When do Humans Arise?

A couple of good books, perhaps. Navigating Genesis and A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross are good places to start; the latest version of Who Was Adam shows how the model is evolving.

2 Likes

I would argue that homo sapiens sapiens are where Imago Dei Humans begin, and not necessarily all homo sapiens. Assuming image isnā€™t just anatomical modernity, but also corresponds to mind.

@Jeremy_Christian

I was waiting to see if you would jump on this one.

And weā€™ve discussed the dynamics before. Do you have anything to add?
The two aspects I feel we have covered is the question of who married
Cain, and the issue of Godā€™s image being ā€œall or nothingā€.

Genesis 9 has God explaining the death penalty for murder, because all
of Noahā€™s descendants bear the image of God. While there are no
explicit references to this fact, one of the reasons to hold Genesis 1
as referring to a population of pre-Adam humans (created by God
through Evolution) is that it provides the credible answer that Cain
married into that line, and that all of Adamā€™s offspring married into
that population to avoid incest issues and to avoid inbreeding amongst
themselves.

Genesis 9 also doesnā€™t provide for partial loss of Godā€™s image ā€¦ in
the same way that I doubt anyone would consider Original Sin could be
diluted by marrying out of the sub-species sapiens sapiens.

So, on what grounds would you refute either of these two points?

1 Like

Iā€™m not sure that was an issue as it was not addressed until generations later with the Israelites and the laws they were given. There were no laws given at this early point involving potential incest.

Eve was made from Adam, making her essentially his genetic twin, and they had children together.

It seems to me the beginning of Genesis 6 states this pretty directly. That Godā€™s ā€œspiritā€ will not ā€œcontendā€ with humans forever as itā€™s talking about the intermingling of Adamā€™s line with ā€œmortalā€ humans.

The decrease in ages through subsequent generations illustrates how this mixing of lines dilutes the traits of Adamā€™s line through future generations. Based on the statement in Genesis 6 and the interest in protecting the ā€œholy seedā€ in regards to the Israelites I would say that Godā€™s ā€œspiritā€/ā€œimageā€ can and does dilute through further interaction.

Much of the laws given to the Israelites, and much of Romans 5, has to do with keeping the Israelite bloodline apart from other ā€œGentileā€ groups to avoid further mixing with those lines.

@Jeremy_Chamberlain

  1. The genetic makeup of Eve is pure speculation. God might have made
    her as an near-identical twin of Adam, just by doubling up Adamā€™s ā€œXā€
    chromosome. Or she might have made her into the perfect ā€œcomplimentā€
    to his genetics. Genetic Bottleneck studies, desperate to show as
    much diversity as possible, rarely assume Eveā€™s genetics are virtually
    the same as Adam; they almost always assume maximum differences.

  2. Interpreting the reference to Godā€™s spirit as not contending with
    humans forever as a veiled reference to ā€œbearing Godā€™s imageā€ is quite
    the leap, aye? How do you go from Godā€™s spirit ā€¦ and make mental
    assumptions about Humanā€™s bearing Godā€™s Image. You arenā€™t trying to
    suggest that Godā€™s image is a ā€œreflection in the mirrorā€ are you? And
    that when God doesnā€™t ā€œcontendā€ with humans any longer, the image in
    the mirror vanishes?

  3. You bring up Blood Linesā€¦ but if genetics is the basis of the
    image of God, then loss of faith or anything else psychological
    wouldnā€™t affect ā€œbearing Godā€™s imageā€. And if it is actually
    something involving the mind or psyche, then itā€™s just as likely to be
    an ā€œAlways Onā€ feature. You think it can be diluted, or affected by
    choices, but you may have noticed that the human brain doesnā€™t work
    like that. If you inherit two recessive genes, you donā€™t get 20% of a
    Brain, or 50% of a brain. Brains come in packs of ONE.

