Evidence for God from Science

Byblos,

I'm sorry for the mixed post I have sent you. I have the hang of it, now.

Dan

Gman wrote:Sorry to butt in here... But this was taken from another article on the subject.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=7&t=3158

Gman, thanks, this is very interesting and nicely put.

DannyM wrote:... if I don't find the answers, you know what? It doesn't lessen one jot the glory of Christ.

Very true.

DannyM wrote:Byblos,

I'm sorry for the mixed post I have sent you. I have the hang of it, now.

Dan

No need to apologize at all Danny. It's all good. I am just ecstatic at the fact that some Christians still exist in England. Keep up the good work brother.

Byblos wrote:No need to apologize at all Danny. It's all good. I am just ecstatic at the fact that some Christians still exist in England. Keep up the good work brother.

Nice one, Byblos. I take it you have the impression that England has very few Christians left. Well, not quite, but on a comparative level, you're not far wrong. Secular government, bordering on downright atheistic, a weak church, indifferent attitudes to God within parenting. It all takes its toll. But there's still millions of Christians over hear, just wish they'd speak up more. This site is a breath of fresh air for me as I'm usually on a sites over here "battling" with atheists. It's all good fun, but does become tedious

Godbless you

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:No need to apologize at all Danny. It's all good. I am just ecstatic at the fact that some Christians still exist in England. Keep up the good work brother.

Nice one, Byblos. I take it you have the impression that England has very few Christians left. Well, not quite, but on a comparative level, you're not far wrong. Secular government, bordering on downright atheistic, a weak church, indifferent attitudes to God within parenting. It all takes its toll. But there's still millions of Christians over hear, just wish they'd speak up more. This site is a breath of fresh air for me as I'm usually on a sites over here "battling" with atheists. It's all good fun, but does become tedious

Godbless you

It just seems like believers are far and few in between in England. Most of my interactions with Brits have been with atheists. My nephew lived in Manchester a few years and came away an intellectual non-believer (you know the type: "why do we need a god"?). Thankfully he's back in an environment where the Word of God is paramount. But it's good to hear faith is having a revival of sorts in England. Hopefully it's the kind of faith that requires more churches.

DannyM wrote:So we know Cain killed his brother Able. Cain is cast out as a fugitive and worries that he will be killed if he is seen by anyone. God recognises the threat and puts the mark on Cain's forehead so to deter anyone from killing him. Cain goes to the land of nod and meets his wife. But hang on: How does he meet his wife? Why did Cain and God fear a reprisal? According to the Young Earthers and the literal interpretation of scripture, the only people on earth were Cain's Mother and Father. So how and where did Cain meet his wife?

Dan

I would just like to add a comment, if you don't mind.
Genesis 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Notice is says Cain dwelt in the land of Nod, then he knew his wife. It doesn't say he met her in Nod. This would imply that Cain's wife went with him to Nod, and that his wife was his sister/niece. Adam and Eve had many more children than just Cain, Able and Seth.

Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

I think I have read some where, and I don't know how true it is so take it with a grain of salt, that Adam and Eve had a total of 52 children. Being a YEC, (I don't know if that's good or bad here, but usually makes for a good discussion ) I believe that incest had to be since I believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth. Therefore, everyone of Adam and Eve's children had incest relationships. The problem with incest doesn't have to do with anything but genes, God finally out lawed it to preserve their genes. Even in America, you can marry your 2nd cousin which isn't that far removed in my way of thinking anyways.

Finally welcome to the board! And the people here very helpful and really care.

I was always unde the understanding the "knew" was synonymous with having intercourse? The KLV shows the word knew but all other translations either say "lay with his wife" or "had relations" with Eve.

I don't think in this instance that we can look at the word "knew" and use that as anty indication that he had met her previously. (in all likelihood she had but I don' think this work shows it)

It wasn't that long ago that people were allowed to marry first cousins, certainly this was much more common over a century ago in aristocratic communities.

Or in the deep parts of Appalachian mountains.

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kyper ... Creek.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/lessons/Blues/pedigree.jpg

btw, still in te process of finding good articles, but here is one that prvides some good background

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGe ... Humans.htm

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:No need to apologize at all Danny. It's all good. I am just ecstatic at the fact that some Christians still exist in England. Keep up the good work brother.

Nice one, Byblos. I take it you have the impression that England has very few Christians left. Well, not quite, but on a comparative level, you're not far wrong. Secular government, bordering on downright atheistic, a weak church, indifferent attitudes to God within parenting. It all takes its toll. But there's still millions of Christians over hear, just wish they'd speak up more. This site is a breath of fresh air for me as I'm usually on a sites over here "battling" with atheists. It's all good fun, but does become tedious

Godbless you

It just seems like believers are far and few in between in England. Most of my interactions with Brits have been with atheists. My nephew lived in Manchester a few years and came away an intellectual non-believer (you know the type: "why do we need a god"?). Thankfully he's back in an environment where the Word of God is paramount. But it's good to hear faith is having a revival of sorts in England. Hopefully it's the kind of faith that requires more churches.

You are on the money, Byblos. We have plenty of the "intellectual atheists" over hear. But, without wanting to appear to be mocking, they are rather funny. If you listen to many of them, they come out with Dawkin-ism's. And we know how "intellectual" Dawkins is, right? I've no doubt he's a good biologist, but when he pontificates on religion, it's a scream! So the actual intellectual atheists I come into contact with are very few. I hope I don't sound self-righteous, forgive me if I do.

But you are right: many, many over here believe they have no need for a belief in God. There's an air of pseudo-superiority that comes over many of the atheistic. I have many friends who are either agnostic or atheist, but my friends are good people, who don't sneer at religion and God. Christianity seems to bear the brunt of the criticism over here, which I find astonishing.

Is your nephew back home and on sensible turf now, Byblos?

erawdrah wrote:I would just like to add a comment, if you don't mind.
Genesis 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Notice is says Cain dwelt in the land of Nod, then he knew his wife. It doesn't say he met her in Nod. This would imply that Cain's wife went with him to Nod, and that his wife was his sister/niece. Adam and Eve had many more children than just Cain, Able and Seth..

Also, if you look at Genesis 5, we have another creation account which could be seen as Seth being the first begotten son, if you take Cain as being the first mentioned son. The bible was meant to be contradictory and open for interpretation. I think the compilers were actually rather humourous so and so's. I think they deliberately demoted the sun and the moon to below the vegetation in Gen 1 as a (at the time) not-so-subtle dig at the astrological cults of mespotamian and Egyptian myth.

erawdrah wrote: I think I have read some where, and I don't know how true it is so take it with a grain of salt, that Adam and Eve had a total of 52 children. Being a YEC, (I don't know if that's good or bad here, but usually makes for a good discussion ) I believe that incest had to be since I believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth. Therefore, everyone of Adam and Eve's children had incest relationships. The problem with incest doesn't have to do with anything but genes, God finally out lawed it to preserve their genes. Even in America, you can marry your 2nd cousin which isn't that far removed in my way of thinking anyways.

Finally welcome to the board! And the people here very helpful and really care.

52 children?! He was a boy that Adam As I've said, I don't think we need to even consider a "lawful" icestuous beginning. I believe that mankind is created before or along with the man Adam. I'm happy and open to be persuaded otherwise, Erawdrah.

Thanks for the welcome. Godbless

zoegirl wrote:I was always unde the understanding the "knew" was synonymous with having intercourse? The KLV shows the word knew but all other translations either say "lay with his wife" or "had relations" with Eve.

I don't think in this instance that we can look at the word "knew" and use that as anty indication that he had met her previously. (in all likelihood she had but I don' think this work shows it)

You are correct about the word "knew". It says Cain knew his wife in Nod not found his wife there. What do you think about Cain and Able being twins? I find it interesting that Adam knew Eve and she conceived and bare Cain. Then in the next verse it says and she bare again his brother. Gen 4:1-2.

DannyM wrote:

erawdrah wrote:I would just like to add a comment, if you don't mind.
Genesis 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Notice is says Cain dwelt in the land of Nod, then he knew his wife. It doesn't say he met her in Nod. This would imply that Cain's wife went with him to Nod, and that his wife was his sister/niece. Adam and Eve had many more children than just Cain, Able and Seth..

Also, if you look at Genesis 5, we have another creation account which could be seen as Seth being the first begotten son, if you take Cain as being the first mentioned son. The bible was meant to be contradictory and open for interpretation. I think the compilers were actually rather humourous so and so's. I think they deliberately demoted the sun and the moon to below the vegetation in Gen 1 as a (at the time) not-so-subtle dig at the astrological cults of mespotamian and Egyptian myth.

I believe Seth was mentioned as Adam and Eve's first born in chapter 5 because Able was dead and Cain was disowned. We also see a change in the normal language of the Bible. Usually you see so and so begat so and so, then so and so begat so and so, but in Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: he begat a son this implies that Seth wasn't the first born, but had the birthright of the first born.

erawdrah wrote: I think I have read some where, and I don't know how true it is so take it with a grain of salt, that Adam and Eve had a total of 52 children. Being a YEC, (I don't know if that's good or bad here, but usually makes for a good discussion ) I believe that incest had to be since I believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth. Therefore, everyone of Adam and Eve's children had incest relationships. The problem with incest doesn't have to do with anything but genes, God finally out lawed it to preserve their genes. Even in America, you can marry your 2nd cousin which isn't that far removed in my way of thinking anyways.

Finally welcome to the board! And the people here very helpful and really care.

52 children?! He was a boy that Adam As I've said, I don't think we need to even consider a "lawful" icestuous beginning. I believe that mankind is created before or along with the man Adam. I'm happy and open to be persuaded otherwise, Erawdrah.

Thanks for the welcome. Godbless

I believe this verse says that Adam was the first man ever on earth.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The first man was Adam, and the last(second) Adam was Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Found this explanation to the question online.
Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve's sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don't marry your relation, you don't marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—all are of “one blood.” The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God's law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.

Found this explanation to the question online.
Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve's sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don't marry your relation, you don't marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—all are of “one blood.” The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God's law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.

erawdrah wrote:I believe Seth was mentioned as Adam and Eve's first born in chapter 5 because Able was dead and Cain was disowned. We also see a change in the normal language of the Bible. Usually you see so and so begat so and so, then so and so begat so and so, but in Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: he begat a son this implies that Seth wasn't the first born, but had the birthright of the first born..

Indeed. I fully appreciate that Cain was the 3rd son, and in my NIV Adam lived another 800 years and "other sons and daughters". I like your explanation as to why Seth might have been "seen" as Adam and Eve's first born. It makes sense as to why Genesis 5 mentions Seth as a chronological first.

erawdrah wrote:I believe this verse says that Adam was the first man ever on earth.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The first man was Adam, and the last(second) Adam was Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Now I take this to mean, as in Genesis 2: 7, that the man Adam was given a living soul. This, in my eyes, does not make the man Adam stand out as the chronological first man; it means with the creation of Adam (the individual) breathes a soul into mankind.

Make that "I fully appreciate *Seth* was the third son".