Noah, One Continent and about a Billion Years Too Short
-
Genesis - 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark Christian, I'm interested to see how you can explain the apparent differences betweent the actual passages of the bible (as shown above) and your interpretation that these verses do NOT describe the destruction of the entire world. There are several phrases here, in context, which clearly state everything under the entire heavens, to the top of the mountains, was destroyed - including ALL men except Noah and the inhabitants of the Ark. The language here is 'pretty crystal clear'. There is no context I can see that allows for you to dispute these verses, unless you choose to say that the literal meanings of these words (which I repeat seems unbelievably clear) must be ignored, and in stead the words must be re-intepreted in the light of other sections of the bible. Is this your position ? Or do you have some other reason for claiming the Flood was localised, despite the clear references that it was not ? ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
These are the words from a single translation, that was most likely a translation of other former translations. They were written at a time when the earth was still viewed as flat and the center of the universe. A cubit is 1.5 feet (http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistry/general/units\_en.html for reference). This would imply that the water raised about 23 feet. Gen 6:15 says that the ark was to have a height of it thirty cubits, or about 45 feet. Floating a 45 foot boat in 23 feet of water could be a challenge. Being an active christian, I view the bible as a guide book for life among other things. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and see the role of science as figuring out how he did it and under what timeline. I believe the current scientific view of a 15+ billion year old universe is correct as well as the earth transitions in the last few hundred million years. I also do not see these details as inconsistent with being an active christian. and believer. Ed
-
I cannot let this one go, not in a million years. In the Evolution thread below (which turned out rather fun didn't it? ;) ) I got a bit hot headed at John Fisher who tried to discount evolution by stating that Noah's flood was for real and that every species on earth (including 6.3billion human beings) came from just what was onboard his ark. Now I am not discounting Noah, I believe it comes from somewhere but is not quite as catastrophic as the Bible suggests. However in reply to my hot-headed rebuke of John's post I got this reply: Understandably, you're trying to reconcile the flood story with your understanding of the world and it's not working. The world before the flood was vastly different than it is now. Before the flood, there was only one continent. (Genesis 1:9) During the flood, the entire topography of the earth was changed with mountains rising where land masses collided and the previous layout of the earth being totally altered. (In the meantime, it buried most of things that we now see as fossils.) One good conclusion (since the Bible doesn't say otherwise) is that the pre-flood world had nothing like what we consider mountains today. Rather they were more like our bluffs or even smaller. Now I nearly had apopoplexy when I read this. It is not a matter of not believing in continental drift and the whole one mother continent splitting into what we see today (and in a few billion years our Earth will look very different), but rather the timescales involved. From what I gather John is saying that in the span of 40 days and 40 nights the entire Earth changed. Africa, Asia, Australia, Antartica, America etc. all formed in those few days. The Himalayan mountain range came to be along with the Great Rift Valley in Africa. Naturally deep sea trenches had to be formed at the same time. Also I assume the largest mountain on Earth, one of the Hawai islands I believe, also came to be. All from one continent, some bluffs, the action of a lot of water and all in 40 days, and 40 nights. Now don't tell me I am being literal with the Bible here, these are from John's mouth (fingers) and he seems to be an educated and literate person. So can someone tell me, what gives? Did something which I believe took 4.2billion years actually happen in 40 days and 40 nights? I am not wanting to start a flame war here, I just need someone else, knowledgeable of the Bible, to tell me how this all actually fits in. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We wo
There is a great article I read about the Flood but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. In lieu, check out 'Common Sense and Noah's Flood. This has some of the hydrologic and meteorological arguments against a world-wide flood, but doesn't touch the thermodynamic impossibilities (the entire planet being at over 40C/110F with 99% rel. humidity or something like that just to hold the water vapour in cloud form). Then there are the genetic arguments: you need a minimum gene pool for a race to survive. Two of each won't do it. For an argument about a likely Ark scenario see Noah's ark had less than 280 animals. For an account of why getting two or seven of each animal on board is impossible check out Problems with a Global Flood. In any case, I think it's generally accepted that there was a flood but only in a relatively small area. In my view the Bible contains stories - some accurate, some dramatised or exagerated, and some made up. Anyone who tries to apply the scientific principle to such a work to support their faith is doomed to failure (and is welcome to come door knocking around my place anytime!). Besides - Christianity is based purely on faith and not on data, so even if you do prove something right or something wrong it doesn't actually affect the underlying principles. ooh - found the thing about thermodynamics: "_Is there enough water to cover the earth? The vapor canopy is remarkably flawed. It would take about 9 kilometers of water to cover Mount Everest. The air pressure at sea level is one atmosphere, or about 14.5 pounds per square inch. There would have to be enough vapor to produce 9 km of water. This vapor would add air pressure to the atmosphere; in fact, it would be the majority of the antediluvian atmosphere. This would be the equivalent of living 9 km underwater. Since the pressure increases by one atmosphere about every ten meters you go underwater, the vapor would add 900 atmospheres, or 13050 pounds per square inch, to the air pressure. And the only way to keep all this water from condensing would be to raise the temperature. The pressure and heat would surely be enough to kill life as we know it." - http://skepdic.com/comments/noahcom.html_ As to the whole time scale thing there is no reason to equate a 'day' with a day as we know it. There is
-
I unfortunately do not have a Bible in front of me, but from memory Genesis talks about God opening the "fountains of the deep", not just causing some heavy precipitation. For a worldwide flood to occur, something more than rain had to occur, which the Bible mentions but doesn't explain all the way, i.e. continental drift, etc. But it does mention it. Also, fossils have been found not just laying horizontally in rock strata, but *vertically* in strata which together represent millions of years. This really points instead to a cataclysmic event where animals were trapped suddenly in all sorts of positions in massive amounts (and layers) of sediment. The Bible also alludes to the existence of a single continent before the flood (and unfortunately I must go from memory here again) in the chapter after the Tower of Babel and before the Flood, when all of the people of the earth scattered by _walking_, not by using boats. I suggest just reading those chapters to find out what the Bible says, and see if I'm right. I am sure there was a worldwide flood as the Bible says (because I believe God is telling the truth :), and I think the evidence is there. CodeGuy The WTL newsgroup: 960 members and growing ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wtl
http://www.bibletopics.com/ Good source for reference. Ed
-
These are the words from a single translation, that was most likely a translation of other former translations. They were written at a time when the earth was still viewed as flat and the center of the universe. A cubit is 1.5 feet (http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistry/general/units\_en.html for reference). This would imply that the water raised about 23 feet. Gen 6:15 says that the ark was to have a height of it thirty cubits, or about 45 feet. Floating a 45 foot boat in 23 feet of water could be a challenge. Being an active christian, I view the bible as a guide book for life among other things. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and see the role of science as figuring out how he did it and under what timeline. I believe the current scientific view of a 15+ billion year old universe is correct as well as the earth transitions in the last few hundred million years. I also do not see these details as inconsistent with being an active christian. and believer. Ed
Being an active christian, I view the bible as a guide book for life among other things. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and see the role of science as figuring out how he did it and under what timeline. I believe the current scientific view of a 15+ billion year old universe is correct as well as the earth transitions in the last few hundred million years. I also do not see these details as inconsistent with being an active christian. and believer. Me neither Ed. Well said. :-D Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
(andy.metcalfe@lineone.net)
http://www.resorg.co.uk"I'm just another 'S' bend in the internet. A ton of stuff goes through my system, and some of the hairer, stickier and lumpier stuff sticks." - Chris Maunder (I just couldn't let that one past ;))
-
The word translated earth is as follows: 776. År,a,
Genesis : 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; Gen.4:16-17 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth The Bible uses the same terminology to describe Cain's banishment - 'from the face of the earth' Depends upon the bible you refer to, and to the translations, and to which of the 5,000 or so of the original greek manuscripts you are working from (none of which match word for word, of course!) - In this case, the bible I'm working from (King James Version) does NOT use the same phrase for the banishment of Cain as it does for the flooding of "the earth". In both cases here "the earth" means EVERYWHERE you can go. That is, it is (apparently) a 'global' meaning, not a 'local' meaning. In relation to Flood, it says "the earth" was flooded. In the banishment of Cain, it says "And now art thou cursed from the earth", followed by "a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth". I concede the first quote says "from the earth", but it says "cursed", not "banished" or "removed". It seems a long shot to claim that the phrase "cursed from the earth" MUST mean that earth means only a small region of the planet! Of course, if you work from a different bible translation the words are probably not identical, and therefore we are simply talking in circles! What bible do you quote as the 'true' words/translation of god ? You must have a 'reference' version, or else any argument on any point can degenerate into simply arguing about translations - and you therefore would be forced to concede that your entire interpretation of various passages holds only if the tranlstion holds! Now, I'll grant that the word ALLOWS for the possibility of a worldwide flood, but it does not SAY that necessarily, and so my belief on what happens stems in part from the Bible text ( first and foremost ), and also context of other verses. So the mere fact that for virtually the entire 2000 year history of christianity the overwhelming majority of people decided to go with the "ALLOWS"(global) meaning rather than the "SAY"(local) meaning doesn't bother you at all ? The bible DOES indeed allow for a global meaning, and you represent a tiny fraction of a percent of the people who belive in the bible and yet choose to reinterpret these verses. That doesn't seem a little conceited to you? That you are right, and ev
-
Being an active christian, I view the bible as a guide book for life among other things. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and see the role of science as figuring out how he did it and under what timeline. I believe the current scientific view of a 15+ billion year old universe is correct as well as the earth transitions in the last few hundred million years. I also do not see these details as inconsistent with being an active christian. and believer. Me neither Ed. Well said. :-D Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
(andy.metcalfe@lineone.net)
http://www.resorg.co.uk"I'm just another 'S' bend in the internet. A ton of stuff goes through my system, and some of the hairer, stickier and lumpier stuff sticks." - Chris Maunder (I just couldn't let that one past ;))
I also do not see these details as inconsistent with being an active christian. and believer. We can discuss the pros and cons of being a christian, and active christian or a believer at some other time. I am addressing here solely the question of the bible's 'veracity' in terms of the details of various passages. You either accept the bible is literally true, or you interpret it (meaning that you thing some things are true, some are not). I'm attempting to show what I believe is the idiocy of the 'literal' approach. It appears you both agree? ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
There is a great article I read about the Flood but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. In lieu, check out 'Common Sense and Noah's Flood. This has some of the hydrologic and meteorological arguments against a world-wide flood, but doesn't touch the thermodynamic impossibilities (the entire planet being at over 40C/110F with 99% rel. humidity or something like that just to hold the water vapour in cloud form). Then there are the genetic arguments: you need a minimum gene pool for a race to survive. Two of each won't do it. For an argument about a likely Ark scenario see Noah's ark had less than 280 animals. For an account of why getting two or seven of each animal on board is impossible check out Problems with a Global Flood. In any case, I think it's generally accepted that there was a flood but only in a relatively small area. In my view the Bible contains stories - some accurate, some dramatised or exagerated, and some made up. Anyone who tries to apply the scientific principle to such a work to support their faith is doomed to failure (and is welcome to come door knocking around my place anytime!). Besides - Christianity is based purely on faith and not on data, so even if you do prove something right or something wrong it doesn't actually affect the underlying principles. ooh - found the thing about thermodynamics: "_Is there enough water to cover the earth? The vapor canopy is remarkably flawed. It would take about 9 kilometers of water to cover Mount Everest. The air pressure at sea level is one atmosphere, or about 14.5 pounds per square inch. There would have to be enough vapor to produce 9 km of water. This vapor would add air pressure to the atmosphere; in fact, it would be the majority of the antediluvian atmosphere. This would be the equivalent of living 9 km underwater. Since the pressure increases by one atmosphere about every ten meters you go underwater, the vapor would add 900 atmospheres, or 13050 pounds per square inch, to the air pressure. And the only way to keep all this water from condensing would be to raise the temperature. The pressure and heat would surely be enough to kill life as we know it." - http://skepdic.com/comments/noahcom.html_ As to the whole time scale thing there is no reason to equate a 'day' with a day as we know it. There is
