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

Through respected dialogue can perceived differences be clearly resolved.

Continued from Part Two.

A major difference between the hominids, sapiens and modern man (modern man scientifically labeled Homo sapiens sapiens or, my label: Sapiens Squared) was the manner of food acquisition, among other definitives.

Archeology states the various sapiens picked and gathered and migrated to new places following seasonal changes (like the animals), while Sapiens Squared were typically sedentary and farmed food; tilling the ground, eventually developing into civilizations.

Both traversed the face of the earth while the Sapiens Squared built communities around food production, something the previous sapiens never fully developed.

Sapiens Squared built hierarchy and order which gave way to greater development.

Could this be what Genesis may touch upon in chapter one?

Could Genesis chapter one state that a particular man-kind (the hominids and sapiens, several 'kinds' of humans) were first created as male and female as expressed and sent to spread across the earth as archeological findings and dates show?

Could Genesis then mention in chapter two a later creation, that is 'man' / Adam (made from the ground's dust, which contained all the genetic codes of prior life forms)?

Notice the Genesis narrative in chapter one shows God speaking reality, things and life into existence, with sequence '“let there be”... and there was' repeating.

This coincides with science's everything coming from and out nothing (the singularity) theory.

The account regarding 'man' (Adam) says that while the world was watered by springs, there was no man to work the ground.

Archeology says that Sapiens Squared are the ones who began farming, not the hominids or sapiens kinds before them.

Coincidentally, archeology and history points to the region of the first civilization (fertile crescent) based on evidence of food production and organization (not hunter gathering).

According to both Genesis and history, there are rivers named Euphrates and Tigris within the fertile crescent.

This is cited in Genesis as where the Garden of Eden existed.

Perhaps these rivers were named after Noah's flood, considering the Garden's location having been lost, or disappeared, or hidden away after the flood, or the landscape having changed due to billions of tons of water, or perhaps these rivers (or their general location) were somehow recognized after the waters subsided....or perhaps something else.

Either way, the Genesis account regarding those river's names preceded history's recollections, and there they are named... in the fertile crescent, where archeology says man developed in a major way.

According to the mention of the rivers (Genesis and history), it could be allowed that the farmers originated near where the first signs of agriculture are historically found (the fertile crescent).

To bridge the argumentative gap between creation and evolution, it could be allowed that the series of hominids and sapiens did in fact 'originate' in Africa as archeologists argue, while it is likely Sapiens Squared appeared elsewhere (within the fertile crescent), with some of the Squared traveling into Africa.

Both schools of thought point to the same location where man flourished and developed organized capacities, and here is a bridged agreement.

Archeology and science looks back at the past, but notice the Genesis account preceded and explains in prescient terms what has usually been taken for granted, or dismissed as myth, or spited as a target to disprove.

Yet the fact stands that one preceded the other - the Genesis account came before scientific ideas.

To mention modernly-perceived times and dates, I think modern man is not as old as scientific minds would theorize...but much younger.

Certainly man is much older than the popular 6,000 years religious interpretation of times in Genesis, but not as old as the hundreds of thousands of years of science (the age given to Sapiens Squared when including those humanlike sapiens), but somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 years.

The theories of sapiens being ancestors of all Sapiens Squared blends and confuses the dates.

This list of fossils and their estimated dates along with images may provide an idea of genetic development, change, blending with one type of humankind with another.

Looking at the list of humankind fossils, as patterns are found in nature and depicted explicitly and implicitly in the Bible, is it possible God as brought forth various 'times' with mankind?

Is it possible that instead of a single harvest at the end of this age, God had harvested the earth hundreds of times before in several ways?

We read this in science regarding the loss of dinosaurs...so why not also with other life forms and those who precede the Sapiens Squared?

Much how archeology finds evidence of lost knowledge from previously somewhat sophisticated cultures, and such ideas are lost due to war, destruction, fire or simply the sands of time literally covering them up for centuries, is it possible that God's drama with mankind has been repeated many times?

