When did it start?

[anonymous1515]

Well, I've been itching to ask this question for a while, so I guess now is as good a time as any!

Assuming the theory of evolution from common descent is TRUE, then at what point did God begin interacting with humankind through divine prophets?

Evolutionary theory predicts a slow, gradual change from our common ancestor with apes into humans. So, at what point do you guys/girls think that God decided our species WAS in fact human, and in need of the first Prophet? For example, if you go back far enough in our evolutionary chain, the theory precits that at one point life on Earth was composed of unicellular organisms. Obviously, there was no need for a Prophet at that time.

I realize it's a dumb question, and entirely speculative, but it IS an interesting (and fun) thing to think about.

 

[Vance]

Well, I've been itching to ask this question for a while, so I guess now is as good a time as any!

Assuming the theory of evolution from common descent is TRUE, then at what point did God begin interacting with humankind through divine prophets?

Evolutionary theory predicts a slow, gradual change from our common ancestor with apes into humans. So, at what point do you guys/girls think that God decided our species WAS in fact human, and in need of the first Prophet? For example, if you go back far enough in our evolutionary chain, the theory precits that at one point life on Earth was composed of unicellular organisms. Obviously, there was no need for a Prophet at that time.

I realize it's a dumb question, and entirely speculative, but it IS an interesting (and fun) thing to think about.

Well, I am not sure what you mean by prophet, but I think the idea of when God chose to enter into a personal relationship with Mankind (the historical events in the past described, I believe, figuratively, symbolically and typologically in early Genesis) is a fascinating question. Of course, it is mere speculation, but the Catholic Church posits that at some point God blessed Mankind with a "soul" (the whole "breathing" event) and things must have then changed dramatically.

There is a time in the Paleolithic when there was a relatively large jump in the intellectual capacity of Mankind, at that time we see the first occasions of abstract self-awareness, art and religion, etc. It is mere speculation, but I have always found that event intriguing.

 

[LogosRhema]

Well, I am not sure what you mean by prophet, but I think the idea of when God chose to enter into a personal relationship with Mankind (the historical events in the past described, I believe, figuratively, symbolically and typologically in early Genesis) is a fascinating question. Of course, it is mere speculation, but the Catholic Church posits that at some point God blessed Mankind with a "soul" (the whole "breathing" event) and things must have then changed dramatically.

There is a time in the Paleolithic when there was a relatively large jump in the intellectual capacity of Mankind, at that time we see the first occasions of abstract self-awareness, art and religion, etc. It is mere speculation, but I have always found that event intriguing.

You say the Biblical accounts are all symbolic, explain how beyound the Bible they have found articles written about King David by civilizations? And how in the world did the dead sea scrolls get there, documents that were 1000's of years old? Too hokey pokey to say the OT is not to be taken in a literal sense.

 

[anonymous1515]

Well, I am not sure what you mean by prophet, but I think the idea of when God chose to enter into a personal relationship with Mankind (the historical events in the past described, I believe, figuratively, symbolically and typologically in early Genesis) is a fascinating question. Of course, it is mere speculation, but the Catholic Church posits that at some point God blessed Mankind with a "soul" (the whole "breathing" event) and things must have then changed dramatically.

There is a time in the Paleolithic when there was a relatively large jump in the intellectual capacity of Mankind, at that time we see the first occasions of abstract self-awareness, art and religion, etc. It is mere speculation, but I have always found that event intriguing.

Yeah, that's very interesting, I agree. How fascinating.

Usually when I say prophet, I mean an individual who received a revelation directly from God. (as in Moses, Abraham, Adam, etc...). When did God first begin speaking/interacting personally with humans? When did the "human species" begin. It's a very exciting concept to contemplate.

 

[Vance]

You say the Biblical accounts are all symbolic, explain how beyound the Bible they have found articles written about King David by civilizations? And how in the world did the dead sea scrolls get there, documents that were 1000's of years old? Too hokey pokey to say the OT is not to be taken in a literal sense.

