[NYer]

Ping!

[rjsimmon]

Yup.

Next question?

[Zionist Conspirator]

More double-talk “please both sides” rhetoric from Catholic “theistic evolutionists.”

[UCANSEE2]

What I want to know is did they speak English ?

[Zionist Conspirator]

First, Church teaching about Adam and Eve has not, and cannot, change.

Considering that the current "theistic evolutionist" teaching of the Church itself represents a change from previous doctrine, the above statement is nothing but a lot of hooey.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

If you don’t believe Genesis 1:1 then you won’t believe in the rest of the Bible.
Freegards
LEX

[Resettozero]

Yep. That’s them in that picture. I’d recognize them anywhere. That be them.

(Everyone will have to decide for himself whether the Book of Genesis is true fact or just poetry. I believe it is poetic, factual, AND entirely true.)

[allendale]

This nonsense should not be confused as Catholic doctrine. No legitimate Catholic theologian, rational Catholic, or Church dogma accepts a literal interpretation of the Genesis stories. Fundamentalists are on their own.

[Hugin]

First, Church teaching about Adam and Eve has not, and cannot, change.

Once you take that position, you have left the realm of science, be it global warming alarmists or creationists.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Biblical account has one pair of human beings, from whom all later humans descend, disobeying a commandment of God. What difference would it make if the original group was 100 human beings, who all disobeyed the commandment, and from whom all later humans were descended?

When Copernicus's theory of the solar system was published, many Christians rejected it as contrary to the Bible. Nowadays just about everyone accepts that Copernicus was right to say that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, despite some verses in the Bible that suggest otherwise.

Is the exact number of human beings who caused original sin any more essential than the names of the rivers in the Garden of Eden?

[I still care]

I remember when the first genetic mitochondrial RNA studies came out that yes, there was an “Eve” - and there was a NOVA special on it.

Half the Nova special was how they figured all the genetics was traceable back to one particular woman.

The other half was them insisting this did NOT mean the story of Adam and Eve could be true. IMHO it was actually unintentionally hilarious.

[usual suspect]

Adam and Eve were the first White people:-)

[Paleo Conservative]

Don’t they have a website?

[ravenwolf]

Genesis is just Gods way of getting us started off on the right foot, God thought with all our wisdom that we would soon know more than he did about it.

We also think we do.

[LS]

I know this won’t satisfy “scientific” people or non-believers, but as a believer, this is a no-brainer. If I believe in John 1:1, then Jesus was there “in beginning.” HE referred to Adam and Even in Matt. 10 and Matt. 19. Since He was there, I have to say there was an Adam and Eve.

[Our man in washington]

A reasonable reading of Genesis 1:26 suggests that Adam and Eve were not the first humans created. Adam and Eve were the humans created to live in the Garden of Eden, but the Bible never claims they were the only humans at the time.

If other humans existed elsewhere, that would explain Genesis 4:14. If there were no other humans besides the first four, what exactly was Cain afraid of? That would also explain where Cain got his wife.

[Eddie01]

Did the author really exist?

[Vermont Lt]

People really spend time thinking about this?

At this point, as the saying goes, what difference does it make?

[TBP]

Frankly, it doesn’t really matter.

[exit82]

Yes.