Adam & Eve - individuals or types?
#11


I don't get the idea that mankind arose spontaneously in different places around the world. I mean, the odds of that happening at ALL, let alone more than once -- I don't buy it at all. When it comes to the idea of man having ultimately sprung from some primordial sludge, the idea of irreducible complexity makes it all seem extremely ridiculous (which is NOT to say that after man and the other animals were created, evolutionary forces haven't acted and don't act on them).

People who discredit a literal Adam and Eve, and who posit human populations -- plural -- arising spontaneously, in different parts of the world, from "lower" (less complex) life forms, which themselves came from "lower" life forms, which ultimately came from the "primordial soup" -- they believe something I believe is so ridiculous as to be rather comedic. (They're the same types who'd, in other situations, go on about Ockham's Razor as if it's not a general rule of thumb, but The Way of Absolutely and Always Knowing Truth, ya know? And they'd see "God created man" as somehow more complex than the idea that proteins somehow got together and formed cells which formed tissues which formed systems - and nevermind the irreducible complexity problem in all that -- which formed various animals and also man. Man arising in different places - and able to breed even. Wow!)

Reply
#12
The odds of a planet such as this being able to support life is in itself astronomically low. It's actually ridiculously low. Then the odds of animal life coming into being and one creature having such an advanced intelligence over other animals is just crazy. I honestly don't know of any way to reconcile the thought that everything in existence in this planet being a mere cosmological coincidence.
Reply
#13
(08-04-2015, 04:43 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: There have been attempts to reconcile polygenism with original sin (based on the understanding of Pius XII's quote
Quote: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.
which says that then (now), when he was writing this encyclical, it was in no way apparant, but 'now now' (in our days) it could be possible. But I think this 'now' is rhetorical, I don't know, however, what was the wording in the original. Anyhow, although certain interesting theories exist, I cannot help but feel like they make Genesis a total joke. Something has to be literal there, or else Dawkins et consortes will constantly attack us ('METAPHORICAL WHEN SPEAKING ABOUT ADAM AND EVE, LITERAL WHEN SPEAKING ABOUT KILLING GAYS!!!'). I, for that matter, believe in pretty much every event that happened in Genesis, only that in my opinion they occurred over billions of years.

The official Latin does not allow this "now" to be taken temporally. Anyone making such an argument is not doing a scholarly study of the encyclical, but flailing about with the English.

The relevant phrase: "cum nequaquam appareat quomodo huiusmodi sententia componi queat cum iis quae fontes revelatae veritatis et acta Magisterii Ecclesiae proponunt de peccato originali ..."

The first part of the clause "cum nequaquam appareat" take the subjective. If it were temporal, it would need to take the indicative "apparet". The only possibilities, grammatically, are a circumstantial, causal or concessive clause. We could translate it "Because it is in no way apparent", "It being in no way apparent", or "Although it is in no way apparent".

"Now" cannot be taken temporally. QED.
Reply
#14
So, like I thought, they take even the slightest possibility of reverting the pope's words and cling to it. Not nice.

By the way, where did you get the Latin original? I couldn't find it.
Reply
#15
I googled the issue again and found out that I might have remembered wrong.

Quote:"In the context of other errors, Pius XII treats two questions regarding the origin of the human person. Firstly, the human being's origin through evolution from other living beings: while formerly evolution was rejected as irreconcilable with the biblical account of creation (which was interpreted in too literal a sense), and as implying a materialistic conception of the human being, the question is now left open to scholarly investigation, provided that the creation of the soul by God is maintained. Secondly, monogenism or polygenism, i.e. the question whether the human race must be conceived as descending from a single couple or can be considered to originate from several couples: polygenism is rejected because 'it does not appear' [or 'it is not at all apparent'] to be reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin inherited by all from Adam. Recent theology, however, is seeking explanations of original sin under the supposition of polygenism, and so tries to remove the reason for its rejection." (J. Neuner, J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith [1996], page 169)
So it seems it wasn't the 'now' but 'it is in no way apparent' that according to modernist theologians left room for polygenism. Although I remembered correctly that it was a silly argument that was trying to twist the Pontiff's words.
How about this part? Is this, theoretically, allowed way of reasoning, or do they, again, fail even at the philological level?
Reply
#16
"Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?

"Reply: In the negative" (Pontifical Biblical Commission, 30 June 1909: Denz. 2123).

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma22.php
Reply
#17
(08-04-2015, 11:13 AM)GangGreen Wrote: The odds of a planet such as this being able to support life is in itself astronomically low. It's actually ridiculously low. Then the odds of animal life coming into being and one creature having such an advanced intelligence over other animals is just crazy. I honestly don't know of any way to reconcile the thought that everything in existence in this planet being a mere cosmological coincidence.

How about just adding in the very existence of life, as well?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)