|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Adam 4000 BC. Old earth. My solution
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
My definition of humanity is NOT 'ability to make promises, make laws, and marry'. Those are some of my approaches to identifying humans - those are some of the uniquely human traits I can identify from the Bible (…) Please, please, please, work on understanding the difference between a definition and a means for identification.
I accept there’s a difference between the two… but I don’t see how it makes any difference to the way you are arguing here.
While the “promises-marriage-laws” criteria may not be a “definition” of “human humanity” for you, you have consistently used it on this thread as a criteria for excluding arguably human activity from being so.
Among all your "many approaches to identifying humans" (which you conveniently leave unsaid at this point), if no evidence of “promises-marriage-laws” exists, your default position is that any activity, no matter how human-like, isn’t (at least if it’s before 4000 BC).
If these “promises-marriage-laws” criteria of yours can’t be applied, you assume absence of “human” humanity - because your entire theory relies absolutely on taking this option.
Meanwhile, I await your response to my comments a) that Scripture is completely silent about your alleged dual origin of humanity b) that this ‘dual origin’ opens the door to the prospect of a ‘master race’ (or at the very least, people who have more of Adam’s blood in them than those who have to put up with being the mere descendents of upgraded-to-fallen ex-sub-humans).
[As a side issue, I’m wondering what form or sense marriage vows might have in the garden of Eden (“till death us do part”? um…; “forsaking all other”? umm, which other? and so on) and indeed wondering what might be the sense or need of a promise prior to the fall.]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The trouble is we end up with an invisible difference between "real humans" and all the rest.
So its sort of circular - you can spot these "real" Adamic ones because they can respond to God, but by no biological or cultural feature. So if someone does respond to God it proves they are part of that group. And if they don't, obviously they never were.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
you can spot these "real" Adamic ones because they can respond to God
I'm not sure MikeRussell can. Evidence of belief in the afterlife or forms of worship doesn't seem to be enough for him.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
The important reason to go to the Bible for the definition of humanity is that a portion of the definition is such that we are likely to suppress it or warp it in our sinfulness.
Using your line of reasoning here (which I don't agree with, but just for the sake of argument I'll play along), how do you know that your own interpretation of the Bible isn't warped by sinfulness? How can you trust what your mind finds there?
And what do you mean by "a portion of the definition is such that we are likely to suppress it"?? What portion is this? How do you know it exists if it's suppressed?
quote:
It's even possible that some of the definition of human and means of identification of human is not known to us at all, so it's not that we're suppressing it, but rather that we can't know it apart from revelation. In this case, looking at the Bible is clearly essential. Even if this is not the case, due to our sin, the Bible is essential on this question.
What makes the definition of humanity so different from other knowledge that we shouldn't be able to figure it out using other sources as well as the Bible? Again, you are open to extra-biblical knowledge in other areas, why not here? You earlier cited the example of elephants mourning to support your point about "identifying" human activity, and I don't recall anything about elephant death rituals in the Bible. You accept the existence of Cro-Magnons -- again, not mentioned in the Bible. So, why the heck do the "identifying traits" of humanity have to be spelled out in the Bible?
Your position is fundamentally, unredeemably, inconsistent. I've put in my 2 cents, but I don't have the mental energy to try to follow your argument any further.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koshatnik:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
I agree with Eutychus -- the biblical definition of humanity is 'the image of God'. And what do we see God doing (especially in Genesis, which is where we are told about the image of God)? God makes things. And, as creatures made to be like God, we make things -- we draw pictures, form sculptures, make up stories and music, plant gardens and so on and so on. We do these things not because we're programmed to do them, as bees are programmed to build hives, but because we want to -- we choose to make things, make them as beautiful as we can, and call them 'good', just like God does.
I found this wonderful. Thanks.
Thank you!
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
Well thanks for coming this far, anyway Lothiriel.
On reflection, I want to concede that I have indeed made a significant error in attempting to apply 'sola Scriptura' to the identification marks of humans, in the way I have.
Your probing has helped me see this, Lothiriel.
My apologies to those who have been turned off the debate through my errors in this regard.
I certainly concede that we are able to postulate identification marks for humans, that do not appear in the Bible.
I would not back away from my attempt to outline a version of Calvin's 'noetic effects of sin' - that our sin does effect our ability to reason.
Nevertheless, I have applied it poorly.
I would prefer to say this:
The identification markers for humans that we can deduce from the Bible will be completely trustworthy. (Of course, we will need to work at making sure we have rightly understood the Bible).
We can also identify markers for identifying humans from outside the Bible.
Okay, so I've gotten the idea that the average reader around here is miles to the left of me, and I'm not sure if I've struck a single Calvinist along the way. So I don't imagine there's much empathy with this wrong-headed thinking I've displayed here.
Nevertheless, some might be willing to keep following the thread. A big thanks to contributors, I'm being helped substantially. Perhaps others are finding this useful too.
But it brings me to Lothiriel's claim, is creativity a true marker for uniquely identifying humans?
In reading 'The Ape at the Brink of the Human mind', I find it hard not to see significant creativity in the description of interaction with the apes, as they learnt to communicate with each other. Can you (Lothiriel, or any one who wants to support his criterion for human identification) be more precise about what kind of creativity is uniquely human?
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
Well, I must say that I have never known anyone willing to admit they may need to rethink their position (including myself) as you have, MikeRussell. I am impressed.
All the examples I gave earlier -- painting, sculpture, music, literature, ornamental gardening -- are examples of art. AFAIK, no other creature makes art. We seem to be unique in seeking to create things that impart truth and beauty.
You cited the example of chimps and apes learning language and appearing to be using it in novel ways. Many linguists and psychologists find that claims about apes learning language and being creative with it are exaggerated. One striking contrast between apes using language and humans using language is that apes require a great deal of explicit training to learn very little, while human children acquire language without any deliberate training at all. In fact, children deprived of language will invent a language for themselves -- this was seen in a group of deaf children who were not exposed to sign language, so they invented their own very sophisticated sign language.
It might be argued that the difference between humans and apes using language is a difference in degree rather than in kind, and that given a few millennia of further evolution apes might be as adept at language as we are now. This type of thinking certainly would have implications for identifying humanity. Other things to think about along this line would be abstract thinking, self-awareness, awareness of the passage of time -- all of these are inherent in our use of language. I don't want to start a long treatise on these matters, but they warrant consideration when talking about language.
So I'm sticking with art as a key identifier of humanity. And don't forget about those ancient cave paintings!
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
I'm not sure if I've struck a single Calvinist along the way.
Calvinist? I'm intruigued. What would have made you sure?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
Let me make a couple of further reflections in response to Lothiriel:
It seems right to say that no 'advanced art' has been found produced by modern animals.
However, some modern animals do seem to have ability to produce 'art' in a more limited fashion. I'm thinking for example of the apes making a 'funny face' and 'laughing' as a result, or of putting a bowl on their head and 'laughing'. This plays on their working with 'image', and with what is 'fitting', which could be described as art in a certain sense.
But the degree to which modern animals could express their creativity is considerably different from the ancient Homo sapiens who produced detailed cave art.
So if one wants to hold my thesis, it is necessary to say the following: that the last pre-human Homo sapiens were by a considerable margin the most advanced non-humans ever to live on the planet. That the lack of advanced art by modern animals is not a water-tight proof that ancient animals could not produce such art.
It might be the case that the most advanced modern animals are considerably less advanced than it is possible for animals to be.
This may seem strained to some. However, I don't think it's a logical impossibility.
This raises the question how one could disprove my thesis. Is it falsifiable (an important element of any theory)? Well to falsify it, there are a few options:
1. show biologically that there was no new significant genetic inputs into humanity around 3900 BC (my proposed date for the entry of Cain) in the area of Mesopotamia
or
2. show biologically that there was no new significant genetic input into humans and animals around 2300 BC (my proposed date for the entry of Noah's ark) in the area of Mt. Ararat.
or
3. Find a unique trait of humanity that is undeniable and show that Homo sapiens had it before 4000 B.C.
The easiest way to do this is to deduce from the Bible a trait which is uniquely human, and show humans had it before 4000 B.C.
(You can see I'm still struggling with this question of how to integrate the Bible's authority into the question of the falsifiability of my thesis.)
If you want to falsify my thesis, the only way I can see to avoid my response 'animals were more advanced in those days than they are now' is using the Bible, but there may be another way which I can't think of. Feel free to try.
4. Show that my theory is inconsistent with the Bible's teaching.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
4. Show that my theory is inconsistent with the Bible's teaching.
I'm feeling ignored.
The utterly foundational message of the earliest chapters of Genesis is that we have a single common origin: whether a single couple or not, the overwhelming idea is of one humanity, whose unifying and unique characterstic is that it is created in the image of God.
I find it hard to accept the prospect of this foundational state of affairs being as radically revised as you suggest without further comment in Scripture.
Your theory apparently calls for two independent, morally distinct origins of contemporary humanity: Adam and Eve (originally human) plus the previously sub-human humans who were endowed with humanity after the Fall.
I put it to you (again) that the implications of a theory of dual origins for humanity are simply so enormous as to make the lack of reference to them in Scripture completely implausible, besides robbing many passages of any sense (if your theory were true, what possible sense would there be in Paul's comparisons between the "first Adam", the "second Adam", "as in Adam... as in Christ" and so on?).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
@Eutychus
I'm not trying to ignore you. It's just a time issue of getting around to you, believe me. I do value your input, and see you as putting more effort into thinking and responding than anyone else here.
To see the two different biologically distinct strains of humanity in the Bible, you can go to:
Cain's wife, the city he built and the people he feared,
And you can go to:
the fact that for a short amount of time (post Flood) there were a small number of high longevity people in the midst of a large number of normal longevity people - I think the best way to explain this is by reference to a dual biological source of humanity.
For more on this second piece of Scriptural evidence, see my article
http://originofhumanity.blogspot.com/p/draft-journal-article.html
I want to have a good crack at the master-race critique, but that might have to wait till after youth group and church.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
@Eutychus
I'm very pleased you raise the 'second Adam' point.
Both Adam and Christ are our federal heads.
There are different ways of understanding this, with regard to Adam:
Some take a biological approach to our original sin and our being 'in Adam'. They might use the analogy of Levi paying the tithe through Abraham to Melchizedek, and say - just like that, we are in Adam, sinning in him, as we were in the body of our ancestor when he sinned.
