Where to hunter/gatherers come from?

[Chalnoth]

Then as far as I'm concerned, you can stay curious.

Er, excuse me, but if you don't want to argue your points, why are you even posting here at all?

 

[USincognito]

Er, excuse me, but if you don't want to argue your points, why are you even posting here at all?

I'd really like the lurkers who haven't joined this thread to comment on whether that's a particularly effective debate tactic.

Ex.

X - {make gratuitous assertion}
Y - How did you arrrive at that conclusion?
X - Are you just being cynical?
Y - It doesn't seem to be based on anything, is it?
X - I'm not telling you then.

I don't get how one would think that's effective communication or support for your claims.

 

[JohnR7]

the statement is that the Hittites came from Central Asia, therefore you say that they are Mongolian.

This is the statement I have from Easton's Bible Dictionary.

From the Egyptian monuments we learn that "the Hittites were a people with yellow skins and 'Mongoloid' features, whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes, and protruding upper jaws are represented as faithfully on their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their enemies. The Amorites, on the contrary, were a tall and handsome people. They are depicted with white skins, blue eyes, and reddish hair, all the characteristics, in fact, of the white race" (Sayce's The Hittites). The original seat of the Hittite tribes was the mountain ranges of Taurus. They belonged to Asia Minor, and not to Syria.

 

[shernren]

AV1611VET is citing the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 as his primary source for his assertions about the ancestry of various people-groups. (It isn't every day that I have to explain what the other side is doing.)

Devil's advocate:
Well, I don't know much about the Meso-american cultures, but I can explain why the Chinese were able to retain their culture. You see, at the separation at Babel, not many people still believed in God after that. However, we have evidence from ancient Chinese characters and practices that not only were the ancient Chinese monotheistic, they also recorded the details of Creation and the Flood Story in their ideographs. Since they remembered the True God, is it any surprise that God allowed them to remember their culture and technology? Furthermore, their culture deteriorated when they allowed Confucianism and Buddhism to displace their proto-Christianity, so that they were so far behind the West met them. Doesn't this further validate the Babel story?

(with a red herring from The Genesis Story! Two creationist claims for the price of one!)

 

[JohnR7]

I'd like to here from Creationists where how they think hunter/gatherer societies came to be.

Sykes has written on this. The main person who is the expert on the subject is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza .

 

[USincognito]

AV1611VET is citing the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 as his primary source for his assertions about the ancestry of various people-groups. (It isn't every day that I have to explain what the other side is doing.)

And he's doing it incorrectly for the Chinese since the Strongs entry for "Sinite" refers to people in Lebannon, not far east Asia. It seems like he's trying to conflate that word with "Sino" which the dictionary says is rooted in Latin, Greek and Arabic roots for "Sinai" as in the desert peninsula, again, not far east Asia.

O.k., so that's one claim shot down both by Scrpiture and etymology, let's see how he can do with the Maya and Inuit.

 

[USincognito]

John, I've got you on ignore, but I am viewing your posts to this thread. Have you got something more compelling than a Bible Dictionary for a ethnological description of the Hittites?

I'll point out again, that the Hittites weren't hunter/gatherers so they really don't address the OP, but they do make for some interesting contemplation on this subject because the Creationist reasoning is that as groups moved father from Ararat their technology successively degraded.

Yet, what we see with the Hittites is one of these far flung groups returning to the region not only with Bronze Age technology, but Iron Age. The Hittites were actually more advanced than the Hebrews or the Egyptians. That flies in the face of Creationist arguments on where hunter/gatherers come from.

 

[USincognito]

Devil's advocate:
Well, I don't know much about the Meso-american cultures, but I can explain why the Chinese were able to retain their culture. You see, at the separation at Babel, not many people still believed in God after that. However, we have evidence from ancient Chinese characters and practices that not only were the ancient Chinese monotheistic, they also recorded the details of Creation and the Flood Story in their ideographs. Since they remembered the True God, is it any surprise that God allowed them to remember their culture and technology? Furthermore, their culture deteriorated when they allowed Confucianism and Buddhism to displace their proto-Christianity, so that they were so far behind the West met them. Doesn't this further validate the Babel story?

Are you (in advocate role) suggesting they preserved culture, or technology because of a vestigial worship of YHWH? Injecting standard archeology into the Creationist model, the evidence shows they domesticated pigs 10,000 years ago, so they must have abandoned Levitical law (on a YEC time line) immediately after arriving in China.

They also have had a near monolithic culture despite being generally divided between the north and south. The division was historically significant enough to result in genetic differences between the two, but China has "been Chinese" for over 2000 years. That would suggest just the opposite of Babel, where people who were geographically seperate would retain the same (or similar) language and culture.

 

[AV1611VET]

John, I've got you on ignore, but I am viewing your posts to this thread. Have you got something more compelling than a Bible Dictionary for a ethnological description of the Hittites?

Ya --- John --- shame on you!

Using a Bible Dictionary in a Christian Forum???

I just might put you on IGNORE, myself.

 

[JohnR7]

they really don't address the OP,

The OP as far as what, where man came from? That is easy they came from God, God created or made man.

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

You already know that, so just what exactly are you looking for here?

 

[AV1611VET]

And he's doing it incorrectly for the Chinese since the Strongs entry for "Sinite" refers to people in Lebannon, not far east Asia.

Good for Wrong's Concordance --- it shows Moses and company possibly crossing the Sea of Reeds too, and not the Red Sea.

It takes the dinosaurs out of the book of Job, and it makes Satan and Jesus one and the same.

Why shouldn't it take the China out of the Chinaman?

 

[shernren]

Are you (in advocate role) suggesting they preserved culture, or technology because of a vestigial worship of YHWH? Injecting standard archeology into the Creationist model, the evidence shows they domesticated pigs 10,000 years ago, so they must have abandoned Levitical law (on a YEC time line) immediately after arriving in China.

They also have had a near monolithic culture despite being generally divided between the north and south. The division was historically significant enough to result in genetic differences between the two, but China has "been Chinese" for over 2000 years. That would suggest just the opposite of Babel, where people who were geographically seperate would retain the same (or similar) language and culture.

Oh? You haven't heard that particular creationist claim?

Devil's advocate:
The ancient Chinese were worshippers of YHWH! Sure, they may not have had the Torah and all, but even at Babel and after they worshiped the One True God. For example, Confucius himself records that morning and evening sacrifices were offered by the Emperor to one God, not any Buddhist entity. And the ancient chinese characters record the miracles of Creation and the Flood! For example, the word for "ship" is literally made out of "boat" and "eight people". This is nothing but a record of the Flood!

 

[Soul Searcher]

Good for Wrong's Concordance --- it shows Moses and company possibly crossing the Sea of Reeds too, and not the Red Sea.

It takes the dinosaurs out of the book of Job, and it makes Satan and Jesus one and the same.

Why shouldn't it take the China out of the Chinaman?

Where in the world do you get this from?

Strongs concordance and lexicon are very good tools as is the BDB Hebrew and Thayers Greek Versions.

FYI Just because a word is translated a certian way in the KJV or NIV or whatever version you happen to be reading that does not mean the translation is the correct one in every case. There are no inerrant translations out there, all were translated by men and all have mistakes within them.

Oh and where do you see dinosaurs in the book of Job?

 

[Soul Searcher]

And he's doing it incorrectly for the Chinese since the Strongs entry for "Sinite" refers to people in Lebannon, not far east Asia.

Interesting, I went to the link and it says as you say here.

I looked in my strongs and it does not. BDB however does and is regaurded by many if not most as the best hebrew to english concordance.

Strongs
see-nee'
From an otherwise unknown name of a man; a Sinite, or descendant of one of the sons of Canaan: - Sinite.

BDB
Sinite = see Sin “thorn” or “clay”
1) a tribe of the Canaanites descended from Canaan inhabiting the northern part of the Lebanon district

Part of Speech: adjective patrial

A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from an otherwise unknown name of a man

It looks that blueletterbible page is using strongs numbers but BDB definitions for Hebrew, or at least in this case. I have also noted that in some cases of the Greek they use Thayers definition.

 

[USincognito]

It looks that blueletterbible page is using strongs numbers but BDB definitions for Hebrew, or at least in this case. I have also noted that in some cases of the Greek they use Thayers definition.

Ah, interesting. I have a 25 year old copy of Crudents somewhere, but I don't have any other concordances so was taking blueletterbible from the number reference.

I'd also point out that despite AV's hand waving, he didn't actually respond to the fact that "Sinite" refers to people in Lebannon, not China. John also didn't provide an actual reference for a description of the Hittites. And now he's playing his silly little game where he doesn't understand the question when he could simply go back and read the OP.

I guess Creationists just don't have an answer as to where hunter/gatherers came from, and can't they explain Biblically who the Tasmanian and Australian Aborigines, Khoi San, Inuit and Yanomamo descend from.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd also point out that despite AV's hand waving, he didn't actually respond to the fact that "Sinite" refers to people in Lebannon, not China.

Sorry --- I was in China trying to convince them you were just kidding --- but they're not buying it.

 

[JohnR7]

John also didn't provide an actual reference for a description of the Hittites.

I gave you the referance I had, what I based my information on.

 

[USincognito]

Since the Creationists who frequent this forum have either decided not to comment or condeded they don't have an answer to the question I PMed one of the more thoughtful ones who sticks to OT. He was nice enough to respond and allowed me to quote him here. I'll have a reply to his response later.

In terms of where the splintered groups and specialized societies came from - this is quite easy. At the tower of Babel, the Lord made a forced migration of a lot of different people. In His mercy, I could see him putting different groups of people together that had similar characteristics. Just as there were the huge conflicts between farmers and ranchers in the american west, some of the groups would have leaned toward farming/conventional habitation, while others preferred the more nomadic life. Note that there are still people today who prefer the nomadic life and live in tents and move about. Yes, they have their cell phones, etc. these days -but their preferences run toward nomadic.

I think it is very instructive to note, as the thread did, how advanced the nomadic civilizations were and are. Far from being "primitive", they had/have extremely complex languages and customs, etc. Man is an intelligent being, and this intelligence manifests itself quite quickly. This stands in stark contrast to the thought of Man remaining primitive for hundreds of thousands of years.

I will just note two quick points of pendantry on the second paragraph.
- I'm not referring to "nomadic civilizations," since groups like the Sammi, Cheyanne and Massai are nomadic "societies," but not the hunter/gatherer societies I'm referring to.
- I'm also not referring to the posession of language and culture, but technology which gets back to your first paragraph while I'll address at a later time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since the Creationists who frequent this forum have either decided not to comment or condeded they don't have an answer to the question...

If no creationists commented, why did you dig through Wrong's Concordance?

 

[USincognito]

In terms of where the splintered groups and specialized societies came from - this is quite easy. At the tower of Babel, the Lord made a forced migration of a lot of different people. In His mercy, I could see him putting different groups of people together that had similar characteristics. Just as there were the huge conflicts between farmers and ranchers in the american west, some of the groups would have leaned toward farming/conventional habitation, while others preferred the more nomadic life.

As I pointed out in my quick response earlier, we're not disucssiong "nomadic people" like the Chyanne or Mongolians, but hunter/gatherers that live in very small ranges and often have semi-permanent dwellings. We're also not discussing people moving from one area to another and changing aspects of their lifestyles, but the wholesale loss or abandonment of technology within decades to centuries.

Your rancher and farmer analogy fails because we're not talking about an agrarian people moving from one place (American mid-west in your ex., the Middle East in mine) to another place (American West for you, Southern Africa, Tasmania and South America in mine) where they specialized in certain types of argrarian activities (I think you meant cattle ranchers and sheep ranchers). We're talking about people moving thousands of miles to completely different environments with completely different animals, plants and water sources while completely losing technology that would have ensured they be fruitful and multiply like woven cloth, cites, agriculture, and in the case of the Tasmanians, even bows and arrows and bone tools.

[qoute]Note that there are still people today who prefer the nomadic life and live in tents and move about. Yes, they have their cell phones, etc. these days -but their preferences run toward nomadic.[/quote]

As I said, there's a difference between nomads and hunter/gatherers. The Tasmanians were exterminated before the advent of electronic technologies, but the Khoi San and Yanomamo live today without cell phones, while nomadic people like the Mongolians have TVs in their Yurts and some Inuit use snowmobiles while hunting seals.

I think it is very instructive to note, as the thread did, how advanced the nomadic civilizations were and are. Far from being "primitive", they had/have extremely complex languages and customs, etc. Man is an intelligent being, and this intelligence manifests itself quite quickly. This stands in stark contrast to the thought of Man remaining primitive for hundreds of thousands of years.

No one is saying that Homo sapiens are "primitive" in any way. We clearly had art 40,000+ years ago. Language has likely been around even longer (I mean with grammar, not just a working vocabulary). Tool use goes back possibly millions of years to at least Homo habilus. That's not what we're discussing though. The question is why do these people who clearly just as smart as everyone else on the planet is so bereft of technology when they started, according to Genesis 10, all from the same place, with the same suite of technology only 4,500 years ago.

I still have yet to see a satisfactory response from Creationists.