Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 314 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#46

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:38 pm

DBowling wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
DBowling wrote:One more quick thought that I had this morning...
In Genesis 1:28 God directs his image bearers to fill the earth and subdue it.

Species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species to actually fulfill that directive.
All other hominid species are extinct.
True, though in a way, one could say the other two human subspecies or species I mentioned fulfilled that too, but by trace DNA in the larger Sapien Sapien subspecies. Not as a subspecies as a whole. So that wouldn't in itself mean the other two weren't image bearers of God.
I'm not following you here.

100% of the humans on the planet today can trace their genetic ancestry back to a mitochondrial eve and y-chromosome adam (not to be confused with the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve) who were species homo sapiens sapiens and lived in Afrca 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

In contrast, trace fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA do not exist in all humans, and there are humans on the planet today who do not have trace fragments of either Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA.

So species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species who has fulfilled the directive to fill the earth and subdue it and therefore be identified as image bearers of God.
It was mostly just a restatement of something I said earlier. Since we see that Neanderthal and Denisovan genes are still in some, though yes not all, Sapien populations, and those genes came in after Sapiens began our existence, and those Sapien populations (anyone not of Sub-Sarahran Africa) are fully human, I would think Neanderthal and Denisovan were fully human too.

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 86 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#47

Post by DBowling » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:48 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote: Do you see the word replenish? Well we know there were pre-Adamite races before man based on this and that they were not man because they had never been created before.
ACB and I have been here before, and ACB is factually incorrect on this particular issue.

The hebrew word in question here is 'male' and male means 'to fill'.
'male' does not mean 'to refill'.
That is why modern english translations of the Bible consistently translate the Hebrew word 'male' as 'fill'.

So in Genesis 1:28 God directs his image bearers to 'fill' the earth.
God does not direct his image bearers to 'refill' the earth.

If anyone wants to confirm this, just check out 5 modern Hebrew/English Lexicons and see for yourself whether male means 'fill' or 'refill'.
These users liked this post by DBowling:
thatkidakayoungguy (Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:10 pm)

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4430
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 153 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#48

Post by abelcainsbrother » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:58 pm

DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote: Do you see the word replenish? Well we know there were pre-Adamite races before man based on this and that they were not man because they had never been created before.
ACB and I have been here before, and ACB is factually incorrect on this particular issue.

The hebrew word in question here is 'male' and male means 'to fill'.
'male' does not mean 'to refill'.
That is why modern english translations of the Bible consistently translate the Hebrew word 'male' as 'fill'.

So in Genesis 1:28 God directs his image bearers to 'fill' the earth.
God does not direct his image bearers to 'refill' the earth.

If anyone wants to confirm this, just check out 5 modern Hebrew/English Lexicons and see for yourself whether male means 'fill' or 'refill'.

Yes,I know that you and others insist the hebrew word "male" only means fill,when it can mean fill or refill.I'll tell you why I do not believe the hebrew word only means "fill" and not "refill" too. It is because the KJV translaters translated the hebrew word "male" to mean "fill" sometimes but "refill" other times. And so to insist it can only mean "fill" even when you are an old earth creationist and this is one way bible scholars of the past knew about pre-Adamite races before they were even discovered existed is why I do not believe it can only mean fill. Even if you want to still insist it does we know that the KJV translaters sometimes translated it to mean fill sometimes and other times to mean refill,so they understood it could mean either/or and translated it that way.

The reason why I disagree is based on studying the bible to try to find out who is right and who is wrong and this is what I discovered.So these new modern bible scholars cannot claim that the KJV translaters did not know the difference,or that the word meaned something else back then,which AIG has taught. They are wrong.
Last edited by abelcainsbrother on Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 314 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#49

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:11 pm

Ok, so did it mean refill, or just fill?
One thing's for sure: bibles need to just use one or the other than replenish in that verse. Too much confusion has came from it.

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 86 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#50

Post by DBowling » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:15 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
DBowling wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
DBowling wrote:One more quick thought that I had this morning...
In Genesis 1:28 God directs his image bearers to fill the earth and subdue it.

Species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species to actually fulfill that directive.
All other hominid species are extinct.
True, though in a way, one could say the other two human subspecies or species I mentioned fulfilled that too, but by trace DNA in the larger Sapien Sapien subspecies. Not as a subspecies as a whole. So that wouldn't in itself mean the other two weren't image bearers of God.
I'm not following you here.

100% of the humans on the planet today can trace their genetic ancestry back to a mitochondrial eve and y-chromosome adam (not to be confused with the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve) who were species homo sapiens sapiens and lived in Afrca 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

In contrast, trace fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA do not exist in all humans, and there are humans on the planet today who do not have trace fragments of either Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA.

So species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species who has fulfilled the directive to fill the earth and subdue it and therefore be identified as image bearers of God.
It was mostly just a restatement of something I said earlier. Since we see that Neanderthal and Denisovan genes are still in some, though yes not all, Sapien populations, and those genes came in after Sapiens began our existence, and those Sapien populations (anyone not of Sub-Sarahran Africa) are fully human, I would think Neanderthal and Denisovan were fully human too.
I do not think that possible fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in some human populations implies that humans with those DNA fragments are somehow not fully 100% human.
I also do not think that possible fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in humans implies that Neanderthals and Denisovans are either image bearers of God in the Genesis 1 perspective or species homo sapiens sapiens from the genetic perspective.
(This becomes a significant principle as genetic engineering has the potential to introduce non-human DNA into humans as treatment for certain diseases.)

I want to thank you for this discussion, because it has helped me solidify my position on a couple of issues.
The two key Scriptural principles that I keep coming back to are...
1. Species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species to meet the Scriptural criteria for 'image bearers' of God in Genesis 1:28 to fill the earth and subdue it.
2. The historical/Biblical Adam was species homo sapiens sapiens. Extrascriptural Mesopotamian history confirms the Scriptural time and location for the Biblical/historical Adam. And Adam and the Fall took place at a time when all hominid species were extinct with the single exception of species homo sapiens sapiens.
Last edited by DBowling on Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These users liked this post by DBowling:
thatkidakayoungguy (Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:17 pm)

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 314 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#51

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:18 pm

So, does this mean everyone that died before 5-7000 years ago isnt accountable?

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 86 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#52

Post by DBowling » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:20 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Ok, so did it mean refill, or just fill?
One thing's for sure: bibles need to just use one or the other than replenish in that verse. Too much confusion has came from it.
It means fill.

Any person can confirm this by looking at a number of modern English translations.
The New KJV even uses the word fill in Gen 1:28.
You will not find a single modern english translation that translates the Hebrew word male as 'refill'.

If you want to go deeper, you can check any modern Hebrew/English Lexicon.
These users liked this post by DBowling:
thatkidakayoungguy (Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:27 pm)

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4430
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 153 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#53

Post by abelcainsbrother » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:22 pm

DBowling wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
DBowling wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
DBowling wrote:One more quick thought that I had this morning...
In Genesis 1:28 God directs his image bearers to fill the earth and subdue it.

Species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species to actually fulfill that directive.
All other hominid species are extinct.
True, though in a way, one could say the other two human subspecies or species I mentioned fulfilled that too, but by trace DNA in the larger Sapien Sapien subspecies. Not as a subspecies as a whole. So that wouldn't in itself mean the other two weren't image bearers of God.
I'm not following you here.

100% of the humans on the planet today can trace their genetic ancestry back to a mitochondrial eve and y-chromosome adam (not to be confused with the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve) who were species homo sapiens sapiens and lived in Afrca 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

In contrast, trace fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA do not exist in all humans, and there are humans on the planet today who do not have trace fragments of either Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA.

So species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species who has fulfilled the directive to fill the earth and subdue it and therefore be identified as image bearers of God.
It was mostly just a restatement of something I said earlier. Since we see that Neanderthal and Denisovan genes are still in some, though yes not all, Sapien populations, and those genes came in after Sapiens began our existence, and those Sapien populations (anyone not of Sub-Sarahran Africa) are fully human, I would think Neanderthal and Denisovan were fully human too.
I do not think that possible fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in some human populations implies that humans with those DNA fragments are somehow not fully 100% human.
I also do not think that possible fragments of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in humans implies that Neanderthals and Denisovans are either image bearers of God in the Genesis 1 perspective or species homo sapiens sapiens from the genetic perspective.
(This becomes a significant principle as genetic engineering has the potential to introduce non-human DNA into humans as treatment for certain diseases.)

I want to thank you for this discussion, because it has helped me solidify my position on a couple of issues.
The two key Scriptural principles that I keep coming back to are...
1. Species homo sapiens sapiens is the only hominid species to meet the Scriptural criteria for 'image bearers' of God in Genesis 1:28 to fill the earth and subdue it.
2. The historical/Biblical Adam was species homo sapiens sapiens. Extrascriptural Mesopotamian history confirms the Scriptural time and location for the Biblical/historical Adam. And Adam and the Fall took place at a time when all hominid species were extinct with the single exception of species homo sapiens sapiens.



And I come back again to Adam and Eve again, because I think this is key to the discussion here.

It seems wierd,because we agree but for different reasons somehow. I agree with you but for different reasons. How are you coming to your conclusions based on the bible and even genetic engineering?
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4430
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 153 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#54

Post by abelcainsbrother » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:27 pm

DBowling wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Ok, so did it mean refill, or just fill?
One thing's for sure: bibles need to just use one or the other than replenish in that verse. Too much confusion has came from it.
It means fill.

Any person can confirm this by looking at a number of modern English translations.
The New KJV even uses the word fill in Gen 1:28.
You will not find a single modern english translation that translates the Hebrew word male as 'refill'.

If you want to go deeper, you can check any modern Hebrew/English Lexicon.
OK,but the KJV translaters translated it fill sometimes and other times refill.So they understood it can mean both.I guess it changed since then,but the KJV translaters still translated it understanding the difference that it can mean "fill" and "refill". And their translation is correct biblically speaking and even from an old earth science perspective too. It will be wrong sometimes if you only translate it to mean "fill"
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 19494
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino
Has liked: 169 times
Been liked: 912 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#55

Post by RickD » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:33 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Ok, so did it mean refill, or just fill?
One thing's for sure: bibles need to just use one or the other than replenish in that verse. Too much confusion has came from it.
The only confusion here is on ACB's part. We've already been through this before you were here, but basically the word "replenish" has changed its meaning, in English, since it was first used in the KJ bible.

When it was translated, replenish meant "to fill". So, male has always meant "fill".

ACB is just ignoring that fact, and is interpreting replenish under its modern meaning.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 86 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#56

Post by DBowling » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:37 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:So, does this mean everyone that died before 5-7000 years ago isnt accountable?
That's one of the issues that I am still working through... :)

I can give you some of my thoughts, but not any hard conclusions.
1. Based on the sequential relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. I believe that humans as "image bearers of God" (Genesis 1:26) existed prior to the time that the historical Adam became a "living soul" (Gen 2:7).
2. I believe that the historical Adam was the first human a) to enter into personal relationship with the one true God b) to know "good and evil" c) and whose sin caused sin and spiritual death to pass to all mankind.

Then there is Romans 5:12-14. We are all familiar with Romans 5:12, but verses 13 and 14 are intriguing as well.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
These users liked this post by DBowling:
thatkidakayoungguy (Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:40 pm)

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 314 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#57

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:39 pm

RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Ok, so did it mean refill, or just fill?
One thing's for sure: bibles need to just use one or the other than replenish in that verse. Too much confusion has came from it.
The only confusion here is on ACB's part. We've already been through this before you were here, but basically the word "replenish" has changed its meaning, in English, since it was first used in the KJ bible.

When it was translated, replenish meant "to fill". So, male has always meant "fill".

ACB is just ignoring that fact, and is interpreting replenish under its modern meaning.
There has been more people that are confused about it. Hence why the whole Gap Theory idea is around. ACB is the main one here that supports it.

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 314 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#58

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:45 pm

Ok someone throw me a good argument that A&E were the first humans.
Eve is called the mother of the living. Does this mean physical or spiritual? Where does Adam then fit? Genealogies indicate he too was saved, so is spiritually living. He too was physically alive.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4430
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 153 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#59

Post by abelcainsbrother » Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:53 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Ok, so did it mean refill, or just fill?
One thing's for sure: bibles need to just use one or the other than replenish in that verse. Too much confusion has came from it.
I do not want to confuse and I was not trying to do that,or even get a disagreement started.I'm just trying to bring a biblical perspective to the discussion that might help us have better understanding from a biblical point of view.I realize that according to science and what they say about Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals can
challenge a perspective but I'm still just trying to get us to consider the bible. I mean when it comes to neanderthals I have seen some scientists claim that physically they are not like human but more like Cro-Magnon and humans are unique compared to them all,while other scientists claim they are related to man. So there does not seem to be clear understanding and it comes down to who you believe.
These users liked this post by abelcainsbrother:
thatkidakayoungguy (Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:02 pm)
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 314 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Should Neanderthals be called their own species or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens?

#60

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:09 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Ok, so did it mean refill, or just fill?
One thing's for sure: bibles need to just use one or the other than replenish in that verse. Too much confusion has came from it.
I do not want to confuse and I was not trying to do that,or even get a disagreement started.I'm just trying to bring a biblical perspective to the discussion that might help us have better understanding from a biblical point of view.I realize that according to science and what they say about Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals can
challenge a perspective but I'm still just trying to get us to consider the bible. I mean when it comes to neanderthals I have seen some scientists claim that physically they are not like human but more like Cro-Magnon and humans are unique compared to them all,while other scientists claim they are related to man. So there does not seem to be clear understanding and it comes down to who you believe.
Yea, it's not like we're going to hell or displease God if we think Neanderthals were or weren't real, or were human or not. At least not yet.
Cro-magnons were an ethnicity in our subspecies, hardly nothing unique about them.
Neanderthals were actually rather similar to us too, though they had their differences. Apparently they were mostly all introverts, lived in small communities for instance, and along with their extreme physical strength never advanced much in their technology as far as we know. Then again Aborigines had the same culture for 50K years. Then there's the anatomical differences, which weren't much but still enough to be another species or subspecies of human or hominid.
All good responses, I like this.

Post Reply