Ancient Sapiens & Sapiens Squared: Using Theory To Render Fact Part Two

Understanding depends on how you see things.

Continued from Part One...

From an archeological - archeology being a science - perspective, I wonder if the Neolithic Revolution depicts the time sapiens (mankind animals) intermingled with modern man.

I'm going to follow this secular idea to a logical end by sharing a possible interpretation of the Genesis account regarding humanity as known today.

I will include ideas from the Biblical standpoint and also the secular stand point in continuing an effort to arrive at a syncretist supposition.

Some people avoid syncretism and desire not to blend ideas and terms.

I think refusing to think outside-the-box sometimes limits our overall understanding of not only ourselves but the world as we currently understand it.

This is where the creation vs evolution discussion can be frustrating from both points of view, and it shouldn't be.

Some fear losing a 'hold' of their identity or contaminating their belief system with other ideas.

This fear exists in both the creationists and evolutionists camp, and again it shouldn't be.

I posit, and request from the reader to consider, a fluid concept of the creation account regarding the terms 'mankind / humankind' as compared to the term 'man' in conceptualizing what archeology has to offer and what God had in mind and allowed happen.

In Genesis, some argue there is a single account regarding humans and / or man.

Others argue there are two accounts regarding humans and / or man.

Scholars have written quite a lot about how the two are the same, or different, or written at different times, and so on.

In expressing my thoughts, my hope is stirring thoughtfulness and further the discussion between creation and evolution...and hopefully encourage a further resolve.

Consider how chapter one uses the term humankind and chapter two the term man (or variances depending on your translation, with the Hebrew also detailing this expression of terms).

Some interpret the terms 'mankind / humankind' and 'man' to be synonymous.

Are they synonymous or is it possible they may be different?

For the sake of imagination as mentioned in this article's first part, I suggest momentarily thinking about two separate accounts depicting two different creations of humanity...in speaking to what evolution points to man's ancestors.

I personally do not believe 'we' are children of animals or monkeys...far from it.

The ancient Hebrew seems to express different terms and seems to portray two different identifications.

The first account mentions 'male' and 'female', while the second uses 'man' and 'woman'.

Consider how they appear in textual order and how they're expressed in the early chapters of Genesis.

In theorizing a possible distinction between the appearance of humankind and man on the earth, I aim to interpret freely in highlighting a possible distinction between the terms 'mankind' and 'man'.

Again, I am interpreting freely.

Chapter one proclaims that God made mankind in His image and likeness...and there is much interpretation regarding what this means; some leaning to a literal view and others more metaphorical.

I am sure some will disagree with what is going to follow, but please bear with me.

Notice further in chapter five this use again of mankind, referencing mankind as male and female and again the mention of Adam and his sons and how those sons bore Adam's likeness and Adam's image.

Notice the animals are referenced as male and female and kinds, while Adam and his progeny is not referred to in this manner.

Is it possible there were two versions of mankind; the previous bipedal sapiens (from then on the hunter-gatherers) and modern man (from then until now the farmers)?

I ask this to include the scientific discussion...but would this idea contradict Genesis?

If mankind being made in God's likeness, it may be disagreeable.

What could be agreeable is the likeness speaks to an observational interpretation (an animal walking upright, like man).

What is agreeable to an archeological point of view is that sapiens, and previous adaptations, were hunter-gatherers, perhaps loosely labeled Neanderthal and other terms.

Continued in Part Three.