But you don't have to take such a view of Adam's headship over humanity.
To see this most clearly, note that Jesus is the federal head of all Christians, yet we are not descended from him biologically.
If that can be true of Jesus, why not of Adam?
I discuss this in my lengthy thesis, fwiw
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
And a third effort, just so you don't feel ignored, Eutychus:
I'm a Calvinist, if I'm going to describe what kind of theology I have, I'll go for Reformed, or Calvinist, which are basically the same thing in my parlance.
There are different kinds of Calvinist, but basically I was saying earlier, I don't see many in this thread who think like me -
of course this is true regarding my thesis, which nobody accepts outside some of my close friends and family. But there are many Reformed Christians in the world, and in general, the methods and presuppositions of those on this thread don't give me the 'vibe' that there are many, if any here, who would call themselves 'Calvinist' or 'Reformed'.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
@ken
There's no invisible difference between pre-human Homo sapiens and the 'real humans'.
I'm sure the difference would be vast, if you tried to talk to one of the pre-humans. Not being able to make promises must carry with it all sorts of other issues in communication and thinking. You could definitely tell the difference.
But of course, the pre-human Homo sapiens never met the real humans, so it's purely hypothetical
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
To see the two different biologically distinct strains of humanity in the Bible, you can go to:
Cain's wife, the city he built and the people he feared,
And you can go to:
the fact that for a short amount of time (post Flood) there were a small number of high longevity people in the midst of a large number of normal longevity people - I think the best way to explain this is by reference to a dual biological source of humanity.
and
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
But of course, the pre-human Homo sapiens never met the real humans, so it's purely hypothetical
Am I seeing an internal contradition here?
Apart from that, I'm not generally one for self-referential but shouldn't this thread be flagged up in the Fruitcake Zone?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
To see the two different biologically distinct strains of humanity in the Bible, you can go to:
Cain's wife, the city he built and the people he feared,
And you can go to:
the fact that for a short amount of time (post Flood) there were a small number of high longevity people in the midst of a large number of normal longevity people - I think the best way to explain this is by reference to a dual biological source of humanity.
and
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
But of course, the pre-human Homo sapiens never met the real humans, so it's purely hypothetical
Am I seeing an internal contradition here?
You're not paying attention ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) . According to MikeRussell's theory, the "real humans" (Adam, Eve and Cain) mingled with the "pre-human Homo sapiens"... but only after the latter had become "real humans" themselves. Albeit less long-lived, and having gone straight from "pre-human" to "fallen human" without the "unfallen human" bit in Eden.
More later...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Ah yes, I do remember that bit, when his all-loving God promoted them from pre-human innocence to fallen hell-fodder without even a by your leave.
Actually I think you're also forgetting that it wasn't Adam and Eve who mingled with the post-pre-humans but Noah, his family and a large ark of animals. I wonder if that means the pre-humans got their milk from pre-bovines?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
Let me make a couple of further reflections in response to Lothiriel:
It seems right to say that no 'advanced art' has been found produced by modern animals.
However, some modern animals do seem to have ability to produce 'art' in a more limited fashion. I'm thinking for example of the apes making a 'funny face' and 'laughing' as a result, or of putting a bowl on their head and 'laughing'. This plays on their working with 'image', and with what is 'fitting', which could be described as art in a certain sense.
Art? No - those apes are playing games. My dog plays games, lots of animals play games. Games are not art. Art is yearning for, and seeking to represent, beauty and truth. Or maybe I should say beauty or truth, because, as you will no doubt agree, sometimes in our sin-stained world, truth can be ugly.
quote:
3. Find a unique trait of humanity that is undeniable and show that Homo sapiens had it before 4000 B.C.
The easiest way to do this is to deduce from the Bible a trait which is uniquely human, and show humans had it before 4000 B.C.
(You can see I'm still struggling with this question of how to integrate the Bible's authority into the question of the falsifiability of my thesis.)
But here we go again with restricting ourselves to the Bible as a reference for human traits.
The Bible itself tells us, over and over, to look around at the created world to help us understand God and ourselves.
Again, art. Again, cave paintings, decorated pottery, jewellery -- much of it over 6000 years old.
quote:
If you want to falsify my thesis, the only way I can see to avoid my response 'animals were more advanced in those days than they are now' is using the Bible, but there may be another way which I can't think of. Feel free to try.
This is a red herring, I think. As far as I can understand your argument here (and I admit it may not be very far) you are saying that Cro-Magnons were more advanced than animals are today, but still not human. But comparing Cro-Magnons to present-day animals is meaningless -- it's apples and oranges (or more like apples and baseball bats).
The Bible is strangely silent on the topic of animal intelligence. By restricting proof or disproof to the Bible this argument is clearly outside the realm of verifiable evidence, and is pure fantasy.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I think you're also forgetting that it wasn't Adam and Eve who mingled with the post-pre-humans but Noah
I think he thinks it's Cain, 'cos that's where he got his wife and that's why he was afraid of being killed when he was expelled to the land of Nod.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You are typically imparsimonious Mike.
Cain's wife was his sister or niece or other degree of cousin.
You can't do this as you can't even start. You're not even wrong.
And you're a damnationist.
[ 17. February 2011, 17:16: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Your ideas are not theoretical in the slightest and not subject to falsifiability.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
To see the two different biologically distinct strains of humanity in the Bible, you can go to:
Cain's wife, the city he built and the people he feared,
That doesn't require "two different biologically distinct strains of humanity". It only requires there to be other people around that aren't mentioned in the creation narrative.
quote:
for a short amount of time (post Flood) there were a small number of high longevity people in the midst of a large number of normal longevity people - I think the best way to explain this is by reference to a dual biological source of humanity.
Again, it seems to me that to explain that in this way is an assumption too far. You lose far more than you gain.
quote:
Both Adam and Christ are our federal heads (...)
To see this most clearly, note that Jesus is the federal head of all Christians, yet we are not descended from him biologically.
The doctrine of federal headship allows for the possibility of not all humans being biologically descended from Adam.
It absolutely doesn't require those humans to have arrived at their status as humans by such radically differing routes as you propose. If anything, I would say it argues against it.
How can Adam possibly be taken as a representative of a contemporaneous group to which, as a "real" rather than "pre" human, he does not belong? (Or, to put it the other way round, why not make him federal head of the chimpanzees, rabbits, and so on, as well?).
I think the example of Christ as christians' federal head makes this problem even worse for you. Paul in particular spends pages and pages arguing that Jew and Gentile are fundamentally in the same condition before God and will be saved by the same means.
His emphasis is on the oneness of the human race, its fallenness as epitomised by one man, and its redemption as epitomised and achieved by one man. This whole imagery falls flat on its face if there are two "humanities" out there.
If the truth was that humanity is in effect two distinct races divinely grafted into one (if I can summarise your theory that way) and we can legitimately expect Scripture to bear witness to this truth, why on earth doesn't that get at least a passing mention by Paul in Romans 11 when he's going on about the wild and natural olive?
If what you theorise is true, why didn't he write something like "even as the LORD grafted in the pre-humans into the human race when Adam fell, even so shall the estranged Jews be grafted into the new humanity in Christ"?
Like I say, this theory of yours is too portentous to be sustainable on the basis of indirect evidence alone. It's so foundational it would have to be explicit.
[forgot to add: I'm not sure how to self-describe these days, but I think I'm a lot more of a calvinist than I am an Arminian...]
[ 17. February 2011, 18:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
@Martin
'And you're a damnationist.'
What are you trying to achieve with this point? I submit to you that insults like this are unhelpful, because they have no content. You need to say what's wrong with thinking there's a hell where people actually will go, rather than use an appellation like this to insult. Why would you bother?
Quite similar is pre-Cambrian's comment on the Fruitcake zone. Who are you trying to impress? What's the point of such an insult? Quite likely part of the point is that you don't want to put time into engaging constructively, because that is hard work.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Mike,
Martin PC Not has had a previous warning for this, so I've referred the matter up to the admins.
Pre-cambrian's comment is within the guidelines for this board, people are perfectly entitled to say a thread or a post should be in the fruitcake zone part of the site, so long as they don't directly post 'You are a fruitcake' or a similar direct insult to the person rather than to the ideas expressed/matter posted.
If however you want to get personal with either poster, then you need to open a thread on the Hell board which is the only board where people are allowed to pursue personal conflicts/attacks.
Queries about hosting decisions belong on The Styx board.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, here is the earlier warnng. I'd say the important part is:
quote:
If you [Martin] post personal comments on other posters which are not unambiguously neutral or positive, I will count them as C3 or C4 violations.
Martin,
You have now added Commandment 6 to the list of violations. If you post another personal comment that is not unambiguously neutral or positive anywhere on the Ship (except in Hell) you will have earnt yourself some shore leave.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
Quite similar is pre-Cambrian's comment on the Fruitcake zone. Who are you trying to impress? What's the point of such an insult? Quite likely part of the point is that you don't want to put time into engaging constructively, because that is hard work.
On the contrary some ideas are so way out that they don't justify work being spent on them, and engaging "constructively" risks lending them an air of intellectual respectability which they don't deserve. To be honest I'm amazed that so many people here are prepared to engage with this idea.
I note that you also presume to know what my motive is. That shouldn't surprise me as you have already presumed to know the spiritual state of people like me, i.e. atheists or agnostics.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mike, there are Calvinists aboard Ship but probably not many posting on this particular thread. Ken and Eutychus certainly have Calvinistic 'genes' and so have I, but I've gradually moved away from a Calvinistic position as I find it too reductionist if taken too far.
Some of Calvin rings true, certainly, but I don't think he had the last word on the matter. Nor do I think he'd be that happy with how subsequent Calvinists have often taken his ideas and developed them beyond where he was prepared to go.
For my money, though, you're barking up the wrong tree in the way you're trying to 'fit' scripture into your schema.
To pick up, though, on something you said about the ages of patriarchs and other OT figures not being symbolic. I came across a Rabbinical quote the other day that demonstrates that the Jews did interpret some of these ages in symbolic or mythological terms. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, just that it is possible to interpret some of these figures that way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
Well I'm back from a big weekend (my wife was away, and I had the four kids).
So, here we go:
@Gamaliel
Do you have a reference for those Jewish understandings of the genealogies? I'm interested.
@Lothiriel
Do you have a book title within mainstream scholarship (perhaps in anthropology) that makes an argument for certain characteristics being uniquely human? Especially one that argues for abstract thinking, self-awareness, awareness of the passage of time, art, and creativity as being uniquely human traits? I’d love to take a look.
@Eutychus
Thanks for being such a long-standing thoughtful contributor here.
Let me start by disputing your argument from silence. You say that if my theory were true (and a humanity was grafted in which was not descended from Adam), there would have been a statement in the Bible analogous with Paul’s ‘grafting in’ of the Gentiles.
By the same style of argument, I could note the absence of a clear statement that we are a biological unity. I could ask why original sin is not stated in terms of biology. The parallel would be Hebrews 7: ‘One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor’.
So the Bible knows how to speak of the intergenerational imputation of actions by virtue of biological descent. If Adam were the biological father of us all, surely original sin would be transmitted like this. Why then doesn’t Paul argue like this in Romans 5? Why doesn’t he say, ‘we sinned through Adam, because when Adam sinned, we were still in the body of our ancestor?’ According to your form of argument, the answer would be ‘because he wasn’t the ancestor of us all’.
I reject the form of argument. The fact is that arguments from silence like this (both yours and mine) are inconclusive.
You ask: How can Adam possibly be taken as a representative of a contemporaneous group to which, as a "real" rather than "pre" human, he does not belong? (Or, to put it the other way round, why not make him federal head of the chimpanzees, rabbits, and so on, as well?).
How can Adam be a representative of a group to which he does not belong? Of course he doesn’t belong to ‘pre-humans group’ before they were made human! If he belonged to that group, he wouldn’t be the representative head! Why didn’t God make him federal head of rabbits as well? God had overseen the evolutionary process so that only Homo sapiens had evolved to just the right point, at that time, that they were ready to become human. God hadn’t done that with rabbits. But the Homo sapiens still lacked something – a human soul, including certain traits and abilities and dignities which are required to be human. God endowed the pre-human Homo sapiens with what they lacked, taking the model from (fallen) Adam. Thus Adam became the representative head.
It would be useful here to look at the various passages that assert Adam’s headship:
Romans 5:12 ‘just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-’
Non-biological understanding of this passage is very possible. Adam sinned, and that’s why he died both spiritually, and later physically. Death came to all, because the humanity we all received (modelled on Adam’s) was a humanity which was habitually sinful. The implied truth here is that no sinless human can be overcome by death. But by virtue of the sinful humanity we all possess (inherited from Adam), we all die.
Note as an aside that the statement ‘death entered the world through sin’ is a problem for standard understandings of this passage. Animals in our world died before the time of Adam. So how can it be true that death entered the world through sin? My dual-world theory has a good answer: the ‘world’ here primarily refers to the world of Adam-through-Noah. Death did not enter that world until Adam sinned.
Other passages in Romans 5:12-21 could be considered:
‘the many died by the trespass of the one man’
‘by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man’
‘one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people’
None of these require a biological headship of Adam – all can be understood through my theory.
1 Corinthians 15:49 ‘we have borne the image of the earthly man’
The pre-human Homo sapiens did not bear Adam’s image, since they did not have a human soul, or the ability to make promises, or to marry, and they lacked various other unspecified characteristics and dignities associated with being human.
Do you have a verse, Eutychus, regarding Adam’s representative headship, which my theory can not embrace? If not, we have to conclude that my theory is still tenable.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
@Eutychus
So what about your ‘master-race’ critique? Are there some who have more Adamic blood than others? Yes. The Jews would be the most obvious candidates. Does that mean, the more Adamic blood you have the ‘better’ the human you are? No. Humanity is equally bestowed on all, since we are all in Adam’s image (1 Cor. 15:49) and therefore all in God’s image. Does it mean some people are more likely to be ‘gifted’ in certain areas, according to how much Adamic blood they have? Yes. I suspect evolution might produce better warriors, more gifted athletes, more ability to cope with danger, more ability to empathize well with those who are suffering, as well as various other useful giftings. I suspect descent from Adam will more likely produce other giftings. High intelligence may be one, but I’m guessing.
It is quite possible, (as you assume), that descent (or not) from Adam is one contributor to the origins of race. But clearly there are more races than just two, and so the picture is more complex than that. Note that evolutionary theories all struggle with how to address the question of race, and are all in danger of concluding that one race might be superior to the other. Indeed, I see no security in atheistic evolutionary accounts for a common humanity. This is because the racial split of humanity is dated well before the arrival of traits we consider essential in marking out humans. So how can a single humanity be secured in such a system? I don’t think it can. At least my theory secures a common and equal humanity for Homo sapiens.
The fact that different races have different giftings is reminiscent of the Biblical image of the church ‘body’ having different members. All races are essential, although they differ. This richness is good, not bad. Intelligence is good, but it’s not the only thing. Musical skill and rhythm is good, but it’s not the only thing. Social empathy for those who suffer is good, but it’s not the only thing. Likewise leadership skills, and so on. I think some races will be stronger in some of these, and some races weaker, on average. But of course, it’s an average. Each race will have individuals who are far stronger than the average of their race. So all the spiritual gifts (and other gifts) are available within all the races.
