Cain's wife
Pirate
wife come from ?
Truth..
Where did he get her? From another human race? When were they married? Was
their relationship incestuous?
ALL Bible readers are familiar with the fact that Cain was the first man to
be born on earth. He was the firstborn son of Adam and Eve, whom God had
created directly.-Gen. 4:1.
The Bible account records the creation of Adam and Eve, and their sin. (Gen.
2:7, 21, 22; 3:1-6) It describes God's sentence of death upon them and their
expulsion from the garden of Eden. (Gen. 3:14-19) God told Eve, however,
that she would bring forth children.-Gen. 3:16.
Abel was the second boy born. (Gen. 4:2) The Scriptures are very brief and
condensed in this early account, but they supply all that we need to know.
They tell us that the two boys grew up, each to pursue his own profession or
occupation. Cain chose what is the oldest of all professions-farming-while
Abel became a sheepherder. This implies the lapse of a good number of years.
So the account reveals: "It came about at the expiration of some time" that
the two men brought offerings before God to gain his favor. (Gen. 4:3, 4) We
note also that when Seth, the third named son, was born, his mother Eve
viewed him as a replacement for Abel. (Gen. 4:25) Adam was 130 years old at
the time of Seth's birth.
This indicates that there could well have been a number of other children of
Adam by that time, including daughters. The Bible's silence as to the names
of Adam's daughters presents no difficulty, since the birth of daughters was
rarely mentioned and they were only occasionally named in the genealogical
lists. But the Bible does actually tell us, in its summary of Adam's life,
that "he became father to sons and daughters."-Gen. 5:4, 5.
There were no other races of humankind-no family of humans predating man, or
having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the
question about the origin of Cain's wife. The statement of Adam and the name
Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: "After this [after God's
passing of sentence] Adam called his wife's name Eve [meaning "living"],
because she had to become the mother of everyone living."-Gen. 3:20.
The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters.
ALL HUMANKIND FROM ONE SOURCE
The Bible statement, in Acts 17:26, that "[God] made out of one man every
nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth" is
acknowledged by Bible students to be backed up by the facts. John Peter
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, a work that considers the
arguments of a great number of scholars in an analytical and explanatory
discussion of the Bible, says on page 191:
"That the Scriptures neither know nor will know of pre-Adamites . . . nor of
various primitive aboriginal races, appears not only from Genesis i. and
ii., but also from the consistent presumption and assertion of the entire
Holy Writ; for example, Matt. xix.4; Acts xvii.26; 1 Cor. xv.47. . . . The
original unity of the human race coincides with the doctrine of the unity of
the fall of man in Adam, and the unity of the redemption in Christ. . . .
The greatest naturalists have mostly declared themselves against the
originality of different human races . . . in regard to the alleged
fruitfulness of sexual combinations among the various races, the proof of
such fruitfulness is justly pronounced one of the strongest proofs of unity.
. . . The autochthonic theory [that living things (in this case humans) were
formed or occurred in the places where they were found] [can]not deny the
fact that the origin of the various types of men points back to a common
home in Asia."
This statement about the unity of the human race (that all are one race, one
created kind, not "aboriginal" tribes or nations in the sense that they were
separately created or separately originating) coincides with the Bible
statements: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through
sin," and, "just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be
made alive." Yet the Creator has arranged, through the countless genetic
combinations, to provide in mankind the most delightful and interesting
variations.-Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22.
For the reason that Adam was the father of all mankind, Christ can be called
the "last Adam," for he was a perfect man on earth, and now he can become
father to all Adam's offspring who exercise faith in his sacrifice. (1 Cor.
15:45) If men and women were from several different original fathers, the
death of the one man, Jesus Christ, could not have provided a sufficient
purchase price.-Deut. 19:21; Matt. 20:28.
Some readers of the Bible, particularly of the versions using archaic
English, have thought that Cain procured his wife in the land of Nod
(fugitiveness). The Authorized or King James Version of 1611 C.E. reads, at
Genesis 4:16, 17: "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and
dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and
she conceived, and bare Enoch."
The thought that one might gain from this text is that Cain went into the
land of Nod (which means "Fugitiveness") and there first "knew" his wife in
the sense of meeting her. But Cain actually took a wife with him, for the
expression "knew" was used in earlier English to mean to know carnally, or
to have sexual intercourse. Accordingly, modern translations read: "With
that Cain went away from the face of Jehovah and took up residence in the
land of Fugitiveness to the east of Eden. Afterward Cain had intercourse
with his wife and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch." (New World
Translation) Likewise, James Moffatt's Translation, An American Translation
and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible all here use the expression, "Cain had
intercourse with his wife." The New English Bible reads: "Cain lay with his
wife."
WAS CAIN'S MARRIAGE "INCEST"?
Was God fostering what is now called "incest" by arranging matters so that
the first children of Adam would marry one another-brothers marrying
sisters? No. For, in Adam's original perfect state his children would have
been born in perfection. (Deut. 32:4) There would have been no family
weaknesses to be passed on and accentuated by the marriage of near
relatives, as is the case today, when the sinful human race has greatly
deteriorated and many genetic defects exist. Even after Adam had sinned, his
descendants lived as long as 969 years in the days before the Flood.-Gen.
5:27.
Accordingly, it took a long time for genetic defects to become so numerous
and so grouped in family lines that it became dangerous to the offspring for
close relatives to marry. Even Abraham, some 2,000 years after the creation
of Adam, married his half sister. (Gen. 20:12) Not until God gave the Mosaic
law (about 500 years later) did He prohibit close family marriage unions
among the people of Israel.-Lev. 18:6-18.
It is a wonderful arrangement of God that he made mankind one race, with one
origin. All can have the same benefits from the atonement sacrifice of Jesus
Christ. (1 Tim. 2:5, 6) All can approach God through this One as their
"Eternal Father" and can come to have the same relationship as "children of
God." (Isa. 9:6; Rom. 8:21) Under Christ's rulership humankind will again be
one. (Eph. 1:9, 10) All national, ethnic, political and social barriers or
boundaries will be permanently wiped out, bringing about the purpose that
God had from the very beginning.-1 Cor. 15:24, 28.
=================
The above information has not been posted by the official Watchtower Bible &
Tract Society but by one of Jehovah's Witnesses using his own initiative. If
you would like further information regarding similar topics goto the
following website http://www.watchtower.org which is the official website.
Libertarius
pira...@webtv.net (Pirate) wrote:
> I do have one question I cannot find an answer to, Where did Cain's
>wife come from ?
>
===>From her mom, silly.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
Doug W. Jantz
>
> Cain and His Wife
>
> Where did he get her? From another human race? When were they married? Was
> their relationship incestuous?
>
> There were no other races of humankind-no family of humans predating man, or
> having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the
> question about the origin of Cain's wife. The statement of Adam and the name
> Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: "After this [after God's
> passing of sentence] Adam called his wife's name Eve [meaning "living"],
> because she had to become the mother of everyone living."-Gen. 3:20.
>
> The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters.
>
(LOtS SNIPPED)
Maybe not. After all the time has passed mentioned above, several
generations were grown. Cain could easily have found his wife in the
land he went to.
Doug Jantz
dwj...@scan.missouri.org
Winona, Missouri
Stan
>
> Truth.. wrote:
> >
> > Cain and His Wife
> >
> > Where did he get her? From another human race? When were they married? Was
> > their relationship incestuous?
>
> >
> > having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the
> > question about the origin of Cain's wife. The statement of Adam and the name
> > Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: "After this [after God's
> > passing of sentence] Adam called his wife's name Eve [meaning "living"],
> > because she had to become the mother of everyone living."-Gen. 3:20.
> >
> > The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters.
> >
>
>
>
> Maybe not. After all the time has passed mentioned above, several
> generations were grown. Cain could easily have found his wife in the
> land he went to.
>
> Doug Jantz
Brilliant Doug. Cain and Abel were Adam & Eve's children There's no
mention of a daughter in the bible, IIRC. So where did his wife come
from?
Stan
Libertarius
Stan <**@earthlmk.net> wrote:
>Doug W. Jantz wrote:
>>
>> Truth.. wrote:
>> >
>> > Cain and His Wife
>> >
>> > Where did he get her? From another human race? When were they married? Was
>> > their relationship incestuous?
>>
>> >
>> > There were no other races of humankind-no family of humans predating man, or
>> > having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the
>> > question about the origin of Cain's wife. The statement of Adam and the name
>> > Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: "After this [after God's
>> > passing of sentence] Adam called his wife's name Eve [meaning "living"],
>> > because she had to become the mother of everyone living."-Gen. 3:20.
>> >
>> > The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters.
>> >
>> (LOtS SNIPPED)
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe not. After all the time has passed mentioned above, several
>> generations were grown. Cain could easily have found his wife in the
>> land he went to.
>>
>> Doug Jantz
>
>Brilliant Doug. Cain and Abel were Adam & Eve's children There's no
>mention of a daughter in the bible, IIRC. So where did his wife come
>from?
>
===>Do we need to point? Or perhaps a stork brought her.
Ronald Glenn Cosseboom
somewhere in the "time and space" of the OT they also brought forth other
children who are not mentioned in the text??? And that these other children
are around the same or correct age of Cain in order to be "wed?" HUM...
sounds like incest to me and isn't that frowned on in the Bible??
--
#-$-#-$-#-$-#-$-#-$-#-$-#-$-#-$-#-$-#
Ronald Glenn Cosseboom D. D.
Eschatology; Science of an Open Mind
Doug W. Jantz <dwj...@scan.missouri.org> wrote in message
news:37A435...@scan.missouri.org...
> Truth.. wrote:
> >
> > Cain and His Wife
> >
> > Where did he get her? From another human race? When were they married?
Was
> > their relationship incestuous?
>
> >
> > There were no other races of humankind-no family of humans predating
man, or
> > having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer
the
> > question about the origin of Cain's wife. The statement of Adam and the
name
> > Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: "After this [after God's
> > passing of sentence] Adam called his wife's name Eve [meaning "living"],
> > because she had to become the mother of everyone living."-Gen. 3:20.
> >
> > The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his
sisters.
> >
> (LOtS SNIPPED)
>
>
>
>
> Maybe not. After all the time has passed mentioned above, several
> generations were grown. Cain could easily have found his wife in the
> land he went to.
>
>
>
> Doug Jantz
> dwj...@scan.missouri.org
> Winona, Missouri
Libertarius
"Ronald Glenn Cosseboom" <rcos...@mines.edu> wrote:
>So you're saying that God created Adam and Eve who brought forth Cain and
>somewhere in the "time and space" of the OT they also brought forth other
>children who are not mentioned in the text??? And that these other children
>are around the same or correct age of Cain in order to be "wed?" HUM...
>sounds like incest to me and isn't that frowned on in the Bible??
>
===>Heve you never read any mythology? Where is it written that mythmakes had
to be logical and scientifically and morally on a par with us?
Doug W. Jantz
>
> Doug W. Jantz wrote:
> >
> > Truth.. wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Where did he get her? From another human race? When were they married? Was
> > > their relationship incestuous?
> >
> > >
> > > having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the
> > > question about the origin of Cain's wife. The statement of Adam and the name
> > > Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: "After this [after God's
> > > passing of sentence] Adam called his wife's name Eve [meaning "living"],
> > > because she had to become the mother of everyone living."-Gen. 3:20.
> > >
> > > The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe not. After all the time has passed mentioned above, several
> > generations were grown. Cain could easily have found his wife in the
> > land he went to.
> >
> > Doug Jantz
>
> mention of a daughter in the bible, IIRC. So where did his wife come
> from?
>
Brilliant, Stan. Did you fail to read the previous author's post? Do
your homework, then ask questions. Mine was an add on to his good
points.
--
http://home.att.net/~kre.ator/
ri...@leading.net
> I do have one question I cannot find an answer to, Where did Cain's
>wife come from ?
>
Hello,
Notice Ge 5:4,
"After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and
daughters." (NIV)
Thus Cane married someone in his immediate family, possibly his sister
or niece, etc..
Sincerely,
James
***********************************
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
The DataRat
I think it is written in the bible.
The DataRat
Stan
>
> Stan wrote:
> >
> > Doug W. Jantz wrote:
> > >
> > > Truth.. wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Where did he get her? From another human race? When were they married? Was
> > > > their relationship incestuous?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the
> > > > question about the origin of Cain's wife. The statement of Adam and the name
> > > > Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: "After this [after God's
> > > > passing of sentence] Adam called his wife's name Eve [meaning "living"],
> > > > because she had to become the mother of everyone living."-Gen. 3:20.
> > > >
> > > > The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe not. After all the time has passed mentioned above, several
> > > generations were grown. Cain could easily have found his wife in the
> > > land he went to.
> > >
> > > Doug Jantz
> >
> > Brilliant Doug. Cain and Abel were Adam & Eve's children There's no
> > mention of a daughter in the bible, IIRC. So where did his wife come
> > from?
