what happened after Adan & Eve?

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

I suppose they had sexual relations, and had a child. Then what?

[Jester]

I suppose they had sexual relations, and had a child. Then what?
Is that Adam's brother, or what?

[Mr Majestyk]

I suppose they had sexual relations, and had a child. Then what?

Did you ever hear of Cain and Abel?

[Brain_Mach1]

And Seth.

[Mr Majestyk]

For a synopsis of what happened after Adam and Eve, read Luke 3:23-38

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

For a synopsis of what happened after Adam and Eve, read Luke 3:23-38

just tell me, I used my copy of the bible to prop up a short leg on my dinner table

[JKD]

just tell me, I used my copy of the bible to prop up a short leg on my dinner table



Well, at least you have found some use for it. I don't even own one.

[Mr Majestyk]

just tell me, I used my copy of the bible to prop up a short leg on my dinner table

No. If you want something spoonfed to you I suggest you go to your mommie.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

No. If you want something spoonfed to you I suggest you go to your mommie.


remember this post when you ask a question


I want your opinion (and anyone else that cares to chime in)

[Mr Majestyk]

You got your answer, and more. It's all in Luke 3:23-38. That's what happened after Adan and Eve had a child (or make that children).

Your post didn't ask for opinions. Opinions don't factor into lineage now do they?

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

You got your answer, and more. It's all in Luke 3:23-38. That's what happened after Adan and Eve had a child (or make that children).

Your post didn't ask for opinions. Opinions don't factor into lineage now do they?


So I guess we are to believe that Adam and Eve had a kid (or two or three or whatever). Then those kids had kids? So we are all inbred and not completely retarded?

You're right, my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that we know, medically, that isn't possible.

[JKD]

So I guess we are to believe that Adam and Eve had a kid (or two or three or whatever). Then those kids had kids? So we are all inbred and not completely retarded?

You're right, my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that we know, medically, that isn't possible.



You can't argue logic with the brainwashed.

[Mr Majestyk]

^^^^^

You provide an excellent example that nor can you argue with the genuinely retarded :D

[Denny]

So I guess we are to believe that Adam and Eve had a kid (or two or three or whatever). Then those kids had kids? So we are all inbred and not completely retarded?

You're right, my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that we know, medically, that isn't possible.
Yes, we are all inbred, brother.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Yes, we are all inbred, brother.

even the black people?

[Chuck]

even the black people?

Adam dabbled a little in beastality??

[JKD]

Adam dabbled a little in beastality??


So what. He wandered out of the Garden and into the jungle for a lil extra spice in his life. ;)

[Denny]

even the black people?
Yep. Not a hard concept. Even science admits that people eventually change as they're regionalized somewhere. Look at the Asians that came over to America (eventually Native Americans). Different, but same. Africa's burner is stuck on high. I know you'll want to make an arguement of it somehow (or already have one set-up), but the "all from one seed" makes a shit-load more sense than "all from seeds of different races." Especially since most refer back to the same one in question.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Yep. Not a hard concept. Even science admits that people eventually change as they're regionalized somewhere. Look at the Asians that came over to America (eventually Native Americans). Different, but same. Africa's burner is stuck on high. I know you'll want to make an arguement of it somehow (or already have one set-up), but the "all from one seed" makes a shit-load more sense than "all from seeds of different races." Especially since most refer back to the same one in question.

Actually no, but thatnk you for giving me instigating credit. I was just joking.


Asians are the first Native Americans? I didn't know that.

[Denny]

Actually no, but thatnk you for giving me instigating credit. I was just joking.


Asians are the first Native Americans? I didn't know that.
Seriously, you didn't know that? Mostly Mongolians, but they travelled over the ice bridge that connected Russia and Alaska because their food resources were depleting and climate was changing about eleventy million years ago (when the first gas-guzzlers were fucking up their environment).

