Adam and Eve


#1

To start off, everything aside, I find this concept extremely hard to believe and accept.
For one, im more of an evolution person, and i would rather put my beliefs with science over religion any day, but also, if this is true, we are all inbred.
every single on of us.
and our ancestors committed incest.
every single on of them. shudders
i would like to hear what justification the church has for this, and hey, if its believanbe enough, i’ll take it to heart, people.
Cya,
Wammy


#2

Wammy, i find you very disrespectful to the Catholic way, and those who follow it.
How dare you suggest that what we believe in makes us inbred!
I find this, at the very least, a heinious act against the sanctity of our church.
Perhaps if you would take off those sunglasses so, many young people wear today, turn off you satanic music, which you no doubt listen to you would see the true, and ONLY path.
The Catholic Path.


#3

So then, you are so sure that the two amoebas that we started from were married and not related?? Your post is a joke. And even your atheist friends would agree that whether we started out with a single set of parents or a single celled animal, some "inbreeding " would have taken place. Nice try to tear down our beliefs but to no avail. It’s too rediculous an argument.


#4

I agree that some inbreeding will have taken place.
im not trying to tear down your beliefs. im merely questioning them. (gee. touchy)
and if you want to say adam and eve were amoebas, hey, thats dandy for me.
Cya,
Wammy
(P.S i have 2 catholics, countless nondemoninational christian, a buddhist, and some agnostic friends. no atheists)
(P.P.S. im not an atheist either. im and agnostic.)


#5

from answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp:

"(…)Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don’t marry your relation, you don’t marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—all are of ‘one blood.’ The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18–20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.(…)"


#6

Even National Geographic is now publishing articles about the genetic Eve from which we all descended-- the mother of all humans.

And his makes you shudder, why?

Incest is not against the divine law except in the first degree of the direct line (parent/child) due to the unique relationship between parent and child.

All other degrees of prohibition have come down to us culturally and have varied considerably from time to time. As has been pointed out, the prohibition against marrying within a certain degree in the bible begins with the laws handed down by Moses.

What kind of justification does the church need for it? None.


#7

Hi
Adam was not the first human being as commonly believed, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.
Thanks


#8

You might want to read some history. You can start with how the Romanov family became susceptible to hemophilia, which is directly relevant to your post.

If you’re a fan of evolutionary biology, you can do some reading as well on theories of speciation. They invariably involve small, interrelated groups.

And while you’re at it, you may wish to pursue your own genealogy. Cousin marriage and even aunt-nephew/uncle-niece marriage was common in families several generations back.


#9

Typical for agnostics to question everything as should all of us. But I never said that Adam and Eve were amoebas. You need to re-read my last post. But anyway, I pray that you do KNOW God and His existence. I can thank Him for the beauty that surrounds me. Someone who doesn’t believe can only appreciate the results of a self inflicted explosion. Wow!!..teachccd


#10

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be the offspring of incest than the progeny of apes!

Evolution isn’t science. It’s religion.


#11

Incest was necessary in the beginning. It was the only way inwhich the planet could be populated, as unpleasant as that concept is to 21st century thinkers.

It was only after the earth was sufficiently populated that God impossed the incest ban. (my opinion on that one)


#12

Also keep in mind that Adam and Eve could have had hundreds of children who moved out into different areas and ultimately intermarried.


#13

You have a source for that? Haven’t seen that one in Church teaching.


#14

Based on what you wrote in your profile about what you enjoy doing, “laughing at people, sabotaging people”, your question is obviously a fraud and not a genuine question at all. Therefore, your fradulent question doesn’t deserve an answer, because you are not seeking the truth, just “laughing at people, sabotaging people”. But we all should pray for you, that one day you will seek truth while you are still breathing, and all done with “laughing at people, sabotaging people”!

Peace


#15

Hi
If every thing in Genesis is taken literal or physical, problems crop up. Now, I think there is hardly an educated person who believes that Earth is flat and is not round. Privately everybody for sure believes that Earth is round, so if some reason-blind still thinks that it is not round and tries to give arguments from OTBible or NTBible, he is simply wrong and has not understood the Bible correctly.

In the same way, now everybody educated on this Earth knows that life, botanical, animal and human got evolved under different stages in billions of years, it is an everyday knowledge. If a horse or fish could evolve, why not man.

OTBible clearly states that Adam was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH talked directly, if one reads it one would understand it for sure; otherwise one should tell from OTBible as to the name of the person with whom God had a conversation directly, naturally that person must be one who was before Adam, as we find it for sure that God had a conversation with Adam.

God’s Word of revelation is to increase the wisdom of the human beings, not to make human beings reason-blind.

Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.


#16

Hi
That is just a misconception, needs to rectified. There were tribes and tribes of the human beings evolved, so why should incest be essential in the beginning.
Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.


#17

I think the writers of Genesis were aware of the existence of other people at the time of Cain and Abel. After Cain killed his brother,he expressed to God his fear that anyone may kill him,as if there were other people in the world besides him and his parents. He then got married to a person whose name and origin are not given. If she had been of the lineage of Adam and Eve,it would probably have been mentioned. But I think that the writers of Genesis took it for granted that there were other people outside of the lineage of Adam and Eve by the time of Cain and Abel.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. This is consistent with the Bible because after the Flood,only Noah and his family were left,and he was descended from Adam and Eve. But before the flood there may have been people outside of the lineage of Adam and Eve.


#18

paarsurrey, can you provide authoritative, reliable documents that would “prove” that Adam was not the first human please.


#19

Hi
I think I have already proved:
OTBible clearly states that Adam was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH talked directly, if one reads it one would understand it for sure; otherwise one should tell from OTBible as to the name of the person with whom God had a conversation directly, naturally that person must be one who was before Adam, as we find it for sure that God had a conversation with Adam.

Please remember, the clergy has to follow the Book, not the Book would follow the clergy. If they misunderstood something which is an everyday knowledge , it is they who should admit it, one human could make a mistake, many could make the same mistake only truth would prevail. It is surely the mistake of the Clergy, not of the Bible, he who makes a mistake has to rectify not the Bible which never said they believe.

Thanks

Adam was not the first human being, he was the first person with whom GodAllahYHWH had a direct conversation, and there were human beings men/woman before Adam and Eve having body and soul like Adam.
There is no such thing as not having a soul. Everything that has a form has a soul. But, not everything has a human soul or a spiritual soul that can survive the death of the body.


#20

That’s an interesting point of view; however, it doesn’t square with the Hebrew text, and is certainly contrary to Catholic Church teaching. I’m certain it works for Islam, and you provide a good reference point to understand how Islam has interpreted the sacred scripture it adopted from Judaism.

Evolution is a good theory, but it has some gaps in it, too, though I don’t want to get into a discussion of that on this thread. There are plenty of other threads where this has been hashed out.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.