The First Humans

[rogue06]

That was a question in the Opening Post. Ansgar Seraph thought he could hijack the debate by telling us that there is no question about how we define human.

Magellan

"Hijack the debate"? Really?

[magellan004]

But how do YOU define human?

First of all I would try to avoid labels that beg the OP question (eg Homo Spapiens implies evolution). Descriptions are netter than labels. I realise that all definitions are circular in some way. Anyway - I would define human the way dictionaries define human.

Of, relating to, or characteristic of people
A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal
self-awareness, rationality, and sapience, are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a
man or woman

Magellan

[Ansgar Seraph]

Well, all right, then.

Oxford English Dictionary:

human, adj. and n.

A. adj.

1.

a. Of the nature of the human race; that is a human, or consists of human beings; belonging to the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo.

B. n.

1. A human being, a person; a member of the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo.

You were saying?

—Sam

[JimL]

I think how you define "human" is crucial here. If it means possessing a soul then they would represent the first and only humans.

If I am not missing something, if I am interpreting correctly, I think what the passage describes is that the physical body itself is the soul which becomes a living breathing body, not that an immaterial soul is added unto it.

[DuraGizer]

First of all I would try to avoid labels that beg the OP question (eg Homo Spapiens implies evolution). Descriptions are netter than labels. I realise that all definitions are circular in some way. Anyway - I would define human the way dictionaries define human.

Of, relating to, or characteristic of people
A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal
self-awareness, rationality, and sapience, are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a
man or woman

Magellan

So, does that include Homo Erectus? What about Neanderthals? Could Adam, Eve, and any of their direct descendents have belonged to those species? If your answer is "no" to any of that, why?

[magellan004]

So, does that include Homo Erectus? What about Neanderthals? Could Adam, Eve, and any of their direct descendents have belonged to those species? If your answer is "no" to any of that, why?

My answer is No, No, No.
People are not 'monkeys'.
When you say 'Species' I presume you mean 'that kind of animal', 'that sort of animal'. No. Humans are humans. 'Species' has become tainted because some people assume it automatically means evolution.

The reason- Monkeys don't give birth to people. It just doesn't happen. Monkeys don't even give birth to Half Human- Half Ape.

If it happened I'm, sure we'll hear about it.

Magellan

[mrsticky005]

I think some of you are missing the point. This isn't about what you or the Oxford Dictionary defines as human.
It's what the Bible defines as human and if the Bible and Science are even talking about the same thing.

I think rogue06 had an interesting point of "having a soul" possibly being a defining factor of being human.

Now is there any evidence that the Bible takes this position that a soul is required for a human to be a human?

[Ansgar Seraph]

I think some of you are missing the point. This isn't about what you or the Oxford Dictionary defines as human.
It's what the Bible defines as human and if the Bible and Science are even talking about the same thing.

I think rogue06 had an interesting point of "having a soul" possibly being a defining factor of being human.

Now is there any evidence that the Bible takes this position that a soul is required for a human to be a human?

If you're asking whether Adam was the first human or if he could have been a more advanced human that those who existed beforehand, it's not missing the point to run down how it's a complex question. How we define "human" is clearly going to be of tantamount importance in answering the question. To that end, we don't see any anatomical differences between humans 25,000 years ago and humans 200,000 years ago so Adam could not have been the first member of Homo sapiens. We also know that our species interbred with at least one other human group, Homo neanderthalensis. From the evolutionary and taxonomic standpoint, therefore, Adam would not have been the first human and he would not have been more anatomically advanced than other humans. That narrows the possible answers to your question quite a bit.

If we accept the premises above, then we're looking at Adam being a special human because he was given a special relationship with God. Some OECs and TEs describe this as Adam being the first human with a soul. This claim, however, appears to me to be an arbitrary interpretation of the text and out of sync with how the authors of Genesis would have understood the body/soul connection. For them, if I'm remembering correctly, the soul was the body's animation, rather than being a separate substance.

If one insists on a historical Adam, I think that it is sufficient to claim that Adam had a special relationship with God. Speculating about whether he had a distinct soul or not ends up with us just spinning our wheels. But if we're just talking about what factors make us human, we're going to have leave souls out of it; Christians are hardly the only religion to believe in the existence of souls. Some religions believe that every animal possesses a soul; others believe that all things possesses souls. There's no way that we can say Adam was the first being to possess a soul without making it an arbitrary factor.

—Sam

[phank]

I think some of you are missing the point. This isn't about what you or the Oxford Dictionary defines as human.
It's what the Bible defines as human and if the Bible and Science are even talking about the same thing.

I think rogue06 had an interesting point of "having a soul" possibly being a defining factor of being human.

Now is there any evidence that the Bible takes this position that a soul is required for a human to be a human?

Well, once again, humans as we know them have not had any close relatives for at least 35,000 years. Since that's almost 30,000 years prior to the first recorded human history, it's pretty safe to say that science and the bible are talking about the same sorts of critters, who are all pretty much just like us.

[mrsticky005]

If you're asking whether Adam was the first human or if he could have been a more advanced human that those who existed beforehand, it's not missing the point to run down how it's a complex question. How we define "human" is clearly going to be of tantamount importance in answering the question. To that end, we don't see any anatomical differences between humans 25,000 years ago and humans 200,000 years ago so Adam could not have been the first member of Homo sapiens. We also know that our species interbred with at least one other human group, Homo neanderthalensis. From the evolutionary and taxonomic standpoint, therefore, Adam would not have been the first human and he would not have been more anatomically advanced than other humans. That narrows the possible answers to your question quite a bit.

If we accept the premises above, then we're looking at Adam being a special human because he was given a special relationship with God. Some OECs and TEs describe this as Adam being the first human with a soul. This claim, however, appears to me to be an arbitrary interpretation of the text and out of sync with how the authors of Genesis would have understood the body/soul connection. For them, if I'm remembering correctly, the soul was the body's animation, rather than being a separate substance.

If one insists on a historical Adam, I think that it is sufficient to claim that Adam had a special relationship with God. Speculating about whether he had a distinct soul or not ends up with us just spinning our wheels. But if we're just talking about what factors make us human, we're going to have leave souls out of it; Christians are hardly the only religion to believe in the existence of souls. Some religions believe that every animal possesses a soul; others believe that all things possesses souls. There's no way that we can say Adam was the first being to possess a soul without making it an arbitrary factor.

—Sam

Again, you're missing the point. This ISN'T about what any of us think what a human is. Rather it is about what
the Bible says human is. From a BIBLICAL definition of human, would Adam be the first human? Or is there actually
humans as fitting in with the Biblical definition that would actually proceed Adam? If that is the case what
does this mean for Genesis? Why were these pre-Adam humans not mentioned if there were any in the first place?
What is the nature of the Book of Genesis? What is the difference if any between a scientific human and a biblical human?
And finally is Genesis erroneous in claiming Adam as the first human?

To do this we need to

1. Establish a Biblical definition of human
2. Compare this definition to what modern science considers the first humans
2a. If these can be defined as Biblical human then why are they not mentioned? Or are they? and what does it mean?
2b. If not, why not?

3. When was Adam? Since this may not even be possible to do we're gonna have to just hypothesize.
If Adam is before the first humans according to modern science what does it mean? If after what does it mean?


Now it's fine to try and figure out what science or even what we think a human is but the point here
is to figure out what the Bible thinks is human. If we insist on using our own definitions when the
Bible may actually mean something else then we can't honestly criticize it.

And no, I'm not trying to twist and mold the Bible so it's more scientifically accurate or something.
That's the opposite of what I want to do. I want to see what the Bible actually says, analyze it
and see if it's internally and externally consistent.

[pancreasman]

Again, you're missing the point. This ISN'T about what any of us think what a human is. Rather it is about what
the Bible says human is. From a BIBLICAL definition of human, would Adam be the first human? Or is there actually
humans as fitting in with the Biblical definition that would actually proceed Adam? If that is the case what
does this mean for Genesis? Why were these pre-Adam humans not mentioned if there were any in the first place?
What is the nature of the Book of Genesis? What is the difference if any between a scientific human and a biblical human?
And finally is Genesis erroneous in claiming Adam as the first human?

To do this we need to

1. Establish a Biblical definition of human
2. Compare this definition to what modern science considers the first humans
2a. If these can be defined as Biblical human then why are they not mentioned? Or are they? and what does it mean?
2b. If not, why not?

3. When was Adam? Since this may not even be possible to do we're gonna have to just hypothesize.
If Adam is before the first humans according to modern science what does it mean? If after what does it mean?


Now it's fine to try and figure out what science or even what we think a human is but the point here
is to figure out what the Bible thinks is human. If we insist on using our own definitions when the
Bible may actually mean something else then we can't honestly criticize it.

And no, I'm not trying to twist and mold the Bible so it's more scientifically accurate or something.
That's the opposite of what I want to do. I want to see what the Bible actually says, analyze it
and see if it's internally and externally consistent.

