Neanderthals Were Not "SO MUCH LIKE US" Post 832

 OK, so maybe I haven't done 832 posts on it, but I have done a lot of posts on how this big push to claim that "Neanderthals were so much like us" or "another kind of human" are just hype. The new research shows that human brains develop slower than Neanderthals and this results in fewer chromosome errors during the brain growth process. 

Mice and Neanderthals are identical in six sites where humans differ. They did some testing and a part of what those genes do is help reduce copy error. It doesn't matter if their brains were the same size as ours- the structure was different and how carefully the circuits were put together was different. 

Apkallu As Patriarchs from Early Genesis? Thinking Out Loud

 The Christ-Centered model of early Genesis as Adam and Eve created after the bulk of humanity is created. Adam is a figure of Christ, not the father of the human race. It turns out, this line of thought produces intersting connections to ANE literature. I'm not one to think that early Genesis was "adopted from previous ANE myths", but rather the other way around. 

I am thinking out loud here and mean to come back and smooth this out later if the idea has merit. I'd love for some scholars to examine the hypothesis that the Apkallu were the patriarchs from early Genesis per the Christ-centered model. 

The Apkallu were said to be created by Ea (pronounced the same as the short version of the name of the Hebrew God in the Bible) to teach humanity how to be civilized. They were considered somewhere between gods and regular men. The were considered to be somewhere between heaven and earth (like originally from Eden?) and often shown with the heads of birds (which fly between heaven and earth) or with fish-like characteristics (armor?). This fits with what I wrote in my book about the descendents of Adam bringing true agriculture and pastoral farming to the world. 

According to Sumerian myth, the first seven sages were advisors to the pre-flood kings. I don't think that was true, but rather when the clans of Noah came out of the hills and made an impact on the regions they brought the account of their ancestors with them, perhaps vaguely known already by these people, and those were modified and blended into ANE myth. 


Uanna, "who finished the plans for heaven and earth",
Uannedugga, "who was endowed with comprehensive intelligence",
Enmedugga, "who was allotted a good fate",
Enmegalamma, "who was born in a house",
Enmebulugga, "who grew up on pasture land",
An-Enlilda, "the conjurer of the city of Eridu",
Utuabzu, "who ascended to heaven".


Uanna is also known as Adapa and some accounts of Adapa sound like another take on the garden of Eden and why man is mortal. The true name may have been Adapa Uanna or "wise craftsman". Adapa is said to have "ascended into heaven", and the Garden of Eden, at least a version in the mountains, could be seen as doing so. The seventh sage also ascended into heaven, and this corresponds to Enoch, seventh from Adam in Genesis, who "walked with God" and did not die because God took him. 

The second sage also has a name most like the first and could correspond to Seth, who was said to be "in the image and likeness" of Adam. Enosh was the son of Seth, his name means "mortal man" and he could be the third on the list. We don't know his fate but he lived 905 years and it was written that in his day they begain to call themselves by the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26). 

Just scribbling for now, but these are strange coincidences. 

The "For Us Not To Us" Trope

 I hope to smooth this later, but I got a very typical comment on  a YOUTUBE thread and I wanted to save my response here for later improvement.

Their comment: "I don't view culturally bounded language as a limitation, but rather a necessity. Of course it's culturally bounded. It's written in Hebrew! It MUST be an ancient Israelite piece of writing. It most certainly isn't written to us. It would be written in English if it were.

Rather, God inspired this beautiful poem to teach us about Himself. We should not force science into it."

My answer:

Since science is by definition a search for NATURAL causes only, an account of God creating the universe, and then repeatedly intervening in our world to produce what we see, isn't "science", but it still has implications for science. It is still an account of material origins. The implications are that this world is not a result of blind natural forces, nor even a Deistic universe that can do God's will without God's help. Rather, it is a universe suitable for beings like ourselves, who cannot do His will without His help either. So you see this question of whether the text is speaking of material origins or not has implications for the theology. If you get it wrong, you are unlikely to get the theology right. Sadly, today's scholars do not have it right.

But as for whether scripture was written to us and for us or only for us, consider one of the most famous chapters in the bible, and the verse following. Hebrews chapter 11. This chapter summarizes the whole of the Old Testament figures who contended for the faith. And it concludes "37 They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground. 39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect." 

So Hebrews says that it was for US, those who came long after them and are in Jesus, that their receiving what was promised was delayed. They had to lay out a case FOR US. They had to live out a narrative in history FOR US, that only together with US might we be made perfect. Indeed, the next verse says "since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses.." Do you not see? They were meant to be WITNESSES. Who are they witnessing to? US, those who followed them in history and can look back on their narratives through the lens of Christ. That's how we should see Abraham and Isaac at the alter. That's how we should see the two women who it turns out really represent two covenants (Gal 4). 

Indeed the whole point of prophecy is for future generations. The generation in which the prophecy is made cannot benefit from it till it is fulfilled. If none of this is specific enough to convince you, consider 1 Cor chapter 9: 9For it is written in the Law of Moses: “ Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10Isn’t He actually speaking on our behalf? Indeed, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they should also expect to share in the harvest.… 

Something in the Law of Moses was written FOR US. The teaching of today's seminaries is in contradiction to the teaching of the Apostles. I advise you run from it as fast as you possibly can. Time fails or I could give even more examples, but if you have an ear to hear, this should be enough. Fare well.

Show less