Slashdot Mirror
Oldest Modern Humans Found
DrLudicrous writes "Anthropologists have reconstructed and dated three skulls from Ethiopia that they believe to be the oldest anatomically modern human skulls in existance. They date to 160,000 years ago, in agreement with genetic studies that pin the arrival of modern humans to at least 150,000 years ago. The skulls also demonstrate evidence of ritual burial." UC Berkeley has the original release as well.
fp, woohoo
YOU SUCK BALLS!
Saw this news linked on Shacknews last night..
If i want dated material I'll read print magazines. =\
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
Galactic Commissioner Tharg arrived to Earth to indict homo sapiens sapiens for genocide of homo sapiens neanderthalensis, in or about 30000BCE. The United States refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the Galactic War Crimes Tribunal and has been vaporised. The rest of the human race is in hiding somewhere in Afghanistan, or perhaps Pakistan. Mohammed Al Sayeed has appeared on al-Jazeera and announced that the other 3 million inhabited worlds of the Galaxy will be destroyed if they attempt to land on Earth.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I though he was a dentist from Sweden:
(...) and Dr. Alban Defleur of Marseilles, France (...)
Sing alleluja, sing, alleluja
Sing it, YEAH! Sing alleluya-ha! Si-hing!
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
MOD PARENT UP Insightful!
Actually an "atlatl" is not technically a "spear-like device", but it is a device used to launch a light spear more accurately and powerfully than by hand. Kind of like a sling conceptually, but for a spear (dart) instead of a rock.
A good site about the atlatl.
And the History Channel has an EXCELLENT show called "Conquest" that did an episode that included the atlatl (I think it was "Stone Age Weapons").
What, you never heard of Otis Marden? He is considered the first man to realize the potential of the Imperial valley.
He's the guy that opened the first roadside fruit stand in the San Fernando valley, back in 1929. He bought a piece of property out on Highway 10, and set up shop. Old Otis sold oranges, watermelons and avocados. Most people thought he was crazy for settling down way out there.
Once a month he would buy another small parcel of land, and by the time he died, in 1978, his net worth was estimated to be one t-bill shy of $100 million.
His family liquidated all but 100 acres in the mid 80s', and he is now buried where that old friut stand used to be. The only indication he was ever around is a small metal sign, advertising oranges at a dollar a bag.
BSD might be allowed to slip by just this once. Berkeley is involved after all.
Paul talks about the Jews in Romans chapters 9 to 11. The promises to Israel are fulfilled when they accept their Messiah and become Christians.
And to answer your last two questions, yes I am pre-trib
The problem with this is that the Rapture takes place at the end of the world.
You can see that the rapture takes place when the dead rise again, and Jesus returns at His Second Coming. In other words, it takes place at the end of the world. When Jesus returns, he will judge all of mankind, and some will go to heaven, and the others to hell (Mt. 25:31-46). There won't be anyone left behind on earth after that.
Claiming that Paul did not believe in eternal security is misinterpreting him, most usually done by out of context quotes and twisting of meanings. After all, Paul said:
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. [Philippians 1:21-24]
At certain times, we can be sure of going to heaven if we were to die at that very moment, such as right after our baptism, or after making a good confession. But there's no guarantee that, at some time in the future, we won't fall into sin. We must persevere.
Here are a few verses on this. In the first two, Paul refers to his own salvation:
And from John:
If we receive the witness of men
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
Seriously now, where do you see Paul in Philippians saying "because I just made a great confession" or "since I just got sprinkled with water" that "I can die at this moment, but not necessarily at the moment you read this"? Nothing Paul wrote there is conditional.
Look at the context. He is talking about wanting to die at that moment and thus be with Christ. If he were then in a state of grace and died, then there is nothing conditional about it: he would definitely go to heaven.
But as I've already shown with many quotes from the Bible, being in a state of grace right now does not guarantee that we will remain that way. We must persevere.
Thanks for pointing out that point about the rapture (popular name) or harpazo (Greek term) occuring. I totally agree, that's when the Lord returns IN THE CLOUDS, as the verse says.
Well, there's only one Second Coming of Jesus, and that is it. If you're saying that the Bible's description of Jesus "returning in the clouds" implies that He doesn't make it all the way down to the earth, then you're wrong. See the following:
Here, he started off on the ground and went up into the clouds into heaven. At the Second Coming, the process is reversed, and He comes down from the clouds all the way to the ground.
The verse also says the the DEAD IN CHRIST shall rise first, then those of us who are alive and saved.
The context here is that the Thessalonians were worrying about whether, if they were to die before the Second Coming, they would be at some disadvantage compared to those who would be alive at the Second Coming (i.e. whether they would resurrect and be present at Jesus' return). Paul reminds them that, as they have been united to Jesus' death and resurrection, they have nothing to worry about. If they die in Christ, then they can rest assured: they will resurrect in Christ.
No mention is made of those not dead in Christ because the Thessalonians weren't worried about that particular question. But the fact is that everyone will be resurrected then, both the saved and the unsaved.
Then note that in Revelation 20 the dead not in Christ are brought forth to the White Throne judgment. As verse 20:6 says:
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years
Those are the believers, obviously, who are resurrected at the rapture.
No, look at verse 4 (of Revelation 20), and you'll see that the believers here have no bodies; John sees only their souls. Thus they haven't been resurrected yet.
The first resurrection is the gaining of salvation, and thus the state of grace. "On such the second deat
Yet again, you're doing the "argument from silence" tactic to interpreting the Scriptures.
No, not at all. It is you who is arguing from silence. I'm saying that Paul believes that he's saved, which is what the text says. You, on the other hand, are adding the idea that Paul supposedly believes that he will continue to be saved until he dies. Nowhere does Paul say this. Not only that, but Paul has often said the opposite, that we can lose our salvation.
Here are some verses on this topic that I've already sent you. I'd like to see your response to them:
The same flaw exists in your discussion about Jesus's departure in Acts 1. While the angels do say He will return in the same way, that certainly does not preclude Him coming as 1 Thessalonians says He will.
... which clearly states who is clothed "in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints".
... Sinc
Acts 1 and 1 Thes. 4 are clearly describing the same event. There's only one Second Coming of Jesus. In 1 Thess. 4:15, Paul says he's talking about "the coming of the Lord". He doesn't imply at all that it is but one of many comings, nor does the Bible do so elsewhere. What the Thessalonians were worried about was what would happen to those who were dead at the end of the world, when Jesus returns.
The saints come with the Lord when He comes to the earth. You may say the "armies...clothed in fine linen, white and clean" are angels, but that would be ignoring Revelation 19:7-9
It says the Bride (the Church) is clothed with the righteousness of the saints (the Church's members). If you think that means the armies are made up solely of saints, that's fine with me. Now, the question is, where does it say that these saints mentioned here have been resurrected or raptured?
If you believe the millennium is "present and future" as you wrote, then you are claiming something is wrong with God's statement in Revelation 20:1-3
Okay, let's take a look at them one by one, and see if they can be interpreted in this way.
Here he's talking about whether or not he will "attain unto the resurrection of the dead". So your interpretation doesn't fit.
Here he's talking about whether or not he will be a "castaway", rejected by God. So your interpretation doesn't fit.
Have a look at what comes before this.
1 Corinthians 10:1-6
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. ["Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness." (Numbers 14:16)] Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
So these things are an example for us, showing that those who are saved can spiritually die; just as the Israelites sinned and thus died. They had been saved from slavery, and were supposed to go to the Promised Land, but they didn't because they had sinned.
1 Corinthians 10:7-11
Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
These are more examples for us, showing that sin results in spiritual death. So now we have finally come to the verse I had quoted earlier: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." Paul's whole point here is that we can lose our salvation if we sin. This danger is always there, which is why we must "take heed" lest we fall.
Here is the context of the above verse:
Romans 11:16-24
If the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, w
This is best summarized as "works salvation". Biblical Christianity, in direct contrast to the RCC and many Protestant denominations, teaches eternal security. We can screw up (who doesn't?) and lose some rewards, and get chastised; but once saved, always saved.
See we Biblical Christians believe the simple, direct teaching of our Lord, as in John 10:25-29
Here Jesus clearly states that he will give believers eternal life, and that we shall never perish and that we cannot be plucked out of His Father's hand.
As for the idea that works are required for salvation, as you have so convincingly shown the Roman Catholic Church teaches, again Biblical Christians choose to believe the Bible instead of the tradition of men. Read Ephesians 2, not a verse out of context, but an entire chapter:
You claim that
Mary was saved at her conception, but she was saved nonetheless.
Saved from what? Unless she was a sinner, she didn't need a Saviour. Yet she clearly knew when she called God her Saviour that she needed one, hence she knew she had sinned (Luke 1:47).
Ever since the Original Sin, the general rule is that we begin life in the fallen state: we are in a state of sin from the moment of our conception, and we can be saved later on in our life through God's grace. On the other hand, just as Adam and Eve were created without sin, Mary was conceived without sin, through the grace of God. Thus, she was saved from sin. Without God's intervention, she would have been in a state of sin, but God saved her from ever being in that state.
Thus the example I gave: Let's imagine that you fell into a pit (out of which it is impossible for you to climb on your own), and I pulled you out. It could then be said that I had saved you from the pit. Now, let's imagine that you were about to fall into the very same pit, but this time I stopped you from actually falling in. Have I not saved you from the pit in this case as well? In either case, without my help, you'd still be in the pit. So even if Mary was saved at her conception, rather than later on, she was still saved through Jesus.
And while we're on that topic, in Luke 1:28 Mary is called "blessed art thou among women" which the RCC uses to raise Mary above all humanity.
Actually, it was God who chose her as His Mother, not us. But the word "blessed" here is not the only Biblical word to look at. For instance, also in Luke 1:28: "And the angel came in unto her, and said, 'Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.'"
What the KJV translates as "thou that art highly favoured" is, in the original Greek, only one word, a title given to Mary by the angel: "kecharitomene". It is better translated as "full of grace". Charis means grace, the verb "charitoo" means "to embue with grace". In any case, since the giving of a title or a name in the Bible tends to mean that the title represents something significant or special about that person, the title "kecharitomene" means that Mary has been especially embued with grace. We take this to mean that she has been completely filled with grace at her conception, and thus freed from sin, in preparation for her role as the mother of Christ.
There are also other Biblical reasons for this, such as the Biblical comparisons of Mary with the Ark of the Covenant.
Yet the word "blessed" there is the same word (Strongs 2127) as in Galatians 3:9 "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." So Mary is told she is blessed with the same word as any believer is told they are. Not like the RCC says.
Actually, Christ is also said to be "blessed" using the very same word:
Luke 1:41-42
Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: and she spake out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."
So you're saying that Christ is only as blessed as any believer? Or would you agree that the same word can express different amounts of blessedness?
And in Judges 5:24 "Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be". Note that Jael is not blessed "among" but "above" women. So she should outrank Mary. Yet the RCC has, to all appearances, pretty much ignored Jael.
Jael is an Old Testament type of Mary. She prefigures Mary: both do their part to fight the enemy (a different enemy in each case though). By the way, the expression "blessed among" means the same as "blessed above" in Hebrew idiom.
You repeatedly claim that the women on the beast is the city of Jerusalem riding on Rome. Yet Revelation 17:18 disproves that: "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
As
Your assert that "Mary was conceived without sin, through the grace of God. Thus, she was saved from sin. Without God's intervention, she would have been in a state of sin, but God saved her from ever being in that state."
Our Lord Jesus Christ was of course born without sin as he was the seed of the woman, and did not inherit Adam's sin nature.
Jesus was born without sin because He is God. It has nothing to do with His being the seed of a woman. On the other hand, the entire universe was affected by Adam's fall, and yet the universe isn't descended from Adam:
Romans 8:20-22
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
You (and the RCC which you defend so vigorously) state that Mary was also born without sin, but from the seed of Adam. Yet if that were true, then there is a way for Adam's race to be born without sin;
Yes, through the grace of God. Mary was saved just like anyone else: through God's grace. The only difference between Mary and the rest of us with regard to being saved is that Mary was saved at her conception, and while the rest of us are saved later on.
then Jesus died for nothing, according to the RCC interpretations.
It is only because Jesus died that Mary could be saved, whether at her conception or at any other time. Without Christ's sacrifice, Mary (and everyone else) would die in a state of sin and be damned.
In the gospels, he asks, as in Matthew 26:39
O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt
He asked the Father that if there were any other way to redeem Adam's race, that the cup (of having all of your sin, my sin, the world's sin put upon Him) pass from Him. Yet, according to God's holy word, there was no other way, Jesus had to die for our sins.
Exactly. Thus, Mary was saved through Christ's sacrifice.
And by the definitions of John in his epistles, that [being anti-Biblical] is equated to anti-Christ.
Being anti-Biblical is certainly not a good thing. But what you say here about John's definitions of the Antichrist isn't true. John describes the Antichrist as someone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah or that Christ has a human nature:
1 John 2:22-23
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist...
2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
You then claim that the word (Strong's 5487) translated "thou that art highly favoured" means "full of grace". Yet even Thayer's lexicon says it's:
to make graceful i.e. charming, lovely, agreeable
What makes us agreeable to God is grace.
The definition you offered above is Thayer's first definition of "charitoo". The second definition offers another possible translation of the word as it is used in Lk. 1:28: "endued with grace".
And look at the other use of the word, in Ephesians 1:6
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
That context surely does not carry the meaning you and the RCC are trying to force upon the humble "handmaid of the Lord" Mary.
As you say, the context is different. But both cases refer to a giving of grace by God.
As
I just did so here.
I realize you are not going to listen to why Once Saved, Always Saved is the true reading of Scripture based on our discussions here.
Well, maybe it would help if you actually offered me some sort of argument in defense of your position.
Here are the verses I sent you. Please respond to each one individually, showing me how they agree with your doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved".
And then you claim that
Muslims intend to worship the same God as we do (I believe their explicit intention is to worship the God of Abraham)
Amazing. Just amazing. Muslims believe their allah is a vengeful, arbitrary, and capricious god, and that only by killing infidels can they be guaranteed heaven.
Indeed, the Muslims are very wrong in how they see God, but then again so are the Jews. God is actually a Trinity, and neither the Muslims nor the Jews acknowledge this. Anyway, my point was that the intention of the Muslims is to worship the same God as we do. God calls them to worship Him, but they are ignorant of some of the truth, and so they respond to His grace in the best way they know how.
God calls everyone to become members of His Church, the Catholic Church. You presumably don't realize this yet. Assuming that you act in good faith, and are actually trying to seek the truth and do what He wants you to do, then you can be saved despite not formally being a Catholic, since God understands that you have limitations due to your upbringing, etc. However, once you realize that God wants you to join the Church, then you must do so, since that is what you now know God wants you to do for your salvation.