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?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course, evolution also requires incest once you have genetic speciation (nor morphological), unless you have the miracle of simultaneous speciation in several instances.
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 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?
Fine, stick to your unsupported argument. I dont know why you keep going on about it.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.
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.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.You obviously think large number of Hebrew scholars have considered the argument, rejected it, and as a result written nothing about it.
Sure you dismissed it. You wrote Genesius off as one reference from a source of unknown quality and one web page on the subject.No I dont. Rather I dismiss your understanding of Hebrew grammar.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.
Didnt 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.You clearly think there is something special about being firstborn and the appointed seed (to Christ), well later genealogies prove there is not.
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 dont want to, that is perfectly fine with me.marktheblake said:The eldest son is the priest and leader of the family, seems consistent with what JC said.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.Assyrian said:A quotation would be nice. You think Cain Ishmael Esau and Reuben were priests?
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 dont bother?You like demanding quotes, but you fail to do so yourself. Show me where Eve said anybody was firstborn?
In fact you cant even make up your own mind what Eve said.
Eve thought Cain was the promised seed when he was born, his action in murdering his broter showed he wasnt. Eve tells us Abel had been the promised seed. Until Cain murdered him. Abel couldnt still be the promised seed when he was dead could he?
I can't believe I am reading this. Where do creationists dredge up this absolute nonsense from?
Is there a third option?Why are whole populations either incest or beastiality?
I see --- and how would you explain the sudden appearance of a whole race of humans, without not one person engaging in incest?Yes, 'neither'.
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.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.
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.Why are Creationists going on about incest?
What about them? Incest was not a sin back then. It only became a sin after God declared it off-limits in Leviticus.What about Adam and Eve or Noah’s family?
No --- because Eve indeed gave birth to many, many daughters --- in my opinion.Doesn’t it bother you guys that Eve never gave birth to a daughter in Genesis?
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?
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.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.
You mean I'm not going to get an answer because you don't know what gave birth to the first human being?You're not going to get an answer, because evolution quite simply doesn't work that way.
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.
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 doesnt 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 Noahs family? Doesnt it bother you guys that Eve never gave birth to a daughter in Genesis?
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:
And please don't come back with --- evolution gives rise to populations --- not individuals.
- 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).
Even so --- I still want the one gave rise to the very first one.
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.
What kind of sentence is this?The first human was the same species as the population it belonged to.
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"?
Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.
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?
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).
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.
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".
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.
Moreover, if necessary, I could name five noted Bible scholars who agree with me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?