  4. So why would longevity matter at all to ā€œbearing the image of Godā€?

  5. If being Hebrew was so important, how exactly does this importance
    leap to the gentiles in the New Testament period, if not by marriage,
    or longevity or whatever?

1 Like

Itā€™s not ā€œimago Deiā€ within humanity that God ends up contending with, but the marred version of it, in Adam and Eveā€™s new, fully accountable ā€œknowledge of good and evil,ā€ illegitimately acquired through disobedience. God dealt with it directly by removing them from the garden, cutting off access to the vital nutrients of the tree of life. The unfair, aggressive survival advantages fallen humanity had over the simpler form of ā€œimago Deiā€ humanity, by virtue of possessing a more highly developed neocortex and neuronal networks, accounts for all the increase in violence God so hated, and why Adamā€™s geneaological descendants were the last ones left standing.
Their lifespans were shorter, among other things, because of the brutal intercultural environment theyā€™d created --we killed off all the more simple-minded and more peaceful human ā€œrivalsā€ --not to mention the shift in lifestyle from a more active hunter-gathering style to a more sedentary grain-dominated diet and lifestyle in settled cities.
Itā€™s all of a piece.
God, in His grace, acted to at least slow down this travesty with a large regional flood, giving humans not yet interbred with Adamā€™s line around the world a longer time to adjustā€¦ but, the full assimilation was inevitable.
Someone has said that itā€™s firmly ensconsed in human nature --if we all woke up tomorrow the same color --say, purple --weā€™d all find some other baseless reason by which to be prejudiced about each other again by noon.
@swamidass , @AJRoberts , @kkeathley , @deuteroKJ , or others --comments?

Well, itā€™s an interesting story, but I wonder what reference or support you offer for speculating ā€œThe unfair, aggressive survival advantages fallen humanity had over the simpler form of ā€˜imago Deiā€™ humanityā€ā€¦ that anything other than a singular form of ā€œimago Deiā€ has ever existed. Are you now going to try to create or pustulate a gradation of imago Dei? On what basis? And for what purpose?

1 Like

True. But God making Eve from Adamā€™s rib, and not from the soil as He did Adam, would suggest Eve is basically a clone of Adam.

Yes. In fact, Gen1 humans are said to have been created in Godā€™s image, so it wouldnā€™t make sense that mixing with this line would dilute Godā€™s image, but it does say ā€œGodā€™s spiritā€ would not ā€œcontendā€. This to me means ā€œGodā€™s spiritā€ was something given to Adam when God breathed life into him.

Through belief. After Jesusā€™ death/resurrection, Gentile believers are then included in the ā€˜sons of Godā€™ club (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1).

ā€œā€œJews and Gentiles together, on equal footing, united in and marked off by not by observing circumcision and dietary restrictions, but by their common faith that Jesus is Godā€™s final answer to how all the world will be reconciledā€”and that is why you have to get along and love each other. All of you, Jew and Gentile together, are the new ā€˜people of Godā€™ā€ (see Romans 13-15).ā€ - https://peteenns.com/paul-adam-and-salvation-maybe-augustine-really-did-screw-everything-up-and-we-should-just-move-on/

Human history is the support, isnā€™t it? There are clearly two lines of humans. One line that lives much like humans have lived on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years, in simple tribal communities. While the other line developed civilizations, became technologically advanced, and proved to be much more aggressive than the other line.

The entirety of human history is the same story over and over again where one group conquers and displaces the other, forcing the original inhabitants from the land.

The story Genesis describes explains this difference. And human history shows that this second line began right where and when Genesis says it did.

@Jeremy_Christian,

I know of zero semantic rules that would let you make such a statement!

You are talking about humans having an imageā€¦ and now you are using a text about Godā€™s reaction to humans as some kind of mathematical proof.

Itā€™s not clear to me from human history that there are two lines of humans. Perhaps you could give examples and supporting documentation? There may be two ultimate outcomes for human destiny but that does not suggest there are two lines of humans. What do you mean by line? Is that a biological or theological designation?

1 Like

Genesis 1:26 starts out with an ā€œadamahā€ (pl. ā€“ not a named individual) that has not yet been created ā€œin the image of God, male and female made He them.ā€
By verse 27, this has been accomplished by God, with no information given on how long it took.
Later, on ā€œyom six,ā€ when God pronounces everything "very good " we are free to surmise that the fall, at least, hasnā€™t happened yet, even though thereā€™s already a widespread ā€œimago Deiā€ humanity around (who are morally simple, by comparison with the later, evil-knowing Adam and Eve), who apparently have heard Godā€™s speech of commissioning and blessing, and are reasonably capable, morally and intellectually, but not yet evil, and not yet accountable for any particular sins, since God has not issued any ā€œthou shalt not.ā€
It is not out of bounds to read the story of the named individuals, Adam and Eve, as taking place AFTER the beginning of ā€œyomā€ seven, in a completely subsequent chapter, as recently as, say, 15-13kya, before the end of the Younger Dryas period which leads to sea level changes that inundate the garden area permanently.
This is a result of a sequential reading of the first two chapters, rather the recapitulatory one, which tries to locate the Adam and Eve story on the sixth ā€œyom,ā€ although the fall CANNOT have taken place prior to the conclusion of that ā€œyom.ā€
If the whole Genesis 2:5 and forward narrative occurs well after the beginning of ā€œyomā€ seven, we are left with a scenario that, I M O, much more closely matches the available evidence.
There are the ā€œimago Deiā€ humans, who have not yet been interbred with Adamā€™s lineage, and those who already, even at this very early stage, are beginning to murder and take vengeance, from Adamā€™s lineage, who possess the ā€œknowledge of good and evilā€ and are thus acoountable for their misdeeds.
Comments, @AJRoberts , @swamidass , @KenKeathley , @deuteroKJ , and any one else focused on understanding the narrative flow of Genesis?

So in your model, more or less knowledge equates to more or less of the image of God?.. Iā€™m still thinking that is not supported by the text and Iā€™m still not certain if whether this is now a biological, theological, or sociological distinction in human lines and or the image of God in humans that you are proposing. And you still havenā€™t offered an explanation as to what purpose a gradation of the image of God in different humans signifies or implies.

I just want to be clear that @Jeremy_Christian is welcome here, but he holds a minority view that no one else here is comfortable with at the moment.

[@Jeremy_Christian, it would be good if you noted that in the future. We all try to help people understand the full range of views here, and there by float everyoneā€™s boat. That is something that would be valuable before pressing your preferred view.]

1 Like

Being the season, the Thanksgiving story is a perfect example of the two lines I mean.

Earth was fully populated by humans by 20,000 years ago, long before farming or the stories of Genesis. And all of those humans, the world over, they all behaved the same way. Held the same type of beliefs. No matter the conditions they existed in or the struggles they faced. The same stone tool, made over and over again, across the planet. Not various tools. One tool. The same one. All of humanity. For 200,000 years.

Then about 4000 BC one community of humans began inventing dozens of different tools. Began measuring time. Began writing. Built cities. Created laws and a monarchical government. Became the worldā€™s first astronomers and mathematicians. All in the span of a couple of centuries. And what began then in 4000BC in that one place spread like wildfire across the planet, still burning when the Europeans first showed up on the shores of the Americas.

The conditions were not unique to them. Thereā€™s no clear catalyst that made these humans so different than all the rest of the species living all across the Earth.

But by the time the thanksgiving story happened, it was as if aliens had come to shore. They were wildly different. They were aggressive, conquering all the world and the seas. Subjugating the original inhabitants of any land they claimed for themselves.

This is so wildly different than pre-civiliazation human behavior that it would seem the actions of a totally different species. But theyā€™re not. Theyā€™re genetically, biologically the same. But psychologically theyā€™re very different.

Honestly, I have a simplistic view where the image of God is concerned in Genesis. I think that simply means that pre-Adam humans looked like Adam and his kin. Same ā€œlikenessā€. There are others here that have views about the ā€œimage of Godā€ that seem to me to be wild theological speculations not really grounded in much of anything I can find.

My statement about homo sapiens sapiens being the ā€œbeginningā€ of humanity in Godā€™s image is a continuation of that view. Whatā€™s significant about humans compared to the rest of life on this Earth is the distinction between those created in ā€œGodā€™s imageā€ and those who arenā€™t. So, if weā€™re going to choose a starting point that canā€™t ever really be known with any certainty, thatā€™s the starting point I choose. The point where our line of species first began to diverge from the animal kingdom in a significant way, unlike any other species in Godā€™s creation. Then or since.

In cases like this ā€¦

2 Corinthians 4:4 - In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I think of it more akin to being Godā€™s image in that Jesus behaves exactly consistent with God. Heā€™s an ā€˜imageā€™ of God in that way.

Gobekli Tepe, 11,500 years ago built by Hunter gatherers pre-agriculture.

image

image

2 Likes

Thanks for asking, @AJRoberts .
No; I 'm not just speaking about ā€œmore knowledgeable,ā€ but about those who, in Adam, now possessed the morally accountable awareness and active guilt of the ā€œknowledge of good and evil,ā€ having opposed a direct commandment of God in disobedience (ā€œthou shalt not eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evilā€) in order to illegitimately gain it.
Humanity prior to this, Romans 5 says, was not exactly ā€œsinless,ā€ but ā€œwhere there is no law, sin is not imputedā€ --these were the ones who, in Romans 5, had not (yet) sinned in the likeness of Adam.
I see a change, not only in status, but in moral reasoning capacity and accountability in Adam and Eve and in their lineage --not to mention in their mood, rapidly souring interpersonal relations, etc. having abrogated the ā€œimage of Godā€ within them.
It is a spiritual death towards God that begins to greatly work against Godā€™s good intentions for them in the first place, that will indeed necessitate the atoning sacrifice offered in Jesus.
Judgement, tempered with mercy, will now have to deal with the worsening situation.

1 Like

Good point, Patrick. But Gobekli Tepe is an anomaly that has the scientific community baffled for a reason. Because itā€™s such a break from the norm. This signifies how different this behavior is.

Personally I equate Gobekli Tepe to interactions only really alluded to vaguely and briefly in Genesis when it depicts God showing the Gen1 humans ā€œseed-bearing plantsā€. If I remember correctly it was determined genetically that this site is the origin of emmer wheat domestication.

But I of course canā€™t know if that connection to Genesis is legitimate for sure. Just my take.

Guy, it seems to me, and I may be wrong about my impression, but are you suggesting that pre-Adamite humans (still adamah) are also 1) Homo sapiens sapiens and 2) in the image of God and 3) less violent toward each other and creation than fallen Adam and his descendants who are also in the image of God but now marred and in broken covenant? Not trying to confuse the situation, but these seem to be points youā€™ve raised and I want to make sure Iā€™m understanding you correctly. I wonder on what basis you or Jeremy C. might make the claims that pre-fall humans (outside of Adamā€™s lineage or the garden) are in any way less violent? That seems sheer speculation, but Iā€™m willing to be corrected on my assessment thus far. The explanation you offer here is specific to Adam and seems reasonable theologically from the biblical text, but it doesnā€™t address the questions Iā€™ve just raised. So any further clarity there would be helpful.

Before farming ā€¦
ā€œit is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fightingā€¦ All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace.ā€ - Archaeologist WJ Perry

ā€œFor the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began, there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all.ā€ - Anthropologist Richard Gabriel

Farming age ā€¦
ā€œthe prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolutionā€¦despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic.ā€ -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian

"There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gather era. Graves donā€™t contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns arenā€™t situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls.- Steve Taylor, The Fall

Though this view isnā€™t without opposition ā€¦