Large Scale Central

Record temperatures

General Discussion
#141
David Hill said:
Kevin Morris said:
TonyWalsham said:
I am still hoping for an answer to my earlier question as to where the wives of Cain and Abel came from.
It is remarkable how many people who try to teach us about the bible haven't actually read it. I also asked that question. And then one day, while I was stuck in a boring little hotel in Sydney with nothing else to read, I found the answer on Page 1!!! So here goes -

In Genesis Ch.1, God created the world, etc. He went on to create animals and people and he made them male and female (plus hermaphrodites). Adam and Eve didn’t show up until Chapter 3. So there were other people around, presumably living outside of the Garden of Eden.

I took this to mean that Adam and Eve were the first of God’s “chosen people”. However, given the shenanigans of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., one has to ask how wise was that choice.

Here endeth the lesson.


Not quite Kevin. Must have been a New Age Martian Bible. Read it again.

God did command Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply. Two sons would not be much of a multiplicand, so there is a high level of likelihood that the bellybuttonless couple had other children.


This is from the web, so it must be true.

Genesis 1:
26 And God said, Let us make man 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.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Adam doesn’t get created until Ch. 2, Vs 7 (I stand corrected here.)

#142
Kevin Morris said:
David Hill said:
Kevin Morris said:
It is remarkable how many people who try to teach us about the bible haven't actually read it. I also asked that question. And then one day, while I was stuck in a boring little hotel in Sydney with nothing else to read, I found the answer on Page 1!!! So here goes -

In Genesis Ch.1, God created the world, etc. He went on to create animals and people and he made them male and female (plus hermaphrodites). Adam and Eve didn’t show up until Chapter 3. So there were other people around, presumably living outside of the Garden of Eden.

I took this to mean that Adam and Eve were the first of God’s “chosen people”. However, given the shenanigans of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., one has to ask how wise was that choice.

Here endeth the lesson.


Not quite Kevin. Must have been a New Age Martian Bible. Read it again.

God did command Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply. Two sons would not be much of a multiplicand, so there is a high level of likelihood that the bellybuttonless couple had other children.


This is from the web, so it must be true.

Genesis 1:
26 And God said, Let us make man 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.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Adam doesn’t get created until Ch. 2, Vs 7 (I stand corrected here.)


From your quote He created man in Chapter 1 v. 27. Am I missing something here?

#143

This is turning into a bible study class…time to open the bar and pour some fine holy water…anyone for a dram or three of Highland Park, 12 year old…?

#144

The biggest mistake that people make, when interpreting the bible, is placing themselves in place of the people for whom the bible was originally told. For millenia, the bible was word of mouth, handed down through the generations. Its content was aimed at relatively uneducated farmers and herdsmen, nomads who had relatively little understanding of their world, outside of their immediate circumstances. For an ‘uneducated’ listener, the storyteller needs to talk to him in words that the listener is able to comprehend. When the bible says, “on the first day…” the storyteller is enabling the listener to understand in terms known to him. It is no point talking of millenia or millions of years, when the listener has no comprehension of such timeframes. He would quickly lose interest in the story. By relating timeframes familiar to the listener, then the storyteller is able to get his message across to the listener, maintaining his interest. A day is a day and relatively easily understood.

Of course, those of us today who are able to comprehend the realities and failings of the original story timeframes are able to understand the intent of the message being told. The story teller was merely relating the sequence of events that formed creation. If one wants to consider them as days, or weeks, or years or millenia or billions of years, is irrelevant to the message. It is the sequence and not the timeframe that is the story. Those who hang up on the literal interpretation of the timeframe, are losing the intent of the message. It would be pointless creating man, when an environment was not in place to enable him to survive ‘and multiply’. It is the message that is the answer.

#145
David Hill said:
From your quote He created man in Chapter 1 v. 27. Am I missing something here?
Yes you are. Tony's question was, where did the wives of Cain and Abel come from.
#146

I’ll they met them at the local pub on St. Patrick’s Day…!!!

#147

Deleted

#148

Sure…never a better day to meet the broads…!!!

#149

Now some spoil sport is going to suggest that the good Irish saint hadn’t been born then. Wrong again…his coming was planned way ahead, and people met in public places to enjoy laughter, and good times even back then.
Women weren’t all at home acting as baby machines and house=keepers…!!!

#150

In spite of men who tried to keep them there…!!!

#151
Ralph Berg said:
scooby said:
not getting into this one
I've been trying to take Scooby's path on this one. No matter which side of the argument you find yourself, you are likely to offend someone.

So I am going to simply relate an experience of mine.

About 5 years ago I found myself having difficulty breathing. After a month of running tests I was hospitalized and told the Mitral valve that seperates the two chambers in my heart was damaged.
My first clue that something unusual was going on occurred the night before my surgery. A woman doctor from the team that was doing the surgery came in to talk to me about the surgery.
She said: " Mr. Berg, for some reason your body has an amazing ability to adapt to the circumstances presented to it. We don’t understand or have an explaination for it."
On my 30 day check up after the surgery this comment was explained to me by my cardiologist. The pressure in my lungs prior to surgery was double the pressure in my heart.
The surgeons had never seen a Mitral blowout so severe in a living patient. My heart was 5 times its normal size, beating so fast it was beyond the range of their instruments.
The cardiologist went on to say that it was physicaly impossible for me to be alive…much less, walking and talking. Because the pressure in my lungs was double the pressure in my heart, it was physicaly impossible for my heart to pump blood into the lungs. The cardiologists exact words were " Angels were breathing for you".
I had no reason to doubt him then, or now.
Ralph


The decision to share this was not taken lightly. Other than a few very close friends, I have up to this point kept the experience private.
I must admit to being just a little disappointed that it drew no response or comment.
So why is this ?
Don’t care for me? Or don’t believe me?
Truth be known, I take great pride in my honesty. I’d much rather you thought I was an A-Hole, than a liar.
Hopefully I’m not thought of as either, or both.
Ralph

#152

Ralph,
if you said it then it must be true, so why would someone doubt it? I have an irregular heart rythmn. To an ‘untrained’ cardiologist it is indicative of a diseased muscle around the heart. However, for those in sports medicine, it is a relatively common ocurrence (one in a thousand of the population) for sports people. At rest, the rythmn is slightly irregular, but as the load on the heart increases, it settles down to an elevated regular heartbeat and continues at that rate, irrespective of increased load placed on it. This afflicts basketball players, marathon runners and other high-activity sportspeople. Consider it like an irregular ‘lumpy’ cam idle on a high-performance motor. This is one adaptation that human beings make to the standard model. In early times such an affliction would have been an advantage if I was pursued by a sabre-tooth tiger or one of the other nasties that inhabitted the earth. Human selection would have given me a distinct advantage over those whose heart rate simply continues to increase as the load on it increases.

#153

Ralph, it sounds like a miracle which I have heard about often and experienced to a lesser degree myself. No decision to ignore or belittle you on my part.

Now, to answer your question Tony, that I thought was rhetorical, but maybe you are interested to know how humankind started.

The wives of Cain and Able were likely their own sisters. Since God created Adam and Eve perfect, their genes were not corrupted so there would not be any problems.

It wasn’t until in later years, according to scripture, that God forbade intra-familial marriage, which may indicate the human genome had deteriorated from environmental exposure to global warming perhaps, that problems related to inbreeding would become/were becoming evident.

On another point posted, one plausible explanation for the extended lifespans of man before The Flood is the Bible describes the Earth; " Gen1:5 … God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen1:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Cloud cover to the extent described would surely block most or all ultra-violet radiation and most other types of radiation for that matter. It wasn’t until The Flood that it rained and the “fountains of the great deep broken up”.

The Flood would also account for the rapid burial of the plants and animals causing many of the fossils to show fleshy structures that would have obviously decayed long before a million years of dust and dirt could have covered them.

#154

OK, OK, I have the collected works of the Grimm Brothers and a nice copy of the fairy tales written by Hans Christian Andersen, obviously written by men.

Would some one care and precisely state who actually wrote the scriptures (very ancient fairy tales in my opinion!), thank you!

#155

You may believe the Bible to be tales, but Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God, written by men, without contradiction or any significant errors.

Does God exist? That is all a matter of faith.

#156
David Hill said:
You may believe the Bible to be tales, but Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God, written by men, without contradiction or any significant errors.

Does God exist? That is all a matter of faith.


And I guess the same can be said for the Qur’an, the Tanakh, the Pāli Tipitaka and the Mahayana Sutras. All inspired by God. And what where they smoking?

#157
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
David Hill said:
You may believe the Bible to be tales, but Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God, written by men, without contradiction or any significant errors.

Does God exist? That is all a matter of faith.


And I guess the same can be said for the Qur’an, the Tanakh, the Pāli Tipitaka and the Mahayana Sutras. All inspired by God. And what where they smoking?

I have no knowledge how those believers understand their “holy book” was written. Do you?

#158

No, I don’t and it doesn’t interest me in the least. Knowing that each of the different religions insists that their’s is the only true one is quite enough for me, thank you. That together with the dubious benefit of a Christian education - that’s when one gets the up close and real view of the “slight differences” between the theory and the practice - opened my eyes at a relatively young age. :wink: :slight_smile:

#159

HJ,
the word ‘hypocrite’ comes readily to mind when I try to understand my exposure to the Catholic religion.

#160
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
No, I don't and it doesn't interest me in the least. Knowing that each of the different religions insists that their's is the only true one is quite enough for me, thank you. That together with the dubious benefit of a Christian education - that's when one gets the up close and real view of the "slight differences" between the theory and the practice - opened my eyes at a relatively young age. ;) :)
HJ, There are things that science can not explain, and will never be able to explain. Even if the religion is wrong.........it doesn't rule out a creator. Ralph