Originally posted by checkbaiterIf I may ask, what discovery have you found about first cousins copulating have you made that you already knew was true?
Every day new discovery is found that corroborates the truths in the bible.
These discoveries do not surprise me, because I already knew they were true.
Originally posted by checkbaiter3 sons and their wives, where do you get cousins?
Their children. Good grief. Have you really never thought this through?
But since you bring it up, you have to go back to Adam and Eve's kids. Who did they marry?
Well, it's an allegory, surely?
Or do you think their children had incestuous sex?
Originally posted by FMFI don't believe it to be an allegory.
[b]3 sons and their wives, where do you get cousins?
Their children. Good grief. Have you really never thought this through?
But since you bring it up, you have to go back to Adam and Eve's kids. Who did they marry?
Well, it's an allegory, surely?
Or do you think their children had incestuous sex?[/b]
The best teaching I have heard is that man's blood was not tainted with sin like today.
The life of the flesh is in the blood and it was relatively pure in this early stage. As men and sin began to multiply, the blood became more and more tainted to cause deformities in close family relations. This is one theory I heard years ago, as to what the bible says, I don't know. Perhaps another Christian on this forum has a better explanation.
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterIf you can't explain it, and you admit don't know what the Bible says, how can you possibly make a declaration like "Every day new discovery is found that corroborates the truths in the bible. These discoveries do not surprise me, because I already knew they were true" without revealing yourself to be subject to confirmation bias and circular logic? If another Christian on this forum offers you "a better explanation", will you simply declare it to be true and unsurprising?
As men and sin began to multiply, the blood became more and more tainted to cause deformities in close family relations. This is one theory I heard years ago, as to what the bible says, I don't know. Perhaps another Christian on this forum has a better explanation
vivify: Nephelim were half-human, half-angel hybrids. Why didn't God just get rid of them? Why did he wipe out nearly every human as well?Were Noah's siblings, his cousins and his nephews and nieces, and the siblings, cousins, nephews and nieces of his daughter-in-laws, and his own wife's relatives, not humans?
Originally posted by checkbaiter
Because there were only 8 humans left. He saved them on the Ark.
Originally posted by FMFWell, here's a recent discovery...
If you can't explain it, and you admit don't know what the Bible says, how can you possibly make a declaration like "Every day new discovery is found that corroborates the truths in the bible. These discoveries do not surprise me, because I already knew they were true" without revealing yourself to be subject to confirmation bias and circular logic? If an ...[text shortened]... forum offers you "a better explanation", will you simply declare it to be true and unsurprising?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI think that what religionists [and believers in the existence of a supernatural figure called "Satan"] refer to - when they describe something as "evil" - is actually an extreme lack of empathy and morality, which, when acted upon, causes various degrees of harm to others. The person who acts in this way is responsible for this "evil", although this may be diminished responsibility in the case of insanity. I do not believe that a supernatural being is responsible for this "evil".
Who in your opinion is "responsible for Evil"................
Originally posted by FMFAllegory, I'm not sure that word means what you think it does. But what's new. Calling something an allegory doesn't necessarily mean that the something is not true on it's own.
[b]3 sons and their wives, where do you get cousins?
Their children. Good grief. Have you really never thought this through?
But since you bring it up, you have to go back to Adam and Eve's kids. Who did they marry?
Well, it's an allegory, surely?
Or do you think their children had incestuous sex?[/b]
Surely , arguing that the Bible doesn't tell us everything is certainly a better argument for this than the tired old "It's an allegory" line.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't know what point you think you have by calling it "the tired old 'it's an allegory' line". One could similarly talk about 'the tired old 'it's literal' line'. If you believe that "Adam and Eve's" children ~brother and sister ~ literally copulated and procreated, then that's fine by me.
Allegory, I'm not sure that word means what you think it does. But what's new. Calling something an allegory doesn't necessarily mean that the something is not true on it's own.
Surely , arguing that the Bible doesn't tell us everything is certainly a better argument for this than the tired old "It's an allegory" line.
