Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? w/ Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P. (Aquinas 101)
The Thomistic Institute
0:39 What would your arguments for that position be?
Did you make an interview with Moses for 3cents Magazine?
2:19 Petrus Comestor disagreed.
In the beginning of the Gospel part of Historia scholastica, he considered it a known fact of Biblical chronology (given the distance from Flood to Abraham and Creation to Flood : the text version is LXX without a second Cainan) that Christ was born 5199 after Adam and Eve were created.
Not only that.
Before you appeal to St. Thomas' typical output as being too intellectual to accept such "simplistic readings" - he had made an oath to uphold:
- the theology of Peter Lombard
- the Biblical history of - yes - Historia Scholastica
- the canon law of Decree of Gratian.
Plus obviously, he never took a distance from his probable youth work, Postilla in Libros Geneseos, except from its Latinity. Probably changed his Latin grammar a bit when going from Benedictines in Naples to Dominicans in Paris.
3:14 First of all, taking the days of creation as actual days, which is the natural reading, yes, Genesis answers that in the negative.
Second, even without Genesis, a man can have irrational ancestry only on two alternative conditions : either he was directly born of beings fully irrational, or there is a graduation from irrationality of beasts and rationality of man.
The second opinion is very popular among scientists and especially atheists among them, as it means "rationality" is just a quirk in animal consciousness. But it's incompatible with Christianity.
The first of these involves that Adam was before he sinned treated badly by God. He was put into the position of becoming a feral child.
3:37 That the Sapiens race "mated" with Neanderthals has no bearing on whether Adam had ancestry.
Not more than Black and White people getting married now.
Candace Owens is pretty Black, and at least the father of her spouse, Michael Farmer, probably her spouse too, George Farmer, is White.
If both descend from Adam it doesn't mean Adam had non-human ancestry.
Neither do pre-Flood marriages between Sapiens and Neanderthal races.
If you put Adam into 7000 BP, as you should, and this into the Evolutionary Timescale (or Uniformitarian, not all who hold it are Evolution believers), it means, Adam wasn't the first man, and probably not ancestor of pre-Columbian or pre-Cook populations.
If you put Adam into 40 000 BP or 100 000 BP, and note this, taking these as the real dates, you have suddenly made Genesis 3 impossible as history. It couldn't have been accurately transmitted, when if so even Genesis 5 and 11 were inaccurately transmitted.
3:59 We have lots of other evidence that Neanderthals had rational souls.
They deliberately buried their dead.
A Neanderthal at Shanidar became one-armed, handicapped, and he didn't die before the lesion of the bone had been very well healed, rounded off. This means, he was kept alive, while not being productive.
They also used ravens for dark feathers, a symbolic behaviour which is only possible with a rational soul.
4:21 Y-Chromosome "Adam" is better known as Noah.
"Mitochondrial Eve" would be the woman who was last common ancestor of his three daughters in law. So, she was born, and that well after 5199 BC. Again, your view of the timescale makes your view seriously unbiblical and unthomistic as well.
5:08 "lacking the light of reason"
In that case, they could not have had language.
Don't be fooled by fools, they do not lack the light of reason, they lack the correct use of reason in deliberation.
A total lack of the light of reason would clearly imply no notionality, and no need for a language going beyond c. 500 "word-sentences" comparable to road signs - the maximal capacity that monkeys have been shown to have.
5:16 "from this population ... two new creatures"
Were they created like the population, or was the male so?
If that is the case, when God later endowed him (or them) with reason, he (or they) would have had either the amnesia or the shame of a bestial past.
Were they created unlike the population, or was the male so?
If that is the case, he (or they) was growing up like a feral child (cured by God at a later stage?) or with a superiority complex or "not at home with them" complex to the rest of his kin. Plus that a language acquisition without parents actually speaking would have been possible only by a miracle.
5:31 The larger pool than one couple argument is soundly refuted by the Pitcairn population.
5:44 If Cain's and Seth's wives were originally non-human, and if they were endowed with rationality only on becoming such, namely wives of actual men, we would be talking of a wooing with no words, and of a first act of intercourse in bestiality.
6:13 No "a very long time ago" is very much not needed.
Give a pre-Flood population of races Neanderthal, Sapiens and Denisovan, and Noah as tenth from Adam being Sapiens pointing to Adam being close to that too, Neanderthals and Denisovans can be explained as part or totally Nephelim, and Homo Erectus Soloensis as extreme case or as a bred kind of warrior giant.
And the genome can be explained by Noah's inlaws having such ancestry. Only about 5000 years ago.
And no actual non-humans ever involved with either human anatomy or ancestrality of modern day human populations.