On an Old Earth View - How Are Neanderthals Accounted For?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 сен 2014
- Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason explains how neanderthals are accounted for and the difference between neanderthal and human souls.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
----- CONNECT -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
Twitter: / strtweets
Facebook: / standtoreason93
Instagram: / standtoreason
LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time - (855) 243-9975. If you'd like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: www.str.org/broadcast.
----- GIVE -----
Support the work of Stand to Reason: str.org/donate
I have for a few years been using DNA & Y-Chromosome analysis to assist me with my genealogical studies. As far as I can see, the jury is still out with regard to whether or not Neanderthals were true humans. However, there seems to be a considerable body of evidence pointing to today's European & Asian populations having a small percentage of their DNA originating with Neanderthal. If this is the case, I would see this as strong evidence that Neanderthal was truly human.
Where does the bible state that animals have souls?
The Bible repeatedly calls animals nephesh chaiyyah - "living souls," also translated "living creatures." Are you aware that "animal" comes from a Latin word that means "soul?"
They are still here, inside of all of us
I am a young earther for no better reason than it's just a whole lot simpler to believe the Bible than a cocktail of obfuscation like this.
Google 'Argument From Incredulity'.
If something is simpler it doesn't mean it's true. I'm currently seeking for evidence so I encourage you to do the same. 🙂
So what do you say about carbon dating that dates fossils to be much older than the young earth theory?
Sure, but no where in the Bible does it say that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago. So what you’re really saying is that it’s easier to interpret the Bible in what’s the most simple way for you.
Do old earth believers believe that the soul evolves?
1:02 that's simply not true. But it is true that both humans and animals are called souls in Scripture. This fact has been twisted or ignored by some in the church system.
What happens to 'non-human souls' when those non-humans ide?
Yes. His take on it is fairly unorthodox.
I would love to see a video on the assumptions that must be taken into account for old earth in comparison to assumption that must be taken into account for young earth.
For example: Old earth must stand on the assumption that radio isotopes have decayed at a constant rate over the course of the "billions of years".
It's important, and often missed, that our science is only as strong as the assumptions it's built upon. True?
Where does it say in the Bible that animals have souls ?
Genesis .the Hebrew word used when God created animals the word is nephesh (soulish)animals with mind will and emotions .day 5 and 6.Man with soul and Spirit
Animals are mentioned many many times to be in heaven and it's said souls only go to heaven
@@amandapanda3657 where does it say that one time?
@JakeMcHughProject revelation 19:11 and isaiah 11:6-9. Verse of animals with souls is psalm 36:6
animal souls don't survive the death of the body?
They were humans that lived for centuries
Denisovins were our cousins
This is getting ridiculous.
Could it be that the neanderthals were the descendants of Cain, having an extended brow could have been the mark placed upon him after killing Able.
Hmmmm..... could be. I like your original thinking though
If that’s a joke it’s a good one
Neanderthals were our cousins
I am very spiritual, but this guy makes me sad
I have done no digging into this. So I cannot be adamant. But scientists featured in recent PBS shows have determined that Neanderthals were indeed human and that most people today have some portion of Neanderthal in their own DNA. When two species of the same "kind" mate, they have mixed offspring of the same kind. But when different kinds mate, usually, either they cannot reproduce, or what results is sterile. Based on that, I think it most likely that the Neanderthal was just one variation among many variations of humans throughout time here on earth. Without doing my own research into this, it is my current conclusion that, Neanderthals are descendants of Adam and Eve. Around 99% of the fossil record (in which is found the Neanderthal nowhere near the bottom) is from Noah's flood, which did not precede Adam and Eve. The bottom of the fossil record is filled with the densest and last mobile creatures, going up to the creatures most able to escape flood waters. Folded rock, in overlapping layers all around the world, prove that virtually the entire fossil record was layed down in one single worldwide flood event, over the span of a very short time.
Study after study of Neandertals point to their humanity. This is consistent with them being one of the post-Flood populations of humans that descended from Noah and his family, following the dispersion from Babel.
Can you point me to these studies that say they're humans?
*+Grace&Faith* Sure lots of great resource material, one of my *favorites* about these studies is this one.
creation.com/big-eye-brain-less-neandertal-nonsense
It seems to me as though the real question was either not asked or not answered: why would God specially create a species so similar to man yet not possessing the same privileged status (having a soul in the image of God)? A related question, one that was touched on yet strangely not answered is this: doesn't the existence of a Neanderthal fit evolution far better than any sort of special creationism?
