"Why Are Kids Being Taught Adam & Eve Weren’t Real?"

[@matthaeusprime6343]

This whole Adam and Eve not being real thing was being taught to us in grade school 40 years ago.

[@JamesMC04]

It's hardly a novelty. The attempt to maintain that Adam was an historical individual: 1. fails to explain his age in Gen. 5.5 of 930 2. fails to explain how, if his sons married their sisters or other near relatives, the propagation of the human race did not involve incest, which is an immoral action. If God allowed incest, in order to perpetuate the human race, then incest cannot be intrinsically sinful, and the Church cannot condemn it as intrinsically sinful. 3. People are welcome, if they insist on doing so, to claim that Adam as described in Genesis was an historical figure. They are not welcome to insist that the interpretation they favour, is the only valid one. 4. The text contains wordplay on Hebrew words. This implies that Hebrew was the first language spoken by humans. It was not. Other languages, such as Sumerian & Akkadian, are far older. 5. The idea that Adam is entirely mythical, fits the facts of the text of Genesis. Insisting that Genesis 2-5 is also sober history, makes the text bristle with absurdities, such as a snake capable not only of articulate speech, but of rational debate and arguing. As the snake is purely mythical, he fits very well with other talking animals from myth & folklore. 6. That St Paul may have supposed Adam to have been historical, does not make Adam any less mythical. Scripture contains some untrue statements, & among them are the Apostle's mistakes about Adam.

[@Mark-ub7jc]

This is a sad situation being taught even in Catholic schools... insidious corruption based on individuals who were uncertain of their faith. And yet, the science in our mitochondrial DNA actually shows that there was one common ancestor, confirming that Adam and Eve were indeed possible.

[@ji8044]

@@Mark-ub7jc Absolutely false

[@OisinMcGrath1916]

Of course God allowed incest. The people in Genesis intentionally married their cousins as to marry within their own family. Not marry strange peoples.

[@JamesMC04]

@@OisinMcGrath1916 Then incest cannot be intrinsically wrong, and the Church is in error for not permitting the practice. That conclusion follows from the error of treating Gen. 2-5 as sober history.

[@jbm0745]

One thing I love about being Catholic is not having to be a fundamentalist, denying the obvious scientific evidence for evolution. Genesis is not a science book.

[@quayscenes]

Best comment so far. Here, here!

[@JamesMC04]

That's two of us. Fundamentalism reduces Gen 2-5, to nonsense.

[@authorityfigure1630]

“Obvious scientific evidence for evolution” have you studied the issue seriously?

[@authorityfigure1630]

@@JamesMC04Every Church Father on record disagrees with you.

[@authorityfigure1630]

Disregarding what the Bible teaches is not uniquely Catholic, in fact Catholicism has guard rails about believing what the Bible teaches. The counsel of Trent forbids an interpretation that is contrary to the consensus of the church fathers. Guess what, the church fathers unanimously agree that the genealogies in the early chapters of genesis are literal and historical. If you disagree with them you are in error and need to repent.

[@Katolickaapologetika]

John DeRosa did great job answering this question in article named “Adam & Eve: A Survey of Models for Catholics”. In short catholic are completely free to accept or reject both old earth and evolution of human body. But situation is different in case of historical Adam as Pius XII writes in Humani Generis, Paragraphs 36-37 (1950): “36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God… .” “37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” I listened to Jimmy Akin interview on Reason and Theology, but I still don’t understand how merely symbolical Adam or polygenism can be squared with catholic doctrine of original sin. Fortunately, DeRosa shows there are ways to reconcile both literal Adam being father of all mankind with modern mainstream genetic, for example Kenneth Kemp’s theory or William Lane Craig’s theory.

[@NGAOPC]

Kemp has solid peer engagement with a wide set of scholars, and is very current.

[@ji8044]

"In short catholic are completely free to accept or reject both old earth and evolution of human body." They're free to home school their kids too. I wouldn't go around quoting Hitler's Pope about anything either.

[@NGAOPC]

@ “Hitler’s pope” is in error from front cover (a photo of Pacelli from Weimar Germany, not under Hitler’s rule), to the back. Try “myth of hitler’s pope”, “church of spies”, “pope Pius XII and World War II” by Krupp, “pope and the Holocaust” by Hesemann, and “the popes cabinet” by johan Ickx, director of the archive section for relations with States of the Holy See’s Secretariat of State.

[@ji8044]

@@NGAOPC Oh I've read the attempts to whitewash him, don't worry. Where do you think Hitler learned to hate Jews in the first place? It was in his Roman Catholic Church upbringing in Austria. In fact the big majority of Nazi leaders were Roman Catholics.

[@nickw9766]

@@NGAOPC exactly. Those books show you how much Hitler actually distrusted Pius! As Cardinal Pacelli he referred to the Nazis as having “the pride of Lucifer”.

[@nickw9766]

If any catholic doesn’t think Adam and Eve existed then why believe in original sin? Science isn’t the ultimate good. That’s for sure.

[@DPtheChristian]

yep you are right. How they do that is mind-boggling

[@memesouls8653]

@@DPtheChristianYo I found you again 😂

[@ji8044]

None of the people who wrote the Bible believed in original sin. It's not a Jewish concept.

[@nickw9766]

@@ji8044 this has nothing to do with this conversation.

[@ji8044]

@@nickw9766 Like saying the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with Americans.

[@timothychupp603]

Because it’s genetically impossible for all of humanity to be descended from two individuals. It’s a matter for science not a matter for council of Trent, not popes, not catechism.

[@jamesforeman3096]

For others disappointed with this response, Jimmy Akin offers a much better one on the channel Reason and Theology in a video titled "What Does Catholicism Teach on Adam and Eve?" Please check it out; absolutely no reason to feel that our faith is at odds with the scientific consensus. Deeply irresponsible, disappointing content here.

[@sophia-proskomen]

Why is the only alternative to polygenism and a symbolic understanding of Adam and Eve being "at odds with the scientific consensus"? Adam and Eve could just as easily have been two individuals of the biological species homo sapiens given an indelible distinguishing characteristic in Providence from a broader population of homo sapiens or hominids capable of interbreeding with homo sapiens. Monogenism is not inherently "at odds with the scientific consensus." Nothing Tim Staples said here precludes that possibility. Only a particular fundamentalist interpretation that Tim Staples is not advocating for here would. Either way, Tim Staples is right to point out the limitations in scientific reasoning from the current state of affairs or our understanding of genetics to establishing a priori limitations for how the first humans arose. Do not be so quick to accuse irresponsibility. First try to see if there are more charitable ways of interpreting the other position that resolve the disagreement. All that being said, polygenism is now permitted by the Church as Jimmy Akin powerfully argued in the video you referenced.

[@PapalLifter]

Jimmy is openly in error in his video.

[@brycelayton3177]

So instead of capitulating or reconciling my thoughts with the teachings of the church, catechisms and saints I should simply consume media which tells me the way I feel is right? You think this video is irresponsible? Well your comment is 1000x more dangerous. No one should feel at odds with the catechism and if you do you have more pressing matters to fix

[@trnslash]

scientific consensus does not that their consensus is necessarily true, there is a lot of philosophical presuppositions masquerading as objective science

[@FightIdiocracy]

@@brycelayton3177 I am sorry but the Church has misunderstood this text simply because it has never interacted nor had any archaeological findings of the culture that the Old Testament was written in. The Old Testament, especially Genesis, is Bronze Age literature and will contain many ideas that existed in that culture that we don’t understand today. For example, all the Ancient Near Eastern nations believed that your heart and entrails had feelings and that your heart was for thinking and emotions. That is why the Ancient Egyptians never record the brain as being an important organ that they needed to preserve in embalming texts. So the Church did not fully understand the Old Testament because they did not have the wealth of information regarding the Ancient Near Eastern culture that the Bible was written in. But we do so we can better understand things like how the Bible describes a flat earth but does not say that we need to accept their understanding of the world. Also the Bible was written in a High Context society and we live in a Low Context society so the Old Testament will have certain motifs that we will not understand and we might miss the illocution (intended meaning) of the passage.

[@ashleynovels]

I think the bigger issue is why the children weren’t given both options. Some Catholics believe they are metaphorical- which is a problem since they’re saints. Some believe they were the literal first humans. Explain both to the kids and let them figure it out. Personally I believe in evolution but think Adam and Eve were the first ensouled humans. Best of both worlds!

[@ji8044]

Adam and Eve are not saints. Where do people GET these ideas?

[@angeryitalyman]

@@ji8044 they get them from the fact that Adam and Eve are publically venerated by real, true Catholics in the Eastern Churches on December 24th, which is a tradition many centuries old. Saints don't need to be officially canonized by the Pope to be real Saints. Their having been venerated by the Church confirms their Sainthood - to say otherwise is to say that the Church has committed an error in faith by celebrating as Saints those who are not.

[@ji8044]

@@angeryitalyman The word "saint" is not comparable in the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches.

[@ji8044]

@@gilbertsaller913 It's ok that you don't understand. I get that in replies to me a lot.

[@wernerlottering8848]

Good video. Two helpful resources for this would be The Genealogical Adam and Eve by Joshua Swammidas and The Quest for the Historical Adam and Eve by Dr. William Lane Craig. Both are Protestant Christians but the way they lay out and talk about the genre of Genesis 1-11 and also the science is really helpful. That in combination with the Catholic Church’s Magisterium and other works from St. Augustine and Pope Benedict XVI among others, will leave us with no excuse to not affirm and historical Adam and Eve

[@ji8044]

Geneticists have debunked the work of Swamidass.

[@wernerlottering8848]

@ Who are the geneticists?

[@ji8044]

@@wernerlottering8848 Swamidass makes no positive assertions about the existence of Adam and Eve, contrary to what his supporters believe. He wrote a ridiculously long book just to say that DNA cannot rule out their existence. He offered no DNA evidence whatsoever of their existence.

[@wernerlottering8848]

@ Yeah, but that is my point. I know the book is not conclusive as such but it provides a working Hypothesis. The purpose of the books was not to be too dogmatic. Joshua has worked with others to facilitate the “theologising” such as as with Dr. Craig’s book

[@ji8044]

@@wernerlottering8848 Ok we can nod to each other in respect in that case.

[@authorityfigure1630]

If Jimmy Akin would have picked up the phone the answer would have been drastically different. That is a problem, Catholic Answers need to address this.

[@tamfenske]

@@authorityfigure1630 I was just going to say-just listened to Jimmy Akin saying the opposite.

[@jamesgosmeyer]

Mr. Staples is notably the first Catholic of any teaching position I have ever heard affirm the existence of Adam and Eve. Out of priests, bishops, the rest of the Catholic Answers presenters, all deny their status as the first man and woman, fully human, present on the last day of creation. They tend to use the imprecise language of "first parents" when they are actually referring to the first homo sapiens, among whom may or may not be Adam and Eve as far as affirming the lineage from them to Christ is concerned.

[@caruya]

So, what was the answer?

[@jamesyoung187]

Doing away with original sin is fundamental to discouraging faith in God and the reason Christ redeemed us through His life and death.

[@colingreening711]

I'm a Protestant inquiring into Catholicism and have always been pretty staunch in having a literal interpretation of Genesis. While I don't think it's necessarily damnable to read it as a sort of allegory, I feel like that perspective faces a lot of problems as soon as you read beyond Genesis 1. Secular scientific opinions on early earth history also tend to rely on a lot of assumptions which I think a lot of people fail to recognize. I believe there is sufficient reason and scientific explanation to harmonize Science with the Bible without having to put Scripture "second," if I may be so bold to say so. I can understand the Papacy's aim to make the Creation Account less of a barrier of entry, but I think it can somewhat dilute the Bible as a trustworthy historical document.

[@joshuacooley1417]

You are thinking about this from a modern context and perspective. Long before there was a debate between Creationism and Evolution, there were Christian scholars who believed that the Creation Account in Genesis was not meant to be literal history. The point is not to make the Bible fit with modern opinions. The point is to correctly understand the Bible. If something is not meant to be a literal history, then reading it as a literal history may lead you to misunderstand the text and to miss what it is actually trying to say. If you believe that the Creation Account is not meant to be taken as literal history, then of course, you will also say "well there is no point in arguing whether this contradicts science because it wasn't meant to be taken literally to begin with."

[@colingreening711]

@joshuacooley1417 I think that's a reasonable and understandable opinion. That's not the line I get from the vast majority of Christians who entirely reject the literal Creation belief. I've had this discussion with /many/ believers and I think you are genuinely the first to put it that way.

[@brycelayton3177]

Inquiring?!? You wrote that like a pureblooded Roman, it’s time to cross the Tiber my friend… Jokes aside thank you for a measured and reasonable opinion, they can be hard to come by nowadays

[@joshuacooley1417]

@@colingreening711 It is a charged issue in our day. I was raised as a young earth creationist, taking Genesis 1-3 totally literally, and I spent years debating it from that perspective. When I began investigating Catholicism as you are, I ran across Scott Hahn and John Bergsma teaching on the OT and how the creation account fits in with the rest of the OT and I realized that I had spent so much time debating whether it was literal or not, that I had totally missed the deeper meaning of it. To be clear, I'm not saying that you have to take it figuratively. I actually don't really care if someone takes a literal 6 day creation view or a figurative view. I think both work fine in terms of understanding the text. I just think that question can often become a distraction from focusing on what the text means. Another thing to be clear on is that saying the text is symbolic or figurative should never be used as a means of simply dismissing the text. If it is symbolic, it still means something, and the literal words of the face value text were still chosen to convey a meaning and thus still matter.

[@colingreening711]

@joshuacooley1417 Thank you for such a measured response. I entirely agree with the broader point you're making. I've seen so many of my Protestant brethren vehemently defend Creationism but can't offer firm apologetics on any other issue. Obviously I don't think it should be brushed aside, but I think many make it more of a "lynch-pin" than it needs to be.

[@simon2636]

If you insist that Genesis is true not only theologically but also historically/factually than not only you have a problem reconciling it with science but also with the rest of Genesis. When Cain went into exile after killing Abel he took a wife and built a city. The Bible either implies polygenism in itself or it supposed to be understood allegorically.

[@racheljames7]

When you read Genesis it seems God probably.made more people the way he made Adam and subsequently Eve. Read Genesis 5:1 and 6:2-1. It refers to different kinds of humans. Some are called men and some are called Sons of God. It would seem the Sons of God were made like Adam and the men were born of women.

[@rickygcfo]

No, it was briefly addressed in this video, polygenism is condemned by the Church. Adam and Eve are taught to be who the whole human race comes from.

[@ji8044]

@@racheljames7 No, the Sons of God is a reference to the fact that Genesis is an oral tradition first and the early Hebrews were not monotheists. They were the first monotheists, but they were not always that.

[@ji8044]

@@rickygcfo That is quite impossible since Yahweh's reason for the Flood was to destroy the interbreeding of gods/angels and humans.

[@authorityfigure1630]

@@racheljames7The sons of god in genesis 6 are angles. Not only is that the traditional view but Peter confirms this when he says “God did not spare the angles that sinned” he was referencing Enoch which is a non scripture book that goes into detail on the nephelim event. If all this seems too cooky for you then Christianity isn’t for you.

[@brandonbenitez9746]

Based Tim staples 😎

[@jamie3958]

It is a dogma of the Christian faith that original sin is transmitted by 'propagation, not imitation'- which means every person is a descendant of the first couple.

[@jamie3958]

Pope Pius XII stated that the children of the Church do not have the liberty to doubt that Adam and Eve were historical personnages.

[@tonyl3762]

Jimmy Akin has said the symbolic theory of Adam and Eve is allowed by the current magisterium, yes?

[@tonyl3762]

@user-pi5tl7zm6t You can find videos of Jimmy talking about this with Matt Fradd and Michael Lofton. Humani Generis used disciplinary language rather than declarative language regarding polygenism. Also the Vatican under more recent pope(s) approved national catechism allowing for the theory.

[@HellenicPapist]

I’ve never heard about the magisterium saying this, and I hope Jimmy didn’t. Christ confirmed Adam and Eve’s existence even.

[@jamesforeman3096]

Yes! You oughta check out his answer in a video titled "What Does Catholicism Teach on Adam and Eve?" on the channel Reason and Theology. Much better response to the question haha; I don't know the name of the apologist in the video above but definitely a disappointing response to be sure :/

[@LL-bl8hd]

Symbolic in the sense that they weren't necessarily the only two biological humans in existence, created brand new and living in a literal garden. I believe the Church still confirms that they were two individual humans who actually existed (meaning they can't be purely symbolic). Let me know if Jimmy said something else.

[@jamesforeman3096]

@@LL-bl8hd He did :) check out his answer in a video titled "What Does Catholicism Teach on Adam and Eve?" on the channel Reason and Theology.

[@carstenmanz302]

How can you be so naive - these are ancient mythologies that the Jewish Bible authors stole from Mesopotamia as every educated Jew/Rabbi knows!😄

[@monkeyboy60]

Is this true? As a Catholic you must believe that genesis is history?

[@ji8044]

No.

[@ApostolicZoomer]

No

[@DPtheChristian]

Oh boy. I wonder how Trent Horn will react to this.

[@colingreening711]

@DPtheChristian I love Trent but I'm glad there are folks at CA who disagree with him on this issue.

[@ianb483]

Why? This seems pretty in line with what Trent has said on the topic.

[@Tony-ci7ys]

Multiple roman catholic priests (including an exorcist) in my country who teach that Eden Garden is a fairy-tale, literally. I'm confused now. What to believe according to You guys? And how can God allow this if He's real or if he isn't the devil?

[@rickygcfo]

Adam and Eve being the first parents of humankind is a dogma of the Church. Check out the Kolbe Institute, a Catholic organization promoting the literal interpretation of Genesis. Many Catholics are led to believe in non literal interpretations, but with certain non negotiable to dogmas remaining, and unfortunately many are confused about what is actually the truth.

[@ji8044]

Exorcisms aren't real either.

[@Ruudes1483]

Go by what the Church has infallibly taught.

[@jesushernandez-eo8fq]

I have heard from catholic apologists who approved both views, either they were literal persons or symbolically

[@ElChe-Ko]

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, what were their parents? Pre-humans?

[@ji8044]

Their parents were named Clay.

[@ElChe-Ko]

@@ji8044 good one!

[@robertolachner3486]

… love CA in general but I’ve gotta say this is one of the more unhelpful answers. Would love to see a more intentional follow up video or podcast or something

[@jamesforeman3096]

Jimmy Akin offers a much more helpful, honest answer on the channel Reason and Theology in a video titled "What Does Catholicism Teach on Adam and Eve?" You should check it out!

[@ghostapostle7225]

Why it's not helpful?

[@jamesforeman3096]

@ because it’s dishonest

[@mikerose968]

The begining chapter of genesis is definitly metaphoric or allegoric. So are you saying all of genesis is literal, oh boy do we have a problem here. No man with that much wisdom that adam had would walk around naked , its to dangerous and unpractical. Once you say adam and eve were literal then you would have to say that the rest of genesis is literal and thats silly. We know that God usually uses metaphors to convey a message. Fundamentalist cause more harm then good.

[@sabrinaantonioverita3061]

nowhere in this video was it even remotely suggested that you should take the bible literally. catholic answers is very much against literalistic interpretations. they are far from fundamentalists

[@mikerose968]

@@sabrinaantonioverita3061 He is saying that Adam and Eve were two human beings. Thats literal interpretation. 2:24 How can two human beings create humanity without incest.? But to be fair he is quoting Catholic traditon by the book. There was no apple, there was no tree, there was no talking serpent. Thats all symbollic.

[@sabrinaantonioverita3061]

@ that’s not literalist at all. the fruit, tree, and serpent are all symbolic, sure, but nothing makes any sense if adam and eve aren’t real

[@mikerose968]

@@sabrinaantonioverita3061 Of course adam and eve were real , but they were not "LITERALY" 2 nude people in a garden. Adam & Eve are metaphors for the origin of humanity. The Garden represents being in a state of union and compliance with God. The nakedness represents being in a state of holiness without lust or shame. The forbiden fruit represents the sin of wanting to be your own God, to decide for yourself what is right or wrong. Adam & Eve couldnt possibly be 2 people because how could they multiply without incest. The story of genesis does not show us how the world was created. The story of genesis shows us that the problem is "CHOICE". We all have free will and if we are not carefull we can use that free will to ruin our lives and the world around us.

[@ImJustHereToGrill]

Doesn’t Jimmy Akin take this view?

[@j0nb0y5]

You know, if the Catholic Church would have Sunday school or a Bible study there might not be so much confusion in the Catholic Church about what we believe.

[@ji8044]

Catholicism has always discouraged members from reading the Bible directly . They might start asking questions like where is the part about Mary's perpetual virginity?

[@tzgardner]

Look up Nathaniel Jeanson who did a genetic study of human history linking it to the Biblical account. He also has a book called 'Traced'.

[@ji8044]

He's a nonsense purveyor like all the YEC people. LOL

[@brycelayton3177]

I see a lot of people are “disappointed” by this video. Which means this video is a wake up call for a lot of Catholics who think their opinions outweigh Rome’s facts…

[@colingreening711]

@@brycelayton3177 Seeing comments like yours gives me more confidence in converting to Catholicism frankly.

[@ji8044]

Anybody who says Adam and Eve were real has no factual information available to them.

[@authorityfigure1630]

One of these people who have fallen prey is your own Jimmy Akin. Maybe you need to have a talk with him about that.

[@natnat8199]

What ethnicity was Adam and Eve? They’re usually depicted as White northern Europeans in art but the part of the world they came from suggests that they had northern African and Middle Eastern ethnicity. Is the way they are depicted important?

[@bookpaper105]

Northern Africans and middle easterners don’t have light skin? That’s news to me

[@natnat8199]

Is it important to you that they have light skin? Do you think Jesus has light skin?

[@LL-bl8hd]

It depends on a lot of questions about their place in history. If they were the first true genetic humans then they would have existed before the development of different races/ethnicities but potentially would resemble modern sub-Saharan Africans.

[@ji8044]

All religions teach their founding myths in terms of their own physical characteristics.

[@rickygcfo]

They would have had the genetic information of all races. The loss of genetic information over the generations results in the differentiation of the various populations on earth.

[@rickygcfo]

The Kolbe Institute presents a strong case for the literal interpretation on Genesis from a Catholic perspective.

[@ji8044]

Genesis is not a science textbook.

