Questions about Cain...

[dad]

Humans have two allels of each gene

True, and you know Adam must have then, because.....? (I'm not doubting you on this point, just wondering how it is we are certain of that)

so Adam and Eve would have had 4 between them unless Eve was a clone of Adam having supposedly been made from his rib in one version of the Genesis myth.

Not version, 'chapter'. The chapter that fleshed out the details of that point.

I just popped in a number because I knew that you would make up whatever number you thought you need to make your myth work out.

But you were wrong, I didn't make up or even state a number. Don't brag about being wrong.

I think that everyone can see that you just make up whatever fantasy you need as you go along in order to try to justify your adherence to an ancient Hebrew myth that has long been refuted by modern science.

You couln't refute your way of of a paper bag, teach.

The justifications only exist in your mind and nowhere else. (Unless you really are parodying YEC to make it look as stupid as possible as some suspect, in which case you are doing a great job.)

Justifications? Which are these, the ones you make up as you go along here? Why do you think they lived near a thousand years, and could have lived forever before that if their dna was just like ours? Where do you dig this stuff up?

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

they didn't live live 1000 years because its a myth

 

[dad]

Where does it say there was already people there?

(Nod) It doesn't No one was there, but Cain and his wofe, and the kids they had, which, over time built a village, or, what they used to call, a 'city'.

 

[dad]

they didn't live live 1000 years because its a myth

No that is absolute fact that we lived close to that age then, a simple matter of documented record. The only myth is PO limited modern speculations, which falsely assume it was then as now.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No that is absolute fact that we lived close to that age then, a simple matter of documented record. The only myth is PO limited modern speculations, which falsely assume it was then as now.

I guess fibroblasts didn't have telomeres before the "split". I wonder what those ancients ate after their teeth wore away to nothing. Or were pre-split humans like sharks constantly growing new teeth? Or maybe they had titanium enamel. The extreme ages of the patriarchs are a myth. You are again using one myth to try to justify another.

F.B.

 

[funyun]

It's one of the oldest books in the world, that's pretty historical right there. It talks of our history, thats pretty historical. What more do you want?

The age of a book or a work has no correlation whatsoever to its basis in facts. Are you saying a book published yesterday could not possibly be correct?

How many really map it out like the bible?

The Hindu Vedas "map it out" in much more detail than the Bible, actual. They go into incredible detail in the account of creation, as well as general cosmology.

Don't forget your own mythology, it tries to do the same.

Thanks, I don't have one. Mythologies are not based in evidence, they are based in imagination.

There are things found that support the bible. They used to say that Daniel must have been written after it was, because it named the next kingdoms coming, even one king by name, and the year of Messiah coming, and all kinds of amazing things. Then they found it compared with some texts found, that dated it as old after all. The city of Ur where Abraham was was said to be a myth, till they found evidence of it. All kinds of things proove it is historical. There are whole sites devoted to that sort of thing.

That does not prove it is historical any more than the fact that the actual existence of Mount Olympus proves the Greek gods really live there. The existence of Troy does not prove that an Achilles actually lived. The existence of Antarctica does not mean that the events of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner actually happened. The existence of a real Tokyo does not mean Godzilla really exists. This is a very basic logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

 

[dad]

I guess fibroblasts didn't have telomeres before the "split".

Cells and genes would likely have had key differences.

I wonder what those ancients ate after their teeth wore away to nothing.

I wonder if they were designed to grow new teeth?

Or were pre-split humans like sharks constantly growing new teeth?

That's my guess. At least pre fall humans.

The extreme ages of the patriarchs are a myth.

You are wrong, they are as real as real can be! Just as eternal life coming is no myth, or the afterlife, or heaven, or the new heavens coming as the PO ones dissapear forever! What is a complete myth in every sense of the word is your partial reality theories of a PO never never land! Get the whole picyure, man, give us a break.

You are again using one myth to try to justify another.

No, mythman, you are the dreamweaver.

 

[dad]

The age of a book or a work has no correlation whatsoever to its basis in facts. Are you saying a book published yesterday could not possibly be correct?

You asked for history, I gave a book written before Nero was born, or Alexandar the Great, or the kings of Persia. Can't beat that.

The Hindu Vedas "map it out" in much more detail than the Bible, actual. They go into incredible detail in the account of creation, as well as general cosmology.

OK, I've heard a bit of that, like some guy who swallowed the sun! Not all stories are equal.

Thanks, I don't have one. Mythologies are not based in evidence, they are based in imagination.

Old ageism to a tee.

That does not prove it is historical any more than the fact that the actual existence of Mount Olympus proves the Greek gods really live there. The existence of Troy does not prove that an Achilles actually lived. The existence of Antarctica does not mean that the events of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner actually happened. The existence of a real Tokyo does not mean Godzilla really exists. This is a very basic logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

Truth or consequentses, that is the question. Millions agree by archeological confirmation, irrefuteable prophesy fulfilled, and power in their lives on call, like a genie, that it is truth. Against this we have---your opinion. Hmm

 

[funyun]

There is nothing in your post that would indicate to someone else a tone of sarcasm. Your ridicule is quite uncalled for. A simple "I was sarcastic" would have sufficed.

Your response took me for an idiot and I don't appreciate that. By the way, ridiculing you would be me talking down to you. I wasn't talking down to you, merely retorting.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Cells and genes would likely have had key differences.

I wonder if they were designed to grow new teeth?


That's my guess. At least pre fall humans.

Now I really think you must be a troll trying to make YEC look stupid. Congratulations on your overwhelming success.

 

[dad]

Now I really think you must be a troll trying to make YEC look stupid. Congratulations on your overwhelming success.

Whether I am right or wrong on what I may think of a particular little sidebar issue of what may have went on in Eden is not gospel.
Certainly the way teeth work now are dumb. Some process must have been built in to make them never need dental work! There were no dentists in Eden. It makes perfect sense to me, that a smart God would cover this basic base. Count on it.

 

[funyun]

You asked for history, I gave a book written before Nero was born, or Alexandar the Great, or the kings of Persia. Can't beat that.

Can't beat the Vedas, which are older. Just because a book is old does not make it a history book. So yes, you can quite easily beat that.

OK, I've heard a bit of that, like some guy who swallowed the sun! Not all stories are equal.

Which is somehow less plausible than a whale eating a man, yet the man remains alive and eventually escapes? Please impart unto us mortals how you, dad, determine which is history and which isn't?

Old ageism to a tee.

Dad's signature non sequitur, to a tee.

Truth or consequentses, that is the question. Millions agree by archeological confirmation, irrefuteable prophesy fulfilled, and power in their lives on call, like a genie, that it is truth. Against this we have---your opinion. Hmm

Hmm, let's see. Appeal to popularity, another affirming the consequent, and non sequitur. You're really raking 'em, dad.

I have already refuted your "archeological confirmation" nonsense. Very vague prophecies tend to always come to fruition. "There will be a war and a dictator will rise". Don't be surprised if that comes true.

 

[dad]

Can't beat the Vedas, which are older. Just because a book is old does not make it a history book. So yes, you can quite easily beat that.

No, you can't. How old are the Vedas, and exactly how do they know, for starters? Next, the bible was around just not in written form, that we know of at least yet.

Which is somehow less plausible than a whale eating a man, yet the man remains alive and eventually escapes?

Are you kidding? No comparison, to a giant fish eating a man for a few days, to someone eating the sun. Ridiculous.

Please impart unto us mortals how you, dad, determine which is history and which isn't?

You mean which is true. There may be history in the others as well, but not of the calibre of the bible, where the records were kept right.

I have already refuted your "archeological confirmation" nonsense.

What the hec are you talking about? Are you awake, man?

Very vague prophecies tend to always come to fruition. "There will be a war and a dictator will rise". Don't be surprised if that comes true.

Bethlehem virgin birth wasn't vague. You talk as if you don't know the bible, and are chanting some programmed popular misconception mantra! Know wherof you speak, or don't bother tappin the keys.

 

[TheBear]

No, they actually lived, and are part of a creation debate.

Being part of a debate does not add any credibility to a claim. Is there any independent verification and validation of this claim?

 

[dad]

Being part of a debate does not add any credibility to a claim. Is there any independent verification and validation of this claim?

I have no reason to assume God lied, do you?

 

[JGL53]

Well, if genesis is a science book, then humans were initially created from dirt (the dust of the earth) about six thousand years ago, and then were perpetuated by incest initially (between the children of Adam and Eve, i.e., copulation between brothers and sisters).

In what is normally thought of as science, humans evolved, as did all other extant species, over a few billion years by change in gene frequency caused by environmental effects on DNA mutations. So humans evolved from one-cell life - let's call it slime. And, starting a few million years ago, one lineage of monkey-ish or ape-ish species eventually evolved into extant humans.

So, we have the dirt/incest "theory" vs. the slime/monkey theory.

I'm going to have to go with the slime/monkey idea. It's not very flattering, but there actually seems to be HUGE amount of scientific evidence for it - as opposed to the dirt/incest idea - which is equally disgusting, PLUS there is NO scientific evidence for it whatsoever.

 

[TheBear]

I have no reason to assume God lied, do you?

I have no reason to believe a god exists. But that's a story for another discussion. Besides, that wasn't my question.

So, your answer to - "Is there any independent verification and validation of this claim?" - is no.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have no reason to assume God lied, do you?

But you do assume that God actually said what you think He said, that it was recorded accurately and that you have interpreted it correctly. All totally unfounded assumptions.

F.B.

 

[trase]

Adam and Eve's children were the only ones on earth...so how did they create man kind?

2. CAIN AND ABEL

Less than two years after Cain's birth, Abel was born, the first child of Adam and Eve to be born in the second garden. When Abel grew up to the age of twelve years, he elected to be a herder; Cain had chosen to follow agriculture.

Now, in those days it was customary to make offerings to the priesthood of the things at hand. Herders would bring of their flocks, farmers of the fruits of the fields; and in accordance with this custom, Cain and Abel likewise made periodic offerings to the priests. The two boys had many times argued about the relative merits of their vocations, and Abel was not slow to note that preference was shown for his animal sacrifices. In vain did Cain appeal to the traditions of the first Eden, to the former preference for the fruits of the fields. But this Abel would not allow, and he taunted his older brother in his discomfiture.