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Seriously, you didn't know that? Mostly Mongolians, but they travelled over the ice bridge that connected Russia and Alaska because their food resources were depleting and climate was changing about eleventy million years ago (when the first gas-guzzlers were fucking up their environment).

Nope. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

[RyanB]

Nope. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

Dipshit.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

your stupid.

[Mr Majestyk]

^^^^^

Grammar Police for 500 Alex....."you're stupid" not "your stupid" :D

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

^^^^^

Grammar Police for 500 Alex....."you're stupid" not "your stupid" :D


sarcasm police for the Daily Double... I bet it all

[Strychnine]

Africa's burner is stuck on high.

LOL!

[Strychnine]

^^^^^

Grammar Police for 500 Alex....."you're stupid" not "your stupid" :D


http://workfarce.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/captainobvious.jpg

[RyanB]

sarcasm police for the Daily Double... I bet it all

This is Trent, we call him Double Down.

[Phillystang]

Whether you believe in creation or atheistic evolution you still have inbreeding going on somewhere.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

This is Trent, we call him Double Down.


always, like splitting aces





whatever.

[Mr Majestyk]

http://workfarce.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/captainobvious.jpg

That's Captain Oblivious, stoopid

[RyanB]

That's Captain Oblivious, stoopid

^^^^^

Grammar Police for 500 Alex....."stupid" not "stoopid".

And I'm pretty sure that picture says the word "Obvious".

I got you good, you fucker!

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

http://www.abrupt.org/CJ/reasonbran.gif

[Hollywood]

You can't argue logic with the brainwashed.


^there it is right there.

[jones4stangs]

For a synopsis of what happened after Adam and Eve, read Luke 3:23-38
So, that is the genealogy from Jesus to Adam? Does it skip some generations or is that everyone, father to son?

Looks like a pretty concrete list. So, I'm assuming this verse supports the 6,000 year old Earth idea.

If that is the case, shouldn't all Christians support the 6,000 year old Earth idea? Is there any wiggle room in there for say at least another 5,000 years?

How about just 6,000 year old human history? Does scripture allow for a big gap in time from the creation of the Earth to the history of man?

I was under the assumption (and I'm pretty sure Brain_Mach1 said something to this effect) that the majority of Christians don't support the 6,000 year old Earth idea.

[Mr Majestyk]

^^^^^

Grammar Police for 500 Alex....."stupid" not "stoopid".

And I'm pretty sure that picture says the word "Obvious".

I got you good, you fucker!

You're really not very good at recognizing sarcasm are you, Einstein?

You've been pwned, asswipe!

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

You're really not very good at recognizing sarcasm are you, Einstein?

You've been pwned, asswipe!


lmao

[flashstang04]

You're really not very good at recognizing sarcasm are you, Einstein?

You've been pwned, asswipe!



hahahaha!!

[White trash wagon]

Yep. Not a hard concept. Even science admits that people eventually change as they're regionalized somewhere. Look at the Asians that came over to America (eventually Native Americans). Different, but same. Africa's burner is stuck on high. I know you'll want to make an arguement of it somehow (or already have one set-up), but the "all from one seed" makes a shit-load more sense than "all from seeds of different races." Especially since most refer back to the same one in question.

Evolving to better survive in a given region or climate? Denny you just confirmed you do beleive in evolution.

Scott

[Phillystang]

Evolving to better survive in a given region or climate? Denny you just confirmed you do beleive in evolution.

Scott
One species to another?

[White trash wagon]

One species to another?

I've been around too many Christians who said other than extinctions, there had been NO changes in any lifeform since it leaving Noah's arc. I replied that since naturalist have catogorized over 33 million different species of life on earth, I guess Noah's 450 ft arc was VERY crowded.

Now you support evolution, but only within a species ?

Small evolutionary changes add up over time, to the point that the new "version" doesn't even resemble the original version.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

^^^^^

Grammar Police for 500 Alex....."you're stupid" not "your stupid" :D


I just read this post again and actually laughed out loud.

