Bible Question for a Christian

Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Bible Question for a Christian

Ok, was bored one night and found that wikipedia has an online bible. (oh no's, an agnostic reading the bible, gasp) sorry. Anyway, I was reading through Genesis. And a couple questions popped up in my mind.

 So Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden, had two sons, Cain and Able (sorry if spelling is off). Cain gets mad, and kills Able. Then it goes on to say something about Cain and his wife moving off and having kids. Who was Cains wife? because if I have this strait, after Cain killed Able there were only three people on the earth. Did Cain marry Eve? or did god make Cain a wife?


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Weristgott wrote: Ok, was

Weristgott wrote:

Ok, was bored one night and found that wikipedia has an online bible. (oh no's, an agnostic reading the bible, gasp) sorry. Anyway, I was reading through Genesis. And a couple questions popped up in my mind.

 So Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden, had two sons, Cain and Able (sorry if spelling is off). Cain gets mad, and kills Able. Then it goes on to say something about Cain and his wife moving off and having kids. Who was Cains wife? because if I have this strait, after Cain killed Able there were only three people on the earth. Did Cain marry Eve? or did god make Cain a wife?

 

A google seach using the search words "who was Cain's wife" returned 1,230,000 results.

 I bet you that there's at least ONE Christian response there.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I think the coolest answer

I think the coolest answer is on Answers in Genesis, because they're all like "scientific" and stuff:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

According to AiG, Cain's wife was Adam's sister.   But incest was not a sin back then because Adam and Eve were so perfect that they did not have accumulated genetic mistakes that cause birth defects. Laughing

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
ok, didn't have a chance to

ok, didn't have a chance to look at the site. But when did Adam get a sister? Guess I better go look at the site then...


brights
Silver Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
bible question for christian.

Hey Textom  that's what I was told. 

Seems to me if the bible was truly accurate and the breathed breath of or something like that of the god then it would clearly say who his wife was and where she came from. 

 

hope i find this thread again, just found the subscription notification in e-mail but clicked on so many I can't keep up with all the threads LOL.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: I think the

Textom wrote:

I think the coolest answer is on Answers in Genesis, because they're all like "scientific" and stuff:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

According to AiG, Cain's wife was Adam's sister. But incest was not a sin back then because Adam and Eve were so perfect that they did not have accumulated genetic mistakes that cause birth defects. Laughing

This just raises more questions in my mind. Is incest a sin only because of potential genetic defaults in children? Did ancient people even know incest caused defects?

Let's say, for example, a man gets vasectomy, then has relations with a sister. There's no possibility of a pregnancy, so is this sort of incest OK?


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Well the official answer,

Well the official answer, according to AiG again, is that incest *became* a sin only after Moses declared that it was against the Law of God in the Torah (Leviticus I think specifically). 

After all, incest is really common in Genesis.  Abraham did marry his half-sister, and Lot's daughters did get their father drunk and have sex with him after escaping Sodom and Gomorrah.

The thing I find funny, though, is that totally unscientific assumption that Adam & Eve had genes that were somehow immune to inbreeding.  This flies in the face of the most basic, elementary understanding of genetics.  It's lack of *diversity* in the gene mix that causes birth defects.  So unless Adam & Eve had a lot *more* genes than anybody else, it wouldn't matter how "good" their genes were.  All their offspring would still share about 50% of the same genes, which is the thing that causes birth defects from inbreeding.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
If Eve was supposedly

If Eve was supposedly created from Adam's rib, wouldn't they have identical DNA?  That would certainly cause all sorts of birth defects, wouldn't it?

Of course, that doesn't explain the fact that they "should" have identical DNA, but one was male and one was female. 

Seems like there are a couple of contradictions there.

As for relatives marrying relatives, didn't many royal lines (like Cleopatra and her brother)  marry within the family with the thought of  keeping the bloodline pure?  Didn't many end up with epilepsy and similar maladies due to the inbreeding?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I know a lot of lines tried

I know a lot of lines tried to keep it to 'second cousins' but they all ended up with problems eventually.

Silly inbreeding.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:

Textom wrote:

Well the official answer, according to AiG again, is that incest *became* a sin only after Moses declared that it was against the Law of God in the Torah (Leviticus I think specifically).

But, this wouldn't answer my above question. Besides, what other deeds only became sin when the law was given? This would mean that incest, among other "sins", is not some absolute, objective immoral act. Any takers from our biblical inerrantists friends?

(Edit: clarity)


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
First God has the power to

First God has the power to keep children from being born with problems form incest if he so chooses, so this could explain why it didn't matter if Adam's first children had incest.

I think another thing to do is to understand why Incest was against the law.

Genisis, especially the early part is mostly concerned with beginnings and first things. The is a non-Judeo-Christain book about Adam and Eve, I can't remember what is called. 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: First

simple theist wrote:

First God has the power to keep children from being born with problems form incest if he so chooses, so this could explain why it didn't matter if Adam's first children had incest.

Then why doesn't he stop this from happening, or atleast stop the defects? 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: simple

CrimsonEdge wrote:
simple theist wrote:

First God has the power to keep children from being born with problems form incest if he so chooses, so this could explain why it didn't matter if Adam's first children had incest.

Then why doesn't he stop this from happening, or atleast stop the defects?

You'll have to ask God, cause I don't know. I think how you answer my question on why is it agaisnt the law to begin with, might matter in why God doesn't stop it now. The defects are a good reason to not disobey this commandment.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: I think the

Textom wrote:

I think the coolest answer is on Answers in Genesis, because they're all like "scientific" and stuff:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

According to AiG, Cain's wife was Adam's sister. But incest was not a sin back then because Adam and Eve were so perfect that they did not have accumulated genetic mistakes that cause birth defects. Laughing

That is just so ridiculous on so many levels. answers in genesis? isn't that the so called science in the creation museum? Tell me noone literally authorised this in a museum display? I can't bear to watch, it's embarrassing. 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: Textom

Eloise wrote:
Textom wrote:

I think the coolest answer is on Answers in Genesis, because they're all like "scientific" and stuff:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

According to AiG, Cain's wife was Adam's sister. But incest was not a sin back then because Adam and Eve were so perfect that they did not have accumulated genetic mistakes that cause birth defects. Laughing

That is just so ridiculous on so many levels. answers in genesis? isn't that the so called science in the creation museum? Tell me noone literally authorised this in a museum display? I can't bear to watch, it's embarrassing.

 

Bad news, Eloise.  This site has a review, with pictures, from a person who went to the actual creation museum sponsored by AiG:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/9/105322/6744

About halfway down the document you'll see a photograph of the museum sign that explains how Cain married his sister and why that was okay back then. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: If Eve was

Susan wrote:

If Eve was supposedly created from Adam's rib, wouldn't they have identical DNA? That would certainly cause all sorts of birth defects, wouldn't it?

Of course, that doesn't explain the fact that they "should" have identical DNA, but one was male and one was female.

Seems like there are a couple of contradictions there.

Well as for the rib story, that's only in one of the two creation accounts (Gen 2:21-2), the one taken from the original document called the "priestly" text.  In that book, Yaweh creates man first, then creates woman from his rib.  This text, scholars think, was written during a time when the Hebrews were more patriarchal and were worshiping the god of mount Sinai, whose name was Yaweh.

In the *other* creation account (Gen 1:27) the one taken from the original called the "Elohim" text, the god named "Elohim" creates man and woman at the same time.  This original comes from the earlier period when the Hebrews were worshiping the god of mount Horeb (called Elohim) and were less patriarchal.

The two texts were conflated into the book of Genesis by priests from originals they "discovered" under the ruins of the temple after being released from Babylon in the 7th century BCE. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: First

simple theist wrote:
First God has the power to keep children from being born with problems form incest if he so chooses, so this could explain why it didn't matter if Adam's first children had incest.

This doesn't answer my original questions. Of course if an omnipotent god exists, it could do anything if it chooses.

simple theist wrote:
I think another thing to do is to understand why Incest was against the law.

Please, tell me. That's my question!

simple theist wrote:
Genisis, especially the early part is mostly concerned with beginnings and first things.

Yeah, I know...so?

simple theist wrote:
The is a non-Judeo-Christain book about Adam and Eve, I can't remember what is called.

How does this relate?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: You'll

simple theist wrote:
You'll have to ask God, cause I don't know.

You know that you're talking to atheists, right?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
It's all so obvious. Cain's

It's all so obvious.

Cain's wife came about during the bar-b-que on the seventh day. There were lots of spare ribs.


Weristgott
Posts: 26
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: It's all

wavefreak wrote:

It's all so obvious.

Cain's wife came about during the bar-b-que on the seventh day. There were lots of spare ribs.

Sticking out tongue Smiling Laughing out loud That's hilarious

Err, I mean, how could you say such a thing... Eye-wink


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: It's all

wavefreak wrote:

It's all so obvious.

Cain's wife came about during the bar-b-que on the seventh day. There were lots of spare ribs.

ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF

ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF

ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF ROTF

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote:simple

MrRage wrote:
simple theist wrote:
You'll have to ask God, cause I don't know.
You know that you're talking to atheists, right?
Yes I do. If someone asks me why you did something and I don't know, I would reply I don't know, your going to have to ask MrRage. I can't tell you why God won't do something, only God could give that answer.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote:simple

simple theist wrote:
I think another thing to do is to understand why Incest was against the law.
Please, tell me. That's my question!
A few possibilities exist. 1) It could be because of the medical problems 2) it could come from the social problems of marring members of your close family. 3)Something I haven't thought of. 4) answers 1-3. I'd recommend finding a Jewish person and ask them.

MrRage wrote:

simple theist wrote:
The is a non-Judeo-Christain book about Adam and Eve, I can't remember what is called.
How does this relate?
  The book may give you the answer you seek. Also look to Usher's Annals and Josephus. I don't know if they give answers or not, but it could be helpful.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]


Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Simple Theist:I haven't

Simple Theist:

I haven't posted here too often, but I, too, occasionally get those types of responses from people like Mr. Rage - "hey, why did so-and-so say or do this". Because I'm a theist, I'm somehow endowed with the ability to KNOW EXACTLY why somebody (who's mentioned in the Bible, for example) said, thought or did something 2,000 years ago - or 4,000 years ago.

But it's not just Mr. Rage - this website is rife with comments from people who ask these same types of silly questions.

My opinion - I think alot of the posters here are very young - teenagers / early twenties - with very little living and life experiences under their belts.

So it's understandable if their points-of-view / opinions / beliefs / etc come across as very naive and childlike.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: A few

simple theist wrote:
A few possibilities exist. 1) It could be because of the medical problems 2) it could come from the social problems of marring members of your close family. 3)Something I haven't thought of. 4) answers 1-3. I'd recommend finding a Jewish person and ask them.

Well, #1 & #2 are the standard reasons, but they're rather subjective and don't need a law-giving god.

If I come across a Jewish person, I'll try to remember to ask. But, I don't see why a Christian couldn't answer either.

Let's remember the context of my remark. My questions are directed at Answers in Genesis' answer to who Cain's wife was. If you peruse their site, you'll find that they blame the western moral malaise on things like evolution and moral relativism. But they explain who Cain's wife was with relative morals. The idea behind my questions is this: Is incest wrong in all cultures and for all time? Or is it's wrongness subjective to culture, time, and situation. AiG's answer is that it is relative. I find this curious because AiG is potentially painting themselves into a corner.

simple theist wrote:
The book may give you the answer you seek. Also look to Usher's Annals and Josephus. I don't know if they give answers or not, but it could be helpful.

Your being kinda vague. Can you give an specific thing to read?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: Simple

Broncosfan wrote:
Simple Theist:

I haven't posted here too often, but I, too, occasionally get those types of responses from people like Mr. Rage

I guess responses from people like me can be ignored, because you know how people like me are.

Score one ad hominem.

Broncosfan wrote:
"hey, why did so-and-so say or do this". Because I'm a theist, I'm somehow endowed with the ability to KNOW EXACTLY why somebody (who's mentioned in the Bible, for example) said, thought or did something 2,000 years ago - or 4,000 years ago.

Except I didn't post any question like this, nor do I assume that sort of knowledge from anyone.

Score one straw man.

(By the way, I find it funny that the person you directed your post at, Simple Theist, told me to go find a Jewish person to answer my question. But Simple Theist is polite and doesn't like to badger people, so we should just let him/her off the hook.)

Broncosfan wrote:
But it's not just Mr. Rage - this website is rife with comments from people who ask these same types of silly questions.

No one likes answering people like me asking silly questions!

Score another ad hominem.

Broncosfan wrote:
My opinion - I think alot of the posters here are very young - teenagers / early twenties - with very little living and life experiences under their belts. So it's understandable if their points-of-view / opinions / beliefs / etc come across as very naive and childlike.

Yeah, those teenagers and early 20 somethings, nobody needs to listen to them. They're basically a child until they reach some arbitrary age. This is classic ad hominem.

And let's not ignore the fact that you have no demographic evidence to back your opinion up. Oh, and many of the core users of this site (including me) are in an older demographic.

One ad hominem. One naked assertion.

Broncosfan, you are aware of the forum you're in, right? You've broken rule #1 three times. Are you willing to have a decent conversation? because that's what I'm trying to do.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, from the conversation

Well, from the conversation I've had with Broncosfan, I think it would be safe to say that any concept or question he is either incapable of or doesn't feel like dealing with is "silly".

But he will drop in to tell you why he won't answer said question.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
MR. Rage, Just so you know,

MR. Rage, Just so you know, I told you to find a Jewish person to answer your question because I figure they have to have a tradition for who Cain's wife is. I just don't know it.

Forgett about what I said about Josephus. I took the time and he doesn't mention where cain got his wife. I'm guessing that most people assume his wife was also his sister. 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Just a reminder before this

Just a reminder before this thread gets out of hand:

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness Forum.

No insults.  No name calling.  No cursing.

Please take care to follow forum rules. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Well for the record let me

Well for the record let me also point out that primate studies show even gorillas have an incest taboo.  Gorillas who are raised as siblings (even if they're not actually siblings) will tend not to mate with each other, but will seek mates outside their own family group.

Chimpanzees likewise avoid the incest problem by an instinctive behavior that drives females away from their home troop and to another troop where males are unlikely to be her brothers.

 This prevalance of strategies to avoid potential mating with siblings and promote diversification of the gene pool tracks waaaay back into all kinds of much smaller-brained monkeys and other social primates.

So from an evolutionary standpoint, the desire to avoid mating with a sibling goes back much further than the advent of humanity.  That's consistent with what evolutionary theory would predict: if it interferes with your survival, then populations will tend to develop a hard-wired inhibition against it.

So once again, the Bible is incompatable with science by suggesting that it's only laws and customs that keep people from mating with their siblings. Doesn't it make a lot more sense that this would be a psychologically hard-wired behavior?

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:

Textom wrote:

Well for the record let me also point out that primate studies show even gorillas have an incest taboo. Gorillas who are raised as siblings (even if they're not actually siblings) will tend not to mate with each other, but will seek mates outside their own family group.

Chimpanzees likewise avoid the incest problem by an instinctive behavior that drives females away from their home troop and to another troop where males are unlikely to be her brothers.

This prevalance of strategies to avoid potential mating with siblings and promote diversification of the gene pool tracks waaaay back into all kinds of much smaller-brained monkeys and other social primates.

So from an evolutionary standpoint, the desire to avoid mating with a sibling goes back much further than the advent of humanity. That's consistent with what evolutionary theory would predict: if it interferes with your survival, then populations will tend to develop a hard-wired inhibition against it.

So once again, the Bible is incompatable with science by suggesting that it's only laws and customs that keep people from mating with their siblings. Doesn't it make a lot more sense that this would be a psychologically hard-wired behavior?

If it wasn't for that fact that some humans do commit incest (worse is most of the time it is from rape and not mutual consent) While the monkies seem to always try to not commit incest.

Another question you should ask is if there were only those two monkies in the world, would they commit incest, or would they allow their species to die out before committing incest?


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: If it

simple theist wrote:

If it wasn't for that fact that some humans do commit incest (worse is most of the time it is from rape and not mutual consent) While the monkies seem to always try to not commit incest.

Simple Theist, are you saying that the exception proves the rule?  The fact that some humans commit incest proves that everyone would if they could? That doesn't sound right to me.

 

simple theist wrote:

Another question you should ask is if there were only those two monkies in the world, would they commit incest, or would they allow their species to die out before committing incest?

I would think it would depend on the monkies.

Also remember that non-human primates usually don't know who their father is, so they're often going on who they grew up around rather than some kind of knowlege of kinship.  And primates sometimes mate for fun or social bonding and not to reproduce, so it's more complicated than that.  For example, Bonobos will mate with anybody in their own troop--regardless of gender or sibling relations--except that mothers and sons never mate.  That's one relationship that would be very likely to produce inbreeding and thus is maladaptive, as opposed to mother-daughter coupling, which bonobos do.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Cain's wife was probably

 Cain's wife was probably his sister or the daughter of one of his relatives. Incest was not a sin yet because the law against incest had not yet been given. Also, the genetic code was pure at that time so there would be no physical abnormalities in the descendents. The Bible usually only mentions key people related to key events. But Adam and Eve probably had many children.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:  Cain's

Apotheon wrote:
 Cain's wife was probably his sister or the daughter of one of his relatives. Incest was not a sin yet because the law against incest had not yet been given. Also, the genetic code was pure at that time so there would be no physical abnormalities in the descendents. The Bible usually only mentions key people related to key events. But Adam and Eve probably had many children.

You didn't read through the thread, didn't you?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
D'oh! Double post.

D'oh! Double post.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
Cain's wife was probably his sister or the daughter of one of his relatives.

Interesting idea (albeit disturbing), but unfortunately for you, the bible doesn't say anything supporting this. Your trying to add on story to make an explanation.

Apotheon wrote:
Incest was not a sin yet because the law against incest had not yet been given. Also, the genetic code was pure at that time so there would be no physical abnormalities in the descendents.

Apparently you don't know much about genetics. There is no such thing as a pure genetic code (Although Hitler and the Klan would agree with). It doesn't matter how different two peoples genetic material are from each other. Within just a few generations, you would have large scale genetic abnormalities leading to infertility or death.

Apotheon wrote:
The Bible usually only mentions key people related to key events. But Adam and Eve probably had many children.

Again, your adding to the bible. The bible says nothing to suggest this. It even has Adam and Eve having a third son (Seth) to replace Able. Which begs the question, 'Why replace Able if they already had other children?' Simple answer, because they didn't have any other children, and since Able was dead, and Cain was exiled, they needed a new child to continue their line. Also, if the bible takes time to state the birth of Seth, and even gives some of the genology for Cain (who was exiled, and somehow started a city after that), why not even mention the existence of other children? Again, simple answer, there wasn't any to mention.

Also, while we are on the subject of the story of Adam and Eve, why was Cain so afraid of somebody was going to kill him after he went into exile if he was leaving the only two other people on the planet (who also happened to be his parents)? (Genesis 4:14)


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca wrote: It even

Piper2000ca wrote:
It even has Adam and Eve having a third son (Seth) to replace Able. Which begs the question, 'Why replace Able if they already had other children?' Simple answer, because they didn't have any other children, and since Able was dead, and Cain was exiled, they needed a new child to continue their line.

Just to clarify, Adam & Eve didn't have any other children up to that point. Gen. 5:4 states Adam had other sons and daughters.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Piper, you don't

 Piper, you don't understand how the Bible works, and you're arguing from silence. Just because it doesn't mention other relatives, does not prove they weren't there. The Bible does not claim to be an exhasutive treatement of all ancient historical matters. It gives us key people related to key events. The author of this thread posed a question, and I gave an answer. By the way, no I didn't read the whole question because I couldn't. Some banner or advertisement is blocking part of my screen. I can't see everything.

As for genetics, your argument might be valid today in our current condition, but the world and man were much different in biblical times. All of our current biological abnormalities have developed over time. Adam and Eve had a pure and healthy genetic code. You know the second law of Thermodynamics in that things break down over time. The gene pool in Adam's time was pure.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: Just to

MrRage wrote:

Just to clarify, Adam & Eve didn't have any other children up to that point. Gen. 5:4 states Adam had other sons and daughters.

    You're right it does.  It seems kind of ironic that a fellow atheist was able to correct me on this and not the theist.  Thanks.

Apotheon wrote:

As for genetics, your argument might be valid today in our current condition, but the world and man were much different in biblical times. All of our current biological abnormalities have developed over time. Adam and Eve had a pure and healthy genetic code. You know the second law of Thermodynamics in that things break down over time. The gene pool in Adam's time was pure.

    Uh huh.  Genetics disproves your nonsense claim, so it must have been different back then?  Unfortunately for you, science doesn't work that way.  As for Adam and Eve having a "pure and healthy genetic code," as I've already stated, this is just nonsense, and has no validity.  It doesn't matter how healthy, or free of genetic anomalies a genetic code is, in-breeding by its very nature creates genetic anomalies.  Tell me, what do you think a "pure genetic code" is?

    Also, you are abusing the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  It says nothing about things breaking down over time, it says that the entropy in a system has a tendency to increase.  What this means, is that the overall energy in a system is lost.  Now, DNA preserves its structure because it continually inputs energy (that's basically why we need to eat).


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Ok, now you're asserting

 Ok, now you're asserting that a pure genetic code would still cause problems through in breeding. My question to you is: how could you possibly know that? Who on earth have you observed to have a pure genetic code in the first place? Second, can you show me such a person who actually engaged in in- breeding and produced genetic abnomalities? Lasty, how do you know Adam and Even didn't have a pure genetic code? You said it was nonsense, but you weren't there to observe them. You're speculating. When we put God in the equation, such in breeding with no side affects would be possible. If He can create the universe from nothing, I'm inclined to believe He would have no problem preserving the gene pool from Adam. And yes, they did have many children as the other poster rightly stated.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Here's one for the

Here's one for the kiddies.... if darwinism is true and homosapiens have evolved from other ape like forms, then all humans are a result of inbreeding.  It is required for the new species to proliferate.  Does this mean we should see all kinds of genetic defects in homosapiens at the very start?


Christian Nerd
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
A Few Answers

Answers to various questions in this thread:

(1) Since Adam & Eve were the first man and woman and Cain was their son, Cain's wife had to be either one of his sisters or a niece.

(2) People lived 700-900 years back then and had a long productive life. Eve probably had hundreds of kids.

(3) Adam and Eve had perfect chromosomes, so incest was not wrong. Their chromosomes stayed pretty much damage free due to the hydrosphere. This was a layer of clear water like our ozone layer, except that it protected people much better from the sun's harmful rays.

 (4) It was only after the flood that mutations crept into our genome. During the flood the hydrosphere came down and covered the earth. Also a lot of water came from below the land. Remember, there were no oceans before the flood. The earth was all one land mass. Because people had hundreds of children, the earth filled up, which is why we have lots of oil (dead fauna) and coal (dead flora).

(5) After the flood, the human genome became more and more corrupted due to the rays of the sun and God had to outlaw incest.

(6) Each of us has 2 copies of each gene. If one is bad, the good one will keep us alive, usually. Brother and sister often have bad copies of the same gene. So, if the have a child, the child has a 50% chance of getting the bad copy from the mom and a 50% chance of getting a bad copy from the dad. This gives the child a 25% chance of getting 2 bad copies of a crucial gene. With no good copy, it dies or is deformed, or sickly. So, incest is outlawed. This was not true in the pre-flood era when everyone had only good copies of each gene and there was no possibility of getting a bad copy.

 

"I will lead you into the pit, laughing!" from Karl Marx's black mass, "Eulanem."


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: The thing I

Textom wrote:

The thing I find funny, though, is that totally unscientific assumption that Adam & Eve had genes that were somehow immune to inbreeding. This flies in the face of the most basic, elementary understanding of genetics. It's lack of *diversity* in the gene mix that causes birth defects. So unless Adam & Eve had a lot *more* genes than anybody else, it wouldn't matter how "good" their genes were. All their offspring would still share about 50% of the same genes, which is the thing that causes birth defects from inbreeding.

You're *almost* right, but what you are missing is what makes you think that AiG's explanation is ridiculous.  Genetic diversity is important so we have a higher ratio of healthy genes vs harmful recessive mutations.  It is the harmful recessive mutations shared by two people that cause problems.  Adam & Eve would have possessed no harmful recessive genes in common, thus there is no danger or risk.  They could share an almost identical gene set and still be no risk.

So what you said is true now, that lack of diversity aids with birth defects, but the reason why is because of harmful recessive mutations that have creeped into the gene pool. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
GAH!  Kill me now before

GAH!  Kill me now before my head explodes.

 

Why is this thread still active? The point is that the Adam/Eve creation thing is absurd. Going around in circles about incest and genetics is riidiculus. Just stop already. The problem here is that to make all the rational points about how absurd it is you first have to accept that some omnipotent being created Adam and Eve. But as soon has that god is invoked then rational objections fly out the window. If the god can create Eve from a rib then it sure as heck is possible to create a completely separate genome at the same time. And Cain's wife could have popped out of the mud while he was down by the river. You can't allow an omnipotent god into the conversation without discarding any reasonable sense of cause and effect.

 

Atheist: Why did god do it that way? It doesnt make sense.

Creationist. I don't know. Because he can? It doesn't have to make sense.

Athiest: Dead from head trauma from beating head against a brick wall.


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
As for genetics, your argument might be valid today in our current condition, but the world and man were much different in biblical times. All of our current biological abnormalities have developed over time. Adam and Eve had a pure and healthy genetic code. You know the second law of Thermodynamics in that things break down over time. The gene pool in Adam's time was pure.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ! Why is it so hard for people to google the 2nd law of thermodynamics and learn what it is before embarrassing themselves on public forums?!?!

Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

or

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

So please tell me what this has to do with genetic codes? Since when is the Earth an isolated system anyway? Deformities and negative hereditary conditions are a result of mutation and evolution over millions of years.

<edit>

And besides, if you want to use the laws of thermodynamics the 1st law : "The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings." describes conservation of energy - this law shows you can't create anything ex nihilo e.g. the universe.

</edit> 

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: GAH!

wavefreak wrote:

GAH! Kill me now before my head explodes.

 

Why is this thread still active? The point is that the Adam/Eve creation thing is absurd. Going around in circles about incest and genetics is riidiculus. Just stop already. The problem here is that to make all the rational points about how absurd it is you first have to accept that some omnipotent being created Adam and Eve. But as soon has that god is invoked then rational objections fly out the window. If the god can create Eve from a rib then it sure as heck is possible to create a completely separate genome at the same time. And Cain's wife could have popped out of the mud while he was down by the river. You can't allow an omnipotent god into the conversation without discarding any reasonable sense of cause and effect.

 

Atheist: Why did god do it that way? It doesnt make sense.

Creationist. I don't know. Because he can? It doesn't have to make sense.

Athiest: Dead from head trauma from beating head against a brick wall.

I'm inclined to agree with you, especially after reading Apotheon's conspiracy theory about Mason's taking over the world for the Antichrist.  I'm still shaking my head from that nonsense. 


Tankalish
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-06
User is offlineOffline
People, correct me if I'm

People, correct me if I'm wrong but this is a creation myth meant to be revelatory of the human condition and God's presence within creation. Adam and Eve, in the original, mean man and woman kind, not necessarily man and woman. The fact that those two words were chosen for the man and woman's names would seem to suggest, at least to this English major, that the author was providing a not so subtle hint as to the universality of the story.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Nice post Tankalish. The

Nice post Tankalish. The question is flawed becasue Adam and Eve were not real people. Thus, therefore, ergo, no need to debate inbreeding.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 The Bible is not an

 The Bible is not an exhaustive book. Adam lived 900 years. Yet the Bible only deals with major events in his life.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I personally wouldn't

I personally wouldn't correct you for being wrong, tankalish, but the Answers in Genesis people would:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/god_evolution.asp

 

According to AiG, your liberalistic "theistic evolution" position is the first step on the slippery slope to the end of Christianity:

AnswersInGenesis wrote:
In treating the Bible as though it must be cut and patched to convey a 'true' picture, liberal theologians are saying it is full of errors. If the Bible is full of errors, it obviously cannot be revelation from God.

..and therefore, you can question the truth of *any* part of the Bible, including its positions on moral and theological issues.

These guys are all about starting with the assumption of the literal truth of the bible, then trimming and stretching science to fit.

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed link] 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
AnswersInGenesis wrote: In

AnswersInGenesis wrote:
In treating the Bible as though it must be cut and patched to convey a 'true' picture, liberal theologians are saying it is full of errors. If the Bible is full of errors, it obviously cannot be revelation from God.

 

This is logically flawed. It assumes that when god reveals something that the human writing about it completely understood the revelation and also had the linguistic skills to adequately describe it. The revelation could be "perfect" but much could be lost in translation.