Your critique is an important one. But in the end, I think there are answers which can adequately defend my theory.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
@Lothiriel
Do you have a book title within mainstream scholarship (perhaps in anthropology) that makes an argument for certain characteristics being uniquely human? Especially one that argues for abstract thinking, self-awareness, awareness of the passage of time, art, and creativity as being uniquely human traits? I’d love to take a look.
There may well be such a book out there, but I don't have a title to give you. I would guess, though, that you'd want to look at psychology texts first -- psychology deals more directly with these things than does anthropology. You'll probably come across interesting studies that tell of the unusual intelligence of dolphins and chimpanzees. It would be nice to think that somewhere there was a nice little checklist that clearly demarcated humans from their near evolutionary relatives (or even more distant ones), but it probably doesn't exist. It may be a matter of degree, rather than kind. It may require looking at a big picture, rather than a discrete list of traits.
To put it again, very simply (I hope!) my point in mentioning art is that a) we don't see it (at least not anything that looks like art to us) made by other creatures, and b) it has been produced for more than 6,000 years.
My goal is not to help you refine your checklist of human traits, but to show that your theory falls apart in light of the evidence of archaeological art. Whether the other traits are uniquely human, I don't know -- probably taken individually, not as uniquely human as we would like to think. But art does seem to be uniquely human.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
Oh, and sorry, missed the edit window -- abstract thinking, self-awareness, etc, were things I mentioned specifically in connection with language. I wasn't listing them as unique human traits, since the studies of ape language showed some evidence of them. But they, in aggregate, they do help set us apart from animals (at least, that's what I tell my dog).
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
Hi Lothiriel,
I think we're outlined our disagreement on whether Cro-Magnon art debunks my thesis, but I will restate.
I concede that the is no animal art today. It doesn't mean that the most advanced pre-humans couldn't have drawn art. It just means no animals are that advanced today.
I know you don't like that conclusion, and it has to do with method. But I don't at all feel forced to abandon my thesis on that score.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
@Lothiriel
Do you have a book title within mainstream scholarship (perhaps in anthropology) that makes an argument for certain characteristics being uniquely human? Especially one that argues for abstract thinking, self-awareness, awareness of the passage of time, art, and creativity as being uniquely human traits? I’d love to take a look.
The Symbolic Species by Terence Deacon.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
Hi Lothiriel,
I think we're outlined our disagreement on whether Cro-Magnon art debunks my thesis, but I will restate.
I concede that the is no animal art today. It doesn't mean that the most advanced pre-humans couldn't have drawn art. It just means no animals are that advanced today.
I know you don't like that conclusion, and it has to do with method. But I don't at all feel forced to abandon my thesis on that score.
But the argument is circular. You begin with the thesis that there were no humans before 4000 BC. Thus any art appearing before 4000 BC was made by non-humans. They must have been non-humans because there were no humans at that time.
It's difficult to consider a hypothesis that depends on an absence of evidence (e.g. absence of writing, law, art, whatever) as intellectually rigorous. You're free to think whatever you want, of course, but if you want to convince others, you need solid evidence and solid reasoning.
And going back to the criteria of the development of writing -- the Tartaria Tablets contain a very early form of symbolic script that has been radiocarbon-dated to the 5th or 6th millennium BC. This date is not the same as that of the fossils found with the tablets, however, but it is intriguing.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
During the silence on this thread I have taken the debate on federal headship and what it means to Purgatory where better minds than mine can have at it.
Whatever the outcome, 'federal headship' does not require a dual humanity. I can see how by your lights it might allow for it, but it certainly doesn't require it. All it requires is that God chose one individual (or one individual couple? but there's a whole sub-debate right there) to stand for humanity as a whole.
It doesn't require them to be fundamentally, morally different from all the "pre-humans" around them. The only thing which requires that is your insistence on dating Adam to c.4000 BC. Do you see that?
I don't have time right now to interact with everything you say line by line, but this caught my attention (emphasis mine): quote:
My dual-world theory has a good answer: the ‘world’ here primarily refers to the world of Adam-through-Noah. Death did not enter that world until Adam sinned.
Your use of "primarily" and your need to write "that world" rather than what the text actually says ("the world") should alert you to the fact that you are on shaky ground.
I don't know how often you engage with Jehovah's Witnesses, but this is exactly the kind of logic they deploy when a verse doesn't quite fit their hyperdispensational view of Scripture. They simply say "ah, that refers to the heavenly hope, not the earthly hope". By taking this approach they basically decree entire chunks of Scripture to be completely irrelevant.
They say this not on the grounds of exegesis, but on the grounds of their overarching hermeneutic, which to my mind squeezes the Bible to fit their wonky theology. The problem is that even if we're not JWs, we all do this to some extent, and I think you are doing so here. If you (or I) want to be intellectually honest we should try to desist when we find ourselves doing it!
Besides, the Rom 5 passage is difficult, partly because Paul interrupts himself mid-sentence (see the Purg thread) which is another reason to exercise caution about how it's used.
A final thought (for now) on the "master race". Your "dual humanity" theory is more insidious than the "plethora of ancestors" theory because it presents a clear demarcation of superior quality humans compared to previously pre-humans, not simply a broad diversity.
You try to get away from this by pleading that characteristics such as intelligence do not demonstrate superiority, but one of the planks of your opening argument was the fact that the descendents of Adam, the "pure" humans, enjoy such massive longevity.