Sapiens Squared, although resembling prior hominids and sapiens in basic appearance (bone structure) and being relatively close genetically (one created and formed from the dust of the other), is unlike the previous bipedal animals in many overwhelming respects.

Remember that dogs, like fish, birds, and every other mammal or reptile have two eyes.

Is the similarity of two eyes reason to equate them with ourselves?

Only on a physical level, our collective substance...for we are also made of starry substance.

The universe is one manifestation that shares the physical matter as building blocks of things.

Surely all things materially mattered is also built from the same carbon-base and stardust as found in all things on earth, as this article explains.

What about Neanderthal genetic markers found in a small portion of the world's human population?

This is why I 'square' the sapiens term.

There was reason not to intermingle and marry those not of the tribe, as is a continuous theme in Genesis and into Israel's development as a people...and in today's spiritual understanding of not mixing contrary hearts.

Adam and Eve were a unique creation that developed into a unique tribe, with their progeny's tribe becoming a unique group among other groups, and eventually into a people reflecting detailed aspects  of understanding and lifestyle different from neighboring peoples.

I think there may be certain details missing in the Genesis narrative regarding the rest of the earliest families / tribes when considering the humankind and man idea.

How the rest of the family came to be regarding wives for Cain and Seth...is mostly unknown aside from other narratives, Hebrew centric or other tribal.

Perhaps Cain married daughters of sapiens...as did Seth.

Perhaps Cain and Seth married their sisters (daughters of Adam and Eve).

Perhaps only Cain married sapiens, while Seth married a daughter of his parents.

Perhaps the sapiens, although resembling the animals, had features that were humankind and thus similar to the higher image mentioned in chapter one and revealed in Adam.

Interestingly, one of the ancestors of Sapiens Squared labeled by archeologists as the Neanderthal, are said to have had 'spiritual' features...their spirituality being interpreted by the fact they purposely buried their dead.

Whether this similarity was conceptual or eventual or developmental or adopted or purposed because they too were made in God's image...should be considered.

Chapter six in Genesis mentions another specific distinction and use of words.

There we find 'daughters of humans' and 'sons of God'.

Here could be depicted another (or the first) possibility of an intermingle of sorts, with several interpretations and ideas having been popularly shared.

There is no certain detail about this chapter and about what or who exactly were the offspring of these human daughters and the sons of God.

Without pursuing sensationalized ideas which I think are incorrect, I would rather point out the Biblical clarity.

Angels are spirits, not material nor flesh like man.

Angels may manifest in a way visible to man's eyes, in either a supernatural, or reflective of a typical person.

A spirit image is not a physical actuality and it is perceived by the human eye as 'physical', thus what may appear as physical is merely appearance, not factually physical.

Angels are not understood as 'sons' but as servants of God and also servants of those who are to inherit eternal life; the sons of Adam, who were sons of Noah, who were sons of Abraham, and thus became sons of God by faith in Yeshua Christ.

Where the sons of God are mentioned as angels elsewhere in Scripture is a manner of speaking about their spiritual nature, not a literal definition but metaphorical.

The popular idea and interpretation in chapter six is that fallen angels had physical sex with humans.

Considering the Bible's clarity, this is erroneous and borders blasphemy since it would then suggest another quasi spiritual - physical consummation elsewhere.

Spirits influence people, and the depiction in chapter six likely explains humans being influenced (or possessed) by the fallen angels (demons).

Similar to how Eve was tempted and gave into an evil suggestion (as did Cain), perhaps what had become of the daughters of humans was an evil temptation into depravity that opened the door to an intermingle with other kinds of humans.

Since sons of God is a positive description, the negative should be presumably focused on the daughters of humans. regarding who the troubled (or troubling) party was.

Also, would these sons of God, interpreted as fallen angels, be mentioned in an unclear when Genesis already mentioned sin and evil and curses previously?

So it wasn't the spiritual sons of God (fallen angels) who married the daughters of Adam, but perhaps the sons of God (as in Adam's male progeny) that were tempted by the beauty of the daughters of humans (who were forbidden for reasons mentioned herein), making unholy unions.

