Since there has been a surge in bible passages, I wanted to create a thread to address one or two questions that recur in my household. My kids attend a Catholic elementary school and my 7-year-old son is on the beginning slope of his religious education. I am not religious, but my wife is Catholic so any questions my son has are deflected to her. Oftentimes, he mentions Adam and Eve as being the first humans on earth. He hasn't quite been able to wrap his brain around the inconsistencies in the Bible's "creation" story vs. the existence of not only early and prehistoric man, but when and how do dinosaurs fit into the explanation of God's creation of the universe. Frankly, in the years of being married to a catholic, and the occasional attendance of Catholic mass, I have yet to have that facet of creationism vs. evolution reconciled in my brain.

So, for those inclined to flip through the pages of the bible before posting on this board, if in God's created universe, the earth is only a few thousand years old, how are the discoveries of early man and prehistoric creatures accounted for?

"how are the discoveries of early man and prehistoric creatures accounted for?"

Simple: god placed them there to test our faith. When you have magic powers, anything can be explained in the simplest of terms.

FWIW, I grew up catholic as well. That is, until I was old enough to figure out the whole religion is a bunch of crap. Thankfully I was never that close with any of the priests.

I grew up in a catholic household also.
I can't say I grew up Catholic because I don't think at that age you are equipped to make such a declaration.

My current (and evolving *) take on evolution vs. Religion is that evolution is just one of the tools in God's toolbox.

I don't believe in the Bible being the inerrant word of God. There are just too many inconsistencies, and room for different interpretations.

I think references to the beginnings of the Earth are just framed for man's comprehension in the times it was written.

(* Been reading Bart Ehrman & Richard Dawkins lately.)

"I think references to the beginnings of the Earth are just framed for man's comprehension in the times it was written."

Exactly.

According to other analyses of this topic, the Hebrews were quite impatient with Moses, leading them through the desert in search of the Promised Land, but wanting to make all those trips up Mt. Sinai to speak with the Lord. Moses emphasized brevity so legend has it that he came down the mountain with the Clif notes (10 Commandments) and on other trips up the mountain got the details (The 5 Books Of Moses aka The Old Testament). Of course, a lot of this stuff didn't get written down right away anyway. What the first sentences in Genesis call "A Day" can be interpreted as a simplification of a process that took a long time, but the very concept of a calendar or "years"
didn't evolve until much later, being independently thought out by the Hebrews and the Chinese.

I agree with this also.

Bookemdono- First off thanks for such an honest and open invitation.

I do agree with Andy and Amus (sounds like that old radio show). I wouldn't say the bible is filled with inconsistencies but certainly with many layered storylines. If you pick and choose your way through the bible it can be a bizarre experience trying to explain it.

There are several thoughts of understanding. First off literal interpretation, which I don't adhere too. Dangerous on many levels and frustrating on others.

I read my bible with a historical/metaphorical sense along with commentaries from many biblically intelligent scholars and pastoral brain trust in my own life.

The creation story is a classic example of metaphorical language or you might say Moses’ prose on a creative maker. My dad is a Presbyterian pastor (retired). His simple take on evolution is it helps explain God’s handiwork.

My cousin who is a professor of geology at a state university and who is also Christian would concur with my dad.

Adam and Eve represent you and I. Cain and Able represent our human condition.

Thankfully I was raised in a non-fundamentalist religious environment. My parents discussed faith, God, and the bible but it was never forced upon us or used to control my mom or my dad’s congregation or us.

My wife on the other hand did grow up in an ultra-militant church and was able to finally break away from that abusive situation when she was old enough to realize the damage it had done. She has been a great teacher to me about the “dark side” of some church congregations. Even through that experience she still has a strong faith in God and who the real Jesus is all about.

Bookemdono I would also encourage you not to shy away from spiritual conversation with your kids. It can be one the most meaningful discussions you can have with your child. Stay honest with your child about your uncertainties and I think you’ll discover a new avenue of communication you might not have known before with your kids.

Vitalogy I always appreciate your take on these matters. You truly sharpen my edge and for that I am grateful.

Good stuff posters.

As I understand it, there is a broad spectrum of opinions on the intersection between science and faith amongst members of the Catholic church. From what I have seen of Catholics, it is not fair to paint them with the same brush as the non-denominational Protestant churches and Evangelical Christians who push young earth creationism (this is the belief system that says that the universe is about 5,000 years old).

Example 1: Some years ago, I was talking to a co-worker who had a Master's degree in physics from Notre Dame University. I asked her whether Notre Dame's being a Catholic school in any way affected science instruction at the school. She found the question a bit absurd. She said that one would see priests and nuns on campus, but they do not dictate what is taught in the classroom.

Example 2: Some months ago, I went to a forum event sponsored by the "Peace and Justice Coalition" of the St. Philip Neri Church. The Catholic panelists were just lay church members, and they did not intend to represent church doctrine or policy in any official capacity. In my recollection, the only place where their views converged regarding the literalism of their faith was that they all believed that Jesus existed and that he was the son of God.

If Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans on Earth then we are all products of incest... Am I wrong?
Who made more babies? Cain and Able slept with Mom?

Some people believe Adam and Eve were just two representative people among many, but that's not what the bible says. The bible states definitely there were only two people created, Adam and Eve. Since God, himself, created them, they were perfect in every way.

Their first three children were Cain, Abel, and Seth: all sons. But Genesis 5:4 tells us they had other sons and daughters. Since Adam, and presumably Eve, lived more than eight hundred years, they had plenty of time to raise a very large family. A footnote in the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus says tradition gives Adam thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.

Since Adam and Eve were created perfect, their genetic makeup would be perfect. So would that of their first few children. With no genetic problems to enter the picture, God could allow them to intermarry, and populate the known world.

As time went by, however, genetic imperfections would make close-kin marriages impractical. But what would cause these imperfections?

Cain had murdered his brother Abel, and even lied to God about it ( Genesis 4:8-9). It's obvious he didn't care about God or his law, so he likely didn't care about God's dietary plan either, ( Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14), and ate whatever pleased him.

Certain animals are not fit for human food, because they are poisonous time bombs. The poisons act slowly and subtly, often taking years before displaying their effects of disease and a weakened genetic code. Through careless eating habits, and who knows what other aberrations the early population indulged in, mankind became genetically distorted, and God had to eventually impose a law against near-kin marriages (Leviticus 18:6).

Biblestudy.org

Well that's one interp.

The key item is Genesis 5:4 which directly addresses Trix's question. Adam and Eve had other offspring besides Cain and Abel.

"5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:"

So if you believe that the Bible is the word of G-d, then that is the story. Adam and Eve were created by Him whereas Cain, Abel, Seth, and "sons and daughters" were offspring conceived and born as children. If you don't believe, the fact remains that the Bible accounts for the continuance of the species. Justifying the tales of the bible with the known scientific information regarding the development of life on the planet is not the question. Good thing, because that's a tougher question to answer. You CAN believe in both evolution and The Bible. The possible explanations are endless. Or you can be like Herb.

So any way you look at it we ARE products of incest.