[@NGAOPC]

@@ji8044 that won’t work on them despite it being derivative of Providentissimus Deus, they believe YEC is the default teaching the magisterium from which one may err, but not express denial of (something to that effect). They also share Dinotopia-type beliefs. Ironic they call themselves Kolbe Center when he expressed views they would probably oppose (that if evolution were true it would still be given life by God, that the earth revolves around the sun, the stars are millions of years old)

[@ji8044]

@@NGAOPC I enjoy conversations with people who believe the Flintstones were real. Everybody has their cheap entertainment. LOL

[@NGAOPC]

@@ji8044 more patient than I lol

[@rickygcfo]

The founder of the Kolbe Institute is intelligent and puts forth good arguments from actual science and from the Church Fathers. Your condescending attitude is unwarranted

[@immortalwarrior2406]

Unfortunately some Catholic bible are also saying that Adam means man and eve means woman. It's really sad

[@liza_k9774]

No it's not.. it's truth

[@ji8044]

In Hebrew, Adam is not a name. It's an expression of his origin from clay.

[@immortalwarrior2406]

@ji8044 hahaha says the person who doesn't believe in God

[@ji8044]

@@immortalwarrior2406 You don't believe in Judaism, so you have more to worry about than I do.

[@michellebernal5668]

But it does lol

[@HolyFamilyHomesteadWV]

We can only go as far back genetically as Noah. A study strongly supports that all of humanity can be traced back to a “family” of no more than a dozen people. And the time it takes to get back that far coincides with the estimate of the great flood and the story of Noah.

[@ji8044]

There was no Noah and no Flood.

[@HandledToaster2]

​@@ji8044woow you just debunked all of Abrahamic religion in one comment

[@ji8044]

@@HandledToaster2 The people who wrote Genesis didn't know anything at all about the world outside of Mesopotamia. They didn't even know oceans existed. It's not a debunking per se. It's understanding their world.

[@HandledToaster2]

@@ji8044 well it could be that they knew by word of mouth all the way back to Noah, same way they knew of Moses and the Exodus.

[@FightIdiocracy]

@@HandledToaster2 No he is right they did not know of the Americas or any other land outside of the Middel East, India, and countries around the Mediterranean. They believed that the earth was flat not a globe but that shouldn’t conflict with your faith. Also the flood is about what happened at the end of the Younger Dryas Impact with an event called Meltwater pulse 1B and it flood a good portion of Mesopotamia. So I believe this is the flood that the Bible and other ancient people like the Babylonians are describing.

[@heinrich.denzinger]

Why does the thumbnail look like a Christian Wagner vid

[@ghostapostle7225]

confirmed UI works for CA.

[@matthaeusprime6343]

The thing is, if Adam and Eve never existed the whole thing falls apart theologically. This is why evolution is the sacred cow of moderism.

[@juliuslinus]

Disagree, they don't need evolution to have a sacred cow. Even before its existence, the rebels of the day found other ways to justify their hedonism. The truth doesn't contradict the truth. As Catholics we shouldn't be afraid of scientific discoveries but gladly embrace them as revelations of God's work.

[@ApostolicZoomer]

That’s not true

[@justmbhman]

I'm confused. Are you saying: 1) Adam and Eve ARE metaphors and kids aren't able to deal w/ metaphorical truth or 2) Adam and Eve LITERALLY existed? Good vid tho!

[@joshualopez9175]

I believe he’s saying they literally existed, which makes sense

[@markgross]

So, how are we not inbread?

[@racheljames7]

When you read Genesis it seems God probably.made more people the way he made Adam and subsequently Eve. Read Genesis 5:1 and 6:2-1. It refers to different kinds of humans. Some are called men and some are called Sons of God. It would seem the Sons of God were made like Adam and the men were born of women.

[@coveux8335]

The Creation Story from Genesis is only symbolic. -- St. Augustine

[@rickygcfo]

Never said that, you should retract

[@racheljames7]

I'm a 38 year old homeschool mother to 3 sons. They believe in Adam and Eve. We discovered together that Genesis gives eye witness account with a timeline, locations and a genealogy that makes sense. That's more evidence than "science" has provided for any other explanation.

[@ji8044]

Preparing them for a lifetime of minimum wage employment is not the purpose of home schooling.

[@reviewspiteras]

​@@ji8044 that is the purpose of public education

[@neketoh9017]

Do you have a car? or know what a car is?

[@ji8044]

@@reviewspiteras Adolf Hitler went to Catholic school as did the majority of Nazi leaders. Stalin was actually a Russian Orthodox seminarian in Tbilisi before joining the revolution.

[@nickw9766]

@@ji8044 but that doesn’t make them catholic though. Your house of cards kind of falls right there

[@billybobwombat2231]

Theres a whole future in the future, the past is interesting and handy but its not the future, I prefer to look foward and let the past have its place in time, if they were real they were real, if not they weren't .

[@OctagonalSquare]

Well when the Catholic Church adopted evolution, that naturally assumes Genesis’s creation account is not literal. Of course they would fall to this heresy. That’s the problem with the papacy, every pope capitulates to a new earthly belief to the point that the current even all religions are paths to God, even though Jesus himself said otherwise.

[@scopilio13]

found the non-catholic. the church has no teaching on evolution. you are free to believe or not believe evolution.

[@PapalLifter]

the Church has never "adopted" evolution

[@ji8044]

Jesus said nothing at all about science. He quoted Hebrew scripture.

[@brendabio757]

❤❤❤

[@immortalwarrior2406]

God can do anything and science can't prove that.

[@ji8044]

Science is a process and believers can't prove God is real.

[@immortalwarrior2406]

@ji8044 science is an experiment and then theory and can't prove God is not. Big bang theoryyyyyy the end word sweetheart

[@ji8044]

@@immortalwarrior2406 The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the Bible, as Father Georges Lemaitre, the Belgian priest who first theorized it told the Pope directly.

[@reviewspiteras]

​@@ji8044 scientism believers always tell this "science is a process" then use science as a dogma and scientist as arbiters of thruth. Many philosophers have pointed out how science can't even prove itself to be the best method for gathering evidence of the natural world. Philosophy is far greater that what science could ever acheive

[@neketoh9017]

@@reviewspiteras You are just proyecting how your belief system works. Science itself is just the process of constructing a way to undertand how the world works using fundamental aspects of reality. It is not a complete system and does not claim to be, it is constantly changing and you are encouraged to try to prove or deny anything you want as long as you can back it up. I do agree that philosophy covers much more knowledge than science, let´s not forget that science is just a branch of philosophy. Though, the problem with philosophy is that, despite using reason, it allows subjectivity to taint the world whereas science deals with the objective (not to be mistaken with truth, but far more reliable than esotericism and religions)

[@pamelahermano9298]

Adam and Eve is literally the only thing in the Bible I don’t know how to reconcile with science.

[@cathalhendron3941]

Last I heard scientists say we all came from ten people or pseudo humans or whatever is that really that different from two??? At the end of the day God was there I wasn't

[@Jwarrior123]

Why cant you reconcile so? What is it that you think science teaches (or rather scientists teach) that would make you doubt the existence of Adam n Eve?

[@pamelahermano9298]

@ I was taught that the human race couldn’t have come from just two people.

[@jamesforeman3096]

His response here is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive; you should feel free to disregard it. There's no need to feel that your faith is at odds with science. Another Catholic Answers apologist named Jimmy Akin provides a much better response on the channel Reason and Theology in a video titled "What Does Catholicism Teach on Adam and Eve?" Go check it out :)

[@jenmapping8577]

@@pamelahermano9298 Yes indeed! they're called Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosmial Adam, check them out, it's even possible that these two lived in the same period (or at least there was a window of time in which it could have happened)

[@authorityfigure1630]

PSA to anyone who is shaken by this video. It’s time to investigate this issue with Theology as your paradigm. You have been taught what you know with naturalism as your paradigm. I suggest the following as intros to this subject. “Is genesis history documentary on KZbin” “kolbe center for creation on the internet”. These will show you that all the data used to support secular models of the world can just as well be used to support biblical models of the world.

[@EspadaKing777]

I think the most up to date analysis based on modern genetic information suggests the smallest population of Homo Sapiens on the planet was 1,280 individuals. I can cite the study if you like, but even disregarding that, we do know that the smallest possible that avoids inbreeding depression is approximately 80 people based on calculations done by NASA. In any event, a single breeding pair is quite patently too low.

[@rickygcfo]

These sorts of "analyses" are wrought with bias baked in already. They are ultimately untestable hypotheses masquerading as objective truth. Secular science is not a pure pursuit of truth as it is made out to be.

[@ji8044]

@@rickygcfo Many pizza delivery drivers and supermarket clerks agree with you.

[@rickygcfo]

God requires humility of his faithful. If you want to look down on the beliefs of those you believe to be more stupid than yourself, you are not in good company.

