Genesis indicates that the biblical Noah lived in the area of Mega Chad. This is the only place on the surface of the earth that claims to be his homeland - Bor' Nu - the land of Noah. Armenia is probably not the correct rendering of the original word. It could easily be Har' Meni - Mount Meni which is only about 200 miles from the present shores of Lake Chad. Remember that when Noah lived, Lake Chad was a sea. This, coupled with the Genesis geneaologial data showing that Noah's ancestors lived in west central Africa, seems conclusive. All the data fits this hypothesis: Noah's ark landed on Mount Meni in what is today the country of Niger.
When you read the book of Genesis you find 2 traditions about Noah (and 2 about the Garden). One is western (African) and older, and the other is eastern (Babylonian) and later. This reflects the reality of the Afro-Asiatic Dominion which was ruled by Afro-Asiatic rulers who controlled water systems extending from west central Africa to the Indus River Valley. Their priests spread these stories. The Afro-Asiatic Dominion has been reasonably well demonstrated by comparative linguistics, comparative religions, and archaeology.
Yes, I read it. It was fascinating, but so much to think about...I am learning so much from this and your other blogs. I feel amateurish amongst the many heavy weights in this discussion, even though I love anthropology and the Bible. Keep it up...I just pray that I will have a teacheable spirit as my little sister intellectually and learnedly blows my mind! See you Saturday...
Hello! Thank you for starting the group. My ethnographic work is on monasticism in contemporary Christianity, and I have interests in contemporary Christianity more generally. As a result, the Bible is a central concern to me, both as something which is used and fought over today (I've just contributed to the discussion on the wall, which I have found interesting in thinking about the Bible as an ethnographic object), and also as a essential source of knowledge for the major questions and concerns that shaped early Christianity and gave rise to its shape as a world religion. I am particularly interested in millennialism, and in the new testament focus on the end-times, and the idea, expressed well by Albert Schweitzer, that the new testament expresses an "interim ethic". The question then becomes, how do we live out this interim ethic in a world that has not yet ended?
But in general, I am just interested in learning more, which is why I am here!
hi alice!about the name peleg in gen.10:25 according to alfred wagner the word peleg earth here speaks plainly of the geophysical earth rather than any metaphorical expression he proposed the idea of continental drift. he said most interesting is the hidden meaning of the word "divided" in this passage.it literally means to seperate or "canal" by water!if this is all significant it is easy to understand why this father was so motivated to name one of his sons for this spectacular event.what is your comment?are radiomentric methods reliable?how do they work?are test results consistent?what is the acid test for these radiometric dating systems?is carbon 14 reliable?what is it?what are its limits?is there room for error?how old is man?is adam a caveman?what is the different between cromagnon and neanderthal?is adam a cromagnon or neanderthal?how long has man been truly human?where is the oldest true man?is there any evidence to link man to apelike creatures?did man and dinosaur live togethere?what does all verified history tell us about early man?can you give me the time sequence of earth(the time chart) for my bible study?Godbless!
dear alice im interested to know about the origin of adam.is there a connection between adam and the h.habilis and erectus?what is your comment with this article?thanks
Habilis and Erectus...Again
Non-Technical - Mar 10, 2009 - by Stephen Caesar MA
Tags: habilis, erectus, evolution
When many people hear about the controversy over human origins, they usually think of creation versus evolution. However, some of the most heated debates occur within the theory of evolution itself. According to the November 3, 2007, issue of the journal Science News, “Given limited evidence about long-gone populations of our predecessors, researchers devise competing evolutionary scenarios that are often difficult to disprove and that can easily accommodate whatever ancient bones turn up next” (Bower 2007: 280).
An example of this takes the form of an ancient braincase and partial upper jaw unearthed in Kenya in 2000. The discoverers claim that these two fossils prove that there were two species of Homo (the genus that includes modern humans) that lived at the same time in East Africa between 1.9 million and 1.4 million year ago. However, as Science News reports, “one prominent anthropologist rejects that conclusion, placing both new fossils in a single species that preceded Homo sapiens”—that is, modern humans (Ibid.).
Standard evolutionary theory maintains that Homo habilis, a small-brained primate that is believed to have evolved about 2 million years ago from earlier primates in East Africa, evolved into the larger-brained Homo erectus about 1.6 million years ago, and that Homo erectus evolved into us. After teaching this as dogma for decades, some scientists are beginning to doubt this scenario. Anatomist Fred Spoor of University College London and his colleagues maintain that H. habilis and H. erectus evolved separately, and lived side by side in East Africa for half a million years (Ibid. 282).
They base their conclusion on the two fossil finds mentioned above. The first is a piece of upper jaw, which was found in a layer of volcanic ash dated under current assumptions to 1.44 million years ago. The jaw, which still contains six teeth, belongs to H. habilis, according to Spoor. The second find is a small braincase whose age is estimated at 1.55 million years, and “bears several traits unique to H. erectus,” according to Science News (Ibid.).
The journal further points out: “Since the two species coexisted in the same region for such a long time, each must have had separate origins between 3 million and 2 million years ago, [Spoor and his colleagues] contend. Few hominid fossils have turned up from that period” (Ibid.). Spoor concludes that modern humans evolved from H. erectus, possibly via an intermediate species as yet unknown, while H. habilis was a “sister species” of H. erectus that eventually reached an evolutionary dead end (Ibid.).
Not all scientists agree. Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, one of the leading anthropologists of all time, has classified both fossils as H. erectus and as important contributions to the study or origins, “but hardly the stuff of major evolutionary revisions,” in the words of Science News (Ibid.). He rejects Spoor’s image of the human evolutionary line branching out into multiple species, maintaining instead the standard, familiar model of early hominids evolving in a straight line (Ibid.).
This controversy demonstrates the high degree of uncertainty that surrounds the search for human origins. Despite the fact that the popular image of ape-to-hominid-to-man is presented as all-but-irrefutable fact, the truth is not so well known, and everything we know about the origin of the human race could change at any moment with any new discovery.
Reference:s?i sent you a topic about h.habilis and erectus i want to know your opinion.thanks! i wait for your reply!
Thank you for the link to your thesis on Afro-Asiatic linguistic similarities. I skimmed it this morning, noting the commonalities I have seen myself. I look forward to giving it more thorough consideration. Off to write a paper or two for class.
I happened to come across your thread on Afro-Asiatic linguistic link to India, or something of that nature. That inspired me to join and want to know more. I'm Nigerian American and there are certain words/names like Orisa and Lahor that are of Yoruba and Indian descent. I'd like to study this more. Thanks.
In response to your question about your group's image, you can add a new group icon by visiting your group's page (http://openanthcoop.ning.com/group/biblicalanthropology). Select "edit group" at the menu on the right. Under the box where you have written the group name, there is a small camera icon. Click on it and it will allow you to upload a new image. Select "Upload an image from your computer" and then click the "browse" button to find the image on your hard drive.
I hope this helps. If you're still having trouble, please let me know.