OK Alan Wilkie, this must be you on this weather site. If you must know, I was Googling for "Chris Maunder" pornography a while back. But I see you cover your tracks well. Probably had some traditional Aboriginal training in your diverse past. ;) Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
There is a great article I read about the Flood but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. In lieu, check out 'Common Sense and Noah's Flood. This has some of the hydrologic and meteorological arguments against a world-wide flood, but doesn't touch the thermodynamic impossibilities (the entire planet being at over 40C/110F with 99% rel. humidity or something like that just to hold the water vapour in cloud form). Then there are the genetic arguments: you need a minimum gene pool for a race to survive. Two of each won't do it. For an argument about a likely Ark scenario see Noah's ark had less than 280 animals. For an account of why getting two or seven of each animal on board is impossible check out Problems with a Global Flood. In any case, I think it's generally accepted that there was a flood but only in a relatively small area. In my view the Bible contains stories - some accurate, some dramatised or exagerated, and some made up. Anyone who tries to apply the scientific principle to such a work to support their faith is doomed to failure (and is welcome to come door knocking around my place anytime!). Besides - Christianity is based purely on faith and not on data, so even if you do prove something right or something wrong it doesn't actually affect the underlying principles. ooh - found the thing about thermodynamics: "_Is there enough water to cover the earth? The vapor canopy is remarkably flawed. It would take about 9 kilometers of water to cover Mount Everest. The air pressure at sea level is one atmosphere, or about 14.5 pounds per square inch. There would have to be enough vapor to produce 9 km of water. This vapor would add air pressure to the atmosphere; in fact, it would be the majority of the antediluvian atmosphere. This would be the equivalent of living 9 km underwater. Since the pressure increases by one atmosphere about every ten meters you go underwater, the vapor would add 900 atmospheres, or 13050 pounds per square inch, to the air pressure. And the only way to keep all this water from condensing would be to raise the temperature. The pressure and heat would surely be enough to kill life as we know it." - http://skepdic.com/comments/noahcom.html_ As to the whole time scale thing there is no reason to equate a 'day' with a day as we know it. There is
Ok, I'm going to answer several threads in this one so that I don't have to follow a bunch of separate threads. Here are some things about the issues that have been raised in this thread so far. 1) The Global/Local flood -- I have heard several arguments either way on this one. One is that the word that is translated as 'earth' also can mean area or region, and is used both ways in the Genesis account. If you take the Bible as truth, mankind did not spread across the earth until after the flood, when God destroyed the tower of Babel, so to destroy all men at the time would only take a local flood to accomplish. 2) Perfect Genes -- Although seemingly enough to cause heart attacks, this idea is quite straight forward. God's creation was perfect. Adam was given the choice of obeying God or not obeying God. He chose poorly. In cursing Adam for his failure, God altered the universe to make it a harsh place for Adam to live in. This is the point at which death enters the universe, and it is made clear, through the act of God killing an animal to make clothing for Adam (the real first killing in the Bible). As time marched on mutations entered into the gene pool. No christian will tell you that mutation isn't possible. However, mutations are almost always negative. You don't see the prohibition for incest until Moses' time, which was probably when the gene pool was corroded enough that birth defects were likely. Since they were also being told for the first time, they probably did not have a problem with it beforehand (the preceding scentence is conjecture). 3) Cain's wife, and the 'other people' in Genesis. There is no indication of the length of time that passes between the creation account and the story of Cain and Abel. It is likely that Adam had more than 500 direct children before his death, and given the life spans described in Genesis several generations would be alive, probably several thousand people. The story of Cain does not state that he went off and found a wife, it says he went off and knew his wife, leaving it possible that he took his wife with him and left. 4) The flood -- The verse in the bible, in most translations other than the KJV, that talks about how far the waters rose state that the waters covered the mountains by 15 cubits. That is the waters covered everything to a minimum depth of 15 feet. 5) Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew. Now in the numerolgy of Hebrew there are special meanings for the numbers 40, 1000, a
-
OK Alan Wilkie, this must be you on this weather site. If you must know, I was Googling for "Chris Maunder" pornography a while back. But I see you cover your tracks well. Probably had some traditional Aboriginal training in your diverse past. ;) Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
I love the way everything you ever wrote on the net is saved for ever and easily retrievable by whoever feels like digging around a bit. :rolleyes: I always wanted to be a meteorologist but they didn't offer it as a course at ANU. Ah - to think what could have been... ;) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Genesis - 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark Christian, I'm interested to see how you can explain the apparent differences betweent the actual passages of the bible (as shown above) and your interpretation that these verses do NOT describe the destruction of the entire world. There are several phrases here, in context, which clearly state everything under the entire heavens, to the top of the mountains, was destroyed - including ALL men except Noah and the inhabitants of the Ark. The language here is 'pretty crystal clear'. There is no context I can see that allows for you to dispute these verses, unless you choose to say that the literal meanings of these words (which I repeat seems unbelievably clear) must be ignored, and in stead the words must be re-intepreted in the light of other sections of the bible. Is this your position ? Or do you have some other reason for claiming the Flood was localised, despite the clear references that it was not ? ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
You need to keep in mind that these passages were written by people who probably never traveled out of their region of the world. When that region flooded, it was their whole world that was being destroyed.
-
You need to keep in mind that these passages were written by people who probably never traveled out of their region of the world. When that region flooded, it was their whole world that was being destroyed.
No, actually if the bible is a literal work of god's hand then I don't have to keep in mind the 'frame of reference' of the local people. This is god's word, delivered to the people - not their version of what they think god meant. On the other hand, if the bible happens to NOT be the literal word, then you are right! Can you guess which of these two options I favor ?? ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Got the inbreeding thing from a John Fisher post earlier today. Personally always wondered how Kane and Able perpetuated the Human race. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Er... I don't know where Christian got his idea from, but it isn't a Bible source. The Bible clearly says that Adam and Eve had daughters as well. This means it was quite easy for non-sinful 'inbreeding' to work without anyone marrying someone else's spouse. Genesis 5:4 John
-
I love the way everything you ever wrote on the net is saved for ever and easily retrievable by whoever feels like digging around a bit. :rolleyes: I always wanted to be a meteorologist but they didn't offer it as a course at ANU. Ah - to think what could have been... ;) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
I always wanted to be a meteorologist but they didn't offer it as a course at ANU. Ah - to think what could have been... ;) Channel 0, 2, 7, 9 or 10? :laugh: Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Ok, I'm going to answer several threads in this one so that I don't have to follow a bunch of separate threads. Here are some things about the issues that have been raised in this thread so far. 1) The Global/Local flood -- I have heard several arguments either way on this one. One is that the word that is translated as 'earth' also can mean area or region, and is used both ways in the Genesis account. If you take the Bible as truth, mankind did not spread across the earth until after the flood, when God destroyed the tower of Babel, so to destroy all men at the time would only take a local flood to accomplish. 2) Perfect Genes -- Although seemingly enough to cause heart attacks, this idea is quite straight forward. God's creation was perfect. Adam was given the choice of obeying God or not obeying God. He chose poorly. In cursing Adam for his failure, God altered the universe to make it a harsh place for Adam to live in. This is the point at which death enters the universe, and it is made clear, through the act of God killing an animal to make clothing for Adam (the real first killing in the Bible). As time marched on mutations entered into the gene pool. No christian will tell you that mutation isn't possible. However, mutations are almost always negative. You don't see the prohibition for incest until Moses' time, which was probably when the gene pool was corroded enough that birth defects were likely. Since they were also being told for the first time, they probably did not have a problem with it beforehand (the preceding scentence is conjecture). 3) Cain's wife, and the 'other people' in Genesis. There is no indication of the length of time that passes between the creation account and the story of Cain and Abel. It is likely that Adam had more than 500 direct children before his death, and given the life spans described in Genesis several generations would be alive, probably several thousand people. The story of Cain does not state that he went off and found a wife, it says he went off and knew his wife, leaving it possible that he took his wife with him and left. 4) The flood -- The verse in the bible, in most translations other than the KJV, that talks about how far the waters rose state that the waters covered the mountains by 15 cubits. That is the waters covered everything to a minimum depth of 15 feet. 5) Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew. Now in the numerolgy of Hebrew there are special meanings for the numbers 40, 1000, a