Shawn
But what if it's bad theology yet good science?
Shawn
Sure it does. Slavery use to be part of "good theology".
Shawn
The Bible does far more than record the history of slavery. While Christians used overarching themes in the Bible to argue against slavery (as some Christians do regarding homosexuality today), the Bible clearly permits the Hebrews to have slaves when God could simply have forbidden them to do so (like with homosexuality). There are multiple instances in which slavery is not merely tolerated, but seen as acceptable to the extent that a sign of unrighteousness of a culture is the exaltation of a slave (Ecclesiastes 10:7; Provers 19:10).
All this to say that what Christians regard to be good theology does change (for better or for worse), and that arguing against established truths sometimes amounts to good theology but bad science or ethics.
One of the things that I find interesting about other hominid-type species is that God is recorded to have created "a helper suitable for Adam"...none of his attempts fit Adam's needs...so God is recorded as actually making one just like Adam, and from his own body. Other hominid species could have just as easily been God's attempt at finding a suitable help-mate for Adam...all animal-like/human-like beings, just not fully human.
Just an interesting thought...
Can you talk about the Nephelim please
The Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels and mortal women. They were superior creatures physically. They all died in the flood. Demons are the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim that were killed during the flood.
The bible teaches that animals have souls!? This is the first time I've heard this argument. And I'm inclined to believe it, coming from Greg Koukl. But where does the bible teach this?
TheBittenBullet I don't believe in souls, but I am interested in studying various religions. To your question, I would say Ecclesiastes 3:19 indicates that both humans and animals have souls. Some translations render it "the same breath". But in ancient Hebrew, breath and spirit basically have the same meaning because they come from the same root "ruach" (וְר֥וּחַ)
"There is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile."
That passage if anything convinced me animals don’t have souls.
I like that you gave the context of the word “ruach.” That was helpful for understanding - thanks for that.
Still, my translation calls it the spirit of the animal, which, by saying it is no worse than that of man, shows it to mean its personality, emotions, attitudes, etc.
The fact that it says man has no preeminence above a beast is proof to me that it’s not talking about a soul - because from at least some perspective man has preeminence over beasts, or else hunting or fly-swatting is murder, which I’ve never known a Christian to claim.
So, from a natural perspective (which is the perspective of Ecclesiastes) men and beasts are the same. But from an eternal one, they are vastly different. That difference is the soul: eternality and the image of God.
Furthermore, 1 Peter 3:20 says eight souls were on the ark. And we know there were many thousands of animals.
I can accept that animals have spirits, which merely come attached to an individual mind, but I’m convinced Koukl is wrong on this one. I don’t believe any animals have souls.
Animals are moral agents and scripture says they will have to give an account (Genesis 9:5). Romans 8:20-22 talks about the promise of the creation (animals included) being liberated from it's bondage to decay.
How would you explain the Bible's explanation of animals in heaven, and the fact that they will eat hay? Why would God discard animals?
They are not in heaven. They are on the existing earth during the millennium, and also on the new earth that is created after that.
God created man ONCE. Neanderthals are MEN who lived before and shortly after the flood and lived a very long life as compared to modern man. Thus the heavier skeleton structure and brow ridges. For example Methuselah lived 969 years.
Genesis 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
5:31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Neanderthal remains are found in Europe, near east Asia but not in the Americas or Africa. As man's life span shortened they seemed to "die out" amoung the general population. After the Tower of Babel, they left the plain of Shinar as God caused them to disperse.
Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
11:2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Notice the decreasing life spans recorded in the bible:
11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran. (205)
25:7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years.(175)
35:28 And the days of Isaac were an hundred and fourscore years. (180)
Genesis 50:26 So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old:(110) and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.
Man has not evolved from some chimpanzee, but has steadily de-evolved through the loss of genetic information from Adam to the present.
Very interesting take on the topic. Never put those 2 together EXACTLY like that but something close
No one has ever claimed that man evolved from chimpanzees.
Please define 'de-volved' in terms of biology.
I believe, like some people such as Russ Dizdar, that Neanderthals might be a mixed breed between the sons of God (which some believe to be fallen angels) and humans.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
Colerain Fan Eh, I think you're uninformed.
In Job 2:1 we're told:
"Again there was a day when the *_sons of God_* came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD."
_Sons of God_ in this case clearly is referring to fallen angels. You cannot tell me anything other than that. If sons of God in this case means men, then why is Satan standing next to men? It makes no sense. The context makes it clear.
Genesis 6:4
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the *_sons of God_* came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."
Goliath was a giant/nephilim of the size of nearly 3 meters!
Goliath's height is described as four cubits and one span in 1 Samuel 17:4 which equates to about 290cm or 9feet and 6 inches.
Do you realize how tall that is? It's not a mere human, it's in fact a man that's come out of mixed breeding with demons.
@@LightningSonic and Neanderthals are known to be shorter on average than modern humans
I don't believe neanderthals were different species or subspecies of humans. I believe neanderthals are a race of homo-sapiens
The Christian bible does not teach ALL animals have souls! If it did I would give up MEAT. Maybe Hinduism is right? I don't think so! We shall see very soon Whose GOD is GOD.
There is just no way that Koukl can believe what he is saying. I've reached a point listening to apologetics that Koukl is interested in peddling his books and other products to make a living. And he's preying on the reasoning disadvantaged.
So Adam and Eve had some really dumb descendants that eventually became the Neanderthals? I wonder if they argued over who's side of the family they came from.
You're mixing in God with evolution. You're saying God created another kind of human.... you are verry confused my friend. stick to the Bible or don't stick with it at all, but don't mix in evolution with it.
I believe that neandethrals were perfectly human, but they are the biblical humans which means they lived up to 900 years, it's scientifically known that the skull of a human never stops growing, it grows slowly, that goes in tune with the Bible, when it talks about humans living up to 900 years. This would explain the different appereance of neandethrals. the only difference is the skull, everything else is as of a modern human.
How does that explain they have a completely different DNA/genome from us?
It should also be stated that the existence and extinction of Neanderthals played a pivotal role in the advancement of the Human race. Without them, the human race as a whole may not have flourished outside of Africa/Arabia.
If you look in the Book of Enoch, Book Of Jasher or Book Of Jubilees you will come to a very different conclusion. Thats what the early church fathers believed and it explains neanderthals and other issues.
If Neanderthals were not humans, what sin would be committed if a human male married a female Neanderthal? It seems to me that this dilemma (human having relations with non-humans) and other dilemmas like 'What would you call the offspring?' need to be addressed before anyone jumps on the bandwagon of a pre- humanity race of humanoids.
animals don't have souls, and the Bible doesn't say that.
why would it? it's a book for Humans and about Humans' relationship with God and how to be saved. plus, Humans wrote it, so there wont be everything in there.
Nah this is just foolish reasoning. I will trust in the plain literal interpretation than foolish speculations
Kevin-- most scholars have now determined that parts of Genesis are literary but not necessarily literal. It is possible to harmonize God's 2 books of revelation without doing violence to scripture.
Nice after 4,000 odd years in print scholars have finally come to agreement that Genesis is "literary". Wait, aren't all books "literary"?
And funny how this new determination arose after science demonstrated that any other interpretation would require an idiotic understanding of paleontology, cosmology, archaeology, biology and genetics.
Neanderthals were superior in every single metric that could possibly be used to compare them with modern people. I don't know how a creature with an 1100cc brain could possibly think he is closer to God than a race of supergeniuses with 1800cc brains. Neanderthals are much closer to Adam and the original man, this is why they lived so long and were so strong and extraordinarily intelligent. Stop watching public television for your understanding of the past, it is all gibberish. The mythology of the inferior Neanderthal is absolute rubbish. The French scientist Boule was a notorious liar and fantasist, he made all this up. Outside of his drivel there was never any reason to believe for an instant that the Neanderthals were anything other than Adamic superhumans. It's your era that features stunted, sunken chested tiny brained weaklings. The further you get from Adam, the worst the human beings get. It's not evolution, it is devolution.
singerliljermz If you mean 340 pound cadillac juggling superhuman, you're spot on.
Texas Arcane blue whales have larger brains than any species of human so by your logic they're more intelligent than us and Neanderthals... it's not the size of your brain but how you use it that defines intelligence.
You sound like a televitz device with the volume turned up. What do I need you for? I can get the propaganda straight from the source. "Brain size doesn't matter."
If Neanderthals were so intelligent how did they go extinct and homo sapiens (us) didn't?
How come Jeffrey Dahmer's victims went extinct and he didn't? Same question. Neodarwinism is such a retarded view of the way the world works it makes me feel queasy to feed it back to you. If somebody breaks into your home tonight and cuts your throat does it mean they are genetically superior to you?