When did I say that "all" the Bible was to be read symbolically? Much of it is, indeed, history, or variations of types of history, and some is very strictly literal history. Other parts of this anthology, written by dozens of authors over 1000 years or more, were never intended as literal historical narrative. What is required is a careful consideration of the texts themselves to determine what was intended by the human author and by God.

 

[Vance]

Yeah, that's very interesting, I agree. How fascinating.

Usually when I say prophet, I mean an individual who received a revelation directly from God. (as in Moses, Abraham, Adam, etc...). When did God first begin speaking/interacting personally with humans? When did the "human species" begin. It's a very exciting concept to contemplate.

Right, once you consider the Genesis creation accounts as figurative or typological descriptions of historical events, it really is fascinating to consider how it all played out. I guess if God had wanted us to know, or thought it was important for us to know, He would have laid out all out differently. I think he chose the form He did because it conveys the essential points about that history in the most powerful, evocative manner.

Still, it is very interesting to consider the possibilities . . .

 

[LogosRhema]

When did I say that "all" the Bible was to be read symbolically? Much of it is, indeed, history, or variations of types of history, and some is very strictly literal history. Other parts of this anthology, written by dozens of authors over 1000 years or more, were never intended as literal historical narrative. What is required is a careful consideration of the texts themselves to determine what was intended by the human author and by God.

Problem is, if all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, regardless of the author, God is the brain behind it. And we know that God is not an author of confusion. The OT was written in the same consistency from beginning to end, it would make no sense for one part to be, oh that's just symbolic vs another part as literal history. Could it be a lack of faith in God and a faith put more in human created theory because it offers more "proof" that has your mind? (Not being smart). Not trying to be rude, but its hard for myself to say nothing about how you are saying that some of its symbology and other parts literal, our God is not about confusion. He was clear when He had it written from the beginning. We as humans like to fashion more scientific "truthful" theories, so that in place of our lack of faith, we have some sort of human belief.

Just me though, regardless if we evolved or not, The Message of Christ still must be taught.

 

[anonymous1515]

And we know that God is not an author of confusion.

What do you mean by author of confusion? If you mean that he is not deliberately trying to deceive us, then I agree. But that does not mean he did not intend us to think critically about what is written, and thereby take everything in the bible just as it was written.

Secondly, the "science" in the time of the Old Testament was quite undeveloped. Similarly, the Old Testament was written (presuming it was written by God himself) to convey meaning to people of that time. Perhaps teaching by analogy was the best way to convey the underlying messages. The only way this would be confusing is if biblical literalists then begin trying to extrapolate those analogies into some sort of meaningless and illogical reality (i.e. young earth creationism/ literal interpretation of genesis/ rejection of evolutionary theory)

 

[gluadys]

There is a time in the Paleolithic when there was a relatively large jump in the intellectual capacity of Mankind, at that time we see the first occasions of abstract self-awareness, art and religion, etc. It is mere speculation, but I have always found that event intriguing.

Another factor that might enter in is the development of human language. I am just reading The First Word by Christine Kenneally which discusses some of the pre-cursors and parallels to human communication in non-human species and possible factors in the development of speech as the human mode of communication.

When did the "human species" begin. It's a very exciting concept to contemplate.

Physiologically, the human species began about 130,000 years ago give or take about 10,000 years. It is from that time frame that we first find fossils that are indisputably of our own species.

But it also appears that although they had our physical structure, they were still mentally apes in many ways and probably did not speak yet.

Speech could have emerged much later. Possibly in line with that burst of new creativity in the Paleolithic that Vance mentioned about 40-60 thousand years ago.

 

[anonymous1515]

Physiologically, the human species began about 130,000 years ago give or take about 10,000 years. It is from that time frame that we first find fossils that are indisputably of our own species.