> >
> > Stan
>
> Brilliant, Stan. Did you fail to read the previous author's post? Do
> your homework, then ask questions. Mine was an add on to his good
> points.
> --
> Doug Jantz
Doug, you are very slow. Only Adam & Eve's two sons existed at the
time Cain was supposed to marry.
Stan
Doug W. Jantz
>
> So you're saying that God created Adam and Eve who brought forth Cain and
> somewhere in the "time and space" of the OT they also brought forth other
> children who are not mentioned in the text??? And that these other children
> are around the same or correct age of Cain in order to be "wed?" HUM...
> sounds like incest to me and isn't that frowned on in the Bible??
Adam and Eve didn't have a Bible. :-)
Doug W. Jantz
>
> Doug W. Jantz wrote:
> >
> > Stan wrote:
> > >
> > > Doug W. Jantz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Truth.. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Where did he get her? From another human race? When were they married? Was
> > > > > their relationship incestuous?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > having a separate origin, as some have conjectured in trying to answer the
> > > > > question about the origin of Cain's wife. The statement of Adam and the name
> > > > > Eve itself preclude this. For the Bible says: "After this [after God's
> > > > > passing of sentence] Adam called his wife's name Eve [meaning "living"],
> > > > > because she had to become the mother of everyone living."-Gen. 3:20.
> > > > >
> > > > > The inevitable conclusion is, then, that Cain married one of his sisters.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe not. After all the time has passed mentioned above, several
> > > > generations were grown. Cain could easily have found his wife in the
> > > > land he went to.
> > > >
> > > > Doug Jantz
> > >
> > > Brilliant Doug. Cain and Abel were Adam & Eve's children There's no
> > > mention of a daughter in the bible, IIRC. So where did his wife come
> > > from?
> > >
> > > Stan
> >
> > Brilliant, Stan. Did you fail to read the previous author's post? Do
> > your homework, then ask questions. Mine was an add on to his good
> > points.
> > --
> > Doug Jantz
>
> Doug, you are very slow. Only Adam & Eve's two sons existed at the
> time Cain was supposed to marry.
>
> Stan
I see Stan still is not doing his homework, you get an F. Did you not
read the other post where that was explained very well??????? Gen5.4
even speaks of them having other sons and daughters. Most of the time
the daughters were never even mentioned. The Biblical record does not
record every little detail about everything. No, Stan, you are being
slow. Read and do homework before posting.
Stan
> Did you not
> read the other post where that was explained very well???????
Sorry, but like most people I simply haven't the time to read every
post.
> Gen5.4
> even speaks of them having other sons and daughters. Most of the time
> the daughters were never even mentioned.
So in other words Cain married his sister? Or perhaps a niece? Either
way biblegod is responsible for a gross act of incest here. He could
have easily seeded the earth with some other families so that everyone
could marry and breed.
Stan
Vincent Carbone
mark on Cain's head, Cain said, "everyone who sees me will kill me". Who
are the "everyone" Cain was worried about? Who are the "everyone" that
God commanded not to harm Cain?
The answer is simple. This is one of many mistakes made by the Human
authors of the Bible. God, being perfect and all knowing, would not make
such a glaring error when telling his story.
Truth..
head, Cain said, "everyone who sees me will kill me". Who are the "everyone"
Cain was worried about? Who are the "everyone" that God commanded not to
harm Cain?
Genesis 4:13-15 Here you are actually driving me this day from off the
surface of the ground, and from your face I shall be concealed; and I must
become a wanderer and fugitive on the earth, and it is certain that anyone
FINDING me will kill me." 15 At this Jehovah said to him: "For that reason
anyone killing Cain must suffer vengeance seven times."
Genesis 4:8-10 Later on Jehovah said to Cain: "Where is Abel your brother?"
and he said: "I do not know. Am I my brother's guardian?" 10 At this he
said: "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood is CRYING OUT TO ME
from the ground.
Able's blood in effect cried to God for "vengeance" upon the assassin Cain.
Anyone finding Cain would therefore want to seek vengeance for his killing
of Abel.
God's sentencing of Cain to banishment from the ground evidently meant his
eviction from the "neighborhood" of the garden of Eden, and the curse
already upon the earth would be increased in Cain's case, the earth not
responding to his cultivation of it. Cain expressed regret over the severity
of his punishment and showed anxiety as to the possibility of Abel's murder
being avenged upon him, but still no sincere repentance. Jehovah "set up a
sign for Cain" to prevent his being killed, but the record does not say that
this sign or mark was placed on Cain's person in any way. The "sign" likely
consisted of God's solemn decree itself, known and observed by others.-Ge
4:10-15; compare vs Ge 4:24 where that decree is referred to by Lamech.
Remember too that they lived literally "hundreds" of years back then (Adam
930 years) and that any of the offspring of Adam were a possible "threat" to
the wimpering Cain.
Libertarius
Cyber...@webtv.net (Vincent Carbone) wrote:
>Sorry Truth, your lenthy explanation doesn't cut it... When God put a
>mark on Cain's head, Cain said, "everyone who sees me will kill me". Who
>are the "everyone" Cain was worried about? Who are the "everyone" that
>God commanded not to harm Cain?
>The answer is simple. This is one of many mistakes made by the Human
>authors of the Bible. God, being perfect and all knowing, would not make
>such a glaring error when telling his story.
>
===>Good point. If we read such ancient myths, we find similar mistakes made
by most mythwriters.
Libertarius
" Truth.." <Pe...@The.New.World> wrote:
>Vincent Carbone <Cyber...@webtv.net> wrote : When God put a mark on Cain's
>head, Cain said, "everyone who sees me will kill me". Who are the "everyone"
>Cain was worried about? Who are the "everyone" that God commanded not to
>harm Cain?
>
>Genesis 4:13-15 Here you are actually driving me this day from off the
>surface of the ground, and from your face I shall be concealed; and I must
>become a wanderer and fugitive on the earth, and it is certain that anyone
>FINDING me will kill me." 15 At this Jehovah said to him: "For that reason
>anyone killing Cain must suffer vengeance seven times."
>
>Genesis 4:8-10 Later on Jehovah said to Cain: "Where is Abel your brother?"
>and he said: "I do not know. Am I my brother's guardian?" 10 At this he
>said: "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood is CRYING OUT TO ME
>from the ground.
>
>Able's blood in effect cried to God for "vengeance" upon the assassin Cain.
>Anyone finding Cain would therefore want to seek vengeance for his killing
>of Abel.
>
>God's sentencing of Cain to banishment from the ground evidently meant his
>eviction from the "neighborhood" of the garden of Eden, and the curse
>already upon the earth would be increased in Cain's case, the earth not
>responding to his cultivation of it. Cain expressed regret over the severity
>of his punishment and showed anxiety as to the possibility of Abel's murder
>being avenged upon him, but still no sincere repentance. Jehovah "set up a
>sign for Cain" to prevent his being killed, but the record does not say that
>this sign or mark was placed on Cain's person in any way. The "sign" likely
>consisted of God's solemn decree itself, known and observed by others.-Ge
>4:10-15; compare vs Ge 4:24 where that decree is referred to by Lamech.
>
>Remember too that they lived literally "hundreds" of years back then
===>That is the basic problem. You guys think those mythological
stories are "Literally" true. Ancient men was lucky if he lived 30 years.
Forget the other 900.
(Adam
>930 years) and that any of the offspring of Adam were a possible "threat" to
>the wimpering Cain.
>
>
>
Doug W. Jantz
>
> Sorry Truth, your lenthy explanation doesn't cut it... When God put a
> mark on Cain's head, Cain said, "everyone who sees me will kill me". Who
> are the "everyone" Cain was worried about? Who are the "everyone" that
> God commanded not to harm Cain?
> authors of the Bible. God, being perfect and all knowing, would not make
> such a glaring error when telling his story.
What is the world are you talking about???? Where is your proof for
such a statement?? Were you there?? There were several generations of
people by that time, simple.
--
Doug W. Jantz
>
> Vincent Carbone <Cyber...@webtv.net> wrote : When God put a mark on Cain's
> head, Cain said, "everyone who sees me will kill me". Who are the "everyone"
> Cain was worried about? Who are the "everyone" that God commanded not to
> harm Cain?
>
> surface of the ground, and from your face I shall be concealed; and I must
> become a wanderer and fugitive on the earth, and it is certain that anyone
> FINDING me will kill me." 15 At this Jehovah said to him: "For that reason
> anyone killing Cain must suffer vengeance seven times."
>
> Genesis 4:8-10 Later on Jehovah said to Cain: "Where is Abel your brother?"
> and he said: "I do not know. Am I my brother's guardian?" 10 At this he
> said: "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood is CRYING OUT TO ME
> from the ground.
>
> Able's blood in effect cried to God for "vengeance" upon the assassin Cain.
> Anyone finding Cain would therefore want to seek vengeance for his killing
> of Abel.
>
> God's sentencing of Cain to banishment from the ground evidently meant his
> eviction from the "neighborhood" of the garden of Eden, and the curse
> already upon the earth would be increased in Cain's case, the earth not
> responding to his cultivation of it. Cain expressed regret over the severity
> of his punishment and showed anxiety as to the possibility of Abel's murder
> being avenged upon him, but still no sincere repentance. Jehovah "set up a
> sign for Cain" to prevent his being killed, but the record does not say that
> this sign or mark was placed on Cain's person in any way. The "sign" likely
> consisted of God's solemn decree itself, known and observed by others.-Ge
> 4:10-15; compare vs Ge 4:24 where that decree is referred to by Lamech.
Gen4.15 clearly says that God put a mark on Cain. There is no reason to
assume it was anything but a physical mark.
Doug W. Jantz
>
> Doug W. Jantz wrote:
> > Did you not
> > read the other post where that was explained very well???????
>
> Sorry, but like most people I simply haven't the time to read every
> post.
I realize this, but the explanation was already given to which I was
responding. You had no idea what I was responding to, or what had
already been written.
>
> > Gen5.4
> > even speaks of them having other sons and daughters. Most of the time
> > the daughters were never even mentioned.
>
> So in other words Cain married his sister? Or perhaps a niece? Either
> way biblegod is responsible for a gross act of incest here. He could
> have easily seeded the earth with some other families so that everyone
> could marry and breed.
Maybe so, but God did not choose to do that, did he? Even today in some
states one can marry a 2nd cousin. What is incest to us today may not
have been at the time of Genesis's history.
>
> Stan
Stan
>
> Stan wrote:
>
> >
> > > even speaks of them having other sons and daughters. Most of the time
> > > the daughters were never even mentioned.
> >
> > So in other words Cain married his sister? Or perhaps a niece? Either
> > way biblegod is responsible for a gross act of incest here. He could
> > have easily seeded the earth with some other families so that everyone
> > could marry and breed.
>
> Maybe so, but God did not choose to do that, did he?
Yes, he did. He created mankind with the plan of having it reproduce
and populate the earth. If he then creates only only family at the
beginning he is creating a situation where incest must exist. God is
responsible.
If these first people had not mated with their sisters and neices
there would be no mankind today. That first family would have been the
first and last generation.
> Even today in some
> states one can marry a 2nd cousin. What is incest to us today may not
> have been at the time of Genesis's history.
>
Yes a lot of things change morality wise over time: in the OT god
commanded his followers to slaughter others and their children quite
regularly.
Deep down inside you understand that by saying "What is incest to us
today may not
have been at the time of Genesis's history." you have used weasel
words to back yourself out of an untenable position in defense of the
bible.
Stan
ollyk
Doug W. Jantz
>
> ===>That is the basic problem. You guys think those mythological
> stories are "Literally" true. Ancient men was lucky if he lived 30 years.
> Forget the other 900.
>
> (Adam
> >930 years) and that any of the offspring of Adam were a possible "threat" to
> >the wimpering Cain.
It is more of a scientific thing. Notice how the age of man dropped
after the flood.
Doug W. Jantz
> Deep down inside you understand that by saying "What is incest to us
> today may not
> have been at the time of Genesis's history." you have used weasel
> words to back yourself out of an untenable position in defense of the
> bible.
>
> Stan
Stan,
The Scriptures do not need defending, but I am quite capable of doing so
if I had time. I will probably not answer any more of your postings. I
have dealt with others as yourself before.
Shalom,
Stan
>
> Stan wrote:
>
> > Deep down inside you understand that by saying "What is incest to us
> > today may not
> > have been at the time of Genesis's history." you have used weasel
> > words to back yourself out of an untenable position in defense of the
> > bible.
> >
> > Stan
>
> Stan,
> The Scriptures do not need defending, but I am quite capable of doing so
> if I had time. I will probably not answer any more of your postings. I
> have dealt with others as yourself before.
>
> Shalom,
Yet more weasel words!
Translation: I can't come up with a rebuttal so I'm taking my ball and
going home.
Way to go. Scurry home.
Stan
Libertarius
<dwj...@scan.missouri.org> writes:
>
>Libertarius wrote:
>
>>
>> ===>That is the basic problem. You guys think those mythological
>> stories are "Literally" true. Ancient men was lucky if he lived 30
years.
