User talk:Marty8

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Marty8: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! --FloNight ^talk 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Early Hominids and Genesis

Thank you for straightening that issue out in the article. I hope things are adequate now. If there was any arrogance in my words, I apologize. I was interested by your comment regarding hominids prior to Adam, and you were correct that the article talk page was not the place for such a discussion. Yet I'm curious as to what your strong case consists of. Perhaps here we can go into it? --Zephyr Axiom 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. By the way, I am a Christian, and I believe in this Wiseman hypothesis, which of course has no effect on my editing. Or at least, little effect, as I don't want it unnecessarily associated with YEC. In response to your question, first off why would Genesis 1 not mention other hominids? Difficult one, but one clue may be in the fact that the Bible often compares people with animals, including "clean" (representing God's people) and "unclean" animals. Ideally, the image of God is best represented not in an animal such as a lamb but in homo sapiens. Thus, we have the creation of animals, then Adam and Eve made in the very image of God. There must have been other intermarriageable(?) hominids because Cain was able to go and find a wife and build cities. After the flood, Genesis 6:4 mentions there were giants on the Earth already in the post-flood period, so the flood could not have been global, and the giants probably pre-dated Adam as well. Also, the Bible mentions the ancient mountains, ancient river (etc) but doesn't use this word ancient in reference to man. However, I have yet to do an in-depth study on this word. As for the flood, it is common for the Bible to employ a phrase like "all the Earth" in hyperbole form to refer to a localized area. We should not expect the authors to have used scientifically correct language, which no ancient people ever did. (Marty8 15:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for responding. I am also a Christian. I believe that the Wiseman hypothesis has a great likelihood of being correct, although it has been brought to my attention that there is a possibility still that the accounts were not written down at any early point. The ancients could have had excellent memories which we have since lost, in the same way that we have lost our relative longevity, and the reality could have been a middle ground between the tablet theory and authorship by Moses. I am also a Young Earth Creationist.

":Having provided that introduction, I would like to present replies to your case regarding early hominids from a YEC position. As a disclaimer, there are a few YECs who hold that if you don’t believe in a young earth you are going to burn in hell. I’m not one of those. I simply think an old age position undermines part of our ability to grow in the Lord after becoming a believer in Christ.

Regarding the idea of intermarriage between humans created in God’s image and "other" hominids, a disturbing question arises. Are there some people who are not as human as others? You point out that Cain would have had to find a wife from somewhere. I believe it would have been his sister. There is both Biblical support for this and support from our knowledge of genetics. Abraham’s wife Sarah was his sister (Gen. 20: 12). Regarding genetics, the physical reason why close intermarriage is not advisable is because of detrimental mutations in the DNA. When two people have offspring, the appearance of a problem due to the genetic corruption can be avoided if one of the parents has a gene that covers the damaged segment of the other parent. The problem manifests when both parents have the same defective gene, which is likely to be the case with close relatives. This corruption is a result of the Fall, but it is a cumulative effect. Those closer to creation would not have had a great deal of genetic corruption and so would not have been at risk. It was only over two thousand years later that God told the Israelites not to marry siblings.

Pre Adam hominids also raises the question of the origin of death. The Bible indeed does not mention such individuals, and the supposed evidence for their existence comes from fossils. So that would mean they died. In contrast, the Bible states that death only entered into the world through Adam (Rom. 5: 12) (I Cor. 15:22).

As for Cain’s city, a city need not be large, but rather just be walled, I believe. Furthermore, it was when Adam and Eve were 130 years old that they named a replacement for Abel. 130 years is sufficient time for a sizeable population to arise.

Regarding giants, there are translations which do not use the term giant, but rather the transliteration Nephilim. This is because the Hebrew term does not necessarily carry with it such a meaning. They were a race that came about from a mixing of fallen angels and human women. Such mingling could have occurred after the Flood and did occur to create a new batch of Nephilim. There are some who even theorize that a number of Nephilim survived the Flood by leaving the planet.

"Ancient" is nonconclusive. Several thousand years is a long time. We today commonly associate Moses and Abraham with the term ancient. Even the Romans might be considered ancient.

