Descendants of Adam and Eve mated with pre-humans?

The problem isn’t “how many sons and daughters did Adam and Eve have?”, it’s “did the children of Adam and Eve commit incest in order to propagate the human species?”.

Please note that the question isn’t asking “if there were incest, then why aren’t we all genetically damaged by it?”

The question is asking the following:

  • isn’t incest morally evil? Aren’t we saying, by asserting this, that the human race was initially propagated through immoral acts?
  • empirical analysis tells us that there was never a bottleneck of less than 10K or so distinct human persons. If this is the case, then how do we square up an explanation of Genesis that attempts to claim scientific/historical accuracy with empirical data that conflicts with it? (Other than just saying “God is always right; man is therefore, by definition, wrong.”)

No – that makes us humans. It does not make us “not animals.”

Umm… even those Catholics around here who are willing to float the idea that’s being presented in this thread would assent to the proposition that “there were two first truly human parents, to whom tradition gives the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’, and from whom all humans proceed.” Note, however, that this doesn’t imply that we proceed only from Adam and Eve; it’s just that they were our first true human parents, and we all share in their lineage.

To be fair, if one posits that the Genesis account is literally true, then he literally is arguing that Adam was created from pre-existing matter, and that Eve was created from pre-existing and living matter. :wink:

1 Like

Better yet, how could we tell the difference today, looking at bones and such?

And without getting too graphic, let’s ask a somewhat-uncomfortable question: a few hundred years ago, western caucasians argued that the peoples in certain parts of the world were sub-human. That is, they argued that, although they looked similar to civilized humans, they were not. (In fact, this was the rationalization for the morality of slavery.) And yet, people mated with these so-called ‘sub-humans’ and gave birth through these unions. If we so-called “civilized persons” did this a scant century or three ago… why are we appalled at the thought that our earliest ensouled human ancestors would have done precisely the same thing? Especially when there would have been more upstanding reasons for doing so?

When you see people talking about genres of literature, ‘myth’ doesn’t mean “untrue”, it means " a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon."

Then why are you discounting a theory based on the lack of empirical evidence? Quit making false connections. :roll_eyes: :wink:

1 Like

Lol! :confused:

I was looking for the joke but then I realized you meant to say, “gist”.

is we can’t know the state of the human heart moments before death.

That is true.

Even a man hanging himself powerless to save himself can be contrite enough.

We don’t know that. It’s just an assumption.

We don’t know.


That is the lamest thing I ever heard.

Don’t look into the truth just accept.

Why worry about something you can’t control?

That’s garbage.

It’s my opinion. I might think the same about yours. Should I describe your opinion as trash? Let’s have a friendly conversation. If you don’t agree, at least try to be agreeable.

Hold on, you can’t say:

Then say:

Suicide is not automatically hell anymore, lest it’s not accepted as an absolute.
Mostly due to a better understanding of mental illness.

Why are you flip-flopping?

Because a point that kills any examination or further discussion is a cop-out.
I have no problem being charitable but I have zero patience for a logical fallacy.

1 Like

Yes, I can. The logic follows from the first statement.

  1. If we can’t know the state of the human heart moments before death.

  2. Then we can’t know if “a man hanging himself powerless to save himself can be contrite enough.”

Only God knows.

Suicide is not automatically hell anymore, lest it’s not accepted as an absolute.

From a human perspective. We should still pray for them.

Mostly due to a better understanding of mental illness.


Why are you flip-flopping?

I’m not. I think we’re having trouble understanding each other.

That sounds like an excuse to be rude.

Hopefully, we can just talk and agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

So that we clearly distinguish Fable - from Truth…
Genesis is not a Myth…

… When you see people talking about genres of literature, ‘myth’ doesn’t mean “untrue”, it means " a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon."

I’m not speaking of ‘genres of literature’.

In a simple descending order … There’s Truth, Legend, Myth, Lie…

Genesis presents Truth to and from the Catholic Church…

With regard to Genesis, “myth” is oft-used by some to imply Fiction (vs Non-Fiction/Fact).

Do we agree that Genesis is Solid?

Interpreting Scripture from the Catechism:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

**[116] The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

**[117] The spiritual sense . Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

  1. The allegorical sense . We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

  2. The moral sense . The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge , “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

**[119] "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89


They would be an abomination. A horror unmatched by any demon in Hell. Walking corpses.

Actually incest is far, far less abominable. Incest is less disordered than homosexuality, which in turb is less disordered than bestiality. Bestiality is the most disordered sexual act possible.

I do believe Genesis is both literally and figuratively true, and I also believe the doctrines of the Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I do not believe the Theory of Evolution as true, not even what the atheists actually believe. Most of them agree the Theory has very big holes, big enough so it can turn everything upside down. They believe the theory in a sense more like it is the right way to reach the truth. It was obvious from the very beginning that there is not enough scientific information for such a theory. I doubt there can ever be enough information when you have to deal with unique events far back in the past.
I found this video on youtube: “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” with Meyer Berlinski and Gelernter.

