Skip to comments.
Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?
Crisis Magazine ^
| November 24, 2014
| DENNIS BONNETTE
Posted on 11/24/2014 1:07:14 PM PST by NYer
![the-fall-of-man-hendrick-goltzius](http://3m7ajlsrzj92lfd1hu16hu7vc.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/the-fall-of-man-hendrick-goltzius-660x350-1416812166.jpg)
Pure myth! That is todays typical view of a literal Adam and Eve. Yet, contrary to current skepticism, a real Adam and Eve remain credibleboth in terms of Catholic doctrine and sound natural science.
By calling the Genesis story a myth, people avoid saying it is mere fantasy, that is, with no foundation in reality at all. While rejecting a literal first pair of human parents for all mankind, they hope to retain some deeper truth about an original sinful human condition, a mythic meaning. They think that the latest findings in paleoanthropology and genetics render a literal pair of first true human parents to be scientifically impossible.
The prevailing assumption underlying media reports about human origins is that humanity evolved very gradually over vast periods of time as a population (a collection of interbreeding organisms), which itself originally evolved from a Homo/Pan (human/chimpanzee) common ancestor millions of years ago. Therefore, we are not seen as descendants of the biblical Adam and Eve.
This universal evolutionary perspective leads many Catholics and others to conclude that a literal Adam and Eve is “scientifically impossible” for two reasons: First, paleoanthropologists deny the sudden appearance of intelligent, self-reflective, fully-human primates, but rather view the emergence of consciousness and intelligence as taking place slowly and incrementally over long periods of time. Second, in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially from studies based on genetic data gleaned from the Human Genome Project, it is claimed that the hominin population (the primate group from which modern man is said to have arisen) has never had a bottleneck (reduced population) of a single mating pair in the last seven or more million years: no literal Adam and Eve. Many succumb to the modernist tendency to “adjust” Church teaching to fit the latest scientific claimsthus intimidating Catholics into thinking that divinely revealed truths can be abandonedif need be.
This skepticism of a literal Adam and Eve begs for four much needed corrections.
First, Church teaching about Adam and Eve has not, and cannot, change. The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are unchanging Catholic doctrine. Central to St. Paul’s teaching is the fact that one man, Adam, committed original sin and that through the God-man, Jesus Christ, redemption was accomplished (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15: 21-22). In paragraphs 396-406, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, speaks of Adam and Eve as a single mating pair who “committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state (CCC, 404). Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle (CCC, 405). The doctrines surrounding original sin cannot be altered without undermining the mystery of Christ (CCC, 389).
Today, many think that Pope Pius XIIs encyclical Humani generis did not definitively exclude theological polygenism. What they fail to notice, though, is that the Holy Father clearly insists that Scripture and the Magisterium affirm that original sin proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam [ab uno Adamo] and that this sin is transmitted to all true human beings through generation (para. 37). This proves that denial of a literal Adam (and his spouse, Eve) as the sole first genuinely human parents of all true human beings is not theologically tenable.
Second, rational human nature itself requires that mankind made an instant appearance on planet Earth. Paleoanthropological claims of gradual appearance of specifically human traits fail to comport with a true philosophy of human nature. Reflecting classical Christian thought, St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrates that true man is distinguished essentially from lower animals by possession of an intellectual and immortal soul, which possesses spiritual powers of understanding, judgment, and reasoning (Summa theologiae I, 75). While these qualitatively superior abilities are manifested through special forms of tool making or culture or art, they need not always be evident in the paleontological record. Sometimes true men share mere animal survival behavior and sometimes truly human behavior is lost to modern sight due to the ravages of time. What matters is that genuinely spiritual powers are either present or not, and that these alone bespeak the presence of true man. Irrational animals, including subhuman primates, are capable of complex sentient behaviors often approaching or imitating the rational activities of true man. But an animal either possesses a spiritual, intellectual soul or not. Thus at some point in time, true man suddenly appearswhether visible to modern science or not. Before that time, all subhuman behavior manifests merely material sensory abilities. The fact that positivistic scientists cannot discern the first presence of true man is hardly remarkable.
Third, a correct understanding of the scientific (inductive) method reveals that it cannot ever logically exclude the possibility of two sole founders of humanity. Natural scientific studies employ the inductive method of reasoning. Empirically observed data is employed to form testable hypotheses. Molecular biologists use computer models in an attempt to validate such hypotheses and reach conclusions about genetic conditions in early primate populations. In this process, some researchers have committed the logically invalid move of inferring from particular data to the universally negative claim that a literal Adam and Eve is impossible. Such methodology produces, at best, solely probable conclusions, based on available evidence and the assumptions used to evaluate the data. There is the inherent possibility that an unknown factor will alter the conclusion, similarly as was the unexpected discovery of black swans in Australia, when the whole world knew all swans were white.
