The glory and the depravity of man

The two posts below come from two different articles and are based on two different scientific discoveries. If you read the original links, you will find that the time periods they describe overlap. Both deal with the proto-European cave-dwellers when they were dwelling alongside the Neanderthals. Now let’s put the two findings together. . . .What do we learn?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    That humans for a long time have had the capacity to be highly cultured, and highly sinful at the same time.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    That humans for a long time have had the capacity to be highly cultured, and highly sinful at the same time.

  • Alex Smusiak

    I fail to see what could be wrong with Neanderthals as a source of good meat. I mean is eating a monkey ( something I have never done ) in the right circumstances “wrong”? Neanderthals were after all…ancient hominid creatures..perhaps tasty ones.

  • Alex Smusiak

    I fail to see what could be wrong with Neanderthals as a source of good meat. I mean is eating a monkey ( something I have never done ) in the right circumstances “wrong”? Neanderthals were after all…ancient hominid creatures..perhaps tasty ones.

  • Dan Kempin

    Another illustrative example of cultural suppositions. You have a gift, Dr. Veith. Thank you for sharing it.

    I found it especially poignant that the word “we” was used in the discussion of butchery/cannibalism.

  • Dan Kempin

    Another illustrative example of cultural suppositions. You have a gift, Dr. Veith. Thank you for sharing it.

    I found it especially poignant that the word “we” was used in the discussion of butchery/cannibalism.

  • Joe

    That even those of us in this blog are apparently willing to accept the evolutionary assumptions necessary to accept the “conclusions” that this musical instrument is 35,000 years old and that Neanderthals weren’t humans like us.

  • Joe

    That even those of us in this blog are apparently willing to accept the evolutionary assumptions necessary to accept the “conclusions” that this musical instrument is 35,000 years old and that Neanderthals weren’t humans like us.

  • Bob Eggers

    I think I remember from my college anthropology class that at one time the theory had been advanced that the socalled Neanderthal were actually erroneously based on an atypical specimen of Cro Magnan that had been suffering from some disease. The end of that theory was that Neanderthal man was not a separate species but was actually based on a false specimen. Has this theory since been disproven and Neanderthal is actually verified to be an early species of hominid?

  • Bob Eggers

    I think I remember from my college anthropology class that at one time the theory had been advanced that the socalled Neanderthal were actually erroneously based on an atypical specimen of Cro Magnan that had been suffering from some disease. The end of that theory was that Neanderthal man was not a separate species but was actually based on a false specimen. Has this theory since been disproven and Neanderthal is actually verified to be an early species of hominid?

  • Michael Z.

    I agree with Joe. That was my biggest surprise

  • Michael Z.

    I agree with Joe. That was my biggest surprise

  • Dr. Jack

    I’m still very intrigued by Lars’ suggestion that Neanderthals are the Biblical “Giants in the Earth.” Fascinating idea I think! Also, I have heard the theory that they were just another race of human being that are no longer with us.

  • Dr. Jack

    I’m still very intrigued by Lars’ suggestion that Neanderthals are the Biblical “Giants in the Earth.” Fascinating idea I think! Also, I have heard the theory that they were just another race of human being that are no longer with us.

  • Kirk

    I don’t think neanderthals were actually larger than humans, so the giants, unless its metaphorical, doesn’t seem to fit.

    And what evolutionary assumption is being made? They have pretty complete neanderthal skeletons that are distinctly unhuman. I don’t see any inconsistency in saying that there was an extremely intelligence, human like ape that died out millenia ago.

    Furthermore, while I understand YEC, I don’t see why its out of the question to assume that people could have existed 35,000 years ago. Unless, that is, you can point to specific Biblical evidence that suggests that we were created in 4000BC.

  • Kirk

    I don’t think neanderthals were actually larger than humans, so the giants, unless its metaphorical, doesn’t seem to fit.

    And what evolutionary assumption is being made? They have pretty complete neanderthal skeletons that are distinctly unhuman. I don’t see any inconsistency in saying that there was an extremely intelligence, human like ape that died out millenia ago.

    Furthermore, while I understand YEC, I don’t see why its out of the question to assume that people could have existed 35,000 years ago. Unless, that is, you can point to specific Biblical evidence that suggests that we were created in 4000BC.

  • Dr. Jack.

    Actually Kirk they were larger than us. Also some of the skulls found suggest that some of them might have had bigger brains than us. Of course a bigger brain isn’t a smarter brain. But you get the point.

  • Dr. Jack.

    Actually Kirk they were larger than us. Also some of the skulls found suggest that some of them might have had bigger brains than us. Of course a bigger brain isn’t a smarter brain. But you get the point.

  • Kirk

    Wikipedia says that they were around 5 1/2 ft tall, which is fairly average for a human living long ago. It does say that their bones were more robust than ours and that they were probably much stronger, so I suppose that could be accounted as giantness.

  • Kirk

    Wikipedia says that they were around 5 1/2 ft tall, which is fairly average for a human living long ago. It does say that their bones were more robust than ours and that they were probably much stronger, so I suppose that could be accounted as giantness.

  • M Burke

    The variation between typical homo sapiens sapiens skeletons from different regions is so great that one has to question the idea that all these various hominid types are distinct “species”. Consider also that science has trouble defining the term species in the first place.

  • M Burke

    The variation between typical homo sapiens sapiens skeletons from different regions is so great that one has to question the idea that all these various hominid types are distinct “species”. Consider also that science has trouble defining the term species in the first place.

  • morgan

    Jack Cuozzo, in his book “Buried Alive” theorizes that Neaderthals were actually pre-flood humans that lived to those advanced ages referenced in the Older Testament. Using scientific investigative principles (Jack is a forensic orthodontist), he presents a compelling argument in support of his theory. Post fall, nothing would surprise me regarding the depravity of man (T in TULIP–I’m a Calvinist after all) including cannibalism. The whistle also is evidence that man’s love of beauty results from being created Imago Dei. I don’t think I’d believe any conclusion from secular “scientists” as their world views and presuppositions are based in materialistic, naturalistic, and ultimately atheistic principles.

  • morgan

    Jack Cuozzo, in his book “Buried Alive” theorizes that Neaderthals were actually pre-flood humans that lived to those advanced ages referenced in the Older Testament. Using scientific investigative principles (Jack is a forensic orthodontist), he presents a compelling argument in support of his theory. Post fall, nothing would surprise me regarding the depravity of man (T in TULIP–I’m a Calvinist after all) including cannibalism. The whistle also is evidence that man’s love of beauty results from being created Imago Dei. I don’t think I’d believe any conclusion from secular “scientists” as their world views and presuppositions are based in materialistic, naturalistic, and ultimately atheistic principles.

  • WanderingLutheran

    The Mayan calendar is amazingly close to Ussher’s-by a gap of less than 60 years. It’s likely Ussher knew little to nothing of the Mayans’ existence. Yet we’re willing to reject Ussher’s research simply because it seems impossible our Earth really could be less than 10,000 years old? One could legitimately ask how old Adam appeared to be as he stepped fresh from God’s hand.

    Several interesting and easy reads on the subject of post-Flood culture and high technology are:

    “After the Flood” by Bill Cooper. European history traced back to Noah by way of the Table of Nations and subsequent European ‘king lists’. Also a bit of discussion on the origin of “Grendal”, the monster whom Beowulf slew-and how the story might well be grounded in historical fact.

    “The Puzzle of Ancient Man” by Donald and Donna Chittick. Discusses how the so-called ‘primitive’ technology of ancient man was and in some aspects still may be far superior to ours. Treats such subjects as post-Babel culture loss, the neanderthals and the origin of ‘races’ as well.

    “Secrets of the Lost Races” by Rene Noorbergen. Also makes compelling points about the high intelligence of ancient man. He does seem to grant the possibilities of ley lines and psychic significance behind the engineering and placement of the Pyramids and other ancient structures as you get deeper into the book, but otherwise makes sound arguments for primitive man not being so primitive after all.

    There are ample footnotes and bibliographies in each book for those who want to search further. Each makes legitimate claims that the antediluvians were so far above us all in their knowledge and creativity that what we know now is not so much new, as it is the recovery of lost arts.

    Why do we have to accept a secular scientist’s word on Neanerthals when his own view clearly implies if not outright asserts that man first came up from the ooze and later, down from the trees?

  • WanderingLutheran

    The Mayan calendar is amazingly close to Ussher’s-by a gap of less than 60 years. It’s likely Ussher knew little to nothing of the Mayans’ existence. Yet we’re willing to reject Ussher’s research simply because it seems impossible our Earth really could be less than 10,000 years old? One could legitimately ask how old Adam appeared to be as he stepped fresh from God’s hand.

