How do we explain Neanderthals?

[jckstraw72]

God is outside of time, but creation is not. no retroactivity going on here.

As God is outside of time, He sees it all at once. the question in this scenario would be -- "when" God "looks" at history before the Fall, what does He see? the Paradise He created, or the garbage dump that got retroactively overlaid on top of it? where did the original timeline go?

 

[gzt]

This question presupposes the literal reading of Genesis.

 

[truefiction1]

Fool that I may be, I don't see where there are contradictions: only omissions of details that were not pertinent in Theological narratives and discourses, but which are pertinent in the study of the material world using natural scientific methods.

Neither the Bible, nor the consensus of the fathers teach that man was not from the beginning a mortal creature. If we think otherwise, then we ought to read them again. Sin did not make man mortal. God did. Sin only caused us to become cemented into an existence subject to natural mortality rather than supernatural immortality. How long did it take God to form man from the dust of the ground. What, if any, natural processes did God use in the creation? How much time and how many generations of humanoids lapsed during the formation of man from dust and the breathing into his nostrils to make man become a living soul? Where did Cain's wife come from? Whose biological daughter is she and when was she conceived and born? For these questions and many more the Bible does not directly give answers. The Bible is a Theological Book and the discourses of the fathers were Theological discourses based upon interpretations of Theological narratives in Scripture. None of these authoritative sources of Theology forbid us to seek answers for the questions not answered directly by the Bible or the fathers.

There are no contradictions. There are only omissions of details not immediately pertinent in the learning of sound Theological living.

 

[Petros2015]

Also valid to the OP discussion on both sides (and having nothing to do with Quantum Cats I expect is this link.

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution

 

[Petros2015]

where did the original timeline go?

I don't know. But it sounds like it must have been beautiful.

St. Basil the Great, Hexameron 3.6

But then the rose was without thorns; since then the thorn has been added to its beauty, to make us feel that sorrow is very near to pleasure, and to remind us of our sin, which condemned the earth to produce thorns and caltrops.

 

[Cappadocious]

all that very well may be the case, but what makes someone human is more than just making tools, practicing a form of religion, buried their dead, etc.

What makes you think they do not meet the patristic definition of human?

They are animals that died off.

Humans are not "beasts" and humans are animals. You'd struggle to find a pre-modern Father arguing different, not to mention the Scriptures.

 

[Cappadocious]

What is the Orthodox explanation of this?

What is the Orthodox answer to reaction between baking soda and vinegar? How do Orthodox deal with this, account for this? So far I have not found an Orthodox answer to baking soda and vinegar reaction, only false answers claiming to be Orthodox but still representing the position of the World/modernism or paganism at best.

 

[jckstraw72]

Indeed, Petros, the earth was once a Paradise that knew no death or corruption, nothing harmful. all that began when man fell.

 

[JackRT]

Various forms of life on earth have been living and dying for about two billion years

 

[jckstraw72]

that makes God the author of death.

 

[YCGP]

I like how some posts say that whatever happened could have been retroactive.

From different human species to evolution to the big bang, it seems that trying to explain life with science is one way of disputing the existence of God. We are pulling away and we are seeing evidence of a completely different history of humankind.

So, as we look back, there are sights for us to see, and perhaps what we are seeing is far too big to explain with modern science. Perhaps we 'connect four' in the future of science. Perhaps what we find will show us that science cannot explain certain ideas on its own, such as language cannot explain all ideas on its own.

Basically what I am saying is that it may be possible for us to complete the entire theory for the big bang, find it to be sound and valid, and we still arrive back at God somehow. Or perhaps we find all we need for a scientific conclusion, and we see that there is something else going on. That we are discovering certain elements of the universe at precisely the right time for humankind (on God's watch).

 

[rob_aston]

existed two million years ago

it doesn't really matter you know, for God

 

[JackRT]

Throughout history Christian doctrine and dogma has been regarded as sacrosanct, as beyond question or doubt of any sort. Has this theological rigidity served us well? Perhaps so in the past but I am not at all sure about the present. The scientific advances of the past five centuries have challenged our theological assumptions in many ways. The first challenge, of course, sprang from the invention of the telescope and completely upset our cosmology. But there were other challenges as well. The development of the microscope led to the discovery of the male sperm and the female egg and forced us to revise some of our assumptions about human reproduction. But more was to come. Over the past two centuries the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have accumulated such a great mass of positive evidence as to be almost beyond serious question. However, both theories raise some very important problems not the least of which involves the interpretation of Genesis and the theology that followed from that. We now know that a literal reading of Genesis is untenable. Already some prophetic Christian voices are attempting a rethink of theology that has been largely unchallenged for 1500 or more years. These are exciting times now theologically speaking.

 

[gzt]

I would also note that the specific theological line of argument being used by jckstraw here is hardly doctrine. The exact nature of the Genesis account hasn't been revealed to us, like the end it is still somewhat shrouded in mystery. The Church has declined to say one reading is obligatory. There's still some work to be done by people who want to synthesize all the knowledge, sure.

 

[jckstraw72]

actually, the saints speak precisely about the creation of the world being revealed to them. Many saints affirm that Moses himself saw creation happen, and that men of prayer often behold the same vision. what we don't find is any of them claiming that Genesis remains closed to us ...

 

[gzt]

These private revelations don't have the sanction of the Church.

 

[YCGP]

IThe exact nature of the Genesis account hasn't been revealed to us, like the end it is still somewhat shrouded in mystery.

Could you please explain what you mean by this?

 

[gzt]

There are some things we know about the end of time, some things we don't. There are some things we know about the beginning of time, some we don't. Perhaps some won't be revealed ever. There's some shrouding in mystery going on.

 

[jckstraw72]

you're saying that the saints mistakenly thought they were receiving revelations from God, that is, they were spiritually deluded, that is, they were not saints. the only way to not accept a revelation is to deny that its true, or to just willingly be against truth.

 

[jckstraw72]

and "don't have the sanction of the Church" is a very minimalistic idea, which could be conveniently used to deny just about anything you want. Councils alone is just as fallacious as Scriptures alone.