1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Adam & Eve's Children - Incest?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by John Wells, Jul 5, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 5 of 7
  1. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two questions for “Colorado:”
    Explain how multiple, symbiotic precursor life forms could reduce the complexity, i.e., simplify, the basic requirements of life (this would be a requirement for the origin of life in a pre-evolved world).

    Explain conceptually how consciousness (human) could have arisen from atoms and molecules through the “evolving” process.


    An archaeologist speaks:
    ‘I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.’ -- Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology

    An evolutionist speaks!
    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
    ‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’” -- Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.
    Reference: Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

    According to the evolutionist's (and progressive creationist's) understanding, fossils (which show death, disease and bloodshed) were formed before people appeared on earth. Doesn't that mean that you can't believe the Bible when it says that everything is in 'bondage to decay' because of Adam's sin (Romans 8)? In the evolutionary view, hasn't the 'bondage to decay' always been there? And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam's sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus' suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive?” (1 Corinthians 15:22) - Don Batten, AIG


    2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves. -- Lord Kelvin as quoted in A.W. Smith and J.N. Cooper, Elements of Physics, 8th edition (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1972), p. 241.

    "Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' -- Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6

    It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite: "Evolution, however, has put together the smallest components; it has proceeded from the simple to the complex." - Sidney W. Fox, "Chemical Origins of Cells - 2," Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 49 (December 6, 1971), p. 46.

    Parting thoughts:
    If God 'created' using evolution which makes Him unnecessary, how can God's 'eternal power and divine nature' be 'clearly seen' in creation, as Romans 1:20 says?

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:22).
     
    #81 John Wells, Jul 10, 2003
  2. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    CIRCULAR REASONING ALERT!!

    "The Bible is literally true because it says so in the Bible."[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]What you stated is circular reasoning. What I stated is not circular reasoning. I first believed the Bible to be true because God opened my eyes. That's not circular reasoning, but it isn't something I can demonstrate as evidence.

    After that, however, I found out that the Bible is the most reliable historic document of antiquity on the planet, even by secular standards. This is especially true of the New Testament.

    Given that the New Testament has overwhelming support for its accurate historicity, you have a choice: Are you going to believe what Jesus said, or are you going to believe a fantastic speculation based on no observed phenomenon and no supporting evidence? If you prefer to believe the latter, perhaps it's time to ask yourself in whom you really trust.
     
    #82 npetreley, Jul 10, 2003
  3. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Diane,

    I find that people would be much less likely to take my witness seriously if I were to insist that they adopt the naturalism of the first millennia B.C. before accepting Jesus.

    People are smart enough to understand the following:

    "The people with the most clear vision of who God is were the children of Abraham - the Jews. They preserved many writings which accurately reflected their understanding of the nature of God (and their relationship with God). These writings include court records, cultic practices, political history, wisdom literature, erotic poetry, and ancient folk tales - all preserved in what we call the "Old Testament."

    One can come to a salvific relationship with Jesus with just that understanding.

    Joshua
     
    #83 Rev. Joshua, Jul 10, 2003
  4. ColoradoFB

    ColoradoFB New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a quick note...I am between meetings and probably won't respond to much until tomorrow. However...

    First of all, John, glad to see you are trying to engage without the attacks. I don't mind addressing your questions when I have a few minutes. Quickly on one point, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics appies to closed systems. The earth is not closed, as it receives energy from the Sun. BUT to stay on track for the moment...

    I have shelved evolution from the discussion for the sake of consistency and focus. Read above where I said, let's assume evolution to be false. NOW...tell my why Genesis is to be taken literally over competing tales that explain the beginnings of the cosmos. What evidence can you provide to support that view?
     
    #84 ColoradoFB, Jul 10, 2003
  5. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1231.asp is a pretty comprehensive answer to this question! ;)
     
    #85 John Wells, Jul 10, 2003
  6. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that doesn't negate nor explain:

    It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite: "Evolution, however, has put together the smallest components; it has proceeded from the simple to the complex." - Sidney W. Fox, "Chemical Origins of Cells - 2," Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 49 (December 6, 1971), p. 46.
     
    #86 John Wells, Jul 10, 2003
  7. fgm

    fgm New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Incest never was acceptable in the Bible.Genesis makes it clear that Cain went east of Eden to the land of Nod and there took his wife.His wife came from the 6th day creation of males and females in Genesis 1:26.This is where the different races began.The story of ADAM begins in Genesis Chapter 2 which is the beiginning of the Judah bloodline and the House of David in which Jesus chose to be born into by a VIRGIN birth.[Luke chapter 3:23-38.]This is a perfect circle as Jesus is the One that formed Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils life.Jesus started this closed circle and he finished this closed circle.[Alpha and Omega]ALL PEOPLE ON EARTH ARE NOT BLOODLINE JEWS.Incest has never been acceptable in the eyes of Jesus because He is the same yesterday,today,and forever.
     
    #87 fgm, Jul 10, 2003
  8. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia Guest

    Joshua, even the demons believe.... and tremble. Ah.... but there is SO much more!

    Diane
     
    #88 dianetavegia, Jul 10, 2003
  9. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Diane, are you equating the faith of sincere Christians who do not take Genesis 1-11 literally to that of demons?

    Joshua
     
    #89 Rev. Joshua, Jul 10, 2003
  10. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia Guest

    I did not say that Joshua. But even the demons believe and tremble... and they are NOT of God and scripture tells us that many will be told 'Depart from me! I never knew you'.

    Christian's who negate God's word, calling it myth and allegory, Christian's who ignore sins and explain away sins calling them choices ....... have NO witness in my book.

    Diane
     
    #90 dianetavegia, Jul 10, 2003
  11. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    fgm,

    It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.

    With that in mind, “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7) is the same event as “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

    Can we validate this elsewhere in scripture?

    So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:45-47)

    and

    the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

    That Adam is considered the “son of God (not to be confused with the Son of God) is significant and points to Adam being the first human created. How or why would God inspire Luke to leave your “fictitious first man” out of the genealogy?

    Finally,

    So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. (Genesis 4:16-17)

    It's a real stretch to infer that Cain went to Nod to get a wife. What seems more natural is that Cain took his wife there, and that she was a late sister, daughter to his father Adam. By Moses’ time, this kind of close marriage was forbidden (Lev. 18:7–17), because of genetic decay, but not so in the dawn of civilization, because it was necessary for Adam and Eve "to be fruitful and multiply."

    Must you continue with Murray's rubbish?

    [ July 10, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: John Wells ]
     
    #91 John Wells, Jul 10, 2003
  12. LeesaC.

    LeesaC. Guest

    To all:
    I had to read this entire thread before I could respond. It's unbelievable to me that no one has quoted "..and the evening and the morning were the...day"?!?!! God could not make it any more plainer than that. DAY means day and nothing else. Why don't we read the bible the way we read other books and try not to throw all this spin and just read it as it is -The Word of God. Who says you can't take it literally where it is literal? For example, we've all had to read about our first leaders in a history book are we to interpret those things said by and about them or are we take literally what was said?

     
    #92 LeesaC., Jul 10, 2003
  13. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    That doesn't reverse the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The only systems that use the sun's energy in a sophisticated way are living systems -- systems that absorb the energy and use it according to a pre-determined program. But that only works when the program -- which requires life -- is already in place. Without that program to process the energy, all the sun does is speed up entropy. And even when the living system uses the energy, entropy still rules -- we all grow old, wear out, and die.

    In other words, leave a car out in the sun to receive all that energy and tell me that in the long run the steel only gets stronger and the paint job only improves and then we'll talk. Until then, the "open system" explanation is nothing but hooey.

    I provided you with that explanation. There is overwhelming evidence for the accurate historicity of the New Testament. In the NT, Jesus testifies to the authenticity of the creation story. So the choice is simple.

    1. You can ignore the overwhelming evidence for the accuracy of the New Testament and therefore disregard anything it says

    2. You can acknowledge the historic evidence for the accuracy of the New Testament, but refuse to believe what Jesus says and the rest of what is recorded in the NT

    3. You can acknowledge the historic evidence for the accuracy of the New Testament, and believe what Jesus says and the rest of what is recorded in the NT

    If you pick #3, then you've got to take a literal interpretation of Genesis seriously, or else you will contradict the plain meaning of many passages in the NT, which you have agreed are reliable and accurate.
     
    #93 npetreley, Jul 11, 2003
  14. fgm

    fgm New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #94 fgm, Jul 11, 2003
  15. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    And what tale do you fabricate regarding these? The reason I ask it this way is that is what the Bible says. Anything else you come up with is extra-biblical and mere speculation or unsubstantiable theory. So tell us "what really is said in Genesis," using scripture in context! i.e. your comments should align with what the plain spoken words of the Bible reveal. Use whatever translation you desire . . . except Spong's! :eek:

    P.S. Are you ignoring my challenges above?
     
