186 replies to this topic

[Ice_nine]

So OK it always bothered me that the creation story basically required incest to propagate the human race. I was hoping to find an answer that assured me there was some loophole or something that I could stomach.

What I found thru cursory research is that, inter-marriage in the direct line (child parent grandparent, perhaps also aunts/uncles?) is always inherently wrong but inter-marriage thru the collateral line (siblings cousins etc) is NOT.

Is this fo real? Because I think it's really effed up that marrying your brother or sister (cousins I can understand as many cultures don't have a taboo on it) can be oki dokies.

I also understand that the catholic position is that Adam and Eve were real historical people and we can't take the figurative route.

Someone halp me understand.

[Papist]

I heard a good answer to this a long time ago, but I can't remember much. But what I took away was that God allowed it as a necessity for them to be fruitful and multiply, though never with parent/child.

Thinking about it, you can ask the same question about Noah's family after the flood.

[Hubertus]

The Church does affirm that they were real, historical people in the sense that the race of man is decedent from one man and one woman. I would add, of course, that she does not specify how exactly they came about, as both evolution and Creationism can be compatible with the Faith.

Sibling marriage would have been allowed for the propagation of man because there weren't really any other options... But as the population developed, there arose standards saying that, since we now had the option, we should opt for those to whom we were not too closely related because it would lead to a healthier human race. That's just the reality of how mankind developed.

Sibling incest is forbidden by the Church now, of course. I think the rule on that subject is that you can marry your second cousin. But that was only recently allowed, in the 1980s.

Edit: And as you said, some cultures have first cousin marriages, which it seems the Church can allow special dispensations for.

Edited by Hubertus, 25 February 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[CatherineM]

I often think of Adam as an early man who evolved to the point that he became self-aware, and God reached out his hand and breathed a soul into him. That would mean he and his children would have access to other individuals to breed with besides siblings.

[HopefulBride]

I remember in one Bible study class there was a discussion on our early parents where Cain was banished to the East (or something like that) and the deacon who was leading it said that it was the same reference as where Hagar went with her son.

So basically what I'm trying to say is that though the story of Adam and Eve is real, it is not indicative that they were the only couple. I'll look up my notes and try to answer in detail.

[Hubertus]

I remember in one Bible study class there was a discussion on our early parents where Cain was banished to the East (or something like that) and the deacon who was leading it said that it was the same reference as where Hagar went with her son.

So basically what I'm trying to say is that though the story of Adam and Eve is real, it is not indicative that they were the only couple. I'll look up my notes and try to answer in detail.

I might be jumping the gun here, but are you referring to polygenism? Church teaching is that polygenism is not true, that there originally was only one couple from which the rest of mankind has descended. Pope Pius XII spoke about this in his encyclical Humani generis:

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 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.

(quote of the encyclical taken from Wikipedia)

In the past I did similarly think that there must have been more people than Adam and Eve though, and was only recently informed of all this in a Bible study that I'm in. But it makes sense because, if you believe there was more than one couple, a lot of questions arise with that. Did the others have souls? If so, were they inclined to sin? Did they have salvation? etc.

Edited by Hubertus, 25 February 2012 - 03:57 PM.

[HopefulBride]

He was using Gen 4: 14-16 as a reference. Now of course we know that Adam and Eve were the first. However, when we were discussing future generations and the possibility of incest he brought that up. So somewhere between the first couple and their kids, there were others. Verse 16 says Cain went to the land of Nod

The explanatory notes in my Ignatius bible says as of the story of Cain and Abel we are not in the first ages of humanity.

I gotta keep looking for more info regarding the questions you pose.

Edited by HopefulBride, 25 February 2012 - 04:16 PM.

[Hubertus]

My perception is that the Biblical account skips a few details in the first few verses of Chapter 4.

1 The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have produced a male child with the help of the LORD.”
2 Next she gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel became a herder of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the ground.
3 In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the ground, . . .

It speaks specifically of Cain and Abel, but uses vague enough language so as to not rule out the possibility that Adam and Eve did have other children before the Cain and Abel story occurred. Verse 15 says, "'If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times.' So the LORD put a mark on Cain, so that no one would kill him at sight." I think it is referring to other children of Adam and Eve, so Cain's siblings.