However, mutations are almost always negative What? How does that work? A mutation is a change, and should have an equal chance of being good or bad...unless you consider that evolution has already brought us to the point where we have kept all the good mutations, and those with bad mutations didn't survive - which would then mean that mutations are more likely to be bad since we are the 'cream of the crop' so to speak in regards to collective random changes. Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew In the Hebrew that the bible was written in? I could have sworn I read a reference about there not being one, but after not being able to find it again I figured it may have been a furfy. much more genetic diversity than they expected, along with a healthy population. That's fruit fly. It's not the same for hippopotumuses. Take a look at the problems with endangered species: once the population gets below a certain point (I think my biologist friends once had a debate about this and mumbled the number '7' - though that could have been the number of lagers they'd had) there is no chance for the species to recover. Again - I'm no biologist so I'm happy to be proved wrong. Nothing conclusive, just a possibility to you non-believers. There are also volumes of work on evolution and the continual change in the genetic makeup of plants and animals. The possibility of entertaining ideas that go against one's own belief goes both ways ;) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Got the inbreeding thing from a John Fisher post earlier today. Personally always wondered how Kane and Able perpetuated the Human race. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Personally always wondered how Kane and Able perpetuated the Human race. I cannot believe you let slide such a golden opportunity to make a Tasmanian joke here. ;P cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Er... I don't know where Christian got his idea from, but it isn't a Bible source. The Bible clearly says that Adam and Eve had daughters as well. This means it was quite easy for non-sinful 'inbreeding' to work without anyone marrying someone else's spouse. Genesis 5:4 John
Well ... I thought marrying and fucking your sister was a sin? Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Ok, I'm going to answer several threads in this one so that I don't have to follow a bunch of separate threads. Here are some things about the issues that have been raised in this thread so far. 1) The Global/Local flood -- I have heard several arguments either way on this one. One is that the word that is translated as 'earth' also can mean area or region, and is used both ways in the Genesis account. If you take the Bible as truth, mankind did not spread across the earth until after the flood, when God destroyed the tower of Babel, so to destroy all men at the time would only take a local flood to accomplish. 2) Perfect Genes -- Although seemingly enough to cause heart attacks, this idea is quite straight forward. God's creation was perfect. Adam was given the choice of obeying God or not obeying God. He chose poorly. In cursing Adam for his failure, God altered the universe to make it a harsh place for Adam to live in. This is the point at which death enters the universe, and it is made clear, through the act of God killing an animal to make clothing for Adam (the real first killing in the Bible). As time marched on mutations entered into the gene pool. No christian will tell you that mutation isn't possible. However, mutations are almost always negative. You don't see the prohibition for incest until Moses' time, which was probably when the gene pool was corroded enough that birth defects were likely. Since they were also being told for the first time, they probably did not have a problem with it beforehand (the preceding scentence is conjecture). 3) Cain's wife, and the 'other people' in Genesis. There is no indication of the length of time that passes between the creation account and the story of Cain and Abel. It is likely that Adam had more than 500 direct children before his death, and given the life spans described in Genesis several generations would be alive, probably several thousand people. The story of Cain does not state that he went off and found a wife, it says he went off and knew his wife, leaving it possible that he took his wife with him and left. 4) The flood -- The verse in the bible, in most translations other than the KJV, that talks about how far the waters rose state that the waters covered the mountains by 15 cubits. That is the waters covered everything to a minimum depth of 15 feet. 5) Sorry Chris, but there is definately a term for the number forty in Hebrew. Now in the numerolgy of Hebrew there are special meanings for the numbers 40, 1000, a
I'm confused ! (no comment Christian, please) 1) Seems to offer the possibility of a local or global flood; 4) Seems to be suggesting a global flood; 6) Seems to infer either a global flood (affected everybody, no matter where they lived) or a local flood (the story spread when the survivors spread). You seem to have missed the obvious conclusion here - that perhaps there have been floods in South America, China and North America sometime in the past several million years (or 4,000 years, if you are a true Creationist). And your conclusion offers : Finally, there are a lot of answers that I don't have (i.e. where did the water come from and where did it go?) but I am willing to accept that something did happen to it because I trust in the Word of God. So, you aren't sure if it was local or global and you can't explain how it happened? Yet you're sure it did, in some form, because the bible sort of says something about it (minus lots of the details). I think I'll pass on that as much of an explanation - and it doesn't sound like you have much to offer beyond "the biblical flood must have happened, because the bible says so". Thanks for that enlightening contribution... ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Personally always wondered how Kane and Able perpetuated the Human race. I cannot believe you let slide such a golden opportunity to make a Tasmanian joke here. ;P cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
Look around I have been slipping in Tasmanian jokes galore and peppering Christian at the same time. Haven't done in many posts not including an Australian as most people in these discussions don't have maps of the world or globes with Tasmania on them. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
I cannot let this one go, not in a million years. In the Evolution thread below (which turned out rather fun didn't it? ;) ) I got a bit hot headed at John Fisher who tried to discount evolution by stating that Noah's flood was for real and that every species on earth (including 6.3billion human beings) came from just what was onboard his ark. Now I am not discounting Noah, I believe it comes from somewhere but is not quite as catastrophic as the Bible suggests. However in reply to my hot-headed rebuke of John's post I got this reply: Understandably, you're trying to reconcile the flood story with your understanding of the world and it's not working. The world before the flood was vastly different than it is now. Before the flood, there was only one continent. (Genesis 1:9) During the flood, the entire topography of the earth was changed with mountains rising where land masses collided and the previous layout of the earth being totally altered. (In the meantime, it buried most of things that we now see as fossils.) One good conclusion (since the Bible doesn't say otherwise) is that the pre-flood world had nothing like what we consider mountains today. Rather they were more like our bluffs or even smaller. Now I nearly had apopoplexy when I read this. It is not a matter of not believing in continental drift and the whole one mother continent splitting into what we see today (and in a few billion years our Earth will look very different), but rather the timescales involved. From what I gather John is saying that in the span of 40 days and 40 nights the entire Earth changed. Africa, Asia, Australia, Antartica, America etc. all formed in those few days. The Himalayan mountain range came to be along with the Great Rift Valley in Africa. Naturally deep sea trenches had to be formed at the same time. Also I assume the largest mountain on Earth, one of the Hawai islands I believe, also came to be. All from one continent, some bluffs, the action of a lot of water and all in 40 days, and 40 nights. Now don't tell me I am being literal with the Bible here, these are from John's mouth (fingers) and he seems to be an educated and literate person. So can someone tell me, what gives? Did something which I believe took 4.2billion years actually happen in 40 days and 40 nights? I am not wanting to start a flame war here, I just need someone else, knowledgeable of the Bible, to tell me how this all actually fits in. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We wo
Sorry about the confusion. This is just one of those areas where there's a lot of information in my head, and I happened to leave out some of the stuff that would have changed your post (at least a little). As far as the time scale is concerned, I don't claim that it all happened in 40 days and nights -- that's just how long the flood waters continued upward. The flood waters didn't abate until 115 days after it started according to Genesis 8:3. (Not that this number of days will really seem significant in comparison to the evolutionary time scale.) Also, the world hasn't been inactive since the flood. Volcanoes erupt and mountains form. It's been somewhere around 4000-5000 years since the flood, too. BTW, this link explains a little about the ice-age and has some side-issues which may help you understand where I'm coming from. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v11n2_iceage.asp There is a lot of other information I could give you, but I don't even know where to start. I guess specific questions are a good way to go, so please keep posting. John
-
Look around I have been slipping in Tasmanian jokes galore and peppering Christian at the same time. Haven't done in many posts not including an Australian as most people in these discussions don't have maps of the world or globes with Tasmania on them. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Yeah but it was a reply to Christian which talked about inbreeding. DOH - and Michael fumbles the ball... (oops - Christian is starting to looki suspicious) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)