    #95 John Wells, Jul 11, 2003
  16. fgm

    fgm New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    And what tale do you fabricate regarding these? The reason I ask it this way is that is what the Bible says. Anything else you come up with is extra-biblical and mere speculation or unsubstantiable theory. So tell us "what really is said in Genesis," using scripture in context! i.e. your comments should align with what the plain spoken words of the Bible reveal. Use whatever translation you desire . . . except Spong's! :eek:

    P.S. Are you ignoring my challenges above?     </font>[/QUOTE]People will believe all day long symbolic language in the book of Revelation but refuse to believe symbolic langauge in Genesis.Moses uses symbolic language to describe an LITERAL event that happened in the garden of Eden.Rev[12:9 makes it clear that serpent is one of satan's names.[Ezekiel 28]the Lord God tells us how satan appeared in the garden of Eden when the prophet gives the word to the king of Tyre.Here the Lord is letting the king of Tyre know that he is just like satan by describing satan to him.Tress throughout the whole bible are symbolic of PEOPLE.Jesus makes it clear in [Matthew 7:15-20] that trees are people and the fruit is their good or evil deeds.David compares himself to a olive tree in Psalm 52:8.Understanding trees in the bible gives a whole new understanding of the trees in the garden of Eden.
     
    #96 fgm, Jul 11, 2003
  17. Bartholomew

    Bartholomew New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi,

    I've just read all this thread, and would like to make an (on-topic!) point that hasn't been made yet. Now, don't get me wrong - I believe the Genesis creation account to be literally true - but this idea of "incest wasn't wrong until Moses" can't be true. Why? Look at Leviticus 18. Verses 1-5 tell the Israelites to do God's will, and not what the Egyptians and Cananites did. Verses 6-18 proceed to forbid incest in a great many forms. Verses 19 - 23 then go on to forbid other perversions, such as bestiality, sodomy and adultery. But now read the rest of the chapter (verses 24-30):

    From this it is obvious that incest was one of the abominations that the people of the land committed, which caused the very land to be defiled, even to vomit them out. And yet this is said to be the case even as God has just given the law to Moses. Notice that the land is not said suddenly to be defiled, because God has suddenly outlawed something that was previously OK. Rather, the clear implication is that all these things were evil, and had been going on for a long time (cf. the iniquity of the Ammorites being full). Clearly, then, if incest was not only a sin, but an abomination that caused the very land to be defiled and to vomit out its previous inhabitants, it cannot have been OK until the law was given.

    So, that leaves us with two options (if we assume Genesis and other scriptures mean what they say when they talk of Adam):

    1. Invent some other people out of somewhere in Genesis 1, not descended from Adam and Eve. But this has massive problems.

    2. Assume that incest was OK in the beginning, but was outlawed at some later date (perhaps soon after the flood or Babel; but long before the law was given), God then writing it on all people's hearts.

    I find the second option much more likely, as it also ties in with why so many people across the world seem to have a loyalty to their tribe/country, even such institutions did not seem to exist before Babel. God presumably wrote "nationalism" onto the hearts of all people soon after they stopped building that tower.

    Well, I hope that helps! I'm just trying to get it straight in my own head...

    P.S. The fact that people like Abraham went against these laws against incest doesn't mean that it was OK then. Why, Jacob had two wives - and that didn't even get prohibited by Moses! Yet I don't hear anyone on here saying that polygomy was ever OK!
     
    #97 Bartholomew, Jul 11, 2003
  18. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    The teachings of Jesus you reference are clearly examples, to a reasonable and rational thinker, of the use of similes. Using reason and rationale, you cannot make the leap of the Genesis account of Satan and trees as being similes. It's like water and oil, they just don't mix! No, I think you are reinterpreting Genesis to deliver the message your itching ears want to hear! ;)
     
    #98 John Wells, Jul 11, 2003
  19. John Wells

    John Wells New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. Open systems still have a tendency to disorder.

    The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex just because energy is being transfered from the sun to your body — the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow though an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed. ;)
     
    #99 John Wells, Jul 11, 2003
  20. fgm

    fgm New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    The teachings of Jesus you reference are clearly examples, to a reasonable and rational thinker, of the use of similes. Using reason and rationale, you cannot make the leap of the Genesis account of Satan and trees as being similes. It's like water and oil, they just don't mix! No, I think you are reinterpreting Genesis to deliver the message your itching ears want to hear! ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I'm thankful that JESUS has given me deeper insight into his scriptures than what seminaries teach.I will no longer cast the PEARLS given to me by Jesus on this message board.Jesus warned me that they would get trampled on.
     
    #100 fgm, Jul 11, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 5 of 7
Loading...