The 3rd Generation

KFBobInsanesMom · 01-28-2006, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjguitar

If the old testament is meant to be literally interpretted, that the world and everything in it was made in six days. That Adam was the first man and all life came from him and Eve. Then I have a question;

Where did the third generation come from?

I understand the first generation was made from God. Adam and Eve.
I understand that in time Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters.

My question is who did the kids mate with/marry? There are only four choices....

1) Adam sleeps with daughters
2) Eve sleeps with sons
3) Sons of adam sleep with daughters of Adam
4) Other

If your answer is 4) Other please specify.

3

shakeybill · 01-28-2006, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjguitar

Genetics? Ethics? Do you not see any issue with that statement?

Seriously though, how could, within the space of a few millenia, an Adam and Eve coupling of the same genetic background become so varied? Black, White, Chinese, Red Indian, Indian, Mediterranean,Germanic, Baltic, East European, Arabic? Is this in itself an example of genetic diversity stretching way back that riddles the literal creationist argument?

If you are of the young-earth creationist view then it is a problem (e.g. aborigines in Australia in 25,000 BC and American Indians in 15,000 BC). If however you place Adam and Eve at the scientifically accepted date for the origin of modern man (50-100 thousand years). Then you have plenty of generations for genetic diversity from the original pair to develop among the human race plus sufficient time for world migrations.

Regards, Bill

Abbadon · 01-28-2006, 10:23 PM

Taken literally (as you ask), and not metaphorically (as I do), 4.

Adam and Eve weren't the only people created, they're just the head of the bloodline where we would supposedly trace all current human lineage to.

shakeybill · 01-28-2006, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abbadon

Taken literally (as you ask), and not metaphorically (as I do), 4.

Adam and Eve weren't the only people created, they're just the head of the bloodline where we would supposedly trace all current human lineage to.

Genesis 1 talk about God creating men and women in general while Genesis 2 focuses on Adam and Eve in detail. What you are proposing is similar to the "Federal" view of mankind's creation. Essentially it teaches that Adam and Eve were just two of many people created at the same time (Genesis 1) but God gives them responsibility for the entire race through thier actions (Genesis 2).

Regards, Bill

shakeybill · 01-28-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjguitar

I just don't understand people will say that science proves that God was lying.

But if you believe the literal creation, doesn't science prove that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laughing about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint.

That's why I am no longer a literal six-day creationist. If Genesis chapter one is accepted as a literal six-day acount that took place a few thousand years ago then there is a real problem between Scripture and science as you say.

If you accept that the six-day timeline as alegorical then you have no problem. The days of Genesis chapter one can be allegorical and the book still be inspired by God. The date of the universe issue was not a big deal within the church until the nineteenth century. Before then there were many allegorical views of the days of Genesis one held within orthodox Christianity.

Regards, Bill

KFBobInsanesMom · 01-28-2006, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjguitar

Genetics? Ethics? Do you not see any issue with that statement?

Seriously though, how could, within the space of a few millenia, an Adam and Eve coupling of the same genetic background become so varied? Black, White, Chinese, Red Indian, Indian, Mediterranean,Germanic, Baltic, East European, Arabic? Is this in itself an example of genetic diversity stretching way back that riddles the literal creationist argument?

No, I don't see any issue with it. The Bible is full of things we don't consider "ethical" today, oh well, apparently they had no problem with them back then.

Why is there any issue with genetic variety from Adam and Eve? God created them, surely He was smart enough to work all this out. We can get every range of eye color from 2 people at the opposite end of the spectrum marrying, why not with skin color from Adam and Eve?

**Sean** · 01-28-2006, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjguitar

But if you believe the literal creation, doesn't science prove that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laughing about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint.

The problem with using science, within a theistic worldview, is that it assumes things occured naturally. The world appears inconsistant with the Bible because you're believing things occured throughout all of time naturally. However, this isn't a reasonable assumption with a theistic world view involving a God who has been active throughout all of history. We believe that God has been performing miracles acting contrary to nature. Nature only appears to lie to us if we have faulty assumptions.

Abbadon · 01-29-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjguitar

I just don't understand people will say that if science says something, it means that God would be lying in the bible.

But if you believe the literal creation, doesn't science prove that God is lying to us through the natural world, through science? Why would He create life and leave the evidence for us, and then laughing about how we fell for the bogus data? I truly don't understand how one could hold this viewpoint.

God made the world. Science is just trying to figure out how He did it.

As shakeybill said, it's possible to take it allegorically. God made the universe.

There's also the issue about "why does God have to obey OUR idea of what a day is?" A day for God could well be 24 hours, or a million years, or however long God damn well pleases.

Plus, God did not write the Bible, unless Moses, Solomon, the Prophets, Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and others are God. Heck, it's historically doubtful that Moses wrote the what we supposedly wrote, since one of the books he supposedly wrote records his own death.

God breathed. God inspired. BUT, HUMAN written.

"Well God would protect His creation", yeah, just like Adam.

tht00 · 01-29-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

No, I don't see any issue with it. The Bible is full of things we don't consider "ethical" today, oh well, apparently they had no problem with them back then.

Why is there any issue with genetic variety from Adam and Eve? God created them, surely He was smart enough to work all this out. We can get every range of eye color from 2 people at the opposite end of the spectrum marrying, why not with skin color from Adam and Eve?

Yep-

Incest, at the point of Adam and Eve had not been 'outlawed', so to speak (that we know of). There wasn't any reason to do so either, especially when its one's only way to reproduce. Genetically, there would have been no DNA 'defects'/disorders to worry about, and thus, no danger in reproducing with relatives. Incest was written into the law during the time of Moses (whether it became a commandment from God before then... could be debatable).

Next, skin color is controlled by more than just 1 trait- there are multiple traits that control skin color (plus environmental factors), so, there is room for plenty of variety. I see no reason to think that skin color, etc, couldn't have come from only 2 people.