Furthermore, a local flood is contrary to the Genesis account. Taking one hundred years to construct an ark would be completely unnecessary is Noah could have survived simply by moving away in a matter of months at most. Animals would not have needed to be gathered from around the world had it only been a local flood. The very geography of the Middle East would not allow for a local flood drowning the area, since the waters would have quickly drained due to a lack of high ground keeping in certain areas. God also promised that He would never again send such a Flood to the earth. If it was a local flood, then God has broken His word on numerous occasions. To imply that the Genesis Flood was only a local flood would also imply that Christ’s return will only have a local effect, since "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man" (Matt. 24: 37). --Zephyr Axiom 19:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to respond to what you wrote. I was into YEC, but my feeling about it now is, not only it is not Biblical, every time someone wants to make Christians look like complete fools they talk about YEC. The vast majority of lay people who are into YEC aren't guilty of lying, but some prominent teachers should definitely know better. My advice is, don't belive, or at least question, most of the YEC "science." Not every scientific field has been completely "hijacked" by the evolution agenda.

"Are there some people who are not as human as others?" We are not talking about any other species since in that case there could have been no intermarriage that bore offspring. Different races could in theory be far apart in appearance, but still able to intermarry. Look at dogs, for instance. I need to backtrack because I was a little mixed up earlier when talking about Genesis 6:4. The argument goes that the verse says there were nephilim before the flood and also after the flood. However, there is no record of demons mating with humans after the flood, and so it seems some nephilim survived the flood. Now that I think about it more, I don't believe any nephilim survived the flood. My belief is that the flood was local, yet it destroyed all human life except Noah and his sons and their wives. Hence, any previous "race" or "species" issues would no longer apply. The post-flood race issues such as the "chosen race" are still there, but that's another matter.

As for there being no death before Adam, that completely contradicts the fossil record. Would you believe it's also not biblical? Look up an article on the web by David Snoke titled, Why Were Dangerous Animals Created? It's at the asa.org website. Personally, I always thought some bugs would have died anyway. They have short lifespans, and are easily squished. :o

I know Cain could have married his sister, but I doubt it happened that way. In Genesis, the wicked sons (Ishmael, Esau) always went away and married foreign wives. Cain certainly went away, and probably didn't come back home at all, whether for marriage or any other reason. That is conjecture, but is based on my Bible study, and all we can do is guess who Cain may have married.

God's promise to Noah is unbroken because He hasn't destroyed all human life since then. For what it's worth, ecologists(?) say if there's only two of a species, it's almost a guarantee of extinction. I understand the argument that God helped the animals survive, find their mates, and reproduce, but most YECs don't fully appreciate what a miracle that would be. I do not discount anything simply because it's miraculous, but weigh the preponderance of evidence against possible interpretations of Scripture. As far as what you say about the geography of Mesopotamia (the "Middle East" doesn't fit here), the YEC's themselves agree the heavens are emptied and waters from below gush out, and there is a raising of the sea level - I would suggest not above Mount Everest, but certainly above the Mesopotamian flood plain. You may know that the word "mountain" could also mean "hill," so the Ark may have landed on a hill.

Since the Bible can certainly be interpreted in such a way that the flood was local, that is how I believe God meant it, especially considering all the evidence. I do not believe polar bears and penguins came to Noah, along with dinosaurs and camels and jungle sloths and everything else. That is fine to believe as a child, but now we should know better. Don't get me wrong because I appreciate those who have doubts, yet believe by faith. I do not dislike or disrespect YECs (except lying ones) because, after all, I've been there myself. However, please consider this. If the flood had covered the entire Earth for an entire year, every plant/tree would definitely have died. That alone should be enough "scientific" information to kill that theory. God could have miraculously kept the plants alive, but it seems like he would have told us about it in Scripture. YECs desperately want to keep the global flood story going because they use the flood to explain practically every sedimentary layer buried under the Earth. How can a single flood explain most of the Grand Canyon? I would challenge you to just take one geological formation and study it in detail to compare what science says with what YEC says as best you can, then draw your own conclusions.

Also, I would bet you say you don't believe in evolution. Not if you're a YEC! Since Noah would have only had room for the "primary species" (or whatever term YEC "experts" might use) on the ark, those species would have had to come off the ark and evolve into all the varieties we have now in just a very short span of time. That's more rapid and radical evolution than any Darwinian could ever accept. We have literally millions of species of life forms on Earth.

Please read the article by Snoke and let me know what you think. I have some other web links on my computer, and can send them to you if you want to research it, and if you provide an email address. Unfortunately, I cannot spend further time writing in such detail. Maybe just a question or two is all I will be willing to answer due to other priorities.

Thank you for responding again. I am still in the process of reading the article you recommended, but in the meantime, I would like to respond to your post. I do not wish to seem rude or anything, but I think you have missed and/or misunderstood a few things. I feel kind of in a tight spot here, since I want to point out what I think are errors in your arguments, but I also do not want either to force you to lose time on something important or to seem like I’m trying to get the last word (which I’m not). And thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt that I am not lying.

First of all, so what if nonbelievers mock some aspect of our beliefs? That is absolutely no reason for us to doubt that what we hold to is correct. We are fools for Christ. We believe that God became a man and that Man rose from the dead! How totally foolish and "unscientific" is that? Yes, we should all scrutinize the YEC science very, very carefully. Many YEC claims have been shown dubious or false, but the same has been shown for the claims of evolutionists to a much greater extent, and they are still held as being experts on reality.

I’ll let you think over the last half of your second paragraph a little longer.

Yes, I do believe that death before Adam is not Biblical. I see that the article you recommended attempts to interpret my supporting verses differently, but I still hold to this position so far. Regarding the "fossil record," that's assuming there was no global Flood. I’m not an expert on bugs, but I would assume that if they do not have blood as other animals do, then they are not considered living. After all, the life is in the blood.

As for Cain’s wife, I think you missed something. It does not say that Cain married after the event of the murder. He could very well have committed the crime after getting married and left along with his wife. Furthermore, his family could have spread in the more than one hundred years since the creation.

Regarding the Flood, maybe you might interpret it as being local, but really, the Flood account could not have been much clearer as to the meaning had a global Flood been meant. It repeatedly states things like "all the earth," "all creatures," "everything that had the breath of life," "everything on the face of the earth," "all the high mountains under the entire heavens." How would you actually go about making it clearer if you wanted to emphasize that it was global? Furthermore, why would God have told Noah to waste one hundred years of his life if he could have just taken his family for a mountain hike? Do you realize how big that boat was? It had enough space to carry all the kinds of animals with room to spare (room that might have been used for carrying seed). There are many types of plants that can stay in salt water for very long periods. In fact, even in the evolutionist model plants would have had to float across continents.

Now you say that YECs are desperate to keep the global Flood story going because it is used to explain all the sedimentary layers. I would phrase it like this: the evolutionists are desperate to debunk the global Flood because it would render their prized geologic column useless. They scrambled to find explanations for why over ninety-five percent of all fossils discovered are marine. More and more, they are being forced to recognize that most fossils must have been formed through some sort of catastrophe. They say that Mars experienced near global flooding some time in the past, but abhor any notion of that having ever occurred on Earth, despite the obviously higher water content over here. I don’t see how the Grand Canyon is a dilemma. Perhaps you’d think that proves your point. However, I believe the New Testament says something about our modern rejection of the Biblical Flood.[1]

Yes, I do believe in a form of evolution. I merely call it rapid speciation, as well as a loss of information. The evolution that the materialists believe in is an increase in organized complexity. The current YEC model is that the original kinds had a great repository of genetic variation. Isolation and inbreeding resulted in certain traits becoming mainstays in local populations, and other traits having been lost. You brought up earlier an example of dog breeding. I will use it in another context. You can take a mutt and through successive breeding arrive at a specialized new breed, but that new breed will likely be highly dependant on human care. Moreover, it will be a lot harder to take that new breed will not be able to return to the original flexibility in breeding, i.e. you will not be able to make as many new breeds through the new one as you would through the old. Genes interfering with the trait you were selecting have been weeded out. I’m not sure how long you’ve been away from the "YEC camp," but it feels like you haven’t looked around at sites such as answersingenesis.org lately.

I’m sorry for making this so long, but I hate leaving points unaddressed. Take as long as you need with your greater priorities though. --Zephyr Axiom 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Take as long as you need with your greater priorities though." I seriously hope this isn't sarcasm, as it appears. You're the one who started this discussion.

I'm sorry to see you don't seem to find the Snoke article to be of any interest. Personally speaking, Snoke and Mark Whorton (author of the book "Peril in Paradise") do theology better than any YECs I know of.

If YEC is true, why do you folks see a need to prop it up with so many lies? Although I'm not accusing you personally of being a liar, I again challenge you to closely examine the facts. Look at what the skeptics say about YEC arguments by people like Ken Ham, Carl Baugh, and virtually all the big names. Why not, if the truth is on your side? I choose to go not strictly with "science," nor with some reactionary, fanciful, overly literal Bible interpretation, but with other Christians like myself who seek truth in the Scriptures. Personally, I think there is some evidence that people lived at the same time as dinosaurs, so yes, I'm very skeptical of establishment science. I think Job indicates that people of that time were familiar with dinosaurs.

The YEC story about the grand canyon need not be true just because the world rejects it. Nowhere does the Bible say we have to disagree with the "world" on everything. As I wrote before, I believe all humans except Noah & family were drowned in the flood. Humans had not obeyed God's command to spread out and take dominion over the Earth so they were concentrated in one area. In terms of 2 Peter, what difference does it make if I don't think God drowned all the animals in South America (or wherever, if the continents supposedly didn't exist) because of people sinning in Mesopotamia? I think making a habit of judging fellow believers for things like not believing God killed every last rabbit (etc) on Earth is a worse sin than not taking every single word of the Bible literally, but feel free to decide that for yourself. Oh, by the way, try taking every word of Revelation literally!

"I’ll let you think over the last half of your second paragraph a little longer." That's the part where I wrote, "I don't believe the nephilim survived the flood." I don't understand why you would want me to think about that.

Noah built the ark as a testimony against unbelievers, and also it was a type of Christ since to be saved we must be "in Christ." God's commands don't always have to be "practical." Consider his command that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a good thing Abraaham was willing to act on God's command without questioning it.

Your "rapid speciation" theory isn't the same as Darwinian evolution, but still is a form of theistic evolution. Anyone receptive to "rapid speciation" theory and denying a young Earth would rationally conclude that all life descends from a universal common ancestor (UCA). That may seem irrelevant to YECs, but what right do YECs have to be so judgmental toward theistic evolutionists who believe much the same thing as YECs, but only in a different time frame? By the way, many theistic evolutionists do not believe in a UCA, but that God specially created Adam and Eve - so again, why do YECs judge them so harshly? I just find it interesting. By the way, I don't have a specific position other than the belief that God created life and provided the information necessary for life. Also, I don't believe in a UCA.

I decided to respond since you wrote such a long (& wrong) response, although I had been hoping for a short response. I realize I didn't respond to everything you wrote, but didn't really see a need to. I would still like this discussion to end soon.

I was being serious about my last sentence. I apologize for making it unclear. I hadn't realized at the time how easily that can be seen as a statement of sarcasm :(.

I guess this will be my last post here. I'll attempt to keep it short. You say that YECs do not do theology well, but it felt to me that a number of your arguments drawn from Scripture were not well analyzed on your part. The Bible could not have been clearer that it was a Flood that destroyed all life. It says not only every man, but also every creature. Furthermore, the Bible only says that man refused to scatter over the earth after the Flood. Earlier, people were scattered, as attested to by Cain's predicament. Regarding the Nephilim, you seemed to say something to the effect that there were no new Nephilim after the Flood, and that all Nephilim were killed in the Flood. This is contradicted by the very verse you originally brought up about there being Nephilim before the Flood and afterwards. The article you cited argued against redesign after the Fall since it was not referred to in Scripture, but then you argue for the existence of a human species prior to Adam, and marrying into Adam's line, even though there is no clear sign of their existence in Scripture. By the same sort of rational given that Cain must have married a pre Adamite, one could use the verses in Job regarding God having designed animal hunters to mean He recreated animals after the Fall. Finally, Genesis is presented as a literal, historical account that provides no internal reason to think that the Flood was anything but global; but Revelation is specifically stated to be a vision. Moreover, the symbolism in Revelation is explicitly identified as symbolism by the angel interpreting it for John. The universal nature of the Flood is nowhere in the Bible given a comparable symbolic treatment.

I'm sorry that you believe my position to be wrong and that the typed words here seem to convey a sense of hostility (on either side, though I'm sure neither of us intended to be nasty). I will refrain from bothering you any further. Lord bless you.

(p.s. I am meditating on the issue of carnivorous animals. I think it possible that all of their physical characteristics were left unchanged after the Fall or the Flood, and that merely their behavior became altered. The nutrient value of plants may have been different back then, and there were insects [mighty big ones]. However, I will look into the matter further. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.)--Zephyr Axiom 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misinterpreted that statement. Unfortunately, that was my very first impression when I read it. Only later did I realize I might have been mistaken.

Since you said you don't intend to post anything further, I will just respond to what you wrote, especially since you say I have misinterpreted Scripture. If I write something you feel you must respond to, that's okay. In a way, this is a needful discussion for me because it's causing me to think over some issues.

Do a Bible study sometime looking up the use of the word "all" or even "all the Earth." I guess when Genesis 41:56 (internal to Genesis) says the famine was upon "all the face of the Earth," that must mean the Chinese went hungry too. This was written from the perspective of Noah. God is quoted also, but if he had said he wouldn't flood the distant mountain regions, Noah might have just packed up instead of building the ark. I think God usually just tells us what we need to know. Noah would have certainly performed a valuable service in saving domesticated livestock and seed for crops because people had carefully breeded them.

As for the pre-flood time, I know of no Bible scholars who say Cain's cities were very far apart, or that anyone in that time would have lived outside of Mesopotamia. If in Mesopotamia, it would have all been subject to flooding. The people weren't obedient to God's other commands, so it seems the burden would be on you to prove they obeyed the command to scatter throughout the Earth.

As for the nephilim, they were there before the flood, then died in the flood. After the flood, nephilim came through these strange marriages we talked about, not by surviving the flood. All the translations seem pretty consistent, and can be interpreted as saying there were two occasions when the "sons of God" mated with the daughters of men. Here is 6:4a in Young's Literal Translation: "The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men..."

"By the same sort of rational given that Cain must have married a pre Adamite, one could use the verses in Job regarding God having designed animal hunters to mean He recreated animals after the Fall." Point taken. However, this argument cuts both ways, because for those YECs who believe in re-creation after the flood, I could "explain" why no verses are needed to say there were other human types besides Adam and Eve.

William Dembski (designinference.com) wrote an article that said God created carnivorous animals knowing Adam and Eve would sin. However, he put them in this sanctuary called the Garden of Eden. Only after they were driven from this sanctuary for their sin did they have to encounter these dangerous animals. This is a problem called "backwards causation," and people will say you can't create the punishment before the crime is committed. This rule may not apply to God, and I don't mean that flippantly; unlike the case with humans, omniscience plays a part in all that God does. Snoke and Whorton, on the other hand, just basically say God put them there as challenges to us I guess. Like in Job, they're just there. No explanation. Anyway, those are all old Earth creationist views.

For what it's worth, the entire flood account is a huge poem. I'm not saying that makes it non-historical, but it can't be strictly classified as a straight historical narrative when it's all poetry. The poem (called a chiasm) is outlined in G.J. Wenham, "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative." I can send you the outline by email if you want. I don't know if it can be found on the Internet or not. Write again if you want me to send you that, or if you have any final comments. I ended up bringing up some new issues which I had not intended to raise.

It was nice talking with you. God bless! (Marty8 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]