Can you stump the bible thumper?

Early in the 20th century, paelontologists pointed out that what is now the Mediterranean Sea was a low-lying, fertile region with two large lakes, and cut off from the Atlantic, due to the lowering of sea levels contingent upon the Ice Ages. Very likely, the record of human development of the species in which both Neanderthalis and Cro Magnon arise is buried somewhere on the sea floor of that sea.

There is so much to know, so many questions, and few satisfactory answers, with good substantiation. Of one thing, however, i am certain. A highly partisan, and therefore suspect, Hebrew version of the origin myths of greater, more civilized semitic peoples is not the place to find good answers.

True, but I'm sure the next Star Wars installment will tell all.

When Darth Vader tells all? We find out that, in fact, in an earlier visit, Obe Wan Kenobe was actually the father of the illegitimate Annekin? And responsible for Lot's orgy in the cave?

I can hardly wait . . .

You know Cav, i was thinking about you when perusing this thread this morning--because of your knowledge of Irish song, and your sense of humor.

In the late 19th century, a popular entertainment of the Protestant small-holder in Ireland were the traveling theater troupes. Their stock in trade were the "Biblical Dramas"--of which the tale of Samson was a favorite. The Irish Catholic wit, however, with it's wry turn and irreverance, noted well that Victorian prudery had the thespian Samson wrapped in a lion skin, over his "smalls" . . .

Now Samson was a mighty man
And he fought with a cudee's jaw
And he fought a t'ousand battles
Wearin' crimson flannel drawers . . .

this is one answer Monger. However, it does not seem to be the most popular since most biblical literalists believe that a source must be declared in the affirmative to be considered as a iblical truth.
There are a few references in Genesis that allow those who, with commitment to personal revelations , can interpret that there was evidence of further creation after the initial creation week

Setanta, where the hell did you get that "low fertile valley' story for the med. im just curious, Latest evidence is anything but

Yoda,
How come you are only answering a few of the many questions posted here? I thought the moderator's (timberlandko, etc) were among the best, but I haven't seen any answers?

I have 2 questions:

In the New Testament, there is a passage that goes: "Any sin can be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost."

1. What is a sin against the Holy Ghost? And if one truly accepts Jesus into their heart as their personal savior, does everything else "correctly," wouldn't they still be going to heaven.

This passage seems to limit the saving power of Jesus, which I thought was unlimited?

I've always wondered about that. Jesus washes away all your sins, even mass murder...but somehow this sin must be worse even than mass murder. What exactly is this sin?

2. Since we mentioned mass murder: Lets say X is a murderer, liar, etc., but near the end of his life truly accepts Jesus as his savior. Y lives a good life helping others, also accepts Jesus throughout his life, sinned very little. Do they basically go to the same sort of heaven? That doesn't seem quite right. One person struggles his entire life to sort of do the right thing, other person sort of does whatever they want, then asks for forgiveness at the end, they end up at the same end? Explain.

..

Set. Lot and his daughters etc. I can not recall the citation but I have read somewhere that this is a faux origin story of two groups marginal to the Jewish populations in central Palestine . All of these middle Bronze Age societies mentioned in the OT were tribal groups organized as phratries. This is a clan system which requires an origin myth with a common ancestor that begat them all and makes them all kin in some way. Kinship is the glue that holds these groups together. The story of Lot is a slur that implies the Moabites and Ammonites were the product of incest and that they slept with their daughters. All in good fun of course, and the continuous intertribal warfare was enjoyed by all.

I just caught up with the 'genetics " answer that pdog had sought references .
Im thinking that were talking about svante Paabo and matt Kring of U of Munich and Mark WStoneking of Penn State, who, as a team, sequenced about 1/3 of a 30K yeaqr old Neanderthals mDNA. They found that, although the Neanderthal was on the human evo chain, it had enough diffrences that precluded interbreeding as an option. That isw, no Neanderthal DNA sequences were found in human DNA. Later sequences on other Neandethals show the same.
SO we didnt screw em, we wiped em out. Nope AWdam and Eves kid had to interbreed with somebody else. The Bible is silent on the origins of Mrws Cain. science cant help you either , Its proven pretty well that Saps and Neanders didnt do it together.

