How do we explain Neanderthals?

Doveaman · Oct 27, 2016

rusmeister said:
Another point is that the temptation in the unFallen Garden came from a being that spoke, that communicated evil ideas. Lucifer was already Fallen, but man wasn't. The whole idea of Satan as a serpent tempting unFallen man becomes nonsense if we try to imagine Doveaman's very un-Orthodox idea of a "pre-Fallen world". No compatibility there whatsoever.

The "pre-fallen world" would have been destroyed by the sins of angels, just as the pre-flood world was destroyed by the sins of man.

It is interesting that the Genesis account begins with an earth covered in water -- a global flood preceding Noah's flood.

The Genesis account is describing the re-creation of a new world following a global flood -- the re-creation of a "very good" world created for unFallen man.

Doveaman · Oct 27, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Now that's a little coincidental, as well as interesting. I have a mind that likes to make up stories sometimes, and essentially what you just said popped into my head as a possible alternative explanation, that did not make God the author of death, let all of our creation be good, as God said, and still accounted for a prehistoric fossil record (which STILL doesn't necessitate evolution, imo, but does provide an alternative explanation).

I wasn't even going to mention it though. Because to my mind, it's all speculation (as it certainly would be on my part) and I don't like mixing speculation with theology.

It is okay to speculate in order to make sense of observations (such as Neanderthal fossils on an old earth), as long as we are not dogmatic about it.

Speculating is fine as long as it does not contradict Scripture.

Doveaman · Oct 27, 2016

ArmyMatt said:
Lucifer is an angel, and therefore not material, so his fall would not have brought down the material world.

The material world was brought down by sin.

Sin is not material, sin is spiritual.

Adam's fall was the result of the spiritual act of sin. The spiritual act of sin brought down the material world of man.

Plus there are no Scriptures or anything from Church history that supports this position.

Scripture does suggests a prehistoric world inhabited by angels -- Isaiah 14:12-14.

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'"

Lucifer ascended above the clouds and stars into heaven before he was thrown back to the ground.

"I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." -- Luke 10:18

~Anastasia~ · Oct 27, 2016

Doveaman said:
It is okay to speculate in order to make sense of observations (such as Neanderthal fossils on an old earth), as long as we are not dogmatic about it.

Speculating is fine as long as it does not contradict Scripture.

Thank you, but please take note that you are in the Eastern Orthodox forum, and we have the way we look at theology.

Speculation and building theology from one's own thought process, outside of the understanding of the early Church fathers, which include the Apostles and their disciples, has led to the errors we see in Catholicism, and many of the errors that continue to develop today.

Many heresies and points of doctrine were dealt with early on, and provide us with guidelines we don't wish to go against.

Other than that, there is certainly freedom of belief.

But we don't "do theology" through idle speculation without submitting it to the wisdom we have received.

That's really what we are talking about in this thread. Someone from a different background may not understand that.

Please do understand that, for the sake of our visitors especially, it is not allowed to teach against what the Church teaches. I just want to let you know because you've posted several times in quick succession, and I wouldn't want the thread to head in that direction.

Thank you for understanding.

Doveaman · Oct 27, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Thank you, but please take note that you are in the Eastern Orthodox forum, and we have the way we look at theology.

Speculation and building theology from one's own thought process, outside of the understanding of the early Church fathers, which include the Apostles and their disciples, has led to the errors we see in Catholicism, and many of the errors that continue to develop today.

Okay, I see.

But you do know that the early church spoke nothing about Neanderthals, right?

So this whole thread is based on speculation.

How does Eastern-Orthodox explain Neanderthals from Scripture?

~Anastasia~ · Oct 27, 2016

About Neanderthals specifically? Not that I'm aware of. But there were always theories of evolution and alternative theories of how things came into being, and they actually did address that. Which is what provides us with some measure of context.

Also, we don't need to find Neanderthals in Scripture.

And there is no consensus of opinion particularly about Neanderthals. Which makes the thread title a little misleading of where it has eventually gone.

Some ideas were proposed early on in this thread, iirc. We would be fine to believe them as humans who look different, or as animals who are not human. Because it wasn't addressed, it really doesn't matter, in and of itself. They are a side issue.

Creation is very much a central issue though.

I hope that helps explain a little. This thread must surely be a little difficult to fully embrace from outside.

gzt · Oct 27, 2016

I think crucial adjustment there is that it's not just "early Church Fathers (and mothers, by the way, but they don't have much literature)", but the tradition of the Church considered as a whole throughout time and space.

Christina C · Oct 27, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
About Neanderthals specifically? Not that I'm aware of. But there were always theories of evolution and alternative theories of how things came into being, and they actually did address that. Which is what provides us with some measure of context.

Also, we don't need to find Neanderthals in Scripture.

And there is no consensus of opinion particularly about Neanderthals. Which makes the thread title a little misleading of where it has eventually gone.

Some ideas were proposed early on in this thread, iirc. We would be fine to believe them as humans who look different, or as animals who are not human. Because it wasn't addressed, it really doesn't matter, in and of itself. They are a side issue.

Creation is very much a central issue though.

I hope that helps explain a little. This thread must surely be a little difficult to fully embrace from outside.

I don't find the thread difficult to embrace. I find it very interesting and have seen a very similar thread on an Anglican forum with very similar thoughts expressed. It is interesting and enlightening to hear the EO view. With a son studying for a degree in Biological Sciences I am often concerned about what he is taught as being accepted truth in the scientific world.

