Firstly I'm very sorry if such a question has been explored before, but as a theistic evolutionist I have recently been thinking about when exactly God deemed us distinct from the apes and classified us as ready to have a soul. Since evolution is such a gradual process it would seem strange that we are 'suddenly' ready for a soul - is it possible there was some divine intervention and we changed in characteristic? What about the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and the other members of our species, some of which only died out around 10,000 years ago?
Any advice and guidance much appreciated.
According to Catholic belief (many of whom are theistic evolutionists), there are 3 types of souls: 1) a non-sentient soul such as that of plants, bacteria, etc. 2) a sentient non-rational soul such as that of animals, and 3) a sentient rational soul such as that of humans and which is said to be in the image of God.
Adam and Eve would be the first recipients of a sentient, rational soul. Perfectly compatible with scripture.
Byblos wrote:
According to Catholic belief (many of whom are theistic evolutionists), there are 3 types of souls: 1) a non-sentient soul such as that of plants, bacteria, etc. 2) a sentient non-rational soul such as that of animals, and 3) a sentient rational soul such as that of humans and which is said to be in the image of God.
Adam and Eve would be the first recipients of a sentient, rational soul. Perfectly compatible with scripture.
But what about an eternal spirit? Where, according to TE, did that come into play? Or is that what you're saying a "sentient rational soul" is? I just see a distinction between soul and spirit.
And, if adam and eve were just 2 of many hominids that God decided to give a spirit to, then how does that reconcile with scripture that says eve came from Adam?
Genesis 2:23.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Byblos wrote:
According to Catholic belief (many of whom are theistic evolutionists), there are 3 types of souls: 1) a non-sentient soul such as that of plants, bacteria, etc. 2) a sentient non-rational soul such as that of animals, and 3) a sentient rational soul such as that of humans and which is said to be in the image of God.
Adam and Eve would be the first recipients of a sentient, rational soul. Perfectly compatible with scripture.
But what about an eternal spirit? Where, according to TE, did that come into play? Or is that what you're saying a "sentient rational soul" is? I just see a distinction between soul and spirit.
I don't believe there necessarily is a distinction between spirit and soul, unless you want to differentiate them at the point of rationality. All souls of all living things return to the Father, the giver of life and they all remain in whatever state they were created in.
RickD wrote:And, if adam and eve were just 2 of many hominids that God decided to give a spirit to, then how does that reconcile with scripture that says eve came from Adam?
Genesis 2:23.
Allegory. Eve coming from Adam emphasizes the familial and headship relationship God intended for the family unit. Note that I am most definitely NOT saying that Adam and Eve were allegorical, I believe in the real existence of an Adam and an Eve who were the first to be declared human by God.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Byblos wrote:
Allegory. Eve coming from Adam emphasizes the familial and headship relationship God intended for the family unit. Note that I am most definitely NOT saying that Adam and Eve were allegorical, I believe in the real existence of an Adam and an Eve who were the first to be declared human by God.
Genesis 2:21-23: 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [a]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called [c]Woman,
Because [d]she was taken out of [e]Man.”
Byblos, how do you see verses 21-23 as allegorical?
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
PaulSacramento wrote:Why would God need to do that Rick?
I mean, why not create Eve just as Adam?
I'm not sure what you're asking Paul. I didn't say God needed to do it that way. I'm just trying to see how Byblos understands the text here as an allegory.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Byblos wrote:
Allegory. Eve coming from Adam emphasizes the familial and headship relationship God intended for the family unit. Note that I am most definitely NOT saying that Adam and Eve were allegorical, I believe in the real existence of an Adam and an Eve who were the first to be declared human by God.
Genesis 2:21-23: 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [a]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called [c]Woman,
Because [d]she was taken out of [e]Man.”
Byblos, how do you see verses 21-23 as allegorical?
It's a poetic language Rick, meant to convey a deeper truth, not a lesson in creation or procreation. Think of it this way, it is quite possible (and that is only speculation on my part mind you) that the chosen Eve may very well have formerly been a physical blood relative, most likely an offspring of the former being that is now Adam. So here is this first human, Adam, suddenly awake and distinctly aware of his surroundings, can process information, reason, communicate, and so on, and yet utterly raw so-to-speak and totally dependent on God. So God makes it known to him (in his sleep) that Eve is not just special because she was chosen as his wife and companion, no she is much more than that, she is flesh from his flesh and bone from his bone (literally physically). All the more reason why she needs to be protected, cared for, respected. Anyway, when I put my TE hat on that's pretty much the way I see things. As you know I'm not entirely sold on TE but I won't discount it as a possibility (much for the same reason I won't entirely discount YEC but it becomes a matter of degrees).
