Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

In The Beginning....


LogicalFallacy

Recommended Posts

While im thinking about it, would eve have adams genetics because she was made from his rib?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will reply first to BAA's comments.

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

What you do (or don't do) next in this thread will tell us all a great deal about your character and whether or not we should trust you.

 

I’m a far from perfect person. I'm just trying to express my thoughts on my faith here. As I have stated before, we all must come our conclusions on these matters and trust ourselves to make the right choices.

 

The issues isn't your lack of perfection, Ironhorse.  The issue is, "Can we trust you?"  Two completely different things.  

 

Logical Fallacy has refuted your claim about genetic purity and incest with an excellent argument from scripture.  (Good work btw, LF.  goodjob.gif )

 

I've done the same.  Both examples contradict your claim about genetic purity and incest.

 

It is your opinion the view that Adam’s genes were not perfect.

 

No.  It's not my opinion, Ironhorse.  

The Bible clearly explains that the whole of creation was subject to corruption and decay.  I pointed this out to you four days ago, in post # 17, where I quoted Romans 5 and 8.  All of creation includes Adam's genetic makeup.  Unless you want to contradict Genesis 2 : 7 and argue that Adam's genetic material wasn't created by God?

 

Romans 5 : 12

 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

 

Romans 8 : 20 & 21

 

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

LogicalFallacy's question to you concerned who would 'find' Cain and do violence to him.

LF asked who could possibly do harm to Cain?  Who would this person be?  Your reply was to invoke Adam's genetic purity and the notion of incest to solve this paradox.  But the pivotal point you overlooked was that the birth of both Cain and Abel, Abel's murder and the Mark of Cain are all... post-Fall events.  Yet, as Paul clearly explains in the Roman quotes, the whole of creation was corrupted and subject to sin, death and decay from the moment Adam sinned.  So his genetic makeup was not pure after that event.  Therefore, to claim that incest was permissible because of Adam's genetic purity is simply false.  Your argument is flawed, fails and has been soundly refuted. 

 

My speculation is based on what I understand from the scriptures. God said at the end of creation, what he created was good. I’m going to assume then that the first humans were perfect, even down their genetic makeup. I could be wrong.

 

Yes, Ironhorse.  You are wrong.  

Also there is no need to speculate.  Nor is there any need to  assume.  Just read what the Bible clearly says.   God's creation WAS good.  It WAS good within Eden up until that fateful event with a certain tree and it's fruit.  But it ceased to be good and definitely WAS'NT good in the time LogicalFallacy was asking you about.  Nor was it good outside of Eden, which Cain had never seen and which Adam and Eve were barred from.  So you are wrong to take what WAS good inside and before and to claim it was STILL good after and outside.  That is simply false, wrong and un-Biblical.

 

Now, an honest person who saw that their claim has been refuted in these ways wouldn't leave this thread unanswered and wouldn't fail to respond to us.

 

I have not left this thread. Granted I may not post here daily or post immediate replies but I do respond and will respond to other comments in this thread asap.

 

You were asked over a week ago and LF has had to repeat his request to prompt a response from you.

In another thread you 'haven't left' I asked you a question over two weeks ago and have since bumped it many, many times for your attention.

 

They would either provide their own counter-argument to defend their claim or they would concede that their claim was false.

 

Your lists of cumulative genetic impurity in Genesis 5, with the falling longevity of Adam's descendants, I think, points to the genetic makeup of the first humans God created as perfect. Over centuries it became less perfect.

 

Human genetics might have been perfect and pure in Eden, prior to Adam and Eve's sin.

But outside of that forbidden place and after their expulsion from it, scripture itself is quite clear that the human gene (and everything else in creation) was polluted with sin, decay and death.  The Bible says so.  Seeing as you believe the Bible, you should also believe what it says, without any need for speculating or assuming.

 

So, an honest person would defend or concede, Ironhorse.

 

Now it's up to you.

 

You have my reply. 

 

Yes.  And now you've seen where you are clearly in error.

 

Now, can I please have it officially from you that you were wrong about Adam's post-Fall genetic purity?

 

After all, conceding they were wrong is what an honest person would do.

 

Your concession please, Ironhorse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Well this is heating up... What have I done? biggrin.png
 
BAA hits pretty much all of the points well so no need for endless repetition. However a few extra points in addition.
 
(Just a note, I am relatively new here, so perhaps BAA is coming from a position of experience of topics being abandoned, but I don't particularly have an issue with Ironhorse taking a few days to reply. I understand real life an such.)
 

Ironhorse

It is your opinion the view that Adam’s genes were not perfect. My speculation is based on what I understand from the scriptures. God said at the end of creation, what he created was good. I’m going to assume then that the first humans were perfect, even down their genetic makeup. I could be wrong.

 
Genesis 3:16-19

To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”

 
Here we have in black and white in Genesis, GOD speaking cursing the creation he made DIRECTLY after the fall. Adam is already beginning to die, Eve is cursed to be in pain during child birth.
 
A side note - we have our first case of Sexism "Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” No wonder there are problems we are trying to rectify today in regards to equal rights. God said so yo, so it must be so.

Put on top of this BAA's scriptures from Paul and you have a genetically pure human no longer genetically pure.

However, is the question of genetic purity relevant to the questions of whether incest is moral or not, good or not, and condoned by God or not?

And Ironhorse, if you insist on saying that incest was allowed by God directly after the fall because of genetic purity, you still have explain Noah and his sons some 1600-2000 years later! Even if BAA and I did buy your Adam and Eve genetic purity, you still have to explain the repopulation of humans by Noah et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Not trying to muddy the waters any more than they already are, but when it comes to "genetic purity", genesis chapter 6 offers some pretty damning insights.

 

 

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

This occurred just prior to god destroying the earth in a great flood.  In fact, verse 8 of this passage states that Noah found favor with the lord.  But what actually happened here?  god's "sons" came down and "married" the daughters of men.  This term includes sexual intercourse, as is seen in the offspring of these strange unions being described as "giants in the land and men of great renown".  THIS is when god decides that men shall no longer live to be 900 years old.  THIS is ALSO when god decides to destroy the entire population of the earth, save Noah, in a cataclysmic flood.  WHY?  Because god's sons came down and fucked our women.

Adam may have eaten the fruit; but god is equally responsible for polluting the germ line of humanity because he couldn't keep his nephilim in his pants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need have no worries about what you've started, LF.  wink.png   The Den was made to be a place where we Lions hunt down, kill and eat any Christians who are foolish enough to enter.  

 

1705839361-furious-lion-roaring.jpg

 

In answer to your point about topics being abandoned, even if we allow Ironhorse plenty of time to respond, when he does so he rarely (if ever) concedes that he is ever at fault, in error or simply mistaken.  He might grudgingly admit that a given scriptural or doctrinal issue is a matter of opinion or that the facts can never be fully known or that it's just a 'matter of faith'.  So pinning him down to specifics has become something of a long, drawn-out game, here in the Den.  Those who play it need stamina, perseverance and v-e-r-y long memories.  

 

However, I've decided to take a new line in this thread.  (Thanks for initiating it, btw.)

I'm trying to hold Ironhorse to the principle of personal honesty.  If he can't display the honesty and integrity to publicly admit when he is flat-out wrong about the Bible, then how can we possibly trust what he writes about it?  Especially when we can see exactly how and where he is wrong?  That kind of behavior corrodes trust and causes doubt.  There is also the not very small matter of the spiritual fruit of faithfulness.  He should bear good fruit for God for all to see - not hiding his light under a bushel.  How can he be displaying the fruit of faithfulness by not loving the truth? 

 

Now, it's not as if I'm asking him to do something that I won't or that I haven't, LF.

In the 'Since You're Back ironhorse ' thread, rjn corrected me on something I said about the habitat of the honey bee.  (See # 32 and # 34.)  I gladly welcomed being put right and freely admitted that I had erred.  So why can't Ironhorse accept being corrected with good grace?  It could be that he genuinely disagrees or it could be an issue of pride on his part - that he can't bear losing face.  So if he abandons a thread and ceases all input, we'll never know, will we?  This is why I press him to communicate with us.

 

I hope that explains and clarifies things.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Bornagainatheist

 

You need have no worries about what you've started, LF. wink.png The Den was made to be a place where we Lions hunt down, kill and eat any Christians who are foolish enough to enter.

 

Ah good.... so my "a lamb among wolves" line to IH was only slightly off biggrin.png

 

 

In answer to your point about topics being abandoned, even if we allow Ironhorse plenty of time to respond, when he does so he rarely (if ever) concedes that he is ever at fault, in error or simply mistaken. He might grudgingly admit that a given scriptural or doctrinal issue is a matter of opinion or that the facts can never be fully known or that it's just a 'matter of faith'. So pinning him down to specifics has become something of a long, drawn-out game, here in the Den. Those who play it need stamina, perseverance and v-e-r-y long memories.

 

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought it might be something alone those lines. Incidentally doesn't Revelations say that ALL the mysteries of God would be made known at the end times? So all these answers should be known... by some Christian somewhere. wink.png

 

However, I've decided to take a new line in this thread. (Thanks for initiating it, btw.)

