who did Adam and Eve's children marry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philomena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Philomena

Guest
My 8th grade CCD class posed this question to me last night. I told them that we suppose Adam and Eve had other children and that they married each other. God allowed this to populate the earth, even though later He forbid such a practice because the gene pool had grown larger. How can I explain it better? It’s a tough crowd!
 
Another explanation is that there was a group of hominids and at some point two of them were given souls and thus became the first full humans. We’re their decendants but they had other folks to breed with

A much nicer explanation than incest and it is consistent with observations
 
40.png
steveandersen:
Another explanation is that there was a group of hominids and at some point two of them were given souls and thus became the first full humans. We’re their decendants but they had other folks to breed with

A much nicer explanation than incest and it is consistent with observations
Click to expand...
Not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is we are all descended from one set of parents (named Adam and Eve).
 
40.png
buffalo:
… Catholic teaching is we are all descended from one set of parents (named Adam and Eve).
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. And that is not inconsistent with the explanation I gave.
 
I actually got an atricale on that back in High School, If I can find it I will post it. But, for now I will give you the jest of it.

That if you look at Gensis you will see that it just about always says that “and they had many sons and daughters” with adam and on down the line for a while. And scince they lived to be like 900 years or so one could assume that the period of haveing children would have been longer and would have quite a few children and granted that the number of children that time perments (when child bearing starts and end) might be debatable one fact isn’t. Incest wasn’t wrong at the time, the Mosaic laws wouldn’t forbid it for a couple of thousand years.

I will get the article, it explains it better than I.
 
40.png
steveandersen:
Yes, I know. And that is not inconsistent with the explanation I gave.
Click to expand...
From the Catechism:

"Each for the other" - "A unity in two"

[371](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/371.htm’)😉 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

[372](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/372.htm’)😉 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”,245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.247

[373](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/373.htm’)😉 In God’s plan man and woman have the vocation of “subduing” the earth248 as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator “who loves everything that exists”,249 to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.
 
40.png
buffalo:
From the Catechism:

"Each for the other" - “A unity in two” …
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. And that is not inconsistent with the explanation I gave.

we’ve had this discussion before 😉
 
From

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).
 
40.png
buffalo:
Not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is we are all descended from one set of parents (named Adam and Eve).
Click to expand...
We are all descended from millions of people.
 
40.png
buffalo:
… 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…
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. And that is not inconsistent with the explanation I gave.

I suggested that there were people who were not fully human/unsouled/not true men who could have acted as spouses for A&E’s children
 
40.png
steveandersen:
Yes, I know. And that is not inconsistent with the explanation I gave.

I suggested that there were people who were not fully human/unsouled/not true men who could have acted as spouses for A&E’s children
Click to expand...
That brings up the fascinating notion that some unsouled folks may still be here. Look around.
 
40.png
steveandersen:
Yes, I know. And that is not inconsistent with the explanation I gave.

I suggested that there were people who were not fully human/unsouled/not true men who could have acted as spouses for A&E’s children
Click to expand...
If they were not human then we cannot all be descended from one pair. Some of us would be partially descended from Adam and Eve.
 
40.png
buffalo:
If they were not human then we cannot all be descended from one pair. Some of us would be partially descended from Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Partially descended is still descended.
 
40.png
Ortho:
Partially descended is still descended.
Click to expand...
True, but not Catholic teaching. Past teachings rule out non-humans although there has been recent silence on the matter.

Adam was the “first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45) and in Genesis 3:20 we read, ‘And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.’ Again, if Cain had mated with some non-human species, Eve would not be mother of all the living. But Scripture says she is.
 
40.png
buffalo:
True, but not Catholic teaching. Past teachings rule out non-humans although there has been recent silence on the matter.

Adam was the “first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45) and in Genesis 3:20 we read, ‘And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.’ Again, if Cain had mated with some non-human species, Eve would not be mother of all the living. But Scripture says she is.
Click to expand...
Why not? As mother she is related to Cain who is related to his kid.

Who were those giants the bible talks about back then? Maybe Cain liked big women?
 
One other point - ‘The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.’(The Complete Works of Josephus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1981), p. 27
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top