JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli archaeologists say they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man.
A Tel Aviv University team excavating a cave in central Israel said Monday they found teeth about 400,000 years old. The earliest Homo sapiens remains found until now are half that old.
Archaeologist Avi Gopher said Monday further research is needed to solidify the claim. If it does, he says, “this changes the whole picture of evolution.”
Accepted scientific theory is that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and migrated out.
Sir Paul Mellars, a prehistory expert at Cambridge University, says the find is “important,” but it is premature to say the remains are from modern man. He says they are more likely related to man’s ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (238)
GEW
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:34amOh heck, I have a terrible cold and believe me all this back and forth is making me feel at least 12,000 years old.
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 9:14amYou kinda look like it, too.
Just kidding, get well soon!
Report Post »SeekerEmerald
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:11amI’m not taking a stand on the vailidity of the claim, but I love how modern science has become:
“This fact does not fit our current theory, so we will simply ignore this new fact.”
“He says they are more likely related to man’s ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.” More likely why? Simply because the theory you support does not allow for them to be otherwise?
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:28am“This fact does not fit our current theory, so we will simply ignore this new fact.”
Who said that?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:06am” He says they are more likely related to man’s ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.”
This seems an amazingly stupid statement. If this tooth is RELATED to our ancient RELATIVES how is it not then RELATED to us?
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:03am400,000 years? ‘modern’ man? really?
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 6:21amI never doubted where man originated, but only God knows all the details.
Report Post »SND97
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 6:01amIt really is simple, God created life, he created the human race, the details about how and where and things don’t matter to a hill of beans.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 5:19amIf all of this turns out to be fact, many premises have been exploded. It’ll take me a while to wrap my head around this revelation.
Report Post »islandlady
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:54amThe Scriptures state that God made the world of parts of other worlds. (To late tonight to find exact verse)
Report Post »One side of the Dead Sea is Millions years older than the other. I don’t let these Darwin facts freak me
out because of these statements. Also the scriptures state that there are hidden secrets within
the world itself. And, I know the scriptures are true.
Sheepdog911
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 6:15amThe creation story is two stories, but I’d like to see your scriptures on muliple worlds. As for Darwin, beofre he died, he acknowledge that the diversity of life could not begin to be accounted for by his “theory”. He died a Christian. Evolution’s biggest problem is science – complex systems devolve (deteriorate) not evolve. Evolution is a religion – believed in based on false theory and supported by evidence to the contrary of their beliefs.Science has yet to disprove anything stated in the Bible. Get over it.
Report Post »lobster
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 8:33amThe Great Salt lake contains 6 billion tons of salt, they are accumulating at a rate of 1 million tons per year,( Ency. Brit. 1972). This means the lake is 6000 years old give or take three. I did the calculation on the Caspian Sea and the Dead Sea, guess what they are both 6000 years old, too. So please don’t swallow the garbage of the evolutionists. (I am a licensed water chemist)
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 9:19amI know of no such scripture that speaks of creation out of other worlds. It’s not in the Christian Bible, at least.
Sheepdog is right that Evolution’s greatest weakness is the complexity of life. Darwin made more sense when biochemistry was less advanced. When the cell was thought to be just a blob of tissue one could IMAGINE it occuring by chance after millions of years.
For me the bird will always be the proof that evolution is wrong. There is no way to evolve from a land animal to a bird except in such a masive leap that it would appear magical (or miraculous?). The point is that every point on the evolutionary development has to involve a creature fit enough to survive. A flightless animal will have solid bones and fur or scales. Those bones will have to hollow out in order to make it light enough to fly. But unless its fur or scales have become the complex entity we know as feathers, allowing for a light but solid wing structure, that animal will be a hollow bones flightless creature waiting for wings to develop. Hardly likely to survive to the next mutation stage.
The same could be said for the whale. Imagining a bear swimming out in the water is not going to make its cubs grow plow holes.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 1:50pmAnd polar bears have been swimming in the oceans for thousands of years, why have they not evolved blow holes and whale flukes? It is because they were DESIGNED to be the magnificent creatures they are. They are perfect as they are, they do not need to change into something else.
Report Post »GnomeChomsky
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:27pm@lobster
Report Post »I wonder if you are the same lobster as the one who posts on the av club. if not you must be related.
the great salt lake is a remnant of Lake Bonneville which formed 32,000 years ago, also it accumulates 1 million tons of minerals, not 1 million tons of salt. The Caspian Sea is over 5 million years old, even older if you count when it and the Black Sea were part of the Paratethys Sea. The Dead Sea as standalone body of water is 2 million years old. A lot of good that license is doing you.
Psychosis
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:26amlet me guess……they used carbon dating to reach the “age ” of the tooth.
funny thing that carbon dating……………..i took a tooth that my great grandfather lost when he was 101 yrs old, and took it in to get carbon dated at aclu. i know……..im a sneaky bas…tard lol
the results came back saying the tooth “ i found in a dig” was 2.7 million yrs old!!!!!!!!!
dam gramps was old, but he never ate tyrannosaurus steaks
dating science is bumpkuss, thus making evolution bumpkuss, and scientists idiots
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:44amYes scientist are idiots. Which is why you are using nuclear power to get electricity to use your computer to send data through satellites and over a fiber optic network controled by algorithms. Yes all idiots created this technology. I’m sure you could do just fine without scientists.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 8:16amducher is also one of those idiots. first off the chances of my electricity coming from a clean source of fuel like nuclear power is slim to none, because of lefty idiots like you not letting a company build a new plant because of some freakin turtle , so my electricity comes from coal.
second……….dont expect any new breakthrough tech also due to lefty idiots like you creating and enlarging bureaucracies like the epa, and general red tape
and third……..i didnt say all scientists but thats besides the point………lots of scientists do stupid stuff for money …………kinda like our special little climate idiots
so go attack someone else……………that dog wont hunt
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 9:07am@Psychosis
Do you ever not put your foot in your mouth?
“dating science is bumpkuss, thus making evolution bumpkuss, and >>>scientists idiots<<<"
"and third……..i didnt say all scientists but thats besides the point"
Do I read "some scientists"? Do I read "geologists"? Do I read "biologists"? Nope. I read "scientists". So kindly jump off a boat.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 10:54amSorry Deutscher, you misquote by omission what phychosis said. He said that carbon dating makes scientists idiots. The natural meaning of that is that those scientists who use it become idots because it is bad science. But not all scientists depend upon carbon dating for their science. In fact the vast majority have nothing to do with it. Even if they might accept it as legitimate they do not make use of it. The foundation of their science rests upon other tools which do not make them idiots.
If I were to sy that alchohol makes men fools I would not be saying that men are fools by nature or that all men are consumers of alchohol.
Report Post »Jezreel
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 12:27pmThat is correct, carbon dating is a bunch of whooey. Never trust the devices of man because you know it is tainted to turn man’s heart against the truth. Those who are not of the light, hate the truth and are angered by truth. They are the seed of the wicked one.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 1:04pmCarbon dating is not accurate. There is no way to accurately date any bone fragment. This is a fact.
Report Post »When a “scientist” claims he can date these items, he is reaching too far in his efforts to support his evolution “THEORY”.
Clear logic helps us to realize the design in all the life forms on this beautiful earth. Revelation 4:11
GnomeChomsky
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:38pmI think everyone is missing something from Psychosis’ statement. Since when is the ACLU in the practice of carbon dating things?
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 5:20pmTo go from dating science is incorrect to evolution is incorrect to scientists are bumkiss or whatever he said is such a flawed chain of logic it’s not worth arguing.
Report Post »And granted YOUR electricity may not be nuclear, but you know the point I am making. Don’t bash science it is integral to modern life.
And yes. Perhaps the ACLU carbon14 detectors are not properly calibrated haha
the hawk
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:15amI think Helen Thomas is going to identify the body !