Since much trouble is mentioned having come from these unions, this I think is a more plausible understanding.

Without further detail in the earlier chapters of Genesis, it is anyone's guess as to the regional dynamics between these (at least) two distinct groups and those living further away.

The mention of the Nephilim has been interpreted as giants and also fallen.

Since much of the Bible cannot be interpreted literally, then a more suggestive meaning should be considered.

These may have been those who like giants of any time have caused trouble upon others through their massive influence over society, their power, their violence...or like we understand people who have fallen into depravity, the fallen influence one may cause another with (causing others to fall and be like them).

This is likely the outcome of the unions that came from these sons of God and daughters of humans.

If it speaks to literal giants, perhaps there was an inter- and outer-breeding that led to greater size as we understand is possible (and has been done) with certain animals to achieve such a desired result.

Consider what was shared earlier regarding blending of specie.

When the account of the flood with Noah is mentioned with all of humanity / mankind / man being wiped away except for eight persons, perhaps there was a biological remnant of Neanderthal (or a humankind) present in one of the wives of the sons of Noah.

If the Genesis account is adhered to, this would have to be the fact.

After the flood, man / humanity is mentioned in a synonymous manner...and this agrees with the scientific theories regarding humanity's detailed genetic development into today's modern man.

Chapter four mentions Cain marrying someone unnamed and not traced to any particular lineage.

Again, some fine details are not mentioned in the narrative style of Genesis' early chapters.

Were these other women also children of Adam and Eve, or partially, or wholly sapiens, or...?

If from Adam and Eve, would genetic mutation have been an issue between Adam and Eve's marrying one another?

Or is today's issue of consanguineous mating a much later development in humanity genetically speaking?

Were genetic mutations (and thus sibling marriage disastrous in a single generation) evident if science were to consider Adam and Eve being created from the collective genome of the world, and then procreating the first generation purely from their respective loins?

Perhaps humanity developed genetic mutations due to breeding with other mankinds.

Perhaps genetic mutation occurred after Adam's time (or perhaps after that first generation of siblings prior and second generation of cousins).

Perhaps the daughters of humans were identified as those from outside Adam's direct lineage through Seth, and were those from Cain's lineage.

Perhaps Cain's progeny devolved (degenerated) due to depravity (fallen spiritual influence) leading to further descriptions mentioned in chapter six.

Perhaps the men of renowned / heroes of old were the more violent descendants of Cain and his child Lamech and these became tyrants who conquered portions of the farmer tribespeople from Adam's and Seth's descendants.

Hero is referenced positively when speaking of a hero we may admire, but can also be spoken of in regards to what other people may have honored as a hero.

The same can be said regarding famous people (renowned); they could have been famous for a variety of exploits, not particularly positive for all people, but maybe for only one group.

The Nephilim are not mentioned to be siding with the sons of God or the daughters of humans, but simply that they existed during this time.

This context is usually read descriptively as being one in the same, which I am not sure that is what is messaged.

Perhaps those who lived by force, with Cain being an early example, were similar to depraved tyrants throughout history...and were heroes and renowned to only the powerful communities.

Patterns repeat, much how evil has its usual patterns and sometimes predictable manners.

Perhaps the descendants of Cain that eventually developed musical instruments and made tools out of metals were initial patterns for other fallen beings to influence humanity in later times.

Music and tools can be used for both honorable or nefarious purposes, as with almost any other 'thing'; music to lament sorrow or to encourage instigate the battle cry, tools made of metal to plow a field or to plow through another human being.

Perhaps chapter six is an early example of unequally yolked unions that caused much havoc upon the earth then and still today.

Perhaps that is representing the spiritual battle manifested on the physical plane.

Perhaps the two depictions in Genesis chapter one and two also speak to us (modern man, sons of Adam) and our struggle in navigating this world's temptations and ambiguity in people, like how Abel had no idea what Cain had in store when inviting him out to the field.

Perhaps there are things one will never know for certain regarding Genesis's early narrations, but what is a certainty is that Genesis came before man's theories and study of things mostly guessed at.