Bones of Contention (a book on the hominid fossils)

Thanks for the recommend Josh.  Wish Vyrso had a wish list feature, this would be on my list.

Josh said:

Ever wonder where Homo erectus and Neanderthals fit within the Bible's history?

I just got done reading Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow and wow! Everyone needs to go buy this book. Lubenow has written an impressive overview of the hominid fossils and thoroughly debunks the idea that there is solid evidence that humans descended from ape-like creatures.

Here is Roy Zuck's review of the book on the DTS website: http://www.dts.edu/reviews/marvin-l-lubenow-bones-of-contention

Josh said:

Also, there are over 80 reviews (with an average 4 star rating) for this book of Amazon. David Paul would be proud!

www.amazon.com/Bones-Contention-Creationist-Assessment-Fossils/dp/0801065232/

Humans have a predisposition to fudge and ridicule. Scientists can do it, too. For the sake of keeping this short(ish), I won't go into that. Christians have a problem, though. They (as is said so often) "know the end". Put another way, "in the end, we win!" The problem with this mode of thinking is that it is spurious. NO...YHWH wins--not Joe Christian, who (if percentages are played) is highly likely to be one of the Mt. 7:23 sods who is told to "depart" from Yeishuu`a. Massive numbers of people who claim God will end up losers...even as their "in the end, we win!" refrain is heard echoing into oblivion. Yes, most scientific empiricists will join them, but that is cold comfort and doesn't solve anything.

There is a correct way to identify with 'Elohhiym, and most Christians haven't got a clue what it is. Prophecy says this is true so often it could almost be derided as a one-note symphony. Christian confidence is in many ways its greatest disadvantage--most are utterly convinced that they CAN'T lose. The result is laziness and step-skipping. The on-going assumption is that victory is inevitable...and that kind of mentality inevitably produces flabbiness, error, and rot. This is all predicted. Matthew 7 describes people who assume that their self-identification with YHWH/Yeishuu` is reciprocated, and thusly convinced, they run around with Daddy's credit card making "charges" they are quite certain will be covered (by evidence). To the contrary, He has no intention (and certainly no obligation) to back up their irresponsibility...and by the way, He doesn't even acknowledge they are His kids. Isa. 30:9, 10; Deut. 32:5.

The Christian assumption of young earthers is that evolution CAN'T be in the "evidence" because God exists. There CAN'T be evidence of an earth and universe older than 6000 years because God exists. The foregone conclusion is that the evidence described by the science MUST be a lie. It can't be true, because...it CAN'T be true!

There are some Christians who (rightly) find that line of thought discomfiting. They respond with a reaction that (wrongly) embraces science...and inevitably contradicts the Word. Yes, I'm happy to have reviews to read for this book, but they tell me what I suspected was true. Both sides are error-prone and they do not buck the odds against them. I watched a video today of a Bible teacher who made the all too common blunder of assuming that nature, being YHWH's creation, is inevitably going to speak truth about 'Elohhiym. He concludes this even as he describes the Fall and its corrupting influence. Without going much further in this discussion, such thinking is pure idolatry. It assigns attributes to the creation that the Creator insists must be solely His domain. The fact that He made creation doesn't transfer His attributes to it. Creation is not perfect ("good" Gen. 1:31 is not perfect, nor does it imply worthiness to receive our "faith" or "trust")...and this is all the more so since the Fall. "Good" means it is plenty sufficient to fulfill YHWH'S PURPOSE (not our own, even if we are soldiering away at debunking evil, ungodly science). This "good" aspect of creation definitely is not a Swiss army knife for irresponsible "false sons" to make all kinds of outlandish "truth" claims that, it is assumed, will get paid by Daddy's credit card of inevitable victory.

Ok, David.  I'll play stupid for a full text line (but not longer than that).  Is there a theology (or 'something') that posits 'made' <> 'who made'?

(I didn't play with 'made' though a careful reading of Gen 1-2 and the Psalms would bely the trick.)

Anyway, I'm referring back to approximately 100bce  to 200ce where 'creator' and 'created' were the major problem of the day (the two presumed to be related), aka Marcion.