>> Forget the other 900.
>>
>> (Adam
>> >930 years) and that any of the offspring of Adam were a possible
"threat" to
>> >the wimpering Cain.
>
>It is more of a scientific thing. Notice how the age of man dropped
>after the flood.
>
become more realistic.
Emily
Maybe they had much shorter years back then?
Emily
leu beach
science is our best attempt to model what we see. for many years science
held that the earth was flat, that the universe revolved around the
earth, that there were 4 elements...
are there those who think we have reached the one true enlightened age?
(that's called naive or egotistical) look at history where people felt
they were at the pinnacle of enlightenment... and were wrong!
so, don't confuse science with reality! look at all the things science
cannot explain. look at the theory of evolution - no evidence, no real
hypothesis, just some imagined 'power of mother earth' mumbo jumbo. it's
easier to believe in God the creator than mother earth the coincidence!
Stan
>
> don't confuse science with reality!
> science is our best attempt to model what we see. for many years science
> held that the earth was flat, that the universe revolved around the
> earth, that there were 4 elements...
Oh man, have you got it ass backwards, or what.
Are you really this stupid or are you trolling?
Stan
leu beach
help you elucidate. (pardon my obfuscation)
you can take some pride in being the first to 'fart' a reply to a
newsgroup.
love
leu
Trevor Zion Bauknight
> cannot explain. look at the theory of evolution - no evidence, no real
> hypothesis, just some imagined 'power of mother earth' mumbo jumbo. it's
> easier to believe in God the creator than mother earth the coincidence!
Sure it is -- if you're not willing to think about it at all and would
rather chalk it up to God. The "theory of evolution," as you put it, does
in fact boast a great deal of scientific evidence and several "real"
hypotheses which may be tested in the light of that evidence and used to
predict the finding of future evidence. I'm not aware of any "power of
mother earth mumbo jumbo" associated with the fact of evolution.
Trev
KateBush
two questions arise: (1) Why was Cain worried about being killed by others,
and (2) where did he get his wife?
Adam and Eve had numerous children - they had been told to "fill the earth"
Gen 1:28. Cain's guilt and fear over killing his brother were heavy, and
he probably feared repercussions from his family. If he was capable of
killing, so were they.
The wife Cain chose may have been one of his sisters or a niece. The human
race was still genetically pure and there was little fear of side effects
from marrying relatives.
Stan
> The wife Cain chose may have been one of his sisters or a niece. The human
> race was still genetically pure and there was little fear of side effects
> from marrying relatives.
Well this takes the cake for crackpot theory of the week. Are you a
geneticist by training?
Stan
Teresita
to start with? Are they saying humans bred with animals?
Teresita
Secretary, New Amphipolis Bureau of Lists.
Visit NABoL on the web:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~lilith
D.M. Bruyns
> are you trolling?
>
> Stan
No, but you are.
Aaron-Dirk Boyden
> I wonder how it is that the human race became genetically impure, if it was pure
> to start with? Are they saying humans bred with animals?
The Fall brought about a high mutation rate. Of course, there's no
evidence of that, and it's unclear that any population could survive the
pace of genetic change which would be required, but the SciCre crowd
have gone a little farther to explaining this than one might have
expected.
--
---
Aaron Boyden
"It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence." W. K. Clifford
John Hattan
>Teresita wrote:
>
>> I wonder how it is that the human race became genetically impure, if it was pure
>> to start with? Are they saying humans bred with animals?
>
>The Fall brought about a high mutation rate. Of course, there's no
>evidence of that, and it's unclear that any population could survive the
>pace of genetic change which would be required, but the SciCre crowd
>have gone a little farther to explaining this than one might have
>expected.
Yeah, they said "God just miracled it". That's not an explanation, it's
a dodge.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john-...@bigfoot.com http://www.bitsmart.com/shatner
Stan
>
> Teresita wrote:
>
> > I wonder how it is that the human race became genetically impure, if it was pure
> > to start with? Are they saying humans bred with animals?
>
> The Fall brought about a high mutation rate. Of course, there's no
> evidence of that, and it's unclear that any population could survive the
> pace of genetic change which would be required, but the SciCre crowd
> have gone a little farther to explaining this than one might have
> expected.
>
OK.
Have you ever been to one of the star-trek newsgroups where people (I
kid you not) get into very long and heated debates about who would win
if the spaceships in star-trek and star-wars got into a battle? The
debates get seemingly very technical on the surface. Then you remind
yourself that all this heated seemingly scientific argumentation has
absolutely no basis in reality. At the end of the day no one can prove
that one technology can beat the other because neither exist!
The same applies to so-called SciCre.
In all fairness, you did say "gone a _little farther_ to explaining
this than one might have expected."
Since I expect so very little from this crowd you maybe correct.
Stan
Stan
Teresita
>
>Aaron-Dirk Boyden <Aaron-Di...@brown.edu> wrote:
>>The Fall brought about a high mutation rate. Of course, there's no
>>evidence of that, and it's unclear that any population could survive the
>>pace of genetic change which would be required, but the SciCre crowd
>>have gone a little farther to explaining this than one might have
>>expected.
>
>a dodge.
If a "miracle" is when God does something positive, what do they call it
when something like genetic purity is fucked up by supernatural means?
Nohinder
alt.sport.racquetball
Greg Shelley
Teresita wrote:
>
> If a "miracle" is when God does something positive, what do they call it
> when something like genetic purity is fucked up by supernatural means?
>
Has your language gone downhill recently or are you someone else?
Greg
Scott Davidson
>
>Greg
I think you misspelled "improved"
Scott #1045
D.M. Bruyns
Nyarlathotep, gibbered:
>
> In article <37b94420.65750212@news>, john-...@bigfoot.com says...
> >
> >Aaron-Dirk Boyden <Aaron-Di...@brown.edu> wrote:
> >>The Fall brought about a high mutation rate. Of course, there's no
> >>evidence of that, and it's unclear that any population could survive the
> >>pace of genetic change which would be required, but the SciCre crowd
> >>have gone a little farther to explaining this than one might have
> >>expected.
> >
> >Yeah, they said "God just miracled it". That's not an explanation, it's
> >a dodge.
>
> when something like genetic purity is fucked up by supernatural means?
You mean you, as Concubine of Nyarlathotep, have to ask? BWAAAHAHAHAHA!
D.M. Bruyns
>
> Teresita wrote:
> >
>
> > If a "miracle" is when God does something positive, what do they call it
> > when something like genetic purity is fucked up by supernatural means?
> >
Or... someTHING else! Run Greg! Run while you still can!
>
> Greg
leu beach
there was 'a great deal of scientific evidence' proving the earth to be flat and
at the center of the universe!
these could be 'tested in the light of that evidence and used to predict the
finding of future evidence'. but, they were wrong! the 'fact' of evolution
predicted mass quantities of fossil evidence to support it - now that we have
millions of fossils and no evidence, do you still believe the world is flat?
flat world proof: put a ball on the ground and see if it rolls away... if it does
then the earth must be round, if not then the earth is flat.
seriously trev, where is this great deal of scientific evidence and several
'real' hypotheses? (anyone know what a 'real' hypothesis is?) you have to be
'willing to think about it' grasshopper. don't just accept it because that's what
you were told! surrender your ego!
love
leu
Doug W. Jantz
>
> KateBush wrote:
>
> > The wife Cain chose may have been one of his sisters or a niece. The human
> > race was still genetically pure and there was little fear of side effects
> > from marrying relatives.
>
> Well this takes the cake for crackpot theory of the week. Are you a
> geneticist by training?
>
> Stan
Better explanation than any of Stan's, who seems to have no answers at
all, only questions.
Stan
You actually said something correct.
I am the man with the questions.
And I suppose you already have all the answers and are giving your
mind a good long rest.
Stan
Stan
before grade six.
Stan
Vincent Carbone
"the birth of daughters was rarely mentioned"
Did God consider women less important then men? Not worthy of mentioning
their birth? Did God like men better than women? OR did the men who
wrote the Bible consider women unimportant? If so, the Bible is not the
word of God.
Davidson
>
> Stan wrote:
> >
> > KateBush wrote:
> >
> > > The wife Cain chose may have been one of his sisters or a niece. The human
> > > race was still genetically pure and there was little fear of side effects
> > > from marrying relatives.
> >
> > Well this takes the cake for crackpot theory of the week. Are you a
> > geneticist by training?
> >
> > Stan
>
> Better explanation than any of Stan's, who seems to have no answers at
> all, only questions.
> --
> Doug Jantz
> dwj...@scan.missouri.org
> Winona, Missouri
BTW, Doug, who lived in the land of Nod, where Cain fled after the
murder?
Who lived in the city he set up with his son? Is one hut a city?
Scott #1045
Stan
Hey, Scott don't make Doug's poor head hurt anymore than it already
does.
Stan
Michelle Malkin
wrote:
>In article <37b94420.65750212@news>, john-...@bigfoot.com says...
>>
>>Aaron-Dirk Boyden <Aaron-Di...@brown.edu> wrote:
>>>The Fall brought about a high mutation rate. Of course, there's no
>>>evidence of that, and it's unclear that any population could survive the
>>>pace of genetic change which would be required, but the SciCre crowd
>>>have gone a little farther to explaining this than one might have
>>>expected.
>>
>>Yeah, they said "God just miracled it". That's not an explanation, it's
>>a dodge.
>
>If a "miracle" is when God does something positive, what do they call it
>when something like genetic purity is fucked up by supernatural means?
>
Mythology.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC minister #3
EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Libertarius
===>Why don't you listen to your science teacher? Scientific knowledge
EVOLVES, and is REFINED on the basis of new observations. That is
precisely the differencebetween it and the stale, obsolete ideas
contained in Religion, which is locked up in a book and cannot be
changed, except perhaps reinterpreted at best.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
Mohit Ahuja
truer......or is discovered to have been incorrect.....whereas if you
believe in the Bible.....every word is correct and I
do.....besides......I'd put my fate in the hands of God rather than some
scientist theorist anyday.........
Amen
Mohit Ahuja
Mohit Ahuja
Truth..
news:21927-37...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Reply : For someone who presumes so much from so little and then becomes
willing to forsake something so great is foolish.
Among the ancient Hebrews the man was the head of the house and was his
wife's owner (Hebrew, ba'`al), and the woman was the one owned (be`u·lah').
Among servants of God the wife occupied a dignified and honorable place.
Godly women of spirit and ability, while subject to their husbandly head,
had much latitude and freedom of action and were happy in their place; they
were blessed in being used by Jehovah God to perform special services for
him. Examples among the many faithful wives of the Bible are Sarah, Rebekah,
Deborah, Ruth, Esther, and Mary the mother of Jesus.
Krait
Teresita wrote in message <7o9ms3$1c...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <37b94420.65750212@news>, john-...@bigfoot.com says...
>>
>>Aaron-Dirk Boyden <Aaron-Di...@brown.edu> wrote:
>>>The Fall brought about a high mutation rate. Of course, there's no
>>>evidence of that, and it's unclear that any population could survive the
>>>pace of genetic change which would be required, but the SciCre crowd
>>>have gone a little farther to explaining this than one might have
>>>expected.
>>
>>Yeah, they said "God just miracled it". That's not an explanation, it's
>>a dodge.
>
>If a "miracle" is when God does something positive, what do they call it
>when something like genetic purity is fucked up by supernatural means?
>
Must be that KRAZEE devil!
>Teresita
>
>Secretary, New Amphipolis Bureau of Lists.
> Visit NABoL on the web:
>http://extra.newsguy.com/~lilith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Krait
-aa 1587
Ensign 3rd Class aboard EAC Stealth Boat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stan
> Reply : For someone who presumes so much from so little and then becomes
> willing to forsake something so great is foolish.
>
"Truth"?
Another impudent little fellow.
Stan
Doug W. Jantz
I don't know the answer to either. However, I do not know the answers
to lots of things, but it doesn;t mean they don't happen or don't
exist. How do apples grow, technically? Don't know, but they do.
Stan
Doug, aren't you gonna be late for your Mensa Club meeting?
Stan
Stan
Doug!
Six years of schooling and this is all you have to show for it?
Tsk. Tsk!
Stan
Libertarius
writes:
>That's right.....science evolves.....b/c something gets better.....or
>truer......or is discovered to have been incorrect.....whereas if you
>believe in the Bible.....every word is correct and I
>do.....besides......I'd put my fate in the hands of God rather than
some
>scientist theorist anyday.........
===>While you live under that delusion, you are actually putting your
fate in the hands of some MEN who CLAIM that the books cotained in the
Bible collection were authored by "God".
Doug W. Jantz
what are you talking about???
Scott Davidson
You'd look it up, right? And if the first reference you got said
that they grew from little pixies blowing them up, you'd probably
consult a few more before you were convinced, right?
If you treat Bible stories the same way, instead of accepting obvious contradictions
and absurdities through ad hoc explanations, your intelligence might become
a bit more evident to the rest of us.
Scott #1045
Dan McEwen
>
> Stan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Doug W. Jantz had his mom write:
> > > >
> > Six years of schooling and this is all you have to show for it?
> > Tsk. Tsk!
> >
> > Stan
> >
>
> what are you talking about???
OK, let's spell it out. There's Adam and Eve. They have three named
children, Cain, Abel, and Seth. We'll make a leap that there were
daughters for them to marry, since no other women existed. Either that
or the boys all had sex with their mother and married the resulting
sisters/daughters/neices. Fine, whatever. Now, Cain flees to a city.
Where did the city come from? Eve and the nameless other women must
have been craking out kids like crazy and sending them off on their own
in order for there to be another city.
You say you don't have the answers? Did you ever consider that maybe
the Bible isn't telling you everything? Even supposing anything that
occurred in the Bible is actually true, the origins of humanity are
almost certainly misrepresented. Perhaps God his own set of people that
would exist separate from the rest of humanity. In fact, that makes the
most sense.
Joshua Taylor
wrote:
>dr trevor,
>
>there was 'a great deal of scientific evidence' proving the earth to be flat and
>at the center of the universe!
>these could be 'tested in the light of that evidence and used to predict the
>finding of future evidence'. but, they were wrong! the 'fact' of evolution
>predicted mass quantities of fossil evidence to support it - now that we have
>millions of fossils and no evidence, do you still believe the world is flat?
>flat world proof: put a ball on the ground and see if it rolls away... if it does
>then the earth must be round, if not then the earth is flat.
Actually, it was precisely because the theories of a flat earth and a
geocentric universe contradicted observations that they were
abandoned. This is the way that Science works. Ironically, the Church
opposed the "new" astronomy for decades, because they believed (quite
rightly) that the Bible taught a geocentric universe and an immovable
earth. They eventually gave in when the weight of Scientific evidence
became overwhelming. The same will happen to the theory of Evolution.
As for the fossil record yielding no evidence, you may want to put
down those books of Creationist lies and read some real science. The
fossil records demonstrates evolution at every step, from the fact
that simple life-forms inevitably appear earlier than the more
complex, to the fact that there are fossils which demonstrate the
transitions between species. (Yes - they do exist. Your creationist
friends where lying to you about that, as well).
Then we have molecular biology, which shows that we are related to the
rest of animal kingdom just as surely as DNA tests can point up a
criminal in a court case.
-Josh
Scott Davidson
But wait, there's more!
First, Seth was not born until after Cain killed Abel. There might be other women,
but no sons, since all were listed. Also, Seth was born to replace Abel - why bother
if you have a passel of kids already?
Now, Cain started the city - so no problem about where the city comes from. Who
is in the city (besides Cain, his wife, and Enoch his son)? Does two huts make a city?
And who is living in the land of Nod? No one, as far as I can tell.
But, even worse, who is Cain scared of? Everyone in the entire world is either his mother,
father, sister or (maybe) brother. Even if there was anyone else, wouldn't a "don't
kill your brother" be adequate? No, the Bible makes it sound as if he were a stranger
in the land of Nod, who must be identified.
Actually, though I think our genius friend Doug did not understand the crack
about six years of schooling. Genius? I think not!
Actually, the Cain story reminds me of the flood stories from other cultures, where
there are a few supposed only survivors - except five minutes after the flood waters
recede other people come marching over the mountains. The story is more like a dream,
where the laws of consistency don't apply, than a narrative.
Scott #1045
Vincent Carbone
You are talking about ancient Hebrews, I am talking about God. If
God values men and women equaly, the Bible is not the word of God
because men and women are not equals in the Bible.
I believe there is a great deal of evidence supporting the existance of
God, near death experiences, miracle healings, divine visions, Stigmata
etc. I also believe the Bible is the word of man not God. For me, the
Bible reflects the thoughts, illogic, limited knowledge and prejudices
of men at that time. Not the kind of stuff I'd expect from a supreme
being. My comments are mostly about the OT, I can find very little fault
with the NT.
Truth..
news:37A992F6...@earthlmk.net...
> Truth.. wrote:
>
> > Reply : For someone who presumes so much from so little and then becomes
> > willing to forsake something so great is foolish.
> >
> And you presume to have the right and the credibility to call yourself
> "Truth"?
You are wrong I don't call myself truth, I call what I represent TRUTH!!
Truth..
Reply : The Bible's Viewpoint - The "Weaker Vessel"-An Insult to Women?
"WHY ARE WOMEN JUDGED BY THEIR GENDER RATHER THAN BY THEIR EXPERIENCE,
ABILITY, AND INTELLIGENCE?"-BETTY A.
"WOMEN ARE CONDITIONED TO THINK THAT THEY ARE LESSER CREATURES."-LYNN H.
DOES the Bible expression "weaker vessel" degrade women? The Bible verse in
question is 1 Peter 3:7, which states: "You husbands, continue dwelling in
like manner with them according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a
weaker vessel, the feminine one, since you are also heirs with them of the
undeserved favor of life, in order for your prayers not to be hindered."
When Peter wrote these words to fellow Christians, women had very few
rights, not only in the ancient pagan world but also among the apostate
Jewish community. Were Peter and the early Christians advocating the then
prevalent view of women?
Lesser Vessels?
How would first-century readers of Peter's words construe the term "weaker
vessel"? The Greek word for vessel (skeu'os) was used a number of times in
the Greek Scriptures and refers to various containers, implements, utensils,
and instruments. In calling women the "weaker vessel," Peter was not
degrading women, for the expression implied that the husband too was a
fragile or weak vessel. Other Bible texts use similar imagery in referring
to both women and men, such as "earthen vessels" (2 Corinthians 4:7) and
"vessels of mercy" (Romans 9:23). True, Peter portrays women as the "weaker"
of the sexes. But Romans 5:6 uses "weak" to apply to all humans-male and
female. Therefore, the early Christians would not have considered the term
"weaker vessel" to be derogatory to women.
If anything, Peter's words would have been viewed as elevating the status of
women. In Peter's day respect for women hardly existed. As God had long
before foreseen, husbands often dominated and abused their wives physically,
sexually, and emotionally. (Genesis 3:16) Thus, Peter's counsel to Christian
husbands implied, in effect: Do not exploit the power worldly society has
given men.
Let us take a closer look at the term "weaker." Peter in this verse was
referring, not to emotional, but to physical traits. Men are weak vessels;
in a comparative sense, women are weaker vessels. How so? Bone and muscle
structure are such that men are usually endowed with more physical strength.
However, there is no indication that Peter was making a comparison of moral,
spiritual, or mental strength. Really, as far as emotional reactions to
events go, women might best be described as different from men, not
necessarily weaker or stronger. The Bible describes the strong moral
character, the endurance, and the discernment of women who followed God's
way-such as Sarah, Deborah, Ruth, and Esther, to name but a few. Humble men
have no difficulty recognizing that women can be more intelligent than they
are.
Nonetheless, some believe that a reference to women as "weaker" implies that
they are lesser persons. But consider this example. A person has two useful
containers. One is sturdy, the other less so. Is the second vessel somehow
less valued because it is not as sturdy? Actually, the less sturdy one is
usually treated with more care and honor than the sturdier one. Therefore,
is a woman of lesser value because she has less physical strength than a
man? Certainly not! Peter uses the term "weaker vessel," not to denigrate
women, but to foster respect.
"In Like Manner . . . According to Knowledge"
Peter exhorted husbands to "continue dwelling in like manner with them
[their wives] according to knowledge." "In like manner" to whom? In previous
verses Peter was discussing Christ's loving care for his followers, and he
instructed husbands to care for their wives "in like manner." (1 Peter
2:21-25; 3:7) Christ always placed his disciples' welfare and interests
ahead of his own personal desires and preferences. He was interested in
their spiritual and physical welfare, and he took their limitations into
consideration. Husbands are to imitate Christ's loving example, to behave
toward their wives "in like manner."
A smooth-running marriage does not happen by chance. Both husband and wife
must know how to contribute to the success of the marriage. Hence, Peter's
advice is for husbands to continue dwelling with their wives "according to
knowledge." Husbands need to study how Jehovah and his Son, Jesus Christ,
dealt with women. They need to know how God wants them to treat their wives.
In addition, husbands need to know their wives well-their feelings,
strengths, limitations, likes, and dislikes. They need to know how to
respect their wives' intelligence, experience, and dignity. The Bible says:
"Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the
congregation and delivered up himself for it. In this way husbands ought to
be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves
himself, for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes
it."-Ephesians 5:25, 28, 29.
Assign Them Honor
When Peter referred to women as the "weaker vessel," he also stated that
husbands should be "assigning them honor." In Greek, the noun ti·me' conveys
the sense of honor, esteem, value, preciousness. In other words, the
assigning of honor is not simply an act of favor but the recognition of what
is due them. Paul instructed all Christians, both men and women, as follows:
"In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor
to one another take the lead."-Romans 12:10.
Jehovah God certainly does not consider women as mere showpieces. In Israel,
God's laws applied with equal force to both men and women who were guilty of
adultery, incest, bestiality, and other crimes. (Leviticus 18:6-17, 23, 29;
20:10-12) Women could experience the benefits of the Sabbaths, the laws
governing Nazirites, the festivals, and many other provisions of the Law.
(Exodus 20:10; Numbers 6:2; Deuteronomy 12:18; 16:11, 14) The mother, as
well as the father, was to be honored and obeyed.-Leviticus 19:3; 20:9;
Deuteronomy 5:16; 27:16; Proverbs 1:8.
Verses 10 to 31 of Proverbs chapter 31 honor "a capable wife" because of her
faithfulness, industriousness, and wisdom in caring for her many
responsibilities. She was duly recognized for her share in handling family
business, as well as other financial matters. How different from the
attitude of some men who think of women as mere ornaments! Later, in the
early Christian congregation, women were empowered with holy spirit as
witnesses of Christ. (Acts 1:14, 15; 2:3, 4; compare Joel 2:28, 29.) Thus,
some women are destined to become heavenly judges of men, women, and even
angels. (1 Corinthians 6:2, 3) True, women were not to teach in
congregational assembly; nevertheless, there were situations when Christian
women could pray or prophesy. They were assigned to be teachers of younger
women, children, and to those outside the congregation.-Matthew 24:14; 1
Corinthians 11:3-6; Titus 2:3-5; compare Psalm 68:11.
Another good indicator of what Peter had in mind when he said to assign them
honor is found at 2 Peter 1:17. There we read that Jehovah honored Jesus by
expressing his approval of him in the presence of others by stating: "This
is my son, my beloved." Similarly, a husband should show by his deeds, both
in public and in private, that he assigns his wife honor.
Heirs of Life
Throughout history, men have often viewed women as worthy of little honor or
respect-as a slave, or as a mere instrument for gratifying men. The
Christian concept of assigning honor to women certainly elevates them to a
higher level of respect. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament observes that
Peter's admonition "contains a very important truth in regard to the female
sex. Under every other system of religion but the Christian system, woman
has been regarded as in every way inferior to man. Christianity teaches that
. . . she is entitled to all the hopes and promises which religion imparts.
. . . This single truth would raise the female sex everywhere from
degradation, and check at once half the social evils of the race."
Since Christ has ownership of both men and women, there is serious reason
for husbands to cherish their wives as Christ's property. Immediately after
referring to women as the "weaker vessel," Peter's words continue: "Since
you are also heirs with them of the undeserved favor of life, in order for
your prayers not to be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7b) Peter indicated that a
husband's mistreating his wife would injure his relationship with God,
blocking his prayers.
In no way is the term "weaker vessel" meant to insult women. While Jehovah
set husbands as the head of the household, he does not subscribe to men
mistreating women. Instead, he directs that the man, with knowledge of the
woman, should extend care and honor to her.
The Bible directs both married and single men to assign honor to women, not
treating them as lesser persons. Men and women who earnestly worship God and
who dignify one another will receive rich blessings from the hand of
God.-Compare 1 Corinthians 7:16.
=================
The above information has not been posted by the official Watchtower Bible &
Tract Society but by one of Jehovah's Witnesses using his own initiative. If
you would like further information regarding similar topics goto the
following website http://www.watchtower.org which is the official website.
Stan
You represent TRUTH? Any proof or are you just another deluded moron
among the many who has his own interpretation of TRUTH that might be?
Stan
biller...@sprint.ca
wrote:
> I do have one question I cannot find an answer to, Where did Cain's
>wife come from ?
>
"The Lost Books of the Bible; First Book of Adam",
World Bible Publishers, Inc says the following;
Adam & Eve gave birth to 5 children,
Cain & his sister Luluwa
Abel and his sister Aklia
and Seth.
Cain married Luluwas and thus began the line of Cain dwelling in the
land of Nod
Seth married Aklia and thus began the line of Seth.
"Lost Books..." is not generally regarded as Scripture but it seems to
enhance Scripture and is compelling reading.
regards
Bill Erickson
biller...@sprint.ca
leu beach
thank you for sharing.