Fourth, specific scientific arguments against Adam and Eve have proven not as forceful as many presently believe (Gauger 2012). For example, some have claimed that effective population size estimates for the last several million years would not permit just two true humans to have lived during that time. Still, the technical concept of average effective population size estimates should not be confused with an actual bottleneck (a temporarily reduced population) which may be much smaller. Effective population size estimates can vary from as high as 14,000 (Blum 2011) to as low as 2,000 (Tenesa 2007), depending on the methods used.
Such calculations rely upon many assumptions about mutation rate, recombination rate, and other factors, that are known to vary widely. All of this entails retrospective calculations about events in the far distant past, for which we have no directly verifiable data. For such reasons, some experts have concluded that effective population size cannot be determined using DNA sequence differences alone (Sjödin 2005; Hawks 2008).
Indeed, the most famous genetic study proclaimed as a scientific objection to Adam and Eve turned out to be based on methodological errors. An article by geneticist Francisco J. Ayala appearing in the journal, Science (1995), led many to believe that a founding population of only two individuals was impossible. Ayala based his challenge to monogenism (two sole founders of humanity) on the large number of versions (alleles) of the particular gene HLA-DRB1, which are present in the current population. Accepting the common ancestor theory, he claimed that there were thirty-two ancient lineages of the HLA-DRB1 gene prior to the Homo/Pan split (approximately seven million years ago). Over time, these pre-split lineages, themselves, evolved into the new additional versions present today. Because each individual carries only two versions of a gene, a single founding pair could not have passed on the thirty-two versions that Ayala claimed existed some seven million years agoeither at that time or at any time since. A bottleneck of just two true humans, Adam and Eve, was scientifically impossible.
However, Ayala’s claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors. The number of lineages was subsequently adjusted by Bergström (1998) to just seven at the time of the split, with most of the genetic diversity appearing in the last 250,000 years. A still later study coming out of Bergströms group inferred that just four such lineages existed more than five million years ago, but that a few more appeared soon thereafter (von Salomé 2007). While two mating hominins can transmit four lineages, the few additional later ones still require explanation.
These genetic studies, based on many assumptions and use of computer models, do not tell us how the origin of the human race actually took place. But, they do show (1) that methodological limitations and radical contingency are inherent in such studies, which are employed to make retroactive judgments about deeply ancient populations that can never be subject to direct observation, and (2) that present scientific claims against the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve are not definitive (Gauger 2012, 105-122).
Philosopher Kenneth W. Kemp and others have suggested that interbreeding between true humans and subhuman primates in the same biological population might account for presently observed genetic diversity (Kemp 2011). Such interbreeding is not to be confused with the marriages between true human siblings and cousins which would have occurred in the first generations following Adam and Eve, which unions were a necessary part of Gods plan for the initial propagation of mankind (Gen. 1:28).
The difficulty with any interbreeding solution (save, perhaps, in rare instances) is that it would place at the human races very beginning a severe impediment to its healthy growth and development. Natural law requires that marriage and procreation take place solely between a man and a woman, so that children are given proper role models for adult life. So too, even if the union between a true human and a subhuman primate were not merely transitory, but lasting, the defective parenting and role model of a parent who is not a true human being would introduce serious disorder in the proper functioning of the family and education of children. Hence, widespread interbreeding is not an acceptable solution to the problem of genetic diversity.
Moreover, given the marked reduction in the number of ancient HLA-DRB1 alleles found by the later genetic studies of Bergström and von Salomé, it may turn out that no interbreeding is needed at all, or at most, that very rare instances of it may have occurred. Such rare events might not even entail the consent of true human beings, since they could result from an attack by a subhuman male upon a non-consenting human female.
A literal Adam and Eve remains rationally, scientifically credible.
Since the same God is author both of human reason and of authentic revelation, legitimate natural science, properly conducted, will never contradict Catholic doctrine, properly understood. Catholic doctrine still maintains that a literal Adam and Eve must have existed, a primal couple who committed that personal original sin, which occasioned the need for, and the divine promise of, the coming of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
Editors note: The image above is a detail from The Fall of Man painted by Hendrik Goltzius in 1616.
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: adam; adamandeve; creation; crevo; crevolist; eve; evolution; fazalerana; gardenofeden; genesis; hughross; originalparents; origins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720, 721-740, 741-760 ... 1,041-1,053 next last
To: editor-surveyor
Had they been given permission, they would not now be held in everlasting chains.
Were they 'sons of GOD' or not?
721
posted on
11/29/2014 3:10:29 AM PST
by
Elsie
( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: Cvengr
It references the angels in heaven, not the fallen angels on earth nor those incarcerated in Tartarus. Very good!
