Where Did Humans Come From?

[The Barbarian]

I think the OP really is asking the wrong question and it is more productive of us to look for the meaning behind the genealogies established at the time it was written for the Hebrew and by extension what is means to us since we are adopted into that line. I would suggest the meaning is more abstract and spiritual than it is literal. I'm not challening the literalness per se, but rather saying the literalness is probably the least important parts of the accounts and it is misfocused to put our energy into it.

You make a lot of sense here, I think.

 

[The Barbarian]

Next is your turn. Give me YOUR scripture indicating what light was shining on Days 1, 2, and 3, up till the sun was set in place on Day 4.

Since the "yom" of Genesis are clearly not literal days, but aspects of creation, there is no issue here. Only if one restructures the creation story to become a literal account, is there a problem. The creation week is an allegory, not a literal period of time.

 

[oikonomia]

So, is it literally accurate? Science proves it's not, but allegorical and
the meaning of the story has meaning beyond being the historical fact
behind creation.

There are 31 verses in Genesis chapter 1. Is there some universally accepted scientific fact that renders any one of those 31 verses impossible to be true? If so which verse or verses there simply cannot be true due to the conscensus of modern scientific knowledge?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There are 31 verses in Genesis chapter 1. Is there some universally accepted scientific fact that renders any one of those 31 verses impossible to be true? If so which verse there simply cannot be true due to modern scientific knowledge?

Truth is in the meaning behind the story and not necessarily in the historical truth. This was the intent of the author
of Genesis, being he had no scientific knowledge of how the universe works.

 

[oikonomia]

Truth is in the meaning behind the story and not necessarily in the historical truth. This was the intent of the author
of Genesis, being he had no scientific knowledge of how the universe works.

Should I take your reply to mean there is not necessarily any verse in Genesis 1 through 31 that simply cannot be taken as historically factual due to modern scientific knowledge?

 

[The Barbarian]

Should I take your reply to mean there is not necessarily any verse in Genesis 1 through 31 that simply cannot be taken as historically factual due to modern scientific knowledge?

Scientific knowledge is irrelevant to an allegory.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Should I take your reply to mean there is not necessarily any verse in Genesis 1 through 31 that simply cannot be taken as historically factual due to modern scientific knowledge?

If the text agrees with science, fine, but don't place your faith on the literal interpretation of the text, but the spiritual meaning behind it.

The purpose of the text is to provide us with the relationship God has with us, not to give us a factual text of the creation story.

 

[DamianWarS]

Since the "yom" of Genesis are clearly not literal days, but aspects of creation, there is no issue here. Only if one restructures the creation story to become a literal account, is there a problem. The creation week is an allegory, not a literal period of time.

the creation account is more about the "who" than it is the "how". We spend too much time on the how when the account itself has conflicting order so the "how" doesn't work. If light is spoken into being before the sun is created what does this tell us? First of all it tells us it's probably not talking about literal details and that the light of day 1 is more important than the bodies that hold the light on day 4.

If we look at this as a salvation metaphor light is spoken into the darkness and so the light is the light of Christ. the darkness of course is of sin, or the antithesis of that light. This is not hard to figure out and is affirmed through other scripture like 2 Cor 4:8, 1 John 1:5-7, John 1:4, etc.... I mean any time light and darkness are contrasted should be a pretty big hint and I doubt anyone is brave to challenge this. However this should extend itself to the entire account. If the light of day 1 is spiritual light then what does that make the other days or the division of the days themselves? it should prompt us to look deeper than the surface words.

After the light is sent the sun, moon and stars are created so the light is independent of these luminaries and the luminaries are inferior to the light. Day 4 tells us the purpose of these luminaries. the text says the lights are there to "separate the day from the night" (14a) and to serve as signs for seasons (v14b) and also "to give light on the earth" (15).

I would suggest in the text it is important that the light of day 1 stands alone if we understand this light to be God himself, or God's sent light. This light's source is only God and is not dependent upon other bodies to exist. The bodies of light on the other hand work in tandem with this light. On day 4 we see that the bodies of light have a focus to give light on the earth. On the surface, the sun makes the earth bright during the day, and the moon and stars have their role at night which seems easy enough to understand, but as a spiritual focus, the light of day 1 is reflected through the bodies of light on day 4 to spread that light further.

With that understanding, we are those luminaries of day 4 and it is our job to take the light of day 1 and spread it across the earth. We are not the source of the light as that source is from God but the light works through us to light up the earth. This is why it is important that the light comes before the sun and that the luminaries of day 4 are is inferior to the light of day 1. The focus is not scientific, but spiritual where God is separate from his creation not a product of it which has deep rippling effects. If we see the sun as coming first in this context it could be tantamount to idolatry as the light is a product of the created thing turning the "bodies" of light, namely us, into gods.

Foremost the creation account is a gospel message or salvation metaphor. it is prophetic, symbolic, and foreshadows Christ. We start as darkness, light is spoken into us which starts a process ending that when complete ushers in rest (in the NT it's called the "new creation" 2 cor 5:17). Rest is the goal, during that process however are shaping events that allow us to spread his light further leading to fruitfulness, multiplication and new life. The creation account uses the word "day" (yom) I believe in a common sense consistent with the meaning of day from sunset to sunrise. So day means day. However, the text itself speaks beyond the surface literal words so although the text uses common day boundaries in a 7-day period this doesn't have to mean the literal "how" of creation and it can hold a deeper meaning that is more significant to the "how". I think we all can accept the process of which God "creates" or "speaks into being" is beyond our comprehension, even as abstract modern western thinkers. The creation account is contextualized to fit an ancient Hebraic mindset. It's not for the science books but that doesn't make it false, it carries a deeper truth, one far more beneficial and that truth is the gospel message.

 

[JAL]

Since the "yom" of Genesis are clearly not literal days, but aspects of creation, there is no issue here. Only if one restructures the creation story to become a literal account, is there a problem. The creation week is an allegory, not a literal period of time.

I agree it's not really a big problem, but like most anyone else on this debate forum, I like to argue my position exegetically stronger than another.

Let's assume for the moment it's an allegory. It's telling us a story that didn't literally happen but signifies some truth. I'd still expect some degree of cogency in this fictional story. I mean, it goes out of its way to mention days and daylight - so we should naturally anticipate a consistent light-source for the 7 days. And it wouldn't be the sun, since it was positioned on day 4.

Coupled with that is the fact that Paul is writing literal texts when he refers back to the Genesis light at 2 Cor 4, and back to Adam at Romans 5.

Both sides of the debate have their pros and cons. I'm just underscoring the pros on my side.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree it's not really a big problem, but like most anyone else on this debate forum, I like to argue my position exegetically stronger than another.

That's why people who see it as a literal history are no less Christians than those who don't. Christians don't agree on that.

Let's assume for the moment it's an allegory. It's telling us a story that didn't literally happen but signifies some truth.

Or more accurately, about something that happened, to real people, but as an allegory.

I'd still expect some degree of cogency in this fictional story. I mean, it goes out of its way to mention days and daylight - so we should naturally anticipate a consistent light-source for the 7 days. And it wouldn't be the sun, since it was positioned on day 4.

There's the rub. "Yom" has a number of meanings, including "forever", "always", "back in my time" and so on. So there's that. And the use of "yom" in Genesis seems to be rather casual, given that Genesis 1 says the Earth took 6 yom and Genesis 2 says both Heaven and Earth were done in one yom.

so we should naturally anticipate a consistent light-source for the 7 days. And it wouldn't be the sun, since it was positioned on day 4.

Putting logical definitions into the text might be a problem as I noted above. In Hebrew and in English "morning" and "evening" require the Sun. Moonrise, for example, is not morning. And if we abandon that definition, why would there need to be light on the Earth at all in the first few yom?

Coupled with that is the fact that Paul is writing literal texts when he refers back to the Genesis light at 2 Cor 4, and back to Adam at Romans 5.

I don't see how a later verse mentioning an allegory, would convert it to a literal history. Can you establish that for your argument?

Both sides of the debate have their pros and cons. I'm just underscoring the pros on my side.

Well, it remains an arguable point as far as the world's Christians and Jews are concerned.

 

[JAL]

That's why people who see it as a literal history are no less Christians than those who don't. Christians don't agree on that.

Or more accurately, about something that happened, to real people, but as an allegory.


There's the rub. "Yom" has a number of meanings, including "forever", "always", "back in my time" and so on. So there's that. And the use of "yom" in Genesis seems to be rather casual, given that Genesis 1 says the Earth took 6 yom and Genesis 2 says both Heaven and Earth were done in one yom.


Putting logical definitions into the text might be a problem as I noted above. In Hebrew and in English "morning" and "evening" require the Sun. Moonrise, for example, is not morning. And if we abandon that definition, why would there need to be light on the Earth at all in the first few yom?


I don't see how a later verse mentioning an allegory, would convert it to a literal history. Can you establish that for your argument?


Well, it remains an arguable point as far as the world's Christians and Jews are concerned.

No worries. Like I said, pros and cons exist on both sides of the debate.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Truth is in the meaning behind the story and not necessarily in the historical truth. This was the intent of the author
of Genesis, being he had no scientific knowledge of how the universe works.

You could know nothing, and God could give you the words to speak, or what to write.

• 2 Peter 1:21 (KJV)​

  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
• but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

"And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace,
the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[timewerx]

I was curious as to how divided posters are on this topic. As a former Catholic, now Lutheran, (who is still unsure if I’m in the right church) I learned from the writings and some communication via email with Edward Feser, that humans may have started as part of a population of hominids but that God gave Adam and Eve souls, making them human. Then their offspring interbred with these other hominids and so on. I’m probably oversimplifying Feser’s theory and it’s been a long time since I’d read it, but what are your thoughts on this idea?
Or do you believe we came from Adam and Eve, whose children interbred with one another and so on?
Other theories?

