Cavemen?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0


Yes, salvation from death. Try reading the Bible in its whole context and see how sin entered into the world, what the are wages of sin and what humanity needs to be saved from: not from hell, but from death. It would make no sense to even talk about heaven or hell if there would be no resurrection, no life to be given to the death.

Please provide an analysis of whether or not Neanderthal is saved in your next post.

That goes for the rest of you.

Otherwise, get a room.
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
Please provide an analysis of whether or not Neanderthal is saved in your next post.

That goes for the rest of you.

Otherwise, get a room.
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

I already said that all who lived before Christ have been made alive in Him, because God is God of the living.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
When Caveman is said; what is thought? Anyone that lives in a cave is a cave man; is he not? We have on one hand a largely 20th Century fantasy that I term Clan of the Cave Bear Age. On the other hand you have actual History.
In the spectrum of history the whole Clan of the Cave Bear mythos does not arise until the 20th Century!

It's almost like a bad joke. The Clan of the Cave Bear ideas are based on stuff written within even the bounds of the generations still alive. As where the reality of the younger earth is based on the writings actually known to be ancient.

Here let us start simply and analyze a story about a man whom lived briefly in a cave in a story known to be ancient.

1 Kings 19

1 And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and withal how he had slain all the prophets with the sword. [SUP]
2
[/SUP]Then Jezebel sent a messenger unto Elijah, saying, So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by to morrow about this time.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And when he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beersheba, which belongeth to Judah, and left his servant there.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And as he lay and slept under a juniper tree, behold, then an angel touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse of water at his head. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And the angel of the Lord came again the second time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And he said, I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And he said, I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And the Lord said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria:
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay: and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]So he departed thence, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijah passed by him, and cast his mantle upon him.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]And he left the oxen, and ran after Elijah, and said, Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee. And he said unto him, Go back again: for what have I done to thee?
[SUP]21 [/SUP]And he returned back from him, and took a yoke of oxen, and slew them, and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and gave unto the people, and they did eat. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him.
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
Thank you for a more reasoned response.

The reason I bring up other topics is because they are directly connected to the main topic, not on the surface but in he great kabal.
Sorry, I don't see the connection (which doesn't mean it's not there), so it would be helpful if you could explain, if you still think it is important.

Hizikyah said:
You clearly study this and that, how many times have scientist or evolutionist said 100% this is the truth then it changes...
Let's look at something that makes naysayers a little less emotional than evolution, say astronomy. About 1900 astronomers were pretty much certain that they had worked out the big picture and that only the details were left to be filled in. Our galaxy was thought to be the universe. As you know, this turned out to be wrong, but why was the mistake made? Was it a failure of science? No. It was a failure of the available technology, we just couldn't see the other galaxies, but also Genesis had primed astronomers for this mistake. God had created the solar system and the stars, and that was all that was known. There was no expectation that anything else lay beyond.

Science progress gradually. We start out knowing nothing and then add to the knowledge base. Creationist critics complain that scientists keep changing their minds, but remember creationists have a stake in science being wrong. They need it to be wrong and so they leap on every new advance and scoff at those silly scientists who keep changing their minds.

Hizikyah said:
Or how about that missing link that was actually bones from different species piled together by some college students.
I am not familiar with this. Are you talking about the Piltdown fraud?


I am sorry I don't have time to respond to the remainder of your post this evening. I will try to get to it tomorrow.
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
Cycel, do not forget to give me sources of early christian writings that talk about a group of christians who didn't believe in the resurrection of Christ.
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
When Caveman is said; what is thought? Anyone that lives in a cave is a cave man; is he not? We have on one hand a largely 20th Century fantasy that I term Clan of the Cave Bear Age. On the other hand you have actual History.
In the spectrum of history the whole Clan of the Cave Bear mythos does not arise until the 20th Century!
Neanderthal remains are often associated with caves, and Jean M. Auel's first book was about a Neanderthal clan, and Ayla of course (yes, I read it). Perhaps all of us who have Neanderthal genes are descended from her, eh? :)

The Neanderthal people eked out a living in ice age Europe and caves offered a good bit of protection. That they lived in caves, when they could, is not a myth.
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
Thank you for a more reasoned response.


Sorry, I don't see the connection (which doesn't mean it's not there), so it would be helpful if you could explain, if you still think it is important.


Let's look at something that makes naysayers a little less emotional than evolution, say astronomy. About 1900 astronomers were pretty much certain that they had worked out the big picture and that only the details were left to be filled in. Our galaxy was thought to be the universe. As you know, this turned out to be wrong, but why was the mistake made? Was it a failure of science? No. It was a failure of the available technology, we just couldn't see the other galaxies, but also Genesis had primed astronomers for this mistake. God had created the solar system and the stars, and that was all that was known. There was no expectation that anything else lay beyond.

Science progress gradually. We start out knowing nothing and then add to the knowledge base. Creationist critics complain that scientists keep changing their minds, but remember creationists have a stake in science being wrong. They need it to be wrong and so they leap on every new advance and scoff at those silly scientists who keep changing their minds.


I am not familiar with this. Are you talking about the Piltdown fraud?


I am sorry I don't have time to respond to the remainder of your post this evening. I will try to get to it tomorrow.
SO I agree a lack of technology could make a scientist to error, but in addition it was the minds of the scientist that also failed, because we can not claim fact if the os no evidence, well we can but it has no real bearing IMO. Now dont get me wrong, religious leadres do the same, its almost like both sides would rather "prove" their truth no matter if it actually true or not... Since I know every worldly religion is full of hog juice, I have already deciphered what I believe to be true. I have done the same with science and evolution, the problem I have is truth is not the number one goal. It may be for you, but it is not for the scientific world.

I want to give an example of influence...

There is a Israeli museum of iniquities.

It is owned by a luciferian.

When real historical biblical artifacts were brought there, they were rejected.

The reason was, 1700 years ago a forenginer came to Israyl and Egypt and made claims that certian biblical events happened here and there. And since the artifacts that were brought to the museum were from a location not specified by some random fool who knew nothing of the land, the museum official statement was that they would not display it, and would not even look into if the artifacts were authentic or not...

Does that sound like people who are looking for truth, or are they trying to supply the masses with their truth? (again every side is capable of this)

but how can one honestly know things like this and foolishly jump on every bandwagon that comes along, how can one even believe anything that those particular people claim and support and fund??????

be it atheistic or Creator centered....
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
Cycel, do not forget to give me sources of early christian writings that talk about a group of christians who didn't believe in the resurrection of Christ.
I think we are looking at 2nd century for that. The information is in one of my many books on early Christianity. It might problematic locating it.
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
I am not familiar with this. Are you talking about the Piltdown fraud?
Yeah im pretty sure thats what it is called. I had a comprehensive history book written by a Oxford graduate, they claimed it was the missing link, and the writer as well acclaimed, my neighbor told me it was non-sesne and it was a fraud, I thought he was a religious fool, plugging his ears in the face of truth.... but I realized the book was printed in 1988, so I looked into it and even got a updated revised version of the book, guess what, that section was completely removed from the book. Yet in the 1988 version it was 100%, 1000% fact.

How could any honest truth seeking person publish these unchecked, fly by night lies....
 

GuessWho

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
1,227
34
48
I think we are looking at 2nd century for that. The information is in one of my many books on early Christianity. It might problematic locating it.
It's very unlikely that there was a group of christians in the 2nd century who didn't believe in Christ' resurrection. Christians in the 2nd century were being persecuted for believing in Christ. No man would accept to become a martyr if he didn't believe that His teacher resurrected from the death. About this, I can assure you (read the letters of St. Ignace of Antioch).

I don't deny that there might have been a group of people (more actually) that didn't believe in Christ' resurrection. What I deny and never heard of was "a group of christians that denied the resurrection". Christians who deny resurrection is a contradiction of terms. We are Christ-ians, because we believe Christ was the true Messiah and not a false teacher whose activity ended up in the grave.

When you have time, please search and give me the source for your claim.
 
O

oldernotwiser

Guest
It's very unlikely that there was a group of christians in the 2nd century who didn't believe in Christ' resurrection. Christians in the 2nd century were being persecuted for believing in Christ. No man would accept to become a martyr if he didn't believe that His teacher resurrected from the death. About this, I can assure you (read the letters of St. Ignace of Antioch).