Report Post »Lonescrapper
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:33amShe could be an eyewitness to the death!
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:12amHow old is the Earth? Which came first chicken or egg? what I JUST CAN‘T GET IS THAT TRINITY THING It’s got me bonkers………………………………………………………………………………………….
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 10:41amIn order for just about any of the theistic belief systems to be literally correct, we would need to be living in a simulated universe. Their many contradictions, both with themselves and they bulk of current scientific understanding, could then be accounted for as software glitches.
That is plausible though. In this way, both the Creationists and Evolutionists could be correct.
A more plausible explanation though, is that religious texts are not meant to be taken too literally.
If we assume they are not factual recordings of history but situational lessons drawn from the rich tapestry of history, with poetic/religious license taken, instead, we can avoid the need to prove the existence of deities and allow faith in them to go unchallenged.
Most religions have lessons that can be applied to daily life.
Even Islam has it’s peaceful components.
If you through out Sharia Law and focus on it’s positive aspects it can be as harmless, and helpful, as any other modern religion.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 12:16pmThe trinity doctrine is NOT a Bible teaching! It was adopted into the Christian community by the Counsel of Nicea. It is called the Athanasion Creed. When you do research on this subject, you will find it came about around year 300 and was the beginning of the catholic church.
Psalm 83:18 tells us there is one God. Jesus is God’s Son. How simple is that.
Always read the Bible carefully, and do not jump to conclusions or try to make the scriptures conform to preconceived ideas.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 1:49pmbearfoot, you have been schooled wrong. The Athanasian Creed is not the originator of the doctrinie of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed does that. But the theological understanding underlying the trinity dates from before the 4th century. It can be found as far as the 2nd century. It is by no means unbiblical. It is an attempt to understand how Jesus is related to God the Father. Since Jesus says that he and the Father are “one”, saying “God is one” hardly solves the problem. Jesus says that when we have seen him we have seen the Father. And he asks us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is “name”, not “names”. It is ONE name. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is constantly called the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ, as if the two are functionally synonymous.
John’s Gospel says that God is spirit and invisible. “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” John 1:18.
Who is at the Father’s side? Jesus. Acts 7:55 He is at the Father’s side now and has always been. “He was at the beginning with God and the world was made through him”. John 1:2 How could the world be made through him when God is the Creator. How could Paul say that the Son “is before all things and in him all things hold together” , Col. 1:16, unless the Son shared the divine nature of God. The natural explanation is that he IS God, just as it says that “the Word was with God and the Word was God”. John 1:1.
Paul also says that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 8:6. But Moses tells the Israelites “the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” How can there be another Lord who is not God?
Saying that “Jesus‘s God’s Son“ is hardly that ”simple”. If it were there would not have been a 130 year argument over how to define it.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:04pmIslesfordian
Psalms 83:18 There is only ONE God. (Jesus is God’s son) There is no need to make it hard to understand.
John chapter 17, That chapter is a prayer, Jesus address his Father in prayer. If, after reading that chapter carefully and without prejudice, if you do not comprehend that Jesus is God’s Son and not he father, then I will not waste any further comment on you.
Report Post »The scriptures you used to support your pagan trinity doctrine is mis-applied.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:49pmFor those wondering what the orthodox understanding of the tRinity is, since I am guessing soem have not studied it outside some very skewed misrepresentations of it, here it is:
We believe that there is One God divided into three persons; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The are united in their divine essence and one in love and will, but separate as persons. The Father is the head of the Trinity. He is the source of the godhead, the divine essence, and eternally, that is outside time, gives being to both the Son and the Spirit. The Son is begotten of the Father while the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Only the father derives his being only from himself. Thus the Son and Spirit are both less than the Father within the divine being. But in relationship to all created things they are still fully God. How “begotten” differs from “processing” I can’t say, and I don’t think any theologian has tried or succeeded. What is different between the Son and Spirit is how they relate to the world. They are different extensions of the Father into the world.
The Son enters into the world through Incarnation, taking out created flesh as his own, becoming one with us while still remaining God. He is the bridge between the uncreated Father and the created world. In this way we can see the Father when we look at Jesus. Jesus is the essence of God in human form.
The Spirit dwells in the world invisibly but with animating life. He bionds things together, connecting the human form of the Son with the Father in heaven and also connecting the Incarnate Lord in heaven with all his children on earth. Jesus is present with his believers through the Spirit.
Without this understanding God is in heaven, and we are not. And we are much more alone.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:26pmIslesfordian
Report Post »I leave for a while and look what happens.
Now folks, does what Islesfordian just said about what he believes make any sense at all?
God gave us a mind to actually use, to think things out in a logical way.
No one I have ever talked to can explain the trinity doctrine. Does our Creator expect us to swallow this man made pagan idea of a triune god? The idea of triune gods is a very old idea that was adopted into the apostate christian community. The truth is in the Bible, not in christendom.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:39pm“The idea of triune gods is a very old idea that was adopted into the apostate christian community.”
One could respond like C.S. Lewis when confronted with the statement that the idea of a god who dies and comes back to life is a common pagan idea; Maybe all these pagan ideas have their root in the ancient truth. They’re all myths, but one of them is a true myth. Why should not the truth about God be so old that echos of it filter down to the pagan world.
Remember when God created man? What did he say? Let US make man in OUR image. Funny use of the plural there, isn’t it. As far as I know it occurs only in Genesis. How do you explain it?
Furthermore, is the only way you have of defending 1500 years of Christian belief to say that the church Jesus founded, against which the gates of Hades would not prevail, became so entirely apsotate in less than 300 years that all vestiges of teh “true” faith went underground until you guys found it in the 19th century? Is that your idea of Divine Providence? Sounds like your God dropped the ball for a while. Jeesh. If he can’t be trusted to look after his church better than that what hope do you guys really have?
Sucks to be you.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:43pmThat should read;
Report Post »is the only way you have of defending REJECTING 1500 years of Christian belief….
Bearfoot
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:51pmIslesfordian,
So, now your true self comes out. You sir are a blasphemer. Good bye.
Report Post »Blacktooth
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 5:38pmIlsefordian,
You stated; “Sounds like your God dropped the ball for a while. Jeesh. If he can’t be trusted to look after his church better than that what hope do you guys really have?”
I can only imagine you said this is because Bearfoot identified God as having the name Jehovah. You do not accept that God’s name is provided for your enlightenment, because you do not know that the scriptures actually identify God as having the name. Psalms 83:18
Report Post »Now you are labeled as a blasphemer, a slanderer against the Almighty. All this because of your ignorance and brainwashing of the trinity nonsense. I give you this, you do have a spiritual appreciation for God, but you better get yourself together when someone gives you some accurate information. Do not be quick to reject new information.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 5:42pmSpoken just like a Muslim fanatic. Two faced and thin-skinned. You call the central doctrine of MY faith pagan and my church apostate. But if I say that your concept of God sounds like it sucks you get all huffy and call me a blasphemer.
Yeah, that’s sweet reasoning there.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 6:02pm“I can only imagine you said this is because Bearfoot identified God as having the name Jehovah.”
Yeaaaahhhh. I missed that part, probably because I know that God has the NAME so I couldn‘t be believing in the Trinity because I didn’t think God’s name was the NAME, which is NOT Jehovah but closer to Yahweh. Jehovah is an invention using the vowels from Adonai and placing them within the consonants YHWH (the Y becomes J and the W becomes V in Latin script) YHWH is how the NAME is seen in the text of the Hebrew Scriptures and it is NEVER, EVER, EVER said by Jews
You see, I know quite a bit about this, having been a believer for 32 years now and a student of theology for 22.
“Now you are labeled as a blasphemer, a slanderer against the Almighty.”
It doesn’t really occur to you how imperious and irrational you sound? You are like every irreligious charicature of what religious people are like. People who don’t agree with you are “not being rational” as if the truth you believe were so self-evident only willful stupidity could explain not accepting it. And if they continue in their “blasphemous” refusal to believe you sternly warn them, for their own good of course. Does it sound to you guys like you are in the position to be a pedagogue to me?
You guys would have done well in the Inquisition. You’ve got the right attitude for it. Me, I’d be questioning the Torqemada, “I don’t really think thumbscrews help demonstrate that our doctrine is true” and then I’LD be on the rack.
I was a missionary for 4 years and was trained how to witness the Gospel to those who didn’t yet accept it. Let me tell you, you guys really stink at this. Your approach must only work on the weak minded and on those so starving that they would be ready to swallow anything.
Report Post »Blacktooth
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 6:37pmLook up the word “blasphemer” 1. to speak irreverently or profanely of or to God.
To intimate that God could not take care of his congregations for all these years is blasphemy.
You mistakenly think that the catholic church is the only organization to look to.
But as long as they stubbornly hold to the God misrepresenting trinity doctrine, they have no chance to worship God in spirit and in truth. John 4:23-24
As for the Jews, because they reject God’s name means that you should?
And do not try to dazzle me with your 32 years of experience in a false teaching, false teaching is false teaching, blasphemy is blasphemy, you can’t wash away ignorance by enduring in it for even 2000 years.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:28pm“To intimate that God could not take care of his congregations for all these years is blasphemy.”
Yes, but it is not ME that is doing that. I am accusing YOU of holding such a belief. I don’t believe God would let his church become so bereft of the truth for so long. But I can’t see how you avoid the charge that you are proposing that God did just that, that he allowed the church to go apostate for 1500 years.
“As for the Jews, because they reject God’s name means that you should?”
I don’t understand what you are saying here. Does anyone else understand this? How have the Jews rejected God’s name. They hold that his name is YHWH as revealed to Moses. Is that wrong? Do you think they should call him Jehovah? And where did I show that I rejected God’s name?
This is the problem I have with you people. You don’t seem to be able to read what I actually write. Here’s a thought, try actually quoting me so that I can figure out how you are misreading me.
Or are you still hung up on calling God Jehovah, even though no one in history did before the 16th century?
Report Post »YellowFin
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 9:48pmIslesfordian,
I have been following this conversation closely, and I want to pull out a statement of yours. You said;
“Or are you still hung up on calling God Jehovah, even though no one in history did before the 16th century?”
The problem surrounding God’s name is not that he has a name, but it is the pronunciation of it. The Jews stopped using God‘s name due to their not wanting God’s Holy name to be uttered by their sinful lips. So, they did not use it for such a long time, the correct pronunciation was lost in time.
But Jesus told his followers in John 17:6 that he again made known the correct pronunciation to them.
Now, in time, due to the first and second century apostasy from the apostolic congregations, again the correct pronunciation was lost The four Hebrew letters for God’s name appeared in the scriptures simply as YHWH, and how exactly it is pronounce is lost for now. So, whether you want to pronounce his name Jehovah or Yahweh is up to whatever you prefer. I wish we could hear it pronounced correctly.
I do however think it is important to be able to differentiate the true God from all other false gods. By us using his Holy Name, we can honor his sovereignty. Oh, by the way, everyone knows Jehovah is the name of God, you don‘t have to be a Jehovah’s Witnesses to know this or use it. And you don’t have to “hung up” over it. It is what it is.
As for God allowing apostasy for 1500 years; Look at the example of ancient Israel and Judah. They repeatedly left their worship of their God which was apostasy. God restored them to a healthy condition time and time again. So he was not neglectful was he? The centuries after Jesus’ ransom sacrifice is no different, true worship does exist today thanks to our Lord Jesus who has authority over the Christian Congregation, and he shepherds it.
I suppose the catholic church could turn to an accurate knowledge of God, but they are so locked into their unscriptural traditions of men. Thus, in an apostate condition.
I could flood this comment with scripture, but no one is interested in looking it up. I suggest research and a real study of the Bible. Find out for yourself
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 10:27pmSorry yellowfin, you are simply reading into the text what cannot be read out of it. There is no evidence that Jesus corrected the pronunciation of YHWH lost through the years by the Jews. If he had, would the apostles have put that into Scripture? If the Holy Spirit didn‘t tell them to do that then the name’s actual pronunciation couldn’t have been that important. So why then would Jesus have corrected them on it. That dog won’t hunt. he won’t even get out of bed.
And you kind of DO have to be a JW to think that God’s name is Jehovah and that this is VERY important, since, again, the apostles made absolutely NO MENTION OF IT. I mean, isn;t that like the stinking dead elephant in the living room? There is no specific mention of the Tetragrammaton in all of the New Testament but there is quite a lot about the name of Jesus. That doesn’t ring any big freakin alarm bells for you? Since Jesus did say in John’s Gospel, “before Abraham was I AM” maybe there’s a clue that the name of I AM is connected to Jesus.
that’s just me and a billion other Christians thinking.
As to the 1500 years being comparable to the years of Israel’s disobedience: The coming of Jesus makes this period a bit different than the previous one. That’s why we have a NEW covenant. The Holy Spirit dwells in the church. He didn’t dwell with Israel. They were promised the day would come when the Spirit would be poured out on them. that came with Jesus.
But even back in Israel’s days God was sending them prophets to bring them back. So why now, when we have the Spirit with us and Jesus in heaven interceding for us, when he promised that his church would triumph even over the gates of hell, why had he allowed so long a period apostacy?
Now I don’t believe it WAS apostacy, so the question doesn’t apply to me. I see the hand of God constatntly in church history, but I don’t see how you can point to it with the same confidence. My God is more active in the world, more Providentially active than yours.
By the way, what’s with the animal names? All of my opponents here have had animal names like Indians. Yellowfin, bearfoot, whitefang, blacktooth. You all from out west? Utah, maybe? :-)
Report Post »YellowFin
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 11:28pmYou say; There is no evidence that Jesus corrected the pronunciation of YHWH lost through the years by the Jews.
Jesus making known God’s name to his apostles indicates they needed a refresher course on how to pronounce it correctly. Does it make sense that if Jesus was to make God’s name known, he would pronounce it wrong? Of course not. I did some research for you:
Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed”. (DE viris inlustribus, chap. III)
This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.
Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Fathers name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in their quotations. – compare John 17:6, 26
In the Journal of Biblical Literature, by George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write the ‘tetragrammaton’ within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-Speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself…..Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the New Testament (NT) writers, when quoting from scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text…..But when it was removed from the Greek Old Testament (OT), it was also removed from the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.” – Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp.76, 77
The result of apostasy caused the removal of not only the Tetragram, but the correct pronunciation of the name of God.
Report Post »Blacktooth
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 11:42pmThanks Yellowfin for your research.
Report Post »I usually do not want to write such lengthy comments, but in this case I think you were warranted to do so. I just hope Islesfordian can understand what you (and I) are trying to do, and not take offense.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 12:17amWow. Just wow.
I read Greek. I have my own coipy of the Greek NT as well as the Septuagint. I have NEVER seen the Tetragram. It is always written as kyrios, Lord. The tetragram is not there in Greek. The “scholarship” you cite is not recognized outside the Watchtower and other fringe sects. No reputable scholar would back up that claim. It is unknown to all Christian scholarship before the 19th century.
You can’t just make up your own facts to suit your pet theories.
You know the Bible is available online in twi Greek editions. The Septuagint too. Go check it out. Find your proof and show it, or admit your error.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 12:27amOh, wow again. I just noticed that your “scholar” claims that the tetragram was in both the Greek NT and the Septuagint but that “it was removed”.
What a convenient theory, and totally without factual corroboration.
Maybe I could claim a teaching of Jesus that premarital sex is OK if she’s avirgin. It was there in the Gospels “until it was removed”. What a marvelous world opens up when you have so l;ittle respect for the Scriptures the Holy Spirit has delivered to us. I guess God took a holiday on preserving those texts. It seems like he has been pretty careless about ensuring we have trustworthy doctrine and Scriptures.
This, THIS is the idea of God you are promoting? Wouldn’t it be easier to admit your church is wrong and the Bible AS IT ACTUALLY EXISTS TODAY is right?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 1:48amI have been running this idea of the true name of God being removed from the text over and over again in my head. I am flabbergasted by the sheer irrational audacity of it. It is the most amazing theory.
You are proposing that Jesus revealed the true sound of God’s name because it was important, and that the apostles wrote it down in the New Testament Scriptures. But, after they died, their disciples in the church, and the WHOLE church in fact, systematically erased that name from every copy of the apostolic writings. Throughout all the hundreds of churches from Alexandria and Jerusalem to Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Crete, Philippi, Rome and everywhere else, everyone of which would have obtained a copy of the Gospels and some of Paul’s letters, all these churches participated in this great erasing of God’s name, AND NOT ONE RESISTED. Not one church or individual Christian kept a pure copy. Not one remembered how the name was said and preserved it. The entire church, not one generation from the death of the last apostle, ALL OF THEM willfully corrupted the faith. And not only this, but they got the Greek speaking Jews to go along with the scheme and erase the name from their Greek translations. And the Jews, despite calling the Christians liars and deceivers to the Romans, never let the cat out of the bag. And all of this was done at a time when the church had ZERO political power to intimidate anyone.
THIS is your theory. And you expect anyone not already drunk on Koolaid to believe it? Perhaps you don‘t even know what it’s like not to drink Koolaid.
It is so lacking in the least amount of likelihood it can scarcely be considered as even theoretically possible. 911 Truthers have a better claim to believability than this.
Report Post »Blacktooth
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 12:57pmI think I am through with the likes of you. You are completely out of control and unreasonable.
A question; Why do many Bible translations include God’s name if all references to it was completely expunged?
The King James version included the name of God, the American Standard Version correctly uses the name of God throughout. So, there must have been a preserving of God’s name. But because of the influence of the apostate church, all that is left for us is the Tetragrammaton, and not its true pronunciation. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Now, I am through with you. Now, go ahead and call me any vile names you wish, I can take it. And try to calm down, hatred is a poison to the soul.
Report Post »Blacktooth
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 1:40pmYou should ask yourself: Why am I so hostile toward God’s name?
Why am I not hostile toward Jesus’ name?
Could it be because if you recognize God’s unique name, then you would have to acknowledge that Jesus could not be God, but that he is a sent forth one, God’s son, doing the will of his God and Father Jehovah. That is why he spoke as he did in his reverential prayer in John chapter 17
You need to get over your prejudices, and your blind acceptance of the trinity idea.
OK, I am done now. Good bye.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 7:02pmSo what are you? What’s your particular faith?
And why don’t you accurately represent what I say? Are you so threatened by my arguments because you have no defense that you leap to miscontrue what I say and ignore my points?
I’ll say it again. You are proposing that the apostles at their death left a church which fell so immediately and completely into apostacy that every single copy of the Scriptures that were read in the churches had the proper sound of God’s name expunged in a deliberate act of unfaithfulness, all the while hiding the fact that they did such a thing. And you think that is a likelier scenario than that you theory is wrong.
There is no conspiracy theory I know of that requires that level of credulity.
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:03amI love this discussion! You guys are great.
To the people too timid to speak up: SPEAK UP! Come on… we’re all clueless morons in the end. Join in.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 12:05pmOK, I will try. First of all, I come at this subject as a person who takes the Bible very seriously.
Report Post »If we read Genesis carefully, we will see that our Creator made the heavens and the earth with NO DATES attached to those events.
THEN, after that, God began creating life on the already created earth in its various forms, and those forms of life had different time periods designated for their creation. Those time periods are called “days” but they cannot be literal 24 hour days. Notice Genesis 2:4 , there the account lumps the entire creative process into ONE day, or the TIME PERIOD of their creation. That could be millions of years. Now, Genesis chap 2 gives us a more detailed account ( a review) of the creation of all life on the already created earth. Another interesting thing is that the sixth creative day ended after Adam and then, later, Eve was created. That time period was how long? We do not know, the Bible does not say but it was longer than one 24 hour day! Please read Ecclesiastes 8:17
Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:33pmwhitefang, I never said that Jesus was the Father. Jesus is the Son. Both are God. Jesus said that he and the Father are One. That was from John 10:30, not John 17, which I never quoted.
Do you ever bother reading what you pounce to denounce?
If you can explain how Jesus can be called the “only Lord” when “The Lord our God is one” by all means try. Merely asserting biblical language without explaining its meaning is hardly an argument.
And as for calling the Trinity ‘pagan’, what you guys believe about the Father doesn’t even reach the heights of traditional paganism. It is far below monotheism. So why don’t we keep it civil?
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:06pmIslesfordian,
Do you have a son? If so, is he you, or is he a separate person? The answer is obvious.
If Jesus is God, then why is he called the “first born of all creation”? Was the Almighty God who is eternal born? John 1:14
Why did Jesus say he did not come of his own initiative, but was “sent forth”? Who sent him? John 8:42
These are just two scriptures, don‘t get me started because there is vast evidence from the God’s Word the Bible that Jesus is God’s Son. If you insist on misrepresenting the Christ as to his true nature then you are actually lying. Be careful.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:41pmIf I had a son he would be a separate person from me, which is what I am saying of the Son and the Father. They are separate Persons. But my son would also share my essence. Just as I am a man so would he be. What comes from man is human. What is “born” of God is also divine.
The term God and Father operate at different levels. Let us say that “God” is like the family title of the Father. I share my father’s last name, Hathaway. I am Hathaway’s son. That makes me a Hathaway too. But I have my own first name, Christopher, which distinguishes me from my Father, Alden. We are both Hathaways and if I were a better son I would faithfully represent him in all things, especially if we were royalty. People could treat me as they do my father if I were there in his absense. In all things we would be a single team, a single family. We would be the Hathaways.
You keep arguing as if I am saying that the Son and the Father are one PERSON, which is the very opposite of what I am saying. If you won’t pay attention to what I actually say what is the point of arguing with me?
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:03pmDear Islesfordian,
I think what the problem is here, is that you say “God (Jehovah) and the Son (Jesus) are God”.
Nowhere in the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic scriptures can you find that idea.
Jesus while on earth, or previously in heaven with his Father, or after he was resurrected is never referred to as being God.
The trinity is not what the Bible teaches, that is what the Athanasian Creed says. The last time I checked the Bible, it trumps what a manufactured creed says. Read the scriptures and forget the “creed”.
Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:28pmbearfoot, stop being so simplistic and arrogant. We read the Bible through our faith. Nothing anyone here has said from Scripture cannot be understood easily within the Trinitarian faith, which has been around for more than a millenium and a half before Mormonism.
Even before it was formulated as doctrine in the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople Christians believed in the central truth finally expressed in the Creeds. If people didn’t already believe it the church would not have accepted it so easily. I’ve studied the period in question (I bet you haven’t). The creed was accepted by the church before the church had come to excercize political power. The Nicene party was actually persecuted by “Christian” emperors who favored the anti-nicene position for a while. Athanasius, the hero of the Council of Nicea and later bishop of Alexandria, and for whom the Athanasian Creed is named even though he didn’t write (though it does reflect his teaching), was kicked out of his diocese 7 times, the first time by Constantine himself. If you think the Nicene faith was forced on the church by emperial power you don’t know what you are talking about.
