Originally posted by stockenNaaaah I didnt mean that it just seemed like a good quote to throw in.
Oh, I see. You see, I am confused. I'm neither this, nor that. I don't take the bible literally. I don't even believe in God.
I can see how some of my earlier posts could have made you think I take the bible literally (my sarcasm is somewhat bleaque). I'm merely open to any side of the story, since clearly, we cannot know if there is a God or there is ...[text shortened]... what any religious scripture says. We can pretty much agree that the bible is not literal truth.
For added effect consider if changing the way you think about life can be considered not asking for much.
In the Dr Dino article I noticed this phrase
"In essence, we are trained to believe that everything has essentially operated as we see it today. However, this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that mankind was created perfect, without flaws."
What evidence, other than this one book, shown to have other flaws and inconsistances, do we have for any change in the laws of physics, chemistry or biology over time?
Answer; none.
Originally posted by Will Everittha ha 😵 Missed this one yesterday.
Naaaah I didnt mean that it just seemed like a good quote to throw in.
For added effect consider if changing the way you think about life can be considered not asking for much.
So it is I who don't get it. That would explain everything and put my universe back into order. 🙂
Originally posted by stockenI don't like feeding the troll. From the way his question is worded, he obviously had no intention of seeking any form of objective truth. The answer to his inane question is that before Moses/Leviticus and all the "thou shalt not's" there was no official stance on it. After the formation of the Mosaic law, it was taboo.
Are you expecting serious replies to all these questions, or are you just having fun watching bible junkies go all abstinence on you?.. 🙂
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRight down to the cannibal inhabitants of Papua New Guinea. So?
Practically every primitive culture (correct me if there are exceptions) has an incest taboo.
If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis, incest was not out of expediency, but rather necessity – and not that it was a condoned act; the case of Lot comes to mind.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAlright here is a better site on the topic....
I'm telling you sincerely - you make a laughing stock out of Christianity when you cite Dr. Dino as a Biblical authority. If you don't have your own answers, you would do well to at least cite a more respectable source.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html
If you don't have your own answers, you would do well to at least cite a more respectable source.
I have my answers, but it is too extensive for me to sit here and type all night for someone who probably isn't even sincerely interested, except to find an oppurtunity to trash Christianity and the bible. So if you would like to read about, I give you a better site. (above)🙂
Originally posted by checkbaiterOk thanks I had a read, I just want to know what the stance of the church is on these things I’m just an argumentative person really it might seem I enjoy picking wholes in the bible but I’m like that with everything.
Alright here is a better site on the topic....
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html
[b] If you don't have your own answers, you would do well to at least cite a more respectable source.
I have my answers, but it is too extensive for me to sit here and type all night for someone who probably isn't even sincerely interested, e ...[text shortened]... istianity and the bible. So if you would like to read about, I give you a better site. (above)🙂[/b]
“However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes”
“Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God's approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring”
Surly the offspring would have been at least slightly deformed otherwise it could not build up?
Also the article seems to say both that the only reason against it is moral (and recent) “The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses” but then it says it’s also has genetic problems
"Our brains have suffered from 6,000 years of the Curse (since Adam). We are greatly degenerated compared with people many generations ago. We may now be nowhere near as intelligent or inventive as Adam and Eve's children. Scripture gives us a glimpse of what appears to be great inventiveness from the beginning."
Slightly worrying if it turns out you lot are right. Imagine the world in another few thousand years.
Originally posted by Will EverittProbably more like a niece. When you live for 930 years, there are a lots of generations. Seth was born when Adam was 130, and who know who might have been born before that. Cain might have married he great-great-great...grand-niece.
So in short "Cain merely married his sister"