Creationism is NOT Biblical

[gluadys]

Of course, evolution also requires incest once you have genetic speciation (nor morphological), unless you have the miracle of simultaneous speciation in several instances.

What happened to the roll-eyes smilie? I need about a dozen here.

I can't believe I am reading this.

Where do creationists dredge up this absolute nonsense from?

 

[Assyrian]

I never said they did discuss it, why do you like to read into things that are not there. Nevertheless now you also seem to be suggesting you ? Here is a solid quote for you, anyone can find Josephus and Henry's writings online and both are linked to Scripture verses, and Calvin I forgot, do I have to provide links for all the other Theologians too, even the ones I havent heard of yet?

You can provide as many references as you want, you haven't given any yet. Your so called 'solid quote' is simply a comment by huldah, not an actual reference to their writings. You have yet to provide a reference to anyone who actually discusses the waw consecutive in the Genesis 5 Genealogy. If John Calvin, Martin Henry and Josephus don't discuss the waw consecutive in the Genesis 5 Genealogy, then they are not much use in you argument. You don't even know if they have ever even considered it, or whether their view of Cain marrying his sister came with any serious exegetical consideration. We can't tell because you don't have any references.

I notice you ignored my comment about Josephus interpreting the story of Adam and Eve allegorically. I don’t think Calvin is that much help to you either because he believed the message of Genesis was accommodated to the understanding of the of the people of the time. He also believed the bible taught geocentrism, I suppose if you disagree it means you really think you understand scripture better then he did The other thing about Calvin is he was also willing to reassess even plain literal interpretations when science showed it was wrong. In claiming Calvin as support (without any reference as usual) you calling on someone who may not have examined the issue in any depth, a question that has only really come up as evolution has challenged the traditional explanation of 'where did Cain get his wife'.

I dont have an argument - you do, and there is no scholarly support for your interpretation of Gen 5:4. I am happy to rest on everyone else's, thanks very much.

Fine, stick to your unsupported argument. I don’t know why you keep going on about it.

You obviously think large number of Hebrew scholars have considered the argument, rejected it, and as a result written nothing about it.

No, and its quite silly to assume what I think (on top of twist what I wrote). Rather I think that no Hebrew scholars have considered your argument because there isn't one. Not all waw consecutives mean a logical sequence of events, even that web page you sent me says that. If only I didnt see jumbled weird fonts everywhere I might make some sense of it some more.

I can't see any other basis for your argument. If you base your argument on what scholars have not written, you are arguing from a complete lack of evidence.

If you wanted to get past the garbled Hebrew fonts you could, they make no difference to what the English says. Are you finally getting around to trying to understand what it says? Couldn’t you have done that back on the 16th of October when I brought it up, rather than resorting to bluster and contentless arguments for post after post after post? You are right, not all waw consecutives are a logical sequence of events. Most are chronological sequences. That is why the text tells us the other sons and daughters were born after Seth. Even if you came up with some obscure form of the waw consecutive, which you haven’t, and showed how it fits the text, the ordinary meaning of the waw consecutive is still the straightforward meaning of the text and this whole thread is about how creationists ignore the straightforward meaning.

To counter your complete lack of evidence you try to dismiss Gensius' Hebrew Grammar as simply a web page, but it is a standard Hebrew reference.

No I dont. Rather I dismiss your understanding of Hebrew grammar.

Sure you dismissed it. You wrote Genesius off as “one reference from a source of unknown quality” and “one web page on the subject”.

You clearly think there is something special about being firstborn and the appointed seed (to Christ), well later genealogies prove there is not.

Didn’t you just say “its quite silly to assume what I think“? And as I said in my post (one of the many bits you ignored), I have no particular interest in all the firstborn stuff, it was something you brought up.

The eldest son is the priest and leader of the family, seems consistent with what JC said.

A quotation would be nice. You think Cain Ishmael Esau and Reuben were priests?

Nice word twisting, i said 'priest of the family' which carries quite a distinct meaning to just 'priest'. In any case why dont you just pull out your Concordance and look up firstborn and be happy.

What word twisting? I expressed incredulity at a vague, unsupported, and frankly odd sounding claim, and I asked you to back it up. If you don’t want to, that is perfectly fine with me.

You like demanding quotes, but you fail to do so yourself. Show me where Eve said anybody was firstborn?

I never said Eve claimed Abel was firstborn. I said he was the promised seed and I disussed the passage when I brought it up before. Hence the “You never got around to dealing with that.” Are you saying I have to give the scriptural reference every time I mention a point while you simply don’t bother?

In fact you cant even make up your own mind what Eve said.

Originally Posted by Assyrian
At first she thought Cain was the promised seed.
Originally Posted by Assyrian
Eve tells us Abel was the appointed seed
Originally Posted by Assyrian
Murdering his brother showed he was not and neither could Abel be the seed.​

Eve thought Cain was the promised seed when he was born, his action in murdering his broter showed he wasn’t. Eve tells us Abel had been the promised seed. Until Cain murdered him. Abel couldn’t still be the promised seed when he was dead could he?

 

[marktheblake]

I can't believe I am reading this. Where do creationists dredge up this absolute nonsense from?

Well go ahead and explain how speciation might occur if 'incest' doesnt happen.

Surely you are not clutching onto a belief of simultaneous 'evolution' in different places. Did anyone ever really beleive that different coloured monkeys evolved into different coloured humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are whole populations either incest or beastiality?

Is there a third option?

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, 'neither'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, 'neither'.

I see --- and how would you explain the sudden appearance of a whole race of humans, without not one person engaging in incest?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, if there was a sudden appearance of humans as the Creationist viewpoint would suggest, incest would be mandatory for the human population to continue. But, thankfully, real evolution doesn’t act on individuals and requires an entire population to change so we never find ourselves in the dire situation where the breeding population consists of only a handful of individuals.

Well, I'm not going to go in-depth with questions on this subject anymore, as there is way too much denial, with none of my questions getting answered. (ex. Who were Eve's parents?) The rhetoric is enough to make me sick --- and I'm just happy to leave it with the fact that evolution is built upon beastiality and/or incest --- despite your rhetorical denials.

Why are Creationists going on about incest?

Because it is wrong today, but wasn't back then --- and is an excellent refutation to uniformitarianism, which is what modern-day paradigms are based upon.

What about Adam and Eve or Noah’s family?

What about them? Incest was not a sin back then. It only became a sin after God declared it off-limits in Leviticus.

Doesn’t it bother you guys that Eve never gave birth to a daughter in Genesis?

No --- because Eve indeed gave birth to many, many daughters --- in my opinion.

 

[gluadys]

Well go ahead and explain how speciation might occur if 'incest' doesnt happen.

Surely you are not clutching onto a belief of simultaneous 'evolution' in different places.

I see --- and how would you explain the sudden appearance of a whole race of humans, without not one person engaging in incest?

There is no sudden appearance. It is a gradual process*. There is no simultaneous evolution in different places needed. If you get populations evolving in different places, they will diverge and likely refuse/not be able to mate with each other when they do meet. So how do you get incest from that?

Questions like these simply show that you have not grasped that evolution is a process that occurs at a population level. You don't find individuals in a breeding population that are a different species from each other, so bestiality is not an issue. And you do find a whole population gradually evolving--not single individuals closely related to each other--so incest is not a necessity.


*Some exceptions to be noted in the case of speciation via hybridization. However, there is no indication of speciation by hybridization in the human lineage.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no sudden appearance. It is a gradual process*. There is no simultaneous evolution in different places needed. If you get populations evolving in different places, they will diverge and likely refuse/not be able to mate with each other when they do meet. So how do you get incest from that?

Questions like these simply show that you have not grasped that evolution is a process that occurs at a population level. You don't find individuals in a breeding population that are a different species from each other, so bestiality is not an issue. And you do find a whole population gradually evolving--not single individuals closely related to each other--so incest is not a necessity.


*Some exceptions to be noted in the case of speciation via hybridization. However, there is no indication of speciation by hybridization in the human lineage.

Gluadys, I'm not going to go into this a third (or fourth) time. I have begged and begged and begged and begged for an explanation, and just get answers like you give me.

I honestly don't think even you guys know.

But --- let me at least give it another shot --- so I can add another "begged" to my list:

1. What gave birth to the very first --- the very first --- Homo sapien? I want the name as it would appear on a taxon - (if I'm saying that right).

And please don't come back with --- evolution gives rise to populations --- not individuals.

Even so --- I still want the one gave rise to the very first one.

