What human species was Adam and Eve?

[GodLovesCats]

When God first created Adam and Eve, their genes are perfect and no recessive traits. Recessive traits are our own corruptions, and that is why God didn't not give the commandments not to marry close relatives till later in the Bible.

Naturally recessive traits are not corruptiion. They exist in every organism. Our recessive traits happen to be some that were not given to Adam and Eve and others which mean we are not perfect.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Sure it is, I was just asking out of curiosity since you had this big picture diagram with animals and stuff, but no cats. That's all.

Were you looking for cats just because their vestigial eylids move and are often seen?

 

[dcalling]

Naturally recessive traits are not corruptiion. They exist in every organism. Our recessive traits happen to be some that were not given to Adam and Eve and others which mean we are not perfect.

Okay maybe they are not, they might be just what God coded in us (after the fall) to prevent us from live forever. But I do believe that as time goes on, our DNA coding got worse and worse through replication errors, those are definitely corruptions.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Were you looking for cats just because their vestigial eylids move and are often seen?

It was a recurring thought, someone said it a long time ago, and I just wanted to figure it out by asking questions.

 

[DamianWarS]

That is a mark from God, not just some tatoo. I doubt any language can describe what kind of "mark" it is. All I know is, if God leave a "mark" one someone, it will have profound effects that we won't be able to understand.

This is one of the reasons why I don't take these accounts literally. You have to invent too much in between the lines to even make it plausible and the text just goes deeper and deeper into something it was never meant to support.

Does Cain have some sort of protecting god-mark that creates some sort of force field around him? A literalist would have to conjure up a story like this to reconcile the account, I have even heard it being interpreted as the mark of Cain being dark skin. Really? so we are now racist? The problem with this is the text does not say these things or support them.

The verse is the last part of v15 saying "And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him." there is nothing more. I don't think it's a literal account so I don't force all this in between the lines magic but rather look at the words as written with intense deliberation.

what's important about these accounts is not about some protecting mark or curse upon Cain it's about something greater as all early Genesis accounts are and some aspect of it points to the salvation and glory of God. Without this meaning the account is completely arbitrary. It is more productive to search for how the text points to God's glory and salvation than to work out all the stuff that the text can't support.

I don't like to go too deep when the text's meaning is difficult because then I'm no better and am just inventing stuff to reconcile the text. For example, God certainly shows grace to Cain and somehow this mark captures this but I haven't done enough study on it to know how and these meanings are too important to just start making stuff up to fit what you want it to say. Right now, I'm ok with some tension in the text and I'll leave it at that.

 

[dcalling]

This is one of the reasons why I don't take these accounts literally. You have to invent too much in between the lines to even make it plausible and the text just goes deeper and deeper into something it was never meant to support.

Does Cain have some sort of protecting god-mark that creates some sort of force field around him? A literalist would have to conjure up a story like this to reconcile the account, I have even heard it being interpreted as the mark of Cain being dark skin. Really? so we are now racist? The problem with this is the text does not say these things or support them.

The verse is the last part of v15 saying "And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him." there is nothing more. I don't think it's a literal account so I don't force all this in between the lines magic but rather look at the words as written with intense deliberation.

what's important about these accounts is not about some protecting mark or curse upon Cain it's about something greater as all early Genesis accounts are and some aspect of it points to the salvation and glory of God. Without this meaning the account is completely arbitrary. It is more productive to search for how the text points to God's glory and salvation than to work out all the stuff that the text can't support.

I don't like to go too deep when the text's meaning is difficult because then I'm no better and am just inventing stuff to reconcile the text. For example, God certainly shows grace to Cain and somehow this mark captures this but I haven't done enough study on it to know how and these meanings are too important to just start making stuff up to fit what you want it to say. Right now, I'm ok with some tension in the text and I'll leave it at that.

I totally agree about the part you said we should put more effort on understanding the message of God (grace) and not the method of God (mark on Cain which none of us fully understood).

My primary issue with what you said is about not to take the account literally. If the Bible said God put a mark on Cain so no one will hurt him, God did that. We might not know how God did that, but that happened and it is not just a metaphor.

 

[DamianWarS]

I totally agree about the part you said we should put more effort on understanding the message of God (grace) and not the method of God (mark on Cain which none of us fully understood).

My primary issue with what you said is about not to take the account literally. If the Bible said God put a mark on Cain so no one will hurt him, God did that. We might not know how God did that, but that happened and it is not just a metaphor.

I'm agonistic to what actually happened in the early Genesis accounts (Pre-Abrahamic) so I can accept it might be literal or based on literal accounts but I also don't see the literal text as being important or needed. Since the accounts have huge gaps of details that would be irresponsible to guess at all we can do it take the words that we have.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if there was a physical person Cain who was given a mark and if there wasn't it doesn't change the meaning. What matters is the unfolding message of salvation to the lost.

So why not Christ then? why not erase him too? because the pre-Abrahamic are written 1000-2500 years before they occurred and there is no reason to hold on to them with such a firm grip in a literal vacuum. That's like us writing the gospels for the first time in 2019 without any prior written account.

These accounts are written for the post-exodus Hebrews who had vast misgivings in their theology, So much so that when Moses was meeting with God they defaulted to worshiping a golden calf that the designated high priest of God made and so much so that an entire generation had to die off just so their corrupted perspectives wouldn't be brought into the promise land.

These people didn't need literal accounts, they needed accounts to cleanse and de-paganize them and point to the one true God as the sole provider for all things with immense love for them and intolerance for sin. They needed a true message of salvation and a rescue for their lost depravity and a true rest of God. The literal details really pale in comparison to this purpose and too many get hung up on them and miss the message of glory and salvation of God because they can't see past 6 literal days of creation.

 

[dcalling]

I'm agonistic to what actually happened in the early Genesis accounts (Pre-Abrahamic) so I can accept it might be literal or based on literal accounts but I also don't see the literal text as being important or needed. Since the accounts have huge gaps of details that would be irresponsible to guess at all we can do it take the words that we have.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if there was a physical person Cain who was given a mark and if there wasn't it doesn't change the meaning. What matters is the unfolding message of salvation to the lost.

So why not Christ then? why not erase him too? because the pre-Abrahamic are written 1000-2500 years before they occurred and there is no reason to hold on to them with such a firm grip in a literal vacuum. That's like us writing the gospels for the first time in 2019 without any prior written account.

These accounts are written for the post-exodus Hebrews who had vast misgivings in their theology, So much so that when Moses was meeting with God they defaulted to worshiping a golden calf that the designated high priest of God made and so much so that an entire generation had to die off just so their corrupted perspectives wouldn't be brought into the promise land.

These people didn't need literal accounts, they needed accounts to cleanse and de-paganize them and point to the one true God as the sole provider for all things with immense love for them and intolerance for sin. They needed a true message of salvation and a rescue for their lost depravity and a true rest of God. The literal details really pale in comparison to this purpose and too many get hung up on them and miss the message of glory and salvation of God because they can't see past 6 literal days of creation.

It does not matter when those accounts are written, what really matters is do you believe that God keeps his message straight? It does not matter what the people needs or wants, as the law of God is unchanging, and we corrupted humans always want to break the commandments of God.

We might not understand what God means in things that He told us (i.e. what the mark of Cain is, what the day means in first 6 days of creation), as some belongs to the domain of God. But God does not need to change his message in order to "de-paganize" people. We are either His flock or not, and before we even gets formed in mother's wombs, He know us.

 

[DamianWarS]

It does not matter when those accounts are written, what really matters is do you believe that God keeps his message straight? It does not matter what the people needs or wants, as the law of God is unchanging, and we corrupted humans always want to break the commandments of God.