[@EspadaKing777]

​@@rickygcfo I'm not looking down on them, I'm simply citing the best science we have and proportioning my beliefs accordingly; and am sharing in good faith that data with other people, because there is so much to learn in the world I would never assume people have encountered the same data as me and I'd never judge people for that either. I didn't even allude to intelligence in what I said, as you can be both smart and ignorant of something; the greatest and smartest physicist in the world might not be at all informed about Russian Literature, but that wouldn't make them stupid. If you don't believe me (perhaps you think I'm misrepresenting the information), I'm perfectly happy to link the data and you can read and judge the information yourself. If you want to simply disregard the information automatically without further investigation or analysis you can do that too. It is only this last action I would find at least a little disappointing.

[@rickygcfo]

I was referring to the other commenter. My previous comment was eaten by KZbin for some reason.

[@ji8044]

Because they're not real obviously.

[@kennynoNope]

I’m pretty sure Trent Horn believes in evolution (which makes Adam and Eve being historical impossible) and he has called Genesis “epic poetry”. Doesn’t sound like you guys are on the same page at catholic answers

[@alistairkentucky-david9344]

@@kennynoNope I disagree with Trent Horn on evolution, but he could say that at some point, two hominids received human souls and so were made human at that point. I don’t think this is viable as an approach, but he could reconcile monogenism with evolution in that way.

[@kennynoNope]

@ that is incorrect. Paul and Moses clearly taught there was no death until Adam. Evolution only is true if there was death for millions of years before Adam. You can not believe in Paul and evolution it is a contradiction.

[@FightIdiocracy]

There are theistic evolutionists like me and Mike Jones (InspiringPhilosophy) who believe in a historical Adam and Eve because our view of Genesis is called the the Cosmic Temple interpretation and it is a view that InspiringPhilosophy explains in his first couple of videos of Genesis 1-11 series he explains this view in more detail and shows how you can reconcile faith and science without sacrificing any core doctrines.

[@brandonp2530]

You are wrong. Go and see InspiringPhilosophy playlist on Genesis, it basically explains the point made in the video

[@kennynoNope]

@@FightIdiocracy yea you and a some radical liberal new age Christian who teaches the opposite of Paul and Moses. Adam brought death into the world through sin. Evolution all depends on death happening for millions of years I think I’ll pass on you new age heterodox belief system.

[@neketoh9017]

Because they were not

[@racheljames7]

I'll take eye witness accounts over a theory that remains just that, a theory.

[@ji8044]

@@racheljames7 Where was the person standing who witnessed the first day of creation?

[@DenisOhAichir]

@@ji8044 The author's of the Holy Bible were led by The Holy Spirit a witness to the beginning of creation.

[@neketoh9017]

@@racheljames7 Not even entering the discussion of eyewitnesses being severely unreliable about events after a few days. Tell me. Who even were the eyewitnesses?

[@ji8044]

@@DenisOhAichir There is no basis for that IN the Bible. Furthermore you're denying the Trinity because an eyewitness is watching someone ELSE do something whereas according to the Trinity Yahweh and the Holy Spirit are one.

[@docsavage8640]

Because they weren't real.

[@lifematterspodcast]

Plz switch the thumbnail to not nudity.

[@tonyl3762]

You might check out the movie _The Agony & the Ecstasy_ and/or JP2's writings on art and nudity.

[@lifematterspodcast]

@ Can you refer me to the exact writings that you are referencing. I am unaware that St. JP2 endorsed extremely naturalistic depictions of the human body like such. In “On the Body in Art & P…” he warns against such depictions of the intimate nature of the body which is meant for knowledge of one’s spouse within marriage. He says that the artist must always consider if the image will in mass pull the hearts of viewers towards objectification of the human body. He warns that nude art can be an obstacle for purity. The spousal meaning of the body must be considered if one wants to depict realism. It is perfectly fine to call for the removal of a nude sculpture on a KZbin thumbnail because this is the internet and many people struggle with purity on the internet. This art is not on display in the Sistine Chapel - a consecrated space for prayer.

[@eddybuckhorn7411]

@@lifematterspodcasthis book Love and Responsibility. The issue isn’t nudity, the issue is the disordered human inclination to lust after a nude form. It is up to us to work on ourselves and recognize that we are the problem. Hence the fact that Adam and Eve were both naked and there was no lust until sin entered the world.

[@lifematterspodcast]

@@eddybuckhorn7411 I totally agree with that, but I maintain my disagreement with placing hyper realistic nude art on the thumbnail of an internet video. It’s far too much of a stumbling block for most men. Just because mankind is broken and the problem lies with us and not nudity, does not mean that it is the right move to place nude art in a forum in which it will probably cause stumbling. St. JP2 would agree with that for sure.

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

​@@lifematterspodcastI'm an addict and I didn't even notice the nude art. The stuff we consume is so far beyond that, that I didn't even notice, being so desensitized. Personally I like that type of art and it helps me reconnect with the attitude of original justice humanity, before the fall.