who did Adam and Eve's children marry?

[steveandersen]

the-3rd-parent:

How is that a nicer explaination? Isn’t that like saying they married apes?

Well not to be pedantic but we are apes …and great ones at that
rim shot! (Sorry a little taxonomy humor there)

My point is that individuals don’t evolve, populations do. So if we accept the common origin of all living things (which, IIRC, Cardinal Ratzinger said looks like a virtual certainty) then Adam & Even had to be part of a small group that were physically human. They had to, that is how God formed us. And then God gave them (and only them) souls.

It is possible, reasonable (and taught by the Church) that within a generation every human around was either Adam & Eve’s children or grandchildren

Genetics can deal with the question of common ancestry as the famous investigation into the descendants of Genghis Kahn or the more recent work on the U Nails shows.

Genetic distribution maps point towards a common point of origin and approximate dates for most recent common ancestors have been derived for a number of genes

So while faith and reason don’t collide on those issues, genetics really doesn’t point towards a bottle neck of two. And that is why I thought my suggestion was a nicer idea. Besides the fact that incest is against natural law.

 

[buffalo]

wjp984:

I find it hard to believe in the mythology parts of the bible since they are just that, myths. The two creations stories, Noah’s Arc, the Tower of Babel ard everything leading up to Abraham are myths that may be ture but mostlikey are not. Besides, how can both creations stories be true anyways. In the first one man isd created on the sixth day after all the plants and beasts and in the second, creation story, Adam and Eve, Man is created first, then the beasts and finally woman is created last.

This will explain it - The Toledoths of Genesis - Two Accounts of Creation

 

[steveandersen]

CollegeCatholic:

They think it’s gross and therefore MUST be against natural law. …

I happen to think many things are “gross” such as body piercing, milk in my tea, and rap music but that doesn’t mean that are against natural law…well ok, rap music maybe

I coincidently happened to look at this thread the other day
Where the staff apologist, Fr Serpa said
“Natural law tells us that not every kind of behavior is a right. The act of murder is not a right; nor is incest. These go against human nature. We inherently know that these are wrong.”

So I’m not willfully making this up on my own despite what you may think

CollegeCatholic:

If they really want to talk “science,”

“science”? why the quotes?

CollegeCatholic:

genetically speaking, incest is only a major issue when multiple generations are reproducing within the same gene pool. In the case of Adam and Eve, within the first two generations they would already have the means of producing outside of their immediate gene pool through cousins, second cousins,

Well…no. The first generation would be siblings and the second generation would all be first cousins (at a much closer level of consanguinity than regular first cousins would have) but despite the fact that they were called cousins they would all just be reshuffling the same genes back and forth.
True there is variation introduced through mitosis and many people did quite will with inbreeding (e.g. Cleopatra) but the briefest look at the Hapsburgs or the Spanish Bourbons will show that many don’t do too well at all after several generations, so why take that chance?

CollegeCatholic:

blah blah blah.

“blah blah blah” Gracie?

CollegeCatholic:

Also, I “hate” to bring in God and all that Faith stuff

you should never deny or be embarrassed of your faith

CollegeCatholic:

but it could also be plausible that God would alter the genetic code in a way that made procreation perfectly normal for the first few generations, even in spite of the fact that it wouldn’t have necessarily been a problem anyways.

Well yes He could have but (besides setting yourself up for a God of the gaps dilemma) there is no evidence that He did and since everything else in Creation is quite in tune observable evidence it seems reasonable that we are too. I’m perfectly comfort able with a God that takes billions of years to do things. Time is nothing to the eternal and transcendent.

Basically we don’t know and are free to speculate within the bounds of the faith.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

You could outline the options on the board and assign them an essay examining each option.

Who did Adam and Eve’s children marry?

1. Siblings
2. Angels
3. non-humans – evolution angle
4. other tribes – where did the other tribes come from?

address the following concepts under each of the four parts above, orginal sin, Jesus as Second Adam, and any other doctrine that relates like maybe Jesus as Messiah?

make them think.

 

[steveandersen]

……Yea, so I don’t think that in the beginning, incest was wrong between siblings.

Interesting. Is that how you read those verses?

In SONG 8:1 she is clearly stating that she wishes they were really brother and sister (i.e not just allegorical brother and sister) so that they could kiss in public. Even today in parts of the mid east women are prohibited from touching or letting their face be seen by any male but their spouse or their immediate family.

the-3rd-parent:

By the way, you can believe in Evolution without believing that one species evolved into another.

I don’t know what to say to that.
Unless you have a radically different definition of evolution; Saying that things evolve without speciation is like……saying my cup won’t hit the floor if I push it off my desk.

the-3rd-parent:

That’s Darwinism, a type of evolution, but not the evolution I believe in.