These guys heve their doctorates With Cambridge, Harvard (?) and Yale but even with the tribal support of the Theory of Evolution in the liberal universities (complemented with hate against anybody who does not believe it) , some guys started to ask some very hard questions.

Granting that you could easily tell the difference, why exactly would it be disordered to mate with one?

No way to tell forensically.

I’m not aware of any Church teaching contradicting it. Are you?

Why would you describe them that way? Just because they lack a rational soul? So does every other creature on earth.

OK. But, when we talk about the Bible, there are a variety of genres of literature. Whether or not the term ‘myth’ is “oft-used by some to imply fiction”, that’s not what is meant in the present context.

So, yes: we agree “that Genesis is Solid” – the creation story in Genesis 1 is truth told through the literary genre of ‘myth’. :wink:

And that’s precisely the point: if there’s no test to be performed, then the lack of results of a test aren’t evidence. :wink:

Hmm… I agree, but not sure how it relates to the discussion. Tanfan said relations with one would constitute bestiality. I quipped how he’d even know one. It was tangential to the main question of bestiality and he failed to address that. Maybe you have some insight there? I’ve been impressed by your comments on these issues.

This is a good discussion and many valid points have been raised. At this stage, I’d like to offer a few random thoughts:

  • It’s very debatable whether the mating of an ensouled human with a non-ensouled primate, genetically related to the point of being almost identical aside from the issue of ensoulment, would be bestiality as we understand it. We are not talking apes here.

  • It may be a fallacy to presuppose that the offspring of this mating would automatically have an immortal human soul, just because one parent had a soul. Not to get too repulsive here, but if a human-ape hybrid were produced in a laboratory — assuming that were possible — would the hybrid have a soul just because one genetic parent was human? (Thinking of this taking place in vitro is not nearly as repulsive as…)

  • We have to presuppose that there was an individual man named Adam who had an immortal soul, and likewise, there was an individual woman named Eve who had an immortal soul. The Church teaches this much. Moreover, we must believe that Eve was in some way produced from the body of Adam. Cloning and genetic manipulation (to create female DNA) come to mind here. Obviously God could have produced the same effect through a miracle. If anything, this makes a strong case for a literal interpretation of Genesis, at least where this one event is concerned. And it may well have happened precisely this way.

  • If the whole ensouled-human/non-ensouled human-like mating scenario is not true, then the only alternative is that brothers and sisters mated at the outset. It seems reasonable to assume that as the generations passed, there was some kind of social construct or code that ensured mating took place as remotely related as possible.

  • In that Neanderthals and other primitive humans had some aspect of thinking and social life (burying the dead, art, craftwork, clothing, etc.), it is more likely than not that they had immortal souls, in short, that they had at least some level of descent from Adam and Eve.

  • Paleontology cannot possibly tell us whether early human-like creatures had souls or not.

Eve was literally formed by God from Adam’s side while he slept.

1 Like

God allowed the mating of Adam and Eve’s children’s siblings in the beginning. They did not have the genetic load we have today.

Hmmm… Do we agree with these selections from the CCC

[ 289 ] Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

[ 390] " 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 ."

No they did not. This is not in Sacred Scripture.

@edwest211 started this part of the discussion by asserting:

So, my point is simply that if there’s no logically possible empirical evidence for “proto-humans”, then the lack of evidence doesn’t actually help the case that proto-humans didn’t exist. In this case, absence of evidence really isn’t evidence of absence…!

Well… that took a little longer than I’d thought it would! :rofl:

Yes. And yes, I see that it specifically references Genesis 3 as figurative. But, if the preceding paragraph references the first three chapters, are you telling me that you’re gonna claim that chapter 1 is full-on, literalistic, scientific history, but then they just shift to figurative language only once they reach chapter 3? :thinking:

We’re not talking of mating with an ape though. It’s a creature that’s biologically identical in every way, excepting the immaterial soul. Is there a reason to doubt God would create a rational soul in the child? That would mean Adam could beget children without original sin among other things.

There’s no reason to doubt this. Someone had to be first. I’ve read other interpretations of the rib passage though. Protestant scholar John Walton has written extensively on the translation of the Genesis text. He makes a compelling argument that it isn’t describing a surgical procedure and Eve’s origin is much more conventional. I understand there are Catholic teachings suggesting a more literal approach to Eve. I haven’t dug too deeply on this. My experience with Catholic teachings on these things though is that they’re usually pretty nuanced.

Well, you replied to me and I was chatting with Tanfan2, not Ed. Hence the confusion. Personally, I usually ignore Ed as he seems more interested in trolling than real dialog. :wink:

So, do you have any thoughts about whether sex between rational and non-rational homosapiens would constitute bestiality?

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