We might not understand what God means in things that He told us (i.e. what the mark of Cain is, what the day means in first 6 days of creation), as some belongs to the domain of God. But God does not need to change his message in order to "de-paganize" people. We are either His flock or not, and before we even gets formed in mother's wombs, He know us.

I agree with all of that... but why does that demand these to be literal accounts?

 

[dcalling]

I agree with all of that... but why does that demand these to be literal accounts?

Because God can keep his message straight. Just look how consistent the Bible is.

 

[DamianWarS]

Because God can keep his message straight. Just look how consistent the Bible is.

You're going to have to unpack your use of the word "straight" for me. You seem to be using it as a synonym for literal. If consistency is the crux this still doesn't demand these accounts to be literal. Is God able? Able to do what because I can use the same logic saying God is able to redeem any account or myth he desires and it still be called truth.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Okay maybe they are not, they might be just what God coded in us (after the fall) to prevent us from live forever. But I do believe that as time goes on, our DNA coding got worse and worse through replication errors, those are definitely corruptions.

Sins have nothing to do with a perosn's colors, height, nose shape, etc. Those are natural genetic traits. I know short people are at a disadvantage, but why would you believe that about having brown hair or not having a widow's peak on your head?

 

[Contenders Edge]

The easy answer is Homo sapiens because God made man on the "sixth day" and sapiens (our species) were the last humans to be created. Sapiens are also the only surviving humans, so it is very hard for people to picture Adam and Eve being more like chimpanzees than Jesus.

However, the first humans who could stand on two feet were Homo erectus and very similar to chimps. Neanderthals came before Homo sapiens, who literally married them into extinction. It is even possible some people living today had Neanderthal amcestors. I learned all this stuff at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum in Washington, DC.

So were Adam and Eve really Homo sapiens or literally the first male and female humans? And if they were the same species we are, did Adam look like Jesus?

Scripture makes it clear that Adam and Eve were just humans. They were not of any of the labels that have been placed upon the other lineages, ethnicities, and nationalities of people living today or of any of the lineages that are now extinct such as the Neanderthals, Cro-Magons, and Denisovans.

All men are descended from Adam; every lineage of men whether existing today or no longer in existence was formed from one blood. (Acts 17:26) Just as all plants and animals were created to reproduce after their own kind as has been observed since the beginning of time, so man can only begat man. (Gen. 1:12, 20-31)

I am afraid you may have received your education from a source whose information is either inaccurate or out of date. Homo erectus was never considered to be the first man to walk upright. In fact, there is now extensive anthropological and paleontological evidence that homo erectus coexisted with man which alone disqualifies it as being a missing link.

The origins of homo erectus is not clear since their remains appear throughout much of the world and their remains are not necessarily based on a single so-called sub-species of man and therefore, it is difficult, even for evolutionists to identify who or what homo erectus may have been, though many of the homo erectus remains discovered may be human; similar to Neanderthal or even the same. Every so-called missing link between ape and man to date has either been an ape no longer living, the remains of a man, or based on scant remains that could belong to any creature.

 

[Brightmoon]

When God first created Adam and Eve, their genes are perfect and no recessive traits. Recessive traits are our own corruptions, and that is why God didn't not give the commandments not to marry close relatives till later in the Bible.

. Lol , you think blue eyes are a corruption ! Ok , humans have blue eyes because the gene for melanin production is turned off in the iris. It’s not a “ corruption” . I’m still giggling over that one. you made my day!

 

[Brightmoon]

Sure it is, I was just asking out of curiosity since you had this big picture diagram with animals and stuff, but no cats. That's all.

. The 3 rd eyelid is fairly common in mammals and if you remember humans and cats are both mammals . All of the reptilomorph lineages have species with the trait . For example Birds and lizards,

 

[Brightmoon]

Scripture makes it clear that Adam and Eve were just humans. They were not of any of the labels that have been placed upon the other lineages, ethnicities, and nationalities of people living today or of any of the lineages that are now extinct such as the Neanderthals, Cro-Magons, and Denisovans.

