Who were Adam's womb based parents?

[Gorgias]

So in your view, the first male and female were indeed subject to decay and aging, but those effects were reversed when they received souls?

The recipients of preternatural gifts were the first true (i.e., ensouled) humans. There’s nothing that requires that they received their souls (i.e., “became human” rather than merely hominin) at conception (although that is the normal way that it happens for all who are conceived of human parents).

I don’t know that I’d say that “decay and aging were reversed” – that seems to strong a claim .

But, I think that this construct – as a theory – manages to meet the requirements of the doctrines of the Church while also not contradicting what science tells us of the history of life on earth.

 

[steve-b]

If that were the case, the Vatican would have censured theologians giving statements regarding polygenism. (Albeit not by that name as mono/polygenism isn’t really being used since HG.)

There’s quite an interesting discussion about it in

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

I’m finding opop’s posts quite interesting in it.

Point being

If Adam (singular) was NOT the first man, but only one man among a group of original men, then what does that say about the NT application of Jesus as the new Adam (singular)? https://www.catholicbible101.com/christ-the-new-adam

 

[bobperk]

I don’t know that I’d say that “decay and aging were reversed” – that seems to strong a claim .

Your position requires this claim, because if our first parents were just animal hominins before they received a soul, they would have been subject to aging, disease, and disharmony with nature. It is hard then to argue that the infusion of a soul made them preternatural and immortal if the soul did not reverse the prior effects of nature on their bodies. So the traditional teaching of Adam and Eve’s creation more logically explains their preternatural gifts, and theologically is more aligned with our belief in the resurrection of our bodies.

 

[Cruciferi]

God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection [CCC 997].

Perhaps they made a mistake. It’s not the Resurrection of the Body it’s the Evolution of the Body!

We’ll have to start over again as single cell blobs and evolve back into to being apes…

 

[Sonic]

Perhaps they made a mistake. It’s not the Resurrection of the Body it’s the Evolution of the Body!

We’ll have to start over again as single cell blobs and evolve back into to being apes…

So let me get this straight (and correct me if I’m wrong), because I think I’m starting to understand the other side of this argument here.

The prevailing theory is… Adam and Eve were descended from intelligent animal people without human souls… ergo…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Gorgias]

Your position requires this claim

No, not really. But, let’s look at the claims that the distinct positions require us to take: the position of the Scriptural literalist requires him to claim that

• incest was OK with God for a while in the beginning, before He finally decided it was icky and sinful.
• the ‘origins stories’ of Genesis – which were intended to demonstrate the origins of all humans – are really just stories of the origins of the peoples that the ancient Semites knew about (whoops!).
• God really did hide fossils in the ground to fool us into thinking that creation is older than 6000 years

So, before you start pointing your finger at ‘claims’, please realize that there are some real whoppers of claims that strict Scriptural literalism forces upon its believers!

Your position requires this claim, because if our first parents were just animal hominins before they received a soul, they would have been subject to aging, disease, and disharmony with nature. It is hard then to argue that the infusion of a soul made them preternatural and immortal if the soul did not reverse the prior effects of nature on their bodies.

Not sure that I agree.

The infusion of a soul made the first humans ‘immortal’ (due to preternatural gifts). Full stop. Not a ‘reversal’, just immortality. The rest isn’t part of the Scriptural narrative, is it?

So the traditional teaching of Adam and Eve’s creation more logically explains their preternatural gifts,

Only if you hold that the presence of those gifts implies that they were always present, which you haven’t demonstrated – other than merely claiming it.

and theologically is more aligned with our belief in the resurrection of our bodies.

Actually… no. The resurrection itself demonstrates that God can take our ‘imperfect’, ‘decayed’ bodies and make them incorruptible. So, even on the face of it, without addressing your argument whatsoever, we see that your claim fails – God does do what you claim He does not!

 

[Sonic]

• incest was OK with God for a while in the beginning, before He finally decided it was icky and sinful.
• the ‘origins stories’ of Genesis – which were intended to demonstrate the origins of all humans – are really just stories of the origins of the peoples that the ancient Semites knew about (whoops!).
• God really did hide fossils in the ground to fool us into thinking that creation is older than 6000 years

Lets look at your first argument concerning incest. It’s a very weak argument that is easily defeated by the fact that Abraham was married to his half-sister.

Genesis 20:12-13:
12 Besides, she is indeed my sister, on the father’s side but not on the mother’s, though she is none the less my wedded wife.[1]
13 When God bade me leave my father’s house and go on my travels, I said to her, Do me this kindness; give it out, wherever we go, that I am thy brother.[2]

God blessed this marriage in Genesis 17:15-16

15 This, too, God said to Abraham, Thou shalt call thy wife Sarai not Sarai but Sara, the princess.
16 Her I will bless, giving thee a son by her; and him, too, I will bless, giving him whole nations for his posterity; kings with their peoples shall take their origin from him.

