On a thread in a different forum, I responded to the question raised in the OP by stating that I did not find a major conflict between the origins of man and my own belief system because The questions I once had have been satisfactorily answered by studying both the scriptural Hebrew texts (and commentaries by ancient Jewish theologians whose writings predate modern scientific discoveries) and modern scientific data.
Another reader asked me to explain what I meant. I responded, Giving a couple of examples might be the best way of explaining what I meant.
At one time, I had a number of questions regarding the perceived conflict between the first chapter of Genesis and certain scientific evidence. Virtually all of those were resolved by closely examining the Hebrew words used and the actual meanings and shades of meaning the Hebrew words had. However, most scientists at the time held to the steady state theory, which asserted that the universe had no beginning. I felt that the implications of the red shift supported both the primeval atom theory (now called the big bang theory) and the Bible's statement that there was a beginning--but this was not initially a widely held view in the scientific community. Then Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic background radiation--and the steady state theory pretty well went out the window.
I still had a problem regarding the age of man on our planet. A literal reading of our English translations would indicate that the Bible says that Adam was the first man--and the geneologies would place him as living less than 50,000 years ago [between 6-46 thousand years, depending upon certain assumptions]--well short of the time scientific evidence shows that humans have lived on our planet. Even going back to the Hebrew and Greek words did not seem to resolve the problem. Luckily, there are several ancient Jewish theologians who had made a very detailed and exhaustive analysis of Genesis, and their writings resolved the issue very nicely. Since their writings predated the scientific discoveries involved by several centuries, I knew they were not influenced by the scientific discoveries or by any desire to make the biblical passages line up better with science.
I hope that answers your question without boring other readers too much.....
Well, several readers asked what those ancient Jewish theologians had written. Since I did not want to hijack a thread that was actually dealing with a different topic, I decided to start a new thread dealing with whether a literal reading of the Bibles account of creation could support the possibility of there being other man-like beings prior to Adam.
The original Hebrew text and passages from the Talmud (the collection of writings constituting the Jewish civil and religious law) and from ancient Jewish commentators indicate that the Bible does not close the door on the possibility that there were other peopleincluding men before Adambut that Adam was the first human being to be created with an eternal soul.
Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh and neshama, and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that God created every animal, it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of animal life. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation, which distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third creation mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our eternal and immortal soul, our neshama (the first two creations were of the universe and of life).
The closing of Genesis 2:7 has a subtlety lost in the English. It is usually translated as: and [God] breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the adam became a living soul (Gen. 2:7). The Hebrew text actually states: and the adam became to a living soul.
Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (generally referred to as Nahmanides) lived from 1194 to 1270 A.D. or C.E.well before modern scientific discoveries that indicate that man may have been on our planet substantially longer than just a few thousand years. Nahmanides wrote that the to (the Hebrew letter lamed prefixed to the word soul in the verse) is superfluous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach something. Lamed, he noted, indicates a change in form and may have been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of mineral, plant, fish, and animal. Finally, upon receiving the neshama, that creature which had already been formed became a complete human. He concludes his extensive commentary on the implications of this lamed by noting that it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.
In other words, prior to Gods creation of the neshama for man, there may have been something like a man that was not quite a human in that it lacked the neshama or eternal soul.
Note that Nahmanides writings preceded discoveries of modern paleontology by hundreds of years---and the Bible said it three thousand years before discoveries of modern science.
Another reader asked me to explain what I meant. I responded, Giving a couple of examples might be the best way of explaining what I meant.
At one time, I had a number of questions regarding the perceived conflict between the first chapter of Genesis and certain scientific evidence. Virtually all of those were resolved by closely examining the Hebrew words used and the actual meanings and shades of meaning the Hebrew words had. However, most scientists at the time held to the steady state theory, which asserted that the universe had no beginning. I felt that the implications of the red shift supported both the primeval atom theory (now called the big bang theory) and the Bible's statement that there was a beginning--but this was not initially a widely held view in the scientific community. Then Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic background radiation--and the steady state theory pretty well went out the window.
I still had a problem regarding the age of man on our planet. A literal reading of our English translations would indicate that the Bible says that Adam was the first man--and the geneologies would place him as living less than 50,000 years ago [between 6-46 thousand years, depending upon certain assumptions]--well short of the time scientific evidence shows that humans have lived on our planet. Even going back to the Hebrew and Greek words did not seem to resolve the problem. Luckily, there are several ancient Jewish theologians who had made a very detailed and exhaustive analysis of Genesis, and their writings resolved the issue very nicely. Since their writings predated the scientific discoveries involved by several centuries, I knew they were not influenced by the scientific discoveries or by any desire to make the biblical passages line up better with science.
I hope that answers your question without boring other readers too much.....
Well, several readers asked what those ancient Jewish theologians had written. Since I did not want to hijack a thread that was actually dealing with a different topic, I decided to start a new thread dealing with whether a literal reading of the Bibles account of creation could support the possibility of there being other man-like beings prior to Adam.
The original Hebrew text and passages from the Talmud (the collection of writings constituting the Jewish civil and religious law) and from ancient Jewish commentators indicate that the Bible does not close the door on the possibility that there were other peopleincluding men before Adambut that Adam was the first human being to be created with an eternal soul.
Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh and neshama, and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that God created every animal, it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of animal life. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation, which distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third creation mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our eternal and immortal soul, our neshama (the first two creations were of the universe and of life).
The closing of Genesis 2:7 has a subtlety lost in the English. It is usually translated as: and [God] breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the adam became a living soul (Gen. 2:7). The Hebrew text actually states: and the adam became to a living soul.
Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (generally referred to as Nahmanides) lived from 1194 to 1270 A.D. or C.E.well before modern scientific discoveries that indicate that man may have been on our planet substantially longer than just a few thousand years. Nahmanides wrote that the to (the Hebrew letter lamed prefixed to the word soul in the verse) is superfluous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach something. Lamed, he noted, indicates a change in form and may have been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of mineral, plant, fish, and animal. Finally, upon receiving the neshama, that creature which had already been formed became a complete human. He concludes his extensive commentary on the implications of this lamed by noting that it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.
In other words, prior to Gods creation of the neshama for man, there may have been something like a man that was not quite a human in that it lacked the neshama or eternal soul.
Note that Nahmanides writings preceded discoveries of modern paleontology by hundreds of years---and the Bible said it three thousand years before discoveries of modern science.
