Adam and Eve's children must have married one another. Abraham married his half sister Sarah. As the human race increased in size, so did the number of defective genes. Humanity adjusted to this as time went on. In Egypt, it was common for brothers and sisters to marry. But by the time Leviticus 18 was written, marriage to siblings, parents, aunts, uncles was outlawed. You are assuming that what is a crime in one situation must be a crime in all situations, which is obviously false. To kill someone in self-defense is completely different from killing someone out of anger. To marry a sibling or close relative because no other mates are available and knowing that your marriage won't produce a deformed child wasn't a sin in the early history of humanity.

Noah's sons were all married. Their wives weren't their sisters, because Noah only had three children who are mentioned. Noah's grandchildren were all cousins. Assuming the first cousins married one another, their chances of producing deformed children was barely higher than average and that's assuming today's level of defective genes. With Noah and his sons living hundreds of years, it's reasonable to assume they didn't have nearly the number of defective genes we live with.

Go ahead, focus on the humor and ignore the bulk truth.

It doesn't matter to me. Eveyone can see precisely what you are doing except perhaps you.

SPIDER:

Adam and Eve's children must have married one another


TRIBO:

that's an assumption on your part, you take it for truth that A&E were the first people, other cultures do not agree, other writings do not agree. the most you can state is "if" your stories are correct, then they would have had to marry there sisters etc..

which also raises the question of Cain's wife?

Before Cain and Abel >>>their were no children mentioned<<< - where did his wife come from? The land of "nod"? which means wandering?

And again, why would A&E's children be living away from A&E in NOD? Why would you believe that these other sisters and brothers left A&E and wandered off, and if so why did Cain and able not leave also? And why would there be "ABSOLUTELY" no mention of these other sisters or daughters of A&E? WHY? To mention Cain and Abel and not give so much as a speck of info of earlier sisters/bothers/sons/daughters till after Cain had children - does not float!! you have no answer my friend, there is none - only "conjecture!

Now we know there "WERE" other people from the story - otherwise Cain would not have been scared for his life and complain to god that he would be killed by them. But your "evidence lacking" >>theory<<, has no support to say they were A&E's other children!

But it does give creedence of others - even billy graham's statements and writings - that the story you and others claim is a two fold telling of one story of first gods and then adams perspective don't hold water!!

There "was" and "is" two seperate creation stories according to both what i have read and even believers like graham have also stated and believe!

but of course spidey i know you'll defend your "theory" all the way to hell if necessary. Just keep in mind even other believers dont take it to mean what you or others here take it to mean!!

Tribo,

Surely you don't believe you can lecture me for "if" and do the same yourself? You make a number of assumptions. By your reasoning, Adam and Eve had three children: Cain, Able and Seth. But the Bible tells us that they had many other son's and daughters, even though it doesn't mention their names or birth orders.

Who could threaten Cain's life? Maybe a child of Able? Or one of Able's brothers or sisters? Or maybe Able's wife? Or Able's parents? Or Able's nieces or nephews? We don't know how many children and possibly grandchildren Adam and Eve had when Cain killed Able. You also assume that since Cain "knew" his wife in Nod, that she must have been from there. There is no reason why he couldn't have been married and taken her with him. The verse doesn't say he made love to her the first time ever in Nod. It doesn't say they got married in Nod.



I've never told anyone here that they were going to hell, but it doesn't stop a non-Christian from telling me that I am. I'm sure that within a week everyone will "remember" it as the other way around.

FYI: You are saved through faith in Jesus and not by what you believe about Adam and Eve or Noah or any of that other stuff.

you miss understand im not telling you your going to hell, i said you would defend your position all the way to hell if necessary. Meaning your that adamant about your always being correct.

As to all else you responded to again is just conjeture - there are no if's in my statements just who's and why's -

the fact that there is NO MENTION of other brothers and sisters should show you the blatant inconsistency of what you state as possible. Practically right after cain is sent to nod - the lineage of Cains children begin!! When lineage begins with cain and his wife, it hold to every other lineage given by the book which makes lineage a big deal! but for some reason the book is "SILENT" on any other mention of A&E's other children you seem to think existed to make sense of your theory.

Lineage is a big deal the books full of it! But on this subject it is left to our imaginations? WHY??? Because graham and others are correct!! there were two creations, there fore other people to marry besides brothers and sisters! that is also why graham and others choose to believe that when god says to replenish - re-populate the earth that this is why it is stated such!

but i already know your take on that - again i say even other christians don't agree with you spidey, so there is no sense in continueing - you have put your faith in what you've been taught and nothing will change that.

Not all Christians believe that Spider.

You preach your own personal beliefs (personal denomination) like as if it's the final word of all Protestantism, but that's not how all Protestant Christians believe.

You don't speak for God, or Jesus.