Well either you evolve or you don’t. I’ve never heard that evolution came in flavors. There are variations on the mechanism sure but evolution pretty much is what it is.

the-3rd-parent:

I for one do not believe we came from Apes.

While the mechanism is still being refined, phylogeny is pretty much cut and dry. It really isn’t a matter of belief.

L. Aron Nelson’s classic “You are an Ape” is a humorous and educational spin on this

the-3rd-parent:

Moreover, didn’t they find that our DNA is closer to some Ameba than to an Ape’s?

No
I’d like to see your reference on that

the-3rd-parent:

Who cares if we look kind of like them or even if there was one species that looks inbetween us and them. Appearence can be deceiving.

Yes they can which is why classifications haven’t been made solely on appearances for decades

 

[the-3rd-parent]

don’t know what to say to that.
Unless you have a radically different definition of evolution; Saying that things evolve without speciation is like……saying my cup won’t hit the floor if I push it off my desk.

See, newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

It is the species that evolves. Such as that humans today do not look the way they did in yesterday and that in certain areas darker skin evolved with distinct features while in other areas lighter skin evolved. The theory that as a whole we evolve to our habbitat, to fit the conditions of weather.

By this one could argue that Adam and Eve looked very different from us and that humanity itself has evolved. But it is not suited that for instance Apes evolved into something more and more humanoid-like till one day two of these humanoid creatures were given souls and thus defined as being the first humans. If so, why do apes still exist and our humainoid counterparts don’t? Again it would suddenly be arguing that men with souls continued to evolve while our soulless counterparts somehow died away over a succession of years or either were whipped out after imbredding was no longer a problem. Perhaps you want to argue that they died in the flood that it appears you also claim did not occur.

No
I’d like to see your reference on that

I haven’t been able to confirm it with any other source I found. I took a class my freshman year of college. It was a secular institution and my professor was an athesist and an obsessive microbiologist. He came to class one day thrilled that the the mapping of DNA had been finished and taught us that science books were going to have to get rid of the whole animal kingdom sections. He still believed in evolution but felt it was a sign that we evolved rather distinctly from Apes even if we had a same primitive orgin as the rest of every living organism.

I admit the argument is weak due to my lack of more current information.

What I have found though are newer claims that while man did not evolve from Ape, that there are enough similarities in the gene structure that perhaps they evolved from the same source. But this is hypothesis.

So if we accept the common origin of all living things (which, IIRC, Cardinal Ratzinger said looks like a virtual certainty) then Adam & Even had to be part of a small group that were physically human.

I would like to see where our current Pope, while he was still Cardinal said it looks like virtual certainty.

“To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man’s body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man’s body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology.” (New Advent)

 

[steveandersen]

the-3rd-parent:

…
I would like to see where our current Pope, while he was still Cardinal said it looks like virtual certainty…

with humble thanks to Phil Vaz

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. **Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.** Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."

International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, statement “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004

 

[Orogeny]

the-3rd-parent:

See, newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

Please note that that article is copyrighted 1909. Science has progresses a bit since then.

I would like to see where our current Pope, while he was still Cardinal said it looks like virtual certainty.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm
Specifically, you want to look at the document beginning at paragraph 62.

“To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man’s body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, SAINT, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man’s body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology.” (New Advent)

I may be dense (I have a terrible cold right now), but I couldn’t find that quote. I find it interesting that St. Augustine of Hippo lived from 354-430 AD. Evolution wasn’t much of a topic then!

Peace

Tim

 

[jdnation]

So many confusing ideas, and yet it is all so simple. Creationists had figured it all out long ago… every problem has been addressed.

Cain’s Wife - Who was she?
answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

*"Many Christians cannot answer the question about Cain’s wife because they focus on today’s world (and the problems associated with close relations marrying), and do not understand the clear historical record God has given to us. *
*They try to interpret Genesis from our present situation, rather than understand the true Biblical history of the world and the changes that have occurred because of sin. Because they are not building their worldview on Scripture, but taking a secular way of thinking to the Bible, they are blinded to the simple answers. *

*Genesis is the record of the God who was there as history happened. It is the word of One who knows everything, and who is a reliable witness from the past. Thus, when we use Genesis as a basis for understanding history, we can make sense of questions that would otherwise be a mystery." *

 

[Philomena]

Daniel Marsh:

You could outline the options on the board and assign them an essay examining each option.

Who did Adam and Eve’s children marry?

1. Siblings
2. Angels
3. non-humans – evolution angle
4. other tribes – where did the other tribes come from?

address the following concepts under each of the four parts above, orginal sin, Jesus as Second Adam, and any other doctrine that relates like maybe Jesus as Messiah?

make them think.

Daniel,

This is great! But, could you expand on this? I want to foster a discussion that I can direct easily. Does anyone else have any ideas like this? I guess what I’m asking for is a logical line of thought that I can lead the kids to. But, philosophy and debate are not my greatest strengths. I can teach the facts and make it fun, but I need help with this one!

 

[steveandersen]

You could break the kids into teams to make a presentation for each case.
Although I like the idea of essays better. That way they can present their own reasoning without peer pressure.

I would combine options 3 & 4 that Daniel Marsh mentioned into only one since they are essentially the same thing since evolution would never suppose that things mate outside their species and “other tribes” wouldn’t be consistent with Church teaching. I could be merely other members of the same tribe (clan or family group might be better words)

 

[Philomena]

ok…went back and reread the creation accounts and the Cain, Abel, Seth stuff… much more confused than I was planning on being, here!

The first account, Adam and Eve are created after everything else, including humans…ok, so that can allow for an evolution theory, although doesn’t explain at what point God gave humans their souls. But the 2nd account, Adam and Eve are created BEFORE everything else, so does not seem to allow for an evolution theory.

Was Cain sent to Nod BEFORE Seth was born? It seems so. Do we assume Adam and Eve had daughters before Seth was born, but just weren’t mentioned? Who would Cain’s wife have been, then?

I know these kids will ask these questions! help!

 

[Philomena]

Philomena:

The first account, Adam and Eve are created after everything else, including humans…

oops…I meant** animals,**

not humans…sorry!

 

[steveandersen]

Philomena:

ok…went back and reread the creation accounts and the Cain, Abel, Seth stuff… much more confused than I was planning on being, here!

The first account, Adam and Eve are created after everything else, including humans…ok, so that can allow for an evolution theory, although doesn’t explain at what point God gave humans their souls. But the 2nd account, Adam and Eve are created BEFORE everything else, so does not seem to allow for an evolution theory.

Was Cain sent to Nod BEFORE Seth was born? It seems so. Do we assume Adam and Eve had daughters before Seth was born, but just weren’t mentioned? Who would Cain’s wife have been, then?

I know these kids will ask these questions! help!

The fact that the two stories don’t necessarily match just highlights the point that the order and mechanism of Creation is unimportant to the story.

Try that angle with them but be careful to explain your point so that angry parents don’t come running back to you saying “Did you tell Johnny X?”

But I’ sure you get that anyhow

 

[littlesheep]

Interesting decision. Some question though. How did death enter the world? Was it not by the fall of Adam and Eve? " The wages of sin is Death." All of us die. So did things die before the fall? Remember Adam and Eve were in the garden less then 140 years. So did things die during that time? If so how was what God made “Very Good”?

 

[steveandersen]

littlesheep:

… So did things die before the fall?..

Well our museums are full of their bones and our gas tanks are full of their…organic matter
So obviously things died before humans came around

littlesheep:

…If so how was what God made “Very Good”?

How could God make anything that wasn’t “very good”

Physical death is a natural part of life. All things that are not plants have to eat other things to live and even for plants dead creatures provide nutrients in the soil.

 

[Philomena]

Try that angle with them but be careful to explain your point so that angry parents don’t come running back to you saying “Did you tell Johnny X?”

OH, that’s why I always preface things with, 'the Church teaches…" That gives me quite a backup!

 

[Mike_O]

I believe each of these creationist sites were referenced at some point in this thread:

trueorigin.org/

www.answersingenesis.org

I can’t speak for the whole of the site–though there are many compelling scientific arguments in support of things such as a global flood, etc.–but with regards to Cain’s wife, read the passage again:

" Cain then left the LORD’S presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17
5 Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. Cain also became the founder of a city, which he named after his son Enoch."

(Gen 4:16-17)

All that this says is that Cain left Eden and went to Nod. It says nothing about him finding his wife in Nod. He had to have brought his wife with him if we are to observe the Church’s teaching on monogenism.

In addition, the Lord did not establish the Mosaic law, part of which precluded incest, until the time of Moses. Therefore, no laws were broken by Cain’s having had relations with his sister.

 

[Philomena]

Mike O:

In addition, the Lord did not establish the Mosaic law, part of which precluded incest, until the time of Moses. Therefore, no laws were broken by Cain’s having had relations with his sister.

Mike, can you tell me where in the Bible I can find where God disallowed incest. And someone mentioned Abraham marrying his half-sister at the request of God. I couldn’t find that. But if it’s there, it would help me a lot.

 

[steveandersen]

As I mentioned above, my objection to incest was that it was against natural law and not just Mosaic Law.