 

You are welcome - it was one of those questions that are poping in my head as I read things these says and I have a "what the heck" moment. I think there will be a few more in the months/years to come.

 

I'm trying to hold Ironhorse to the principle of personal honesty. If he can't display the honesty and integrity to publicly admit when he is flat-out wrong about the Bible, then how can we possibly trust what he writes about it? Especially when we can see exactly how and where he is wrong? That kind of behavior corrodes trust and causes doubt. There is also the not very small matter of the spiritual fruit of faithfulness. He should bear good fruit for God for all to see - not hiding his light under a bushel. How can he be displaying the fruit of faithfulness by not loving the truth?

 

 

Now, it's not as if I'm asking him to do something that I won't or that I haven't, LF.

 

In the 'Since You're Back ironhorse ' thread, rjn corrected me on something I said about the habitat of the honey bee. (See # 32 and # 34.) I gladly welcomed being put right and freely admitted that I had erred. So why can't Ironhorse accept being corrected with good grace? It could be that he genuinely disagrees or it could be an issue of pride on his part - that he can't bear losing face. So if he abandons a thread and ceases all input, we'll never know, will we? This is why I press him to communicate with us.

 

 

 

I hope that explains and clarifies things.

 

It does, and I saw that exchange between rjn and yourself in "Since you're Back Ironhorse" and was impressed by your attitude, which is something I hope to achieve myself - being able to admit freely when I'm wrong, or simply don't know. A trait I have found in the people in my life to be lacking at times.

 

@ TheRedneckprofessor - that particular scripture is interesting to say the least. What are the 'sons of God' Are they 'God's line' of humans from Seth, or are they angels come down to.... tango with the gals below? It's one of those passages that really made me think what the heck is going on here? And they produced giants? Is this a Greek mythology or the divine word of God?

 

Incidentally verse 3 - can be categorically proven wrong. Ironhorse me bud, here is another one for you (We are not sniper firing here, we are brining out the miniguns). Genesis 6:3 basically states that man shall no longer live to longer than 120 years. (We will ignore the fact that Noah and his folk, and possibly Abraham lived longer)

 

But here we have, not too few years ago this: "The oldest verified person on record was French woman Jeanne Calment (1875–1997), who lived to the age of 122 years, 164 days." (Google)

There are also reports of a 145 year old Indonesian man.

 

How are we to trust a God that apparently can fine tune the universe to xmungus degree, but can't get reality lining up with scriptures. In fact can't get Pauls conversion story told twice correctly.

 

That might be a bit of an offshoot, and not really part of this thread so let me know if you want to defer it to another thread on Biblical inerrancy if you are up for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my pleasure to help and clarify, LogicalFallacy.  smile.png

 

Oh... and thank you for bring up the book of Revelation.

Not just because of your point about mysteries resolved, but also because of what that book says that's directly relevant to our Genesis-themed thread here.  Specifically, this...

 

Revelation 21 : 1.

 

Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth" for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

 

This verse confirms that ALL of creation was infected with corruption, sin and death when Adam took the fruit of the forbidden tree.  ALL includes his genes.  And the one quoted below explains how God will destroy EVERYTHING polluted with sin - including our mortal bodies.  Where our genes are to be found.

 

2 Peter 3 : 10 - 12.

 

10. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.  The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it laid bare.

11. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?  You ought to live holy and godly lives

12. as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.  That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

 

Further confirmation comes from 1 Corinthians 15 : 42 - 49 and 2 Corinthians 4 :7.

Perishable, earthly things of dust and clay (our physical bodies) that are impure and unclean will be destroyed and replaced by imperishable, heavenly things of the spirit that are pure and clean.  So, there's no way Ironhorse can possibly argue that Adam was genetically pure, when scripture is so emphatic that after the Fall, ALL of creation was impure, unclean and fit only to be destroyed on the Last day.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironhorse replied directly to BAA yesterday, saying...

.

.

.

"My speculation..."

 

"I'm going to assume..."

 

"I could be wrong."

.

.

.

If the Christian message is simple - why speculate about it, assume things about it or say that you could be wrong about it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Not sure if anyone else is aware of this, but I may have come across the source of the references in Genesis 6.

 

The Book of Enoch, left out of the bible for 'reasons' contains writings that both link with Genesis, and the phrases and terminologies used by Jesus and Paul in the new Testament. Jude directly quotes a verse from the second chapter of the Book of Enoch.

 

I'd encourage anyone who is interested in how the bible was composed, its links to other mythologies, and material left out of the cannon of scripture.

 

http://book-ofenoch.com/chapter-7-sect-ii/

 

Of particular note chapter 7 has these verses:

 

1. It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

2. And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

 

Sound familiar? Yep, pretty much the same as Genesis 6 quoted by Theredneckprofessor above. So if Genesis 6 is damning on genetic purity, this doubles it. And the book of enoch leaves the reader in no confusion as to whether the "Sons of God" in Genesis referred to angels or Seth's line. There is a clear distinction between sons of men, and sons of God.

 

Incidentally, in reading it, I wonder whether a lot Revelations was also based off it - there are certainly similar themes running through. Also much talk of Gods elect, which is terminology from the New Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will reply first to BAA's comments.

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

What you do (or don't do) next in this thread will tell us all a great deal about your character and whether or not we should trust you.

 

I’m a far from perfect person. I'm just trying to express my thoughts on my faith here. As I have stated before, we all must come our conclusions on these matters and trust ourselves to make the right choices.

 

The issues isn't your lack of perfection, Ironhorse.  The issue is, "Can we trust you?"  Two completely different things.  

 

Logical Fallacy has refuted your claim about genetic purity and incest with an excellent argument from scripture.  (Good work btw, LF.  goodjob.gif )

 

I've done the same.  Both examples contradict your claim about genetic purity and incest.

 

It is your opinion the view that Adam’s genes were not perfect.

 

No.  It's not my opinion, Ironhorse.  

The Bible clearly explains that the whole of creation was subject to corruption and decay.  I pointed this out to you four days ago, in post # 17, where I quoted Romans 5 and 8.  All of creation includes Adam's genetic makeup.  Unless you want to contradict Genesis 2 : 7 and argue that Adam's genetic material wasn't created by God?

 

Romans 5 : 12

 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

 

Romans 8 : 20 & 21

 

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

LogicalFallacy's question to you concerned who would 'find' Cain and do violence to him.

LF asked who could possibly do harm to Cain?  Who would this person be?  Your reply was to invoke Adam's genetic purity and the notion of incest to solve this paradox.  But the pivotal point you overlooked was that the birth of both Cain and Abel, Abel's murder and the Mark of Cain are all... post-Fall events.  Yet, as Paul clearly explains in the Roman quotes, the whole of creation was corrupted and subject to sin, death and decay from the moment Adam sinned.  So his genetic makeup was not pure after that event.  Therefore, to claim that incest was permissible because of Adam's genetic purity is simply false.  Your argument is flawed, fails and has been soundly refuted. 

 

My speculation is based on what I understand from the scriptures. God said at the end of creation, what he created was good. I’m going to assume then that the first humans were perfect, even down their genetic makeup. I could be wrong.

 

Yes, Ironhorse.  You are wrong.  

Also there is no need to speculate.  Nor is there any need to  assume.  Just read what the Bible clearly says.   God's creation WAS good.  It WAS good within Eden up until that fateful event with a certain tree and it's fruit.  But it ceased to be good and definitely WAS'NT good in the time LogicalFallacy was asking you about.  Nor was it good outside of Eden, which Cain had never seen and which Adam and Eve were barred from.  So you are wrong to take what WAS good inside and before and to claim it was STILL good after and outside.  That is simply false, wrong and un-Biblical.

 

Now, an honest person who saw that their claim has been refuted in these ways wouldn't leave this thread unanswered and wouldn't fail to respond to us.

 

I have not left this thread. Granted I may not post here daily or post immediate replies but I do respond and will respond to other comments in this thread asap.

 

You were asked over a week ago and LF has had to repeat his request to prompt a response from you.

In another thread you 'haven't left' I asked you a question over two weeks ago and have since bumped it many, many times for your attention.

 

They would either provide their own counter-argument to defend their claim or they would concede that their claim was false.

 

Your lists of cumulative genetic impurity in Genesis 5, with the falling longevity of Adam's descendants, I think, points to the genetic makeup of the first humans God created as perfect. Over centuries it became less perfect.

 

Human genetics might have been perfect and pure in Eden, prior to Adam and Eve's sin.

But outside of that forbidden place and after their expulsion from it, scripture itself is quite clear that the human gene (and everything else in creation) was polluted with sin, decay and death.  The Bible says so.  Seeing as you believe the Bible, you should also believe what it says, without any need for speculating or assuming.

 

So, an honest person would defend or concede, Ironhorse.

 

Now it's up to you.

 

You have my reply. 

 

Yes.  And now you've seen where you are clearly in error.

 

Now, can I please have it officially from you that you were wrong about Adam's post-Fall genetic purity?

 

After all, conceding they were wrong is what an honest person would do.

 

Your concession please, Ironhorse!

 

 

Please do the honest thing and either argue your point or concede it, Ironhorse.

 

Are you refusing because you are too proud and egotistical to concede?

 

Or because you are too ashamed of your beliefs to defend them?

 

Please help us from drawing the wrong conclusion from your silence.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA and my replies:

 

Please do the honest thing and either argue your point or concede it, Ironhorse.

I have presented my point.

Are you refusing because you are too proud and egotistical to concede?

Why should I concede? I’m fine with the view.

Or because you are too ashamed of your beliefs to defend them?

I’m not ashamed of my beliefs and I am not afraid to defend them.

Please help us from drawing the wrong conclusion from your silence.

You keep this running narrative about my silence. Except when I experienced computer trouble a few weeks ago, I have been active here almost weekly.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

The following is my reply to you in post #23 with an added note.

 

They would either provide their own counter-argument to defend their claim or they would concede that their claim was false.

Your lists of cumulative genetic impurity in Genesis 5, with the falling longevity of Adam's descendants, I think, points to the genetic makeup of the first humans God created as perfect. Over centuries it became less perfect. NOTE: Yes, sin entered Adam and Eve and this included  the genetic codes but it was a slow and gradual decline.

 

 

So, an honest person would defend or concede, Ironhorse.

Now it's up to you.

You have my reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA and my replies:

 

Please do the honest thing and either argue your point or concede it, Ironhorse.

I have presented my point.

 

You did so in post  # 14 on the 14th.  It's now the 22nd and this is post # 37.

Logical Fallacy and myself have since responded to your claim about Adam's genetic purity.   But you have not responded to the specifics of our different challenges.  I will let LF deal with his own challenge, but mine consisted of pointing out that the Romans 5 and 8 quotes clearly show that Adam's genetic purity did not degrade slowly over a long period of time.  It was polluted from the moment he sinned.  Meaning that from that moment on, his genetic makeup was not pure.  Your 'gradual-decline-outside-of-Eden' argument contradicts this.  Now you need to address what Romans (and Genesis 2, below) say about when Adam's gene's were corrupted with sin.

 

Are you refusing because you are too proud and egotistical to concede?

 

Why should I concede? I’m fine with the view.

 

You should concede because your position is contradicted by what Paul says in Romans.

The pollution of the whole of creation happened within Eden and before Cain was born.  This totally refutes your argument.  Do you deny that your argument has been refuted?  Y / N ?

 

Or because you are too ashamed of your beliefs to defend them?

 

I’m not ashamed of my beliefs and I am not afraid to defend them.

 

Then do so by dealing with what Romans says about the Fall and the corruption of ALL creation happening within Eden and before Cain was born.  

Defend or concede, Ironhorse.  Saying that you are fine when the OT and NT contradict you is neither defense nor concession.  That's dodging.

 

Please help us from drawing the wrong conclusion from your silence.

 

You keep this running narrative about my silence. Except when I experienced computer trouble a few weeks ago, I have been active here almost weekly.

 

Activity (like talking about your driving license) is not the same as you defending your beliefs.

If you're not afraid to defend your beliefs, then do so whenever they are questioned by us.

Trying to call activity, defense will not work, btw.

You have to be prodded into defending by repeat requests from us.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

The following is my reply to you in post #23 with an added note.

 

They would either provide their own counter-argument to defend their claim or they would concede that their claim was false.

 

Your lists of cumulative genetic impurity in Genesis 5, with the falling longevity of Adam's descendants, I think, points to the genetic makeup of the first humans God created as perfect. Over centuries it became less perfect. NOTE: Yes, sin entered Adam and Eve and this included  the genetic codes but it was a slow and gradual decline.

 

No. This is false.  Read Romans 5 and 8.  

Or better still, please tell me where and when Adam died spiritually.  Within Eden, before Cain was born?  

Or gradually, over however many of the 930 years of his life he spent outside of Eden?  

Please also note that what Paul writes in Romans agrees with what is written in Genesis 2 : 15 - 17.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

When Adam ate he died spiritually and so therefore his genes were made impure...   ON   THAT   DAY  .

There's a wealth of material in the Bible I can use to support this.  Scripture tells us quite a lot about how and when spiritual death and spiritual rebirth happen.  

But for now Ironhorse, please address what Romans and Genesis have to say about Adam's spiritual death.

 

So, an honest person would defend or concede, Ironhorse.

Now it's up to you.

 

You have my reply.

 

But this thread is ongoing - with arguments and scripture from LogicalFallacy and myself that you still need to address, Ironhorse.

 

This isn't over.

 

Defend or concede.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick question on this, Ironhorse.

 

"Why should I concede? I’m fine with the view."

 

In another thread I said that the Sami people of Lapland had never seen a honey bees - but rjn put me right on that score.  

 

There are honey bees in Lapland and he's seen them.

 

So here's my question to you.

.

.

.

If I'd then said to rjn that I was fine with my view (that there were no honey bees in Lapland) would that have been honest of me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Ironhorse, you have responded to BAA, however I have some outstanding queries. 

 

I started off by questioning Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel re the population and incest problem.

 

The population problem was explained as Adam living several hundred years and something about details being left out of the bible. Ok, sure we don't know how long it was before Cain killed Abel, but we'd have to allow enough time for at least one sister to grow to maturity so at least 20 years after the fall if Eve gave birth to a daughter with 2 years of the fall. I call bull on the several hundred years but lets not split hairs.

 

Incest was explained by you as not being forbidden at that point (Directly after the fall) in order to populate the earth because the line was genetically pure. BAA has refuted this which you don't accept. However, for sake of discussion let us assume I accept that explanation of genetic purity (To be clear I don't, but wish to move to the next question which is unanswered.)

 

Our transcript below - my last queries at the bottom. I have highlighted in blue the ones I actually want to concentrate on. If you have time to comment on the other questions I have below please do so, but they are not critical to this discussion at this point.

 

 

There were two humans... who produced two sons. The elder killed the younger, then buggars off to the land of Nod where he "knows his wife"

Um... where did this wife come from? Did he just wander back to Adam and Eve (Who must presumably had daughters, though this very important piece is conveniently missing in the bible) and say, ok I killed my bro, I'm gonna grab my sis and go f*** her over in Nod?

He complains about anyone finding him will kill him! But at that point there is only Adam, Eve... and presumably at least one little sister.

Please explain.


And why the heck didn't I think of this years ago? I have degree level education for goodness sake!!!

 

 

 

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

 

Hi Ironhorse. I've read a few of the topics you participate it - seems that you are our sole Christian resident? A lamb among wolves smile.png

 

I am willing to bet that your christian doctrine differs markedly from my fathers... but his answer to that very question was exactly the same as yours.

 

So incest was alright then... because purity, despite flesh being corrupted after the fall as BAA pointed out. So God does change his mind on subjects? Yes, no?

 

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the idea of 'Serpents seed' i.e. the idea that Eve mated with the serpent and produced cain? This is a line of thought among certain schools. (Those same schools of thought say that sin came across in the ark via the women.... mysoginistic critters)

 

Here's another issue, very similar. Fast forward 1600 years or so. Violence fills the earth, God repents he made man and vows to wipe the earth clean. Saves Noah. 

 

Noah's sons repopulate the earth... using INCEST... again! Was the line still pure???

 

And a short time after that mankind is once again in trouble with the tower of babel. Then we have Abraham and Sarah his half sister. More incest... or half incest.

 

If I tell you a book has:

Violence, Murder, Incest, Rape, Dragons, Magic, Kings, Queens, and Slaves

 

Would it be the Bible or Game of Thrones?

 

 

Note the last line - that is the crux. You state incest not forbidden at the start because of purity. Much time goes past to Noah and family, much corruption. How do you justify this second round of incest repopulation in the Bible, and how do you justify Abraham and Sarah with the promised son which is after the tower of babel? The line of the Jews started off with incest, or half incest! Please these matters justify based on scripture.

 

Cheers

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Kaaa bump!

Ironhorse

 

Posts #37 - 39 from BAA and myself are outstanding with unanswered queries. You have been active in other threads, please put aside some time also to address these queries above. I think these are important queries because they go back to the foundation of the Bible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Bump, Ironhorse, earth calling Ironhorse can you respond please? It's been days and I'm dying from lack of reply.


 


Ironhorse please answer the queries from Posts #37-39 from BAA and myself.


 


You have been active in other threads, please put aside some time also to address these queries above. I think these are important queries because they go back to the foundation of the Bible. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bump, Ironhorse, earth calling Ironhorse can you respond please? It's been days and I'm dying from lack of reply.

 

Ironhorse please answer the queries from Posts #37-39 from BAA and myself.

 

You have been active in other threads, please put aside some time also to address these queries above. I think these are important queries because they go back to the foundation of the Bible. 

 

 

LogicalFallacy is correct, Ironhorse.

 

And what he writes agrees with what Jesus and Paul had to say about having a firm foundation for what one believes to be true.

 

These are important and foundational queries about the Bible, which should not be ignored, overlooked, sidelined or downplayed.

 

The gospel message you exhort us to embrace rests on the (secure?) foundation of Genesis.

 

Therefore please honor LF's repeated requests (and mine!) and provide answers to our queries.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

BAA and my replies:

 

Please do the honest thing and either argue your point or concede it, Ironhorse.

I have presented my point.

 

You did so in post  # 14 on the 14th.  It's now the 22nd and this is post # 37.

Logical Fallacy and myself have since responded to your claim about Adam's genetic purity.   But you have not responded to the specifics of our different challenges.  I will let LF deal with his own challenge, but mine consisted of pointing out that the Romans 5 and 8 quotes clearly show that Adam's genetic purity did not degrade slowly over a long period of time.  It was polluted from the moment he sinned.  Meaning that from that moment on, his genetic makeup was not pure.  Your 'gradual-decline-outside-of-Eden' argument contradicts this.  Now you need to address what Romans (and Genesis 2, below) say about when Adam's gene's were corrupted with sin.

 

Are you refusing because you are too proud and egotistical to concede?

 

Why should I concede? I’m fine with the view.

 

You should concede because your position is contradicted by what Paul says in Romans.

The pollution of the whole of creation happened within Eden and before Cain was born.  This totally refutes your argument.  Do you deny that your argument has been refuted?  Y / N ?

 

Or because you are too ashamed of your beliefs to defend them?

 

I’m not ashamed of my beliefs and I am not afraid to defend them.

 

Then do so by dealing with what Romans says about the Fall and the corruption of ALL creation happening within Eden and before Cain was born.  

Defend or concede, Ironhorse.  Saying that you are fine when the OT and NT contradict you is neither defense nor concession.  That's dodging.

 

Please help us from drawing the wrong conclusion from your silence.

 

You keep this running narrative about my silence. Except when I experienced computer trouble a few weeks ago, I have been active here almost weekly.

 

Activity (like talking about your driving license) is not the same as you defending your beliefs.

If you're not afraid to defend your beliefs, then do so whenever they are questioned by us.

Trying to call activity, defense will not work, btw.

You have to be prodded into defending by repeat requests from us.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

The following is my reply to you in post #23 with an added note.

 

They would either provide their own counter-argument to defend their claim or they would concede that their claim was false.

 

Your lists of cumulative genetic impurity in Genesis 5, with the falling longevity of Adam's descendants, I think, points to the genetic makeup of the first humans God created as perfect. Over centuries it became less perfect. NOTE: Yes, sin entered Adam and Eve and this included  the genetic codes but it was a slow and gradual decline.

 

No. This is false.  Read Romans 5 and 8.  

Or better still, please tell me where and when Adam died spiritually.  Within Eden, before Cain was born?  

Or gradually, over however many of the 930 years of his life he spent outside of Eden?  

Please also note that what Paul writes in Romans agrees with what is written in Genesis 2 : 15 - 17.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

When Adam ate he died spiritually and so therefore his genes were made impure...   ON   THAT   DAY  .

There's a wealth of material in the Bible I can use to support this.  Scripture tells us quite a lot about how and when spiritual death and spiritual rebirth happen.  

But for now Ironhorse, please address what Romans and Genesis have to say about Adam's spiritual death.

 

So, an honest person would defend or concede, Ironhorse.

Now it's up to you.

 

You have my reply.

 

But this thread is ongoing - with arguments and scripture from LogicalFallacy and myself that you still need to address, Ironhorse.

 

This isn't over.

 

Defend or concede.

 

 

 

 

I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

BAA and my replies:

 

Please do the honest thing and either argue your point or concede it, Ironhorse.

I have presented my point.

 

You did so in post  # 14 on the 14th.  It's now the 22nd and this is post # 37.

Logical Fallacy and myself have since responded to your claim about Adam's genetic purity.   But you have not responded to the specifics of our different challenges.  I will let LF deal with his own challenge, but mine consisted of pointing out that the Romans 5 and 8 quotes clearly show that Adam's genetic purity did not degrade slowly over a long period of time.  It was polluted from the moment he sinned.  Meaning that from that moment on, his genetic makeup was not pure.  Your 'gradual-decline-outside-of-Eden' argument contradicts this.  Now you need to address what Romans (and Genesis 2, below) say about when Adam's gene's were corrupted with sin.

 

Are you refusing because you are too proud and egotistical to concede?

 

Why should I concede? I’m fine with the view.

 

You should concede because your position is contradicted by what Paul says in Romans.

The pollution of the whole of creation happened within Eden and before Cain was born.  This totally refutes your argument.  Do you deny that your argument has been refuted?  Y / N ?

 

Or because you are too ashamed of your beliefs to defend them?

 

I’m not ashamed of my beliefs and I am not afraid to defend them.

 

Then do so by dealing with what Romans says about the Fall and the corruption of ALL creation happening within Eden and before Cain was born.  

Defend or concede, Ironhorse.  Saying that you are fine when the OT and NT contradict you is neither defense nor concession.  That's dodging.

 

Please help us from drawing the wrong conclusion from your silence.

 

You keep this running narrative about my silence. Except when I experienced computer trouble a few weeks ago, I have been active here almost weekly.

 

Activity (like talking about your driving license) is not the same as you defending your beliefs.

If you're not afraid to defend your beliefs, then do so whenever they are questioned by us.

Trying to call activity, defense will not work, btw.

You have to be prodded into defending by repeat requests from us.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

The following is my reply to you in post #23 with an added note.

 

They would either provide their own counter-argument to defend their claim or they would concede that their claim was false.

 

Your lists of cumulative genetic impurity in Genesis 5, with the falling longevity of Adam's descendants, I think, points to the genetic makeup of the first humans God created as perfect. Over centuries it became less perfect. NOTE: Yes, sin entered Adam and Eve and this included  the genetic codes but it was a slow and gradual decline.

 

No. This is false.  Read Romans 5 and 8.  

Or better still, please tell me where and when Adam died spiritually.  Within Eden, before Cain was born?  

Or gradually, over however many of the 930 years of his life he spent outside of Eden?  

Please also note that what Paul writes in Romans agrees with what is written in Genesis 2 : 15 - 17.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

When Adam ate he died spiritually and so therefore his genes were made impure...   ON   THAT   DAY  .

There's a wealth of material in the Bible I can use to support this.  Scripture tells us quite a lot about how and when spiritual death and spiritual rebirth happen.  

But for now Ironhorse, please address what Romans and Genesis have to say about Adam's spiritual death.

 

So, an honest person would defend or concede, Ironhorse.

Now it's up to you.

 

You have my reply.

 

But this thread is ongoing - with arguments and scripture from LogicalFallacy and myself that you still need to address, Ironhorse.

 

This isn't over.

 

Defend or concede.

 

 

 

 

I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual.

 

 

Please indicate that you are conceding or defending, Ironhorse.

 

Are you conceding that what you wrote on Oct 14...

 

Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem.  This would mean that Cain married a sister, niece, or some other relation, and their children had children, etc.

The genetic line in these early times was pure. So the prohibition against incest was not yet proclaimed.

 

...was wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Ironhorse, I still see no reply AT ALL to my post #39.... unless the line below was a joint reply to both BAA and myself:

"I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual."

 

So are you applying this to my Noah's question in post #39, and if so, as BAA says above, doesn't this invalidate the earlier genetic purity position you held?

 

PS Please don't just reply to this post - go and look at post #39 to get full context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be interesting, LF.

 

If Ironhorse is true to form you'll soon get to see just how much integrity and honesty there is in this sincere, trustworthy and truth-loving Christian.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

 I am just speculating

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Hush you! - I wasn't going to take issue with that biggrin.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironhorse, I still see no reply AT ALL to my post #39.... unless the line below was a joint reply to both BAA and myself:

 

"I agree when Adam sinned corruption entered in both spiritual and physical ways. I am just speculating, that given the longevity of Adam’s early descendants, that the complete degrading of the genetic makeup was gradual."

 

So are you applying this to my Noah's question in post #39, and if so, as BAA says above, doesn't this invalidate the earlier genetic purity position you held?

 

PS Please don't just reply to this post - go and look at post #39 to get full context.

 

 

I did go back to read it. Sorry for my delay. It has been busy around the farm lately.

 

From your post:

 

Here's another issue, very similar. Fast forward 1600 years or so. Violence fills the earth, God repents he made man and vows to wipe the earth clean. Saves Noah.

Noah's sons repopulate the earth... using INCEST... again! Was the line still pure???

 

 

Noah was born 1056 years after Adam was created. This was the 10th generation. Although corrupted, I still think the genetic decline was gradual. Noah lived to age 950. The long life spans started coming to an end with Jacob. Jacob died at age 147.

Noah’s three sons had wives. They were part of the 11th generation.

I think it’s a good guess that incest with immediate family members was long gone. I have also heard and read people who have speculated beyond the scriptures that God created other people after Adam and Eve to populate the earth. It is not recorded in scripture but I guess it could have happened. I don't know. 

 

I just try to explain this according to what I do understand from the Creation story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

speculated beyond the scriptures

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.