In fact, it is a tenet of Protestantism that no man can speak for the Holy Spirit. That's precisely what they were protesting against Catholic Church about. They don't believe that any man should speak for the scriptures so they denounced the Pope and went off to form their own churches. The idea being that only the Holy Spirit can reveal itself to the individual believers through scriptures.

Yet, look at you Spider. You're trying to grab the podium and turn the religion right back into Catholicism with yourself as the self-appointed Pope.

You are the very example of how the religion goes haywire. Untrained men can turn the religion into their own personal weapon to preach bigotry and hatred against non-believers. You're a perfect example of what goes wrong with the religion.

hmmmmm warped sense of humor......I didn't find it the least bit humorous.

Sorry, put my little laughing heads inside the box there but you get the idea. FC, please stop the arguing okay? As a courtesy to the OP it’s the least that you can do here. You don’t have to agree with everything being questioned in this thread and I find it very likely you will hear some things that might anger/upset you. However, this young lady has asked some very adept and critical questions from her heart and she deserves to hear informative and constructive debate from BOTH sides of the issue. Not a lot of screaming and cat fights alright? Peace and lets move on.

Jesus is the cornerstone - Peter was "the ROCK".

Was the OP question regarding incest and how this would have impacted on the genetic development of humankind going to be addressed or are we simply glossing over this “minor detail”?

No - but i think a valid point was made as to the more perfect the genes statement.

Sorry K, I still cant get past the first few chpts. of genesis yet alone to thinking of the gene pool - i do stand by what I've read as there being man and woman prior to A&E - this makes more sense to me that the fundies view of two stories of the same creation , and now that I've read about B.G., also believing that, though i still don't know if he holds to that or not - just confirms it to me even more. B.G. changes his mind a lot over the years so who knows - but still other "C's" hold onto this train of thought also. It was not until Darby and the rest that followed after him such as Moody, Scoffield etc.,

that "infallibility" of the >>>book"<<< became the later cry of fundies.

It's where they were all at, when they got their butts kicked in the scopes monkey trail, after that they calmed down for awhile but rose up again in full force when hagan and his students brought it back to the fore front of modern Evangelical thinking - the futurist view of Hagan, lindsey, hinn, tbn,700 club and robertson, and a large host of others.

This along with the unfounded "re-birth" of speaking in tongues, prophecy, laying on of hands, casting out demons, and the other gifts given to the early church >>for that time only<< - and also the wrongful teachings of the same >name it and claim it< or use of god/jesus as there "private genie's" to give them things, and there incessent cries of "you cant out give god" used by the scammers of the money seeking grubby little pastors that breed more of them on tv every year, has corrupted modern day christianity past anything that would be recognizable by the first or second century followers of christ.

When you start getting that "hardcore" in your beliefs, it becomes impossible to see anthing outside of them, a major fault with all sects of "religious" >> beliefs,<< christian or not.

When >>man<< is put in charge of the things of god - god is always pushed to the side and selfish interest begin to devour any truth that might have been with in to begin with.

So now if one wants to be honest in their search for god especially a "book god" - one has no choice but to look at it on their own and try to understand it as well as they can "on their own" if you have to resort to any outside influences of other mans writing of what god is saying then again your just following an interpretation by >>>others<<< >>> not god. <<<

now this does not negate the need for at least a translation of hebrew/greek to english, for basic understanding if your really going to "study it", thats true of anything you read in another language you dont speak. But the >>>theology, sectarian dogma, and all denominational sect beliefs<<< have to be disreguarded if one is to even find a little truth yet all of it.
So i say to any that read - trust your heart and mind and common sense and your 6th sense of >>>intuition<<<. Do not listen to anyone that is so locked up on their take on things that they allow no room for compromise or difference of opinion, or logical debate or any that would make you see it's there way or damnation. who of mankind want's to follow after such nonsense?

And the other thing i look out for is "agenda's" if one is trying to convince me/you of something by pulling a bunch of verses together, you can be sure thats a secterian agenda. If one can not speak from a general conversation what is being asked, then i become wary, you dont have to - but i do.

Very well said Tribo. I couldn't agree with your points more.

Jeremy-

Yes good points Tribo and I think I am just being silly making an attempt argue genetics and incest and inbreeding and the risk of birth defects because its such a "what if" case scenerio and Im trying to apply modern biochemistry to something that is fanciful. Its apples and oranges. Good post though.

Thnx J, and i think i understand the "YOUR" points more than you think. - and i again say

dont take anyone's word on anything you feel might have a one sided agaenda - research everything. -

I'm in total agreement with this. And this is, in fact, the very foundational tenet of Protestantism. The very idea of a "Protestant Christian Fundamentalist" is an oxymoron to begin with. The idea that no one man (or church) can speak for God is the very backbone of Protestantism. Take away that backbone and you have a spineless and meaningless religion that has deteriorated back into Catholicism without an official Pope!

Any Fundamentalists who attempts to take Protestantism back to a man-guided dictatorship is just turning the religion right back into Catholicism with the Fundamentalist as a self-appointed Pope.

This is one of the great dangers of Protestantism. Any fruitcake can become a self-appointed Paper Pope and lead a cult in the name of Christianity just like Jim Jones, and David Koresh did. There were certainly many others who have done this as well and simply didn't become as well-known.

But the point is that once a Fundamentalist starts claiming to have the only correct interpretations of the scriptures they are attempting to become a self-appointed Pope.

All they are really doing is preying on Protestantism as a free podium for an easy self-proclamation of becoming a Pope.

The only thing that any Protestant ever has the right to tell anyone (in accordance to the very tenets of their very own religion) is to suggest to other people that they should read the Bible and see what they get out of it.

Anything beyond that is blaspheme according to the very tenets of the religion itself.

Protestantism isn't a well-guarded religion. It's all too easy for any untrained person to pick up a Bible and start preaching in the name of "Christianity" using Protestantism as an apparent tool to give them credence.

But in truth that flies in the face of what Protestantism is all about. The best a Protestant preacher can do is to offer his personal opinions of what he feels is the best interpretations, but he must always be open to individuals who feel that they got something different from the doctrine.

This necessarily has to be the case, because the fundamental tenet of Protestantism is that only the Holy Spirit can guide the reader into an understanding of the words of the doctrine.

I could teach the religion loving if I wanted to using the very tenets of the religion. All I would need to do is offer my honest feelings of what I get from the doctrine. Unfortunately when I read the doctrine I get very profound feelings that it has nothing at all to do with God. That's what I get when read the book.

So based on the tenets of Christianity I would have to teach that it's not important to believe in the Bible at all. That may sound like an oxymoron in itself, but if it's the tenet of the religion that the Holy Spirit guides the reader then this is what I get when I read it. What else can I say? Anything else would be a lie.

I know your having a difficult time K, but hang in there, i think things will calm down in time -

Oh no, it was nothing. Its over. No harm done. Little debate got heated. I mean it's been like the what, the second time in a week? Oh well. Its not like the forum is going to run out of space to write

I think organized religion attracts socipaths in all honesty. I was starting to think that when reading Abras's last post. Not always of course, but those cult leaders very often are bad news and seem to thrive on that existence. It can be very dangerous.

Oh it absolutely does. Not to imply that all religious people are sociopaths, but the ones who become fantatical about preaching a religion are the ones to keep an eye on.

What other "institution" can a person step right into without any credentials whatsoever and immediately gain a following using Jesus Christ as a patsy?

They instantly obtain "blind faith" followers.

They instantly obtain support from many other "Christians".

They have a book to quote from that they can easy twist for their own agenda because it is so ambigous, and can easily be used to propagate bigotry and hatred toward almost anything other than "Christianity" itself (In fact, it can even be used to turn against other Christians who have meeker ideas about what Jesus stood for!)

It's almost like having followers on strings with the strings just dangling where anyone can come along and pick them up and claims to be speaking for the "Bible, Jesus and God".

It gives people who had absolutely no recognition before, a stage with a spotlight to put them in an instant power of authority and "righteousness".

It's an extremely inviting scenario for people who need attention and want to be recognized as being in a position of authority.

What higher authority can a person claim to be speaking for then from the position of speaking for God himself!

Yes, it's extremely attractive for sociopaths who are desperate for attention and respect. They use God as a crutch to prop up their egos.

I'm not saying that anyone on this site does that. I'm just saying that this is what the religion offers to people because it allows for just anyone to jump in and proclaim to speak for God at any moment. No credentials required. Anyone can become a Paper Pope just by proclaiming it on their own.

This is a huge danger of Protestantism. It's open to being absused by random egotists who need attention.

Sad but true.

agreed K, there are more leaders that way than most may be aware of. On the otherhand though, there are good christian people, just as there are good jewish people and muslims, it's not the belief thats the problem it is the "raising" of the belief to the status of "infallability" that starts causing the problems. When words in a book reach that point of devotion by its followers - the "word becomes God" - pun intended.

someone asked here not long ago - who is at fault the one who teaches or the one that follows the teachers?

My reply was - the teachers - without them there would be no one to learn and rally to the cause. Remove the teachers and the cause dies.

I may be wrong - but i don't think so. -

Exactly. I wanted to clarify that thought. It’s not the religion itself that creates the behavior. I meant that if someone is a sociopath, which for all intensive purposes they were born with some kind of an existing borderline personality disorder, then they might be likely to gravitate to a position that would have the propensity to create a cult following. Something along the lines of Charles Manson or any number of the ones mentioned. Either way those folks are trouble.