The Theory of Evolution is Inadequate to Explain Biology, Requires "Extensions" Says Oxford Prof

 Read all about it. 

Wow, Neanderthal Brains Wired Differently, Study Says

 One of my hobby horses has been opposing this propaganda campaign by what purports to be "science" media that keeps pushing the narrative that Neanderthals were so much like us. They were not. Now a study shows that even changing one brain development gene to the version found in Neanderthals has dramatic effect. 

The Case for the Septuagint

 Is stronger than most Western Christians think. I don't know about whether all of the Apocrypha should be considered canon, but where the Masoretic text, written by unbelieving rabbis long after Christ, differs from the Septuagint I give considerable weight to the Septuagint version. The value of the Masoretic text, when it agrees with the Septuagint, is to look at more subtle and exact shades of meaning in the words used. 

Michael Heiser is Wrong About Deuteronomy 32

 

You Tube Channel

A Single Global Human Culture 45,000 years ago?

 

A reverse hand-print from a cave in France.

The world's oldest cave painting has been found in Sulawesi Indonesia. Dating such art is very tricky, but they have determined that it was painted around 45,000 years ago, making it several thousand years earlier than similar art in Europe. And when I say similar art, I mean very similar. Click on the link above and look at the reverse hand-prints. They look like they could have been made by the same artist using the same kind of paint as that shown from the French cave painting above. 

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that some 40 odd thousand years ago there was a common human culture spread out across most of the old world which was not covered by ice sheets

.

    You Tube Channel 

No, Neanderthals Were Not "So Much Like Us"

The term "human" has been misappropriated to mean almost any species in the loose genus "homo". There has been an ongoing effort to push the narrative that species like Neanderthals were very much like us, indeed even claims that most of us carry genes from some of them. That latter claim has, in my mind been thoroughly debunked, within the margin of error, by the brilliant work of Cambridge Zoology Professor Dr. William Amos. It hasn't IMHO gotten the attention it deserves despite his impeccable credentials because his conclusions don't fit the narrative that the science media is trying to force. 

The nature of man has profound implications for the nature of creation. Of course, naturalists push for the scenario that our kind is not all that special, just another iteration of a host of species that walk on two legs and have a big brain. Science media, which has whole-heartedly embraced philosophical naturalism, relentlessly pushes this evidence. Researchers looking to make a name for themselves know how to interpret the evidence if they want their research to get lots of attention- in a way which supports this narrative. 

Because of this a lot of really terrible, awful, and outrageously biased interpretations have been done from studies which produced data that was otherwise scientifically sound. The evidence they collected doesn't fit their conclusions, but those conclusions get amplified anyway because it fits the desired narrative. I want to give some examples, and to show that I am not cherry picking, these are from a Facebook discussion group where the other gentleman gave these links to support his belief that Neanderthals produced art and had ceremonial burial of their dead and possibly even built religious structures. All a part of the narrative that we, they, and perhaps others were overlapping groups and by sheer luck we happened to be the ones who survived in greater proportion (since we supposedly carry some of their genes).

For example, this study was cited by the other gentleman as evidence that "Neanderthals bury their dead with ritual." And that is indeed the conclusion that the researcher came to, but his evidence was lacking. He had good evidence that part of the body of a two-year old Neanderthal was buried in a pit, but poor evidence that it was a ritual burial. Mitigating against the idea that it was- the pit also appeared to contain contemporaneous "faunal and lithic remains". In other words, other animal bones and chips from tool-making were also buried in the hole.  There were no domestic animals in those days, so it wasn't a case of someone being buried with a pet, nor any indication the other remains were from a single animal. If the "lithic" remains had been tools or toys, he no doubt would have made a big deal of it. A few chips of rock left over from tool-making being swept into the same pit argues against this being a "ceremonial" burial, indeed it has the hallmarks of an unceremonial  or utilitarian one. Burying the dead to keep hyenas away or the stench down is not ceremonial!

This article talks about beads which the study they are reporting on claims were made by Neanderthals 42,000 years ago. They are suspiciously like ones which would be made by the modern humans which were first sweeping though the same area at the same time. The basis for their claim that the artifacts were produced by Neanderthals was that amongst the bones of prey animals which littered the site were those of a Neanderthal baby. I would suggest to you that this is at least equal evidence that modern humans preyed on Neanderthal babies, or that one was left when the rest were frightened away from the cave when modern humans took it over. It is quite suspicious that there is no widespread duplication of this jewelry making in other sites which are doubtlessly Neanderthal, yet something similar is found at a host of modern human sites. 

This article advances the idea that Neanderthals 176,000 years ago built structures deep within a cave that had a religious purpose. Stalactites were stacked in a large oval, with two other small piles within them. Charring indicated that the stacks had been burned, as if something flammable had been on them (torches?). The idea that the structure was built for religious purposes was pure conjecture and bad conjecture at that. Why, if Neanderthals were practicing religion in this way 176,000 years ago, do we see no sign of it in the 140,000 years afterward? Why couldn't the structure, with attendant fires, be built for security, protection, heating, and light in the cool cave? We do the same thing with ceramic stoves. Get the stone part hot and it will continue to radiate heat long after the flame has gone down, while you are sleeping. Clever engineering and so I am not saying they were dumb, I am saying it wasn't a manifestation of religion. That's a bad interpretation of the evidence, but it gets traction because it fits the narrative, not because it is a logical conclusion based on the facts. 

 Then there was this article which claimed that Neanderthals made cave art in Spain 67,000 years ago. This one was so bad that I had previously written an article just demolishing the claim in every way. If you only click on one link in this whole piece, please make it that one. 

There was some article about Neanderthal's use of eagle's talons at one site which he had up for a while too, but the gentleman seems to have pulled it. It was as contrived and speculative as the others I have discussed here. 

That leaves this claim of a seemingly human from 36,000 or so years ago whose DNA looks more Neanderthal than people today look by a considerable margin. They believe this was because he had a recent Neanderthal ancestor. However, it is conceded that this individual probably left no genetic impact in humans today- he was a dead end. Further, it notes that another study of living Europeans found no trace of Neanderthal introgression from the same time frame. That is, no other humans alive today seem to have introgression more recently than the purported introgression from around 50,000 years ago. I hope that this one is re-examined in the light of what Dr. Amos has discovered- that genetic drift or lack thereof explains many of these mysteries better than introgression. But even if it doesn't, even if this is an example of Sapiens-Neanderthal introgression, it was a dead end. 

That doesn't make the case that we are so much alike, but rather that we are different after all. There may have been a zoo of hominids walking around in the mists of time, but they were not us. I have my own speculation about that, here. 

You Tube Channel

A Fan of M. Heiser Challenges Me to Listen to Naked Bible Podcast 249 "Did Israelites View Their Judges As Gods"

 Michael Heiser argues that they did not, taking the view that when the 82nd Psalm says "I have said, Ye are gods" (Elohim) that it is referring to a heavenly Divine Council and not the elders and judges of Israel. Due to Christ's use of the verse in John 10:33-36 where He says "if He called them gods, to whom the Word of God came", most theologians believe this was referring to human judges. Heiser disputes this and argues that Christ is also referring to members of a Divine Counsel here, and that the scene for the 82nd Psalm is in heaven. 

I described why I thought he was wrong about the 82nd Psalm in this video (note that the links in the description section of the video point to more articles with more topics and details about where I think he is missing it). A fan of Heiser then challenged me, with good intentions I believe, to listen to Heisers podcast on the question of "Did Israelites View Their Judges as Gods". I had read "The Unseen Realm" and listened to his podcasts before but I decided to listen again on his word and, because, well if you are going to say a fellow has something wrong then the right thing to do is to listen and understand his position thoroughly. 

His video is an audio-only monotone near monologue. It is hard to listen to. But I did. While I did learn some more details of his position, and I usually learn things every time I delve into the text, my bottom line hasn't changed much if any on this question. Heiser thinks that there was a group of supernatural beings that were counted as "Elohim" that were also God's sons but that His earthly sons (Israel) were not Elohim. I think God sees us as we shall be, the same basis on which He referred to Gideon as a valiant warrior while he was hiding in a winepress. Like Christ said in John 10, some were elohim (gods) simply on the basis that the Word of God came to them. He knew what it would make out of those who received it in faith. Heiser himself, at 52:50 of that link, describes an elohim as "A being that is part of the supernatural world". That's a fair definition, but I think Abraham, Moses, Elijah and others fit that definition. They were in this world, but they were also a part of the supernatural world.

Heiser starts by talking about Gen. 35:7 and making the point, at great length, that the Elohim here could be the angels Jacob encountered in two earlier events in his life, described for example in Genesis chapter 32. But this argument is not really at issue for me. I am not saying that Angels can't be considered elohim, our disagreement is whether or not spiritual people who receive God's word can also be considered as such.  

Two of the verses that he talked about that most take to be places where humans are referred to as Elohim were Exodus 21:6 and 22:8. The word for "judges" is "elohim". Here is 21:6:

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Heiser points out (minute 43) that there was no dispute here for the judges to judge, but this was an important legal agreement, one man is pledging to serve another for life even though the law says he is otherwise to go free after six years or in the year of Jubilee. It is reasonable to suppose that this is the kind of thing that should be brought before judges to insure the statement is not made under duress and that both parties understand the consequences of the contract they are about to enter. There should be no accusation later that this was a forced labor situation, or question whether the master followed the law. 

Heiser later notes that the requirement to bring him before the "judges" is "deleted" when this part of the law is cited in Deuteronomy 15. It isn't "deleted", it just isn't mentioned. The passage there mostly deals with being merciful and forgiving debt in a variety of circumstances and this one was just on the list. There is no indication that the requirement in Exodus changed or dropped, it just wasn't mentioned in the shorter run-down in Deuteronomy. 

He even (time 49-51) suggests that the "judges" or "elohim" were clay figures often kept in houses to represent one's departed ancestors. He said it was the equivalent of swearing before one's ancestors. Thus Heiser floats the idea that dead people may have been considered elohim, just not live ones. Of course, to God, all souls that are His are alive, that's why He told Moses I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If the dead ancestors of the typical law-abiding Israelite home could be considered "elohim" then how much more a living Moses and the prophets!

The other verse is Ex 22:8

If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.

Because the word judges is linked to plural verbs in these two verses, Heiser goes to some trouble to show that there can be references to the One True God which are linked with plural verbs. While that may be so, I don't lean on the use of plural verbs to make the connection that these are human judges rather than God. I start with what Jesus said in John 10  and work my way back to the context in which these words are used. God did not personally arbitrate these disputes or serve as a legal witness to these agreements, rather human judges serving under the law of Moses did so. They were the elohim, standing in for the ultimate Elohim. 

This is very consistent with chapter 18 of Exodus, which Heiser attempts to debunk when he says that the human judges are never referred to as "elohim" within chapter 18. And he is almost right about that. Exodus 18:15 says:

"And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God:"

So if they wanted to ask God something, they asked Moses. I am not saying that they thought Moses was God, but they thought Moses was speaking for God. They thought he was a man with access to the supernatural realm- which fits Heiser's definition of an elohim! And the judges which are discussed later in the chapter are to stand in for Moses even as Moses stands in for the people before God. So when 22:8 says "brought unto the elohim" for them to decide (next verse) it IS consistent with the events of chapter 18. They came to Moses to hear from God and now the people are going to the judges he appointed to hear from God. Even if, as Heiser claims, the verse is about hearing from the One True God, the unrivaled Elohim, that is done through men. Men decide these cases. 

Moses had already been made an Elohim by God in Exodus 7:1. I know that most translations insert the word "as" in the verse. It is often rendered "I have made you as God to Pharaoh" but I am going to link to the interlinear so that you can see this is assumed and there is nothing in the actual Hebrew to justify adding the word "as" into the text. Moses was already an elohim on behalf of Yahweh Elohim as regards to Pharoah. He was declaring the Divine Will on earth. In chapter 18 he is acting in the same capacity for the children of Israel. His father-in-law suggests he share that burden, and this is the right thing to do because all of Israel (God's son per Ex 4:22) can also reflect His image and be elohim. Just like daddy. 

Look, we are meant to be a royal priesthood and a holy nation. We are even meant to be the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and the very Body and Bride of Christ. How can it be, if an Elohim is simply a being with access to the supernatural realm and not a Deity in the western sense, that spiritual men and women who have been "born of the flesh and of the spirit" in Christ are not also elohim? And God didn't get a new program. His OT one pointed to His NT one. I'm not saying M. Heiser is a bad guy, I'm saying he's wrong about something, and that he can just as easily be right about it. 

Look, this stuff is fascinating and all that, but I would rather turn your attention to a higher excellence. Though I don't have a problem with God having a court full of Divine Beings, I don't see them all over the Old Testament. I see Christ all over the Old Testament, and that's what my book is about. 

You Tube Channel