Let’s put aside the epithet of pagan unless you want to discuss the Mormon doctrines of the human origin of the God the father, because I know all about those, and they would make real pagans fall down laughing.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:41pmOK, I give up, have it your way. I suppose I am just a big goofball trying to reason things out.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 5:35pm“trying to reason things out”? What are you talking about? You never presented reasons other than contradiction and “read the Bible”. You ignored virtually every argument and point I made. Is that reasoning to you?
Maybe it is. Maybe that’s how you were trained. But I was trained to engage my opponent and meet his arguments with competing arguments that addressed his assertions. The crux of your argument seems to be that mine don’t make sense, but you are thin on specifics of WHY they don’t make sense and why YOUR argument makes better sense.
The idea that the Trinity just doesn‘t make sense might have a little more credibility if there weren’t so many on our side who understand it and who have demonstrated that their minds are pretty sharp.
Let‘s go through a list of those who aren’t baffled by the Trinity: Augustine, Anselm, St. Francis, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Erasmus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Blaise Pascal, John Locke, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, Dwight L Moody, Soren Kierkegaard, Spurgeon, Karl Barth, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, etc, etc. I could name many, many more but I chose the most famous.
So, where are the great lights of the anti-trinitarians who stood up for the faith (no fair counting atheists)? Who can you guys name?
You see, if all your argument boils down to is that you find it incomprehensible it rather makes you the ones who look stupid and intellectually lazy.
Report Post »the hawk
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:02amThat would be Garden of Eden……..IRAQ…………
Report Post »THERE problam solved …….your welcome
TheTruthDude
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:58amThere are few things more annoying than a comment thread full of arrogant Darwinists.
Remember, consensus does not equal truth. In fact, the greatest scientific truths always came when someone dared to break consensus despite condemnation and ridicule. The infestation of Darwinism amongst scientists and academia, however, has made this break this break-through nearly impossible despite the obvious evidence against evolution and long ages and for creationism.
Everyone interested in this topic absolutely needs to go to http://www.answersingenesis.com
Report Post »I suggest going to “get answers” and clicking around.
Nvrforget
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:14amAren’t Christians/Muslims/Jews/(insert follower of other religion here) who “know” they are right just as arrogant?
Also, visit http://talkorigins.org/ and click around for a scientific view on Evolution.
Report Post »robespierre
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:14amGreat!! This is great news.Will somebody please e-mail Helen Thomas and tell her “the teeth are Jewish”; and now all the Palestinian’s can go home to Syria.
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:10amWell, we’ll figure that out if the teeth have been circumcised (jewish) or wear a little turban (middle eastern)
Report Post »Thunderstorm 316
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:03amAnd now the God haters are coming out :) Woot!!! strap in we are going for a ride here! I like how everyone thinks that the bible say’s that the earth is 5-6k years old, however knowbody talks about the precreation war and the time frame that it would encompass, while the earth WAS STILL THERE. Man was not the first to be made, man was made in the image of God, and man was made to rule with God, but man was not the frist to be made the Bible say’s that. The Bible is about Salvation made by Jesus Christ but it does go in to the Great War that happend before man, you just have to read the Bible instead of knocking it all the time.
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:16amGod haters? I have NOTHING against “God”, I have EVERYTHING against the egomaniacs who claim to SPEAK FOR GOD.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IyCPEBN79M
S G Applebee
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:21amAttention so-called “God haters”. Do you hate “God”, or like myself, hate the idea of egomaniacs claiming to SPEAK for God?
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:09amI don’t hate god. I hate all religions, their scriptures and most of their devout followers. Well, “hate” is too strong of a word. I prefer “dislike”.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:36amActually I dislike and worry about religious people who abdicate reason to adhere to some religion, then proceed to proselytize. I take issue with the idea that I am flawed because I don’t require their faith to be a moral individual.
Report Post »SlimnRanger
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 10:12amGods time frame is not like the time frame we have one day to God can be a thousand years, and with that in Geneesis1 verse 27 God created man in his own image,then on into Genesis 2 verse verse 7 God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrials and man became a living soul, so that brings up the question was two different kind of man created? When Cain slew his brother Abel and was cast out ,he found a woman to marry so where did this woman come from? as far as we know there was only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel at the time,so many believe and i think along those lines as well that 2 classes of mankind were created< just my thoughts but dosen't mean i am right as far as the dinasoures it's apparent they were here and gone before mankind was created
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 12:25pmThe idea that God created another race of men that intermarried with the children of Adam is both counter to Scripture and unnecessarily complicated, violating Occam’s Razor. The obvious explanation is that the sons of Adam and Eve married the daughters of Adam and Eve. The rules against incest would be a later addition. Biologically this makes sense. Incestuous marriages are bad primarily because of the magnification of birth defects that result when the gene pool becomes thin through interbreeding. With Adam and Eve the gene pool was at its peak so no danger of mutation would exist. With the third generations and the existence of cousins the prohibition of sibling incest could be laid down. The fact that the Lover calls his Beloved “my sister, my bride” in the Song of Solomon indicates that indicates that the Levitical prohibition does not stem from a cenceptual abhorrence of brothers and sisters uniting that way.
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:43amHere’s some more FACTS:
Report Post »Millions of dinosaur, human, and animal bones have been found over the years, but NOT ONE dinosaur bone has ever been found with a knife mark, spear mark, axe mark, sword mark, or any other kind of mark made by a human tool; NOT ONE human bone has been found with a dinosaur bite mark on it; NOT ONE modern animal bone has been found with a dinosaur bite mark on it; and NOT ONE dinosaur bone has ever been found with a modern animal bite mark on it—interesting, no?
Momento Mori
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:52amNeedless to mention that when every geological strata is examined, the fossils found in each layer (encompassing an entire given geological era/period) correlate PERFECTLY with the hypothesis of the scientists given the fact that a fossil of a t-rex will NEVER be found within the strata preceding it nor following it’s extinction, just as there has NEVER been a human fossil found within the triassic era strata.
Report Post »s13iLLuminati
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:06amdid you know that many thought carnivore dinosaur species have been found to have high level of chlorophyll in the fossils of their teeth. Maybe we’ve had it all wrong from the beginning,
Report Post »the majority of our common knowledge about dinosaurs is just speculation.
scguitar
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:07amSo this proves what exactly? Other than nothing? Do you know that Dinosaur bones have been found with actual red blood cells and tissue in them still? Do you know ancient civilizations have stone carvings of dinosaurs?
Momento Mori, you are completely oblivious to reality. Ever here of the Cambrain Explosion? Big whole in your entire post.
Report Post »GEW
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:20amI am finding all this **** chat interesting concerning literal interpretation of the Bible to be kind of interesting. Applebbee, how do you explain Genesis One. Try looking at the Bible in a more spiritual interpretation and you might find that the world is actually a bit older than 6-10,000, I have a fossil sitting on my coffee table that is far older than that, so, something was literally in place on Earth way back beyond 10,000 years.
Mans existence 400,000 years ago is a wonderful discovery, for Science certainly could then prove the Eternity of the Creator.
As far as the lineage, if you were the one that posted the linage material, I can actually trace my family back to 1132, without skipping a generation- how was this down, through records and today if I want I could go further I assume with DNA.
If we are to believe that life is eternal, then the existence of the Earth will continually be proven to be older, cause our concepts of reality and that which it will unfold, either scientific or spiritually is revolving also. This is indeed, if proven to be so, a wonderful discovery for all mankind of all races or all beliefs.
Report Post »CaptainSpaulding
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:41amFrankly I think the first human beings evolved somewhere in India.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:43amHow so ?
Report Post »r33mak
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:30amhttp://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=472612501979&set=a.158302281979.126276.667516979
Report Post »polis
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:30am400,000 years? Really? I laugh in their faces. They can deny biblical truth all day long, but it doesn’t make their estimates true.
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 6:43amSo, is everything in the bible to be taken literally and true? I don’t think so. 6 days + 1 for rest. Explain that one. If you take it literally, it’s simply not plausible. Adam and eve, the talking snake, give me a break. Conception without the fun, really, your sticking with that one? Ok, even with all that, which version of the bible is true? The Greek, English, Roman, and Hebrew versions are all different from one another. How can they all be true? Is only your version true? Why, what makes yours special? What special person, or people, acted as the writing hand of god?
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:26amMay I ask why this is on this website? Don’t the overwhelming majority who come here believe the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old?
Report Post »And wouldn’t that also go for the idea of a “prehistory” expert as well? If the Bible is true, there is no such thing as “prehistoric”, correct?
Even though I agree with much of what Beck has to say, he (and his followers) seem to know very little about science.
Into The Night
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:31amIs there a calendar contained in the Bible that I don’t know about?
http://studios.amazon.com/scripts/2761
Report Post »Momento Mori
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:46amNo, not an exact calendar, BUT: God created man on the 6th day in his image, disallowing for the existence of primitive species within the **** genus, and In Luke there are 55 generations listed between Abraham and Jesus, and from Abraham to Adam it is 20 which inferring the mythical vast lifespans of the Matriarchs it would be logical (given the acceptance of the validity of the gospel) to conclude that the earth cannot be older that 6 to 8 thousand years old..
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:52amScience has a creator too. Its name is “singularity”.
It all boils down to the same paradox in the end… or the beginning, I should say.
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:00amI suppose S G APPLEBEE never took a class on quantum physics (neither have I but I’ve done my research on it). God does not exist in this physical universe, therefore, time to Him is different for us. Its relative, you see. So 6 days to God could possibly be 6 million years to us (I’m only using 6 million as an example, not saying thats the exact amount of time).
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:06amMomento Mori, how is living that old impossible? I suppose there was a different level of gases in the atmosphere, different amounts of solar and cosmic radiation, different bacteria and viruses, no processed food with trans fats, people constanly moving and therefore in good health… So, did I miss something?
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:29am@guitar. I’ll bite. What does the world of quantum physics have to do with time, gods perception of it, and why it would have been written as days if it were not literally days?
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:50am@ S G APPLEBEE
“Don’t the overwhelming majority who come here believe the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old? And wouldn’t that also go for the idea of a “prehistory” expert as well? If the Bible is true, there is no such thing as “prehistoric”, correct?”
I don’t steadfastly believe this, but will argue it just for fun:
What if “Earth” is simply the new name God gave this planet? What if the “creation of Earth” wasn’t literally a total construction, but rather the rebirth or restructuring of an already existing planet? Wiping the slate clean? Killing off old experiments and starting over? It would explain all the traces of prehistory; it wasn’t “Earth” back then.
As I said… just for fun. It’s just something I always kept in the back of my mind since childhood.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:38amThe Giraffe ends the debate on evolution…..
Report Post »Where are the giraffe NECK evolution fossils ?
Answer: NO one has seen them !
Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 8:04amTry reading “Genesis And The Big Bang” and “The Science Of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder.
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 9:01am@Republicorp
Fossil genera (each of which include many species) in the family Giraffoidea include:
* Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene);
* Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene);
* Paleomeryx (early Miocene);
* Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid genus with many species, complete with short skin-covered horns;
* Giraffokeryx (mid to late Miocene);
* Bramatherium (mid to late Miocene);
* Samotherium (late Miocene);
* Okapia (the genus that includes the modern okapi, essentially a living short-necked giraffe); and
* Giraffa (Pliocene), the genus that includes the modern reticulated giraffe species Giraffa camelopadalis.
Soooo… you didn’t even google, huh?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 10:38am“What does the world of quantum physics have to do with time, gods perception of it, and why it would have been written as days if it were not literally days?”
I will take a stab at this since I have been studying this very tpoiv for over a decade now.
First, since God is the creator of the universe that includes the creation of time as well. Check Einstein and you will see that he saw that space and time were one. Of course, the unity of time with the universe was understood centuries back by men like Augustine. Since God is the Creator of time he can not be measured by it nor controlled by its measurement and passing. Past, present and future are one to him.
The more important question comes when we consider why the creation would be described as taking place in days. Could that be perhaps because days were the natural model of temporal measurement for us and we would have no other frame of reference to understand the phases of creation accept through the concept of days? What is a day when there is no sun to rise and fall? How does God communicate that there was light in the universe before there was a sun? What term does he use to describe the period before?
God speaks to us in human language, and human language is based upon what we can see. It is heavily metaphorical. There is no such thing as metaphor-free speech. Does this mean that we should not take the Creation account so literally? NO. It means we should not contrue “literal” so that it excludes all possibility of natural metaphor, especially when it involves God communicating to men realities for which they have little to no frame of reference to understand.
“Day” does not need to mean 24 hours composed of 60 minutes each as measured by a clock. “Day” often can mean a set period of time, a definite moment or phase of reality different from that before or after. The “Day of the Lord” is hardly ever thought top be a 24 hour event.
If one puts asid the disparity in the DIMENSIONS of time between the Genesis account and modern science and then puts them both alongside other ancient accounts of creation one will note how strikingly similar Genesis is to modern physics in its conception of the ordering of creation and that it unfolded through chronological stages. You will not see such similarities from te Egyptians, the Greeks, the Hopi, the Norse, anywhere. For a people who still saw the world as flat the Genesis account is a miraculously accurate account.
Anyone who then counters that God should have given them as accurate a picture as we have now:
First, how accurate is our picture yet? Will we ever fully understand the universe.
Secondly, and more importantly, who tells children EVERYTHING before they are ready to handle it? Do we not learn to count with blocks before we are told to calculate the square root of 5?
The modern atheist‘s claim that it is unreasonable to think that God would care about us since we are a tiny speck in a vast universe only shows that without knowledge of God’s goodness and love the study of the vastness of creation can easily lead to despair.
Report Post »stephenb.net
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 12:15pmYou sure have made some wild assumptions in leading to your inaccurate conclusion. How can you possibly assert that a majority of people that visit this site are all in theological lockstep as to the creation of the earth? With the data supplied in these posts you could not have come to this conclusion. Therefore your claim is formed by your preconceived bias regarding the intellect and education level of the posters on these fora and not based in empirical evidence. Science requires empirical evidence for a claim to be respected and yours simply is not.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:39pmYes, it is called chronology. A student of the Bible can track events and life spans, and come to certain dates that are pivotal and provable. By this means, persons could anticipate when a special event would take place, such as the arrival of the Christ or anointed one of God, Jesus. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians was another example of a pivotal date. From there you can go back and forth to ascertain dates.
Report Post »Momento Mori
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:22amNothing’s been finalized yet, give it some time. Either way, this will not “debunk” evolution. Also, don‘t you young earth creationists propound that the earth itself isn’t even as old as 400,000 years? Also, why is that anytime a scientific study which findings may contradict biblical doctrine is ignored, but anytime there is a possible discovery that may fall in line with your superstitions you jump on it and back it?
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:38amThink about this Momento:
In order to believe in Creationism (which includes the belief that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old) you must ignore the scientific conclusions of every single natural science. Meaning you must disregard the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of anthropologists, archeologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, biologists, botanists, cosmologists, evolutionists, genealogists, geologists, paleontologists, all the way to zoologists…does that make any sense at all? Isn’t it AMAZING how believers attempt to use science when it fits into their agenda, but ignore it when it doesn’t?
N37BU6
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:48am@ S G APPLEBEE
“In order to believe in Creationism (which includes the belief that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old)…”
That’s “young earth creationism”, not “creationism”.
Semantics, I know… but it’s important.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 5:30am@Momento Mori
Report Post »I’m with you. We need to wait until all of the empirical evidence is in and translated to make any judgements from media stories. However, the possibilities are mind blowing.
All of these sorts of discoveries in my life time have taken time to come to conclusions. Beyond that, even conclusions that were thought to be solid have changed with further time.
Lonescrapper
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:27am“Meaning you must disregard the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of anthropologists, archeologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, biologists, botanists, cosmologists, evolutionists, genealogists, geologists, paleontologists, all the way to zoologists…”
Dude… scientists in each of these fields regularly disregard the conclusions of ‘overwhelming majorities” and guess what? They come up with magnificent NEW theories that become just as ‘overwhelming“ and ”accepted.” Do you think Darwin accepted all the conclusions of his predecessors? Einstein? Edison? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Science isn’t about agreement, and neither is progress in any of the fields you mentioned…
Report Post »S G Applebee
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 10:21amLONESCRAPPER,
Report Post »You obviously did not comprehend what I was saying. In order to believe in Biblical Creationism, you must not only throw out the conclusions of 1, 2, or 3 of the natural sciences, but EVERY SINGLE ONE (anthropology, archeology, astronomy, astrophysicis, biology, botany, cosmology, evolution, genealogy, geology, paleontology, all the way to zoology)…BIG difference.
youguysready_letsroll
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 5:30pmWhy can’t God be the Creator and Evolution be his method of creating man?
Report Post »Into The Night
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:17amI love good mysteries!
A politically connected businessman falsely accused of murdering a Washington lobbyist – struggles to clear his name and in doing so uncovers a mystery buried for over one hundred years.
Download it and enjoy the read.
http://studios.amazon.com/scripts/2761
scguitar
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:17amNot the least bit shocking. Wonder how the godless liberals are reacting. Well, maybe they wont know about it. Surely the scientific community will ignore it and the MSM surely wont report it
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:36am@SCGUITAR
“Not the least bit shocking. Wonder how the godless liberals are reacting. Well, maybe they wont know about it. Surely the scientific community will ignore it and the MSM surely wont report it”
What? You‘re trollin’, right?
Science is just observation… it changes with the evidence. If this is found to be legit, then the science will adapt. That’s how it has always worked. That’s how we got to this point. It’s why you have a computer.
Why would the scientific community and the MSM ignore this? It doesn’t debunk evolution. If it does in your mind, you need to splash some cold water on your face because that’s a pretty big stretch. Either way, the dating so far says 400K years so why are you using this as evidence for a Biblical argument? You’re just shooting yourself in the foot.
Science is abused, that’s for sure, but I don’t see how you can apply it to this case. They found something, and it will possibly change the record. That’s what happens. It has happened countless times before. It’s called “learning”.
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:56am@N37BU6, I’m not entirely a young earth creationist, so no I’m not shooting myself in the foot! The reason i think the godless liberals will find this so hard to accept is because if mans origin in Africa is true, then that disproves the bible. If this is true, it only confirms the bible more.
I never claimed it debunks evolution. I’m happy because it further gives credit to God and His word. And the MSM, in my opinon, or the atheist scientists, wont report anything that further proves the bible right
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:13am@SCGUITAR
“The reason i think the godless liberals will find this so hard to accept is because if mans origin in Africa is true, then that disproves the bible. If this is true, it only confirms the bible more.”
It doesn’t “confirm” the Bible though… it lightly supports it geographically, and only if you dismiss the timeline and the church’s mainstream stance on evolution.
“I’m happy because it further gives credit to God and His word.”
Fair enough… I can’t disagree there. It’s definitely closer to the target than before, there’s no denying that.
“And the MSM, in my opinon, or the atheist scientists, wont report anything that further proves the bible right”
But this doesn’t prove the Bible right… it just advances science. Do you think science always thought man started in Africa? This change in the story is nothing new. That’s the nature of science. There isn’t a predetermined story to forge reality into. It’s just learning, that’s all.
Everything we know today, and all the awesome things we can do, are based on a mountain of mistakes. Trial and error, and honest observation. PLEASE don’t allow the politicized, contradictory, goal-oriented members of the scientific community to taint your view of science as a whole. Science isn’t evil, and it’s not out to get you. It’s just been institutionalized, and the scientists who are truly open-minded (which you have to be, as science is a process of elimination not inclusion) are left out in the cold.
Government has a death grip on science just like it does everything else, including the church.
Report Post »scguitar
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:28amN37BU6, I agree that the government has a death grip on science, only advancing what they deem important to their agenda such as global warming. And it sucks too because the constitution gives congress the authority to promote the arts and sciences (Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the US constitution).
As for the church, you’re half right. Its a common myth that the church deemed anyone trying to promote science a heretic. Take Galileo for example. Its widely told that he was imprisoned for life for his discoveries. thats false. He was put on house arrest for publishing propoganda against the Pope. His discoveries were actually used by the church. I personally don’t agree with state sponsored religion, and neither did our founders.
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 4:01am@SCGUITAR
I think you’re taking my last sentence the wrong way. I said:
“Government has a death grip on science just like it does everything else, including the church.”
I didn’t mean the church has a death grip on science like the government does. I meant the government has a death grip on the church as well as science. And by “death grip” I mean they control (through the MSM and specialized publications) who gets exposure, money, favorable lighting, etc.
I think we’ve been in a perpetual state of propaganda for centuries… just seems to be human nature; sociopaths naturally work their way to the top, and do what sociopaths do, which is deceive.
Sorry if I was rude initially, but I really thought you were a Huffpo troll trying to get me wound up… kind of like what I do to them. ;)
Report Post »just me
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 1:08pmN37BU6
“Science is just observation… it changes with the evidence. If this is found to be legit, then the science will adapt. That’s how it has always worked. That’s how we got to this point. It’s why you have a computer.”
Yeah right…Is that why we have climate change??????????????????????
Report Post »ZombieMan
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:29pmScience is a good thing. Don’t mark it as evil simply because some idiot on TV claims to be a “scientist” and is talking out of his ass about things he knows nothing about.
Report Post »ZombieMan
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:30pmScience is a good thing. Don’t mark it as evil because some idiot on television claims to be a “scientist” and is spouting nonsense from his ass about topics he knows nothing about.
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 2:16amJust like that, man’s origins change.
But not climate.
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:03amThe test everyone fails every time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Riuk8CNAA
As different as everyone’s theories are, they are all resting on the same foundation. This is the one area where you’ll see science and religion in perfect agreement if they are truly honest. Even if they are dishonest (to themselves at least) they still agree by dismissing it as unimportant. So either way, there are 4 groups (2 science and 2 religion) in agreement across the aisle at any one time whether they like it or not.
Science and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive. At conception, they are actually relying on identical logic.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 5:56amAll of the theories of the origin of man are based on some facts that fit the favored narrative while other contradicting facts are rejected.I doubt that they will accept any evidence that contradicts any of their favorite narratives. If somehow the tooth is accepted, than the new theory will be their new “fact” until the next fact and narrative comes along. My problem with all this is that they teach our young that these temporary narratives are fact.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 6:05amGo figure, Cambridge immediately piles on that it‘s Neanderthal since they aren’t fom Africa. We can’t possibly have man begin anywhee near where God says we did. Ooops, can’t let facts get in the way of scientific dogma. The Israeli scientist didn’t claim **** sapiens originated in Israel, just that the most ancient remains to date had been found there.
Report Post »avenger
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 6:09amI could care lesss…I want to know where the first babe came from…..
Report Post »MR_ANDERSON
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 6:22amIf this is found to be true, it will cause huge problems. First the fact that it is in “The Promised Land” of the Jews. Whether or not anyone uses it to justify one religion or another could make for a heated theory of how this is.
Second, it would be possible that the first Homosapien was not actually black, and that could bring forth an argument from black individuals that this is once again the white man trying to suppress the blacks.
Personally, I hope it doesn’t cause any problems either racially or religiously, however I know it would cause some of the more “stuck in their mindset” experts to scoff at the evidence, and claim the data was not collected properly or such.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 6:25amDo you think it‘s possible for God to create a planet that looks like it’s million or two years old? I mean I am sure he created Adam to look like he was about 30 years old, so it stands to reason he would do the same thing with the Earth. Really, does it matter if you are burning in hell? LOL
Bottom line…God is God and you ain’t. Believe in Him or, well…..hot stuffs a comin’ for you!
Report Post »Stuck_in_CA
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 7:21amWow! An old monkey tooth!!!
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 8:28amAnother famous story: Cain kills Abel; his own brother. Now, what would
possess a man to do something so horrible? Cain didn’t have a hungry
family. There wasn’t a war going on. As we recall from Untold Garden of
Eden, the serpent and Eve may have gone a little farther than just eating a
piece of fruit. Their offspring, according to many ancient sources, was
Cain.
The common word for fathering a child, in the Bible, is begat. Nowhere in
the Bible does it say that Adam begat Cain! Although Cain was a child of
Eve, he could possibly have had the genes of someone else: an upset and
complaining angelic being, now made human for his punishment. With all
the anger and resentment inside this angelic being, could it be assumed that
the Serpent would pass his negative attributes on to whomever he had
sired? Could this have been a reason why Cain could so easily have
committed murder?
The serpent (Azazel or Nachash), as postulated before, may have used sex
to seduce Eve. Through their fornication, she became pregnant. As a result,
the two may have produced twins: both Cain and Abel. Nowhere in the
Bible does it say either Cain nor Abel were Adam’s son, nor were they
listed in any genealogies of Adam (Genesis 5:1)! Cain, on the other hand,
was said to be “of the wicked one” (in I John 3:12). The Bible even states
the third son born to Eve, Seth, was the first child born to her that actually
resembled Adam (Genesis 5:3)! Could the first two offspring of the Bible
possess the blood of someone else? Lets look:
“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…”
Genesis 4:1 (KJV)
To many this is proof positive Adam had sex with his wife, and was the
father of Cain. The word knew, if we examine the original Hebrew in this
verse, does have the meaning of “sex” (which makes it easy to assume they
copulated). This word, however, could also stand for something totally
different.
The word knew actually comes from two Hebrew words: yada and eth.
The word yada not only means to “have carnal sex with”, but also “to
recognize”, “discern”, and “acknowledge”. The word eth is untranslatable in
English, but generally relates to “a sign”, “a distinguishing mark”, or
“omen”. From these other meanings, we could reconstruct the verse into
the following:
“And Adam eventually acknowledged the distinguishing sign that had
Report Post »come upon Eve…”
http://mystery-babylon.org/cain.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20030825093657/www.thewatcherfiles.com/bloodlines/index.htm
http://www.hartsvillenewsjournal.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=2821&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&S=1
MR_ANDERSON
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 9:23amDUSTYLUV,
I agree. God could create a world that would appear to be millions of years old while only being but ~5,000 years old, but I think it would be more likely that he would create and places us in a world that he had already created millions of years earlier, but had allowed it, or made it, to be reshaped for our world but only ~5,000 years ago. Thus the world is millions of years old, but in relation to our civilization of humans but only ~5,000 years.
Report Post »guyperram
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 9:38amMr Anderson: there is serious evidence that mankind is far older than what our “experts” have been claiming. From space there are former towns and cities, clearly viewed, on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. That area was dry land during the last major ice age, which ended about 10,000 years ago.
Report Post »Also, the courses of major rivers cross the North African deserts, those were also green during the last major ice age.
The spinx is over 14,000 years old. The list goes on and on. Something very bad happened at some point in our past history that actually did kill the vast majority of humans.
There is an awful lot of our own history that we really do not know.
MR_ANDERSON
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 10:27amGUYPERRAM,
What if God has created all of these different things that stand against what the bible says to be true so that we have to arrive in a belief of him against scientific proof. In other words, we must have faith in something we can not prove. If someone believes in a god that is all powerful, that god if real could create anything even a tooth that would reveal to all tests to be 400,000 years old, when in reality the world was only ~5,000 years old.
I am not disagreeing with you, just trying to provide some people a different view into how others may think. I personally believe that some parts of the bible are not meant to be literal and exact, including some parts of Genesis. Maybe each day was like a thousand years, and it instead took 6,000 years to create. I am just trying to stimulate thought here.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 11:30amInteresting video N37BUG, but it fails logically in making the assumption that nothing is the starting point. With atheistics science this may be the case, for the singularity of the Big Band is functionally identical with nothing. Yet to say the same thing of God implies that he had a beginning, before which was nothing. Thus makes him a part of the temporal univers. Yet if God created the universe, including time, issues of temporal causality do not apply to him by definition. There is not noTHING before him. There is noWHEN before him. He always has been, not in a sense of infinite backward time but of existing outside the stream of time. Time begins when he causes it to begin, and this is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe, since time cannot exist without space, nor space without time. Materially speaking, we could thus say that there never was a time when the universe did not exist while at the same time believing it to be created by God.
Imagine a circle. Any point on the circle existing one dimensionally could not conceive of the whole circle. Even a point at the center of the circle existing two dimenisonally could not perceive the whole circle at once. Only by standing outside the two diminsioned reality of the circle can it be seen for what it is and perceived as a whoile. God is LIKE that, and I use “like” deliberately because the metaphors involving dimensioanlity will always communicate dimensioanlity even when we are describing an infinite Being beyond dimensions. Try describing Infinity other than by perpetually increasing number and you begin to understand.
Report Post »JCoolman
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 11:33amDoes that surprise you? Satan uses good intentions and perversions to deceive. And boy has he deceived the world with evolution. Or is it the fault of the people, who, just accept the deceptions.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 12:14pmI have a question – how could they tell that the tooth was 400,000 years old? I am serious – they could use carbon dating but that takes time to do that – so how do they know the age of the tooth?
Report Post »http://maboulette.wordpress.com
limitfree
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 3:39pmman‘s origins haven’t changed at all,, it is our UNDERSTANDING of man’s origins that have changed. and as far as the climate goes, change is the only constant.
Report Post »ubuibi
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 5:01pm@guyperram
The Mayans said that there would be 5 lifecycles of the earth, each lasting approximately 5000 years, according to their long calendar, the earth is currently in it’s 5th and last cycle. The Mayans told us about a black hole in the Milky Way thousands of years ago (we just discovered it with all of our modern equipment 10 years ago), they say the sun will line up with this black hole, (according to scientists this happened 28,000 years ago, reversing our polarization, Alaska used to be below the equator). I know, because of the movie this sounds ridiculous, but I’ve been reading about this for several years now, the Mayans pinned it down to an exact day, December 21, 2012.
Then there is Edgar Caycee, a remarkable man they called the sleeping physic, they have written records of over 40,000 readings that were dead on. He told of destroyed civilizations, Atlantis and Posiedian, how they were destroyed and that they left records. He even told us where they are…..under the paw of one of the Sphinx!!! He also foretold of the poles of the earth shifting when he was asked about the end of the world, (scientists over the last couple of years have noticed a shifting of the poles).
Report Post »We do NOT control anything on this planet or in this universe, neither the climate, nor the rotation of the planet, nor the life or death of the planet, there are forces beyond our comprehension that control everything.
Stuck_in_CA
Posted on December 28, 2010 at 9:47pm@tower7femacamp
Report Post »John 8:38 – 44
SPHEREBOUND
Posted on December 29, 2010 at 9:59pmWOW !!!! Look at what the archaeologist named .. GOPHER … has gone and dug-up !!??!!??
Report Post »