funinspace

On the LXX: it will only push the Deluge back another 700-900 years. This hardly solves the myriad of issue with the world wide flood, and doesn't really change the arguments. It does allow one to get to the very beginnings of writing, and a somewhat foggier human history.

If one can transform the simple and clear verses where father begets son at a certain age, how can any of the text not be taken in any way one wants to get ones desired understanding? One could just as easily then re-arrange texts to support universalism or a non-physical Jesus. Do words really have any meaning at this point?

CJD

I meant simply (and I am largely ignorant on this subject) that Cro-Magnon has yet be genetically (i.e., the now exinct mitochondria mentioned above) linked to modern Homo Sapiens — at least the female side of the species (despite its being anatomically homo sapiens). I truly am open on this debate, but I wouldn't be surprised if further analysis between Cro-Magnon and modern Homo Sapiens revealed that we were more cousins than directly descended.

I thought the same was already decided with respect to Neandertals (that there is little question that there is no 'hybrid' — between them and homo sapiens sapiens)?

But I thought the last time waters covered the earth was around the Pleistocene/Holocene epoch boundary (8,000–12,000 bce), after the last inter-glacial period? This may refer to 'the deep' of Gen. 1:2, but not 'Noah's Flood'. This in turn would mean that 'Noah's Flood' was localized, and would have taken place maybe around 2000–3000 bce (to emend my previous guess).

All of this, however, makes me extremely uncomfortable: the ancient texts that makes up Genesis are less concerned with statistical accuracy than we moderns are willing to admit (as if it really intends to clue us in on "when" such-and-so happened).

Best,

CJD

Clivedurdle

Hold on, if Exodus and Solomon are myth - Bible Unearthed - do we have anything to match the genealogies to?

And I thought Ussher was the accepted standard!

Amaleq13

Cro Magnon is not a species or subspecies. It is a name given to certain fossils of ancient hominids because that is where they were found. Those fossil hominids are, as Anat said, placed in the category of homo sapiens. They are virtually indistinguishable from modern skeletons. Cro magnon is not actually a different category from homo sapiens.

IIRC, at least two skeletons have been found that arguably display characteristics of both.

This is really a topic more appropriate for Evolution/Creation, though.

CJD

Egads, not that forum. I'm just a semi-interested schlep. All I'm repeating here is that, if I remember correctly, the fossils which constitute the "Cro-Magnon" category have not been found to be anyone's descendent today (genetically speaking). Is this bit of information correct or not?

Toto

Cro-Magnon on Wikipedia

Asha'man

Yes, approximately. While Solomon was either a myth or greatly exaggerated, his 7th successor on the Israel side was King Omri. We actually have legitimate archaeological evidence for Omri and his actions. I've forgotten the details, but Omri's contribution to an army is mentioned on a steele by an opposing king, and some ruins of stables from Omri's time have been found.

Of course, if much of the OT is myth, then the genealogies probably are as well, so the exercise is pointless.

Asha'man

But the genealogies read "X begot Y when X was Z years old."

It doesn't matter how many generations might have been skipped, Y could be a child or a grandchild or a great grandchild, you simply have to add up all values of Z.

rob117

What I don't get, is why do most creationist organizations insist on using the Masoretic genealogies, when they could at least attempt to make the flood be earlier (and hence less blatantly incompatible with Egyptian chronology, though only slightly less so) by using the LXX/Samaritan genealogies? (It should be noted that the LXX genealogies are probably closer to the original text, because they and the Samaritan ones are pretty much identical, whereas the Masoretic genealogies tend to be shortened- i.e., the ages of the "begats" are lowered 100 years- example, Arpachsad begat Selah at age 35 in the Masoretic version, and at age 135 in the LXX and Samaritan versions, as well as in Josephus, who apparently used a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text).

Of course, it's all bullshit anyway- but by using the LXX genealogies, they could make it look less blatant, and we'd have one less thing to correct them on. :wave:

Amaleq13

No, they appear to be genetically related to us and this evidence has been used to argue against the idea of extinction-of-Neandertal-by-interbreeding.

"The researchers compared Cro-Magnon genetic sequences from an especially variable stretch of mitochondrial DNA with corresponding sequences from Neandertal fossils and from 80 people now living in Europe or western Asia.

Cro-Magnon sequences fall within a genetic category shared by people today but not by Neandertals, the scientists report. This result aligns with the theory that modern H. sapiens originated in Africa around 150,000 years ago and then replaced Neandertals in Europe rather than interbred with them, Bertorelle and his coworkers say."

From Stone Age Genetics

Wikipedia by way of Toto:

I'm pretty sure that is low by 100,000 years. I think fossils had been found as old as 200,000 years.