Yes they would be stranded and subjected to island dwarfism. Homo floresiensis is now thought to be a human species descendant from Homo Erectus.
To answer your question, Mark --you absolutely would care if the text, in fact, didn’t require a relatively recent origin for “imago Dei” humanity. I’m saying that, in a sequential reading, it doesn’t --therefore have no biblical or theological objection to evidence which seems to lead in that direction. So, why do you object to the notion that neanderthals could be human? What reading of the text requires you to so object?
Not that I want to get into it for the tenth time here, but my reading of the text does require that.
But is a sequential reading without biblical or theological objections? I think a strictly sequential one is objectionable for some of the reasons @jack.collins and others have pointed out.
Not sure my objection is based on the text, though as a creationist I expect a sharp behavioral break between those God created according to His own likeness and what came before. I think the science is very strong that they were not like us. If they find a Neanderthal has scratched some cross-hatching on a rock people are quick to proclaim it is human art. To me the astounding differences between that and the human cave art from the same period is striking.
Go back and read Collin’s posts. He argues that the first two pericopes are “complimentary,” as if a sequential reading would not find them so.
Josh grilled him fairly closely on this, and he didn’t seem to be able to move beyond this false objection. If you can find a more cogent argument from him, I’d love to see it.
Hopefully it won’t take too long for me to find whatever posts you mean. “Pericopes” and “complimentary” should be easy words to trace.
But I’m honor-bound to point out that “best practice” is literally to lead a reader/horse to water - - by giving a url to the SPECIFIC writing you want them to read.
Sometimes when someone is too weary to provide a link … the reader is even more prone to weariness and doesn’t even try to look for it.
Maybe you could provide something more specific?
The ONLY “hit” on pericope and complimentary is… in fact… your posting immediately above. Ironic, aye?
If you tell me where it is, I will investigate per your suggestions.
Try again; posting glitch. Hope the review of that thread is illuminating, and shows how no definitive case either for or against a sequential reading has yet been made, @gbrooks9 .
But, as @jongarvey says, the sequential reading is “cleaner.”
CLEANER is what makes the sequential interpretation more definitive.
A great paper on the discovery: