But you have no evidence that they did or they had any other indications of modern human behavior so they could be excluded.
Possibly. We did interbreed with Neanderthals. There are some indications that they had some traits of modern human behavior just not all of them. I would put them in the catagory of we just don’t know enough to be able to say for sure. And I am ok with that.
Now let’s discuss why you so steadfastly refuse to address the evidence that humans 50,000 years ago where no different from you and me and yet you want to make them “different” to keep to you 3,500 BC date.
Regarding this “evidence” I argue actually in the same line you argue regarding Neanderthals:
There are some indications that they had some traits of behavior humans have today just not all of them, in particular writing, which is the clear-cut behavior proving capability for enacting laws and distinguishing humanity from non-human animals.
Accordingly: I would put humans 50,000 years ago also in the category of “we just don’t know enough to be able to say for sure”.
And so I conclude: “To be able to say for sure” we can’t help keeping to the 3,500 BC date.
As for me the date gives me quite a bit of insight!
You agreed that the discovery of writing at about 3,500 BC gives us “the latest date for saying humans were created in the image of God”. This means we have found a clear behavior distinguishing humanity from non-human animals. And the reason is that writing allows humans to enact laws and contracts.
Your position of doubt about whether Neanderthals were or not in God’s image shows that other behaviors do not allow you to distinguish definitely human morality from animal proto-morality.
The capability for enacting laws makes it clear which is the aim of evolution: To bring about a living form which is sharply distinguished from all the others so that assigning rights becomes possible. Thereby deletion of intermediate varieties becomes the main definition of evolution. Species originate by means of natural deletion.
The date of 3,500 BC implies that any explanation of Christian faith and interpretation of Scripture has to fit with the evolutionary fact that at this time there were about 14 millions of Homo sapiens individuals on earth.
Astonishingly this fact not only does not lead to a conflict with Faith or Scripture, but gives us a key to understand them more deeply.
As we have seen, we can now explain coherently the enigmatic episode of the Sons of God, and this, on its turn, allows us to explain the Flood narrative as the achievement of the creation of human kind in the image of God.
I think this is an important result of all the discussion we are having in this thread, and I am most thankful to you and to all who have contributed.
In my view another important point related to the insights we have won here is the question of who Melchizedek is. To open this discussion I would like to claim that on the basis of Scripture it seems unquestionable that:
Melchizedek was a real historical person.
Thanks in advance for giving your opinion on this.
It is the combination of a variety of behaviors. Having only one or two would not count. All of them were present by about 50,000 BC.
Pretty sure the biologists wouldn’t agree with this. Ring species are a good example of how you can have the creation of new species without losing the original species.
The date of {insert different date here} implies that any explanation of Christian faith and interpretation of Scripture has to fit with the evolutionary fact that at this time there were about {insert any number greater than 2} of Homo sapiens individuals on earth.
So I see nothing to be gained by insisting on 3,500 BC.
I don’t recall anyone who claimed that he wasn’t a real person. I am sure you will have some examples which you could use to start a new thread.
Bill: Your objection with “Ring species” helps to clarify in which sense “deletion of species” is crucial for evolution of humanity:
“Ring species” show that a continuum of varieties is in principle possible, where each variety interbreeds with the others nearby. As you very well suggest, the two extremes of the ring would appear as two different species if all intermediate varieties had disappeared.
This means that a similar continuum had been in principle possible between modern humans and great apes, had extinction of all the intermediate varieties never happened. Why did these intermediate varieties disappear? The existence of “Ring species” confirms that this question cannot be answered by biological means alone, in particular the mechanism of “survival of the fittest”.
However it is plain that by provoking the disappearance of all intermediate species between modern humans and chimpanzees, natural selection worked in a way that made it possible to have a sharp distinction between the human species and all other extant forms of life, even the genetically closest one. If all the extinct ancestors were still alive, then there would be a complete continuum of “bodies” filling the gaps between humans and other mammals. The ascription of “human rights” would be a question of arbitrary decision, and racism would become rampant.
In this light the extinction of intermediate varieties between humans and chimpanzees appears like an effect that is highly useful to the end of founding a coherent human moral and legal order: “Deletion of species” is not purposeless, but serves as the means to bring about the human species which could be guided by moral rules and law.
When you state that the extremes of a “Ring species” are like two different species, you are defining species outgoing from the situation as it is today, that is, as a notion that characterizes humanity as distinct from all other living forms.
It is helpful to place Noah in the proper time and place. He was a Proto-Saharan ruler in the R1b haplogroup. The Proto-Saharan rulers kept personal menageries of exotic animals. The oldest known zoological collection was found during the 2009 excavations at Nekhen on the Nile. (Nekhen is also the oldest known site of Horite Hebrew worship.) The royal menagerie dates to about 3500 BC and included hippos, elephants, baboons and wildcats.
There is only one place on earth where the people claim the land to be that of Noah, that is Borno in the region of Lake Chad. The word has a double meaning: “Land of Noah” and “Flood of Noah” (the Dinka/Nuer word for flood is “bor”). Climate studies and anthropological studies of the rulers of this region confirm a time of flooding.
Molecular genetics also confirms the Biblical data that points to the cradle of modern languages being between Lake Chad (Noah’s homeland) and the Nile Valley. See this from the European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 26 March 2014; doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.41
Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism
Eyoab I Gebremeskel and Muntaser E Ibrahim
Archeological and paleontological evidences point to East Africa as the likely area of early evolution of modern humans. Genetic studies also indicate that populations from the region often contain, but not exclusively, representatives of the more basal clades of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome phylogenies. Most Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in Africa, however, is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21 000–32 000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. The combined analysis of 17 bi-allelic markers in 1214 Y chromosomes together with cultural background of 49 populations displayed in various metrics: network, multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis and neighbor-joining plots, indicate a major contribution of East African populations to the foundation of the macrohaplogroup, suggesting a diversification that predates the appearance of some cultural traits and the subsequent expansion that is more associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity witnessed today. The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.
Thanks George for this hint. I refer to the 3rd scenario proposed Loren Haarsma in the thread you refer to:
Adam and Eve as a pair of recent representatives of all humanity: Somewhere between forty thousand and eight thousand years ago, God specially selected a pair of individuals to receive special revelation and to act as representatives (but not ancestors) of all human beings. They disobeyed God and so fell into sin in a concentrated historical event. Because they sinned as representatives of all humanity, all of humanity fell into sin. The opportunity for the rest of humanity to receive additional spiritual gifts and to enter into a state of sinless grace before God was lost.[2]
As quoted by Loren Haarsma in Reference [2], this is basically the model Homo divinus endorsed by Denis Alexander.
My explanation can be considered a further development of this model while trying to formulate coherently the notion of “representatives”:
As repeatedly said, according to Christian faith we accept the main principle that:
Adam and Eve were free NOT to sin.
Thus the question arises:
What would have happened, if Adam and Eve had not sinned and generations had passed before the arrival of the first sin “in a concentrated historical event”?
Had Adam and Eve been the only “representatives of all human beings”, and had the first sinner (living generations later) not been such a representative, then the first sin would not have provoked that “the state of grace before God was lost” for all humans.
This conclusion would contradict another main principle of Christian faith:
To reach Salvation all humans need Redemption by Jesus Christ.
To avoid this oddity I accept:
The first sinner acted as “representative of all humanity”, even if he/she was not the first human person selected by God “to receive special revelation”. In this sense we all sinned in the first sinner.
All human persons coming into existence after the first sin lack “the state of original grace and righteousness”, that is are generated in the “state of disobedience” (so called “state of original sin”) according to Romans 11:32.
Alice, this is very interesting. I am curious on your thoughts on Gobekli Tepe in Turkey showing an advanced society as far back as 11600 bp. Some are relating this Gobekli Tepe site to the Book of Enoch and Enoch the great grandfather of Noah.
The priests of Göbekli Tepe wore leopard skins, as was the practice of the Nilotic ruler-priests. See the detail below from a painting on the walls of Göbekli Tepe. This archaic temple was built under the direction of one of the “mighty men of old” (Genesis 6:4). They are described as heroes and men of renown. They constructed temples, palaces, fortified shrine cities (“high places”), stone tombs (tumuli) and pyramids. The oldest section of I Enoch - “The Watchers” - dates only to about 300 BC. Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah, is named after other Enochs in his ancestry. Enoch is a royal title.
However regarding the painting you refer to several sites claim:
“This is a picture taken of one wall at Catal Hoyuk” (6,000BP=3,000BC):
See for instance: http://arthistoryworlds.org/catal-hoyuk-paintings/
I would be tankful if you could clarify this point in order to establish well the historical facts relevant to interpret correctly.
That image may be mislabeled in my archive. I found it associated with Göbekli Tepe in the archaeology section of an old Horizon magazine. The leopard skins on the priests are indicative of Nilotic and Proto-Saharan priests. Images such as this Catal Hoyuk mural resemble the stone age Tassili rock paintings found by a French expedition in Sudan. The bull horns found at Catal Hoyuk are suggestive also of the archaic solar symbolism for the Creator.
