Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 186
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;536543]Sure but your pointing to a gene reading that would be specific to YEC.

    [Quote]
    No, the gene reading would be specific to any claims that the Genesis was true. That includes some YECs but those beliefs are not exclusive to just them. 50% of Christians believe it, as do some, likely higher, percentage of Muslims and Jews.

    The only way to understand the bible other than YEC is one of Allegory and there is simply no justification to conclude as you have done from that view.
    No, I think it could be understood literally without going as far as the YEC.

    As an allegory, then that exposes other weaknesses such as the virgin birth or Jesus' resurrection, which as far as I know is taken literally. Or are some claims supposed to be allegorical and others not? And how is it objectively decided?

  2. #22
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    He certainly didn't combine two separate living beings together, which is what the genetics is saying.
    Interestingly, this is the kind of interpretation that comes when one reads the book of Genesis like the YEC might, or more accurately, the unstudied YEC. Your interpretation has fallen victim to the same error made by others, you are reading it, in english, with no understanding of the words used, no understanding of the contemporary or liturgical meaning and then applying what you want to it.

    Lets delve a bit deeper. Genesis 2 discusses the creation of humans. In that chapter, God gathers together the "dust" (hebrew: `aphar), which is often used to mean building material, dust, dirt, formative material, excess material, stuff lying around, etc.

    He also creates a being with a living soul, by breathing into it. You are assuming Neandertal had a living soul that it would have been a being in that sense, but that would have been absurd to the Old Testament writers. The Old Testament goes out of its way to impart the message that there is a distinction between mankind and all other life.

    So your error revolves, primarily, around not understanding what is meant by `aphar and by assuming a parity between human beings and animals prior to human beings. Both concepts are non-biblical and make no sense in light of the text.

    If we were to make a more transliterative translation of the verse, we would get:

    "And Lord God made a new form (yatsar) man of materials present (`aphar) on the earth ('adamah) breathed the spirit (nĕshamah) life man became living soul (nephesh)."

    Not a very good translation because it forms the literal meaning, but loses all the prose of the verse. That said it is a bit more accurate. God takes materials on the earth (of which clearly Neandertal was one) and gathers them together and imparts a soul on the new form (man).

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I would say it's not just 'some' Christians, I'd be surprised if it's not a large majority.
    And apparently a large number of atheists as well ;-).

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    That the Bible is not infallible.
    Not quite, since you are arguing against a strawman interpretation of the text, then it would be that interpretation that is defeated, not the underlying text.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, the gene reading would be specific to any claims that the Genesis was true. That includes some YECs but those beliefs are not exclusive to just them. 50% of Christians believe it, as do some, likely higher, percentage of Muslims and Jews.
    Not at all, there is no reason to think, according to gen, that man did not intermingle with another "race" and that some of those genes survived to today. Sure we have a blood line of the males, but again if you are not taking a literal reading, then those are just the IMPORTANT males being listed. That would leave a large amount of time and breading not accounted for in the bible, and thus plenty of room to introduce those genes on the male side of that genealogy. Further, Noahs sons wives genealogy isn't included at all and leaves an entire half of the gene pool available at that time to carry it into the population EVEN ON A LITERAL reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, I think it could be understood literally without going as far as the YEC.

    As an allegory, then that exposes other weaknesses such as the virgin birth or Jesus' resurrection, which as far as I know is taken literally. Or are some claims supposed to be allegorical and others not? And how is it objectively decided?
    Fair enough, they could have been literal people and that wasn't something I was trying to speak against.
    The rest of your objection doesn't seem to be relevant to this topic, or even in serious threat.
    To serve man.

  4. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Which is one good reason, among many, that the Book of Enoch is not included in anyone's divinely inspired scriptures.
    Almost true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
    It is not part of the biblical canon as used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel. It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian group.

    There are a few mostly north African christian sects that have it as part of cannon. It is also the primary source of a good number of popular christian myth making regarding rebel angels and wars in heaven etc... since that is part of its focus.

    It is also very old, included in the dead sea scrolls, referenced in the new testament, and considered cannon by some very early church figures.

    But none the less for the vast majority of Christianity it is no longer considered canonical.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    As an allegory, then that exposes other weaknesses such as the virgin birth or Jesus' resurrection, which as far as I know is taken literally. Or are some claims supposed to be allegorical and others not? And how is it objectively decided?
    The Bible is not a science book. It is a spiritual (text) book. If your question is how does man know what is true, Jesus Christ does address this question.

    ---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I'm a fan of the book of Enoch and the character of Enoch in general.
    What do you like about his character?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  6. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Most biblical literrallism really means: "Literal whenever I want it to be and not where I don't think it is."

    Unless you think the earth is flat and the edge of the sea is guarded my monsters and so forth, a literal interpretation is probably not really what they mean. Folks just have different levels of how much they are willing to accept despite the evidence at available.

    Folks like this will always be with us...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

    ---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What do you like about his character?
    I tend to identify with exceptional characters the ones that break the normal expected rules. Enoch is the fellow that never died and was instead elevated to heaven to walk with God and eventually to become his chief Angel Metatron scribe of heaven (though you have to get into the later and pretty suspect books of Enoch for that) In the actual bible he's just a very mysterious character that instead of dying like all the original linage of Adam was simply transported to heaven directly because he was just that in with God. He didn't have to be redeemed, he just got an E ticket to the luxury box seats. And yet, pretty much nothing is in there about him (probably because it was all in the writings that became the book of Enoch which they decided to leave out).

    The book itself simply has a lot of great elements you find in classic fantasy and the mythology of other religions who's characters I like more. Its got supernatural creatures mucking about with humanity and waging supernatural wars with heaven. Fun stuff.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Let's start analyzing the above interpretation. First there is the logical problem that fallen angels may in some sense "possess" an already existing physical body, but the Bible knows nothing about them having any ability to create a body , or even modify one.
    How were the sodomites going to rape/"know" the two angels if they didn't have bodies?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Most biblical literrallism really means: "Literal whenever I want it to be and not where I don't think it is."

    Unless you think the earth is flat and the edge of the sea is guarded my monsters and so forth, a literal interpretation is probably not really what they mean. Folks just have different levels of how much they are willing to accept despite the evidence at available.

    Folks like this will always be with us...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
    As far as I can tell "flat earth" has nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.

    As for for "literal interpretation" that is pretty much a specific claim toward Genesis. I am not aware of any christian sect that hold the entire bible to be literal.
    To serve man.

  9. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Interestingly, this is the kind of interpretation that comes when one reads the book of Genesis like the YEC might, or more accurately, the unstudied YEC. Your interpretation has fallen victim to the same error made by others, you are reading it, in english, with no understanding of the words used, no understanding of the contemporary or liturgical meaning and then applying what you want to it.
    I certainly can't deny that but I don't see how it needs to be so difficult and abstruse but let's move on ...

    Lets delve a bit deeper. Genesis 2 discusses the creation of humans. In that chapter, God gathers together the "dust" (hebrew: `aphar), which is often used to mean building material, dust, dirt, formative material, excess material, stuff lying around, etc.
    With you so far.


    He also creates a being with a living soul, by breathing into it. You are assuming Neandertal had a living soul that it would have been a being in that sense, but that would have been absurd to the Old Testament writers. The Old Testament goes out of its way to impart the message that there is a distinction between mankind and all other life.
    Are you saying then that it's possible that Neanderthals were known to the OT writers? I also don't see where it is precluded that Neanderthals were created by God - he might've had another plan for them. So Man may have some kind of exclusivity but that doesn't mean that that other species couldn't have had the same.
    So your error revolves, primarily, around not understanding what is meant by `aphar and by assuming a parity between human beings and animals prior to human beings. Both concepts are non-biblical and make no sense in light of the text.
    They were likely non-biblical because the OT writers likely didn't even know Neanderthals existed but that doesn't mean that they didn't. Don't forget Nephilim were mentioned and a possible candidate.


    If we were to make a more transliterative translation of the verse, we would get:

    "And Lord God made a new form (yatsar) man of materials present (`aphar) on the earth ('adamah) breathed the spirit (nĕshamah) life man became living soul (nephesh)."

    Not a very good translation because it forms the literal meaning, but loses all the prose of the verse. That said it is a bit more accurate. God takes materials on the earth (of which clearly Neandertal was one) and gathers them together and imparts a soul on the new form (man).
    I see so what you're saying here is that's how the Neanderthal DNA got into the human genome.

    And apparently a large number of atheists as well ;-).
    Well, that's not our fault if your religion isn't properly being relayed! It's not you haven't had 2,000 years ;-)



    Not quite, since you are arguing against a strawman interpretation of the text, then it would be that interpretation that is defeated, not the underlying text.
    Only because you have smuggled Neanderthal DNA into the 'dust' which I'm sure you made up!

  10. #30
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    How were the sodomites going to rape/"know" the two angels if they didn't have bodies?
    Who said they didn't have physical bodies? What I fail to see is how the fact that they did have physical bodies works against anything I've said.

    ---------- Post added at 03:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Almost true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
    It is not part of the biblical canon as used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel. It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian group.

    There are a few mostly north African christian sects that have it as part of cannon.
    Two is not "a few".

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    It is also the primary source of a good number of popular christian myth making regarding rebel angels and wars in heaven etc... since that is part of its focus.

    It is also very old, included in the dead sea scrolls, referenced in the new testament, and considered cannon by some very early church figures.

    But none the less for the vast majority of Christianity it is no longer considered canonical.
    I'm not sure I trust Wikipedia as an authority here. For example, the Wiki author, whoever that happens to be, claims:

    "The Book of Enoch was considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4) and by many of the early Church Fathers, such as Athenagoras...etc."

    First off, the Epistle of Barnabas isn't considered part of the Christian canon, so the fact that in Barnabas Enoch is treated as Divinely inspired revelation, assuming it is (which, btw, I don't personally) is neither here nor there regarding now "authoritative" the Early Church Fathers saw it. So I thought I'd take a look at the text of Athenagoras to which the Wiki author directed his (her? their?) readers, which was Athenagoras' chapter 24, in which he writes, in relevant part:

    "CHAP. XXIV.--CONCERNING THE ANGELS AND GIANTS."

    "Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power; and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them by you, and others faithless), so is it among the angels. Some, free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets); these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants. And if something has been said by the poets, too, about the giants, be not surprised at this: worldly Wisdom and divine differ as much from each other as truth and plausibility: the one is of heaven and the other of earth; and indeed, according to the prince of matter,- "We know we oft speak lies that look like troths.""

    While it is fairly clear that here Athenagoras is thinking about Enoch 15 1ff, there is nothing I've seen in this immediate context of Athenagoras' that leads me to believe he believes the Book of Enoch is Divinely inspired revelation. For most sects of Judaism contemporary with Athenagoras evidently did not consider "the prophets" (apart from Moses) as speaking forth Divine revelation, but rather as "editorializing" on God's will for His people, so to speak. So what the author of the Wiki article is basing his/her claim that Athenagoras accepted Enoch as "Scripture" on, is not apparent from either his article or his cited source. So I have no reason to trust his/her opinion on the matter, and therefore no reason to credit your use of him/her as your "support" for the notion the Jews accept Enoch as "scripture".

    And fyi, when I said no one claims the Book of Enoch as "scripture", what I meant is that no group recognizes it as a source for orthodox doctrine, as Divinely inspired revelation. I didn't mean that no one sees it as important at all. What we can say with some confidence is that if there is any dependence between Genesis 6:1-4 and Enoch 15, it is Enoch that depends on Genesis, and not the other way around. For even if we accept the tottering JEPD documentary hypothesis, "J" and "E" are responsible for all of Genesis, and this portion of the Pentateuch is dated to ca. 900 BC, while Enoch dates to ca. 2nd cent. BC to 1st cent. AD.

  11. #31
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I'm not really interested in discussing a Young Earth Creationist story or that Neandertals don't really exist so please don't rebut with those points. But rather, for those Christians that have some belief of science, is Christianity still robust against this alternative Genesis?
    I'm not going to jump into this and get all frisky and debate happy with everyone, but I did think it'd be fun to lob a few verses (since everyone's talking about Genesis here) just for some fun to feed the discussion. With a few quick "off the top of my head with little or no forethought involved" comments and questions.

    Genesis 4:13-26.

    Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15 Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

    17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. 19 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

    23 Lamech said to his wives:


    “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
    you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
    I have killed a man for wounding me,
    a young man for striking me.

    24
    If Cain's revenge is sevenfold,
    then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.”

    25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” 26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.

    So right off the bat, up to this point, aside from the grand view at the end of Ch.1 in Genesis (which refers to creation of mankind in general, the following chapters being much more up close and personal), if we take the position that there were ONLY Adam and Eve and ONLY Cain and the now dead Abel...then who was Cain worried about finding and killing him? Just his parents? Or was he worried that after their next kid grew to be a man he'd have some kind of Hatfield/McCoy like hate-fest for him? So that's 13-16.

    Then in 17 Cain has a wife. The whole "Only the peeps from the Garden" explanation is starting to sound pretty shaky. Then, up to verse 21, it talks about them founding a city, every son finds a wife (from where? WHERE did these people come from!?) Then in 22 we're introduced to Ray Winstone....sort of, the character he played at least, Tubal-Cain. And we're told that by this point, metal-smithing was a thing. So at least by THIS point in Genesis things like farming, herding, hunting, architecture (to build houses), mining (for iron ore), basic geology and chemistry (recognizing ore as distinct and developing a knowledge of how and what to do with it) and metal-working were a thing. Quick aside, the Baghdad batteries? For the world's largest remote. The Sphinx was originally supposed to be watching television. No, I don't care that Babylon and Egypt aren't the same place or all that close together because it's a joke and shame on you for insisting on 100% accuracy for a humorous punchline you joke-Nazi. In any event, let's continue!

    23! Lamech rants from a weird perspective that seems to totally miss his Great-great-great granddad's mark and purpose for it. And it also goes to show just how vicious man has actually become by this point (in like, four generations). Cain shows genuine regret and fear over having killed his brother, at least he does when he gets called out on it (and God has a thing for calling people out). Lamech on the other hand, openly brags about having killed people, one for wounding (probably self defense) and then a second that sounds altogether wrong on every level. "A young man for striking me" So a dude raised a hand against him...and Lamech went full medieval on him?

    Rest of the chapter. Seth is born. He gets a wife. From WHERE!? WHERE are all these women coming from?

    Just a haphazard guess here, but I'd throw it out there that the people they were running into were the Neanderthals who, according to your second link, would've coexisted with them (regardless of a YEC or OEC perspective). As far as us sharing genes with Neanderthals, Genesis also would take care of that with a pretty literal reading because if Seth interbred with a Neanderthal broad, then those genes would've been present in Noah during the great flood, and those genes would've been passed on to us today.

    So, just a cursory, quick throw at it would point to a literal reading of Genesis (either a strict one or a loose literalism) still not really being affected by it too much, except for archaeology actually filling in some of the gaps there. So there's that.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  12. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  13. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by HYDE
    Rest of the chapter. Seth is born. He gets a wife. From WHERE!? WHERE are all these women coming from?
    Not to go off on too much of a tangent, as there is nothing wrong with your response in the context of this thread.
    But one would answer that question as "the other children of Adam not listed by name, that Cain and Able aren't even clearly the first born of Adam and Eve, rather the first to be significant to history and the story of our beginnings. That the thing that sets them apart is the relation to the first Murder, not in relation to birth order. From that stance there is simply no telling from Genesis how many children Adam and Eve had, but we should conclude A LOT, given the fear of Cain and the pointing out that Adam and Eve had "other sons and Daughters".

    ... just a side note and not directly contradictory to what you were saying, just the answer in case you were not aware (as I suspect you may have been making a point).
    To serve man.

