Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[Deeje]

Again, you are assuming that this sort of claim in the Bible is going to be accurate. That a pretty big assumption. And what is it based upon? Not scholarship, but raw faith. I prefer scholarship.

That is your prerogative. Faith is a prerequisite of all of God's worshippers. The ancients relied on faith before ever there was a Law written.

Scholarship is not a reliable standard upon which to judge God's word. How do you pick which scholars are correct? The ones you agree with?

NEVER did as we were told? Are you serious? The history of Israel went back and forth between good kings and bad kings, times of obedience and times of disobedience, times of faithfulness and times of idolatry. The prophets don't dwell on the times of obedience because that's not their job. Their job is to call Israel back from unfaithfulness to God's way. The good times just get a mention, but they are there if you read.

Perhaps I should qualify that statement.....they never continued to do as they were told. Had they done so, the prophets would never have been sent and treated as badly as they were. The Hebrew scriptures would be a whole lot thinner than they are now.

The expression is "Two Jews; three opinions" and we don't say that all the opinions are correct.

So really what you are saying is that there is no consensus among Jewish people about what to believe? Are you really free to believe whatever you wish? Are your beliefs just about an individual's opinion on what the scriptures mean?

Jews have focus -- our focus is on what behaviors God expects of us, and being faithful to that. The Messiah is simply not a big part of our religion. The messiah will come at the end of days, and we are not itching for the end to come the way Christians are.

Since the promises in connection with the Messiah are going to make a very big difference to life on earth, why would you not want them to come true ASAP? Won't it mean good things for Israel according to your beliefs? How can you not be itching for them to come? Spiritually, the world is dying. The need for spiritual healing has never been greater IMO.

It is Christians who have a problem with veracity, because according to your stories, Jesus claimed that before all the men in his presence died, he would return. Not only did that not happen, 2000 years has gone by.

Misinterpretation and misunderstanding of his words lead some to believe this....
I assume you mean his promise made just before the transfiguration?

Matthew 16:28...
"Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”

Mark 9:1
"Furthermore, he said to them: “Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Kingdom of God already having come in power.”

Mark 9:27
"But I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Kingdom of God.”

Three of the Gospel writers mention this....Matthew and Mark record how it was fulfilled....

Matthew 17:1-9....
"Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and his brother John along and led them up into a lofty mountain by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone as the sun, and his outer garments became brilliant as the light. 3 And look! there appeared to them Moses and E·liʹjah conversing with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, it is fine for us to be here. If you wish, I will erect three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for E·liʹjah.” 5 While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved. Listen to him.” 6 At hearing this, the disciples fell facedown and became very much afraid. 7 Then Jesus came near, and touching them, he said: “Get up. Have no fear.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one but Jesus himself. 9 As they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.” (see Mark 9:1-9)

This was the fulfillment for Peter, James and John. They saw the Christ glorified as he will be in his Kingdom.

2,000 years later we are awaiting Christ's return to fulfill all of his promises concerning bringing the benefits of his Kingdom to redeemed mankind. (Revelation 21:2-4)

I don't think we are in the end times. Things are better than they ever have been. We are healthier and live longer. There is considerably less war. The streets are much safer -- violent crime in the cities is way down. There are new forms of immorality, but some of the old immoralities have died away or are now scandalized. Sorry, but I just don't see it.

OMGoodness....you live in America...right? A large portion of the population in the US are living on the streets....not just the poor, but middle income people who can't afford housing or health care in your country. Your working wages are so low that people need to work three jobs just to make ends meet. The US is more politically divided than it has ever been. I have never seen a US President who was more despised. You have more mass shootings than any civilized country on earth, and your health system is the greediest I have ever encountered....and things are better than they have ever been? Where?
Have you ever lived anywhere else?

I have never seen the world in such political turmoil. Just about every democratic country on earth is falling apart at the seams. Refugees are flooding over into countries who can't afford to look after them. The world's economy is collapsing....Terrorism makes people afraid to travel or to go about their daily lives because a bomb may just explode where they least expect it. Drug and alcohol abuse and the violence generated by it has made the medical emergency services a dangerous occupation......and you don't see it? SMH. Crikey! How bad does it have to get?

 

[Deeje]

I'm not sure what your point is. The story that begins in Genesis 2:4 is still written chronologically. the Mist that covered the earth happens i.e. before God creates the Garden. And so Man is created before there are plants. And that, sir, is a direct contradiction with the first story in Genesis 1.

I have explained it as simply as I could.....there are no contradictions in the first two chapters of Genesis...you are reading them wrong......I am not a "sir" BTW.

 

[dad]

Everything in the natural record supports the idea that the laws of physics have remained constant, and natural processes have continued as normal down through time. You have zero evidence to the contrary.

Everything in the natural record as well as the Scriptural and historical records supports the idea that the present laws of physics have replaced the former laws and constants, and natural processes are just processes of this current nature. You have zero evidence to the contrary. So you turn to fables falsely labeled as science.

We know that isolation of a species is one of the pre-requisites of evolution.

So what? That is also a natural consequence of creatures evolving as God equipped them to be able to do! Your religion has no monopoly on explanations.

It is necessary that they be pigeon holed in a specific environment they they are not best suited for. That way when a better mutation comes along, natural selection will pick it. In the case of cyanobacteria, it is obvious that some of the species was isolated and some of it not. The portion that was isolated evolved.

Great...so?

I cannot even imagine a scenario or something even close to maturation that would take place during a line of evolution. Things adapt. Period. It is not a matter of becoming a "higher" level.

Sure I can. In both cases you are talking about mankind coming into the understanding of the difference between right and wrong on a significant level -- qualitatively higher than i.e. chimpanzees have.

Right and wrong in not something that evolution deals with. Since science doesn't know right from wrong or deal in it, we could not ask them, better to ask a chimp!

You are making things far more difficult than they actually are. We make decisions every day for which we do not consult God. It doesn't mean that God doesn't contribute to the outcome. It just means that we didn't go to God for help in reaching our decision.

Some do, some do not. In any case He makes His sun to shine on all.

It is that way for science. God is the author of the universe. He decided what the laws of the universe would be.

And He changed things at the fall, and also later, and wil change things again in the coming kingdom of God on earth etc.

Evolution is his modus operendi in creation.

It is a feature OF creation but not how He created it all.

Yet in as much as when 51% of scientists acknowledge this, they don't consult God when they do their scientific studies. That's the way it SHOULD be.

Obviously they don't, hence the foolish fables, lies, WOMD, pollution, etc etc.

Another change in natural laws after the flood? You just make this stuff up again and again.

It was then the world was divided, languages suddenly changed, continents broke apart, people lived 900 years less than they used to or so, trees never grew fast any more, spirits did not directly live on earth..etc. Yes, things became very different fast.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To refresh things here..remember science doesn't know. God does. He told us. Now we can know too. Science can't though because it distances itself from truth and God. Simple.

Your deflections are getting pretty hilarious at this point.

Science doesn't declare that kinds exist at all, so yeah, science isn't going to address that. You can't use science as your scapegoat to get out of this one.

What we are addressing right now is your faulty logic. You're obviously trying to avoid it like the plague. Stop trying to blame your bad logic on invisible deities.

 

[dad]

Your deflections are getting pretty hilarious at this point.

Science doesn't declare that kinds exist at all, so yeah, science isn't going to address that. You can't use science as your scapegoat to get out of this one.

Right, they do not know. Thanks for admitting that.

Therefore noone can say that science knows that there were not...or were kinds. So on what authority do you deny it?? Ha
Dreams? Visions? Voices?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right, they do not know. Thanks for admitting that.

Therefore noone can say that science knows that there were not...or were kinds. So on what authority do you deny it?? Ha
Dreams? Visions? Voices?

You can't seriously be this obtuse.

Science deals in species, not kinds. "Kinds" is not a claim of science. It's your claim. Based on your faulty reasoning which you refuse to address.
It's baffling to me that you're okay with relying on faulty reasoning to reach faulty conclusions. Apparently you're not all that interested in actual knowledge.

I deny your claim on the "authority" that it's based on faulty reasoning. You have yet to address that.

 

[dad]

Science deals in species, not kinds. "Kinds" is not a claim of science.

We know that, they don't so much as realize there were kinds! Ha. So? This is not a thread to plumb the depths of ignorance. They have their own little grouping names and labels to fit their religious narrow minded regime.

It's your claim. Based on your faulty reasoning which you refuse to address.

The record of creation in the bible was actually not written by me. Why be foolish?

I deny your claim on the "authority" that it's based on faulty reasoning.

Creation in the bible is not based on any reasoning. It is God telling us what came down.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We know that, they don't so much as realize there were kinds! Ha. So? This is not a thread to plumb the depths of ignorance. They have their own little grouping names and labels to fit their religious narrow minded regime.
The record of creation in the bible was actually not written by me. Why be foolish?

Creation in the bible is not based on any reasoning. It is God telling us what came down.

Your faulty argument was written by you.

Let's address that already. Stop deflecting.

 

[nPeace]

I grew up with that opinion. If you ask them why, they will simply tell you "Because it's true." It's not based on any scholarship.

Let's ask them then.

The Literary Unity of the Exodus Narrative
This is just an excerpt.
You may read the entire article, if you wish.
In it there is zero indication, or acknowledgment of basing his opinion on tradition. He even points out the fact the the supporters of the Documentary Hypothesis, are not even themselves in agreement.

