That is, he probably gives an accurate account of her life, but he misrepresents the content of her text, to, with her holiness, bolster his misreading of her as "real prophecy" ... it obviously isn't because he is missciting her.
Evolution and The Fall of Man — Analog Episode 7
Mabel Media | 7 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeND7hU5ZzA
I think you misrecall Anne Catherine Emmerick as much as you misconstrue Humani Generis.
You basically don't know what you are talking about.
Here is her text* about Cain's fear:
But when God replied that Abel’s blood cried to Him from the earth, Cain grew more troubled, and I saw that he disputed long with God. God told him that he should be cursed upon the earth, that it should bring forth no fruit for him, and that he should forthwith flee from the land in which he then dwelt. Cain responded that everywhere his fellow men would seek to kill him. There were already many people upon the earth. Cain was very old and had children. Abel also left children, and there were other brothers and sisters, the children of Adam. But God replied that it would not be so; that whoever should kill Cain should himself be punished sevenfold, and He placed a sign upon him that no one should slay him. Cain’s posterity gradually became colored. Cham’s children also were browner than those of Sem. The nobler races were always of a lighter color. They who were distinguished by a particular mark engendered children of the same stamp; and as corruption increased, the mark also increased until at last it covered the whole body, and people became darker and darker. But yet in the beginning there were no people perfectly black; they became so only by degrees.
There is one phrase which could at first seem to support you, namely "There were already many people upon the earth."
This is however an area of agreement between Fundies and yourself.
What doesn't support you is the explanation: "Cain was very old and had children. Abel also left children, and there were other brothers and sisters, the children of Adam."
After that a little hint at what could be considered as racism** ...
[The following disappeared, perhaps the videasts hate what St. Augustine was saying ... seeing the man was classifying it as blasphemy in the video]
And you misconstrue St. Augustine.
It is indeed possible he did utter in books 4 to 6 some kind of repudiation of literal days from the reason you gave, but painstakingly in book 1 he had precisely explained how a 24 h day was possible before the creation of the sun (in clearly Geocentric terms). But his alternative to 6 literal days was not millions or billions of years, but one single moment.
Furthermore, you accuse him of blasphemy, because he did defend sibling marriages in the generation after Adam and Eve.
For it is very reasonable and just that men, among whom concord is honorable and useful, should be bound together by various relationships; and one man should not himself sustain many relationships, but that the various relationships should be distributed among several, and should thus serve to bind together the greatest number in the same social interests. Father and father-in-law are the names of two relationships. When, therefore, a man has one person for his father, another for his father-in-law, friendship extends itself to a larger number. But Adam in his single person was obliged to hold both relations to his sons and daughters, for brothers and sisters were united in marriage. So too Eve his wife was both mother and mother-in-law to her children of both sexes; while, had there been two women, one the mother, the other the mother-in-law, the family affection would have had a wider field. Then the sister herself by becoming a wife sustained in her single person two relationships, which, had they been distributed among individuals, one being sister, and another being wife, the family tie would have embraced a greater number of persons. But there was then no material for effecting this, since there were no human beings but the brothers and sisters born of those two first parents. Therefore, when an abundant population made it possible, men ought to choose for wives women who were not already their sisters; for not only would there then be no necessity for marrying sisters, but, were it done, it would be most abominable. For if the grandchildren of the first pair, being now able to choose their cousins for wives, married their sisters, then it would no longer be only two but three relationships that were held by one man, while each of these relationships ought to have been held by a separate individual, so as to bind together by family affection a larger number. For one man would in that case be both father, and father-in-law, and uncle to his own children (brother and sister now man and wife); and his wife would be mother, aunt, and mother-in-law to them; and they themselves would be not only brother and sister, and man and wife, but cousins also, being the children of brother and sister. Now, all these relationships, which combined three men into one, would have embraced nine persons had each relationship been held by one individual, so that a man had one person for his sister, another his wife, another his cousin, another his father, another his uncle, another his father-in-law, another his mother, another his aunt, another his mother-in-law; and thus the social bond would not have been tightened to bind a few, but loosened to embrace a larger number of relations.
City of God, Book 15, Chapter 16. Citing part of the first paragraph.***
In other words, it was not against the natural law for Cain, Abel and Seth to marry their sisters.
Let me get this straight.
A) You say some kind of people of Homo sapiens type preexisted Adam and Eve, but weren't created for a relation with God;
B) The Evolutionary Timeline holds, as per dating methods
C) Adam was in this Evolutionary timeline created 6000 years ago.
In this perspective, Americas and Oceania, peopled "before 6000 years ago" should, in pre-Columbian times, have been peopled by pre-Adamites.
A position held once by Isaac La Peyrère and condemned by the Catholic Church, his book was on the latest edition of the Index Librorum in 1948.
How would you get around that?
Universal Flood? Yeah, sure, Anzick 1 was a pre-Adamite, but his relatives were wiped out 4500 years ago, and replaced later on by descendants of Adam via Noah?
Won't work. If the Flood was in 2468 BC in the Evolutionary timeline, it had to be local or regional. Egyptians were Egyptian before and after that date, if we equate the real and Biblical date to carbon dates, Chinese were Chinese before and after, Japanese were Jomon before and after and so on. So, the Americas were American and Oceania was Pacific before and after.
You'd have a pretty good case for Isaac La Peyrère, and so against the Catholic Church.
Meanwhile, you'd be very hard pressed philosophically to motivate how a "very clever animal" could have developed language and all the things you pretend specimens of Homo sapiens were doing before 6000 years ago "without being the image of God" and you have no theological business to pretend "image of God" only means, the empirically not very directly verifiable "created for a relation with God" ...
* The complete visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich : The Old Testament – Part 2
http://annecatherineemmerich.com/complete_visions/volume_1_the_old_testament/the-old-testament-part-2/
** A lady who was a fervent believer in Anne Catherin Emmerick was also a very nice mother in law to a daughter in law who was black. "The curse is not on the individual" ...
*** The City of God (Book XV)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment