Just sitting here pondering.....It all started with Adam and Eve. It is stated that they had children who populated the world. Exactly who did they populate the world with? Did they populate the world with their bothers/sisters?
Here is a quote from Christiananswers.net
Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth.
Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—“And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.
During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, “The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”[11]
The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, They were commanded to “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).
If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations!
We are not told when Cain married or any of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.
Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve's sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don't marry your relation, you don't marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve — all are of “one blood.” The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God's law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.
Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.
That was very interesting and informative! Thanks!
If one believes the Adam and Eve myth, the six days creation bit, then, I guess, one would have to think that in that time "sin" had not yet worked its destructive damage as much. "Incest" increases chances that rogue genetics will produce four armed children who can't spell their own name. However, in the mythical early days, the supposed gene pool would, as yet, have been pretty pure, thus, big brother and little sister could slip off behind the bushes.
Sounds like a lot of incest to me.
it didn't just end with Adam and Eve, but continued right on into the royal families of Europe. If the genetic pool became more tainted as time went on, maybe that is why some of the royal family members have been so looney? lol
LOOKAYANNER Wrote:Sounds like a lot of incest to me.
I agree!
Some of the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally, I'm pretty sure of that.
The creation story; the flood; the bugs; may not all be true.
I believe that they were supposed to be symbolic, and God made us smart enough to know that some of the things have a meaning beyond face value.
I believe in Jesus Chris the Lord My Savior, and I believe that He suffered, died, was buried, rose on the third day, and ascended into Heaven so that all humans may be free.
LOOKAYANNER Wrote:Sounds like a lot of incest to me.
It the word "incest" did not exist, if the cultural "yuck" factor did not exist, if human beings had yet to think of relations with close relatives as wrong, was it wrong? How could it have been? Right and wrong exist as absolutes ONLY after they become introduced as "right" or "wrong" in the human consciousness, then passed into societal values, codified law, or religious imagination.
Adam and Eve didn't even know what clothes were, they seen each other naked and got curious, and their kids got curious too, they didn't think of it as wrong, just something that they did, and this is why we are here.
Eh. Sure but there's no saying if they were actually the only two people on Earth.
thecavemaster Wrote:It the word "incest" did not exist, if the cultural "yuck" factor did not exist, if human beings had yet to think of relations with close relatives as wrong, was it wrong? How could it have been? Right and wrong exist as absolutes ONLY after they become introduced as "right" or "wrong" in the human consciousness, then passed into societal values, codified law, or religious imagination.
I rarely agree with you...but I agree with this statement.
Whatever floats your boat.
Im sure back then they didnt know it was wrong to have sex with your sister lol
ComfortEagle said "Abraham married his half-sister", which got me wonderin'.
If Adam lived for 930 years and had 56 kids, how many times did he hear "not tonight, hon, I've got a headache"?
And how long did Eve live? Think all 56 of those youngin's were hers?
Looks likely that Adam fathered some of his own great-great-grandkids to me.
But it doesn't matter.
If you think about it, almost all of 'em were wiped out by the great flood, so we're REALLY all descendents of Noah's clan, right?
Maybe God also created other humans so that incest wouldn't be an issue. Great question.
VHSL-helper Wrote:ComfortEagle said "Abraham married his half-sister", which got me wonderin'.
If Adam lived for 930 years and had 56 kids, how many times did he hear "not tonight, hon, I've got a headache"?
And how long did Eve live? Think all 56 of those youngin's were hers?
Looks likely that Adam fathered some of his own great-great-grandkids to me.
But it doesn't matter.
If you think about it, almost all of 'em were wiped out by the great flood, so we're REALLY all descendents of Noah's clan, right?
Unless you believe what Noah was saying on got on the ark.
BFritz Wrote:Some of the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally, I'm pretty sure of that.
The creation story; the flood; the bugs; may not all be true.
I believe that they were supposed to be symbolic, and God made us smart enough to know that some of the things have a meaning beyond face value.
I believe in Jesus Chris the Lord My Savior, and I believe that He suffered, died, was buried, rose on the third day, and ascended into Heaven so that all humans may be free.
On the bolded part, I would say you're probably right.
Genisis 1 says God created man and woman.
genisis 2 says he created Adam and Eve.
I have written on this in the other post.
"Eve the first woman?"
BFritz Wrote:Some of the Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally, I'm pretty sure of that.
The creation story; the flood; the bugs; may not all be true.
I believe that they were supposed to be symbolic, and God made us smart enough to know that some of the things have a meaning beyond face value.
I believe in Jesus Chris the Lord My Savior, and I believe that He suffered, died, was buried, rose on the third day, and ascended into Heaven so that all humans may be free.
If you can discount any of these stories as not being true, then how can you believe that any of the stories of Jesus are true, and then how can you truly be founded in belief that Christ actually died and actually rose from the grave. Because you believe it may not be true henders your faith.
The holy Scriptures must be taken as they are said, and believed as they are the inspired Word of God. (2 Tim. 3:16, Jeremiah 30:2) While there are many prophecies that are not literal, other things such as the great flood, the creation account, the plagues must be believed to have happened as they are not abstract accounts, but written by men who were inspired by God to write the truth.
If there are any errors in Scripture, no matter how small, the book can no longer be our standard of truth. I become the standard of truth, as I determine which Bible statements are right and which are wrong. And if I can't trust God to get the facts straight on things like dates and measurements (where I can check on Him), why should I expect Him to be more accurate in areas like sin and salvation (where I can't check on Him)?
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t001.html
** For information on the accuracy and truth of the Bible.
Psalm 19:7-9—“The law of the Lord is perfect… the testimony of the Lord is sure… the commandment of the Lord is pure… the judgments of the Lord are true forever.”
Psalm 119:43—“the word of truth.”
Psalm 119:142—“Thy law is the truth.”
Psalm 119:160—“Thy word is true from the beginning.”
John 17:17—“Thy word is truth.”
An inaccurate Bible contradicts God's character quality of absolute truthfulness.
Titus 1:2—“God who cannot lie.”
Hebrews 6:18—“It is impossible for God to lie.”
God made other people to have sex with.
BaseballMan Wrote:http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t001.html
** For information on the accuracy and truth of the Bible.
Psalm 19:7-9ââThe law of the Lord is perfect⦠the testimony of the Lord is sure⦠the commandment of the Lord is pure⦠the judgments of the Lord are true forever.â
Psalm 119:43ââthe word of truth.â
Psalm 119:142ââThy law is the truth.â
Psalm 119:160ââThy word is true from the beginning.â
John 17:17ââThy word is truth.â
An inaccurate Bible contradicts God's character quality of absolute truthfulness.
Titus 1:2ââGod who cannot lie.â
Hebrews 6:18ââIt is impossible for God to lie.â
If the inerrancy of the Bible is your claim, how does quoting that very book's claims of inerrancy do anything but produce a circular argument?
thecavemaster Wrote:If the inerrancy of the Bible is your claim, how does quoting that very book's claims of inerrancy do anything but produce a circular argument?
It doesn't. It produces an act of decision on your part to either reject that claim or accept it as truth. By faith, I believe it to be true and the only way the world makes sense. So if, for instance, at the end of our lives, if my faith is right, which I believe it to be, then I will be saved by my faith from the place that this inerrant Word of God speaks of - a place of misery and gnashing of teeth. If it is true, which I do believe it is, then the ones who deem themselves wise and proud in this world who stand against it will die a second death for disobedience to God's Word, and will spend eternity in misery with gnashing of teeth.
However, if it is just another book, then, at the end of our days, I will have gained nothing, but I will have led a good life in the eyes of many. The one who rejects it will have gained nothing, and may have led a good life, or may not. But it represents that there is no hope, that all we have is here and now, and that we truly have no absolute morality of good nor evil.
I believe it to be true. I don't induce a circular argument. I stand by my faith. It is your decision on what you believe and will be held accountable for. I, for one, truly hope that your eyes can be opened to see the truth. If not, then I respect your beliefs, but I must warn you of the grave possibility that this be the truth.
Look up a man by the name of Joe Boot, and read his book on
Why I Still Believe? Also, search out another by the name of Lee Strobel and read his books or watch his videos on
A Case for Christ and
A Case for the Creator. I hope this helps.
BaseballMan Wrote:It doesn't. It produces an act of decision on your part to either reject that claim or accept it as truth. By faith, I believe it to be true and the only way the world makes sense. So if, for instance, at the end of our lives, if my faith is right, which I believe it to be, then I will be saved by my faith from the place that this inerrant Word of God speaks of - a place of misery and gnashing of teeth. If it is true, which I do believe it is, then the ones who deem themselves wise and proud in this world who stand against it will die a second death for disobedience to God's Word, and will spend eternity in misery with gnashing of teeth.
However, if it is just another book, then, at the end of our days, I will have gained nothing, but I will have led a good life in the eyes of many. The one who rejects it will have gained nothing, and may have led a good life, or may not. But it represents that there is no hope, that all we have is here and now, and that we truly have no absolute morality of good nor evil.
I believe it to be true. I don't induce a circular argument. I stand by my faith. It is your decision on what you believe and will be held accountable for. I, for one, truly hope that your eyes can be opened to see the truth. If not, then I respect your beliefs, but I must warn you of the grave possibility that this be the truth.
Look up a man by the name of Joe Boot, and read his book on Why I Still Believe? Also, search out another by the name of Lee Strobel and read his books or watch his videos on A Case for Christ and A Case for the Creator. I hope this helps.
IF the inerrancy of the text is thought to be settled by the claims of same text, that is circular. Again, we were discussing inerrancy, at which point you begin to argue the salvation of the soul, as an apologist. What do you know about what my eyes see? Stick to the points up for debate.
thecavemaster Wrote:IF the inerrancy of the text is thought to be settled by the claims of same text, that is circular. Again, we were discussing inerrancy, at which point you begin to argue the salvation of the soul, as an apologist. What do you know about what my eyes see? Stick to the points up for debate.
I'm not arguing at all. That's the whole point of the Bible - the salvation of the soul. If you talk about Moby ****, you have to talk about a huge whale. If you talk about the Bible, you must mention salvation. And salvation is rendered useless if the Bible is not the inerrant and perfect Word of God.
The inerrancy of the text is not circular by claiming itself to be the Word of God. It was written by a number of different authors over a period of at least 400 years, and not a single one contradicts the other. It has lasted throughout the ages and never been proven false in any form, nor has any part ever been contradicted, but has only been backed by scientific fact and archaological discoveries.
I know that by your own admission in your posts that you are skeptical. So you look through skeptical eyes. By your posts you show no fruits of faith in the God of the Bible. I'm not an apologist, nor do I claim to be.
BaseballMan Wrote:I'm not arguing at all. That's the whole point of the Bible - the salvation of the soul. If you talk about Moby ****, you have to talk about a huge whale. If you talk about the Bible, you must mention salvation. And salvation is rendered useless if the Bible is not the inerrant and perfect Word of God.
The inerrancy of the text is not circular by claiming itself to be the Word of God. It was written by a number of different authors over a period of at least 400 years, and not a single one contradicts the other. It has lasted throughout the ages and never been proven false in any form, nor has any part ever been contradicted, but has only been backed by scientific fact and archaological discoveries.
I know that by your own admission in your posts that you are skeptical. So you look through skeptical eyes. By your posts you show no fruits of faith in the God of the Bible. I'm not an apologist, nor do I claim to be.
Galatians...fruit of the Spirit... how would you know about a person you don't know showing those traits listed? You wouldn't. Ever heard what happens when you assume?
thecavemaster Wrote:Galatians...fruit of the Spirit... how would you know about a person you don't know showing those traits listed? You wouldn't. Ever heard what happens when you assume?
Did not even suggest that about what you do in your everyday life. Did not mention Galatians or fruits of the spirit. I did write, by your posts, you show no fruits of faith. That means you show no signs or give no examples of faith in a biblical view of God. In fact, what you have written on this topic and others suggest you have very little faith in the God of the Bible.
BaseballMan Wrote:Did not even suggest that about what you do in your everyday life. Did not mention Galatians or fruits of the spirit. I did write, by your posts, you show no fruits of faith. That means you show no signs or give no examples of faith in a biblical view of God. In fact, what you have written on this topic and others suggest you have very little faith in the God of the Bible.
Wouldn't you have to admit that the "god" of the Old Testament slaughtering women and children is difficult to reconcile with jesus of nazareth, whether he be historical, exaggerated, or myth?