It's hard to read this any other way (especially in your opening posts on this thread) than in terms of some form of superiority.
Would anything lead you to re-examine the idea that those generations and ages in early Genesis were strictly literal and complete?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mike ... the only Jewish reference I can give you at the moment is Jonathan Margonet's 'A Rabbi Looks At the Psalms' - which I've read in preparation for a Lent study course.
I have come across Jewish references both here, aboard Ship, and in my real life reading that indicates that even first century Jews did not always understand scripture in the way that Protestant evangelical fundamentalists insist that it should be taken.
I suspect it'd be difficult to find one concise, over-arching Jewish system of interpretation. They believed that scripture had infinite capacity for interpretation/reinterpretation - hence the Midrash and all the many and varied Rabbinical commentaries etc etc.
Once again, I suspect that your approach and thesis represents a very 'Western' and modernist mindset ... the attempt to find a one-size-fits-all solution. It's a very post-Enlightenment and Modernist approach ... which is the background that contemporary Protestant fundamentalism arose from.
That's not to say that your dating system is a modernist one - Bishop Ussher was proposing 4004BC as the date for Creation back in the 17th century. But I suppose it could be ... as Modernism was coming into play around then.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
@Eutychus
Those are helpful comments of yours regarding overarching interpretive grids.
It's good to reflect on whether it's just the 4000 BC Adam that drives me. I don't think it's just the genealogies that are pushing me to my position.
The second major reason (second in terms of what convinces me) I am holding this theory at present is the Flood. I can not escape it being global in the Scripture, yet clearly the world we live in was never completely inundated.
Combine that observation from our world with the observations from the text about the stark changes pre-versus-post-Flood, and my two worlds thesis comes out.
I haven't seen anyone posit to my satisfaction a better explanation for why the ages of the patriarchs only decline post-Flood, nor why carnivorous activity only begins post-Flood, nor why you seem to have a small number of 'oldies' in the midst of a large number of 'youngies' post-Flood.
In order, the third biggest reason I am holding on to my position is the Tower of Babel. The conclusion most people reach is that no implications can be drawn from the Tower story for the spread of language in the real world (our world). Mostly that's because we know things like the Australian Aborigines were in Australia 40000 BC, so their language must have been developed independently of any event which occurred c. 2000 BC in Mesopotamia. This historical data frankly contradicts the mainstream understandings of what the Biblical text is saying.
My thesis allows for the language scattered to be one of many in our world at the time, yet still the original language of the 'whole earth'. Thus under my reading there is a plausible connection between the text and the real world. This is a huge gain.
My fourth major reason (fourth in order of convincing me) is that I can't see that Eden could have been in our time-space continuum given it's meant to be a world of perfection. Our world has been full of earthquakes for millennia.
So it is not ONLY the genealogies, and the 4000 BC date that drives me, though that is top of the list. These four reasons cover Genesis 2, 3, 5, 6-9 and 11. I think I have provided improvement over the mainline view in all these areas. This is not a minor detail in the opening of the Bible.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
All the reasons you give can be summed up much more simply: there is a disparity between reality and [your interpretation of your] Scripture, so to harmonize them you simply invent an alternate reality more to your liking. It's not surprising that this invention of your own convenience is unconvincing to others.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I don't think I see eye to eye with Croesos on much, but in this case, 'what he said'.
Something I find particularly intruiguing in your view is that you believe there "simply isn't enough evidence" for a global Flood and therefore reject it, whilst holding on to a 4000BC Adam. In my experience, people who are willing to take on board the first view usually don't have much difficulty doing without the latter.
(I have to say that looking at Scripture, for my part I find a universal Flood [or at least one that wiped out all of humanity] to be much nearer the intent of the text than a 4000BC Adam, though as explained upthread this is not the sort of thing I would go to the stake for or make a criterion of orthodoxy).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
Well, I guess we'll see, Croesos. As genetic research continues, there will be more conclusions made about genetic inputs into humanity and animals. If significant genetic inputs to humanity and animals are found in the times and places I suggest, think of me ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Well, we already know quite a bit about genetics. Particularly human genetics, as we're a fairly self-obsessed species. There doesn't seem to be any sort of massive increase in genetic diversity centered on the Middle East in anything like the timeframe you're suggesting. As a fairly recent species we don't have all that much genetic diversity, and most of what we do have is centered in Africa. A similar situation seems to be the case with most animals, where centers of genetic diversity don't seem to be more likely found in the Middle East than anywhere else.
I guess what irritates me most about your position is its vagueness. It's the same "cold reading" technique used by psychics and other hucksters, where a prediction is kept vague enough that that they'll get credit for being right for a whole range of not terribly unlikely contingencies. So "something will be discovered about genetics at some point which will be somewhat related to my claims" is not a terribly convincing claim. What exactly do you expect to be found that will validate your view?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
@Croesos
I'll admit to being a novice in the area of genetic diversity, and the mitochondrial DNA / Y chromosome research which seems to be the core of this area.
Those with expertise in the area might be able to take my theory and determine what it implies for genetics. My theory itself is very specific.