At least we are converging on what the book SAYS, and not on the BLANKS that man wants to fill in so badly!
722
posted on
11/29/2014 3:12:28 AM PST
by
Elsie
( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: Elsie
Now BEADS are quite another matter... And statues and stained glass and tall hats and pepper shakers on a stick with water in them, and wafers and....
723
posted on
11/29/2014 6:06:47 AM PST
by
DungeonMaster
(No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.)
To: CatherineofAragon; Elsie; boatbums; metmom
Ah glad you brought up Murray. Was about to drop that bomb. There's much on Arthur Murray and his serpent seed Shepherd's chapel cult. But all we need to know is this:
From CRI:
In defiance of Acts 1:7, Mr. Murray set an end time date by claiming that the Antichrist would appear by 1981. This prediction, of course turned out to be false. "Lucifer was taken to the pit...Know from the 2nd chapter of 2 Thessalonians that he shall soon return. The Book of Daniel very clearly states that it shall happen before the year 1981, if you have any understanding at all of the wisdom of the elect in the last days" (Seed of the Serpent, version taped in 1979) Yet, in spite of his prejudices, false doctrine, and false prophecies, he states, "I am a servant of the living God that carries the end time message, and it's either time to wake up now, or go down with your boat, friend". (The Shepherd's Chapel Questions and Answers period, aired 5-16-91)
724
posted on
11/29/2014 9:59:32 AM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: Elsie
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.That makes sense. Seth was Adam's son.
To: Elsie
No, it means the fallen angels hadn't corrupted anyone in his ancestry or his family. The text says NOTHING of the kind. You'll have to go a long way to show otherwise. Gen 6 is pretty clear.
To: Elsie
You were the lucky guy that posted a fact that Mormonism claims. Some folks are unaware of a lot of the things that are contained in MORMONism. Its version of the A&E story is a doozy!Mormonism is preferable to political correctness.
To: Elsie
Where DO you GET this stuff??!! The Book states NONE of this! Gen 6
To: Elsie
Somehow? No thanks... NIV 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.It is written.
To: CatherineofAragon
Well, there must be a heck of a lot of false sites, because they're all in agreement about Murray. That includes Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM), which recommends people avoid his teachings.Yes Arnold was not very popular amongst the politically correct churches. And if only 7000 out of 7 billion will not bow to antiChrist, thats just one in a million, one third of the world is Christian, probably half believe in God, so that leaves 1 out of 150,000 that keep the testimony of Jesus Christ. Arnold was not popular with the rest of the Christian world just as I am not popular here with you all. That's okay, we still win in the end.
No, I believe he did call it just that, actually. I caught a couple of his shows back during the '90s.
I've watched him since the 90s, I don't remember him saying it. Regardless they're Babylonian just as Revelation says.
To: Elsie
All angels are “sons of God.”
Satan is a “son of God.”
The term is just a description of how they came into being.
We also will be “sons of God” after we are “changed” as Paul explained, or “born again,” into our incorruptible bodies as Yeshua explained to Nicodemus, with the ability to move invisibly as John 3:8 states.
731
posted on
11/29/2014 10:35:12 AM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: Partisan Gunslinger
Why so shy? Why didn't you just come clean and tell us you are assured of the remnant by the teachings of Aurthur Murray and his Shepherd's chapel?
THE CULTIC TEACHINGS OF ARNOLD MURRAY
Modalism
Mr. Murray does not believe in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (one God existing eternally in three Persons). There are three real and personal relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Murray denies the three persons of God, claiming they are merely three offices. Concerning the Trinity, he said:
You have these yo-yo's that will say, 'Well I want you to think like of water (sic) and ice' and so on, various gases or so forth, or then they'll say, 'I want you to think of a 200 watt bulb, and a 150 watt bulb, and a 50 watt bulb.' Well, they're all the same wattage, friend. So why not just simplify it instead of playing stupid games, and understand there are three offices of the Godhead. Like this little lady said. She said, 'To my husband I am a wife, to my children I am a mother, that's my office. To hundreds of third graders I am their teacher and have been down through the years. That's a different office; none of them the same, but I'm still the same person.' I like that. It's simple and to the point (The Shepherd's Chapel Question and Answers period, aired 64-91).
Referring to Christ, Murray says, "His spirit is holy and he is the Holy Spirit." (Shepherd's Chapel Question and Answers period, aired 54-91) Hence, Murray is guilty of teaching the heresy of modalism, which states that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (one Person in three roles, or modes). One of the accusations made against CRI by the followers of Arnold Murray is that Mr. Murray does hold to the eternal deity of Christ. However, since Murray does not believe in the three Persons of the Trinity, he cannot logically hold to the deity of Jesus Christ being the eternal Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity. Having made these statements, he inconsistently says, A wise man never discusses the Trinity. (Ibid., 5-15-91)
732
posted on
11/29/2014 10:35:57 AM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
To: editor-surveyor
It is among the oldest writings we have, dating to close to 300 B.C. It is also corroborated by the Book of Jude, as to the facts WRT the fallen angels. .My discernment tells me it's good it wasn't included in the main text of the KJV.
To: Boogieman
His “principle” is old fashoned “White Supremacy.”
734
posted on
11/29/2014 10:40:54 AM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: Partisan Gunslinger
Your ‘discernment’ is a gift of the Un-holy Spirit.
.
735
posted on
11/29/2014 10:45:48 AM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: boatbums
You included yourself among a group of 7000 FUTURE believers who will not worship the anti-christ, the false prophet or the Beast. This was NOT what Paul referred to in Romans 11:4, but he was assuring Christians that God ALWAYS has a remnant of true believers even when all looks bleak. That remnant will be FAR greater than the 7000 specifically spoken about to Elijah. It was why Paul continued:What has been will be gain. Judging from this thread, on a site with a lot of Christians, I look to be the only one with the gumption to stand against the political correctness that is killing the teaching of the Word of God. I'm the one that has the false assumers riled up. That tells me I'm doing something right that no one else is doing. I take that as a great sign that I will be one of the 7000 that will not bow to the great deceiver. Maybe I won't be though, we'll see.
God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.
That is so apparent, isn't it.
I also disagree with your contention that "there are also the 144,000 of the elect that lived throughout time". We know from Revelation chapters 7 and 14 that this group will be 12,000 men from each of the ten tribes of Israel (Rev. 7:4)who are virgins (Rev. 14:4),...
Virgins in the sense they will not spiritually be carrying the antiChrist's child when Christ returns. We are the bride of Christ, we need to be spiritual virgins. Whether it's 7000, 144,000, or 151,000, that's not very many in a world of 7 billion.
To: redleghunter; Partisan Gunslinger; boatbums
>> “I guess that may not mean much to some but to me it means to think of the situation and use discernment to put the verses being studied in the proper context.” <<
.
It “takes study” in the catechism of a white supremacist cult.
.
737
posted on
11/29/2014 10:50:36 AM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: redleghunter
I may have missed a previous post. How from your studies did you arrive at 7000 only enduring the delusion of the antichrist?Rom 11:4
To: redleghunter
You mean verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book? 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This verse says one should do more than just read it.
To: Partisan Gunslinger; boatbums; metmom; daniel1212; Elsie
Yes Arnold was not very popular amongst the politically correct churches. And if only 7000 out of 7 billion will not bow to antiChrist, thats just one in a million, one third of the world is Christian, probably half believe in God, so that leaves 1 out of 150,000 that keep the testimony of Jesus Christ. Arnold was not popular with the rest of the Christian world just as I am not popular here with you all. That's okay, we still win in the end.
Jesus Christ will WIN, has already! Get out of Arthur's cult as fast as you can. He is no longer the pastor. It's a cult. 7000 only?:
Revelation 7:
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.(KJV)
Don't know but even those going to public schools can number 7,000 even 144,000. Of course this multitude which no man can number can't be Murray's "Kenites.":
Serpent Seed doctrine:
Another central teaching of Arnold Murray is the serpent seed doctrine. According to Murray, Eve had sex with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Murray uses the word "beguiled" to mean "wholly seduced". Hence, Murray claims the Serpent sexually seduced Eve who then became pregnant with Cain; the devil's literal offspring. Murray asserts that the offspring of Cain are called the "Kenites". He also states that the Kenites are not a race, "but a hybrid". (Genesis 1:1-6:22, tape #146) He thus seems to implicitly consider them to be less than human. Mr. Murray claims that many of the Kenites are Jewish! Based upon the "creed" of the Shepherd's Chapel, Murray states, "We believe in an existing Satan... who has a people who will not hear God (John 8:44-47)". (Our Statement of Faith, p.2) In John 8:44-47, the context clearly states that these people who are the "children of the devil" are Jews (8:31-58).
Hence, Murray believes that Jesus is referring to these particular Jews as the literal offspring of Satan. Regarding the Jews he writes, "Now, who stands in Jerusalem today?.. the sons of Cain or those who will not accept Jesus Christ.. the Kenites, that founded a new nation starting in 1948.
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/arnoldmurray.html
740
posted on
11/29/2014 11:01:10 AM PST
by
redleghunter
(But let your word 'yes be 'yes,' and your 'no be 'no.' Anything more than this is from the evil one.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720, 721-740, 741-760 ... 1,041-1,053 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson