Human Origins

Thank you for reading maybe someday some one will have a better answer !

There are two creation stories in Genesis, and each has different problems in respect of the rock cycle. However, there is one partial solution that works for both creation stories - neither actually states that God created the earth itself, or over what timespan. In the first story (Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a - up to first sentence of 2:4) there was a pre-existing watery chaos. The ocean was already present and a wind moved across the surface. The seas rested on the dry land, which appeared on day 3 when God gathered the waters together. The second story (Genesis 2:4b to 2:25) says there was pre-existing dry land, but God had yet to make it rain for plants to grow. A spring arose and God took some moist clay and made Adam. It may seem surprising that, in both creation stories, the basics were already there - the waters, the dry land, the wind and therefore the air. Many experts in Hebrew have carefully examined the texts and confirm that this is what they say. The biblical creations were not ex nihilo. In either case, the geological evolution of the earth could be said to have occurred before the biblical creation, thus making either account somewhat more plausible than it otherwise would be.

The first creation account says that God's creation took just six days, although some do argue that the word day should not be taken literally and could mean a longer period of time. Be that as it may, there is no reason for this account to be regarded as occurring only a few thousand years ago, as is the case with the second account. Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) explains that we must scrupulously avoid reading into either story any facts or notions taken from the other. Of course, there are related scientific problems with this story, including that the sun, moon and stars are younger than the earth.

The second creation account ties in with the biblical genealogy of Adam and Eve, and their descendants, thus limiting God's creation to having taken place around 4000 BCE. Fossil evidence associated with the rock cycle makes this creation account much more difficult to support than the first one.

The rock cycle is proven scientifically, so the question is whether it is reasonable also to believe in the Genesis account of creation. Probably, the answer is no, although it is possible to rationalise Genesis to gloss over some of its difficulties.

Additional Answer:

The Creation Account in Genesis may have more to it than previously thought. This comes about by translating the infinitive, 'to be' from the usual 'was' to 'became' - quite proper according to some of my Jewish friends. Today, this idea has come to be known as the 'Gap Theory' and would explain not only the rock cycles and current dating of them, but also dinosaurs and Universal nothingness except for the Earth. The only caution is that this is theory, not known or stated fact - no one in a physical sense was there in the beginning.

A major dividing line between the sciences and Genesis is the fact that many Judeo-Christians maintain the Earth is about 6000 years old. But is this truly what the Bible says/infers or is the Earth many millions of years old?

The first two verses of the Bible are critical in this discussion. "The Genesis prologue presents those historical truths which are the necessary presuppositions for the valid pursuit of human knowledge." (The New Bible

Commentary: Revised, p. 81). Now, let's take a fresh look at Genesis 1:1-2 that says, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth WAS

without form, and void.' Does God create 'without form (tohu)' and void (bohu)? In Isaiah 45:18 it states, 'For thus says the LORD Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited.' Our Father is very declarative in His statement that He does not create in vain and being without form and void is just that - fully uninhabitable. Also, in Job 38:7, we read, 'When the morning stars (angels) sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy (before Lucifer's rebellion). So what happened or is Isaiah 45:18 in error and God does create in confusion?

Currently there are some scholars who propose that Genesis 1:2 should be translated, 'Now the earth BECAME without form, and void. The Hebrew word for this verb 'to be' is hayah and in Genesis 19:26 it is translated became in describing Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt. This seems to fit well into David's Psalm 104:30 which states, 'You set forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You RENEW the face of the earth.'

Some scholars would then argue that translating 'hayah'as became and not was came about recently to become more in line with the recent geologic and

astronomic findings. But this would be very wrong as nearly 2000 years ago, Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest Aramaic version of the O.T., translated Gen. 1:2 as 'and the earth was laid waste. The original language left them to understand that something had occurred that had 'laid waste' and they interpreted this as destruction (Fall of Lucifer ending the Rule of Angels). Even the early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254 AD), in his commentary, 'De Principiis,' explains regarding Gen. 1:2 that the original earth had been 'cast downwards.' (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).

So these Scriptures and secular examples, though not complete, show us that the idea of an interval between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late writer, Arthur Custance, who wrote in his book 'Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaningof Genesis 1:2, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulation in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is , on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions." (1970, p. 7)

Given the above, it becomes a bit clearer how we may consider the Earth to be far older than many strict religionist believe. There appears to have been an 'Age of Angels' before there was the current Age of Man and his/her relationship with their Creator. The Earth may indeed be 10s of millions of years old while the timeline for mankind is much, much shorter. Noted Archbishop Ussher once calculated the start of mankind to 4004 BC from Scriptural genealogies.

I can give you several sentences.

• Homo sapiens is the Latin name for human beings.
• Homo sapiens survived when Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis did not.
• The archaeologist studied ancient Homo sapiensremains.