If one gave rise to a human at 16:01:02:07:05:04 on a Tuesday afternoon, while another "simultaneously" gave rise to one at 16:01:02:07:05:09 --- I want the one that gave rise at 16:01:02:07:05:04 in the afternoon.

2. Okay, the first human couldn't mate with it's "aunts or uncles" --- but are you assuming they didn't even try?
​

 

[Melethiel]

You're not going to get an answer, because evolution quite simply doesn't work that way.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're not going to get an answer, because evolution quite simply doesn't work that way.

You mean I'm not going to get an answer because you don't know what gave birth to the first human being?

 

[busterdog]

Would you like to prove speciation? As of right now it is only a theory, therefore cannot be fully proven, remaining a theory/opinion of what happened. And the question that could be asked of that theory is endless.

I really do not care for Darwin, I will side with the father of biology in genetics.

Speciation happens morphologically. A Dauschand cannot get it on with a Great Dane. ITs a little more precise in flowers.

But, I we are still waiting for an example of a speciation by evolution of a new genome.

 

[busterdog]

Will their excuse be that monkeys wouldnt know what incest is so that must be acceptable?

Raising the issue of bestiality as well....

 

[busterdog]

Well, if there was a sudden appearance of humans as the Creationist viewpoint would suggest, incest would be mandatory for the human population to continue. But, thankfully, real evolution doesn’t act on individuals and requires an entire population to change so we never find ourselves in the dire situation where the breeding population consists of only a handful of individuals.


Why are Creationists going on about incest? What about Adam and Eve or Noah’s family? Doesn’t it bother you guys that Eve never gave birth to a daughter in Genesis?

Dont change the subject. WE are attacking the evolutionist use of incest, used to preclude Adam and Eve as the parents of all living. WE are not advocating it as a test. We are attacking it.

 

[busterdog]

There is no sudden appearance. It is a gradual process*. There is no simultaneous evolution in different places needed. If you get populations evolving in different places, they will diverge and likely refuse/not be able to mate with each other when they do meet. So how do you get incest from that?

Questions like these simply show that you have not grasped that evolution is a process that occurs at a population level. You don't find individuals in a breeding population that are a different species from each other, so bestiality is not an issue. And you do find a whole population gradually evolving--not single individuals closely related to each other--so incest is not a necessity.


*Some exceptions to be noted in the case of speciation via hybridization. However, there is no indication of speciation by hybridization in the human lineage.

This is theory, not observation. Where is the new genetically distinct species? We know all about new forms of life with different abilities, habits or compatibilities.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys, I'm not going to go into this a third (or fourth) time. I have begged and begged and begged and begged for an explanation, and just get answers like you give me.

I honestly don't think even you guys know.

But --- let me at least give it another shot --- so I can add another "begged" to my list:

1. What gave birth to the very first --- the very first --- Homo sapien? I want the name as it would appear on a taxon - (if I'm saying that right).

And please don't come back with --- evolution gives rise to populations --- not individuals.

Even so --- I still want the one gave rise to the very first one.

Scientifically, you can't single out the first human being. By the time you can discriminate H. sapiens from its ancestral population, many generations have passed since any conceivable first human being was born.

Speciation is not an event such that you can pinpoint even a generation as the first human generation. Applying the label H. sapiens to a population--in distinction from other hominins, can only be done in hindsight, and only rather arbitrarily.

Singling out a particular individual in a group as H. sapiens would be even more arbitrary. Taxonomically H.sapiens are those individuals who meet the morphological criteria which taxonomists have decided will be determinative for the species.

But no individual is actually a different species than its parents, siblings, extended family or tribal group. No taxonomist's label changes that.

So it wouldn't really matter what name was put on the taxon. The first human was the same species as the population it belonged to. And any marital relations it has with another member of the population outside its nuclear family is neither bestial nor incestuous.

 

[gluadys]

Speciation happens morphologically. A Dauschand cannot get it on with a Great Dane. ITs a little more precise in flowers.

But, I we are still waiting for an example of a speciation by evolution of a new genome.

Don't you mean a modified genome? The human genome is nearly identical to that of a chimpanzee and shares a great deal with all mammals. The same Hox genes are found across many phyla.

What makes a genome "new"?

 

[AV1611VET]

The first human was the same species as the population it belonged to.

What kind of sentence is this?

It's this kind of rhetoric that tells me even you guys don't know what you're saying.

The first Ford ever built was like every other Ford in existence at the time?

 

[busterdog]

Don't you mean a modified genome? The human genome is nearly identical to that of a chimpanzee and shares a great deal with all mammals. The same Hox genes are found across many phyla.

What makes a genome "new"?

Well, they also have lots of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen. But, the real issue is the digital code that is the genome.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24.

They cant mate. Thats the point. Its not morphology (genitals), its not the incompatible genome that is the issue.

The speculation is that somehow this has been overcome in the remote (read, unobserved) history of evolution. Even closer relatives like Tigers and Lions breed very weak offspring at best.

No one has ever seen a leap from, say x to x+1 base pairs in offspring capable of reproduction, much less do we see two offspring with the mutation who are genetically compatible.

 

[johnd]

Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.

Creation account not restricted to Genesis. e.g.

Isaiah 44:24 “This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Jeremiah 51:15 “He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

Revelation 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

It is a strawman argument to decry statements your opponent is not making.

The Genesis accounts both generalize and prophesy. Without going into the technical aspects of light, for example, it describes the point of origin of light from nothingness.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

The passage is not without its passion, yet matter of fact in its delivery making the simple statement "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." The ramifications of this simple statement echo throughout the universe to this very moment. All we have to do is look up into the night sky or through the Hubble telescope.

The straightforward reading of Genesis 4:13-15 has Cain being sent to another land, and fearing a group of people who were unrelated to him. If the only other people who existed were Adam and Eve, then who was Cain afraid of? And more specifically, where did Cain's wife come from?

Try reading Genesis 4 and you will see just how far off your paraphrase is.

1. Cain was strickened from farming the land, he went to Nod east of Eden
2. there is no mention of the group he feared being unrelated to him, they were his brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews (children and grandchildren of his parents)
3. Cain's wife was either a sister or a niece (for which there was no ban in those days and the human gene pool was pure enough to handle repeat flaws in DNA / chromosomes (which today produce birth defects and worse) Remember the Law (Exodus 18 and 20) came much later on

Normally, creationists will point out that because Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, the time period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years, allowing for plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children. Thus by the time Abel was killed, there existed many descendants of Adam. Yet this completely mangles the Biblical chronology. The only other children that Adam and Eve are said to have had came after Seth (Genesis 5:4).

Not true. I realize this bursts your bubble (through which you hope to object to the facts). The account is:

Genesis 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

If we were to interpret the passage the wooden literal way you do, then Cain and Abel are missing and must not have existed.

You give a perfect example of how God's perfect Word can only be misinterpreted and misunderstood and mangled because of the imperfections of human communication and reason.

Furthermore, the creationist interpretation has Adam being 30 years old when Cain was born -- which is atypical of that era. Seth was 105 before he had his first child; Enosh 90, Jared 162 and Methusaleh 187. Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child. This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.

I'm sorry. I thought you wanted to speak about non-fiction. Reasonable speculation leads to fiction and myth. Let's stick rather to the Bible texts to what is said and not to what mere men "think" it says.

Genesis 5:21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah.

This verse blows your theory right out of the water. And whether 30 or 65 or 130 or 187 these accounts are not indicative of firstborns. It just says that the patriarchs were those ages when those along this particular bloodline were born.

Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom. Likewise, Eve did not mother everyone in the world, only those in Eden (or whichever region she was located). A similar refutation can be made for "there was not a man to till the ground".

Not even a cleaver argument. Grammatical jabberwachy. Nothing more. You are exaggerating a flaw in human language and imposing it upon Bible texts.

And you omit or are unaware of the human genome (secular) studies which prove that the human race had a single mother some 10 - 20 k years ago.

When Paul said that through one man sin came into the world, presumably he meant that Adam was the first man to sin by disobeying God. Once again, it does not mean that sin was biologically transmitted to every human being who now exists.

1. I will not grant your unsubstantiated presumption.
2. You have to thus prove a sin nature is not genetically passed on from one generation to the next (this is nature, not a contagious disease being spoken of)

Moreover, if necessary, I could name five noted Bible scholars who agree with me.

Only one if you discount Larry, Moe, Curly, and Shemp....

Nyuk nyuk nyuk

Doesn't matter if every one in the world with whatever "scholarly claim" they are only mortal men with easily swayed pov, prone to misunderstanding and misinterpretation (that's why the science books are always being rewritten or updated).

Facts are facts if no one believes them.