On a little further reflection, I suspect the content of genetic addition I am postulating (in c. 2300 BC and c. 4000 BC) would not imply a significant increase in genetic diversity at those times. I suspect the answer is that the entry of Cain and Noah's ark would produce barely any additional diversity, since there are such a small number of people and animals entering our world according to my theory.
What would be contributed is a unique, fresh source of human (and animal) DNA, not derived from evolution. I don't know how you'd test for that, I'm just saying that I suspect it's a different test from the tests of genetic diversity to which Croesos refers.
I don't think my theory is vague. I'm quite specific about what happened. I'm only vague on what kind of experiment could test my theory.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Mike, I believe I haven't had an answer to either of these questions yet: quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[Federal headship] doesn't require [Adam] to be fundamentally, morally different from all the "pre-humans" around them. The only thing which requires that is your insistence on dating Adam to c.4000 BC. Do you see that?
or quote:
Would anything lead you to re-examine the idea that those generations and ages in early Genesis were strictly literal and complete?
Any offers?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
Hi Eutychus,
I admire your staying power.
quote:
[Federal headship] doesn't require [Adam] to be fundamentally, morally different from all the "pre-humans" around them. The only thing which requires that is your insistence on dating Adam to c.4000 BC. Do you see that?
I disagree with your second sentence. Even if Adam is dated c. 100 000 BC, I would still want to say that Adam was fundamentally morally different from all the "pre-humans" around him.
There are two main reasons to say this: the first is the Bible's claim that Adam was the first human. The second is the acceptance that Homo sapiens evolved.
quote:
Would anything lead you to re-examine the idea that those generations and ages in early Genesis were strictly literal and complete?
Yes all my views are open to reassessment. The point of change will be when I feel that the arguments against my current system of belief are stronger than the arguments against a straight reading of the genealogies.
An example? A definitive genetic proof against what I'm saying would force me to abandon my current views. I'd probably move to see Genesis 1-11 as myth. I've outlined some of my objections to Genesis as myth, earlier. For now my objections to the mythical approach to Genesis are stronger than my concerns about my current theory. So I'm standing behind my theory, at least for now.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
@Croesos
I'll admit to being a novice in the area of genetic diversity, and the mitochondrial DNA / Y chromosome research which seems to be the core of this area.
Those with expertise in the area might be able to take my theory and determine what it implies for genetics. My theory itself is very specific.
On a little further reflection, I suspect the content of genetic addition I am postulating (in c. 2300 BC and c. 4000 BC) would not imply a significant increase in genetic diversity at those times. I suspect the answer is that the entry of Cain and Noah's ark would produce barely any additional diversity, since there are such a small number of people and animals entering our world according to my theory.
What would be contributed is a unique, fresh source of human (and animal) DNA, not derived from evolution. I don't know how you'd test for that, I'm just saying that I suspect it's a different test from the tests of genetic diversity to which Croesos refers.
I don't think my theory is vague. I'm quite specific about what happened. I'm only vague on what kind of experiment could test my theory.
Sounds to me like a need to take Genesis literally rather than a need to prove your theory. If you let go of that it will all be much clearer for you imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
. . . I don't know how you'd test for that, I'm just saying that I suspect it's a different test from the tests of genetic diversity to which Croesos refers.
I don't think my theory is vague. I'm quite specific about what happened. I'm only vague on what kind of experiment could test my theory.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRussell:
An example? A definitive genetic proof against what I'm saying would force me to abandon my current views. I'd probably move to see Genesis 1-11 as myth.
So in summary, you'd abandon your wild supposition in the face of evidence to the contrary, even though that supposition is (deliberately?) designed to be untestable? That's the kind of dishonest, shifty rationalization popular with Intelligent Design (a.k.a. Creationism Lite) advocates.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hi Mike. Thanks Alan. I was right as always. Mike, the only way I can come close to you is in Hell. Which will turn out to be just as much a waste of time as here I'm sure, but at least there there will be no holds barred. So, I cordially invite you to Hell Mike, I think that's a first for me. And you can surprise me by proving that you're not a damnationist for a start.
With enemies like me Mike, you don't need a friend.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MikeRussell
Shipmate
# 16191
|
Posted
Hi Martin, from an earlier brief perusal of a Hell board or two, I'm not at all convinced it will be an edifying experience. I don't see myself wanting to get sworn at, personally attacked etc. any time soon. Why would I accept a Hell-call, anyway?
To all readers,
I'm likely signing off at this point, though I will have a look from time to time on this thread, to see if there are substantive comments to interact with. Eutychus is especially likely to get a response if he posts again.... maybe on the Flood....
Anyway, thanks to all who contributed, especially to those who worked hard on their posts.
--------------------
Check out my blog at http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/, and my genesis 1-11 site at https://sites.google.com/site/genesis111explored/
I also run www.microjointventures.org
Posts: 51 | From: Adelaide, Australia | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I knew you'd do this Mike. I said so from the beginning.
Saying this should get me legalistically banned I'm sure.
You're worth it.
I will not swear at you in Hell. I will not be unfraternal to you there. I will defend you there. Protect you there. In the FULL spirit of François-Marie Arouet. It's only there that we can be free and open and witness.
Relational in Ship's company. You are a VALUED crew member.
So please join me in Hell.
You won't regret it, rough ride though it will be.
Your brother Martin
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
