Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   According to Genesis, Noah collected his family and the animals of the world on his a
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


(1)
Message 1 of 24 (693142)
03-11-2013 12:34 PM


The flood of water up to the tops of mountains is impossible.
The tale is hyperbole used in a creative expression of the Literary Arts to correspond exactly to the extinction of Neanderthals, and the evolution and distribution of Modern Homo sapiens over all the world, 40 thousand years of "days and nights" ago.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-12-2013 8:54 AM kofh2u has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 24 (693178)
03-12-2013 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kofh2u
03-11-2013 12:34 PM


Hi Kofh2u,
I'm going to target this at the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum. Could you add descriptions of how the Bible supports your position to Message 1? What in Genesis is a reference to Neanderthals, and to the evolution and dispersion of Homo sapiens, and to 40,000 years ago? Thanks!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kofh2u, posted 03-11-2013 12:34 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by kofh2u, posted 03-13-2013 4:11 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by kofh2u, posted 03-13-2013 4:28 PM Admin has replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 3 of 24 (693283)
03-13-2013 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
03-12-2013 8:54 AM


analogy with the facts
(1) What in Genesis is a reference to Neanderthals
When the bible readers comes to Genesis, chapter 6, after having read about the ascent from the first appearance of man through 22 "kinds" of other men, he is told that a great singular event is to come when all mankinds will become extinct, except for one types of man.
The correspondence between this statement and the factual knowledge, we, in this Age have discovered to be true, suggests the analogy with the disappearance of Neanderthal man, Modern Homo erectus, and all of the previously co-habiting species of Hominoids starting about 40 thousand years of "days and nights ago."
Had the Bible writer added the temporal reference that specified the 40 millennia there could be no mistake that this was a direct statement of an event that has happened.
Our ONLY postulate necessary to connect this report in Genesis withthe actual event is to understand the use of the word "day" to mean 40 "ages" that were a thousand years long.
The Hebrew word used in fact has that alternatiuve meaning, and could be understood as a half day, a 24 hour day, a year, and Age, etc.
So this is no stretch.
Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (the force behind the ever unfolding Reality of the Universe) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (for the purpose to mentally model my image of Reality), destroy them, (of these types and species), from the face of the earth, (deeming them extinct); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his present abstract idea of) the beast (of the earth), and (his idea of) the creeping thing (of the earth), and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (in this process of evolution).
The explanations bracketed directly into the context are used to support and describe the meaning intended by the Bible writers.
Clearly, the times prior to this modern age prohibited such explicit information, and is warranted by the over all comprehensiveness of the passage and the entinity of the whole of chapter 6

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-12-2013 8:54 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 4 of 24 (693286)
03-13-2013 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
03-12-2013 8:54 AM


... correspondences between Noah and extinction
What in Genesis is a reference to the evolution of Homo sapiens?
1) Modern Homo sapiens appeared about 100,000 -150,000 years before the extinction of the other species of man that took place 40,000 years ago.
This corresponds to the story in Genesis which tells us that 100 (thousand) years before the flood began, Noah had fathered three different types of "sons."
Adding the 40,000 years to the 100,000 years corresponds with the facts:
FACT:
Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews proposes that modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens 200,000-150,000 years ago only in Africa and then some of them migrated into the rest of the Old World...
2) Add to this the Three Racial Stock Theory which is implied in that three different "sons" of evolved types survived with Noah, and the analogy is very strong, indeed.
Gen 5:32 And Noah, (an archaic type of Homo sapiens forebearer), was five hundred "years" old, (and the Flood will come when Noah is 600 "years" old: Gen 7:6) : and Noah begat Shem, (the Mongoloids), Ham, (the Negroids), and Japheth, (the Caucasians).
3) Allowing for the "flood" that just ended @ 10,000 years ago, the three racial stocks of Ham, Jephthah, and Seth, all would have evolved 150,000 years ago as WAS THE ACTUAL CASE.
FACT:
When that flood ends, the Agricultural Age began, as was also historically the case.
Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
3) All people living today have evidence of hybridization with Neandertal man (minor excepts noted).
This FACT is specifically mentioned in Genesis 6:4:
Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (that line of ascent which would not become extinct, Methuselahian links, through Seth, i.e.; Modern Homo Erectus), came in unto the daughters, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal type), of men, ("daughters" of the previous adaptation of the Methusaelian line of Cain, i.e.; Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, (Neanderthals), which were of old, (powerful) men of renown (physical strength).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-12-2013 8:54 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 03-14-2013 8:40 AM kofh2u has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 24 (693323)
03-14-2013 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by kofh2u
03-13-2013 4:28 PM


Re: ... correspondences between Noah and extinction
Hi Kofh2u,
What information are your parenthesized insertions based upon. For example:
kofh2u writes:
Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible)...
What leads you to conclude that the giants were Homo erectus?
I need to be sure your arguments are not just made up before I can promote your thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kofh2u, posted 03-13-2013 4:28 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 1:21 PM Admin has replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 6 of 24 (693341)
03-14-2013 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Admin
03-14-2013 8:40 AM


Re: ... correspondences between Noah and extinction
kofh2u writes:
Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible)...
Moderator:
What information are your parenthesized insertions based upon. For example:
What leads you to conclude that the giants were Homo erectus?
I need to be sure your arguments are not just made up before I can promote your thread.
WHAT???
DO YOU THINK I HAVE NO ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION????
1) Who will be the judge of my answer,... just you?
You don't like my assertions, why would my answer be palatable when these threads are essentially one side against the other in every case?
2) You probably believe you do this site a service by keeping discussions closed through censorship the starts with a moderator, but usually, the truth is a small kernel which gradually replaces the authoritarian establishment that thought it knew it all.
3) I have answered your first series of questions, pertaining to how I will defend my BELIFS and POINT of VIEW against you and your own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 03-14-2013 8:40 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 03-14-2013 1:30 PM kofh2u has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 7 of 24 (693342)
03-14-2013 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kofh2u
03-14-2013 1:21 PM


Re: ... correspondences between Noah and extinction
Hi Kofh2u,
It is the responsibility of moderators to enforce the Forum Guidelines, and that includes thread proposals. In this case you're only being asked to follow rule 4:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 1:21 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 1:41 PM Admin has replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 8 of 24 (693344)
03-14-2013 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Admin
03-14-2013 1:30 PM


Re: ... correspondences between Noah and extinction
yeah, yeah, yeah...
But I did that, and you then went to question me on the next level of my assertion.
Did you not first ask me for some evidence that I could and would support the "Flood" as an analogy that corresponded to the mass extinction of all Hominoids except us?
I list four or five supporting facts in scioence which are mentioned explicitly in Genesis.
Now you want me to present my case on one of those items.
Give me a break.
You ARE supposed to be sure I am not being frevilous and empty handed, but you are now asking me to convinceyou, personally, that the hybridization in Genesis definitely corresponds to what even scientists are a little foggy on, exactly.
You are trying to quash the answer I gave you by debating just which species hybridized, which is a subject still open to opinion even withthe Paleontologists.
Face it.
You are bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 03-14-2013 1:30 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 03-14-2013 5:26 PM kofh2u has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 9 of 24 (693368)
03-14-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by kofh2u
03-14-2013 1:41 PM


Re: ... correspondences between Noah and extinction
Hi Kofh2u,
EvC Forum is a science site and tries to avoid discussions that are based upon mere fabrications. In compliance with rule4, threads can only be promoted that have some basis in fact. This isn't bias, it's just sound science.
Your own parenthesized words interspersed about the text of Genesis are not facts. An example of what is needed would be to explain what facts support your contention that the giants mentioned in Genesis were Homo erectus.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 1:41 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 5:43 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 10 of 24 (693370)
03-14-2013 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Admin
03-14-2013 5:26 PM


Re: ... correspondences between Noah and extinction
That there were giants mentioned who had sexual relationships with other types of hominoids is the thing that corresponds with the science that says the same thing.
If science forums out law the very discussiom of genesis as an analogy/parallel to what paleontologists say then they are one sided bias and insisting from the start that Genesis can not be discussed as corresponding to what they say.
If that isn;t censorship and bias and avoidance of the comparison I am suggesting what is???
What I see is you making up these rules to say more than the one sentence you quoted as rule #4.
Certainly there IS evidence of Homo erectus,...
And, there IS hypothesis from scientists that say hybridizations occurred,...
And there IS no way to deny that the Giants who were hominoids in Genesis reasonably could have been Erectus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 03-14-2013 5:26 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 11 of 24 (693371)
03-14-2013 5:51 PM


...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
N.Y. Times April 25, 1999
Discovery Suggests Humans Are a Bit Neanderthal
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Neanderthals and modern humans not only coexisted for thousands of years long ago, as anthropologists have established, but now their little secret is out: they also cohabited.
At least that is the interpretation being made by paleontologists who have examined the 24,500-year-old skeleton of a young boy discovered recently in a shallow grave in Portugal. Bred in the boy's bones seemed to be a genetic heritage part Neanderthal, part early modern Homo sapiens. He was a hybrid, they concluded, and the first strong physical evidence of interbreeding between the groups in Europe.
"This skeleton demonstrates that early modern humans and Neanderthals are not all that different," said Dr. Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. "They intermixed, interbred and produced offspring."

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 03-14-2013 8:36 PM kofh2u has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 12 of 24 (693384)
03-14-2013 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by kofh2u
03-14-2013 5:51 PM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
kofh2u writes:
And there IS no way to deny that the Giants who were hominoids in Genesis reasonably could have been Erectus.
And there is no way to deny that I might reasonably have taken the long way home tonight, but there's no evidence that I did. And there is no way to deny that there might reasonably be a celestial teapot in orbit around the sun, but there is no evidence that there is. The absence of falsifying evidence is not evidence, plus the possibility that the Biblical giants were Homo erectus is contradicted by your own diagram:
Your diagram says that both Methuslelah and Adam were Homo erectus, and according to the Bible both were of the race of man and not members of the supposed race of giants. And then you go on to talk about Neanderthals but are not specific about how it ties in.
So you provided no factual evidence tying the Biblical giants to Homo erectus, but you did contradict yourself. In order to promote this thread I need some indication that positive evidence supporting your position exists, and the evidence can't be contradictory.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 5:51 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 7:43 PM Admin has replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 13 of 24 (693469)
03-15-2013 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Admin
03-14-2013 8:36 PM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
First, there is EVIDENCE that different species inbreed both in science and genesis.
Scientists use that evidence to claim a common descent from earlier species, and I am using that same evidence to relate a correspondence with what Genesis says.
This thread concerns the whole explanation that genesis is saying things that correspond to what science says.
Second, the blurred graphic does NOT say "adam," but to "Adah," who corresponds to Early Homo erectus.
The evidence of inbreeding between species supports what we read in genesis, where it states that different kinds of "humans" co-existed at the same time, and hybridized.
All this discussion between you and myself demonstrates that this is a thread which others need participate in, so they can raise questions and see the enormous correspondences between what science says and genesis tells us.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 03-14-2013 8:36 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 03-15-2013 10:19 PM kofh2u has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 14 of 24 (693475)
03-15-2013 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by kofh2u
03-15-2013 7:43 PM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
kof2hu writes:
First, there is EVIDENCE that diffeent species inbreed both in science and genesis.
I haven't been making an issue of this, but since you keep bringing it up, there is well established scientific evidence that closely related species can interbreed. Few would dispute this, and certainly I am not. You don't have to keep asserting this.
Second, the poor blurred graphis does NOT say "adam," but to "Adah," who corresponds to Early Homo erectus.
Okay, Adah. On the one hand you claim that the giants of the Bible are Homo erectus, and on the other you claim that Adah and Methuslelah are Homo erectus. They can't both be Homo erectus, so which is it?
And getting back to the original question that was an example of the kind of evidence you need, whoever you decide is really Homo erectus, what is the supporting evidence?
All this discussion between you and myself dmonstrates that this is a thread which others need participate in...
What all this discussion actually demonstrates is the remarkable difficulty you are having coming up with evidence supporting your claims associating Biblical beings and persons with ancestral hominid species. Do you have evidence from archeological digs? Radiometric dating? Paleontological finds at Biblical sites? What?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 7:43 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 10:54 PM Admin has replied
 Message 16 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 11:15 PM Admin has replied
 Message 17 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 11:25 PM Admin has replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 15 of 24 (693476)
03-15-2013 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Admin
03-15-2013 10:19 PM


Re: ...we all have genes from hybridization with lowerforms of man...
kof2hu writes:
First, there is EVIDENCE that different species inbreed both in science and genesis.
Moderator:
I haven't been making an issue of this, but since you keep bringing it up, there is well established scientific evidence that closely related species can interbreed. Few would dispute this, and certainly I am not. You don't have to keep asserting this.
Oh,... good.
That sounds reasonable.
Do you also agree that all these other species disappeared in the last 40,000 years?
nd are you willing to acknowledge that all men living today carry the Y-chromosome of just one man who could correspond with this Noah whose three sons could be what is the scienice theory of Three Racial Stocks????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Admin, posted 03-15-2013 10:19 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Admin, posted 03-16-2013 9:08 AM kofh2u has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024