Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

Crisis Magazine ^ | November 24, 2014 | DENNIS BONNETTE

[NYer]

Considering that the current "theistic evolutionist" teaching of the Church itself represents a change from previous doctrine,

Such as ... ??? When you make a statement, be prepared to back it up. Please be specific and provide referenced teachings and doctrines to support your argument.

[kosciusko51]

... When Copernicus's theory of the solar system was published, many Christians rejected it as contrary to the Bible. ...

No, many of the Church leaders rejected it, as they had bought into earlier Greek ideas that had the Earth as the center of the universe.

The Bible does use figurative language, such as the sun rising and sun setting, but then again, so does my weatherman, but neither by necessity means that the earth does not move.

[Resettozero]

Who did their hair and makeup for the photoshoot?

That Angelo boy...Michael?

[Resettozero]

Adam and Eve were the first White people:-)

Well, as for Adam, what color was the dust God used. As for Eve, aren't ribs white?

It's amazing to think these two individuals had all of the human DNA locked inside them. And that they and many of their direct descendents, with the exception of Abel, lived to be many hundreds of years old (young?) and still bearing offspring!

[Alex Murphy]

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

Trying to read through this made my head hurt. The author seems to be arguing that, according to Catholic doctrine, two distinct individual homo sapiens ("Adam and Eve") can be identified within the broader population of evolving former-primates, and that it was these two individuals within the broader population of evolving former-primates who sinned and cursed the other evolving former-primates and thus the entire emerging human race.

Perhaps a better question to put to the author would have been "Did a Literal Garden of Eden, and a Literal Tree Of Life, Really Exist"?

[UCANSEE2]

I believe it is poetic, factual, AND entirely true.

That is possible, but it sure is missing a ton of details.

[Paleo Conservative]

Don’t they have a website?

[2nd Amendment]

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

Go ahead and take your chances... Hell is only forever. Personally, I don’t want to take the chance!

[Boogieman]

Bingo. Seems like are now forced to pile up a whole lot of arguments just to distract from the simple observation that their inherently weak “compromise” position has created this conflict in the first place.

They do get one point right, and that is this:

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

The problem is that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching about everything surrounding the creation of Adam and Eve, while trying to pretend that they can retain the core belief unchanged. I don’t think that is really feasible.

[UCANSEE2]

According to the Bible we humans are products of the incestuous relationship between Noah and his daughter(s).

[Boogieman]

“Fundamentalists are on their own.”

Well, we’re in good company, with Jesus Christ and the apostles.

[Resettozero]

That is possible, but it sure is missing a ton of details.

Gripe to Moses when you see him again. Blame it all on the Hebrews.

[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.

[UCANSEE2]

without form and void....

And 2000 years after that was written, we still aren’t exactly sure what it means.

[Blackirish]

Lot’s of in breeding in if I believe in that fable.

[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.

[Alex Murphy]

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.

I've seen the Catholic version, and you're welcome to keep it.

[kosciusko51]

without form and void....

And 2000 years after that was written, we still aren’t exactly sure what it means.

I think it has been a bit longer since the Pentateuch was written.

[mikeus_maximus]

How do you get that from Gen 1? Have you read it?

[Boogieman]

Are you being facetious or are you really that uninformed about Scripture?