  14. Likes cstamford liked this post
  15. #33
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not to go off on too much of a tangent, as there is nothing wrong with your response in the context of this thread.
    But one would answer that question as "the other children of Adam not listed by name, that Cain and Able aren't even clearly the first born of Adam and Eve, rather the first to be significant to history and the story of our beginnings. That the thing that sets them apart is the relation to the first Murder, not in relation to birth order. From that stance there is simply no telling from Genesis how many children Adam and Eve had, but we should conclude A LOT, given the fear of Cain and the pointing out that Adam and Eve had "other sons and Daughters".

    ... just a side note and not directly contradictory to what you were saying, just the answer in case you were not aware (as I suspect you may have been making a point).
    A further important point Mr. Hyde seems to be assuming that is very probably not the case, is that each time it is said that someone begets someone else, it is just one generation. Ancient semitic languages make no distinction between father, grand-father, great-grandfather, etc, with regard to lineage. So when the text says, "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch", it may be the case that Cain's wife actually bore Enoch herself, or it could be the case that she bore some distant ancestor of Enoch's, where all the generations between Cain and Enoch were unworthy of note according to the purposes of the author. We just can't say, lacking any sure way to tell which is best.

    It is extremely difficult, if not impossible to construct a timeline for the early chapters of Genesis before the reader encounters Abram at Ur, an even starting here it is still very speculative and hazardous. It's possible that before we encounter Abram, the chronological "gap" between the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next in the Genesis text is over a thousand years wide, even over ten, or a hundred thousand years wide! How long or short that time gap is depends on what happened that was "historic" from the pov of the author since the last event he related, rather than how wide or narrow the time gap is. Further complicating the possibility of constructing a likely Genesis chronology is the fact that in some instances it is clear the author jumps around; that he is not always concerned to relate events in their chronological order, and from my own meager study I've yet to find a pattern that informs me of a reason the author will more or less follow a temporally linear ordering of events, only to abandon it to relate events at another time and place, and then go back and pick up where he left off. It's clear that in the early chapters of Genesis the author is not trying to write a "history" in any sense in which we understand the word today; that he is, instead, writing what we might more easily think of as a very light on facts, faith based "explanation" for the origin of his readership. It's sort of like Neo-Darwinism in that regard, but with fewer Latin names.

    The Adamic genealogy is almost certainly missing many more generations than it lists, as do other ancient Near-Eastern genealogical lists. A good example here of one that is known to do this is the Sumerian King List. So it is probably more correct to see the names we find in, for example, the Adamic genealogy as the names of dynasties that the author identified for his readers by the name given in the listing. Whether the named individual was the founder of the dynasty that bears his name, or merely the most important individual in that dynasty for some other reason, I don't think can be known with any certainty. I think we have to factor in here that the stories we encounter in Genesis were not made up out of whole cloth by the author who wrote the book, but were rather ancient oral traditions reduced to writing. So it is likely that a very brief mention of an individual or event in the early chapters of Genesis are in the very scanty form that we find them in, because the author was well aware those who read what he wrote would be familiar enough with the material they'd been raised listening to their elders recite from memory for thousands of years, to mentally fill in the blanks, blanks we have no way to fill in today.

    So as to the specific question posed about where do all the women come from in these stories in the first ten and a half chapters of Genesis, we should echo the evolutionists: "The time span covered is so long that the impossible becomes certain!"

  16. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  17. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Once we lose Genesis, then I think the whole religion collapses;
    No it doesn't.

    Some of the core spiritual principles in Genesis are also found in some of the world religions and they are also supported throughout the Bible.

    1. Man was made in the image of God.
    2. Separation from the Creator has consequences that removes the benefits naturally inherent in being created in the image of God.
    3. Separation from our source is a choice.
    Last edited by eye4magic; April 13th, 2014 at 06:48 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  18. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not to go off on too much of a tangent, as there is nothing wrong with your response in the context of this thread.
    But one would answer that question as "the other children of Adam not listed by name, that Cain and Able aren't even clearly the first born of Adam and Eve, rather the first to be significant to history and the story of our beginnings. That the thing that sets them apart is the relation to the first Murder, not in relation to birth order. From that stance there is simply no telling from Genesis how many children Adam and Eve had, but we should conclude A LOT, given the fear of Cain and the pointing out that Adam and Eve had "other sons and Daughters".

    ... just a side note and not directly contradictory to what you were saying, just the answer in case you were not aware (as I suspect you may have been making a point).
    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    A further important point Mr. Hyde seems to be assuming that is very probably not the case, is that each time it is said that someone begets someone else, it is just one generation. Ancient semitic languages make no distinction between father, grand-father, great-grandfather, etc, with regard to lineage. So when the text says, "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch", it may be the case that Cain's wife actually bore Enoch herself, or it could be the case that she bore some distant ancestor of Enoch's, where all the generations between Cain and Enoch were unworthy of note according to the purposes of the author. We just can't say, lacking any sure way to tell which is best.
    I think you guys may have missed the point I was driving for. What I was pointing out was that if you read it as plainly, and literally, we're talking the simplest understanding of it here where what you read is exactly what it means as writ, then there is literally ZERO conflicts with the discovery of Neanderthals living alongside homo sapiens and interbreeding with them. If anything, it just seems to help the account by filling in what otherwise looks like gaps in the narrative.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  19. #36
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    I think you guys may have missed the point I was driving for. What I was pointing out was that if you read it as plainly, and literally, we're talking the simplest understanding of it here where what you read is exactly what it means as writ, then there is literally ZERO conflicts with the discovery of Neanderthals living alongside homo sapiens and interbreeding with them. If anything, it just seems to help the account by filling in what otherwise looks like gaps in the narrative.
    But that doesn't really help fill in any gaps. To do that we'd have to know a great deal more than we do about Neanderthals (there is little solid evidence Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon ever interbred, or how Neanderthals became extinct, if they ever did, or even that they were a distinct species from Cro-Magnon, rather than just another variety of Homo sapiens), and a great deal more about where the gaps are in the early chapters of Genesis. That was my point.

  20. Likes Mr. Hyde liked this post
  21. #37
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Are you saying then that it's possible that Neanderthals were known to the OT writers?
    I'm not sure why that would need to be the case. The term in question just refers to materials. That they would need to be aware of the underlying nature of those materials seems superfluous. If I were to say "Boeing engineers used polymer materials when designing the 787 aircraft." Is that statement untrue because I, Squatch, don't know specifically which polymers were used or how those polymers were constructed?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I also don't see where it is precluded that Neanderthals were created by God
    Why would you think that I am arguing that they weren't? All of the materials referenced in the text were created by God, the universe was created by God. My point was that they are not living souls, which is inherent in the text given that all life is created on earth without the insertion of a living soul, and then the writers specifically call out that as an additional step.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I see so what you're saying here is that's how the Neanderthal DNA got into the human genome.
    My guess is that you are again inferring a type of action that isn't implied. My guess is that you think that I am arguing that God manually moved genetic information from one species to another? Is that right?

    If so, this again falls into the category that led to the OP, you are envisioning the action yourself and projecting it on others rather than studiously understanding their theological position.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, that's not our fault if your religion isn't properly being relayed!
    It is if it is the result of not doing your homework properly so that you are criticizing the text for something it isn't saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Only because you have smuggled Neanderthal DNA into the 'dust' which I'm sure you made up!
    You think that I "made up" the standard definition of a word from an authoritative source? That sounds a bit like desperation on your part. "Dust" literally means "building materials" in biblical Hebrew, that has been supported here. It is used to refer to wood, planks, stone, tools, workers, land, skills, plans and a dozen other things in various contexts in the OT, just as we would use the term "materials," it is a generic term applying to quite a lot of things. You can dismiss this as "made up" if you like, but that isn't much of a knowledgeable rebuttal.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  22. Likes Mr. Hyde liked this post
  23. #38
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why would you think that I am arguing that they weren't? All of the materials referenced in the text were created by God, the universe was created by God. My point was that they are not living souls, which is inherent in the text given that all life is created on earth without the insertion of a living soul, and then the writers specifically call out that as an additional step.
    "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2:7 (NIV)

    Is this the passage on which you're relying to say God breathing the "breath of life" into the man's "nostrils" was "an additional step" in man's creation? I'm confused by this idea of "an additional step" you've mentioned. Do you know of any biblical author who expounds on this idea of a two step creative process for man?

  24. #39
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Is this the passage on which you're relying to say God breathing the "breath of life" into the man's "nostrils" was "an additional step" in man's creation? I'm confused by this idea of "an additional step" you've mentioned.
    There are clearly (at least) two defined actions in that statement right?

    1) God gathers the materials into a form.

    2) God breathes the breath of life.

    So we can argue that there are at least two actions taken by God in this text. In relation to this being an unprecedented step (which I think is the heart of your question), we can see in Genesis 1 that God simply commands the existence of all other plants and animals (let them exist), a very different formulation is offered for man which highlights God's intent to create a being capable of having dominion over all the others. Is that what you are asking about, whether this step was unique or whether two steps are being described here?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  25. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Doesn't Neanderthal and Human interbreeding disprove God exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Who said they didn't have physical bodies? What I fail to see is how the fact that they did have physical bodies works against anything I've said.
    You wrote...

    Let's start analyzing the above interpretation. First there is the logical problem that fallen angels may in some sense "possess" an already existing physical body, but the Bible knows nothing about them having any ability to create a body , or even modify one.
    I took that to mean you felt the bible had no support for the idea that they could possess a body and thus impregnate women. Apparently I misunderstood somehow. It seems to me if they have bodies they could make women pregnant as the story describes.

    Two is not "a few".
    A curious notion. Few means "a small number" I think two is generally thought of as a small number, especially in consideration of how many sects there are.

    Few is not a lot, few is small in number, but few is certainly more than "none"

    I'm not sure I trust Wikipedia as an authority here. For example, the Wiki author, whoever that happens to be, claims:
    Fair enough, its just a collection of information, always good to question!

    But I don't think you have really countered the overall claim. No one is saying Enoch is part of typical cannon. Its clearly an early document and part of church culture in early days, and heck, its part of church culture today. Its not canonical to any but the Ethiopian traditions today. But it is part of the history of the church and is both quoted in the modern bible and referenced in early church writings.

    "The Book of Enoch was considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4) and by many of the early Church Fathers, such as Athenagoras...etc."

    I'd agree you have shown the second part of that is a stretch (nice arguing with that). I'd suggest making a correction! That's why the Wiki is a nice source, you can fix it when you find flaws in the writing. That Barnabas say it as canonical is what it is. There is no argument Enoch should be canonical today, only that some thought it was.

    And fyi, when I said no one claims the Book of Enoch as "scripture", what I meant is that no group recognizes it as a source for orthodox doctrine, as Divinely inspired revelation.
    The Ethiopian Orthodox Church does. That is more than no one. It has some 40 million adherents. That doesn't mean they aren't very much in the minority, but its more than no one is it not?


    I didn't mean that no one sees it as important at all. What we can say with some confidence is that if there is any dependence between Genesis 6:1-4 and Enoch 15, it is Enoch that depends on Genesis, and not the other way around. For even if we accept the tottering JEPD documentary hypothesis, "J" and "E" are responsible for all of Genesis, and this portion of the Pentateuch is dated to ca. 900 BC, while Enoch dates to ca. 2nd cent. BC to 1st cent. AD.
    I wouldn't claim dependency one way or another and I'm fine accepting that Genesis as a book is older sourced. I think most likely these traditions all started as oral story telling and there were likely many related stories building off one another as a tradition. I imagine divine angels making babies is a pretty old part of the tale. It is a common theme in most divine mythologies, gods or angels making love with mortals and having supernatural children. Enoch does indeed seem like a kind of spin off of the character, elaborating on his adventures.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 62
    Last Post: April 21st, 2012, 11:48 PM
  2. Replies: 56
    Last Post: May 31st, 2006, 10:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •