How do we explain Neanderthals?

[stephen583]

But the reason I replied is that - there is no way to infer whether the flood was worldwide or regional, whether all flesh died or just some - based on the fact that Noah got drunk. That's a very bad way to do theology.

Nevertheless, it's obvious (to me anyway) something about the outcome of the flood greatly disturbed Noah. Something so disturbing, it led Noah to drink and lay naked before God.

The question is, "What might that have been" ? I believe the Scripture itself begs this question,.. otherwise there's no reason for Noah's drunkenness to have even been mentioned in the story at all.

 

[stephen583]

Stephen .... you may want to take this to St. Justin Martyr's forum - debate on Orthodox Christian. CF rules forbid visitors to a congregational forum arguing, teaching, or debating against members of the area's faith group.

We don't mind questions or debate, but this isn't the place for it, please. Thank you for understanding.

The title of this thread is "How do we explain Neanderthals", right ? Everything I have posted in this thread relates to the existence of non-Adamic prehistoric man, whether that is scientific evidence, or whether it is evidence found in the Genesis account of creation.

Why would you post a thread asking a question, when answering it violates Orthodox doctrine ? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[prodromos]

Nevertheless, it's obvious (to me anyway) something about the outcome of the flood greatly disturbed Noah. Something so disturbing, it led Noah to drink and lay naked before God.

The question is, "What might that have been" ? I believe the Scripture itself begs this question,.. otherwise there's no reason for Noah's drunkenness to have even been mentioned in the story at all.

Or it could simply be that since Noah no longer had to constantly struggle against the debauchery of his neighbors, that he got lazy and relaxed his guard.

 

[prodromos]

The title of this thread is "How do we explain Neanderthals", right ? Everything I have posted in this thread relates to the existence of non-Adamic prehistoric man, whether that is scientific evidence, or whether it is evidence found in the Genesis account of creation.

Yes, but this thread wasn't posted in General Theology or Controversial Theology, so you need to consider the rules of the particular subforum in which it has been posted. The question was asked of Orthodox Christians only. You need to respect that.

 

[Petros2015]

Why after the flood did Noah who had done everything God had instructed and was vindicated before God, "plant a vineyard and become a drunk"

It doesn't really say he became a habitual alcoholic after that. Maybe he just had a bad night. Who hasn't? One bender doesn't make you a drunk. When something in you prefers drunkenness to sober reality, and it becomes your primary coping mechanism, and denial sets in, then you have a problem and become spiritually crippled and blind, in real danger. But speaking as a recovering alcoholic, I have to trace my genetic disposition and weakness to the stuff back to someone who got off that Ark lol. Noah's fine by me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Hades is Greek right? Do any other denominations say that Christ was fighting in Hades?

well, yes, hades is Greek. and we don't say He was fighting, He opened our way back to Paradise. more like unlocking the doors of a prison.

but I dunno as far as other denominations

 

[ArmyMatt]

Of course it does. Genesis 4:16 says Cain went to the Land of Nod, settled there and got a wife. Later in Genesis it says he built cities.

right.

There's no way any descendants of Adam could have offered Cain refuge, because of the curse of God. Therefore, the people of Nod could not have been Adamic people. It's really not any more complicated than that.

no, the curse is on him. not the people of Nod. the curse actually says nothing about what they could or could not do aside from killing Cain. so the people of Nod can be Adamic, because the curse on Cain does not prohibit them from being from Adam. that is an assumption you are making

 

[rusmeister]

The thing is, in accepting the Scriptural account as actually true, we don't run into theological contradiction like we do with secular teaching on evolution. The contradictions are picayune, they are about unimportant things, they don't suggest non-divine origin, they don't have us crafting complex narratives to try to rationalize secular knowledge. There really can be things we don't know, and are OK with not knowing. Just so long as they don't lead people away from the critical spiritual truths.

We all ought to hold that it would be better to disagree with scientists and be wrong than disagree with the fathers and be wrong.

 

[rusmeister]

The title of this thread is "How do we explain Neanderthals", right ? Everything I have posted in this thread relates to the existence of non-Adamic prehistoric man, whether that is scientific evidence, or whether it is evidence found in the Genesis account of creation.

What Prodromos and Anastasia said.
This is a congregational forum; in posting here, you agree not to argue with Orthodox doctrine or to promote doctrine that contradicts Orthodox doctrine. We have St Justin's forum specifically so that non-Orthodox may fairly disagree with us. We want our main forum to have as little rancor as possible.

That said, you're welcome to pose questions here, just not argue with the answers. If you start a thread in St Justin's, it's gloves-off, and you have a free hand.

 

[jckstraw72]

There had to be non-Adamic people . Otherwise, there would have been no place for Cain to find sanctuary. No descendant of Adam could have offered Cain sanctuary, because of the curse God had placed on him. It's simple logic.

you're proposing there other people and that somehow they are not bound to honor God's curse upon Cain. what I am saying to you is that that information is nowhere in the Scriptures. Even if there were other people, where do you get the idea that they were not to uphold what God had said? Your scenario does not fix the problem you have created.

 

[jckstraw72]

Or it could simply be that since Noah no longer had to constantly struggle against the debauchery of his neighbors, that he got lazy and relaxed his guard.

indeed, perhaps he lost his watchfulness, just as Adam failed to be watchful/niptic in the Garden, as 1/3 of the angels had failed to be before him. Scripture is full of such patterns.

 

[jckstraw72]

also, it's important to not read our own assumptions into the texts. it doesn't say he got drunk anytime soon after the Flood. the text really in no way relates the drunkenness to the events of the Flood. for instance, St. Ephraim notes that it must have been at least 6 years after the Flood -- time to plant the vineyard, time to wait for a real harvest that could make wine, etc. Therefore, he says, it wasn't even intentional drunkenness but simply Noah hadn't drank in many years and had become a light weight. Christians have been reading the Scriptures for 2000 years already and already noticed all the supposed problems that modern readers find, and already answered them from a point of view of devotion to Scripture and Church Tradition and upholding the integrity of both.

 

[Cappadocious]

well, considering Elder Joseph says it's how Adam experienced creation before the Fall

That doesn't sound like a vision from the past to me, but a vision of unfallen creation as such.

 

[Cappadocious]

also, it's important to not read our own assumptions into the texts.

Good luck!

 

[Cappadocious]

when all those who the Church recognizes as holy, many having had visions, are in agreement, it really is clear.

We're talking about this vision, which doesn't seem to have lots of propositions attached to it in the telling.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That doesn't sound like a vision from the past to me, but a vision of unfallen creation as such.

Right, he experienced creation in its unfallen state. He did not travel back in time, but saw creation as it was back then and said it was as Adam experienced it.

 

[truefiction1]

But you speak as if being outside of time resolved contradiction with evolution. It doesn't. The moment the first people experienced time as we do, in being expelled from the Garden, I could say "THE moment", you have chronology as we know it, and that demands immediate chronological accountability. And then what do we say happened to them? Scripture tells it in a straight-forward manner. There is no cancellation of their very existence in favor of amoebas that struggle, fight and die in an effort to evolve and develop to produce the very mankind that had already been produced and already existed in time. Fallen Creation already existed in a fairly complete form, however it was formed prior to any movement of time. This does not prove a young earth, and I see no necessary theological contradiction with an old earth, but in time as we know it, things, human beings, animals and plants, already existed when death burst into the world. That must necessarily contradict the evolutionary narrative. The narratives are mutually exclusive. Which, then, do you choose?

The moment that Adam and Eve experienced time as we do was not within the Garden. The narrative points at things in a chronological way after the manner of how we tend to think, while the things being pointed to are beyond our ability to comprehend, as is any chronological order outside of time.

Once fallen, Adam and Eve entered into an existence that had already been in motion from the beginning of created time (billions of years earlier or more) as the result of their failure in the Garden outside of time. We will not understand this anymore than we will understand how a chronological story can unfold in Eternity, because it is a Mystery that will always defy comprehension, like the Mystery of Redemption.

 

[truefiction1]

Please let me add, in addition to my comments above, that I do understand you don't mean what I say. I get that you are a sincere and intelligent Orthodox Christian that sees the value of mysticism. When I say that the attempt to hold on to belief in both evolution and the Fall means thus-and-so, I mean what it logically and objectively means, NOT what you intend or consciously hold. I hold that we all come into the Church with ideas and beliefs that are in some way or other not compatible with our Faith, and that the Church can cure us, little by little, over time, if we let it. The main thing is to gather the courage to grant that it, as a whole, is more right than we are, that when we find conflict it is we who are wrong.

Understandable. I could be wrong. I can easily entertain that possibility. If various Church fathers have been incorrect about a few things, individually and collectively, then I sure as heck can be as well. I think, however, this is not exactly the case, and that there is something else happening here. We will see.

Christ is in our midst.

 

[jckstraw72]

of course, if evolution is true, then there never was such a thing as unfallen creation -- that would be a terribly unscientific idea.

 

[truefiction1]

of course, if evolution is true, then there never was such a thing as unfallen creation -- that would be a terribly unscientific idea.

This does not hold true in the account of things as the Scripture reveals.