"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[Doveaman]

Where on earth did Kain find a wife if his parents and himself were the only humans? (same goes for Noah).

Adam had daughters.

“After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.” (Gen 5:4).

This whole mythology has so many holes in it that it would not pass the scrutiny of a 10 year old!

It’s your understanding of Scripture that has holes in it.

Boy! Do you people ever read the Bible?

Yes.

Leviticus 18:6-18

New King James Version (NKJV)

The History of Adam and Eve is not recorded in Leviticus, it is recorded in Genesis. Incest was allowed in Genesis.

Sorry but I refuse to accept that we are all the result of incest.

You don't even accept that we are the result of God, so that's no surprise.

Besides, incest was allowed in Genesis. It was allowed for populating purposes. After the earth was populated enough, sexual relations became more distant.

“No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.” (Lev 18:6).

Also MLING and JAZER both disagree with you

The Scripture presents the facts. We form theories to explain those facts. The theories may disagree, but the facts of Scripture remain the same. We simply go with the theory that best fits those facts.

Fact: “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7).

Fact: “From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth” (Acts 17:26).

Any viable theory about the origin of man (scientific or otherwise) must include these facts.

 

[Doveaman]

just so we're clear, you know that the bible has had different versions to it yes? not so much the changing of information, but certain testaments of the disciples being added or removed depending on the translator.

Even if this was true the original version would still be relevant and your atheism would still be irrelevant.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Nope.

With only two people on earth (Adam and Eve) incest was necessary for populating purposes. After the earth was populated enough incest was no longer necessary and was forbidden.

Doesn't matter if God changed his mind or not, the point remains that incest being right or wrong was circumstantial, even by your own admission. Meaning that God's morality is not objective, but rather can change for any given situation. Do you at least agree with that?

 

[mzungu]

Even if this was true the original version would still be relevant and your atheism would still be irrelevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuWjKqlRAUk&feature=watch_response

"Hypocrites and Pharisees"

 

[mzungu]

Imagine If All Atheists Left America - YouTube

 

[mzungu]

Nope.

With only two people on earth (Adam and Eve) incest was necessary for populating purposes. After the earth was populated enough incest was no longer necessary and was forbidden.

And NOAH too? This gets better by the post.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Imagine If All Atheists Left America - YouTube

I'm so ashamed that I only know a couple of the scientists by face in that video.

 

[RickG]

We see creationists here claiming to know that the experts are all wrong... even when the creationists themselves are admittedly ignorant of the subject matter. It seems that if you read the bible and have "common sense," that you can critique the experts on stuff you know nothing about. How exactly, does this work?

Unfortunately, there is a well funded movement that deliberately misrepresents well known science in numerous disciplines in order to reconcile literal translation of some scripture. Understand I'm not talking about a different view, but rather, deliberate distortion of facts. It makes me wonder how these same people are able to reconcile the 9th commandment.

 

[Split Rock]

Unfortunately, there is a well funded movement that deliberately misrepresents well known science in numerous disciplines in order to reconcile literal translation of some scripture. Understand I'm not talking about a different view, but rather, deliberate distortion of facts. It makes me wonder how these same people are able to reconcile the 9th commandment.

Agreed... its called "Lying for Jesus." The idea is, its OK to tell a small lie, if it is used to defeat a big lie, like evilutionism. Its one of the reasons that creationism is as poor theologically as it is scientifically.

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea is, its OK to tell a small lie, if it is used to defeat a big lie, like evilutionism.

We're not the ones who wrote, The Preservation of Favoured Races, either.

 

[Jazer]

Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans. In fact there were NO OTHER humans at the time. They were cast down to Earth and they had 2 children both male. Where on earth did Kain find a wife if his parents and himself were the only humans? (same goes for Noah).

Do you reject science? Science can explain all of this for you.
We know that Adam and Eve in the Bible were the first Hebrews.
Science clearly tells us that there were non Hebrew people 6,000 years ago.

 

[Jazer]

I'm so ashamed that I only know a couple of the scientists by face in that video.

What has atheism done for America?

 

[AV1611VET]

What has atheism done for America?

Stood out like a sore thumb.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Do you reject science? Science can explain all of this for you.
We know that Adam and Eve in the Bible were the first Hebrews.
Science clearly tells us that there were non Hebrew people 6,000 years ago.

I think his point was that Biblical literalists have to reject science. You proved his point.

Where does the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the first "Hebrews"? I thought the Hebrews were synonymous with the Israelites, as in, the descendents of Jacob. Though the term has some ambiguity, I don't know of anyone who uses it in relation to Adam and Eve. Abraham maybe, but not Adam and Eve.

 

[Jazer]

I think his point was that Biblical literalists have to reject science. You proved his point.

I am a literalist. There is no conflict between science and a literal understanding of the Bible. As long as you understand that a day in the Bible is 1000 years.

Where does the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the first "Hebrews"? I thought the Hebrews were synonymous with the Israelites, as in, the descendents of Jacob. Though the term has some ambiguity, I don't know of anyone who uses it in relation to Adam and Eve. Abraham maybe, but not Adam and Eve.

The J2B3 represents Abraham. There are only 7 generations between Adam and Noah, about the same number of generations from Noah to Abraham. So from a genetics viewpoint that is not enough time for a mutation. So Adam, Noah & Abraham would all have the same DNA. Science and the Bible puts Adam in the Northern part of the Euphrates valley in the northern part of the furtile crecent. So they both agree on the time and the location. Also science tells us that J2B3 was the first farmer, just like the Bible says Adam was to till the land.

So Adam and Eve were real people and the garden of eden was a real place. Although the Cedar trees in Lebanon were said to be on equal ground with the trees in the Garden in Eden. There are a few of the Cedar trees left, even if Eden is no longer there. Although we can read in the Bible what started in Eden. Sheep, Goats, wheat, barley different things like that. Again you will find agreement between science and the Bible in this regard. The GAP is a perfect fit with science, they agree.

 

[mzungu]

I am a literalist. There is no conflict between science and a literal understanding of the Bible. As long as you understand that a day in the Bible is 1000 years.

The J2B3 represents Abraham. There are only 7 generations between Adam and Noah, about the same number of generations from Noah to Abraham. So from a genetics viewpoint that is not enough time for a mutation. So Adam, Noah & Abraham would all have the same DNA. Science and the Bible puts Adam in the Northern part of the Euphrates valley in the northern part of the furtile crecent. So they both agree on the time and the location. Also science tells us that J2B3 was the first farmer, just like the Bible says Adam was to till the land.

So Adam and Eve were real people and the garden of eden was a real place. Although the Cedar trees in Lebanon were said to be on equal ground with the trees in the Garden in Eden. There are a few of the Cedar trees left, even if Eden is no longer there. Although we can read in the Bible what started in Eden. Sheep, Goats, wheat, barley different things like that. Again you will find agreement between science and the Bible in this regard. The GAP is a perfect fit with science, they agree.

I think you need to read Genesis 1 and 2 again until you understand it! I understood it the first time I read it, so take courage my friend and don't be like some people who simply cannot understand it!
Here is a hint: [FONT=Arial, Helevica]Gen 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helevica](notice it says man and not hebrew)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helevica]in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."[/FONT]

 

[roach]

I am a literalist. There is no conflict between science and a literal understanding of the Bible. As long as you understand that a day in the Bible is 1000 years.

The J2B3 represents Abraham. There are only 7 generations between Adam and Noah, about the same number of generations from Noah to Abraham. So from a genetics viewpoint that is not enough time for a mutation. So Adam, Noah & Abraham would all have the same DNA. Science and the Bible puts Adam in the Northern part of the Euphrates valley in the northern part of the furtile crecent. So they both agree on the time and the location. Also science tells us that J2B3 was the first farmer, just like the Bible says Adam was to till the land.

So Adam and Eve were real people and the garden of eden was a real place. Although the Cedar trees in Lebanon were said to be on equal ground with the trees in the Garden in Eden. There are a few of the Cedar trees left, even if Eden is no longer there. Although we can read in the Bible what started in Eden. Sheep, Goats, wheat, barley different things like that. Again you will find agreement between science and the Bible in this regard. The GAP is a perfect fit with science, they agree.

I thought Jesus was God's only son and we are all God's children, so.... we're all girls!?!?

 

[mzungu]

I thought Jesus was God's only son and we are all God's children, so.... we're all girls!?!?

Applause - YouTube

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I am a literalist. There is no conflict between science and a literal understanding of the Bible. As long as you understand that a day in the Bible is 1000 years.

Jesus spent 3000 years in the tomb? 40,000 years in the desert? And if a day is a thousand years, how long does that make a year? Is a Biblical year therefore 365,000 years long? Did the Hebrews, in fact, wander the deserts for 14,600,000 years when fleeing Egypt? And how do leap years effect our counting?

Join us next time for another episode of everybody's favourite gameshow "why people claiming to be Biblical literalists obviously havn't thought things all the way through", same bat time, same bat channel.

Science and the Bible puts Adam in the Northern part of the Euphrates valley in the northern part of the furtile crecent.

I'm curious to know where, exactly "science" says anything about Adam, or where he lived?

 

[Nostromo]

Are there any actual Christians on this part of the forum that we can talk to?