Evolution and Creationism

[White Crane Feather]

No I don't know that dogs come from wolves, etc. The reason being that in the creation story it makes mention of a domestic line (cattle) as opposed to beasts, etc. And the zebra is an evidence of a wild line of horse. Domestic horses did not evolve from undomesticatable zebra nor vice versa. Babies born with a protrusion is not a tail but an abnormality just as a cleft palate is. Such defects do not result in their offspring also having such abnormality. Thus no such evolution.

There is no such thing as an organ that has evolved and no longer of use. Medical science is saying the tonsils and the appendix do have a function.

If the need necessitates evolution, I think we should start now to grow feathers so we can learn to fly and not be so dependent upon foreign oil. Only problem is my offspring are not convinced we need feathers. How am I going to get the need hammered into their independent thinking brains to agree and follow through for the next million generations so that in 10 million years just by wishing it into exisitence we can sprout a covering of feathers so we can fly. The feathers would have to come all at once. Only a few at a time might turn the next generations off.

You don't understand natural selection. That is evident. It's one thing to say you don't believe it out of a matter of faith, it's entirely another to try and argue it logically.

We can see the genetic similarity to living primates . We can see the changes in the fossil record. We can follow other animals back in the fossil record. We share diseases with apes, organs, biological processes. We can see how species very in different climates are "adjusted" to fit the environment which is really not the right word.

You want to see a species change into a new one..... So do I. But each change is so minute here will be a huge grey zone before we would consider a change to a new species. It's how natural selection works. If we did see a sudden change I would take that as evidence against natural selection. But in fact we never do. They do not happen.

I'm sure scientists can Identify tail genes if they really want to..... Just no reason to only to satisfy creationists... Which won't be satisfied anyway. Maybe a creationist scientist would take up the task.

All the human feather crap. Seriously? I'll entertain it for a second. If humans started living in trees. You might see in a few hundred generations a race of people more adept at tree climbing. Maybe in a few thousand these humans might start to look quite different from the humans on the ground evolving in different directions. A few hundred thousand the two different species probably would be enough genetically different that they could no longer mate and would be a different species. Keep going along with this. Maybe If there was evolutionRy pressure to jump from tree to tree for food and those who could produce more food had more mates,then you might in few more hundred thousand years start go see some changes that helped them with that. Eventually if the pressure continued you may even one day see wings.... But no the would not be human any more it would be an entirely different species after a few million or more years.

[White Crane Feather]

Evolution is a clear cut slam dunk.

Origins on the other hand is entirely another matter.

[Rlyeh]

Evolution Cannot Explain Left-Handed Molecules

Why should it?

Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino

acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by

chance.

Are all chemical reactions, "chance"?

But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various

amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise

sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning

protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein

molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids

can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

I thought polymers were just that? Molecular sequences that came around by chemical reaction, or "chance" as creationists like to call the natural world.

[RavenHawk]

Do you have any links to confirm this? Everything I have read up on Lilith suggests that the first time she is connected to Adam as a wife is from ben Sira. If there's evidence pre-dating this that I am unaware of that links Lilith and Adam as husband/wife before Eve, I would very much like to see it.

Unfortunately I don’t. It’s just one of those things that you hear. Lillith first appears in the Talmud (when it was in oral form) and then Bin Sirah just elaborated on it. But I think you are right, it appears that lillith doesn’t become Adams wife until Bin Sirah. I just didn’t catch your focus on the “wife only” part. I went googling and I did find this site: http://www.bitterwaters.com/Lilith_in_Bible.html. It seems that in the time of Bin Sirah, it was basic oral tradition that Lillith was Adam’s first wife. It would be like we all know what Washington said after he chopped down the cherry tree. Yeah, it’s written down, but we still don’t know if it is fact or not.

You are aware that in the Hebrew the words "Adam" and "the man" are identical words? It's just a matter of how the translators choose to render the word. Both are acceptable. There is no impersonal "the man" to compare to the personal "Adam". Both are the same Hebrew root word.

Yes, I am aware. That wasn’t what I was getting at. In ch. 2 “The Man” is used 15 times and then just one “Adam”. That just seems unusual. If it was the same word, then why the inconsistency? Was it context? Was it an indication of editing later? What? In ch. 1 there is no reference to Adam and “Man” (no THE) appears only twice. I think it’s clear that there are two authors here. The second one seems fixated on the man for whatever reason. I can see how Lillith or Eve could have been fixated and for different reasons.

Oh I see what you mean. Nevertheless that would still not be my interpretation of things. I think trying to suggest that Adam was shown the process of evolution (perhaps sped up) and he then recalled it to the best of his ancient knowledge. I think that's trying to read too much into the passage (my opinion, of course).

Then how did it come into existence in the first place? Adam had to use his understanding of it in order to create the story. In lieu of scientific understanding, he put it in poetic pose. I could see how Adam pestered GOD asking questions on what he saw like a child pestering a parent for help on a homework assignment. Then finally the parent saying, just do the best you can, I have every confidence in you.

I don't see how. The focus of the creation accounts is of the living breathing animals, not the plant life, not the single-cell amoeba. The ancient Hebrews treated taxonomy different than we do today. The point is that Days 1-3 set the conditions for days 4-6 to take place. Ie, making the world ready for the sun, the oceans ready for fish life (which would include algae and other life-forms for the fish to eat), the skies ready for bird-life, and the land ready for animal life (including vegetation for them/us to eat).

OK, I’ll go with that. I’m just not convinced. Again, I like your pattern sequence but I’m going to have to mull on it.

What do you mean by this? How do you think I am suggesting Genesis was intended? As far as I'm concerned, whether it is actually describing creation directly, or whether it is Adam's attempt to understand evolution, or whether it is simply a story to bring the theological point that God was behind it, the point is still the same - God did it. Therefore it does not affect in any way the message of Christ.

:-) That’s been my argument. “Describing creation directly” has been the Catholic, literal version that we have been locked into since Nicaea. I’m changing gears and trying to view it from Adam’s understanding of it. And GOD did it, but *we* still need to understand it. And all of this is fuel for the intellect and in no way affects the message of Christ.

The chapter/verse outlines and the headings were not added until modern translations (eg, the chapter/verse we have are based on the 1611 KJV, I think). The headings, however, are chopped and changed depending on who the publisher is. Sometimes they don't have headings at all. My example was based on the NIV, though my ESV Bible does not include that heading at all (from memory). The best way to view it is to ignore the chapter/verse references altogether, omit the headings altogether, and find what makes most sense (to me in the example I provided was to push the prologue in 2:4 back to the conclusion of 2:3 instead.

Outlines may have started with KJV but chapters and verses began with the Tanakh. I agree that the prologue should be pushed back, but I just don’t see much of a change. The reason that it’s the way it is is because that’s the way it was done. And in the same faithfulness of a scribe, continues the tradition. How steadfast can a faith be if the structure of its scriptures keeps changing?

Yours respectfully,

RH

[ScienceDominates]

Normally the question is "Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution", a more appropriate question is "Do you believe in the evidence of the Theory of Evolution". It's a scientific theory for a reason, the strength of a scientific theory is the evidence, if the evidence is disproved based on newer findings.. the theory must be false or can be modified. This video makes an attempt at presenting the science behind evolution, it gives a timeline of highlights in the discoveries of genetics and some explanations.

At some point the mind needs to weigh the evidence that is accepted by the scientific community vs texts that have many interpretations.

[+Paranoid Android]

Yes, I am aware. That wasn’t what I was getting at. In ch. 2 “The Man” is used 15 times and then just one “Adam”. That just seems unusual. If it was the same word, then why the inconsistency? Was it context? Was it an indication of editing later? What? In ch. 1 there is no reference to Adam and “Man” (no THE) appears only twice. I think it’s clear that there are two authors here. The second one seems fixated on the man for whatever reason. I can see how Lillith or Eve could have been fixated and for different reasons.

Generally speaking the context describes whether the translators use either "the man" or "Adam" at other times (incidentally, the same word can also be translated to mean "mankind"). Thus in Genesis 1-2, we have:

Genesis 1:26 - So God created man (Hebrew - 'âdâm) in his own image. In the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. *this use of "Adam" is done in the generic "humankind" sense.

Genesis 2:7 - Then the LORD God formed the man (Hebrew - 'âdâm) of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man (Hebrew - 'âdâm)became a living creature. *see also verse 15-16, same context

Genesis 2:20 - The man (Hebrew - 'âdâm) gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam (Hebrew - 'âdâm) there was not found a helper fit for him. * The same word here is translated differently in the first section and the second. It's also worth pointing out that in some translations, such as the KJV, both words are translated as "Adam", including earlier in verse 19 even though the ESV and NIV *my other two Bible copies* translate verse 19 as "the man".