[Phillystang]

I've been around too many Christians who said other than extinctions, there had been NO changes in any lifeform since it leaving Noah's arc. I replied that since naturalist have catogorized over 33 million different species of life on earth, I guess Noah's 450 ft arc was VERY crowded.

Now you support evolution, but only within a species ?

Small evolutionary changes add up over time, to the point that the new "version" doesn't even resemble the original version.
Adaptation within a species, not 1 species to another.

Genesis 1:24
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

[RyanB]

You're really not very good at recognizing sarcasm are you, Einstein?

You've been pwned, asswipe!

You = http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r163/ryanb88gt/marscapone.jpg

[Mr Majestyk]

I just read this post again and actually laughed out loud.

You must not require much of yourself LOL

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

You must not require much of yourself LOL

http://www.dailyheights.com/images/clueless.jpg

[Mr Majestyk]

You =

Gee Beav, the repetitive pictures are almost as much fun as people's penchant for posting 'net links ad nauseum. You must be a really big fish in little kiddie ponds like myspace, etc.

[Mr Majestyk]

http://www.dailyheights.com/images/clueless.jpg

See my last post to the gentleman with the moniker known as RyanB, if you can find it all by yourself that is, and insert your name in place of his.

How appropriate

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

See my last post to the gentleman with the moniker known as RyanB, if you can find it all by yourself that is, and insert your name in place of his.

How appropriate

Can I find your 10c words and your holier than thou attitude there too?

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

...and feel free to address posts #35, #39, and #41, unless of course they just need to read the bible for all the answers

[Mr Majestyk]

I'm not holier than thou, just more sarcastic and (ahem) smarter........class dismissed now

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

I'm not holier than thou, just more sarcastic and (ahem) smarter........class dismissed now

Are you smart enough to realize that I know the difference between 'your' and 'you're' and was being sarcastic to begin with?

[Mr Majestyk]

...and feel free to address posts #35, #39, and #41, unless of course they just need to read the bible for all the answers

It's "your" thread OP, why don't you address posts #35, #39, and #41 on your own?

[Mr Majestyk]

Are you smart enough to realize that I know the difference between 'your' and 'you're' and was being sarcastic to begin with?

I'm smarter than a 5th grader, so the answer must be yes.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

It's "your" thread OP, why don't you address posts #35, #39, and #41 on your own?


Because they are questions concerning those that believe Adam & Eve populated the entire world.

[Mr Majestyk]

How about just 6,000 year old human history? Does scripture allow for a big gap in time from the creation of the Earth to the history of man?

Clockwrk,
From the perspective of one who believes Adam and Eve populated the whole world, and regarding post #35, Scripture does allow for a big time gap from the creation of the Earth to the history of man. It's there in Genesis 1 for your reading enjoyment. Regarding posts #39 and #41, those were not addressed to me so that is something for those to whom the questions were posed to discuss.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Clockwrk,
From the perspective of one who believes Adam and Eve populated the whole world, and regarding post #35, Scripture does allow for a big time gap from the creation of the Earth to the history of man. It's there in Genesis 1 for your reading enjoyment. Regarding posts #39 and #41, those were not addressed to me so that is something for those to whom the questions were posed to discuss.


Okay man, from this point on, please don't respond to any questions or discussions that don't directly address you.

K THX

[Mr Majestyk]

Okay man, from this point on, please don't respond to any questions or discussions that don't directly address you.

K THX

I have briefly considered your kindly worded request, man, and most respectfully decline to comply.

K, YOU'S WELCOME

[White trash wagon]

Adaptation within a species, not 1 species to another.

Genesis 1:24
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

How can you interpret that to mean no species evolves into another" "Beasts of the earth" can mean an elephant, horse, whale,eagle, etc. and those are all different species. "Bring forth living creatures after thier kind" can anything from humans to squids, obviously different species. Cattle are the only specific animal named.

That's the problem with the bible, it's so vague, you can interpret anything out of it.

Scott

[Nestromo]

"after their kind" Makes total sense with evolution because no one organism is going to change much in one generation so they are still after their kind even after millions of years of evolution.

Believe it or not humans are still evolving. Scientists had thought that we had reached a plateau but now they are finding that they were wrong.

[Phillystang]

"after their kind" Makes total sense with evolution because no one organism is going to change much in one generation so they are still after their kind even after millions of years of evolution.

Genesis 2:19
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.


Believe it or not humans are still evolving. Scientists had thought that we had reached a plateau but now they are finding that they were wrong.

Believe it or not, humans didn't evolve, God created them in His own image and breathed life into Adam's nostrils. You can have your ever-changing scientific theories, I can rest on the sure Word of God.

[Phillystang]

How can you interpret that to mean no species evolves into another" "Beasts of the earth" can mean an elephant, horse, whale,eagle, etc. and those are all different species. "Bring forth living creatures after thier kind" can anything from humans to squids, obviously different species. Cattle are the only specific animal named.

That's the problem with the bible, it's so vague, you can interpret anything out of it.

Scott
You say it is vague, yet it its focus isn't on describing every detail of biology (even though it is dead on), rather its aim is to tell the story of man's fall into sin and God's redemptive plan for His people through the sacrifice He would provide for them in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Job 26:7
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

[Nestromo]

Genesis 2:19
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

What did man originally call the Triceretops? Or the Tyranasaurus Rex? If I was the person that god told to name those two I would have come up with something really flashy and/or descriptive.




Believe it or not, humans didn't evolve, God created them in His own image and breathed life into Adam's nostrils. You can have your ever-changing scientific theories, I can rest on the sure Word of God.

Fossil records go back farther than the word of gawd. And while interpretation of either can be difficult, one is set in stone and one is not. No pun intended. ;)

Seriously though, evolution happens and that is all that there is to it. Take the giraffe for instance. The trees that the giraffe eats have gotten taller over millions of years because giraffes have been eating them for as long. What happened to the giraffes? They got taller. Even if god started us one way, then we have surely evolved from it by leaps and bounds. After all, we have had at least a million and a half years to do so.

African pygmies for instance have become very small to suite their living environment, as have little people in a few other parts of the world. The Sherpas have increased lung capacity. These are all evolved traits.

[Brain_Mach1]

ClockwrkOrangeS4, your question wasn’t ever specific, so your answer was not specific.

Half of the world’s 2 billion Christians are Catholic, so if any Protestant groups have similar beliefs to the Catholics, we have a majority.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is a first man named Adam and a first woman named Eve and they are the parents of the human race. The Church Fathers had differing opinions on what 7 days meant. Even back in the 3rd and 4th century, Christians argued that it did not mean 7 24-hour periods and that the earth was not necessarily 4,000 years old (at that time). Most Protestant groups do not agree with the Church Fathers because they contridict a lot of Protestant beliefs.

The Catholic Church does not specify that Adam and Eve were the first humanoid creatures, just the first fully human. This means that humans could have evolved and the first beings with a soul (fully human) were Adam and Eve. This being all of God's plan for creation.

Catholicism does not teach 6,000 year old earth or 7 day creation as litteral so ½ of the Christian world population is not taught this. Yet Atheists believe this is the norm for Christianity. This is because of media attention for the strick creationists. It makes more interesting news.

As for the comment of the Big Bang, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest had a lot to do with the theory.

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

ClockwrkOrangeS4, your question wasn’t ever specific, so your answer was not specific.

Half of the world’s 2 billion Christians are Catholic, so if any Protestant groups have similar beliefs to the Catholics, we have a majority.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is a first man named Adam and a first woman named Eve and they are the parents of the human race. The Church Fathers had differing opinions on what 7 days meant. Even back in the 3rd and 4th century, