Neanderthals and Their Place in Biblical History
I just got done reading an AiG Research Journal article that I found very interesting. I encourage all who wish to participate in this discussion to read it. It was written by a layperson who, by all accounts, appears to have done quite a bit of research on her own and corresponded with a couple of scientists in order to complete the paper. Here is the link to the paper:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v3/enigmatic-Neand...
The abstract states: Abstract
"Young-earth creationists rightly consider that Neanderthals were human, but are divided on
various issues, mainly because of the opposing views of Jack Cuozzo, author of Buried Alive! and
Marvin Lubenow, author of Bones of Contention. These differences include Neanderthal lifespan,
causes of the Neanderthal distinctive morphology, why the Neanderthals disappeared, length of
Neanderthal children’s maturation time, whether we can place Neanderthals in biblical history, and
the related issue of whether Homo erectus was human. In addition, Neanderthals are implicated in
matters that include the Babel dispersion, earth’s breakup, DNA, patterns of world population, the Ice Age, archaeology and historical timeline."
The author has some interesting theories and ultimately takes the side of Jack Cuozzo in the end. This line really sticks out to me and it was something I've never really thought about, Currently, the most widely accepted creationist view of the Neanderthals is that they were very early nomadic humans, probably one of the tribes that departed from Babel in the dispersion (for example,
Oard 2003b, Robertson and Sarfati 2003).
Interesting. Do any of the creationists here that might have studied this more in depth have anything to add or a differing opinion on Neanderthals??? From what I gather, creationists agree that these were humans, not apes. Correct?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v3/enigmatic-Neand...
The abstract states: Abstract
"Young-earth creationists rightly consider that Neanderthals were human, but are divided on
various issues, mainly because of the opposing views of Jack Cuozzo, author of Buried Alive! and
Marvin Lubenow, author of Bones of Contention. These differences include Neanderthal lifespan,
causes of the Neanderthal distinctive morphology, why the Neanderthals disappeared, length of
Neanderthal children’s maturation time, whether we can place Neanderthals in biblical history, and
the related issue of whether Homo erectus was human. In addition, Neanderthals are implicated in
matters that include the Babel dispersion, earth’s breakup, DNA, patterns of world population, the Ice Age, archaeology and historical timeline."
The author has some interesting theories and ultimately takes the side of Jack Cuozzo in the end. This line really sticks out to me and it was something I've never really thought about, Currently, the most widely accepted creationist view of the Neanderthals is that they were very early nomadic humans, probably one of the tribes that departed from Babel in the dispersion (for example,
Oard 2003b, Robertson and Sarfati 2003).
Interesting. Do any of the creationists here that might have studied this more in depth have anything to add or a differing opinion on Neanderthals??? From what I gather, creationists agree that these were humans, not apes. Correct?
Views: 140
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stefan Morin on -
Paul Iacono said:
Hmmm... and how many generations was the Biblical account of Christ's life passed down before it was recorded?
Not very many, actually. Conservative estimates put the earliest copies of one of the gospels at about 50 years after the life and death of Christ.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Guiley on -
There are many sources one can point to to corroborate the existence of the manuscripts, and all place them in the 1st or second century (second century being the longest time period, though this is disputed, many placing them earlier) - an excellent site is http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm
Brian
-
Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on -
People have formulated some weird ideas over the centuries. Cultures in South America and elsewhere shaped their skulls with head-binding. The Chinese used foot-binding for years. This naturally couldn't account for every difference between "modern" humans and Neandertals, but it might help explain some unusual features.
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on -
The four Gospels name streets, sites, fields, courts, pools, places (the pool of Siloam, the Field of Blood, Solomon's Porch, etc.) and towns, which were destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans when they conquered and crushed Judea and its holy site, the Temple. The Gospel writers spoke of these locations as still standing, and describe details that only an eyewitness would know. This is very strong evidence that the Gospels predate 70 AD. Jesus died in 30 AD so the Gospels were written within 40 years of his death.
Paul Iacono said:Still, "passed down" all the same.
Which Gospel? Source?
Stefan Morin said:Paul Iacono said:
Hmmm... and how many generations was the Biblical account of Christ's life passed down before it was recorded?
Not very many, actually. Conservative estimates put the earliest copies of one of the gospels at about 50 years after the life and death of Christ.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on -
A few have already addressed this issue but just for further comment, Matthew was written by well, Matthew....he walked and talked with Jesus himself, so there is zero "passing down" done of Matthew. It's believed he wrote it around 25-40 years after Christ but nonetheless, it was never passed down.
It is widely accepted that Mark authored Mark. Mark was an associate of the apostle Peter, so very likely Mark himself witnessed the events he wrote about or at the very "worst" was given the info directly from Peter himself, who walked, talked, and ate with Christ.
Luke is one of the most well regarded historians to ever right anything from the ancient Western world, and I can give you quotes of Jewish historians, who will deny the Lordship of Christ, but will on the flip side tell you the accurate detail that Luke went to in his writings, all of which has been confirmed historically, as to names, land marks, cities, ect,
What is comical about comments like you made, and you aren't the only one that makes these comments without thinking, is what Jeannette touched on. It is widely accepted in the field of literature, the accuracy of some of the rare ancient reads we have. Some of which we have only found 4 or 5 copies, none in the original, yet we have tens of thousands of found manuscripts supporting the accuracy of the passing down of scripture.
Paul Iacono said:Also... a very telling line in that article on Atlantis:
When it comes down to it, either Atlantis was a real place or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t, then the discussion is more-or-less finished. And considering that this story was passed down several times before Plato recorded it, we can assume that it has some inaccuracies. (emphasis added)
Hmmm... and how many generations was the Biblical account of Christ's life passed down before it was recorded?
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Poe on
-
I see what you are saying now. But again, that is why Jeannette brought up the other ancient writings in her post. No one debates those, but the NT gets butchered when there is thousands more supporting it. The Dead Sea Scrolls did wonders for the OT. In a nutshell, all we had were much later dated manuscripts of the OT and then the discovery which proved that even over a 1,000+ year period which bridged the gap, there were zero significant changes at all. In fact, two full books of Isaiah were compared and found to have like only 7, non text bearing, changes made at all to the text.. How's that for accuracy?
You would learn a ton on the accuracy of scripture if you'd take the time to ready Brian Edwards, "Nothing But the Truth" and "Why only 66". I doubt you will but these two books are chalk full of secular quotes on the accuracy of scripture in being passed down. So one can say that it was all made up at the very start and passed on accurately, but you can't claim, in light of the evidence, that it started off as one story and changed numerous times along the way.
Paul Iacono said:so there is zero "passing down" ???
Huh?! Unless you have original copies written in Matthew's own hand, there was passing down. What we have are fragments from manuscripts that indicate the manuscripts were in existence 40 years or so after Christ. But we don't have the manuscripts. We only have those fragments. What we read as the book of Matthew today is not from a manuscript that was written 40 years after Christ, it's from a manuscript that was recorded much, much later.
Justin Poe said:A few have already addressed this issue but just for further comment, Matthew was written by well, Matthew....he walked and talked with Jesus himself, so there is zero "passing down" done of Matthew. It's believed he wrote it around 25-40 years after Christ but nonetheless, it was never passed down.
It is widely accepted that Mark authored Mark. Mark was an associate of the apostle Peter, so very likely Mark himself witnessed the events he wrote about or at the very "worst" was given the info directly from Peter himself, who walked, talked, and ate with Christ.
Luke is one of the most well regarded historians to ever right anything from the ancient Western world, and I can give you quotes of Jewish historians, who will deny the Lordship of Christ, but will on the flip side tell you the accurate detail that Luke went to in his writings, all of which has been confirmed historically, as to names, land marks, cities, ect,
What is comical about comments like you made, and you aren't the only one that makes these comments without thinking, is what Jeannette touched on. It is widely accepted in the field of literature, the accuracy of some of the rare ancient reads we have. Some of which we have only found 4 or 5 copies, none in the original, yet we have tens of thousands of found manuscripts supporting the accuracy of the passing down of scripture.
Paul Iacono said:Also... a very telling line in that article on Atlantis:
When it comes down to it, either Atlantis was a real place or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t, then the discussion is more-or-less finished. And considering that this story was passed down several times before Plato recorded it, we can assume that it has some inaccuracies. (emphasis added)
Hmmm... and how many generations was the Biblical account of Christ's life passed down before it was recorded?
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on
-
We also have the writings of the early Church fathers who would write commentaries on the scriptures. They had the original texts. When they wrote their comentaries they would quote from the originals they had. Of their quotes we have about 95% of the text of the New Testament. Of the 5% we don't have, they were details of no theological significance. So yes, we have access to the original manuscripts through the writings of the early Church fathers.
Paul Iacono said:so there is zero "passing down" ???
Huh?! Unless you have original copies written in Matthew's own hand, there was passing down. What we have are fragments from manuscripts that indicate the manuscripts were in existence 40 years or so after Christ. But we don't have the manuscripts. We only have those fragments. What we read as the book of Matthew today is not from a manuscript that was written 40 years after Christ, it's from a manuscript that was recorded much, much later.
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on
-
I keep the original manuscripts in my back pocket.
Paul Iacono said:But you don't have the original manuscripts, do you. What you have was passed down, wasn't it...
Alexander Martin said:We also have the writings of the early Church fathers who would write commentaries on the scriptures. They had the original texts. When they wrote their comentaries they would quote from the originals they had. Of their quotes we have about 95% of the text of the New Testament. Of the 5% we don't have, they were details of no theological significance. So yes, we have access to the original manuscripts through the writings of the early Church fathers.
Paul Iacono said:so there is zero "passing down" ???
Huh?! Unless you have original copies written in Matthew's own hand, there was passing down. What we have are fragments from manuscripts that indicate the manuscripts were in existence 40 years or so after Christ. But we don't have the manuscripts. We only have those fragments. What we read as the book of Matthew today is not from a manuscript that was written 40 years after Christ, it's from a manuscript that was recorded much, much later.
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Martin on
-
ROFL!!!
Paul Iacono said:Hey, they made a movie about you! "The Book of Eli", wasn't it?!
(OMG!@@!# YOU'RE DENZEL WASHINGTON!!!!!!!)
-
Permalink Reply by David Thomas Posey on
-
I don't know if anyone is still interested in pursuing this discussion, but there was an article in "News to Note" that might bear on the discussion. You can read it here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/11/20/news-to-note-11...
The study in this article may have no bearing on anything, but it is at least interesting.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
