L
lostinthought
Guest
If not then where did the other people come from? And if so, does that mean we are all messed up at some level? Or were we pure enough then that things like that didn't happen? 
-
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.
Dracil
Well-Known Member
- Dec 25, 2003
- 5,005
- 246
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Well, if you think of Adam and Eve as the first organisms that are just similar enough to us to be called "humans," then they had sex with the other people in their not-quite-human-yet population.
If you try to ask what this boundary is, then I'll refer you to the Beard question. Which is basically, how many hairs can you pluck from someone's beard before it ceases to be a beard?
If you try to ask what this boundary is, then I'll refer you to the Beard question. Which is basically, how many hairs can you pluck from someone's beard before it ceases to be a beard?
Upvote
0
L
lostinthought
Guest
So . . . they did . . . but it was OK because they weren't quite human yet? When did they become human? We don't know? So when does it become wrong? It is medical science that it causes genetic problems . . . but . . . hmm . . .
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
lostinthought said:
Adam and Eve were residents of Eden... A beautiful garden spot. There were other people around. Only when someone wants to make Adam and Eve the only two people on the planet (the YEC view) do you run into this problem among many others. Cain went into the land of Nod and married a girl there. Who was she? We don't know and apparently it wasn't too important since it was not mentioned what her lineage was. Only when one starts to insert things that are not there do you run in to problems like who Cain married and make it important when it is trivial. This is one of the largest dealings of YEC theology. They insert things into the Bible because they cannot believe in its truth unless it is a literal truth. The O/T does not concern itself with people who are not Hebrew because it was only meant for them. That is why it leaves the histories of all the other civilizations at the time out unless they cross with the histories of the Hebrew people.
Upvote
0
Dracil
Well-Known Member
- Dec 25, 2003
- 5,005
- 246
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
No, it means there's a big population of not-quite-human organisms, and Adam and Eve are the first organisms in that population we can call "humans" thus there are a lot of not-quite-human-people who are not directly related to Adam and Eve's offspring for them to have wonderful sex with.lostinthought said:
Please try to read a bit more carefully.
Upvote
0
L
lostinthought
Guest
I'm not trying to start an argument or anything! I was just curious whether people beleived God created more people or not! I mean, I think they had kids after leaving the Garden anyway, right? It would make sense that only the history of the chosen people would be recorded, though.
Upvote
0
L
lostinthought
Guest
Wait- where did these not so human folks come from?
Geez - I'm sorry I didn't understand you!
Geez - I'm sorry I didn't understand you!
Upvote
0
Dracil
Well-Known Member
- Dec 25, 2003
- 5,005
- 246
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Evolution, and lots of primates.
The problem is that you're trying to look at the story too literally, which as you're finding, actually causes things in the Bible to not make sense.
The problem is that you're trying to look at the story too literally, which as you're finding, actually causes things in the Bible to not make sense.
Upvote
0
watcher215
Active Member
- Feb 24, 2003
- 30
- 1
- 58
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
there was no law against intermarriage at that time. it is conjectured that the prohibition was given later because man's gene pool became less robust, making him more susceptible to defect. the laws against intermarriage are given as a protection to the obedient.
Upvote
0
L
lostinthought
Guest
How do I know which parts of the Bible to take literally, as history, and which parts are symbollic? Does that just come with time?
Upvote
0
Dracil
Well-Known Member
- Dec 25, 2003
- 5,005
- 246
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
To an extent, yes. And you'll find that you'll probably never fully agree with other Christians which sections to take literally and which sections not to. It's why theological beliefs among Christians vary so greatly and why there are so many denominations and arguments. It's just a natural effect of reading and interpretation.
Upvote
0
The rabbinical tales have the notion that Eve always gave birth to opposite sex fraternal twins and that was who Adam and Eves sons married.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes they did have sex with each other, and what is now called incest. Then it was perfectly OK, now it is not. In that perfect (merged) world, there really were some different rules in effect. Thats the way God set it up, to get it rolling.lostinthought said:If not then where did the other people come from? And if so, does that mean we are all messed up at some level? Or were we pure enough then that things like that didn't happen?
Upvote
0
L
lostinthought
Guest
Dad! I am so happy you have become a Christian! Just kidding, I know you're not really my dad - thanks for answering my post, though!
Just kidding, I know you're not really my dad - thanks for answering my post, though!
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
lostinthought said:
Theologians have been working on that for 2000 years and they don't have all the answers yet, I don't think we will in this life either. You do the best you can. Constantly test what you believe and what you think you know and hold onto what is good and true. That is good advice from the big guy Himself. Christianity is a path, or a journey with no end in this life, you will keep finding new things and new ways the Bible touches you until the day you die.
Upvote
0
- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Who cares if some senile old fogeys have not a clue? If they don't have any idea by now, I'm afraid they never will.LewisWildermuth said:
Hey, it's not rocket science, take 2 rabbits, and when there are a hundred, guess what happened?
Really now? Where is this written? And if the so called experts have no idea now, or likely will in this life, even, whwere do I get what is good and true?
This I can agree with, there are always new things to wow at.
Upvote
0
papakapp
a waterdrop going over niagra falls
lostinthought said:
There are two camps among prefessed christians on this issue. One camp takes everything precisely as literal as it was written. The other camp Takes everything as literal as they can, while still not looking like a wierdo to non Christians.
Here are some examples of taking the Bible as literal as it was written:
Proverbs 26:4-5
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, else you will be like him...Do answer a fool according to his folly, else he will think he is wise.
What is this? is it a contradiction? only for a fool. Is it literal? no, only for a fool. This passage still has the exact same application that it did when it was written. It is a humorous paradox. We have those today. For example, "Women; can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em."
[note** I do not endorse this saying as if it were true, I just used it because it is the same genre, even if it is far less wise, and decidedly un christian]
The point is that it is just a serious pain in the butt to deal with fools and that will not get better. It is not a guy teaching you how to deal with fools, it is a guy teaching you the problems with trying to.
Here's another one:
Song of Solomon 4:5
Your breasts are like two fawns..."
What is this? Is it literal? are her breasts fuzzy woodland creatures? Or, is this poetry? Do we say that poetry today sucks if it uses metaphor? no. Do we have a hard time identifying metaphor today when we see it? no. It is simple.
Look at it another way. What do breasts and baby deer have in common? I don't know about you, but I think they both are so cute that it is hard to believe they are real... and the best place to find them is in the petting zoo.
Now we're talking, right?
As far as the question about how are you supposed to read Genesis 1-2... You have to ask yourself what genre it was. If you conclude that it looks like history, go with it. If you conclude that it looks like poetry, go with it. Just be aware that popular culture and church culture will constantly be trying to pull you onto their team. you just have to know who you trust. You don't usually trust people based on their slick arguments, you really have to see people that you admire, and then ask them why they behave the way they do.
Upvote
0
I don't understand why some people think a God full of love and emotions can't make a single metaphor for the creation of man.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