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
PaulSacramento wrote:Why would God need to do that Rick?
I mean, why not create Eve just as Adam?
I'm not sure what you're asking Paul. I didn't say God needed to do it that way. I'm just trying to see how Byblos understands the text here as an allegory.
When God created all other mammals, he created them male and female so they can procreate, he created them at the same time we assume.
Why the difference with Adam?
Why not create eve like Adam, why use a part of Adam?
That it was written that way makes me think that there is a message here and it isn't about creation but about how man and woman are One.
Written to show that woman is from Man and Man gives of himself for woman.
It's a poetic language Rick, meant to convey a deeper truth, not a lesson in creation or procreation. Think of it this way, it is quite possible (and that is only speculation on my part mind you) that the chosen Eve may very well have formerly been a physical blood relative, most likely an offspring of the former being that is now Adam. So here is this first human, Adam, suddenly awake and distinctly aware of his surroundings, can process information, reason, communicate, and so on, and yet utterly raw so-to-speak and totally dependent on God. So God makes it known to him (in his sleep) that Eve is not just special because she was chosen as his wife and companion, no she is much more than that, she is flesh from his flesh and bone from his bone (literally physically). All the more reason why she needs to be protected, cared for, respected. Anyway, when I put my TE hat on that's pretty much the way I see things. As you know I'm not entirely sold on TE but I won't discount it as a possibility (much for the same reason I won't entirely discount YEC but it becomes a matter of degrees).
That's a nice, creative narrative, but it's not what Scripture says. And since when are we to read into Scripture more than it actually says, or through the lens of our personal world views? That is when we get into a dangerous areas of wrongful interpretation. There are enormous problems with evolution, easily and magically filled in by those asserting that God designed and guided the creation of life through some variation of it. And how else could one explain the Cambrian Explosion? But TE has much more to explain than by just saying God used evolution to create - it must also match up with the fossil record and be able to explain it. But, obviously, any problems with evolution can be claimed solvable by simply stating that God was guiding the process. But that's not science, and it sure doesn't accurately reflect how non-theistic evolutionists (which is the vast majority of them) insist things happened - as such evolutionists won't even acknowledge that evolution has extreme and inexplicable problems, to begin with.
Byblos wrote:
Think of it this way, it is quite possible (and that is only speculation on my part mind you) that the chosen Eve may very well have formerly been a physical blood relative, most likely an offspring of the former being that is now Adam. So here is this first human, Adam, suddenly awake and distinctly aware of his surroundings, can process information, reason, communicate, and so on, and yet utterly raw so-to-speak and totally dependent on God. So God makes it known to him (in his sleep) that Eve is not just special because she was chosen as his wife and companion, no she is much more than that, she is flesh from his flesh and bone from his bone (literally physically).
Byblos, if Eve is an off spring of Adam, then how do you explain Genesis 2:18:
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [o]suitable for him.”
How could Adam be alone if he had children from which Eve came?
And, Genesis 2:19-22:
19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the [q]sky, and to every beast of the field, but for [r]Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
There was not a helper suitable for him before Eve was created. That doesn't really make any sense if Adam already had children.
Byblos wrote:
As you know I'm not entirely sold on TE
I can see why, after that explanation.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
PaulSacramento wrote:Why would God need to do that Rick?
I mean, why not create Eve just as Adam?
I'm not sure what you're asking Paul. I didn't say God needed to do it that way. I'm just trying to see how Byblos understands the text here as an allegory.
When God created all other mammals, he created them male and female so they can procreate, he created them at the same time we assume.
Why the difference with Adam?
Why not create eve like Adam, why use a part of Adam?
That it was written that way makes me think that there is a message here and it isn't about creation but about how man and woman are One.
Written to show that woman is from Man and Man gives of himself for woman.
Ok. So God created Eve from Adam's rib, and this shows us that woman comes from man. How are you arguing against an non-allegorical interpretation here? It sounds like you're arguing for an interpretation of Eve being literally formed from a part of Adam.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Basically the way I see it - if Evolution is true then is was a tool created by God in order to give us perfect freewill. The universe is governed my natural laws which God has set in place. We need limitations and laws to give us perfect freewill - for instance I can choose to whack someone over the head with a plank of wood and not have it turn to foam. Evolution is a byproduct of these laws. I think it is guided and certainly not random - and when finally, at the right time and place - homo sapiens came along - the pinnacle of Gods creation and evolution - then God breathed his spirit into that species.
It's a poetic language Rick, meant to convey a deeper truth, not a lesson in creation or procreation. Think of it this way, it is quite possible (and that is only speculation on my part mind you) that the chosen Eve may very well have formerly been a physical blood relative, most likely an offspring of the former being that is now Adam. So here is this first human, Adam, suddenly awake and distinctly aware of his surroundings, can process information, reason, communicate, and so on, and yet utterly raw so-to-speak and totally dependent on God. So God makes it known to him (in his sleep) that Eve is not just special because she was chosen as his wife and companion, no she is much more than that, she is flesh from his flesh and bone from his bone (literally physically). All the more reason why she needs to be protected, cared for, respected. Anyway, when I put my TE hat on that's pretty much the way I see things. As you know I'm not entirely sold on TE but I won't discount it as a possibility (much for the same reason I won't entirely discount YEC but it becomes a matter of degrees).
That's a nice, creative narrative, but it's not what Scripture says. And since when are we to read into Scripture more than it actually says, or through the lens of our personal world views? That is when we get into a dangerous areas of wrongful interpretation. There are enormous problems with evolution, easily and magically filled in by those asserting that God designed and guided the creation of life through some variation of it. And how else could one explain the Cambrian Explosion? But TE has much more to explain than by just saying God used evolution to create - it must also match up with the fossil record and be able to explain it. But, obviously, any problems with evolution can be claimed solvable by simply stating that God was guiding the process. But that's not science, and it sure doesn't accurately reflect how non-theistic evolutionists (which is the vast majority of them) insist things happened - as such evolutionists won't even acknowledge that evolution has extreme and inexplicable problems, to begin with.
Right back at ya. Unless and until we can both agree on an interpretive authority to tell us who's interpretation is right and whose is wrong then we're both left with just that, 'creative narrative'. This is no more evident than in our respective opposing interpretations of the word 'yom'.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Byblos wrote:
Think of it this way, it is quite possible (and that is only speculation on my part mind you) that the chosen Eve may very well have formerly been a physical blood relative, most likely an offspring of the former being that is now Adam. So here is this first human, Adam, suddenly awake and distinctly aware of his surroundings, can process information, reason, communicate, and so on, and yet utterly raw so-to-speak and totally dependent on God. So God makes it known to him (in his sleep) that Eve is not just special because she was chosen as his wife and companion, no she is much more than that, she is flesh from his flesh and bone from his bone (literally physically).
Byblos, if Eve is an off spring of Adam, then how do you explain Genesis 2:18:
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [o]suitable for him.”
How could Adam be alone if he had children from which Eve came?
Adam was the first to receive a rational soul. When he became self-aware he would not have identified with Eve because her soul wasn't formed yet. Only after he was put to sleep, Eve was made self-aware, he was given knowledge of that and of the fact that she is no stranger, a blood relative, that he awoken and knew her.
RickD wrote:And, Genesis 2:19-22:
19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the [q]sky, and to every beast of the field, but for [r]Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
There was not a helper suitable for him before Eve was created. That doesn't really make any sense if Adam already had children.
Of course it does, having received a rational soul, Adam is a new creature unlike any other, including himself. That's why he had to be made aware that Eve is a blood relative; he would not have had any knowledge or memory of that prior to receiving a rational soul.
RickD wrote:
Byblos wrote:
As you know I'm not entirely sold on TE
I can see why, after that explanation.
It's an interpretation like myriad others. And it perfectly aligns with scripture.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
PaulSacramento wrote:Why would God need to do that Rick?
I mean, why not create Eve just as Adam?
I'm not sure what you're asking Paul. I didn't say God needed to do it that way. I'm just trying to see how Byblos understands the text here as an allegory.
When God created all other mammals, he created them male and female so they can procreate, he created them at the same time we assume.
Why the difference with Adam?
Why not create eve like Adam, why use a part of Adam?
That it was written that way makes me think that there is a message here and it isn't about creation but about how man and woman are One.
Written to show that woman is from Man and Man gives of himself for woman.
Ok. So God created Eve from Adam's rib, and this shows us that woman comes from man. How are you arguing against an non-allegorical interpretation here? It sounds like you're arguing for an interpretation of Eve being literally formed from a part of Adam.
It was allegory because, obviously God didn't have to create Eve that way, the story is used to instill the ONENESS that must exist between man and woman.
Why a rib? Because the ribs job is to protect the heart ( and lungs of course) and the woman would "protect" his heart from loneliness.
God could have chosen ANY part, agreed? there must have been some significance for choosing the rib.
The whole tale seems to be about man and woman, made for each other, to complement each other, to be ONE when together, to be OF each other and FOR each other.