Some of the human figures are black and others are red. That was true of the ancient Nubians. Some were black and some were red.
Adam is presented two ways in Scripture. Paul presents Christ as the new Adam who redeems the world from the fall caused by the first Adam. This is analogical, not to be taken as history. Adam is also presented as the ancestor the of the red people of Edom. Adam refers to the color of blood. Edom was Abraham’s territory and the rulers with Edomite blood are described as have a red skin tone: Esau and David, are examples. When we trace the Edomite lineages, artifacts, religious practices, etc., we conclude that these are R1b people who dispersed widely. The dark red spot in Central Africa is Noah’s homeland in the region of Lake Chad. It is called Bor-Nu, meaning “land of Noah”, and it is the only place on earth claimed by its residents to be Noah’s homeland. The Proto-Saharan rulers were known to keep personal menageries. The oldest known zoological collection was found during the 2009 excavations at Nekhen. The royal menagerie dates to about 3500 BC and included hippos, elephants, baboons and wildcats. Noah would have known about the shrine city of Nekhen. It was one of the earliest worship centers for the Horite Hebrew. One of the more intriguing discoveries at Nekhen was the redheaded man in Burial no. 79. The facial hair of the man in Burial no. 79 had been trimmed with a sharp blade.
I believe that some have thought there may be a Nilotic connection to Gobekli Tepe and others suggesting connections to other early European groups. The thing is that the structures are very advanced for that time 11-12000 years before present and they show a group with very strong celestial knowledge. Do you know of any other sites with this much sophistication that date that early? There appears to be a sophisticated people that came into this region after the younger dryas catastrophes and introduced an advanced social and technical civilization to a native population. This knowledge shows no evidence of originating here. Soon afterwards einkorn and animals are domesticated and early metallurgy is seen. Even that great human civilizer beer may have come about here! Is it not interesting that this occurs in a region many associate with Eden. Eden where Man fell from Grace by eating the fruit of knowledge of Good and evil?
If we agree that Melchizedek was a real historical person, the next interesting question is how to interpret Hebrews 7:3:
“Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.”
The interpretation I propose is the following:
Melchizedek’s episode in Genesis 14:18 refers to the apparition of a true man, who was already in Heaven seeing God “as He is”, and therefore was like the Son of God (1. John 3:2). But this entails that Melchizedek was created along with “Adam and Eve” before these sinned, and did not follow “Adam and Eve” in disobeying God’s commandment. Accordingly Melchizedek was taken by God directly into Heaven to see God and thereby became “like the Son of God”. He then came again and appeared to Abraham as “Righteous King” and “Priest of God Most High” (Genesis 14:18) to establish the Order according to which Jesus Christ “is Priest for ever” (Psalm 110:4).
Since this interpretation is tightly related to other arguments in this thread I would like to propose we continue this discussion here.
Anyway, nothing in the T-shaped pillars of Göbekli Tepe sems to reveal that the “artists” had a sense of law and were capable of being guilty of sin. In particular the site provides no evidence of writing, which appears in Sumer about 7,000 years later, and reveals will for performing contracts and enacting laws.
In my view Göbekli Tepe precedes the creation of “Adam and Eve” and therefore Eden as well.
According to my theory (see previous postings in this thread) Noah lived in Sumer, about 3,000 BC, when there is well documented flooding of the region around Shuruppak and various other Sumerian cities.
In my view your theory bears some difficulties which are worth to be discussed:
You claim: “Nimrod was a Cushite kingdom builder. Abraham is one of his descendants.” However Nimrod was a descendant from Ham (Genesis 10:6-8), while according to Genesis 11:10-26 Abraham was a descendant from Shem (not from Ham!). This seems to contradict your claim.
On the one hand you claim that “Abraham’s family resided in the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley because that is where Nimrod built a vast kingdom”. On the other hand, in Genesis 2 “Tigris and Euphrates” are explicitly named. On this basis one should rather assume that “Adam” lived in the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley as well.
The Shuruppak tablets contain contracts written in Cuneiform at about 2,500 BC (your date for Noah). This means that at this time there lived in Sumer a population of hundreds of thousands who was undoubtedly aware of legal and moral responsibility, and capable of enacting laws and being guilty of sin. According to the Peter’s Letters (2 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 3:20) one should accept that this population went destroyed in Noah’s Flood. It is not clear to me how your theory can account for this.