    Several interesting and easy reads on the subject of post-Flood culture and high technology are:

    “After the Flood” by Bill Cooper. European history traced back to Noah by way of the Table of Nations and subsequent European ‘king lists’. Also a bit of discussion on the origin of “Grendal”, the monster whom Beowulf slew-and how the story might well be grounded in historical fact.

    “The Puzzle of Ancient Man” by Donald and Donna Chittick. Discusses how the so-called ‘primitive’ technology of ancient man was and in some aspects still may be far superior to ours. Treats such subjects as post-Babel culture loss, the neanderthals and the origin of ‘races’ as well.

    “Secrets of the Lost Races” by Rene Noorbergen. Also makes compelling points about the high intelligence of ancient man. He does seem to grant the possibilities of ley lines and psychic significance behind the engineering and placement of the Pyramids and other ancient structures as you get deeper into the book, but otherwise makes sound arguments for primitive man not being so primitive after all.

    There are ample footnotes and bibliographies in each book for those who want to search further. Each makes legitimate claims that the antediluvians were so far above us all in their knowledge and creativity that what we know now is not so much new, as it is the recovery of lost arts.

    Why do we have to accept a secular scientist’s word on Neanerthals when his own view clearly implies if not outright asserts that man first came up from the ooze and later, down from the trees?

  • WanderingLutheran

    I forgot to mention that Bill Cooper’s book “After the Flood” also puts to rest the idea that monotheism was not known outside or before the establishment of the Hebrew nation. There is discussion of Plato, Cicero, and other thinkers of ancient times. It would seem the debate between naturalism and theism has gone on, well, since the Fall!

    As mentioned, these books are easy and fascinating reading (Cooper’s is a bit more challenging) and are packed with possibility for those wanting a little bit more on the subject of post-Flood civilization and who are willing to spend the time to read them. If you have a Lutheran school in your area, please consider donating copies of these books to it-the kids will be intrigued.

  • WanderingLutheran

    I forgot to mention that Bill Cooper’s book “After the Flood” also puts to rest the idea that monotheism was not known outside or before the establishment of the Hebrew nation. There is discussion of Plato, Cicero, and other thinkers of ancient times. It would seem the debate between naturalism and theism has gone on, well, since the Fall!

    As mentioned, these books are easy and fascinating reading (Cooper’s is a bit more challenging) and are packed with possibility for those wanting a little bit more on the subject of post-Flood civilization and who are willing to spend the time to read them. If you have a Lutheran school in your area, please consider donating copies of these books to it-the kids will be intrigued.

  • fws

    i am not at all sure that we need to accept bishop usher´s conjectures and believe in a young earth in order to properly bear the claim of being a confessional Lutheran who believes in sola scriptura. to the contrary…

  • fws

    i am not at all sure that we need to accept bishop usher´s conjectures and believe in a young earth in order to properly bear the claim of being a confessional Lutheran who believes in sola scriptura. to the contrary…

  • WanderingLutheran

    So FWS are you saying that evolutionary theory is compatible with Scripture?
    That’s interesting, as Christ Himself affirmed the Genesis account of a literal six-day Creation, and utterly rejected the assertions of those who claimed that things were as they always had been: 2 Peter 3.3-7.

    Most written history goes back only about 5000 years or so. This isn’t significant?

  • WanderingLutheran

    So FWS are you saying that evolutionary theory is compatible with Scripture?
    That’s interesting, as Christ Himself affirmed the Genesis account of a literal six-day Creation, and utterly rejected the assertions of those who claimed that things were as they always had been: 2 Peter 3.3-7.

    Most written history goes back only about 5000 years or so. This isn’t significant?

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    Interesting. FWS questions whether someone can believe in an old earth, and WanderingLutheran suggests he believes in evolution. Then a literal six days gets brought in, and talk of things being the same way forever, as if how long there has been since the creation was Peter’s topic, rather than the fact that there has been a cataclysm between now and then. That’s quite a mix of topics.

    The question FWS brought up was one of compatibility. But it is not always obvious what views might be compatible with each other. There are many old earth creationists out there who believe in Adam and Eve but with no specifics on when. Many trust the genealogies without thinking these commit them to a time frame. Further, many believe in Adam and Eve without believing in a literal six days. Those who hold to the framework hypothesis often do.