I don't deny that there might have been a group of people (more actually) that didn't believe in Christ' resurrection. What I deny and never heard of was "a group of christians that denied the resurrection". Christians who deny resurrection is a contradiction of terms. We are Christ-ians, because we believe Christ was the true Messiah and not a false teacher whose activity ended up in the grave.

When you have time, please search and give me the source for your claim.
the gnostics were an element in the 1st century church. they were declared heretics by tertullian at the end of the 1st century.take a look at the gnostic gospels by elaine pagels
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
the gnostics were an element in the 1st century church. they were declared heretics by tertullian at the end of the 1st century.take a look at the gnostic gospels by elaine pagels
I have her book The Gnostic Gospels and have read it twice. It may be that is where I saw it, but it was some time ago I read that volume and I am pretty sure I encountered this information more recently than that.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Yeah im pretty sure thats what it is called. I had a comprehensive history book written by a Oxford graduate, they claimed it was the missing link, and the writer as well acclaimed, my neighbor told me it was non-sesne and it was a fraud, I thought he was a religious fool, plugging his ears in the face of truth.... but I realized the book was printed in 1988, so I looked into it and even got a updated revised version of the book, guess what, that section was completely removed from the book. Yet in the 1988 version it was 100%, 1000% fact.

How could any honest truth seeking person publish these unchecked, fly by night lies....
Piltdown man was discovered more than 100 years ago. The consensus is the guy who made the discovery, Charles Dawson, perpetuated the fraud.

The individual who developed the dating technique to conclusively prove Piltdown Man was a fraud, Teddy Hall, was an atheist.

So, some scientists were fooled a long time ago. Newer technology proved them wrong. You think this won't occasionally happen in the future? It seems to me that is how science works.

If want evidence of more recent fraud on the part of scientists and those that employ them, I would read the Institute for Creation Research article you linked to yesterday on the dinosaur thread.

What was your point again?
 
V

VioletReigns

Guest
I thoroughly enjoy studying science (quantum physics, astronomy, geology, biology, etc.) and don't feel it interferes at all with my belief in God as Creator. But I get so agitated and frankly, am embarrassed by the foolishness of some scientific observers and physicists who reconstruct & schematize data to fit their theories. Seriously, falsifying evidence to support their claims has benefitted no one. It leaves me very skeptical of atheist scientists. Particularly those atheists who won't even consider any part of Creationism yet who expect people to accept their claims readily.

By the same token, I am truly disturbed by Christians who are so narrow-minded that they won't investigate scientific evidence for fear it will annihilate the reality of God. Really? Is God that vulnerable? Is your Christian belief that flimsy?

Anyhow, I am enjoying reading these posts and wanted to ask a question. Where do each of you get the majority of your proof for your posted claims? I'm wondering, too if there was a pivotal moment when you knew that you knew what you knew was absolute proof. Just curious.

Thanks! Carry on. :eek:
 
Last edited:

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,508
16,399
113
69
Tennessee
Please provide an analysis of whether or not Neanderthal is saved in your next post.

That goes for the rest of you.

Otherwise, get a room.
I decided for getting the room option.
 
Nov 3, 2014
1,045
5
0
"Please provide an analysis of whether or not Neanderthal is saved in your next post."


No Neander can be saved except by Jesus Christ .... those of the past, and those today

All men are the same

And no one can prove or disprove that one is saved, or not saved .... only the Lord knows

The evidence will be displayed .... but not yet [Romans 8]

.... and no man will be "saved" in my next post
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
My comment

Radioactive decay never changes .... always been the same count

It is the Lord who did allow for longer life span before the flood .... then He shortened to 120 years max .... still the same

Climate change .... most likely, but again the Lord's sets the aging of a man
You mean Jesus? don't you...
 
Aug 25, 2013
2,260
10
0
JackH said:
Please provide an analysis of whether or not Neanderthal is saved in your next post.

That goes for the rest of you.

Otherwise, get a room.
I decided for getting the room option.
Hmm. You and Violet both, it seems, have opted out of expressing thoughts on the matter, so allow me.

By the reckoning of Genesis it becomes necessary to assume that the Neanderthals, and other extinct hominids, must have evolved from Adam and Eve during the short interval between creation and the Flood Extinction Event. That they were not invited onto the Ark by God, not even in pairs, leads one to conclude that God considered none of them not worth saving.

Thoughts?