See, that's the interesting thing about speciation. The fossil record shows a clear cut boundary between our species and the ancestral species before us. However, in reality, the transition was so smooth that it would be quite difficult (or impossible) to point to individuals in the evolving population and say "that one is a human, that one is the ancestral" and so on. Which is why I find it fun to think about.

 

[gluadys]

See, that's the interesting thing about speciation. The fossil record shows a clear cut boundary between our species and the ancestral species before us. However, in reality, the transition was so smooth that it would be quite difficult (or impossible) to point to individuals in the evolving population and say "that one is a human, that one is the ancestral" and so on. Which is why I find it fun to think about.

Yes, the clear-cut boundary is an artifact of the process of fossilization. It is like having a 10 second clip out of an hour of a film.

If we had all the frames running through a projector we could not say exactly where the species began. The population would just gradually shade from the earlier to the later species.

 

[Vance]

Problem is, if all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, regardless of the author, God is the brain behind it. And we know that God is not an author of confusion. The OT was written in the same consistency from beginning to end, it would make no sense for one part to be, oh that's just symbolic vs another part as literal history. Could it be a lack of faith in God and a faith put more in human created theory because it offers more "proof" that has your mind? (Not being smart). Not trying to be rude, but its hard for myself to say nothing about how you are saying that some of its symbology and other parts literal, our God is not about confusion. He was clear when He had it written from the beginning. We as humans like to fashion more scientific "truthful" theories, so that in place of our lack of faith, we have some sort of human belief.

Just me though, regardless if we evolved or not, The Message of Christ still must be taught.

But, see, you really don't read it all literally, either. You don't read Revelations literally, you recognize it as a figurative, symbolic and typological telling of future events, for example. As discussed elsewhere, you do not read in Genesis 2:7 the phrase "God breathed" as meaning he took human form, so that he could have lungs from which to have literal "breath". No, you recognize that this is figurative language for *something else*. Something very real, and even an actual, literal historic event of some type. But, God chose to allow that event to be described to us using evocative language that would convey the important impact of what happened.

So, you see that you do the exact same thing. You recognize that, while there definitely is a consistency of message from God throughout, it is made up of a variety of literary genres and styles. Some of the texts are meant to be read as literal narrative history (of the type being written at the time), but definitely not all, and almost assuredly not the early chapters of Genesis.

 

[Bombila]

Given God and prophets in the first place, is there any need to believe that he didn't send prophets, even before humans had recognizable language? It seems to me, if you believe God sends prophets to guide and inform humanity, he could as easily have sent prophets to humanity's precursors, where they could have demonstrated God's will for the species by their actions and interactions. Does God require language to inspire prophesy?

 

[anonymous1515]

Given God and prophets in the first place, is there any need to believe that he didn't send prophets, even before humans had recognizable language? It seems to me, if you believe God sends prophets to guide and inform humanity, he could as easily have sent prophets to humanity's precursors, where they could have demonstrated God's will for the species by their actions and interactions. Does God require language to inspire prophesy?

Interesting point. I don't know if language is a requirement, although it may well be. I would say that there is at least some requirement for the transmission of knowledge. I find it somewhat of a stretch of the imagination to think that God sent bacterial prophets to guide colonies of unicellular organisms in the early development of life on Earth.

Haha, I'm not trying to be facetious with that comment... just trying to elaborate your thought a little bit. I guess there must be a requirement for intelligent thought to inspire prophecy.

 

[Bombila]

Well, we do know that there is transmission of knowledge among various monkeys and apes, where various tribes have learned such things as washing sand from food, using sticks to break hard nuts, or twigs to retrieve termites. Other mammals also transmit some knowledge between individuals. I suppose the question might be at what point in the evolution of our ancestors did it become possible for one individual to transmit non-instinctual knowledge to another individual.

I'm aware that I'm speculating wildly, but it could be an issue that TE's might consider when wondering when God may have endowed his chosen species with souls.