The difference in these translations is context. In chapter 1 there is a clear reference to "man" and then broken into "male and female", which strongly implies humankind as the context. For chapter 2 I would assume that up until Eve enters the picture there is no need to call Adam by anything other than "the man". But once the writer brings up a helper for him, the name becomes personal. That would be my assumption. Either way, the Hebrew is the same and since that is the original that is more important than any English translation we may have.

Then how did it come into existence in the first place? Adam had to use his understanding of it in order to create the story. In lieu of scientific understanding, he put it in poetic pose. I could see how Adam pestered GOD asking questions on what he saw like a child pestering a parent for help on a homework assignment. Then finally the parent saying, just do the best you can, I have every confidence in you.

How does any creation myth come into existence? How did the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia come up with the Dreaming and Rainbow Serpent and such? By a long history of oral tradition. Once upon a time there was an Adam and Eve figure who had a relationship with God in a special place, and at some point disappointed God by disobedience, thus permanently breaking the relationship between God and man. But the trappings here are more theological in nature than historical.

:-) That’s been my argument. “Describing creation directly” has been the Catholic, literal version that we have been locked into since Nicaea. I’m changing gears and trying to view it from Adam’s understanding of it. And GOD did it, but *we* still need to understand it. And all of this is fuel for the intellect and in no way affects the message of Christ.

Why must Genesis 1-2 necessarily be Adam's account? What if it is other people's accounts of Adam's experience?

How steadfast can a faith be if the structure of its scriptures keeps changing?

Yours respectfully,

RH

How long is a piece of string? The scriptures remain unchanged, but as we grow and develop so does our experience of the scriptures. Mankind is flawed, so any understanding we have of scripture is equally flawed. It doesn't mean we can't get the primary ideas intended by the author/s, nor does it mean that we are incapable of using them to understand God. But it will always be a limited understanding. If anyone ever says they know the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth about God, then you know that they truly know absolutely nothing. I believe I have a fair working idea of the concepts in the Bible, but I still learn every day, refine my ideas, and are even proven wrong from time to time. Who's to say what the future may bring.

Thanks for reading

~ Regards,

[RavenHawk]

Normally the question is "Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution", a more appropriate question is "Do you believe in the evidence of the Theory of Evolution".

Great clip but it doesn’t prove evolution. It proves mutation which goes to support evolution. So I guess the answer is “yes”. Those first descendents with 46 chromosomes were still apes. It still took a long time and many more mutations before a particular population started to appear human (i.e. 3.2 million years ago). We see chromosome fusion and fission in human stillborns (i.e. X ploidy). They occur far more than anyone thinks and these are the non viable ones. There could be living humans with 45 chromosomes or even 47?? But that’s not evolution. Those that do have the odd chromosome could have Downs or something similar, which will lower the probability of further propagation through natural selection. One then wonders if those first apes with fewer chromosomes had some mental impediment or where they a bunch of Caesars?

[Sensible Logic]

Great clip but it doesn’t prove evolution. It proves mutation which goes to support evolution. So I guess the answer is “yes”. Those first descendents with 46 chromosomes were still apes. It still took a long time and many more mutations before a particular population started to appear human (i.e. 3.2 million years ago). We see chromosome fusion and fission in human stillborns (i.e. X ploidy). They occur far more than anyone thinks and these are the non viable ones. There could be living humans with 45 chromosomes or even 47?? But that’s not evolution. Those that do have the odd chromosome could have Downs or something similar, which will lower the probability of further propagation through natural selection. One then wonders if those first apes with fewer chromosomes had some mental impediment or where they a bunch of Caesars?

That is of course the fallacy. We didn't evolve from apes, both apes and man had a common ancestor.

In the bible we have "God created the heavens and the earth" but wait, that is someone telling us God did it. No where in the bible does God state that he is creating or did create the heavens and earth.

[Sensible Logic]

How long is a piece of string?

Thanks for reading

~ Regards,

Twice the distance from the middle to the end.

[ScienceDominates]

We didn't evolve from apes, both apes and man had a common ancestor.

In an effort to help some understand this position, a short video that echoes the common ancestor argument

[Copen]

........seriously?

HELP!!! I making fun of evolution!!!! Showing how impossible it is to change from one kind to another.

[Copen]

Generally speaking the context describes whether the translators use either "the man" or "Adam" at other times (incidentally, the same word can also be translated to mean "mankind"). Thus in Genesis 1-2, we have:

Genesis 1:26 - So God created man (Hebrew - 'âdâm) in his own image. In the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. *this use of "Adam" is done in the generic "humankind" sense.

Genesis 2:7 - Then the LORD God formed the man (Hebrew - 'âdâm) of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man (Hebrew - 'âdâm)became a living creature. *see also verse 15-16, same context

Genesis 2:20 - The man (Hebrew - 'âdâm) gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam (Hebrew - 'âdâm) there was not found a helper fit for him. * The same word here is translated differently in the first section and the second. It's also worth pointing out that in some translations, such as the KJV, both words are translated as "Adam", including earlier in verse 19 even though the ESV and NIV *my other two Bible copies* translate verse 19 as "the man".

The difference in these translations is context. In chapter 1 there is a clear reference to "man" and then broken into "male and female", which strongly implies humankind as the context. For chapter 2 I would assume that up until Eve enters the picture there is no need to call Adam by anything other than "the man". But once the writer brings up a helper for him, the name becomes personal. That would be my assumption. Either way, the Hebrew is the same and since that is the original that is more important than any English translation we may have.

How does any creation myth come into existence? How did the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia come up with the Dreaming and Rainbow Serpent and such? By a long history of oral tradition. Once upon a time there was an Adam and Eve figure who had a relationship with God in a special place, and at some point disappointed God by disobedience, thus permanently breaking the relationship between God and man. But the trappings here are more theological in nature than historical.

Why must Genesis 1-2 necessarily be Adam's account? What if it is other people's accounts of Adam's experience?

How long is a piece of string? The scriptures remain unchanged, but as we grow and develop so does our experience of the scriptures. Mankind is flawed, so any understanding we have of scripture is equally flawed. It doesn't mean we can't get the primary ideas intended by the author/s, nor does it mean that we are incapable of using them to understand God. But it will always be a limited understanding. If anyone ever says they know the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth about God, then you know that they truly know absolutely nothing. I believe I have a fair working idea of the concepts in the Bible, but I still learn every day, refine my ideas, and are even proven wrong from time to time. Who's to say what the future may bring.

Thanks for reading

~ Regards,

You wrote: Genesis 1:26 - So God created man (Hebrew - 'âdâm) in his own image. In the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. *this use of "Adam" is done in the generic "humankind" sense.

Genesis 2:7 - Then the LORD God formed the man (Hebrew - 'âdâm) of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man (Hebrew - 'âdâm)became a living creature. *see also verse 15-16, same context

My answer:

In the Septuagint (the common Old Testament Greek version at the time of Jesus and which He quoted) that word was translated "men" and as you said, then broken down into "male and female." The word "men" means Gentiles.They were spoken into being. Later God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. When the words, "breath of life" are used in the scriptures it means breath of spiritual life. Adam had spiritual life which the Gentiles did not have at that present time.

You remember when resurrected Jesus spoke to the disciples who were alive and had physical life, although somewhat trembling in fear, Jesus breathed on them and gave them His breath of spiritual life.

Comparing scripture with scripture, when the Bible uses the word "men" it usually is talking about Gentiles. --the sons of God, (descendants of Adam), married the daughters of "men", (Gentiles) all whom they chose -----

It is apparent what Paul is saying when you understand that "men" means Gentiles and "man" means Jews when you read--Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father...) Paul was saying he was not called to be an apostle by Gentiles nor by Jews but was divinely called. Otherwise, that verse makes absolutely no sense if both words -- men and man -- means mankind.

God bless us all is my prayer.

[Copen]

That is of course the fallacy. We didn't evolve from apes, both apes and man had a common ancestor.

In the bible we have "God created the heavens and the earth" but wait, that is someone telling us God did it. No where in the bible does God state that he is creating or did create the heavens and earth.

What might seem like a slight correction really isn't. "In the beginning, God created the heaven (singular) and the earth." God does everything twice for a strong consolation (Hebrews 6:18) God created the second heaven on Day Two when He stored a vast amount of water in it to be used for a Deluge. If you have a translation that says God created the heavens (plural) be made aware that such casual reading and translating will be repeated many more hundreds of times.

[Copen]

Humans domesticated horses.

This is typical creationist nonsense. Perhaps you could stop making straw men?

Humans domesticated horses because they were domesticatible (if there is such a word). But the zebra is not. If they could be, man would have already. Domesticatible horses are part of the "cattle" group. Not from cattle; but part of the animal group God created that would be of domestic use such as to "till the garden."

[Rlyeh]

Humans domesticated horses because they were domesticatible (if there is such a word). But the zebra is not. If they could be, man would have already. Domesticatible horses are part of the "cattle" group. Not from cattle; but part of the animal group God created that would be of domestic use such as to "till the garden."

Do you have any support for this drivel? Edited September 5, 2011 by Rlyeh

[ScienceDominates]

https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/understanding-evolution-17-misconceptions-and-their-responses/

Discuss.

[+Paranoid Android]

My answer:

In the Septuagint (the common Old Testament Greek version at the time of Jesus and which He quoted) that word was translated "men" and as you said, then broken down into "male and female." The word "men" means Gentiles.They were spoken into being. Later God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. When the words, "breath of life" are used in the scriptures it means breath of spiritual life. Adam had spiritual life which the Gentiles did not have at that present time.

You remember when resurrected Jesus spoke to the disciples who were alive and had physical life, although somewhat trembling in fear, Jesus breathed on them and gave them His breath of spiritual life.

Comparing scripture with scripture, when the Bible uses the word "men" it usually is talking about Gentiles. --the sons of God, (descendants of Adam), married the daughters of "men", (Gentiles) all whom they chose -----

It is apparent what Paul is saying when you understand that "men" means Gentiles and "man" means Jews when you read--Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father...) Paul was saying he was not called to be an apostle by Gentiles nor by Jews but was divinely called. Otherwise, that verse makes absolutely no sense if both words -- men and man -- means mankind.

God bless us all is my prayer.

This sounds like you are trying to read too much into something that isn't there. For example, the Greek words in Galatians 1 that are translated "man" and "men" are the same root word - but because of context one is given singular the other plural. Therefore it is unreasonable to suggest that "men" = Gentiles and "man" = Jews. It just means exactly what it says - he wasn't an apostle appointed BY man (aka, no earthly authority) nor was he an apostle OF man (aka, an earthly apostle). The point is that his mission is divine - from God. I can't see how Genesis 1 is an account of the creation of Gentiles and Genesis 2 an account of the creation of the Hebrews. That is inconsistent. Sons of God and daughters of men I assume you are thinking Nephilim? I think it a tough one to simply put this down to Hebrews marrying Gentiles (particularly since at this point in pre-Hebrew history there wasn't even a Hebrew race, let alone a distinction between Jew and Gentile).

I appreciate your feedback, but I'm afraid I find it far too ephemeral for any personal application. Best wishes, Copen

~ PA

[RavenHawk]

That is of course the fallacy. We didn't evolve from apes, both apes and man had a common ancestor.

This is the fallacy of your fallacy. The term “ape” isn’t all that inaccurate, the common ancestor (Hominidae) of the orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and human for all practical purposes would be called an ape (Great Apes). We are not descendant from the orangutan, gorilla, or chimpanzee. We are cousins.

In the bible we have "God created the heavens and the earth" but wait, that is someone telling us God did it. No where in the bible does God state that he is creating or did create the heavens and earth.

For one, this is a recorded testimony of Adam or what GOD did. Two, there was no human written language when this happened. And three, even if there was a written form (by GOD) and man was able to read it today, there still wouldn’t be proof that GOD stated it. But then given that, we read books by Galileo and Newton (or even Shakespeare). We really have no proof that they wrote them or how many times scribes copied them?? There comes a point that you have to accept what it is, which in the case of Genesis, is a personal testimony. That does not mean that it is without error.

[RavenHawk]

Whew!!! Where to start - - - -

"Not all scripture is in the Bible...." If it isn't then God has not kept it, which the Bible says that God promises it is He who will keep it.

Well, the Bible is but a canon created by man. The Bible came long after GOD made his promise and the Bible is not all the scripture there is. The Bible is a facsimile of his word. One that mankind finds guidance and great comfort in. The Bible is not the only source of GOD inspired scripture.

"Paul was a mere man . . ." Yes, and so were Adam to Moses. If man under inspiration of God taking dictation were not taking it accurately, then there is none of the Bible that is reliable.

Inspired doesn’t necessarily mean taking dictation exactly to the letter. What is important is the message. If something small changes the message, then it is inaccurate but not every little thing changes the message. “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” – 2 Corinthians 3:6. Too many people read the Bible as if it were law.

If there is one error, there might well be many more.

God's word is not a pick and choose book.

How ‘bout that… How many have you found?

GOD’s word is not, but we’ve already proved that the law is. Do you keep all 613 Mitzvoth?

It is God's word. If He says He is going to keep it, by Providence the false books have been whittled out. The Council of Nicene was a confirmation of what was already held from the first century as true scripture. Paul said his revelations were from God and were so abundant that he had to go through much suffering to keep him humble.

By Providence or by the hand of Man? There were several books that did not make it into the Bible and yet were still held as true scripture. The Council of Nicaea wasn’t exactly spiritually pure. It had a heavy hand of the Roman mindset to it, which was a good thing because having a canon helped to unify Europe. But a canon was never meant to be complete, just the least commonly accepted. How can you say that the Gospel of Thomas is not true scripture? Where does the Apocrypha fit into this?

The style of Genesis 1 from Genesis 2 is not the only thing that is different. The sequence of things created is different. The name God reveals Himself is different. Elohim- (plural, implied Triune) in Genesis 1 as opposed to Jehovah - (One God) in Genesis 2. And that is how God has revealed Himself to the Gentiles as Triune and to the Jews as One God. The mode of creation is different. Spoken into being --- as opposed to being formed out of the dust of the ground. These differences show that Genesis is not a re-cap of Genesis 1; but an entirely different creation.

One version is chronological while the other is topical, that is style. Because different terms are use for the name of GOD show two different authors, that is style. “spoken into being” and ‘being formed out of the dust” are the same thing, just different viewpoints, that is style. Genesis 2 is not a re-cap, it is a different version. Just as the Gospels are different viewpoints of the same events.

I will give you --- the Bible does not say Cain's wife was from the land of Nod but Adam and Eve did not have other sons and daughters until after Cain went to Nod and after Seth had been born. The Bible gives the strict order of births. Adam knew Eve, his wife, .. and she bore Cain. And she again bore his brother Abel.....And cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod ...And Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son and called his name Seth, For God hath appointed me another seed (- another seed) instead of Abel. ...And Adam was eight hundred years old, after he begot Seth and he begot sons and daughters and lived to be 930 years old.

The only thing that gives us a clue that Cain was the first surviving born male child is verse 4:25. The order is only relevant to each other. There is nothing on daughters because they were not important to the story. I think in the Talmud, there is a reference that Adam did not have sex with Eve for 130years. And that might have been after the loss of Abel. But to think that no daughters were born in the time before Seth is really being naïve. In order to be fruitful and multiply, required incest on Adam and Eve’s part with their offspring. GOD didn’t add a second commandment that thou shall not commit incest. This came much later. If he had stated that incest was a sin, don’t you think he would have done more to warned Cain about murder?

And when men (Gentiles) began to multiply and daughters were born to them (without incest because the Gentiles were two couples of black and two couples of white people.

Your reference to Genesis 6:4 is more in line with the Greek Gods aka Anunnaki. I guess you missed this reference, so I’ll list it again… The Human race has three main stocks, Caucasoid, Negroid, & Mongoloid. And tradition says that they originate from the three sons of Noah (whether that is true or not, I do not know). Where are the Mongoloids in your story? Mating with another race while they are bumming a ride on the Ark is reaching. Although, I see where this could imply that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon mated. Some theories imply that humans get the red hair trait from Neanderthals.

Incest was a not an issue. This is what has to happen at first to build up a population. It happened with Adam and Eve and Noah and his sons. I seem to recall that the best way to rebuild a population is to have 1 female to 3 males. The males take turns impregnating her. And she basically becomes just a baby factory. She probably didn’t do much and was highly protected. This probably goes on for several generations. This practice ends on its own because there is now more of a selection to choose from. I wonder if this is the significance of Noah’s three sons? If a catastrophic event befell Mankind today and only a dozen survivors were left, this would be the exact course of action taken by them to repopulate the species. There would be no second creation. And they wouldn’t have an extra two black couples and two white couples or two extra yellow couples.