~Anastasia~ · Oct 27, 2016

Christina C said:
I don't find the thread difficult to embrace. I find it very interesting and have seen a very similar thread on an Anglican forum with very similar thoughts expressed. It is interesting and enlightening to hear the EO view. With a son studying for a degree in Biological Sciences I am often concerned about what he is taught as being accepted truth in the scientific world.

If I find time, I might look for your thread to see what is being said.

Christina C · Oct 27, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
If I find time, I might look for your thread to see what is being said.

I'll find the link for you if I can. it's not on Christian forums.

~Anastasia~ · Oct 27, 2016

Christina C said:
I'll find the link for you if I can. it's not on Christian forums.

Lol well thanks for letting me know, since I would have been wasting time looking in that case.

ArmyMatt · Oct 27, 2016

Doveaman said:
The material world was brought down by sin.

Sin is not material, sin is spiritual.

Adam's fall was the result of the spiritual act of sin. The spiritual act of sin brought down the material world of man.

while I agree with the first statement, the second I am a tad fuzzy on and you might need to unpack a little bit. as for the third, I think we would say the Fall was the sin, not merely the result.

Doveaman said:
Scripture does suggests a prehistoric world inhabited by angels -- Isaiah 14:12-14.

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'"

Lucifer ascended above the clouds and stars into heaven before he was thrown back to the ground.

"I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." -- Luke 10:18

this says nothing about a prehistoric anything inhabited by angels, at least to suggest an old earth or demons running around for a while prior to man. and do you have anything to back this up?

ArmyMatt · Oct 27, 2016

gzt said:
I think crucial adjustment there is that it's not just "early Church Fathers (and mothers, by the way, but they don't have much literature)", but the tradition of the Church considered as a whole throughout time and space.

yes, that is the point that we have been making. just because large amounts of well respected and well intentioned Orthodox say something on a particular issue of theology, that does not mean it is something we can say is correct or that it is a part of our Tradition.

gzt · Oct 27, 2016

Christina C said:
I don't find the thread difficult to embrace. I find it very interesting and have seen a very similar thread on an Anglican forum with very similar thoughts expressed. It is interesting and enlightening to hear the EO view. With a son studying for a degree in Biological Sciences I am often concerned about what he is taught as being accepted truth in the scientific world.

I think a Christian can be honest about what science does and does not show - for instance, nothing in physics has anything to say about God either positively or negatively because it's simply not concerned with God and God's activity in the world - so both Christians and physicists need to be careful not to see the results of physics as either confirming or disconfirming the reality of God. I would also point out that physics has nothing to say about Hamlet! There are a few different philosophies of science, but they generally agree on those points (logical positivism is dead among serious philosophers of science, but naive scientists who don't learn any philosophy of science kind of hold to that - that's the archtypical scientism people run into sometimes). At one point I spoke hastily of "pure" science, there obviously is no such thing, but I had in mind an instruction in science that keeps these distinctions quite clearly in mind, theology says little if anything about natural science and natural science says nothing about theology.

gzt · Oct 27, 2016

ArmyMatt said:
yes, that is the point that we have been making. just because large amounts of well respected and well intentioned Orthodox say something on a particular issue of theology, that does not mean it is something we can say is correct or that it is a part of our Tradition.

Exactly. I don't know why you think I would disagree on that point.

Goatee · Oct 27, 2016

YCGP said:
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?

I think my late Mother-In Law was a neanderthal!

prodromos · Oct 27, 2016

Doveaman said:
The material world was brought down by sin.

Sin is not material, sin is spiritual.

Adam's fall was the result of the spiritual act of sin. The spiritual act of sin brought down the material world of man.
Scripture does suggests a prehistoric world inhabited by angels -- Isaiah 14:12-14.

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'"

Lucifer ascended above the clouds and stars into heaven before he was thrown back to the ground.

"I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." -- Luke 10:18

I don't believe your interpretation is permissible in the context of the rest of Isaiah 14

prodromos · Oct 27, 2016

gzt said:
I think a Christian can be honest about what science does and does not show - for instance, nothing in physics has anything to say about God either positively or negatively because it's simply not concerned with God and God's activity in the world - so both Christians and physicists need to be careful not to see the results of physics as either confirming or disconfirming the reality of God. I would also point out that physics has nothing to say about Hamlet! There are a few different philosophies of science, but they generally agree on those points (logical positivism is dead among serious philosophers of science, but naive scientists who don't learn any philosophy of science kind of hold to that - that's the archtypical scientism people run into sometimes). At one point I spoke hastily of "pure" science, there obviously is no such thing, but I had in mind an instruction in science that keeps these distinctions quite clearly in mind, theology says little if anything about natural science and natural science says nothing about theology.

Have you read or listened to any of the debates by John Lennox?
One of the statements he often makes is that a primary reason for his believing in God is because we can "do science".

"The mathematical intelligibility of nature is evidence for a rational spirit behind the universe."

gzt · Oct 27, 2016

I haven't, but he sounds interesting. Frankly, I find aspects of this reasoning compelling personally but I've never heard somebody make the case well, so I'll have to check him out.

prodromos · Oct 27, 2016

gzt said:
I haven't, but he sounds interesting. Frankly, I find aspects of this reasoning compelling personally but I've never heard somebody make the case well, so I'll have to check him out.

John Lennox is pretty awesome, particularly in his debates with atheists. He is a mathematician with a strong philosophy bent. Well worth the time.

How do we explain Neanderthals?

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

† Handmaid of God †

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

† Handmaid of God †

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Active Member

† Handmaid of God †

Active Member

† Handmaid of God †

Regular Member

Regular Member

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency