Kevin's Watch

I dunno, all I'm saying is that either we assume the bible says everything, in which case it would say that others had been created, or it doesn't, in which case it doesn't have to say that Cain married his sister

I would have to opt for the latter, as it is well known that several books of the Bible were cut around 200-250 AD, and the recent "lost" books that seem to keep turning up, such as Judas' so-called book, in which he either cleverly twisted the truth to exonerate himself, or Jesus asked him to betray Him, which may seem likely to some....

Thus it is not impossible to believe that certain facts were omitted from Genesis, such as the existence of other peoples, or the "giants" which older texts seem to point to coupling between humans and angels....

-B

Baradakas wrote:Thus it is not impossible to believe that certain facts were omitted from Genesis, such as the existence of other peoples, or the "giants" which older texts seem to point to coupling between humans and angels....

That was what I was talking about in terms of Titans.

Look, obviously I agree with you, not least because I don't think that there were an Adam and Eve created as the only people, and the parents of the human race. Except perhaps metaphorically.

My point is simply that if things are not mentioned or left out, Cain could as easily, (or more easily), have married his own sister.

I certainly don't think that the bible is an historical document or anything like that.

--A

I always cringe from these types of threads, b/c most often the asker doesn't really care. And I know some posters here fall under that category. But to ignore it may leave true seekers thinking it really is illogical. One thing I try to remember when I read passages that may seem illogical, there are men who are much more intelligent than I that believe the Bible is true and historical, not just moral story. In fact, throughout history, many of those men were scientists whose names we'd all know.

Also, I don't know the Bible as well as I wish I did, which would make most of these questions quite easy to answer. Or at least easier.

I believe in the creation story, and I believe God created Adam, a grown man. The life He gave was conscience, giving man physical, mental and spiritual aspects ( 3 in 1? ).

Jesus walking on water is a miracle. If He is God who created water, I would think walking on it is cake.

The ark didn't have to hold every specie, just every kind. After the flood, speciation still occurred. And just carry some babies, then you don't have to worry about too much poop to clean up.

I believe Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT. The OT is a shadow and Jesus is the substance. The feasts that Jews celebrate all shadow what Jesus did (which is a great topic to study). Tons of prophecy speak about Him and His ministry. And of course, Jesus is God, He was there before the creation of the world.

Adam and Eve had more than 2 kids. That story revolves around Cain and Abel. Other kids are mentioned. Because 2 are mentioned at first, its a stretch to think they didn't have any others. And inbreeding wasn't a problem b/c the genetic code was much "cleaner" than it was in Moses' time. So there was no threat of malformed babies.

There's actually not many translation errors. You can compose the NT from the writing of the early church fathers and their quotes. When you consider the time span in which it was written, it becomes more convincing b/c of the consistency, and the tough topics spoken on.

Whether you believe these or not, I would think most are pretty straightforward, not crazy jumps to justify believing it.

Always nice to see you around Cybrweez, however much I may disagree wih you.

I think though that part of the internal consistency of the NT is based on the fact that the Gospels are heavily dependent on the first one, clearly drawing strongly on it. Another part of it is the careful editing of the bible, which by no means today contains all the books which were or should have been part of it.

As for translation, even between the King James version and versions used today there are differences in language, usage and interpretation.

Even the most minor of these errors, such as the replacement of "kill" for "murder" in the commandments can produce a significant moral divergence.

When you consider that it has gone from...what...Aramaic/Hewbrew to Greek to Latin to German to Old English and up through the evolution of language, I suspect that there are more translation errors than we might think.

And of course, if god created Adam as a whole man, in his own image, which we share to this day, how do we account for Neandertal or Cro-Magnon, let alone earlier versions?

--A

Avatar wrote:And of course, if god created Adam as a whole man, in his own image, which we share to this day, how do we account for Neandertal or Cro-Magnon, let alone earlier versions?

They are hoaxes. You know that avatar!

Or god has a wicked sense of humour.

--A

And of course, if god created Adam as a whole man, in his own image, which we share to this day, how do we account for Neandertal or Cro-Magnon, let alone earlier versions?

Which does not preclude the possibilty of other "humans" existing at the time....

I WIN!!!
I WIN!!!
AVATAR ADMITS DEFEAT!!!

Whoo-hoo!!!

-B

Really? Where? *looks around wildly*

So why does the bible claim that they were the first? (And traditional scholars that they were the only?)

--A

Quite possibly they WERE the first. Bear in mind that they were in Paradise, and who knows what God was doing at that time... (i.e. making more people maybe?)

*shrug* It's a moot point. It's pretty hard to argue when you agree that the bible is probably wrong.

Don't suppose you have anything to back that up with? I can certainly agree that they probably weren't the only people. The bible doesn't say it though, so if you disagree with it, and unless there is some evidence, then you disagree based on the fact that the bible appears illogical as is.