God says we can depend upon the fact that He is the same, never changing-- what is a sin has always been a sin -- and God forbids incest)-- the sons of God (Jews) saw the daughters of men (Gentiles) and took them wives of all whom they chose.

It wasn’t until after the Exodus that it became a sin (probably because it was the practice in Egypt??). What about the daughters of God that saw the sons of men? Again, Jews did not exist until actually Judah. But the term Jewish (improperly) extends to all of Israel (Jacob). Why do you bend over backward to convince yourself that incest is some unpardonable sin?

God gave Peter KEYS to unlock things in heaven and on earth. With those keys the scriptures can be understood.

Example: The way God uses numbers in the Bible is a KEY. Numbers in the Bible have a meaning that confirm what is being said. The number 7 is God's number for a complete unit. The number 6 is the number for Gentiles. That's because Gentiles were created on Day Six. The number 2 is for proof. That's which God requires two witnesses of a crime, etc. The number for 5 is the number for death and sometimes it shows grace from God through a death to self-righteousness. Likewise, the number for 8 is God's number for-- beginning again that which is already. Men (Gentiles) were already created. Creating man (Adam) for a specific purpose on Day Eight was --beginning again that which was already. The specific purpose was that by the sweat of the brow only Adam and his ancestors, the Jews, would be the direct link of receive bread (God's word) to us. Look at any false religion, and it didn't come from a Jew.

I agree that numbers have meaning but you can’t just pull up any numbers to prove it means something. If we take the numbers you provided in your example and add up the values of the numerals (7+6+2+5+8), you get 28. Make that the base (column 1). Add up the values of the numbers written (six+two+eight) and you get 16. This is column 2. Divide the non base by the number of columns and you get 8. Subtract that from the base and you get 20. Now add the number of items in column 2 and you get 23 … Do I need go further? You ought to see what I’ve done with Obama’s name :-) I posted that and it got shut down! Talk about over sensitive.

Here is another KEY: Hebrew 6: 17, 18

"God willing to show the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath" And that oath was - - "That by TWO IMMUTABLE THINGS, in which is was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation ..."

There it is!!!!! -- Genesis 1 and 2 and any true doctrine can be found twice in the Bible. If it can't be found twice in the Bible we are not to declare it a doctrine and do not have strong consolation that the conclusion is truth. The creation story is full of twos.

So that confirms that Genesis 1 and 2 are *TWO IMMUTABLE THINGS*, two separate versions of the same thing. Not a continuation of one of the other. Adam and “Man” are the same. Actually, if something is found twice in the Bible, it is because the Bishops at Nicaea made it that way. That was what they were looking for. That has nothing to do with scripture being a true doctrine or not. What is in the Bible is true doctrine but that does not make it the only true doctrine.

Read the deluge story again. Eight people (called "living creature" -- spiritually alive creature) were saved besides Noah and the other seven. Noah gathered food for those "living creature" --- not for all animals on the boat. They were in that boat for a whole year. No refrigeration. Food had to be kept fresh -- on the hoof. Therefore, these eight Gentiles would have been two black couples and two white couples just like on Day Six in order to keep the different races. The very black people are God's special proof that they did not evolve from Adam and Eve for she was flesh of Adam's flesh and bone of his bone. She had his exact DNA. Blood is manufactured in the bone. Two of the same produce the same. It was a closed loop.

I was wondering where you were going to pull this off? So where are the two yellow couples? “living creature” was referring to the animals. There is no KEY that’s going to show that 8 more people were on the Ark. Don’t you think that they would have played a more prominent role than just “living creatures”? And what prevented their offspring from committing incest? Just having extra people does not prevent the act from occurring. “…Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood” (Genesis 8:21) would seem to indicate that incest did occur. Man was still the same even after the Flood. With that said, you have to ask, what was the purpose of the Flood in the first place? Maybe it was to chase off the Anunnaki?

You should familiarize yourself with “The Seven Daughters of Eve”. It shows how Europeans can trace their DNA back to just 7 females. The theory has taken a lot of hits, but I think it is “in the neighborhood”. The three main stocks of Mankind developed from somewhere. There were no black or white couples in the beginning. They developed more than likely because at some point, they had become isolated from each other and inbreeding was the norm for several generations. The other idea is that there was interbreeding going on between chimpanzee and Early Man and then later with Neanderthal. And some of those combinations gave us the three stocks.

There are other KEYS in the Bible also. As long as there is a contradiction, the truth has not been found. The Bible does not say all people came from Noah's three sons. It tells where the three sons intermingled and migrated and spread. Shem became the true Jewish line Jesus would come through, Japheth went into the European Gentiles and Canaan became the Phoenicians who through their commerce and maritime skills became the servants that brought mathematics and written alphabet, etc. And as prophecied the Gentile line of Japheth came into the Jewish religious tent of Jewish Shem.

But this doesn’t collaborate with what it is. Shem is obviously the Caucasoid race. The other two are a tossup. I would venture that Japheth became the Mongoloid race and Ham, the Negroid race for no other reason than *Africa* seems to be more third world than the other two (and hence, becomes the servant of the other two). But I’m not going to hold anything to it.

I want to give all due respect to your interpretation, but it just doesn’t cut it. I think it has merit to some degree and it is thought provoking. That is perhaps the reason for the tardiness of this reply. But the counters I’ve seen from others parallel my thoughts. And simply put, your interpretation is lacking. It is reaching. That goes beyond what I’m doing with my interpretation. I’m not trying to read into it mystical kabbalah. My approach is to take it as a first person testimony of what was observed lacking good scientific descriptions and then give a little room for error in the preservation of it over many thousands of years.

[Copen]

In order to be fruitful and multiply, required incest on Adam and Eve’s part with their offspring. GOD didn’t add a second commandment that thou shall not commit incest. This came much later. If he had stated that incest was a sin, don’t you think he would have done more to warned Cain about murder?

Adam said immediately after seeing Eve and saying she was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh -- Adam said, Therefore, (when the word "therefore" is used it is a continuation of the statement prior) - therefore concerning the woman being bone of man's bone and flesh of man's flesh --- Adam said man must leave father and mother to get a woman who would be bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. The most natural thinking would be in order to get bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh man would marry a sister. Based on Adam's immediate respnse, that means incest was forbidden. God can not bless male and female to multiply and then make it impossible to multiply any other way but through sinful incest. If God waited until later to make incest a sin, then God is not the same yesterday, today and forever. Wonder what other thing such a wishy-washy God will change His mind on and make a sin that is alright today???????

The LAW was given to be our schoolmaster to teach that it is impossible not to sin. Thankfully, Jesus replaced the LAW of Moses with His Law of Liberty.

God bless us all is my prayer.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Copen

[RavenHawk]

Adam said immediately after seeing Eve and saying she was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh -- Adam said, Therefore, (when the word "therefore" is used it is a continuation of the statement prior) - therefore concerning the woman being bone of man's bone and flesh of man's flesh --- Adam said man must leave father and mother to get a woman who would be bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. The most natural thinking would be in order to get bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh man would marry a sister. Based on Adam's immediate respnse, that means incest was forbidden. God can not bless male and female to multiply and then make it impossible to multiply any other way but through sinful incest. If God waited until later to make incest a sin, then God is not the same yesterday, today and forever. Wonder what other thing such a wishy-washy God will change His mind on and make a sin that is alright today???????

No, Adam’s response does not mean incest was forbidden. It has nothing to do with incest at all. You do realize that in the Biblical sense, there was no concept for mother and father at that point! But this just points out that verse 24 was commentary added later (by who, who knows?) and was not an immediate response. Verse 23 *therefore* 24 refers to a mating pair. Just because incest was not an issue then does not mean that GOD is not the same yesterday, today and forever. A human act cannot define GOD, therefore he is not wishy-washy. When you are trying to be fruitful and multiply beginning with one mating pair, incest is not an issue. GOD rested on the seventh day and there was no further creation. Would GOD have said he was done, and then turn around and say oops, I forgot to create two black couples and two white couples so that they can’t commit incest (yet today we still do), so that there would be Gentile and Jew (even though Judah had not been born yet). By the time that the laws of Leviticus were laid down, some estimates put the population of Israel to be about 3 million. At this point there is enough diversity in the gene pool, that incest actually becomes detrimental to it. Sin is the misuse of a natural human act. It’s this display of disrespect that is distasteful to GOD. If GOD wants to change his mind then he doesn’t need your approval to do it.