I would suggest the idea of 'defining' a term is not something the Biblical writers would have been aware of or interested in.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Again, you're missing the point. This ISN'T about what any of us think what a human is. Rather it is about what
the Bible says human is. From a BIBLICAL definition of human, would Adam be the first human? Or is there actually
humans as fitting in with the Biblical definition that would actually proceed Adam? If that is the case what
does this mean for Genesis? Why were these pre-Adam humans not mentioned if there were any in the first place?
What is the nature of the Book of Genesis? What is the difference if any between a scientific human and a biblical human?
And finally is Genesis erroneous in claiming Adam as the first human?


To do this we need to

1. Establish a Biblical definition of human
2. Compare this definition to what modern science considers the first humans
2a. If these can be defined as Biblical human then why are they not mentioned? Or are they? and what does it mean?
2b. If not, why not?

3. When was Adam? Since this may not even be possible to do we're gonna have to just hypothesize.
If Adam is before the first humans according to modern science what does it mean? If after what does it mean?


Now it's fine to try and figure out what science or even what we think a human is but the point here
is to figure out what the Bible thinks is human. If we insist on using our own definitions when the
Bible may actually mean something else then we can't honestly criticize it.

So you're asking conflicting questions; you ask about what the Bible says is "human" and then ask about whether there are humans that pre-date Adam. This will necessarily entail a discussion about taxonomy and what science tells us about H. sapeiens that existed prior to the time period Adam supposedly lived. According to the Bible, "Adam is human" and "Adam is a member of H. sapiens" would be equivalent statements. As I wrote above, there doesn't seem to be any non-arbitrary way to work around that.

I'm trying hard not to miss your point here but if you are asking for the definition of "human," whether that definition is biblical or not, we're going to be dealing with H. sapiens and we're going to be dealing with what it means, by definition, to be human.

If, however, you're trying to find out what makes humans have a special relationship with God, there is nothing that necessitates linking that relationship to our physical bodies. In Genesis, God breathes a spirit into Man to bring him to life. That spirit, that essence, that soul — whatever you want to call it — can be seen as the special link between God and man but it doesn't hinge on the physical makeup of humans. In that case, worrying over the definition of "human" wouldn't

And no, I'm not trying to twist and mold the Bible so it's more scientifically accurate or something.
That's the opposite of what I want to do. I want to see what the Bible actually says, analyze it
and see if it's internally and externally consistent.

I'm sure that no one would jump to that conclusion. Like pancreasman writes above, though, it's unlikely that the authors of Genesis would have been too concerned about the definition of human. They knew what humans were and they certainly wouldn't have considered that humans had animal ancestors. So trying to determine whether the concept of "human" incorporates anything other than post-Adam H. sapiens according to purely biblical standards seems unnecessary. If you're asking about "personhood" rather than "humanity," I think that is a concept that can be extended using solely biblical sources, since Christ was an intellectual being before He descended into human form.

—Sam

[shunyadragon]

My answer is No, No, No.
People are not 'monkeys'.
When you say 'Species' I presume you mean 'that kind of animal', 'that sort of animal'. No. Humans are humans. 'Species' has become tainted because some people assume it automatically means evolution.

The reason- Monkeys don't give birth to people. It just doesn't happen. Monkeys don't even give birth to Half Human- Half Ape.

If it happened I'm, sure we'll hear about it.

Magellan

So far no one except you have mentioned monkeys. Science and the ToE has never proposed that monkeys give birth to people or half-people. Where do you get these erroneous superstitous ideas?

Sounds like a proposal for a grade D science fiction movie.

[phank]

This thread is starting to get a little strange, because it juxtaposes scientific understandings of evolution with one culture's creation tales (as modified from those of a different culture, but whatever...) This is kind of like juxtaposing scientific understandings of physics with the abilities of D.C. Comics' Superman, and asking whether physiological musculature could support leaping over tall buildings in a single bound, and if not, pondering whether Superman is really a "man" as we understand the term.

Ultimately, both Adam and Superman inhabit different universes from ours, and these universes are not compatible. Counting how many inhabitants of imaginary universes can dance on the head of a pin seems kind of pointless, so to speak.

[magellan004]

So far no one except you have mentioned monkeys. Science and the ToE has never proposed that monkeys give birth to people or half-people. Where do you get these erroneous superstitous ideas?

Sounds like a proposal for a grade D science fiction movie.

You have got to be kidding!
Do you think if you use 'Ape' instead of 'Monkey' you get a different result? !!!!!!
The fable of evolution is the most preposterous balderdash in the history of science-fiction.


Magellan