The real question you should be asking is where our souls came from.

The answer is not as simple as God created ours souls but yet originated from another creation whom God created as well and that creation might actually be our 'real' us. Something entirely not human but also in the physical world.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You could know nothing, and God could give you the words to speak, or what to write.

• 2 Peter 1:21 (KJV)​

  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
• but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

"And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace,
the stones would immediately cry out.

God would use your own intellectual level to communicate to you.

St Teresa of Avila said that God speaks to us best within the depth of our soul, where words
are not necessary.

The matter then becomes whether God wills you to share what was given to you or not.
If he does desire you to share it, it will be according to the intellectual level of the people
you convey the message to. Otherwise, you'll only share what comes across as nonsense.

And so it was with the authors of Scripture. They wrote and spoke according to the level of
their own intellect and that of the people they were conveying God's message to.

 

[The Barbarian]

You could know nothing, and God could give you the words to speak, or what to write.

• 2 Peter 1:21 (KJV)​

  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
• but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

"And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace,
the stones would immediately cry out.

The problem is that you're focusing on things that aren't the message, and ignoring what God is actually saying to you.

The real question you should be asking is where our souls came from.

God says they are given directly by Him.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

We are formed naturally, as the other animals are, but He gives each of us a living soul directly. And that is what matters.

 

[Semper-Fi]

The real question you should be asking is where our souls came from.

God says they are given directly by Him.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

We are formed naturally, as the other animals are, but He gives each of us a living soul directly. And that is what matters.

The ancient philosophers taught that man is essentially an immortal
spiritual “soul” housed in a temporary body of flesh.

the Jewish Encyclopedia: “The belief in the immortality of the soul came to
the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy
of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian
mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended”.

At The Creation of Man, the whole man—“thou”—that was composed of dust?
Genesis 3:19 was composed of nothing but earth!

God blew air—“the breath of life” containing oxygen—into the man’s lungs
through his nostrils, and the man began to live!

The verse does not say God breathed an immortal soul into the man.

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life,
of all that was in the dry land, died.

The same “breath of life” also pass through the nostrils of animals, as do humans.
the breath of life that is cut off when a human being or an animal drowns.

If the “breath of life” referred to an immortal soul, then animals, birds
and even insects—gnats, fleas, mosquitoes, etc.—would all have immortal souls.

Man does not have a soul—[man IS a “soul]
The original Hebrew word for “soul” is nephesh.

Bagster’s Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon defines it as “breath,”
and “anything that breathes, an animal.” It can also refer to a “person,”
or even “one dead, a dead body.”

In Genesis 1:21, 24; 2:19; 9:10, 12, 15-16 and Leviticus 11:46, the same
word nephesh is translated “creature” when referring to animals.

And so man is a soul. Notice that the word nephesh is translated as “dead body”
or “the dead” in Leviticus 19:28; 21:1; 22:4; Numbers 5:2; 6:11 and 9:6-7, 10.

The “soul,” then, is merely an air-breathing entity that is subject to death and decay.

 

[The Barbarian]

God blew air—“the breath of life” containing oxygen—into the man’s lungs
through his nostrils, and the man began to live!

That is an unwarranted addition to scripture. Says nothing at all about oxygen or lungs. It's a parable for us receiving a living soul. Which is not physical at all.

 

[Semper-Fi]

That is an unwarranted addition to scripture.

I posted scripture. Now you say it is a parable not figurative.

If the “breath of life” referred to an immortal soul, then animals, birds
and even insects—gnats, fleas, mosquitoes, etc.—would all have immortal souls.

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life,
of all that was in the dry land, died.

The word “soul” is translated from Hebrew, the word nephesh.
The Hebrew nephesh merely means a breathing animal.

 

[Semper-Fi]

The problem is that you're focusing on things that aren't the message, and ignoring what God is actually saying to you.


We are formed naturally, as the other animals are, but He gives each of us a living soul directly. And that is what matters.

So what is he saying in 2 Peter 1:21 then?

 

[eleos1954]

It was because of Jesus’ message in Matthew 16:18 that the church held the See of Rome in highest honor amongst all other bishops of the Pentarchy. Jesus gave him the position and the church honored it, that is until Leo IX brought dishonor to the position and was excommunicated in 1054AD. Most Protestants either reject this fact or are ignorant to it and don’t take it into consideration when contemplating the message in Matthew 16:18. The evidence is irrefutable that the early church held this position since the very first century of Christianity. So this was not something that took place in the later centuries but was held right from the beginning which gives weight to the interpretation I provided. When contemplating interpretation of scripture it’s imperative that we consider the earliest teachings of the church on such matters.

It's not about a specific organized "church" entity .... it's about Jesus .... Christ alone.

It's not about peter, the church, Mary or the pope(s). It's about Jesus and always has been.

John 5:39

New King James Version
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me

Christ alone.