 

[anonymous1515]

Well, we do know that there is transmission of knowledge among various monkeys and apes, where various tribes have learned such things as washing sand from food, using sticks to break hard nuts, or twigs to retrieve termites. Other mammals also transmit some knowledge between individuals. I suppose the question might be at what point in the evolution of our ancestors did it become possible for one individual to transmit non-instinctual knowledge to another individual.

I'm aware that I'm speculating wildly, but it could be an issue that TE's might consider when wondering when God may have endowed his chosen species with souls.

Yeah, very good point. Of course, this thread was meant to be speculative. But it does raise a good point - when did God decide to give our species souls?

Do all animals have souls, or just humans? If the Genesis story isn't literal, is there any basis for us to assert that humans are somehow more intrinsically valuable than every other kind of life? I dunno, what do you guys think?

 

[gluadys]

Yeah, very good point. Of course, this thread was meant to be speculative. But it does raise a good point - when did God decide to give our species souls?

In many respects "soul" is a synonym for "life" and as far back as Aristotle it was understood that all living things have a soul.

But they have different sorts of soul. And these can be layered on top of one another.

Aristotle would say that plants have a vegetative soul which is little more than simply being alive (he didn't know about bacteria of course). Animals have a vegetative soul as well, but over and above that they have another layer which provides mobility and..well...animation. (In Latin the word for soul is "anima" from which we get the terms animal and animation.) Humanity has both vegetative and animal souls, but is distinguished from both by a rational soul unique to humans.

Aristotle would probably have seen language as an expression of the rational soul.

Even as recently as the late 20th century influential linguists such as Noam Chomsky were skeptical of the possibility that the capacity for language could have evolved. (Language itself, of course, does evolve, as we see in the evolution of English from Anglo-Saxon and the Romance languages from Latin.)

But I am reading a fascinating book called The First Word which discusses the newest discoveries of research into the evolution of human linguistic capacities. It does appear that many animals do have various linguistic and communicative capacities though they are uniquely combined and developed in humans.

Do all animals have souls, or just humans? If the Genesis story isn't literal, is there any basis for us to assert that humans are somehow more intrinsically valuable than every other kind of life? I dunno, what do you guys think?

Was there ever any reason to assert this? Are we chosen to be above other animals?

Maybe we should consider that seeing ourselves as more valuable than other life forms was never God's plan anyway?

Perhaps, we need to heed Moses' admonition to Israel. Israel was not chosen for its uniqueness, its achievements or even for its own glory, but so that God could use Israel to bless all nations. Perhaps, as a species, we are gifted not for our own sake, but so that God can use us to bless all creatures.

 

[anonymous1515]

Maybe we should consider that seeing ourselves as more valuable than other life forms was never God's plan anyway?

Perhaps, we need to heed Moses' admonition to Israel. Israel was not chosen for its uniqueness, its achievements or even for its own glory, but so that God could use Israel to bless all nations. Perhaps, as a species, we are gifted not for our own sake, but so that God can use us to bless all creatures.

I completely agree with you. I don't see any reason to believe that we are any "better" or "more valuable" than other animals. Very insightful gluadys! Thanks!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I completely agree with you. I don't see any reason to believe that we are any "better" or "more valuable" than other animals. Very insightful gluadys! Thanks!

Yes, very insightful.

Matthew 10:31
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Oops.

(Edit: Of course this is Jesus speaking. If some don't necessarily think that they are as valuable, I have no problem with that. But that is their personal opinion and shouldn't be imposed on others. The 'we' in your statement seems to indicate others beside yourselves. I hope by 'we' you meant yourself and Gluadys only.)

 

[anonymous1515]

Yes, very insightful.

Matthew 10:31
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Oops.

(Edit: Of course this is Jesus speaking. If some don't necessarily think that they are as valuable, I have no problem with that. But that is their personal opinion and shouldn't be imposed on others. The 'we' in your statement seems to indicate others beside yourselves. I hope by 'we' you meant yourself and Gluadys only.)

Haha, sure.