Farmerman, there two Neanderthal data points, I'd like to see a few more before the jury was called in on that issue.

set, IM serious, Im putting a syllabus together for fall and i want to highlight some examples of how weve revised entire explanations based upon plate tectonics just since the 1970s.
I had one of my grad advisees come up with a mS and mCE rock property thesis proposal and the kid had some old interpretations of rock properties based on earlier understandings that have later been re-interpreted from the same data. im trying to collect these wherever I can find them .

the Med is now thought of as a closing remnant of Tethian Sea, and since about 5my, its been under sea,but before, it was a desert. There are some minimal coal measures which meant some swampy deposits in the n AFrica side, but Im curious how the early paleos saw the whhole environment . They probably had way fewer drill holes than we have now and , itd be neat to see how they extrapolated beyond their hard data.

acquiunk-you mena that paabo and Stoneking have the only good data points? hmmmm , not a great statistical inference is possible. Juswt an average.
I figgered the fact that theyve only gotten 1/3 of the 986 mDNA base pairsw was swort of a problem in itself.

From the facial reconstructions , Id rather sleep with Dick Cheney.

Not that theres anything wrong with that

Newark Terrain, the Connecticut Valley, the Bay of Fundy. The entire geology of the northeast US/Maritime Canada has been revised.

In terms of Neanderthals, I look at it this way. No mater how simple in terms of social organization and technology the group. Humans use kinship as a primary source of social networks and survival. It is a human universal and therefore is probably appears very early in our history. So whether or not sleeping with Neanderthals was productive, you can be damn certain someone tried.

tcis, I'm sure Yoda will be along soon to take up his crusade. I sure hope so, anyway, whether my question gets tackled or not. I look forward to some day encountering a religionist, most particularly one given to any of the myriad sects of the Judaeo-Christian persuasion, able to defend their religionist position by any means other than circular logic and internal reference. I've been looking a while now.

Not really a long, long time ago, in a discussion not so far away, I remarked " ... "Faith" plays no part in the rational assessment of things as they are, or appear to be. A realist does not have "Faith" that The Laws of Thermodynamics, or of Gravitational Attraction, or of Geometric Relationships, or the like, are valid; the realist, examining and considering the available evidence, concludes the validity of such laws through direct observation of their applicability and the demonstrated abscence of contraindication, while remaining open to the possibility of revision brought about by new discoveries. The function of Science is to discover and discard the patently false, to evolve, to expand upon itself, to ever-more-closely approximate "The Truth", and stands not only ready to discard cherished and time-honored conclusions, but is compelled to do so. Science seeks not so much to demonstrate The Truth but to expose Error. Religion, on the other hand, specifically discourages, even forbids, the questioning of its prime tenets, depending on an unchanging, unassailable, metaphysical, "Revealed Truth" exempt from the requirement of evidentiary substantiation. The sole basis for validity claimed by Religion is that to be accepted, the religion must be valid. I contend that Religion is devoid of logic, reason, evidence, and validity. I contend that Religion is likely the chief impediment to humankind's development and "fulfilment", in that by its nature it is self-serving, arbitrary, bigoted, prejudicial, irrational, exclusionary, contradictory, and illogical. Of course, I could be wrong. I merely base my assessment on the available evidence. I'm always willing, even eager, to consider new evidence ... its not like its a religion to me."

I'm not a Theist, nor an Athiest, nor an Agnostic, I am an Areligionist. Whether or not there may be a God or gods is immaterial, I dispute Religion in general and Christianity, as it is evidenced, most particularly. As far as I'm concerned, any superstition has the same validity as any other superstition.

you first

Timberlandko,

I agree, Science is It, right now. Science is the best we have for a lot of areas.

Yet, there are some things science isn't that great at:

Like: how did it all begin? why did it all begin? why are we here? where are we headed? Is there an afterlife? etc. etc. ad infinitum.

I guess you could say those are all ultimately fruitless and meanlingless questions, and one just should't ask them. Yet, it seems that a lot of humanity has a need for Faith in something.

Why is there this gaping hole in humanity? Why do humans need things like faith? What is the scientific reason for this?

Perhaps there is none. Perhaps it just is.

Still, as great as Science is, it seems to be just a bit lacking in some areas. Do you believe that science and realism can eventually explain everything? As great as that approach is, it seems to lead one to almost be a bit robot-like.

As i noted, this was a point of view of paeleontologists in the early 20th century; as i also mentioned, i would trust Patio's take on the subject, or better, yours or Acq's. At any event, i'm fairly certain that the statement that the DNA record for Neanderthal is "different from ours" is suspect, and probably an attempt to put a scientific gloss on a "species hatred" of any early hominid thought to be an ancestor of, or in a close parallel line to, homo sapiens (something i've commonly encountered in the religiously devout offended by the theory of evolution). Had i had more time in the last, say, forty, forty-five years, i might have given it close study. Most of what i began history with, and almost all that i know of paeleontology and paeloe-anthropology comes from the small town library collection i began with in the 1950's. Much, perhaps most, was of a pre-1935 vintage.

As i've mentioned earlier (i'm on surer ground with these records), corroborative evidence for the OT (as opposed to the practice a century ago or more of attempting to corroborate the history of older, more developed civilizations than that of the Hebrews) seems to demonstrate that anything like reliable history of the tribes of Judah does not begin until the events described in the books of Judges, of Samuel and of Kings. It is very likely, as well, that this story was put together after the Babylonian captivity. David and Solomon were almost certainly satraps of Hiram, the Phoenician "King" of Tyre, whose lucractive trade routes with the head of the Red Sea passed through Judea. Very likely, these two were in a sort of protection racket with Hiram, to the effect that his power would overawe the other tribes of Palestine (Moabites, Midianites, any remant of the Canaanites--all of these people, including Hebrews, little different from those called Bedouin in later times). In return for this sort of protection, the tribes of Judah undertook to assure the security of the land route between the Red Sea and the Med. The tales of the splendor and glory of Solomon's palace and of the Temple are rather beggared by the very descriptions of the Bible. The temple is described as about 200 feet long (taking the extreme view that a cubit is 44"), and given the width in the text, it is about the size of the hull of U.S.S. Constitution. There were zigarut structures in Sumer thousands of years earlier which were more impressive. Compared to the contemporary corresponding structures in Babylon and Nineveh, not to mention the monumental architecture of the Nile valley, these buildings were pretty paltry. The alleged wealth of Judah was as likely an exageration, if not altogether chimerical.

It seems most likely that as Egypt and Babylon/Assyria contended with one another, with Palestine as the border land and battleground, the Hebrew tribes, as with all the neighboring tribes, had little occasion to enjoy "the land of milk and honey." The captivity stories are likely true, because the age of the temple socities and the proto-empires which succeeded them was a time when enforced gang labor was used to construct the monumental artifacts of the age. He who is called "Pul" in the OT corresponds by dating with Tiglath Pilaser. His offensive into Palestine ended a long era of Egyptian domination, under which Tyre and Sidon would have flourished, providing the goods of the east to the world of the Med. Philistia is now thought to have been the coastal enclave of the Sea Peoples (survivors of Mycenae and/or Knossos?) who had not participated in the invasion of Egypt. With a final Assyrian victory over the Egyptians, the Aramaens would have regained commercial dominance in the region over the Phoenicians. Noting that the Chaldeans added to the instability, the arrival of the Persians, releasing the Hebrew from the Babylonian captivity, and putting an end to the Assyrians, Chaldeans and Egyptians as imperial powers, was probably the most profound influence on the eventual direction of Jewish historical writing and thought.

The early accounts lean heavily on known creation and origin myths, and the early Jehovah is rather blantantly seen as a superior god, but not a unique god. By the time of Judges, this god is seen as the supreme god, but there is still no denial of the existence of other gods--and Solomon was said to have had temples to the titular deities of the tribes and nations of each of his wives. It is not until the return from Babylon that the accounts were gathered (although apparently, not reconciled) and a new view of religion in both monotheistic terms and heavily freighted with apocrypha of the prophets comes into existence. A likely description of the probable course of events (no primitive chronicles being sufficiently reliable to be trusted on their own), is that Israel may have been scattered to the winds, literally (hence, Jews known even in China and Mongolia before the rise of Rome), and Judah became sufficiently sophisticated during the Babylonian captivity to long for legends and heros and a history of their own.

In the sense of the effect of the concept of "revealed truth," this is disasterous. The OT patriarchs, the Judges, the Kings and the Prophets were all narrow-minded and superstitious, and devoted to misogyny and racism and slavery. In terms of history, it affords a rich field of study in ethnography, comparative historiography and cultural adaptation and dissemination.