Polygenism and Cain's wife

#21

[quote=elvisman]You must not believe in Jesus, either.
Adam AND Jesus are mentioned as being related in the geneolgy discourse in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 3:23-38).
[/quote]

I was wondering about this as well; the genealogy from Adam to Christ only gives about 4,000 years worth of human history. What happened to the intervening time since man was endowed with a soul by God? From Adam to Christ must have been much longer than 4,000 years of history; are there deliberate gaps in the family tree?

0 Likes

#22

:bigyikes: He is in a lot more than that. He is no allegory, he wants you to think that.

Genesis, was not meant to be a historical timeline, it was not meant to be an exact historical record of all humans on earth. Im sure God, who created all things, took care of the human race in regards to multiplication. I know everything began with 2 human parents one male and one female both with a soul. If we have been here for 6,000 or 6,000,000 does it really matter. Its Gods plan and we are here now, and we know incest is wrong now.

The other thing to remember is just because the earth is millions of years old, that doesn’t mean the human race is. God is infinate and millions of years are but a tick of the clock.

0 Likes

#23

[quote=Mike O]That’s my question; how do Hebraic ancestors give rise to Asian, African, European, and Latin American descendants?
[/quote]

I would think it happened by degeneration.

hurst

0 Likes

#24

[quote=Mike O]I was wondering about this as well; the genealogy from Adam to Christ only gives about 4,000 years worth of human history. What happened to the intervening time since man was endowed with a soul by God? From Adam to Christ must have been much longer than 4,000 years of history; are there deliberate gaps in the family tree?
[/quote]

Errr … we do have many human artifacts dating to times prior to 4000 BC so any genealogy which claims human existence for less than that must be taken with a few grains of salt.

Once again the Bible isn’t a history text or a science text

The important point is that God created man
How He did it or how long it took isn’t important to the message
Don’t loose the forest for the trees.
that is the Protestant way

0 Likes

#25

[quote=hurst]I would think it happened by degeneration.

hurst
[/quote]

oh no
you didn’t say that. :eek:

0 Likes

#26

[quote=Mike O]That’s my question; how do Hebraic ancestors give rise to Asian, African, European, and Latin American descendants?
[/quote]

Remember the old testament Tower of Bable, it sort of says that God separated the people. Remember the words of St. Michael to Lucifer. “Who is like unto God” and of St. Gabriel “For nothing shall be impossible to God.”

0 Likes

#27

[quote=Mike O]… From Adam to Christ must have been much longer than 4,000 years of history; are there deliberate gaps in the family tree?
[/quote]

I read a study concerning this, and it showed that if one were to consider the term “begat” as less precise than father-son, but rather ancestor-descendent (such that the named descendent was born around the time of the death of the named ancestor), then the period of time between Adam and Christ could be increased up to about 10,000 years.

There are specific places where this is actually the case, and Exodus 6 is one such place where the geneology is differently presented.

I have seen 4,004, 5,199, 7,000, and 10,000 given as the number of years leading up to Christ.

hurst

0 Likes

#28

[quote=tdandh26]He is in a lot more than that. He is no allegory, he wants you to think that.
[/quote]

Don’t be afraid, I know the devil is not an allegory at all.

0 Likes

#29

Regarding the development of the so-called races, we are creating a problem where there shouldn’t be one. Biologically, the distinction between Asians, Africans, Europeans, etc. is almost negligible. Between myself (I’m “white”) and my brother, roughly 0.2% of our DNA diverges. Between myself and a Black man, roughly 0.2% of our DNA diverges. Between a Black man and a Black man, roughly 0.2% of their DNA diverges. The genes responsible for the so-called “racial characteristics” comprise a mere 0.012% (this is only an estimate, I assume) of our DNA. All modern humans are incredibly closely related. The Bible (and Church) teaches that we are all “one blood” (Acts 17:26)…but so does science. The popular “out of Africa” theory suggests that we all (Native Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc) originated from a small African group. Given the right set of genes, the potential for all modern phenotypes (the so-called racial characteristics) could have been present in the original human group. (But I’m no expert).

For the record, I believe that Tradition dictates that Adam and Eve were real people. When did they live? Were they homo sapiens? Were they specially created or did they evolve? I don’t have definitive answers…but I believe that in some way, they were our First Parents.
God bless.
In Christ,
Tyler

0 Likes

#30

[quote=hurst]I read a study concerning this, and it showed that if one were to consider the term “begat” as less precise than father-son, but rather ancestor-descendent (such that the named descendent was born around the time of the death of the named ancestor), then the period of time between Adam and Christ could be increased up to about 10,000 years.

There are specific places where this is actually the case, and Exodus 6 is one such place where the geneology is differently presented.

I have seen 4,004, 5,199, 7,000, and 10,000 given as the number of years leading up to Christ.

hurst
[/quote]

That is exactly what I was wondering; thank you for the answer.

Has the Church ever formally said anything about the exegesis of the term “begat”?

0 Likes

#31

[quote=Quebec2005] I personnaly believe Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel were allegorical characters and have never existed.
[/quote]

Maybe you should know that this statement places you in direct conflict with the Church

I have no problem to accept the idea that there was a primary couple, but all the debate on wether Cain’s wife was actually his sister or not is irrelevent to me. Will knowing this help me in my spiritual life and permit me to live as God intended ? All I need to know, is that God has created us, man and woman, that the first humans sinned and that Christ, the Son of God, has saved us by dying on the cross and by His resurection.

The devil is in the details, as we say…

I have always wondered why these replies are even posted on threads like this.

If you have zero interest in discussing finer apologetical points, why did you bother to open the thread?

Some of this is certainly not relevant to salvation, but some of it is relevant otherwise, such as in replying to common anti-Catholic charges.

0 Likes

#32

Catholic fundamenalist literalist… I would like you to meet non-catholic, nonliteralist, believer in Christ…everyone shake hands and come out fighting !!! :smiley:
[/quote]

BrianH -
If you’re accusing me of taking what the gospels teach “literally” - then I’m guilty as charged. I take very seriously what Jesus taught and what the Holy spirit spoke - throught the Gospel writers.
This geneology in (Luke 3:23-38) is meant to be a historical lineage of Jesus Christ. Luke writes of it historically and is not trying to convey a parable or fable. Luke’s universalism leads him to trace the descent of Jesus beyond Israel to Adam and beyond that to God to stress again Jesus’ divine sonship.
It is not meant to be an allegory.

“Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome

0 Likes

#33

Neither, it seems, can it be a literal chronological history.

Adam is the first man. Even if and when some of those patriarchs lived to be 900 years old (Methuselah, I believe, clocked in at 969 years of age at his death, the oldest human being ever), adding the ages together of all the ancestors from Adam to St. Joseph makes only about 4,000 years (hence, 4,000+2006= ~6,000 year old Earth).

So there must be some gaps, or something that is not adding up correctly, unless it is to be postulated that the human race is 6,000 years old and man originated in 4,000 BC with the Creation of Adam.

Based on the hominid species that have been found, this seems implausible.

0 Likes

#34

[quote=Mike O]…Based on the hominid species that have been found, this seems implausible.
[/quote]

Does the actual precise number of generations and years matter to the point the text is trying to convey?

0 Likes

#35

[quote=steveandersen]Does the actual precise number of generations and years matter to the point the text is trying to convey?
[/quote]

It does to unbelievers trying to point out factual flaws or dispense with the Church’s “The Bible is inerrant” teaching. Many of the questions posed in the Apologetics forum are not essential to salvation history, but they ARE essential when they serve as stumbling blocks to someone who might otherwise be open to the faith.

0 Likes

#36

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

more…

0 Likes

#37

[quote=Mike O]It does to unbelievers trying to point out factual flaws or dispense with the Church’s “The Bible is inerrant” teaching. Many of the questions posed in the Apologetics forum are not essential to salvation history, but they ARE essential when they serve as stumbling blocks to someone who might otherwise be open to the faith.
[/quote]

Yes, I’ve run up against that “forest for the trees” mentality before
They seem to think Noah is the story of a boat ride with animals

It can be very frustrating dealing with literal minded people of any stripe :mad:
I suppose the best to do is to beat them to the punch.

Yes Luke’s genealogy says X but then Mathew’s says Y
I’m sure the compliers of the Bible where aware of what the books contained. That they let the apparent trivial contradiction stand is proof that it is immaterial to the point of the text.

0 Likes

#38

[quote=Mike O]Neither, it seems, can it be a literal chronological history.
Based on the hominid species that have been found, this seems implausible.
[/quote]

Ahhh, but now YOU’RE basing all of your “facts” about the fossil record on the Carbon 14 dating method. This method has been taught by many in the scientific world as being ***heavily ***flawed.
For example, live mollusks have been dated as being several hundreds-of-thousand of years old. Implausible? Yes - ridiculously so.
Neither am I touting a “young earth”. I’m simply saying that if somebody wants to play Devil’s advocate as far as the age of the earth is concerned - OR whether or not Adam and Eve actually existed (which is what my original discourse was about) - then your allegiance to current dating methods are nothing but a blind faith in science.
Nice try, though . . . .

**[font=Arial]

[font=Arial]**"**Evolution is faith, a religion."

(Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at [/font]Princeton University)
[/font]
****

“Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome

0 Likes

#39

[quote=elvisman]Ahhh, but now YOU’RE basing all of your “facts” about the fossil record on the Carbon 14 dating method. This method has been taught by many in the scientific world as being ***heavily ***flawed…
[/quote]

no, not really
c14 link

If this is about holding your own in a apologetics debate with a skeptical unbeliever then whipping out the old “flawed C14” Chestnut might only get a chuckle

Stick to the message in the text
Don’t get sidetracked in science debates. The Bible and the CCC are not science texts.
If you start talking origin of man in 4000 BC or old earth or global flood you will be drowned (pun not intended …….(not really)) in a sea of off topic data.

0 Likes

#40

[quote=elvisman]Ahhh, but now YOU’RE basing all of your “facts” about the fossil record on the Carbon 14 dating method. This method has been taught by many in the scientific world as being ***heavily ***flawed.
For example, live mollusks have been dated as being several hundreds-of-thousand of years old. Implausible? Yes - ridiculously so.
Neither am I touting a “young earth”. I’m simply saying that if somebody wants to play Devil’s advocate as far as the age of the earth is concerned - OR whether or not Adam and Eve actually existed (which is what my original discourse was about) - then your allegiance to current dating methods are nothing but a blind faith in science.
Nice try, though . . . .

**[font=Arial]

[font=Arial]**"****Evolution is faith, a religion."

(Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at [/font]Princeton University)
[/font]
**

“Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome
[/quote]

I can’t see why you accuse me of blind faith in science. I have blind faith only in God (and that’s not really “blind,” per se).

Trying to dismantle C-14 dating is not the best use of time. Sungenis as a 6 day relatively-young Earth creationist leaves much unexplained. There are radiometric techniques as well. I hesitate to think that all the hominids, fossils, and date ranges given in the last century are all falsehoods propogated by an irreligious secular science establishment (though stranger things have happened).

0 Likes

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.