In the days of the first Eden Adam had indeed sought to discourage the offering of animal sacrifice so that Cain had a justifiable precedent for his contentions. It was, however, difficult to organize the religious life of the second Eden. Adam was burdened with a thousand and one details associated with the work of building, defense, and agriculture. Being much depressed spiritually, he intrusted the organization of worship and education to those of Nodite extraction who had served in these capacities in the first garden; and in even so short a time the officiating Nodite priests were reverting to the standards and rulings of pre-Adamic times.

The two boys never got along well, and this matter of sacrifices further contributed to the growing hatred between them. Abel knew he was the son of both Adam and Eve and never failed to impress upon Cain that Adam was not his father. Cain was not pure violet as his father was of the Nodite race later admixed with the blue and the red man and with the aboriginal Andonic stock. And all of this, with Cain's natural bellicose inheritance, caused him to nourish an ever-increasing hatred for his younger brother.

The boys were respectively eighteen and twenty years of age when the tension between them was finally resolved, one day, when Abel's taunts so infuriated his bellicose brother that Cain turned upon him in wrath and slew him.

The observation of Abel's conduct establishes the value of environment and education as factors in character development. Abel had an ideal inheritance, and heredity lies at the bottom of all character; but the influence of an inferior environment virtually neutralized this magnificent inheritance. Abel, especially during his younger years, was greatly influenced by his unfavorable surroundings. He would have become an entirely different person had he lived to be twenty-five or thirty; his superb inheritance would then have shown itself. While a good environment cannot contribute much toward really overcoming the character handicaps of a base heredity, a bad environment can very effectively spoil an excellent inheritance, at least during the younger years of life. Good social environment and proper education are indispensable soil and atmosphere for getting the most out of a good inheritance.



Page 849
The death of Abel became known to his parents when his dogs brought the flocks home without their master. To Adam and Eve, Cain was fast becoming the grim reminder of their folly, and they encouraged him in his decision to leave the garden.


Cain's life in Mesopotamia had not been exactly happy since he was in such a peculiar way symbolic of the default. It was not that his associates were unkind to him, but he had not been unaware of their subconscious resentment of his presence. But Cain knew that, since he bore no tribal mark, he would be killed by the first neighboring tribesmen who might chance to meet him. Fear, and some remorse, led him to repent. Cain had never been indwelt by an Adjuster, had always been defiant of the family discipline and disdainful of his father's religion. But he now went to Eve, his mother, and asked for spiritual help and guidance, and when he honestly sought divine assistance, an Adjuster indwelt him. And this Adjuster, dwelling within and looking out, gave Cain a distinct advantage of superiority which classed him with the greatly feared tribe of Adam.

And so Cain departed for the land of Nod, east of the second Eden. He became a great leader among one group of his father's people and did, to a certain degree, fulfill the predictions of Serapatatia, for he did promote peace between this division of the Nodites and the Adamites throughout his lifetime. Cain married Remona, his distant cousin, and their first son, Enoch, became the head of the Elamite Nodites. And for hundreds of years the Elamites and the Adamites continued to be at peace.


(from The Urantia Book)

For educational purposes only !!!

 

[funyun]

No, you can't. How old are the Vedas, and exactly how do they know, for starters? Next, the bible was around just not in written form, that we know of at least yet.

The Vedas in their current form are around 3,500 years old. Sumerian and Egyptian myths, in writing, date back ~5,000 years at the earliest in cuneiform and heiroglyphics, respectively. The Old Testament is 3,000 years old at the very earliest, more likely ~2,500 years old.

Are you kidding? No comparison, to a giant fish eating a man for a few days, to someone eating the sun. Ridiculous.

They are both physically impossible. One is not "more impossible" than another. But if it makes you feel better, what about god making the sun stop in the sky, ignoring that the sun doesnt actually move? That is also ridiculous.

By the way, would you mind telling me which myth this sun-eating one is?

You mean which is true. There may be history in the others as well, but not of the calibre of the bible, where the records were kept right.

And you know this how? You simply believe that the Bible is right and therefore it is more historical than any other mythological text. You have no evidence.

What the hec are you talking about? Are you awake, man?

Archaeological evidence that Ur existed is not evidence Abraham was a real person. As that is exactly the sort of argument you were making, consider it refuted.

Bethlehem virgin birth wasn't vague. You talk as if you don't know the bible, and are chanting some programmed popular misconception mantra! Know wherof you speak, or don't bother tappin the keys.

I know as much or more on the subject than you, who I find rather lacking in actually information. You seem to think having faith in spades makes up for not knowing what you're talking about.

Some prophecies in the Bible were written after the fact, some are so vague anyone with half an imagination could interprate them to fit any event, and many are seen as prophetic when they are merely overly-poetic translations of translations, as in the case of the King James Bible. Some, especially those dealing with the messiah are believed to be genuine among scholars. However, I don't remember any Old Testament prophecies regarding the naming of Bethlehem itself. Could you kindly give me the passage?