Evolution is a slow and gradual process. There isn't a measurable point where the last homo erectus gave birth to the first homo sapiens. It was a gradual change that occurred over time.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should Scripture Be Taken Literally?
Evolution is a slow and gradual process. There isn't a measurable point where the last homo erectus gave birth to the first homo sapiens. It was a gradual change that occurred over time.
In the bible genealogy, who is the first "homo sapien"?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
My emotim didn't translate.
To answer your question, Morphius, I would certainly hope you do.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
A firm grasp of the obvious this one, yes.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Homo sapien is not a Biblical term.
If you want a straight answer, I'd say that the Bible probably contains more than one intended meaning in that regard.
Personally, I'm generally okay with taking the Creation story as non-literal... not because it says the Earth was created before the Sun, or because it says that the sky is a solid dome, but because it's a just-so story with a man named "Man" amd a woman named "Woman." I think it's reasonable to presume they were meant as archetypes of humanity, not literal individual humans.
OTOH, I think that later Biblical authors did take Adam and Eve as having literally existed.
... so I think it's probably a mix. I should probably point out that as someone who thinks the Bible was written by many authors over centuries, I see no reason to assume that all the parts of the Bible have to agree with each other.
Edit: so to the original writers of those geneaolies, they're all humans back to Adam... but this doesn't imply that the author(s) of the Adam and Eve story intended it that way.
Homo sapien means Man, if the bible is a mythological story not to be taken literally why is there a genealogy from Adam to at least Soloman... If Adam is a mythological character and Soloman was a real man, who in the genealogy is the first real man?
I find it strange that a Christian would admit to this sort of revisionism.
Maybe my sarcasm didn't come across.
First, it's homo sapiens, with an 's,' not "homo sapien." It is a mass noun, like furniture. It is always meant to be singular.
To answer your question, I would suppose it would be where the first person is referred to in Biblical Scripture as 'homo sapiens.'
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Well, I think Lucy was believed to be the mother of all men so...
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I'm a bit different. I believe both versions.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I'm not aware of an account in the Bible of prescient knowledge that included the taxonomical nomenclature of the present time.
Adam then? Adam was the first one called Man. Homo Sapiens are real men correct?
It depends on how one interprets Genesis.
One would have to assume that the man God created in Chapter 1 is the same man discussed in Chapter 2. There is nothing in the Bible that states that these are indeed the same man.
That is bizarre that you think Adam in chapter 1 is a different person than Adam in Chapter 2. Care to explain that one?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
That's not taxonomical nomenclature. It genealogy. My hillbilly friends tell me, "You can't get there from here."
Which verses?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
She is viewed as just one link in a possible never-ending chain, and she may not even be a direct link to us.