    The “literal six day” idea strikes me as funny. The term “24 hour” is often used as an adjective though nothing is said about it in Scripture. Likewise, the word “literal” is one I cannot find in my Strong’s Concordance. I do know that there was evening and morning the first three days, but before there were lights in the sky to mark them (see Genesis 1:14). So if these were evenings and mornings of a different sort from other evenings and mornings, it seems we have quite a bit of room to ask questions about time schemes.

    I don’t see anything in a 4.5 billion year old earth that contradicts Peter’s warning.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    Interesting. FWS questions whether someone can believe in an old earth, and WanderingLutheran suggests he believes in evolution. Then a literal six days gets brought in, and talk of things being the same way forever, as if how long there has been since the creation was Peter’s topic, rather than the fact that there has been a cataclysm between now and then. That’s quite a mix of topics.

    The question FWS brought up was one of compatibility. But it is not always obvious what views might be compatible with each other. There are many old earth creationists out there who believe in Adam and Eve but with no specifics on when. Many trust the genealogies without thinking these commit them to a time frame. Further, many believe in Adam and Eve without believing in a literal six days. Those who hold to the framework hypothesis often do.

    The “literal six day” idea strikes me as funny. The term “24 hour” is often used as an adjective though nothing is said about it in Scripture. Likewise, the word “literal” is one I cannot find in my Strong’s Concordance. I do know that there was evening and morning the first three days, but before there were lights in the sky to mark them (see Genesis 1:14). So if these were evenings and mornings of a different sort from other evenings and mornings, it seems we have quite a bit of room to ask questions about time schemes.

    I don’t see anything in a 4.5 billion year old earth that contradicts Peter’s warning.

  • WanderingLutheran

    This is because the historical, biblical, orthodox faith has until recently always understood the Creation as taking place over six literal days. The universe was as much about the beginning of temporal time as it was about matter. That God is outside Time doesn’t mean He created any kind of Time that was different at Creation than now. Everything, even Adam and Eve, had to have had the appearance of maturity at their creation, or it makes no sense. Moses and the other OT writers intended no different meaning.

    Again, Christ Himself affirmed the six-day Creation of the universe and our Earth and solar system out of nothing-in effect saying that ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ were just as we have always understood them. Why would there be any difference between them then and now, except that somebody wants to make room for other possibilities?

  • WanderingLutheran

    This is because the historical, biblical, orthodox faith has until recently always understood the Creation as taking place over six literal days. The universe was as much about the beginning of temporal time as it was about matter. That God is outside Time doesn’t mean He created any kind of Time that was different at Creation than now. Everything, even Adam and Eve, had to have had the appearance of maturity at their creation, or it makes no sense. Moses and the other OT writers intended no different meaning.

    Again, Christ Himself affirmed the six-day Creation of the universe and our Earth and solar system out of nothing-in effect saying that ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ were just as we have always understood them. Why would there be any difference between them then and now, except that somebody wants to make room for other possibilities?

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    “This is because the historical, biblical, orthodox faith has until recently always understood the Creation as taking place over six literal days.”

    St. Augustine and Nicholas of Lyra did not read this literally.

    Also, I’m trying to follow your argument about Christ’s view. Are you offering 2 Peter 3:3-7 as your grounds that Christ held to six literal days? Or some other passage? I want to be clear about that from the start.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    “This is because the historical, biblical, orthodox faith has until recently always understood the Creation as taking place over six literal days.”

    St. Augustine and Nicholas of Lyra did not read this literally.

    Also, I’m trying to follow your argument about Christ’s view. Are you offering 2 Peter 3:3-7 as your grounds that Christ held to six literal days? Or some other passage? I want to be clear about that from the start.

  • richard

    “This is because the historical, biblical, orthodox faith has until recently always understood the Creation as taking place over six literal days.”
    One of the most stalwart defenders of the inerrancy of Scripture, B.B. Warfield, did not read this to mean 24-hour, young-earth creation as well. You could include others, such as the Princeton theologians. The statement is just plain wrong.

  • richard

    “This is because the historical, biblical, orthodox faith has until recently always understood the Creation as taking place over six literal days.”
    One of the most stalwart defenders of the inerrancy of Scripture, B.B. Warfield, did not read this to mean 24-hour, young-earth creation as well. You could include others, such as the Princeton theologians. The statement is just plain wrong.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X