--A

Hmmm.... Theoretically the humans of today (most species really) can trace their inheritance back to just one ancestor. That's the norm in evolution. In some cases there will have been some back-crossing to original/co-evolved populations, but you don't have people arising several places at the same time. That's one place where molecular biology/evolution backs biblical texts. Though of course the fossil record and the genetical distance places the event somewhat further back than the bible

Interesting point Prebe. One ancestor, sure. But the same ancestor for everybody? Surely simply a genetically very similar population?

--A

Well, it takes at least two when we are talking sexually reproducing species. Due to the many different events that can cause speciation, it is different how many individuals are involved in the process depending on the mechanisms in each exact case. It is usually possible - from population genetic studies - to deduct how long ago it was speciation took place. It is also possible to deduct, how small the founding population must have been. And in the case of homo sapiens, the founding population is thought to have been VERY small. Possibly just two individuals to begin with. However, if reproductive barriers are removed during evolution, two populations that have differentiated, but have not acheived a physical interfertility might re-mix, breaking down the speciation process. Indeed some paleontolgists think, that the neanderthal population might not have died out as such, but simply mixed it's genes with other subgroupings of the Homo sapiens species, which would have stopped actual speciation of Homo sapiens ssp. neanderthalis.

Cybrweez wrote:One thing I try to remember when I read passages that may seem illogical, there are men who are much more intelligent than I that believe the Bible is true and historical, not just moral story. In fact, throughout history, many of those men were scientists whose names we'd all know.

Perhaps that is evidence that they were not more intelligent? Just kidding. I like your post. The idea about Noah's ark is new to me. The problem I see is that there hasn't been nearly enough time for the amount of speciation you're suggesting. People haven't been building boats that big for millions of years, after all.

Prebe, didn't I hear that no trace of Neanderthal genes has been found in homo sapiens? Or did you mean they may have mixed with other subgroupings which also did not survive?

Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

February 14, 2003
Genghis Khan, the fearsome Mongolian warrior of the 13th century, may have done more than rule the largest empire in the world; according to a recently published genetic study, he may have helped populate it too.

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

I'd seen that one Esmer.

Really just two Prebe? I mean, I knew it was small, but just two? Isn't it reasonable that if two people were genetically similar enough to be able to reproduce, it is likely that more than two were?

I'd think along the lines of a concurrently evolving group that continually mixed their genes between themselves, increasing similarity across time.

If it was just two, there'd be no "clean" lines to mix back in...what prevented or ameliorated inbreeding? I mean, we concluded didn't we that one or two cases of it in an open gene pool wouldn't make that much difference, but, IIRC, that continual inbreeding in a closed population would have detrimental effects...or would it just be that, given the circumstances, the affected would simply die out before breeding back in?

--A

Avatar wrote:I mean, we concluded didn't we that one or two cases of it in an open gene pool wouldn't make that much difference, but, IIRC, that continual inbreeding in a closed population would have detrimental effects...or would it just be that, given the circumstances, the affected would simply die out before breeding back in?

I think we concluded (and then it must be right ) that inbreeding is detrimental to the number of individuals in a population in the short term, but all other things being equal (the environment remaining relatively constant) the dying of individuals with unadapted genes would also mean the end of the unadapted genes themselves. And the fever the individuals to begin with, the quicker the "bad" genes would be rooted out.

A population founded by just two individuals can (and will) diversify without outside influence due to genetic drift and mutation.

Fist: You might well be right. I don't know the state of the art of the knowledge of neanderthal genes. I was merely pointing it out as a possibility.

Edit :

Phylogenetic analysis of the sequence placed the Neanderthal mtDNA outside the mtDNA pool of modern humans. This was regarded as a breakthrough in the study of modern human evolution, providing molecular evidence that Neanderthals did not contribute mtDNA to modern humans. From this sequence the divergence of Neanderthals and modern humans was estimated to have occurred between 317,000 and 741,000 years ago4, 5. However, these estimates were based on the molecular analysis of a single specimen. The shortage of potentially well preserved Neanderthal material6 and limited access to Neanderthal remains for destructive analysis have hindered the analysis of additional specimens, but genetic characterization of additional Neanderthals is essential to understand their molecular diversity and the relationship between different Neanderthal populations, and to assess their relationship to modern humans further.

Looks like you were right.

Very interesting.

So in other words Prebe, you don't need a diverse genetic base to repopulate?

--A

No. Branching in the evolutionary tree (by definition) happens on the individual level. Isolation of one to a few individuals is what brings about genetical diversity in the long run. Immagine the world as one big uniform field of corn. No niches, no geographical isolation => no genetic diversity.

It's hard to understand, I know, when you hear about the dangers of inbreeding, and not refreshing the gene pool. But these things only make sense, when you look at the CONSERVATION of a species as a population. They do not make sense when you want a higher total diversity accross the spectrum life. A higher diversity over time means death of more individuals here and now. And humans are notoriously afraid of death so....

So in terms of the genetic population, there's actually nothing wrong with inbreeding in terms of a species over the long-term? (:lol: I know that we concluded this before.)

Thanks Prebe. Good to know that only two people have to survive global catastrophe if humanity is to re-emerge.

--A