Throughout biblical literature, in all of its genres, the ancient Israelite literati went to great lengths to vary their language whenever possible. The best way to understand the different phraseologies listed above is to posit a single author who demonstratedhis virtuosity at every turn. Through such technical brilliance, he no doubt dazzled his audience, as they listened to the reading of the national epic narrative in ancient Israel.

At the same time, however, our author intentionally did not vary his language with one key phrase, to wit, the repeated clause רֶשֲׁאַכ ּםֶהֵלֲא עַמָש ׁא ֹלְ ו and he [Pharaoh] did not listen to them, as Yhwh had spoken” (7:13, 22; 8:11, 15; 9:12). The effect of the verbatim repetition is to reflect Pharaoh’s obstinacy. He does not change, and the language does not change - another stellar example of “form follows content.”

...In short, the source critics are on the wrong path altogether. None of these variations has to do with different sources; rather, they are inherent to ancient Hebrew literary style.

The key linkages between the two episodes are the verses presented above. They share not only the designation of the God of Israel as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but also four verbs: צעק/זעק zʿq/ṣʿq, “cry out”; שׁמע šmʿ, “hear”; ראה rʾh, “see”; and ידע ydʿ, “know.” This connection was noted already (at least to some extent) by Rashi (1040–1105); and it is recognized by scholars who bring a literary sensitivity to the text, such as Everett Fox and Robert Alter.

And yet the Documentary Hypothesis (in our case, according to both Driver and Friedman) is oblivious to all this, for 2:23b–25 is ascribed to P, 3:6 to E, and 3:7 to J. Once more, the holistic approach is to be preferred, especially since the J-E-P dissection removes the theological tenet inherent in the text: when the people cry out to God, the deity responds.

Conclusion
In the preceding sections, we have examined the Exodus narrative through eight different lenses. In each case, I believe that the holistic approach to Exod 1–14 provides for a better understanding of the text than that which emerges from classical source division. The partition of this material into its hypothesized J, E, and P components strips the narrative of its literary structure, belletristic artistry, textual interconnections, and at times its theological messages.


...the Hebrew Bible should not be cavalierly dismissed for ideological reasons...
Edited by James K. Hoffmeier, Alan R. Millard, and Gary A. Rendsburg

 

[nPeace]

I'm not sure what your point is. The story that begins in Genesis 2:4 is still written chronologically. the Mist that covered the earth happens i.e. before God creates the Garden. And so Man is created before there are plants. And that, sir, is a direct contradiction with the first story in Genesis 1.

There you go. A perfect example of opinions based on how one interprets the text. So one person knows it's written in chronological order, another knows it isn't.
On what basis do they know? It is so.

 

[nPeace]

The stuff that is "hotly debated" is the pinpointing of when this groups diverged.
That they diverged at some point and thus share ancestors, is not a point of debate.
You should read the articles you post. This one doesn't say what you would want it to say.

I think you need to read the article again.
It doesn't say what I want it to say, It says what you don't want it to say.
The line I posted doesn't even require one to read below it, although that's what I did.

Yet, that was what you previously said about it:

You didn't specify anything specific, nore does this statement hint at all to the fact that experiments typically test just one aspect.

It's fine if you wish to retract it off course, if you really meant something else.
But you can't really blame me for misunderstanding you, if that was the case, considering I just took what you actually wrote and ran with that.

Also, you "forgot" to answer my question: what were the results and conclusions of this experiment?​

You failed to get the point, and once again, you have presented yourself as knowing and being right about it too. Amazing!
No please. I did not forget to answer your question. You are wrong. Okay?

To get the point, you may need to go a bit further back than where you jumped in. Try here.

 

[nPeace]

No, the point is that the notion of 'kinds' is not helpful for understanding the varieties of life that we see.

But more so, the Bible has been found to be an unreliable witness to history.

Okay.

 

[dad]

Your faulty argument was written by you.

Let's address that already. Stop deflecting.

I neither made up creation or wrote Genesis actually. Science can't cover it and you have nothing to say.

 

[nPeace]

How do you pick which scholars are correct? The ones you agree with?

Terrorism makes people afraid to travel or to go about their daily lives because a bomb may just explode where they least expect it.

Not to mention, terrified to go through the airport checkpoints.

Spoiler

 

[Subduction Zone]

I neither made up creation or wrote Genesis actually. Science can't cover it and you have nothing to say.

Science can and has debunked it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is your prerogative. Faith is a prerequisite of all of God's worshippers. The ancients relied on faith before ever there was a Law written.

Scholarship is not a reliable standard upon which to judge God's word. How do you pick which scholars are correct? The ones you agree with?

Are you serious? It is faith that is not reliable. Each religion in the world takes its tenets by faith, yet there is extreme differences.

Even within Christianity, you guys have your differences. You can't even agree on what makes a person a Christian, with some of you saying it means having a born again experience (asking Jesus into your heart as your Lord and Savior), some of you saying being baptized, and some of you saying it means accepting the major teachings of Christianity.

So really what you are saying is that there is no consensus among Jewish people about what to believe? Are you really free to believe whatever you wish? Are your beliefs just about an individual's opinion on what the scriptures mean?

That is correct. There is no consensus among Jews on what to believe. Our opinions range from the Orthodox, who take things very literally and still accept all of the Oral Torah, and who consider their way the only true Judaism, to atheist Jews who want nothing to do with Judaism at all. (Note: some atheist Jews do come to synagogue and pray, which is very interesting -- they are Jews first and atheists second.) It's not like all these views are correct. But we don't stop being a Jew simply because we are in error.

Since the promises in connection with the Messiah are going to make a very big difference to life on earth, why would you not want them to come true ASAP? Won't it mean good things for Israel according to your beliefs? How can you not be itching for them to come? Spiritually, the world is dying. The need for spiritual healing has never been greater IMO.

Well the Orthodox would agree with you -- they will say, "May he come swiftly in our days." But no, for me and many other Jews there is no haste. is the world dying? It has its problems, but it has always had its problem. In some ways it is improving, and things are very exciting. Who is to say that our improvements aren't the very thing that is preparing the world for the coming of the Messiah?

Misinterpretation and misunderstanding of his words lead some to believe this....
I assume you mean his promise made just before the transfiguration?

Matthew 16:28...
"Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”

Yes these verses are what I was referring to. However, the transfiguration simply isn't the Kingdom of God. It just isn't. In the Kingdom of God, everyone will believe in God and obey him, just as the angels and all the planets in their courses do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have explained it as simply as I could.....there are no contradictions in the first two chapters of Genesis...you are reading them wrong......I am not a "sir" BTW.

And I don't know how much more simply I can put it. Chapter 2 is also in a chronological order, and plants are created AFTER man, putting the rendition at odds with Chapter 1. I think you just have blinders on.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Everything in the natural record as well as the Scriptural and historical records supports the idea that the present laws of physics have replaced the former laws and constants, and natural processes are just processes of this current nature. You have zero evidence to the contrary. So you turn to fables falsely labeled as science.

Again, you are making this stuff up out of whole cloth. Nothing in the science record, or even in the Scriptures for that matter, indicate a time when natural laws were different.

It was then the world was divided, languages suddenly changed, continents broke apart, people lived 900 years less than they used to or so, trees never grew fast any more, spirits did not directly live on earth..etc. Yes, things became very different fast.

Pangaea broke up 180 million years ago. Is that how long ago Noah's flood was? And what about the continental crashes and breakups before Pangaea that formed, i.e. the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains? You know if you go to the Great Plains and dig, you find a wealth of dinosaur fossils from the Pangaea time, but if you dig even deeper, you find sea fossils from when it was at the bottom of a sea.

 

[dad]

Again, you are making this stuff up out of whole cloth. Nothing in the science record, or even in the Scriptures for that matter, indicate a time when natural laws were different.

Lots in history and the scriptures, actually. As for fishbowl science, it only concerns itself with the present laws and knows nothing else existed and more importantly couldn't care less, because it loves making up it's Satanic fables.

Pangaea broke up 180 million years ago.

No, more like about 4300 years ago.

Is that how long ago Noah's flood was?

? The flood lasted about a year, what about it? If you mean the change in nature that was likely about 106 years after the flood, in the days of Peleg, when the earth was split.

And what about the continental crashes and breakups before Pangaea that formed, i.e. the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains?

Evidence? Let's see what you got and why you claim this.

You know if you go to the Great Plains and dig, you find a wealth of dinosaur fossils from the Pangaea time, but if you dig even deeper, you find sea fossils from when it was at the bottom of a sea.

The dino time was likely pre flood time. The seas before that were also pre flood waters. Remember we had something like 1700 plus years from
Adam till the time of the change in nature.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Let's ask them then.

The Literary Unity of the Exodus Narrative
This is just an excerpt.
You may read the entire article, if you wish.
In it there is zero indication, or acknowledgment of basing his opinion on tradition. He even points out the fact the the supporters of the Documentary Hypothesis, are not even themselves in agreement.

That he tried to use textual criticism is impressive for someone who rejects the Documentary Hypothesis. I truly respect it, even if I disagree.

Thank you for finding this.

Notice that at the beginning of his Abstract, he writes, "Most modern biblical scholars remain wedded to the classic Documentary Hypothesis." IOW the consensus of scholars is that JEPD wrote the Torah. His view is the exception to the rule.