How do we explain Neanderthals?

[truefiction1]

Genesis 2 states that God formed man from the dust of the ground before any plant or animal life had been created, and God planted a garden East of Eden where He placed the man He made. This is not aligned at all with the six days of Creation of Genesis 1. It's obvious that this is because it refers to a "time outside of time", and what happens in Paradise (the Garden) Mysteriously precedes the six days of creation, just as does the slaying of the Lamb before the foundation of the world, which is an event recorded (taking place) in eternity. If you look closely enough, you will realize that God created mortal creatures during the six days (for "replenishing" the earth is only of value where there is loss of life requiring replacement, and He called this "good". No mention of any plan "B" here. It's all plan "A" creation with creation, temptation, fall, death, redemption, and restoration, and it's all "good", because it is the good God's plan. No?

 

[jckstraw72]

please provide Patristic commentary for your "obvious" interpretation. also please explain why St. John Chrysostom missed this obvious point.

 

[jckstraw72]

Genesis 2 states that God formed man from the dust of the ground before any plant or animal life had been created

no, it doesn't. it says that no plants had yet been made on the day that God created the heavens and the earth - the first day. then it goes on to speak of the creation of man. Venerable Bede, for instance, goes into detail about why Genesis 2 is NOT presenting a different timeline, and commenting on Gen. 2:7 he specifically says the creation of man is on day 6, only here told in more detail. Gen. 1 is chronological, Gen. 2 is more theme based. That's a difference of focus, not a contradiction.

 

[jckstraw72]

just as does the slaying of the Lamb before the foundation of the world, which is an event recorded (taking place) in eternity.

says who? seriously - says who? we have commentaries from Andrew of Caesarea, the Venerable Bede, and Abp. of Averky, and few others on this topic. None of them offer your interpretation. in fact, the Greek can be legitimately translated as saying the names were written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world, and this seems to be the reading the Fathers have. commenting on this verse, Bede specifically refers to St. Peter for clarification - that this is referring to salvation economy being foreknown, not fore-accomplished.

 

[prodromos]

Many are on record with their arguments. I've linked to a couple and more are readily found.

Define "many".

 

[gzt]

A sampling can be found on orthowiki.

 

[jckstraw72]

the Orthodoxwiki article links to the Theokritoffs' book review of Fr. Seraphim's book Genesis, Creation, and Early Man. Although evolutionists, their critique does include this gem:

"Fr Seraphim is commendably honest in recognizing that if one believes, as he does, that we must read Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, one is then committed to a thorough-going young earth creationism, however much contrary evidence there may appear to be."

that is, by their own admittance, theistic evolution requires a non-Patristic reading of Genesis.

 

[Doveaman]

I am reading a book called "Sapiens" and it tells the story of humankind. So far most of it has been about neanderthals and the other species of humans who existed at the same time. Eventually, all but one species went extinct and homo sapiens (us) made it to the top of the food chain.

These species, such as neanderthals and homo erectus, existed two million years ago.

What is the Orthodox explanation of this?

Primitive forms of life existed before Adam, including primitive humans not created in God's image.

After these primitive life forms became extinct and the earth became formless and empty, God then re-created new life forms, including Adam, the original ancestor of present-day man.

 

[truefiction1]

says who? seriously - says who? we have commentaries from Andrew of Caesarea, the Venerable Bede, and Abp. of Averky, and few others on this topic. None of them offer your interpretation. in fact, the Greek can be legitimately translated as saying the names were written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world, and this seems to be the reading the Fathers have. commenting on this verse, Bede specifically refers to St. Peter for clarification - that this is referring to salvation economy being foreknown, not fore-accomplished.

St. Paul the Apostle says, when He talks of the death of Christ and the sin of Adam in such as way as to place them into the same class. And as the death of Christ is a moment intersecting eternity (which is why Christ is able to give His disciples His body and blood to eat before His death takes place in the time line), so too we can be of the understanding that the original sin is different from sin in general because it is also a moment intersecting eternity, its negative consequences universally applied throughout time, just as Salvation's positive effects apply universally throughout the whole time of Creation, which is why God calls Creation "good". It is "good" because of the death of Christ, the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world.

 

[prodromos]

Primitive forms of life existed before Adam, including primitive humans not created in God's image.

After these primitive life forms became extinct and the earth became formless and empty, God then re-created new life forms, including Adam, the original ancestor of present-day man.

Another who believes God is the author of death and decay rather than being the outcome of man's sin.

 

[jckstraw72]

St. Paul the Apostle says, when He talks of the death of Christ and the sin of Adam in such as way as to place them into the same class. And as the death of Christ is a moment intersecting eternity (which is why Christ is able to give His disciples His body and blood to eat before His death takes place in the time line), so too we can be of the understanding that the original sin is different from sin in general because it is also a moment intersecting eternity, its negative consequences universally applied throughout time, just as Salvation's positive effects apply universally throughout the whole time of Creation, which is why God calls Creation "good". It is "good" because of the death of Christ, the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world.

demonstrate to us that this is anything more than your personal interpretation.

 

[truefiction1]

The order in which God brings living beings into being is indeed played in reverse in Genesis 2, which does, as it were, indicate a different "focus". The different focus points to a Paradise as the scene where the action is taking place: a Paradise that is "otherworldly", like the 3rd heaven that the Apostle Paul alludes to when writing of his vision. Genesis 2 is thus done to convey the proper sense that we should have about this narrative: namely, that it is a story standing outside of time, and therefore precedes it in its effects.

 

[jckstraw72]

The order in which God brings living beings into being is indeed played in reverse in Genesis 2, which does, as it were, indicate a different "focus". The different focus points to a Paradise as the scene where the action is taking place: a Paradise that is "otherworldly", like the 3rd heaven that the Apostle Paul alludes to when writing of his vision. Genesis 2 is thus done to convey the proper sense that we should have about this narrative: namely, that it is a story standing outside of time, and therefore precedes it in its effects.

demonstrate to us that this is anything other than your personal interpretation. until then i will continue to agree with St. John Chrysostom who rebukes precisely your vein of interpretation:

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 13.13:
The reason blessed Moses inserted the name of the place in the text was that it would not be possible for those inclined to take things lightly to deceive the ears of the simple and say the garden was not on earth but in heaven, and dream up wild theories of that kind. You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and far-fetched philosophy, even the to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text.

 

[jckstraw72]

namely, that it is a story standing outside of time, and therefore precedes it in its effects.

if it stands OUTSIDE of time, then it can't have effects WITHIN time. you're contradicting yourself.

furthermore, positing pet theories about timelessness does nothing to help the evolutionary cause, as evolution requires ... a crapload of time.

 

[gzt]

The Orthodox don't believe we must read all of Scripture exactly as the Fathers did.

 

[jckstraw72]

The Orthodox don't believe we must read all of Scripture exactly as the Fathers did.

but we do believe we must not contradict the reading of the Fathers.

the interpretations dictated by evolution are not simply not exactly as the Fathers, but bear almost no resemblance at all.

 

[prodromos]

but we do believe we must not contradict the reading of the Fathers.

Particularly when there is a broad consensus.

 

[jckstraw72]

Canon 19 of Trullo:

It behooves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially on Lord's days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of right religion, gathering out of holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting.

 

[gzt]

Those are interesting thoughts, but I note hat we must immediately stop talking about "the Fathers" as a group here once we start getting into the weeds, as there are disagreements within the Fathers and our readings on tihs only disagree on some points with some Fathers. This is also not implying a need for exact agreement.

 

[jckstraw72]

interesting, but unfounded, thought