> Actually, it was precisely because the theories of a flat earth and a
> geocentric universe contradicted observations that they were
> abandoned. This is the way that Science works.
> As for the fossil record yielding no evidence, you may want to put
> down those books of Creationist lies and read some real science. The
> fossil records demonstrates evolution at every step, from the fact
> that simple life-forms inevitably appear earlier than the more
> complex, to the fact that there are fossils which demonstrate the
> transitions between species. (Yes - they do exist. Your creationist
> friends where lying to you about that, as well).
Actually, it is precicely because the theories of evolution and a
chance universe contradict observations that they should be
abandoned. This is the way that Science works. Ironically, the fossil
record does not demonstrate evolution at any step. Did the shetland pony
evolve into the clydesdale or vice versa? Either way, why is one still around
when evolution has clearly proven that its replacement is far superior? In logic
we call that the contrapositive. It's a logical proof that disproves evolution.
If you can't accept that then the problem isn't one of reason, it's one of emotion.
> Ironically, the Church
> opposed the "new" astronomy for decades, because they believed (quite
> rightly) that the Bible taught a geocentric universe and an immovable
> earth. They eventually gave in when the weight of Scientific evidence
> became overwhelming. The same will happen to the theory of Evolution.
The earth is the center of Gods universe. The capitol of a country is the 'center' of
that
country even if it isn't in the geographic center. Your child may be the center of
your
life even if he doesn't sleep in the center of your house.
> Then we have molecular biology, which shows that we are related to the
> rest of animal kingdom just as surely as DNA tests can point up a
> criminal in a court case.
>
> -Josh
Molecular biology, breathing air, having a circulatory system, being comprised of
water & carbon, all suggest that we were created from the same stuff by the same
creator.
josh,
think for yourself - don't let someone else lead your thoughts. question authority.
forget your ego and find the truth. look at your
money - it say God on it. the united states is one nation under God. when you have
sexual intimacy with your wife you say: oh my God, not oh my darwin! the year is 1999!
one thousand nine hundred ninety nine years since what? since Jesus, the son of God
was here!
listen, i could visit a construction site every weekend and come up with evidence and
theories
regarding the natural evolving growth of a house - and predict the future based on
those measurable observations.
suddenly walls spring up - isn't nature amazing? then windows appear where there were
holes - there must have
been a climatic shift! amazingly a roof with intricate scale like layers naturally
protects the building from probable
intensifying solar activity or thinning atmosphere or the ozone hole - definitely
natural selection. amazingly the
whole building changes color - obviously to escape detection from the very huge, well
documented, photographed, mega buildings
we observed downtown.
now, which part of my theory do you disagree with? i have explainations for every
detail! but not one bit of proof! (um, proof is the
stuff that supports a theory, not evidence) tons and tons of evidence, but evidence of
evolving growth of a house? get real! i happen to know that houses only exist in the
mind of buddah. (joke)
i pray that you will surrender to Jesus and accept the truth.
love
leu
The DataRat
Hope you don't mind I changed the subject line just a little.
How is it possible that in the United States where the government
requires its citizens to deliver their children each morning to the
Youth Propaganda Camps that there are children who escape even the
basics of a science class?
Are you responding to 3 year olds? Or adult xians? It really seems that
some of these xians know that they are being pigheads, and that they are
doing so for the sicko purpose of getting some attention. I see little
children do this on the playground, but am I wrong to think if these
xians have a computer and can half assed spell, that their education is
higher than the third grade.
What is worse is that they will do this to their own children. Xianity
is legalized insanity and legalized child abuse.
Data
Paul claims to speak for Jesus: Rom 9:1 "I say the truth in Christ, I
lie not" AND 2 Cor. 11:10, "The truth of Christ is in me." Why then does
he contradict Jesus repeatedly?
Visit Biblical Errancy: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld
The DataRat
It is funny how xians claim belief in bible god, but when he tells
them "Sell your possessions and give alms.... for where your treasure
is, there will your heart be also. All of a sudden they aren't
interested in being a real xian and a true believer.
The ONLY real xians and true believers are the bums living on our
streets drinking strong drink, as commanded by biblegod, to forget their
poverty and misery.
All xians posting in this ng are fake xians, or people with a few
xian ideas that stay in their head and they NEVER try and apply them to
their lives. Hypocrits each and everyone. And what is sickening about
these fake xians, IS THAT THEY KNOW THEIR HYPOCRICY so they argue, what
does god mean here?
Paul Duca
http://home.att.net/~kre.ator/ wrote:
> Try reading Genesis 5:4.
>
> --
> http://home.att.net/~kre.ator/
It certainly would have kept the physician and the dentist from
having that big fight....
Paul
Joshua Taylor
wrote:
>josh,
>
>thank you for sharing.
>
>> Actually, it was precisely because the theories of a flat earth and a
>> geocentric universe contradicted observations that they were
>> abandoned. This is the way that Science works.
>
>> As for the fossil record yielding no evidence, you may want to put
>> down those books of Creationist lies and read some real science. The
>> fossil records demonstrates evolution at every step, from the fact
>> that simple life-forms inevitably appear earlier than the more
>> complex, to the fact that there are fossils which demonstrate the
>> transitions between species. (Yes - they do exist. Your creationist
>> friends where lying to you about that, as well).
>
>Actually, it is precicely because the theories of evolution and a
>chance universe contradict observations that they should be
>abandoned. This is the way that Science works. Ironically, the fossil
>record does not demonstrate evolution at any step. Did the shetland pony
>evolve into the clydesdale or vice versa? Either way, why is one still around
>when evolution has clearly proven that its replacement is far superior? In logic
>we call that the contrapositive. It's a logical proof that disproves evolution.
The theory of evolution contradicts observations??? Maybe on your
planet, but here on earth it is well supported by evidence from a
number of different fields, from geology to paleontology to genetics.
It seems pretty obvious that you have been fed a steady diet of
Creationist lies. Are you seriously asking us to believe that
thousands, perhaps millions of dedicated scientists over the last 150
years have pored over the data, and yet failed to see that it does not
actually support evolution?
Perhaps you could be so kind as to share with us exactly which
"observations" contradict the theory of evolution?
Also your question about horses is a red herring (a fairly common
technique used by Creationsist when they are cornered, which happens
quite often). Scientists never claimed to know every single detail
about every transition that has ever taken place. Asking them to
explain exactly how x turned into y is pointless, because in many
cases the details are lost forever. But we can be sure that all life
is descended from a common point. This fact is amply demonstrated by
all the biological sciences.
>If you can't accept that then the problem isn't one of reason, it's one of emotion.
Actually, it's a question of proof, but religionists seem to have
trouble with that concept.
>> Ironically, the Church
>> opposed the "new" astronomy for decades, because they believed (quite
>> rightly) that the Bible taught a geocentric universe and an immovable
>> earth. They eventually gave in when the weight of Scientific evidence
>> became overwhelming. The same will happen to the theory of Evolution.
>
>The earth is the center of Gods universe. The capitol of a country is the 'center' of
>that
>country even if it isn't in the geographic center. Your child may be the center of
>your
>life even if he doesn't sleep in the center of your house.
Very clever, but completely meaningless. The Bible writers thought
that the earth was a flat disk surrounded by a solid sky, in which the
sun, moon and stars were stuck like Christmas decorations. This is
easily shown by simply reading the book. Try Genesis 1, for example.
>> Then we have molecular biology, which shows that we are related to the
>> rest of animal kingdom just as surely as DNA tests can point up a
>> criminal in a court case.
>>
>> -Josh
>
>Molecular biology, breathing air, having a circulatory system, being comprised of
>water & carbon, all suggest that we were created from the same stuff by the same
>creator.
Perhaps. Evolution has nothing to say about ultimate origins. However,
if we were created by some being, he certainly went out of his way to
make us think that we had descended from other life-forms. After all,
he stuck fossils in the rocks in such a manner that simple life-forms
consistently appear before more complex ones. He created a whole bunch
of animals which neatly show the transition from a reptile jaw to a
mammalian. He made feathered dinosaurs, and birds with teeth, claws
and reptilian clavicles. He made sure that we share most of our
genetic material with those animals that look most like us. He even
went further than that - he made sure that humans and apes share the
same genetic errors, such as the inability to synthesize vitamin C.
Seem like this god was a pretty sneaky person. Or, is there perhaps
another answer?
>josh,
>think for yourself - don't let someone else lead your thoughts. question authority.
>forget your ego and find the truth. look at your
>money - it say God on it. the united states is one nation under God. when you have
>sexual intimacy with your wife you say: oh my God, not oh my darwin! the year is 1999!
Quite. We are almost into the twenty-fisrt century, and we still have
people who believe that the myths of an ancient desert-dwelling tribe
are literal scientific truth. It's a pretty sad indictment of human
reasoning.
As for thinking for myself, that is precisely what I am doing. I don't
let some preacher tell me what to think. Nor some Christian writer who
thinks that he can take on decades of scientific progress by trotting
out a few worn out old arguments that were refuted back in my
grandpappy's day. Nor some book of fables and myths, now millennia out
of date. I prefer to follow where the evidence leads.
>one thousand nine hundred ninety nine years since what? since Jesus, the son of God
>was here!
This demonstrates just how ignorant you are. It is universally agreed
that whatever year Jesus was born, it wasn't 1 AD. In fact, we don't
know when it was, because your precious Bible has two completely
different times for his birth, set ten years apart.
>listen, i could visit a construction site every weekend and come up with evidence and
>theories
>regarding the natural evolving growth of a house - and predict the future based on
>those measurable observations.
>suddenly walls spring up - isn't nature amazing? then windows appear where there were
>holes - there must have
>been a climatic shift! amazingly a roof with intricate scale like layers naturally
>protects the building from probable
>intensifying solar activity or thinning atmosphere or the ozone hole - definitely
>natural selection. amazingly the
>whole building changes color - obviously to escape detection from the very huge, well
>documented, photographed, mega buildings
>we observed downtown.
>now, which part of my theory do you disagree with? i have explainations for every
>detail! but not one bit of proof! (um, proof is the
>stuff that supports a theory, not evidence) tons and tons of evidence, but evidence of
>evolving growth of a house? get real! i happen to know that houses only exist in the
>mind of buddah. (joke)
A bad analogy (another favorite Creationist trick). Houses and
biological organism differ in one fundamental attribute that makes
your whole analogy pointless. See if you can figure out what it is.
>i pray that you will surrender to Jesus and accept the truth.
>love
Been there, done that. Glad I'm out.
-Josh
Bro...@kingdom.com
<djmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > KateBush wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > The wife Cain chose may have been one of his sisters or a niece. The human
>> > > > > > > > > race was still genetically pure and there was little fear of side effects
>> > > > > > > > > from marrying relatives.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Well this takes the cake for crackpot theory of the week. Are you a
>> > > > > > > > geneticist by training?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Stan
Kate's explaination is the most commonly sited version by most
Christians. Though there are other possibilities. Genesis is a
marvelous account of God's creation but linking all of the genetic
variables of mankind to one original couple does present seemingly
unresolved problems. There are specific parts which I believe should
be taken literally e.g. the lineages and lifespans of Adam
descendants. But other portions e.g. talking serpent, tree of the
knowledge of good and evil etc. are more suited to a deeper mystical
or spiritual allegorical context.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Better explanation than any of Stan's, who seems to have no answers at
>> > > > > > > all, only questions.
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Doug Jantz
Yes, it is baffling to me that scoffers like Stan continue to
crosspost in Bible newsgroups in which they obviously have little
practical knowledge on the subject to contribute. They are forever
mindlessly sniping at others deeply held religious beliefs and derive
some sort of maniacal glee at confounding those of simple faith.
On second thought, observing that this particular thread is also being
posted at alt.science and alt.atheism it does explain some things.
>> > > > > > BTW, Doug, who lived in the land of Nod, where Cain fled after the
>> > > > > > murder?
>> > > > > > Who lived in the city he set up with his son? Is one hut a city?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Scott #1045
Unlike most of the other drivel in this thread, these are legitimate
questions. It does indeed appear that their were other established
colonies outside of Eden that Cain and his wife settled in.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hey, Scott don't make Doug's poor head hurt anymore than it already
>> > > > > does.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Stan
Those kind of statements, Stan, do little to elucidate the subject
matter at hand.
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't know the answer to either. However, I do not know the answers
>> > > > to lots of things, but it doesn;t mean they don't happen or don't
>> > > > exist. How do apples grow, technically? Don't know, but they do.
When one contemplates the basic order and precision of the universe
from the molecular structure of the simplest organisms, to man's
natural functions, purpose and culture, to the enormous expanse of the
cosmos. There are, indeed, many unanswerable questions, but
acknowledging a masterful intellect behind it all seems self-evident.
>> > Doug!
>> > Six years of schooling and this is all you have to show for it?
>> > Tsk. Tsk!
>> >
>> > Stan
Grow up Stan. Your petulant puerile posts only reveal your own
intellectual inadequacies.
>>
>> what are you talking about???
>
>OK, let's spell it out. There's Adam and Eve. They have three named
>children, Cain, Abel, and Seth. We'll make a leap that there were
>daughters for them to marry, since no other women existed. Either that
>or the boys all had sex with their mother and married the resulting
>sisters/daughters/neices. Fine, whatever. Now, Cain flees to a city.
>Where did the city come from? Eve and the nameless other women must
>have been craking out kids like crazy and sending them off on their own
>in order for there to be another city.
You raise an interesting question. Either Eve and her daughters had
stretch marks on their abdomens that looked like a topographical map
of the Alps or their were parallel groups of humans in neighboring
cities to which Cain could flee and be reasonably concerned about his
miserable welfare. Therefore God placed a mark on him to warn others
not to harm him. Surely his relatives would be aware of who he was.
The Genesis account of Adam and Eve is deliberately sketchy. They
were specifically commanded to "replenish the earth" yet for over a
hundred years the only offspring are Cain, Abel, and Seth. And there
is one later scriptures which explains that briefly explains that they
had other sons and daughters. The Bible doesn't give much detailed
explaination as to the origin of the various races either before or
after the Great Flood.
>
>You say you don't have the answers? Did you ever consider that maybe
>the Bible isn't telling you everything?
Now that's the kind of reasoning that I find appealing. Well done.
All too often, the two opposing camps of Creationists vs. Scientists
never seem to grasp the fact that they don't have enough concrete
information to make an absolute judgment on many issues at all. Yet
they staunchly defend their myopic viewpoints as if there can be no
other avenues of plausible thought.
> Even supposing anything that
>occurred in the Bible is actually true, the origins of humanity are
>almost certainly misrepresented.
"Misrepresented" may be a little harsh. I prefer to imagine that many
of the biblical accounts are purposely vague in order for us to rely
on our heavenly Father to guide us to a deeper understanding as we
"walk through the garden" together. And it is a bit humbling to
realize we don't have all the answers. I believe He wants His
children to seek Him and ask, "Explain this passage to me Father."
> Perhaps God has his own set of people that
>would exist separate from the rest of humanity. In fact, that makes the
>most sense.
Bravo! I perceive sir, that thou art nearer to the fountain of wisdom
and truth than thou knowest.
Brother Joe
Scott Davidson
>On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 17:16:10 -0400, Dan McEwen
><djmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> > > > > > > > KateBush wrote:
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > The wife Cain chose may have been one of his sisters or a niece. The human
>>> > > > > > > > > race was still genetically pure and there was little fear of side effects
>>> > > > > > > > > from marrying relatives.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Well this takes the cake for crackpot theory of the week. Are you a
>>> > > > > > > > geneticist by training?
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Stan
>Kate's explaination is the most commonly sited version by most
>Christians. Though there are other possibilities. Genesis is a
>marvelous account of God's creation but linking all of the genetic
>variables of mankind to one original couple does present seemingly
>unresolved problems. There are specific parts which I believe should
>be taken literally e.g. the lineages and lifespans of Adam
>descendants. But other portions e.g. talking serpent, tree of the
>knowledge of good and evil etc. are more suited to a deeper mystical
>or spiritual allegorical context.
I don't understand why a talking snake is any more unbelievable than special creation.
Both the Adam and Eve story, and the fall story, answer pretty common questions
primitive man had - where did we come from, and why is life so bad? Pandora's Box and
the tree are pretty similar. Of course, if the story of the fall is not literally true,
most of the justification for Christianity falls apart
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Better explanation than any of Stan's, who seems to have no answers at
>>> > > > > > > all, only questions.
>>> > > > > > > --
>>> > > > > > > Doug Jantz
>
>Yes, it is baffling to me that scoffers like Stan continue to
>crosspost in Bible newsgroups in which they obviously have little
>practical knowledge on the subject to contribute. They are forever
>mindlessly sniping at others deeply held religious beliefs and derive
>some sort of maniacal glee at confounding those of simple faith.
>
>On second thought, observing that this particular thread is also being
>posted at alt.science and alt.atheism it does explain some things.
>
>>> > > > > > BTW, Doug, who lived in the land of Nod, where Cain fled after the
>>> > > > > > murder?
>>> > > > > > Who lived in the city he set up with his son? Is one hut a city?
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Scott #1045
>Unlike most of the other drivel in this thread, these are legitimate
>questions. It does indeed appear that their were other established
>colonies outside of Eden that Cain and his wife settled in.
I think I just got complimented! :) Yes, it appears those who wrote or told this story
did not really understand what there being only 2 people implied. This seems pretty
common, and happens in the flood stories of other cultures. I would guess that when the stories
were collected after the Bablylonian exile, they were so well known that the editors
felt they could not change them to have them make sense - I assume that the editors were
smart enough to see the problems.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Hey, Scott don't make Doug's poor head hurt anymore than it already
>>> > > > > does.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Stan
>Those kind of statements, Stan, do little to elucidate the subject
>matter at hand.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I don't know the answer to either. However, I do not know the answers
>>> > > > to lots of things, but it doesn;t mean they don't happen or don't
>>> > > > exist. How do apples grow, technically? Don't know, but they do.
>
>When one contemplates the basic order and precision of the universe
>from the molecular structure of the simplest organisms, to man's
>natural functions, purpose and culture, to the enormous expanse of the
>cosmos. There are, indeed, many unanswerable questions, but
>acknowledging a masterful intellect behind it all seems self-evident.
>
Well, what I see is the way that simple laws have complex results, given enough
time and a sort procedure like natural selection.
But I think the major difference between those of a scientific bent and those without
a scientific bent is that I could not conceive of a scientist writing "How do apples grow, technically?
Don't know, but they do." as an answer to anything. He would find out.
When I was growing up we learned about Washington throwing a silver dollar across
the Potomac. One religious reaction is to say I don't know how he could do
that, but it is written so I believe it. Another is to find explanations. Well,
maybe there was a real strong wind that day. Maybe it skipped a lot of times. Maybe a bird
picked it up in flight and deposited it on the other side. (This is the Creationist mindset.)
The third is to be skeptical, and investigate where the story began, and look for confirmation.
When you discover that Parson Weems made it up, you can conclude that it is a legend. This
is the scientific, historical approach.
Which do you follow?
Eldest children were quite important. Younger children did not seem to
get mentioned - clearly all the people listed in the Bible had more
children than listed there. So, Adam and Eve having children younger than
Seth is no problem. Having daughters older than Seth is also no problem,
since they did not count.
Seth is the ancestor of Noah - and thus in a sense is the "real" eldest child.
A son older than Seth should have been mentioned. Also, Seth is described
as the replacement for Abel. This would not be a big deal if there were
other sons. All the points you make about why Cain's mark would be unnecessary are
true, also. Why would the children of Adam move so far away? Why would they
forget their elder brother?
If you clear your mind of Biblical preconceptions, I'm sure you will admit
that this story makes a lot more sense as a long remembered primitive myth
rather than as an accurate record of man's beginnings.
>>
>>You say you don't have the answers? Did you ever consider that maybe
>>the Bible isn't telling you everything?
>
>Now that's the kind of reasoning that I find appealing. Well done.
>All too often, the two opposing camps of Creationists vs. Scientists
>never seem to grasp the fact that they don't have enough concrete
>information to make an absolute judgment on many issues at all. Yet
>they staunchly defend their myopic viewpoints as if there can be no
>other avenues of plausible thought.
>
Good. But there are two reactions to finding information that contradicts
your preconceptions. One is to invent post hoc explanations, which is
the Creationist way. The other is to modify the theory to explain
both the new facts and old, which is the scientific way.
(Or to say that you knew it all along, which is Dawkins' response to punc eq.)
Science as a whole moved from Creationism to a secular explanation
(with room for God as the initiator) in the late 18th early 19th Century. Darwin
gave the explanation for the origin of species, and knocked man off of his special
perch. A 6,000 year old earth was dead long before Darwin.
>> Even supposing anything that
>>occurred in the Bible is actually true, the origins of humanity are
>>almost certainly misrepresented.
>
>"Misrepresented" may be a little harsh. I prefer to imagine that many
>of the biblical accounts are purposely vague in order for us to rely
>on our heavenly Father to guide us to a deeper understanding as we
>"walk through the garden" together. And it is a bit humbling to
>realize we don't have all the answers. I believe He wants His
>children to seek Him and ask, "Explain this passage to me Father."
>
It's only not harsh if it didn't come from god. As a primitive
people's explanation of the world, it makes sense. Being wrong
about things you don't know and can't know is no sin.
If it came from god, though it is a bad misrepresentation.
The grandeur of the universe is so much greater than shown in Genesis.
I can (and have) written the Big Bang story in simple form. God could
do better than I! Wouldn't universal scientific agreement that a Genesis
story was true be much better evidence for god than what we have now?
You either have god lying, or god not existing.
>> Perhaps God has his own set of people that
>>would exist separate from the rest of humanity. In fact, that makes the
>>most sense.
>
>Bravo! I perceive sir, that thou art nearer to the fountain of wisdom
>and truth than thou knowest.
>
Then the rest of the people don't suffer from original sin? Did they live
forever? If they were sinless, why were they wiped out in the flood?
(Or maybe they were porpoises. So long, and thanks for all the fish.)
Scott #1045
>
>Brother Joe
>
>
---
Scott Davidson
Sun Microsystems
scott.d...@eng.sun.com
Doug W. Jantz
>
> I don't understand why a talking snake is any more unbelievable than special creation.
You are right, it isn't. It is funny to me how folks will look at these
accounts and try to interpret them as we know things to be today. That
is how it was then, serpents obviously spoke, or at leaset this one
did. They also had limbs, but no longer. Things are different now than
then.
Bro...@kingdom.com
> > > The wife Cain chose may have been one of his sisters or a niece. The human
> > > race was still genetically pure and there was little fear of side effects
>> > from marrying relatives.
>>Kate's explaination is the most commonly sited version by most
>>Christians. Though there are other possibilities. Genesis is a
>>marvelous account of God's creation but linking all of the genetic
>>variables of mankind to one original couple does present seemingly
>>unresolved problems. There are specific parts which I believe should
>>be taken literally e.g. the lineages and lifespans of Adam
>>descendants. But other portions e.g. talking serpent, tree of the
>>knowledge of good and evil etc. are more suited to a deeper mystical
>>or spiritual allegorical context.
>
>I don't understand why a talking snake is any more unbelievable than special creation.
>Both the Adam and Eve story, and the fall story, answer pretty common questions
>primitive man had - where did we come from, and why is life so bad? Pandora's Box and
>the tree are pretty similar. Of course, if the story of the fall is not literally true,
>most of the justification for Christianity falls apart.
Whether or not, there was a literal talking snake, really is
immaterial. Your conclusion that the Genesis accounts of Adam & Eve
and the fall of man, answering many primary questions of mankind is
wholly correct. My point was merely, that the talking snake or the
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil need not *necessarily* be
literal in order to still be of equal merit as allegorical symbols.
>
>>>> > > > > > BTW, Doug, who lived in the land of Nod, where Cain fled after the
>>>> > > > > > murder? Who lived in the city he set up with his son? Is one hut a city?
>>Unlike most of the other drivel in this thread, these are legitimate
>>questions. It does indeed appear that their were other established
>>colonies outside of Eden that Cain and his wife settled in.
>
>I think I just got complimented! :)
Indeed Scott. Though you and I approach this subject from entirely
different perspectives, I find your astute input intriguing and
*usually* logically sound.
> Yes, it appears those who wrote or told this story
>did not really understand what there being only 2 people implied. This seems pretty
>common, and happens in the flood stories of other cultures. I would guess that when the stories
>were collected after the Bablylonian exile, they were so well known that the editors
>felt they could not change them to have them make sense - I assume that the editors were
>smart enough to see the problems.
As I likewise assume, that if the texts are divinely inspired that God
was smart enough to foresee the same problems and for reasons
unbeknownst to me has chosen to guide those same editors to leave the
text in its present form.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I don't know the answer to either. However, I do not know the answers
>>>> > > > to lots of things, but it doesn;t mean they don't happen or don't
>>>> > > > exist. How do apples grow, technically? Don't know, but they do.
>>
>>When one contemplates the basic order and precision of the universe
>>from the molecular structure of the simplest organisms, to man's
>>natural functions, purpose and culture, to the enormous expanse of the
>>cosmos. There are, indeed, many unanswerable questions, but
>>acknowledging a masterful intellect behind it all seems self-evident.
>>
>Well, what I see is the way that simple laws have complex results, given enough
>time and a sort procedure like natural selection.
What I have a difficult time fathoming is attributing all the
abundance of complex teeming life (and its accompanying innate order
and precise structure and balance) about us merely as a simple
incidental byproduct of just massive amounts of time and
indescriminate natural selection. IMO your assesment is tantamount to
stumbling upon a swiss watch, washed upon the seashore, and exclaiming
"My, isn't it marvelous how given enough time, sand, and the proper
tidal conditions an intricate timepiece like this can come to pass."
>
>But I think the major difference between those of a scientific bent and those without
>a scientific bent is that I could not conceive of a scientist writing "How do apples grow,
> technically? Don't know, but they do." as an answer to anything. He would find out.
Alright, I see your point. The blind faith of the average biblical
fundamentalist often limits their understanding to "God said it, I
believe it, that settles it." This simplistic philosophy (though it
may intrinsically be correct) only serves to divide themselves from
those who require more practical explanations.
Scientists and Bible believers, however, need not be at odds with one
another. In fact some of the greatest scientists have been believers,
e.g. Da Vinci, Newton etc.
>
>When I was growing up we learned about Washington throwing a silver dollar across
>the Potomac. One religious reaction is to say I don't know how he could do
>that, but it is written so I believe it. Another is to find explanations. Well,
>maybe there was a real strong wind that day. Maybe it skipped a lot of times. Maybe a bird
>picked it up in flight and deposited it on the other side. (This is the Creationist mindset.)
>The third is to be skeptical, and investigate where the story began, and look for confirmation.
>When you discover that Parson Weems made it up, you can conclude that it is a legend. This
>is the scientific, historical approach.
>Which do you follow?
I have no objections whatsoever to an accurate pure scientific or
historical approach to analyzing anything in the Bible. In fact, I
welcome it whole-heartedly. I am convinced that nothing in the Bible
would be shaken and that God Himself would only be scientifically
demonstrated to be greater than I already perceive Him to be.
What I do have a problem with, Scott, are those pseudo-scientists who
would elevate an unproven theory (evolution) to the level of an
undisputed law of nature and then prematurely inculcate children with
this unproven bogus "theory", daily in the classroom and constantly
through the media, as being, somehow, "superior" to the also,
admittedly, unproven biblical account of Creation. That sir, is
nothing but scientific hypocrisy and just as ludicrous as the
fundamentalist who never dares to delve into futher study of his
beliefs for fear he may be proven false.
>
<stuff deleted for brevity>
>Seth is the ancestor of Noah - and thus in a sense is the "real" eldest child.
>A son older than Seth should have been mentioned. Also, Seth is described
>as the replacement for Abel. This would not be a big deal if there were
>other sons. All the points you make about why Cain's mark would be unnecessary are
>true, also. Why would the children of Adam move so far away? Why would they
>forget their elder brother?
Cain was not forgotten, but banished from the chosen seed so they
would not be likewise corrupted. Cain's descendants appear throughout
both the OT and NT and continue, for the most part, their ancestors
infamous behavior.
>
>If you clear your mind of Biblical preconceptions, I'm sure you will admit
>that this story makes a lot more sense as a long remembered primitive myth
>rather than as an accurate record of man's beginnings.
Myth or history, it makes for interesting discussion.
>
>>>
>>>You say you don't have the answers? Did you ever consider that maybe
>>>the Bible isn't telling you everything?
>>
>>Now that's the kind of reasoning that I find appealing. Well done.
>>All too often, the two opposing camps of Creationists vs. Scientists
>>never seem to grasp the fact that they don't have enough concrete
>>information to make an absolute judgment on many issues at all. Yet
>>they staunchly defend their myopic viewpoints as if there can be no
>>other avenues of plausible thought.
>>
>
>Good. But there are two reactions to finding information that contradicts
>your preconceptions. One is to invent post hoc explanations, which is
>the Creationist way. The other is to modify the theory to explain
>both the new facts and old, which is the scientific way.
>(Or to say that you knew it all along, which is Dawkins' response to punc eq.)
The Creationist need not resort to fabrications in order to preserve
the essence of his views, nor should he. He, however may be required
to step away from his strict prior interpretation and "see the
passages in a new light". The Scientist is also prone to conjuring up
yet another unproven "theory" to cover the faults in his prior one
(e.g. punc eq).
>Science as a whole moved from Creationism to a secular explanation
>(with room for God as the initiator) in the late 18th early 19th Century.
How nice of them to give God a nod.
> Darwin gave the explanation for the origin of species, and knocked man off of his special
>perch. A 6,000 year old earth was dead long
Darwin is/was and will always be, a third rate quack. There exists
absolutely NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE, whatsoever, to support his "theory".
There would naturally have to be thousands of intermediary species
(past and present) in order to support his wild conjectures of
evolution. Yet none are ever found. Those very few examples that are
"found" never measure up to objective scientific scrutiny and are
usually soon revealed to be fauds, perpetrated to acquire either
personal fame or to gain further grants to continue their
pseudo-scientific exploits. (Beats working for living.) IMO these
kinds of scientists are just as much of a laughing stock as Jim and
Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, Orel Roberts etc.
>
>>> Even supposing anything that
>>>occurred in the Bible is actually true, the origins of humanity are
>>>almost certainly misrepresented.
>>
>>"Misrepresented" may be a little harsh. I prefer to imagine that many
>>of the biblical accounts are purposely vague in order for us to rely
>>on our heavenly Father to guide us to a deeper understanding as we
>>"walk through the garden" together. And it is a bit humbling to
>>realize we don't have all the answers. I believe He wants His
>>children to seek Him and ask, "Explain this passage to me Father."
>>
>
>It's only not harsh if it didn't come from god. As a primitive
>people's explanation of the world, it makes sense. Being wrong
>about things you don't know and can't know is no sin.
Why is it, you are forever saying that ancient man was more
"primitive" than you or I? Step away from your Darwinian
preconceptions and see reality for what it is ; }
Would you care to round up any number of todays top engineers and
scientists and duplicate the pyramids?
One minute the scientists tells us that everything is evolving from
simplier beings, by natural selection to more complex entities. Then
in the next breath say that the (I believe it is) Second Law of
Thermodynamics proves that everything is decaying to chaos.
Which is it Scott? They both can't be correct!
>If it came from god, though it is a bad misrepresentation.
>The grandeur of the universe is so much greater than shown in Genesis.
>I can (and have) written the Big Bang story in simple form. God could
>do better than I!
"Let there be Light" is about as simple as it gets. Could you improve
upon that?
> Wouldn't universal scientific agreement that a Genesis
>story was true be much better evidence for god than what we have now?
There are hundreds of modern scientists that have no problem being
both scientists and believers in God. Why do you only see the
atheistic scientists as credible?
>You either have god lying, or god not existing.
You left out the prefix "IMO". There are many of us, (scientifically
bent or not) who see no profound contradictions in the Genesis account
of creation.
>>> Perhaps God has his own set of people that
>>>would exist separate from the rest of humanity. In fact, that makes the
>>>most sense.
>>
>>Bravo! I perceive sir, that thou art nearer to the fountain of wisdom
>>and truth than thou knowest.
>>
>Then the rest of the people don't suffer from original sin?
We all are sinners. It's just that some are willing to recognize
their fallen state and seek forgiveness and others choose to ignore
their sins and hope that the Bible is merely a collection of moral
myths. There is also a matter of God's chosing His elect, but I leave
that to Him and hope to be in that number.
> Did they live forever?
Obviously not eh? Other than the possible exception of Dick Clark, no
one lives forever in this mortal world.
> If they were sinless, why were they wiped out in the flood?
They weren't sinless, ignorance of the Law is never a valid excuse in
any court, heavenly or earthly. All of us have a conscience that
convicts us of sin. They weren't porpoises, and yes, their descendants
would most likely have perished in the flood. There is, however, some
conjecture as to the Great Flood being universal in scope. Quite
frankly, I'm still researching that point and am open to discussing
that as well.
>
>(Or maybe they were porpoises. So long, and thanks for all the fish.)
>
You're welcome to my fish fry anytime Scott. I've been "floundering"
for too long as it is. But what the "halibut", it beats working.
Brother Joe
Scott Davidson
Works for me...
>>
>>>>> > > > > > BTW, Doug, who lived in the land of Nod, where Cain fled after the
>>>>> > > > > > murder? Who lived in the city he set up with his son? Is one hut a city?
>
>>>Unlike most of the other drivel in this thread, these are legitimate
>>>questions. It does indeed appear that their were other established
>>>colonies outside of Eden that Cain and his wife settled in.
>>
>>I think I just got complimented! :)
>
>Indeed Scott. Though you and I approach this subject from entirely
>different perspectives, I find your astute input intriguing and
>*usually* logically sound.
I dislike illogical arguments, wherever they come from.
(Hmm, did my ears just get pointy?)
>
>> Yes, it appears those who wrote or told this story
>>did not really understand what there being only 2 people implied. This seems pretty
>>common, and happens in the flood stories of other cultures. I would guess that when the stories
>>were collected after the Bablylonian exile, they were so well known that the editors
>>felt they could not change them to have them make sense - I assume that the editors were
>>smart enough to see the problems.
>
>As I likewise assume, that if the texts are divinely inspired that God
>was smart enough to foresee the same problems and for reasons
>unbeknownst to me has chosen to guide those same editors to leave the
>text in its present form.
So you are not a literalist. That's encouraging.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I don't know the answer to either. However, I do not know the answers
>>>>> > > > to lots of things, but it doesn;t mean they don't happen or don't
>>>>> > > > exist. How do apples grow, technically? Don't know, but they do.
>>>
>>>When one contemplates the basic order and precision of the universe
>>>from the molecular structure of the simplest organisms, to man's
>>>natural functions, purpose and culture, to the enormous expanse of the
>>>cosmos. There are, indeed, many unanswerable questions, but
>>>acknowledging a masterful intellect behind it all seems self-evident.
>>>
>>Well, what I see is the way that simple laws have complex results, given enough
>>time and a sort procedure like natural selection.
>
>What I have a difficult time fathoming is attributing all the
>abundance of complex teeming life (and its accompanying innate order
>and precise structure and balance) about us merely as a simple
>incidental byproduct of just massive amounts of time and
>indescriminate natural selection. IMO your assesment is tantamount to
>stumbling upon a swiss watch, washed upon the seashore, and exclaiming
>"My, isn't it marvelous how given enough time, sand, and the proper
>tidal conditions an intricate timepiece like this can come to pass."
>>
*WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP* My Paley detector just went off. I built a Paley detector
in my basement by modifying an EAC standard Pascal's Wager detector.
Of course, neither the EAC or my basement exist.
Seriously, 200 years ago this argument made sense. Today, however
we have a plentitude of evidence that there is a way for seemingly
designed lifeforms to evolve, and plenty of evidence in the fossil
record that they did evolve.
I don't see how you can call natural selection indiscriminate - unless
you mean that it does not inevitably lead to man. The argument I've
read is that it could be considered tautological - creatures that best survive
survive, and you know that they can best survive because they do. However,
a principle that had to work for the simplest replicating molecules (with
copying errors, of course) almost has to be so simple as to be tautological.
I'd recomment "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which addresses the
Paley argument directly.
>>But I think the major difference between those of a scientific bent and those without
>>a scientific bent is that I could not conceive of a scientist writing "How do apples grow,
>> technically? Don't know, but they do." as an answer to anything. He would find out.
>
>Alright, I see your point. The blind faith of the average biblical
>fundamentalist often limits their understanding to "God said it, I
>believe it, that settles it." This simplistic philosophy (though it
>may intrinsically be correct) only serves to divide themselves from
>those who require more practical explanations.
>
>Scientists and Bible believers, however, need not be at odds with one
>another. In fact some of the greatest scientists have been believers,
>e.g. Da Vinci, Newton etc.
>
I was reading Gould's article on John Paul II's evolution statement
in the Skeptical Inquirer last night. (It was very pro-Pope!) The creativity
that the Catholic theologians have shown in synchronizing evolution with dogma
is quite remarkable, and shows far more creativity than shown by the literalist,
who either ignores inconvenient facts or builds house of cards post-hoc arguments
to explain all inconvenient discoveries. The Catholic approach seems far more
honest to me.
>>
>>When I was growing up we learned about Washington throwing a silver dollar across
>>the Potomac. One religious reaction is to say I don't know how he could do
>>that, but it is written so I believe it. Another is to find explanations. Well,
>>maybe there was a real strong wind that day. Maybe it skipped a lot of times. Maybe a bird
>>picked it up in flight and deposited it on the other side. (This is the Creationist mindset.)
>>The third is to be skeptical, and investigate where the story began, and look for confirmation.
>>When you discover that Parson Weems made it up, you can conclude that it is a legend. This
>>is the scientific, historical approach.
>
>>Which do you follow?
>
>I have no objections whatsoever to an accurate pure scientific or
>historical approach to analyzing anything in the Bible. In fact, I
>welcome it whole-heartedly. I am convinced that nothing in the Bible
>would be shaken and that God Himself would only be scientifically
>demonstrated to be greater than I already perceive Him to be.