St Paul calls Abraham the father of our faith in Romans 4: 16-17

16 For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us, j
17 as it is written, “I have made you father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not exist. k

So, the incest argument simply does not work, because you would also have to apply it in other parts of scripture.

Also, consider the fact that this argument can also be used against your own position. “Certainly God wouldn’t allow Adam and Eve’s offspring to procreate with proto-human beast men. Last I recall, God condemned bestiality in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.”

As for the second argument of who was known and not known in the Bible, it’s also a weak argument. It neither proves or disproves that humanity was descended from Adam and Eve. The genealogies, in Genesis, record the relationship the Jewish people had with other peoples in the Ancient Near East. These genealogies served a purpose in establishing the unique identity of the Jewish people in comparison to the gentiles around them. Your point only proves that one is less likely to include people you have no contact with in such an accounting.

As for point 3… the generation from Adam and Eve is not dependent on a strict 6,000 year argument. Even if someone was arguing this point (as some creationists do), the dispute over how the fossils came to exist involves another discussion.

What we are really discussing here is at what point in the historical timeline should we put Adam and Eve. Near the beginning of creation or, as you have been arguing for, much nearer to our point in history?

 

[sevenswords]

For a period we have been taught that adam and eve the first humans lived around 135,000 years ago this was accepted for a long time by main stream science, now that time frame has been demolished and based on the rate of mutation we now have a time saying Mitochondrial eve lived around 6000 years ago. I have heard scientists insist this mother of all living was only one of a branch but my question would be show us the mothers of other branches show us other mothers apart from eve?
Humanistic science is not worth a whole lot in my book and should not be trusted as they will twist and tare apart anything that contradicts their faith based beliefs.

 

[bobperk]

Only if you hold that the presence of those gifts implies that they were always present, which you haven’t demonstrated – other than merely claiming it.

On the same token, you take the position that they were not always present, which you have not demonstrated either. So theoretically, your view of our first parents can support an “Adam” that was missing an arm and an “Eve” that was blind in one eye, perhaps. But their souls made them immortal, because those damaged aspects of their previously “animal” bodies did not kill them. No need to reverse the effects!

 

[Gorgias]

So, the incest argument simply does not work, because you would also have to apply it in other parts of scripture.

That’s a nice try, but you’re playing apples and oranges here. You’re attempting to justify brother-sister incest (or worse, father-daughter or mother-son) by virtue of a relationship that’s less close than the one you’re defending. That’s a weak argument.

Also, consider the fact that this argument can also be used against your own position. “Certainly God wouldn’t allow Adam and Eve’s offspring to procreate with proto-human beast men. Last I recall, God condemned bestiality in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.”

Yes, it was condemned hundreds of years later, and as a ‘Church’ law, rather than a matter of divine natural law (which is, after all, what forbids brother-sister incest – God’s divine natural law, which is “written in our hearts” eternally). So, again, you’re using a lesser standard to try to defeat a higher standard. Again: weak sauce.

Your point only proves that one is less likely to include people you have no contact with in such an accounting.

No, my point addresses the fact that, if you wish to deal with the Scriptural account as a literal, historical, scientific account of the origins of humanity, you’ve got to deal with the fact that it is literally incomplete and not comprehensive.

What we are really discussing here is at what point in the historical timeline should we put Adam and Eve. Near the beginning of creation or, as you have been arguing for, much nearer to our point in history?

Agreed.

I have heard scientists insist this mother of all living was only one of a branch but my question would be show us the mothers of other branches show us other mothers apart from eve?

They can’t “show” us anyone, ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ or otherwise. That discussion is merely a statistical, genealogical observation of common genetic lines among currently living humans. By its very definition, it implies that the others do exist (but aren’t represented by currently-living humans)!

Humanistic science is not worth a whole lot in my book and should not be trusted as they will twist and tare apart anything that contradicts their faith based beliefs.

Pot, meet kettle, eh?

Isn’t that precisely what creationists and Scriptural literalists do?

On the same token, you take the position that they were not always present, which you have not demonstrated either.

Agreed. And, to be fair, I’m only presenting this as a theory. But, to be fair, you have to admit that you don’t have any proof, either, and therefore, yours is just an unsupported theory as well. And, if I’m being honest, that’s not the way the creationist side presents its case.

 

[edwest211]

No… not… furries!!!

 

[Benadam]

Ver. 19, 20. “For the earnest expectation of the creation waits,” he says, “for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope.”

“For creation was made subject to vanity and decay, not willingly.”

I don’t know if this has been brought up but the interpretation that this condition enters the world because of Adam’s sin isn’t taking into account the Adam is created too. Including Adam also makes sense of the willing part. Adam was subject to entropy like all of creation. Then the hope of the one who did the subjecting was that man would lift up all of creation. Sin got in the way…

 

[Sonic]

“For creation was made subject to vanity and decay, not willingly.”

I don’t know if this has been brought up but the interpretation that this condition enters the world because of Adam’s sin isn’t taking into account the Adam is created too. Including Adam also makes sense of the willing part. Adam was subject to entropy like all of creation. Then the hope of the one who did the subjecting was that man would lift up all of creation. Sin got in the way…

Your exegesis is incorrect, Benadam. And, it has been brought up several times. St. Paul is talking about creation distinct from humanity.

From pg 506-507 of Romans A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Joseph A. Fitzmeyer:

“Paul does not mean by pasa hē ktsis the “homogeneous”, closed circle, which humanity is.” The meaning of ktisis has been debated since the time of Augustine (De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus liber I 67.1 [CCLat 44 A. 164-65]). From the context ktisis must mean pasa hē ktisis, “all creation” (8:22), but creation distinct from humanity, as v 23 suggests (see Cranfield, Romans, 414; Wilckens, Römer 2:153). Hence Paul is affirming a solidarity of the nonhuman world with the human world in the redemption that Christ wrought. In its own way it echoes Yahweh’s promise to Noah of the covenant to be made “between myself and you and every creature” (Gen 9:12-13). So here ktisis denotes “material creation” apart from human beings. Wis 1:14 sums it all up well: “For he created all things that they might exist, and wholesome are the creatures of the world; there us in them no destructive drug, no domain of Hades on earth.” Created for human beings (Wis 2:6), it was “cursed” because of Adam’s sin (Gen 3:15-17); since then material creation has been in a state of abnormality or frustration, being subject to corruption and decay. Yet Paul sees it sharing in the destiny of humanity, somehow freed of it’s proclivity to decay. The “revelation of the children of God” expresses the corporate destiny of Christians to be made manifest in the parousia (see 1 Thes 3:13; Gal 5:5). The eschatological is now made the object of an apocalyptic affirmation.

Just so you know,

Fr. Jospeh A Fitzmeyer is a Jesuit priest and professor emeritus of biblical studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C, Where he lives. In his long and distinguished career, he served as president of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Catholic Biblical Association, ad the Society for New Testament Study.

These are the words of a very competent Biblical scholar, and not some internet amateur. This is a standard text being given to Catholic Theological students for the study of Paul’s letter to the Romans. I suggest you take the time to acquire a copy and read through the commentary and notes carefully (as I suggested to Gorgias).

I’ve yet to see a competent Biblical scholar agree with your exegesis. If you have a contrary source, then please produce one.

 

[Sonic]

That’s a nice try, but you’re playing apples and oranges here. You’re attempting to justify brother-sister incest (or worse, father-daughter or mother-son) by virtue of a relationship that’s less close than the one you’re defending. That’s a weak argument.

Yes, it was condemned hundreds of years later , and as a ‘Church’ law, rather than a matter of divine natural law (which is, after all, what forbids brother-sister incest – God’s divine natural law, which is “written in our hearts” eternally). So, again, you’re using a lesser standard to try to defeat a higher standard . Again: weak sauce.

I am going to address both of these comments at once.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Lesser standard… higher standard? What are you talking about?

Your logic once again fails me, and I cannot concede to your argument because it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Theo2]

Not sure I agree. Could have been an animal conception. Also, wasn’t Jesus’ conception immaculately ?

 

[edwest211]

Animal? The Church doesn’t teach that.

 

[Benadam]

Fr Fitzmeyer’s analysis isn’t able to define what Paul meant with confidence and definitely not with certainty… There are solutions. For example the creation is in bondage to decay. That is different from being subject to it’s bondage to decay. For if it was in bondage with hope to be freed and then that hope is lost, then it can be subject to it’s bondage.

If you wish to refute the meaning I present for this passage you will need to present reason’s it can’t be true. Posting the opinion of other’s on a passage like this one falls short. Unless it was able to expose my error by contrast. The fact is, no one is really certain about the meaning of this passage and the Church hasn’t defined it. You claiming the meaning I present as incorrect has no basis…

Created for human beings (Wis 2:6), it was “cursed” because of Adam’s sin (Gen 3:15-17); since then material creation has been in a state of abnormality or frustration, being subject to corruption and decay. Yet Paul sees it sharing in the destiny of humanity, somehow freed of it’s proclivity to decay.

 

[Sonic]

Fr Fitzmeyer’s analysis isn’t able to define what Paul meant with confidence and definitely not with certainty… There are solutions. For example the creation is in bondage to decay. That is different from being subject to it’s bondage to decay. For if it was in bondage with hope to be freed and then that hope is lost, then it can be subject to it’s bondage.

If you wish to refute the meaning I present for this passage you will need to present reason’s it can’t be true. Posting the opinion of other’s on a passage like this one falls short. Unless it was able to expose my error by contrast. The fact is, no one is really certain about the meaning of this passage and the Church hasn’t defined it. You claiming the meaning I present as incorrect has no basis…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Theo2]

My understanding is that the church has not spoken about the creation story with the exception that all humans descend from Adam and Eve.