Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?

Nice but totally irrelevant to the question. The issue is not whether Adam could speak, but where in Genesis it says no other animals could speak. We know that Genesis does say that the serpent could speak.And yet again, what does that have to do with whether Adam and Eve were Homo sapiens or whether they even existed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

jar

​

What does that have to do with whether or not they were Homo sapiens or if they even existed?

---

Excellent point, and one I have been trying to impress. Genesis does not promote or negate a prototype for modern man. It is silent on this issue, while only declaring a distinction based on speech, this too via a special and deliberating reading of the texts as the applicable distinction; it is affirmed by the separation mode - all animals (without speech) are listed as one 'kind'. The latter kind includes all the species breakdowns applied to animals (canine, feline, etc), including any proposed protypes for modern humans - as separated from speech humans - without any contradictions to the text.The issue of variance between creationalists and evolutionists is with one facet, namely cross-species. But IMHO, even cross-species can fit into Genesis, because it is not negated or supported. For sure, cross-species within a 'kind' is actually promoted here - namely that a seed of one kind (read, all the species nominated by science today) can follow the seed of all life forms within that kind.I don't see the problem as cross-species per se, because speech endowed humans can be seen as such 'after' they evolved to this stage. The issue which does impact is that of 'A seed shall follow its own kind, with the ability to transmit (inherit) all factors noted by darwin; here, the factor of transmissions, which darwin allocates to speciation, is from the 'seed', according to Genesis. This says that speech humans are derived from speech humans. But there is a twist here: Genesis does not specifically reject that a speech human could not have evolved from a previous life form, as portrayed in Darwin. The latter is a position taken by Creationalists - but another reading of the text can argue that conclusion.Most Creationists assume a view or belief, that if life was 'created', instead of evolved, that evolution is thereby out of the picture. But this may not be correct, but I'm not sure - it comes down to correct textual assessment against a belief, with genesis being wrongly compromised. I say this because all the statements in Genesis are vindicated only via science, math and history, and all works of creation have at their base a logical, scientific mechanism and engineering structure.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.