>
> What I do have a problem with, Scott, are those pseudo-scientists who
>would elevate an unproven theory (evolution) to the level of an
>undisputed law of nature and then prematurely inculcate children with
>this unproven bogus "theory", daily in the classroom and constantly
>through the media, as being, somehow, "superior" to the also,
>admittedly, unproven biblical account of Creation. That sir, is
>nothing but scientific hypocrisy and just as ludicrous as the
>fundamentalist who never dares to delve into futher study of his
>beliefs for fear he may be proven false.
>>
Evolution is not the type of thing that will ever be "proven" - just
demonstrated to ever increasing levels of confidence. The Creation account
was basically invalidated even before Darwin - the debate was on how the
evolution that had clearly happened occcured. The geologists of the early
19th century had already determined that the Earth was a lot older than
6,000 or 10,000 years.
Now, I have no trouble with teachers mentioning creationism in the same
way they mention phlogiston - but it would probably be easier if it were
not mentioned at all.
Finally, science at the High School and lower levels should teach the best
accepted theories at the moment, and more importantly, scientific thinking.
When I took Earth Science in 9th grade, Continental Drift was not yet
accepted, and I learned that mountains were built by isostasy.
I was not harmed learning something wrong. The very last thing science should
teach is that current knowledge is inerrant. No scientist has to sign
an oath that they will always believe in any theory - creationists at the ICR must.
That is an indicator that creationism is not science.
This is a fundamental (no pun intended) mindset difference I see in these
discussions. There is an urban legend that Darwin repented on his deathbed.
Many bring this up as if it meant anything. But we don't worship Darwin,
or his work. We respect him for his insights, and his brilliance, but any
biologist would be ready to falsify anything in Darwin in a second.
Newton was religious, and an astrologer and an alchemist, and a real wacko
too. That doesn't make the Principia any less meaningful.
In the 19th century Newton's laws were as close to holy writ as anything
in science could be. They held up for 200 years. Yet, when something
came up showing that they did not adequately explain all the data, they were
modified in a relative instant.
Which master does the "scientific creationist" serve. The Bible (or his view of it)
or the truth, as determined by the evidence of nature. The ICR loyalty
oath makes the answer to this question all too clear, I'm afraid.
><stuff deleted for brevity>
>
>>Seth is the ancestor of Noah - and thus in a sense is the "real" eldest child.
>>A son older than Seth should have been mentioned. Also, Seth is described
>>as the replacement for Abel. This would not be a big deal if there were
>>other sons. All the points you make about why Cain's mark would be unnecessary are
>>true, also. Why would the children of Adam move so far away? Why would they
>>forget their elder brother?
>
>Cain was not forgotten, but banished from the chosen seed so they
>would not be likewise corrupted. Cain's descendants appear throughout
>both the OT and NT and continue, for the most part, their ancestors
>infamous behavior.
>
Yes, Cain was banished - that is clear. My question was - who was he
afraid of? Why was the mark necessary? Not for his
close relatives, surely.
As an allegory, it works well - a combination of punishment and mercy.
As history - not so good.
>>
>>If you clear your mind of Biblical preconceptions, I'm sure you will admit
>>that this story makes a lot more sense as a long remembered primitive myth
>>rather than as an accurate record of man's beginnings.
>
>Myth or history, it makes for interesting discussion.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>You say you don't have the answers? Did you ever consider that maybe
>>>>the Bible isn't telling you everything?
>>>
>>>Now that's the kind of reasoning that I find appealing. Well done.
>>>All too often, the two opposing camps of Creationists vs. Scientists
>>>never seem to grasp the fact that they don't have enough concrete
>>>information to make an absolute judgment on many issues at all. Yet
>>>they staunchly defend their myopic viewpoints as if there can be no
>>>other avenues of plausible thought.
>>>
>>
>>Good. But there are two reactions to finding information that contradicts
>>your preconceptions. One is to invent post hoc explanations, which is
>>the Creationist way. The other is to modify the theory to explain
>>both the new facts and old, which is the scientific way.
>>(Or to say that you knew it all along, which is Dawkins' response to punc eq.)
>
>The Creationist need not resort to fabrications in order to preserve
>the essence of his views, nor should he. He, however may be required
>to step away from his strict prior interpretation and "see the
>passages in a new light". The Scientist is also prone to conjuring up
>yet another unproven "theory" to cover the faults in his prior one
>(e.g. punc eq).
>
A post hoc explanation is not a fabrication. A fabrication would be
inventing evidence. Any one can plot a curve through any data - if you
don't care about the order of the equation! The trick is to come up with
the curve first, and see if it is right based on the data.
What is creationist theory these days? Hydraulic sorting, to explain why the fossil
record does not look like what youd see from a flood. Changing the laws of physics
to explain why there was no rainbow before the food. Having the continents gallop apart,
having mountains built in days, to explain how there could be enough water.
Having a burst of evolution far beyond any posited by evolutionists to explain how
the diversity of life we see today could fit on the ark. Having magic gopher wood,
to explain how an ark big enough would hold together. Having a magic pooper scooper to
explain how they got all that poop out of there!
You seem like an intelligent guy. Does this look like science to you?
If you want to believe in this through faith, fine. (Though I hate to see
a good mind go to waste.) But being the equivalent of evolution? I don't
think so.
>
>>Science as a whole moved from Creationism to a secular explanation
>>(with room for God as the initiator) in the late 18th early 19th Century.
>
>How nice of them to give God a nod.
>
They were all believers back then. But they were also willing to face
the truth. YEC has been fairly recently revived - before it creationists
usually accepted the age of the earth.
>> Darwin gave the explanation for the origin of species, and knocked man off of his special
>>perch. A 6,000 year old earth was dead long
>
>Darwin is/was and will always be, a third rate quack. There exists
>absolutely NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE, whatsoever, to support his "theory".
>There would naturally have to be thousands of intermediary species
>(past and present) in order to support his wild conjectures of
>evolution. Yet none are ever found. Those very few examples that are
>"found" never measure up to objective scientific scrutiny and are
>usually soon revealed to be fauds, perpetrated to acquire either
>personal fame or to gain further grants to continue their
>pseudo-scientific exploits. (Beats working for living.) IMO these
>kinds of scientists are just as much of a laughing stock as Jim and
>Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, Orel Roberts etc.
I'm disappointed in you. That old "no intermediate fossil" stuff?
You can do better than that.
Surely you don't believe that a mouse changed into a moose, and that
we should be looking for intermediate fossils between them!
Common ancestors is what we should be looking for - and what we find.
Or, do you think two branches are not from the same tree if you don't see a branch
connecting them? Or do you look at the branches from which these branches
came? That's the fossil record. DNA studies confirm it.
I'm not a biologist, but my wife is. If you think there is a conspiracy
to hide the truth, you've never been near a university department!
Half her department was at the throats of the other half! If anyone had
real evidence falsifying evolution, they'd be famous.
Creationists don't get published - but they don't even submit.
As part of the Arkansas case, a survey was done of leading
journals, and under a half a dozen papers supporting creationism
were even submitted - and I don't think they came from the big
names.
BTW - ever read about a paleontologists dig? Being in the middle of
Montana in the middle of summer, (or the Gobi, or Arizona) scraping away
at bones in 100 degree heat sure seems like work to me.
>>
>>>> Even supposing anything that
>>>>occurred in the Bible is actually true, the origins of humanity are
>>>>almost certainly misrepresented.
>>>
>>>"Misrepresented" may be a little harsh. I prefer to imagine that many
>>>of the biblical accounts are purposely vague in order for us to rely
>>>on our heavenly Father to guide us to a deeper understanding as we
>>>"walk through the garden" together. And it is a bit humbling to
>>>realize we don't have all the answers. I believe He wants His
>>>children to seek Him and ask, "Explain this passage to me Father."
>>>
>>
>>It's only not harsh if it didn't come from god. As a primitive
>>people's explanation of the world, it makes sense. Being wrong
>>about things you don't know and can't know is no sin.
>
>Why is it, you are forever saying that ancient man was more
>"primitive" than you or I? Step away from your Darwinian
>preconceptions and see reality for what it is ; }
>
You're right. Ancient man was as smart as we are. They just didn't
know as much - because they didn't yet have the shoulders of
giants to stand on.
And, saying ancient man is "primitive" or "less developed" is anti-Darwinian.
It's a common mistake, and thanks for correcting me.
(I wish I were 1/10th as smart as Leonardo da Vinci!)
> Would you care to round up any number of todays top engineers and
>scientists and duplicate the pyramids?
>
>One minute the scientists tells us that everything is evolving from
>simplier beings, by natural selection to more complex entities. Then
>in the next breath say that the (I believe it is) Second Law of
>Thermodynamics proves that everything is decaying to chaos.
>Which is it Scott? They both can't be correct!
Oy, not that! The Earth is not a closed system! The solar system as a whole
(which is not totally closed, but close enough) is running down.
If the 2LOT really meant what you are claiming, neither a flower or a baby
could ever grow. Think about it.
The direction of evolution is in the direction of best adaptation to the current
environment. Is a whale without legs more complex than the ancient
whale with legs? Sometimes features get dropped if they are not needed, since
a creature without them requires less energy, and thus food, and is thus more likely
to survive.
>
>>If it came from god, though it is a bad misrepresentation.
>>The grandeur of the universe is so much greater than shown in Genesis.
>>I can (and have) written the Big Bang story in simple form. God could
>>do better than I!
>
>"Let there be Light" is about as simple as it gets. Could you improve
>upon that?
But is it true? There is a new book out, which I just read about, that tells
the story of the universe, as we understand it today, in Biblical
form.
I've read the first chapter of Genesis in Hebrew (in Hebrew school) and it is
beautiful poetry. But that's what it is - poetry, not science. If it had God
saying first he created matter out of nothing, and then it became stars, and then
some exploded to make the material that makes the Earth, and then the Sun
was formed out of them, and the earth, etc., etc., then we'd
have a story that matches what the world and the universe tells us.
I bet a lot more people would believe then. (No religion does it any
better, though.)
>
>> Wouldn't universal scientific agreement that a Genesis
>>story was true be much better evidence for god than what we have now?
>
>There are hundreds of modern scientists that have no problem being
>both scientists and believers in God. Why do you only see the
>atheistic scientists as credible?
>
Well, I was talking about a literal reading of Genesis. As an
allegory, there is no problem. The Catholics say that
the soul entered man sometime during man's evolution. Since the
soul is not a scientific concept, science has nothing to say
about this. It is also possible to state that God could have
subtly pushed evolution towards man, in a way indistinguishable from
chance. This is also not falsifiable, but could easily be believed
by a scientist.
There are many varieties of possible gods, and many interpretations
of the Bible, and only some of them are refuted by
science.
>>You either have god lying, or god not existing.
>
>You left out the prefix "IMO". There are many of us, (scientifically
>bent or not) who see no profound contradictions in the Genesis account
>of creation.
>
True - but love is blind.
>>>> Perhaps God has his own set of people that
>>>>would exist separate from the rest of humanity. In fact, that makes the
>>>>most sense.
>>>
>>>Bravo! I perceive sir, that thou art nearer to the fountain of wisdom
>>>and truth than thou knowest.
>>>
>>Then the rest of the people don't suffer from original sin?
>
>We all are sinners. It's just that some are willing to recognize
>their fallen state and seek forgiveness and others choose to ignore
>their sins and hope that the Bible is merely a collection of moral
>myths. There is also a matter of God's chosing His elect, but I leave
>that to Him and hope to be in that number.
I don't believe in sin, but I do believe that we are all imperfect, and
that we can all do better. Making it up to the people we have wronged,
and doing better the next time, seems far more useful than asking for
forgiveness from a supernatural being. It seems like belief in god is
not strongly correlated with behavior.
When I was a kid I went to Yom Kippur services every year. You atone -
you chant a whole list of sins, you beat your breast with your
fist, it's really cool. But I was no better then than I am now.
>
>> Did they live forever?
>
>Obviously not eh? Other than the possible exception of Dick Clark, no
>one lives forever in this mortal world.
>
The question was, since the reason we do not live forever is that we are
descended from Adam and Eve, who sinned, would those descended from
those who did not sin live forever? Or, did they fall also? Did every
person who god created, without sin but with free choice, promptly sin?
Sounds like a design defect to me.
>> If they were sinless, why were they wiped out in the flood?
>
>They weren't sinless, ignorance of the Law is never a valid excuse in
>any court, heavenly or earthly. All of us have a conscience that
>convicts us of sin. They weren't porpoises, and yes, their descendants
>would most likely have perished in the flood. There is, however, some
>conjecture as to the Great Flood being universal in scope. Quite
>frankly, I'm still researching that point and am open to discussing
>that as well.
>
When did those not descended from Adam fall? Genesis clearly states
that everyone except Noah was evil. And he got bombed the minute
he left the ark (not that I blame him) so you got to wonder.
>>
>>(Or maybe they were porpoises. So long, and thanks for all the fish.)
>>
>You're welcome to my fish fry anytime Scott. I've been "floundering"
>for too long as it is. But what the "halibut", it beats working.
>
>Brother Joe
>
Well, don't fall down laughing and need a sturgeon.
Scott #1045