring of any living creature, thereby ruling out evolution as a theological option. The genealogies provided in the OT suggest Adam and Eve were real, literal people, not allegorical characters.
 
Last edited:
Padres1969 said:
So basically Pius would argue that Catholics can’t believe in Adam and Eve being allegory… Someone might want to tell Catholic educators that. Because that’s not being taught in at least two Jesuit institutions I attended.
Click to expand...
Romans 1 explains how spiritual corruption manifests itself as sexual and intellectual corruption. The sexual corruption in the Church is already well known. Not so well known are the Church’s infestations of intellectual corruption - sadly, what is being taught in some Catholic institutions isn’t very Catholic at all. As far the Jesuits go, well, imo, they’ve been crazy for decades.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
I am not likely to have said that a myth is “fiction.”
Click to expand...

Reply 1: Fiction versus non-fiction: Part One​

Whether you said it or not is irrelevant. The objective truth is what is relevant. Your assertion that your interpretation of myth is not fiction, historical or otherwise, is not consistent with the rest of the literary world’s view. According to your posts, you define myth as non-fiction because it makes a point that you deem to be true. You assume, because it is myth, it excludes historicity and any historical characters. Let’s look at some definitions of other genres.

Fable : A narration intended to enforce a useful truth ; a short story that teaches a moral lesson .

Parable : 1. a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle ; 2. A short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

Folklore : 1 the traditional beliefs, legends, customs, etc., of a people. 2. A body of widely held but false or unsubstantiated beliefs .

The only difference between the first two genres and your version of myth is the length of the “story”. Both are designed to teach truths and/or morals. Both feature fictional characters, geography, events, etc. By contrast (or lack thereof), your interpretation of the Genesis story contains fictional characters, fictional gardens, and fictional locations. I say: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be a duck. Your definition of myth irrevocably leads to a classification of fiction.

Continued in Reply 1: Fiction versus non-fiction: Part Two
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top