This is making me really want some Raisin' Cane's... Haha

[Ice_nine]

He was using Gen 4: 14-16 as a reference. Now of course we know that Adam and Eve were the first. However, when we were discussing future generations and the possibility of incest he brought that up. So somewhere between the first couple and their kids, there were others. Verse 16 says Cain went to the land of Nod

The explanatory notes in my Ignatius bible says as of the story of Cain and Abel we are not in the first ages of humanity.

I gotta keep looking for more info regarding the questions you pose.

I could think this but is this compatible with monogenism? I don't think it is.

[Hubertus]

Wow, I just read this blog post on evolution and the Creation story and it was pretty interesting. My previous statements don't really hold up to this, but it is compatible with what Pope Pius XII said, from what I can tell.
http://tofspot.blogs...-and-alice.html

In this sense I suppose you could believe that Adam and Eve's children did not necessarily perform incest. I don't really like how it treats the soul as just a genetic mutation, though.

And of course, this is if you believe in evolution.

[Mark of the Cross]

I often think of Adam as an early man who evolved to the point that he became self-aware, and God reached out his hand and breathed a soul into him. That would mean he and his children would have access to other individuals to breed with besides siblings.

I think there was a discussion on this theory a while back. If we are going to follow the 'God created science that created', then we have to take into account that inbreeding results in degeneration which is possibly part of the reason that incest is wrong not just from a moral point of view. In the OT the Israelites were referred to as the people of God. Later Jesus commanded to the apostles to go forth and spread the good news to all nations. Adam and Eve were possibly the first people of God having souls. Their off spring may have interbred with existing humanoids. Apes existed so why not simple humans? The off spring of these would inherit souls and knowledge of good and evil just as genetic characteristics spread.

I also understand that the catholic position is that Adam and Eve were real historical people and we can't take the figurative route.

Someone halp me understand.

The Church is not, nor does it claim infallibility on all teachings. I would think such things should generally be considered speculation, having little bearing on the Churches mission.

[Mark of the Cross]

This is my great 40 squared uncle

Edited by Mark of the Cross, 27 February 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[sixpence]

this was from a while ago
my crazy, personal idea is on the first page I think

http://www.phatmass....15196-adam-eve/

[dUSt]

I think there were Adam and Eve's in Europe, in China, in Africa, in Australia, and in Texas.

[Laudate_Dominum]

this was from a while ago
my crazy, personal idea is on the first page I think

http://www.phatmass....15196-adam-eve/

Memory lane...

Hub, I recall reading that TOF Spot blog post when it was new and I wasn't in enthusiastic agreement with it either; but I think for different reasons. I really should reread it before commenting beyond that.

[Ice_nine]

so basically, brother and sister "knew" each other in the Biblical sense and thank GOD that doesn't ever need to happen again?

[Hasan]

Hm. I was going to point out that the Bible, I believe, makes allusions to possible other individuals living east of Eden in the land of Nod, but I guess polygenism makes that impossible. Interesting. It also raises the question of why God would need to protect Cain by placing his mark on him since Cain and Able were supposedly the only two sons of Adam and eve.

[Hasan]

Wow, I just read this blog post on evolution and the Creation story and it was pretty interesting. My previous statements don't really hold up to this, but it is compatible with what Pope Pius XII said, from what I can tell.
http://tofspot.blogs...-and-alice.html

In this sense I suppose you could believe that Adam and Eve's children did not necessarily perform incest. I don't really like how it treats the soul as just a genetic mutation, though.

And of course, this is if you believe in evolution.

He's right about quantifier shifts but I'm not sure the language of HG allows his rather clever observation

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 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.

[Hubertus]

so basically, brother and sister "knew" each other in the Biblical sense and thank GOD that doesn't ever need to happen again?

If you want to leave all the evolutionary theorism out of it, then yeah, I think that's basically the way it would have played out.

He's right about quantifier shifts but I'm not sure the language of HG allows his rather clever observation

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 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.

It says "true men," though. Couldn't that mean, "men with souls?" According to the theory, men with souls would begin existing alongside hominids who didn't have souls and perhaps (or maybe not) even interbreeding, until that other race died out, apparently.

But MithLuin, in that other thread that sixpence linked to, actually made a pretty nice summary of the matter.

In fact, the language of Genesis 4 strongly implies different groups of people who provide for themselves in different ways - farmers, herdsmen, metalworkers, etc. It's still dealing with origins, but the origins of groups of peoples, suggesting that we've very quickly moved on from the first couple.


The main issue with what you've proposed, sixpence, is that humans with souls are clearly intermarrying with humanoid creatures without souls. If you were...human...you'd certainly recognize the creatures as non-human, and there would be a huge taboo about interbreeding (I would think). The Genesis story requires some sort of taboo, or a less-than-unique experience for Adam and Eve. If they are the first couple (and there are no other humans), then it would seem that incest or interbreeding with nonhuman animals are the only options for their children. If there are other humans with souls around, then that is avoided, but their experience is not unique.


Making a mythological story literally work is probably not the way to read it, though. What is important about the story is what truths it teaches us about the experience of the first humans. What is original innocence? What is the fall? What did Adam see in Eve to identify her as just like him? And...the idea that all humans alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve, and thus part of the same human family. We can't point to a group and say they aren't human like we are (though of course, as fallen human beings, we often do.....)

[Aloysius]

I just posted this in the other thread on Transmundane, I'll repost it here for debate and such:

I think to avoid polygenism, we must recognize Adam and Eve as the only true ancestors of man, but allow for the possibility of sibling species along the way who were not true men (for true men are only descendents of Adam and Eve) and thus only participated in the fall in the way that all creation participated in the fall--that is, they were fallen because we were fallen, just as animals and plants are fallen because we are fallen.

As an example I'd like to point out Neanderthals--I think there can be little question that they had immortal souls. Indeed, they were kinder people than our ancestors that were contemporaneous with them, as they cared for their sick and even saved flower petals to leave on graves even during the winter (suggesting an afterlife belief). Perhaps they were kinder because they were not direct descendents of the Fall of Man, though they were indeed inheritors of its effects as was all creation.

If we apply this logic, I think we can view, at a certain point, a subset of humanity that was indeed true men, and around them perhaps numbering in the thousands or so from a local population, there were others on a similar, indeed nearly identical, evolutionary stage physically as them--and they were indeed ensouled and able to interbreed with Adam and Eve's descendents, but their story is quite different from the story of man. Adam and Eve were a sort of biological Israel, the chosen ones among a group of ensouled creatures, from whom we have descended.

I think I'm sounding dangerously close to the polygenism condemned by Pius XII, but I think what saves me is that I adamently insist that the other ensouled creatures are not "true men"--they are not part of salvation history, they had their own relationship with their creator and were dealt with in a wholly different way than the race of men--indeed, perhaps they themselves were not even destined for the beatific vision, perhaps they were destined for a type of afterlife that was a wholly different kind of paradise. Who knows what wonders God had in store for them, but they are likely different wonders--because the race of man is unique in all creation, the only race in which God Himself incarnated to redeem the whole world. It was the sin of mankind that brought death into the world (in principle, of course it wasn't a temporal cause-effect relationship wherein nothing died until Adam and Eve existed, or else you'd have immortal dinosaurs) and it was the redemption of mankind that brings the possibility of eternal life to all life in the world. If along the way we had sibling species like Neanderthals, and perhaps like the ensouled hominid creatures who surrounded Adam and Eve, then their place in the eschatalogical world is unknown to us (but it's fun to speculate) for they are not true men and their relation to original sin is like the relation of plants and animals to original sin, it is only for the race of man to bear it as we do, all other life is affected by it but does not bear it.

and thinking of this, it's hard not to turn ones thoughts to extraterrestrials --for the ponderings I make about ensouled sibling species on earth would also apply to ensouled extraterrestrial species.

NB: I am not ascribing any certain time period or species along the human evolutionary line as the time for this ensoulment to have occurred, I am undecided, but suffice it to say I could even consider the possibility of ensouled humans prior to Homo Sapiens, or some time after the first Homo Sapiens existed, perhaps the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens was Adam, or perhaps the first Homo Habilis for all I know. But I think a contemporaneous ensouled hominid co-existing need not be polygenism in any of those ages