All men are descended from Adam; every lineage of men whether existing today or no longer in existence was formed from one blood. (Acts 17:26) Just as all plants and animals were created to reproduce after their own kind as has been observed since the beginning of time, so man can only begat man. (Gen. 1:12, 20-31)

I am afraid you may have received your education from a source whose information is either inaccurate or out of date. Homo erectus was never considered to be the first man to walk upright. In fact, there is now extensive anthropological and paleontological evidence that homo erectus coexisted with man which alone disqualifies it as being a missing link.

The origins of homo erectus is not clear since their remains appear throughout much of the world and their remains are not necessarily based on a single so-called sub-species of man and therefore, it is difficult, even for evolutionists to identify who or what homo erectus may have been, though many of the homo erectus remains discovered may be human; similar to Neanderthal or even the same. Every so-called missing link between ape and man to date has either been an ape no longer living, the remains of a man, or based on scant remains that could belong to any creature.

Neanderthals and Denisovians are not Homo sapiens . They are different species but they are so closely related that we could interbreed with them . We have more fossil evidence that Neanderthals were a different species than for the Denisovians which we have mainly DNA evidence for . Neanderthal growth patterns were different . Their bodies were different . The skull is the more obvious difference between us but Neanderthals don’t have a waist mainly because their rib cage flairs out like a Christmas tree and ours is more rectangular . There are more physical differences but these are easy for laymen to see

As far as humanlike upright walking that was Ardipithicus ramidus . The the best early upright walker was Lucy’s species Australopithecus afarensis. Homo erectus existed much later and were still around 50,000 years ago as were the Hobbits (H floresiensis) Neanderthals (H neanderthensis) and the Denisovians.

As far as your erroneous claim that we don’t find what you call apemen (remember that humans are great apes) there are about 25 species of them including the ones I’ve mentioned

 

[DamianWarS]

When God first created Adam and Eve, their genes are perfect and no recessive traits. Recessive traits are our own corruptions, and that is why God didn't not give the commandments not to marry close relatives till later in the Bible.

this is the problem with the literalist view, it forces all sorts of stuff that the text simply cannot support or even hints at. Your perspective even contradicts itself because who do you think Cain and Seth had children with? a literalist has to say their own sister as the only option (or else their mother).

 

[GodLovesCats]

.The 3rd eyelid is fairly common in mammals and if you remember humans and cats are both mammals. All of the reptilomorph lineages have species with the trait . For example Birds and lizards,

Also remember the definition of a mammal is:

Hair on the skin
Milk production
Two bones for the ears and jaw on each side of the head

These three traits are in all mammals and unique to mammals. All other traits every mammal species has also is found in those without hair and milk.

 

[Brightmoon]

Also remember the definition of a mammal is:

Hair on the skin
Milk production
Two bones for the ears and jaw on each side of the head

These three traits are in all mammals and unique to mammals. All other traits every mammal species has also is found in those without hair and milk.

mammals have a single jawbone unlike the synapsids ancestors. The jawbones of synapsids had more than one bone . Those extra bones shrank and eventually became some of the bones of the middle ear. There are synapsids with 2 jaw joints slipping back and forth between both bones .

 

[GodLovesCats]

Mammals have a single jawbone unlike the synapsids ancestors. The jawbones of synapsids had more than one bone. Those extra bones shrank and eventually became some of the bones of the middle ear. There are synapsids with 2 jaw joints slipping back and forth between both bones .

What happened was two middle ear bones were created to move the jaw up and close the space between the ears and jaw. In the process, an extra jaw bone was lost. This created a tradeoff: reduced mobiilty of the jaw to gain better hearing. Synapsid just means the animal has two holes on each side of the skull so I don't think they are necessarily related developments.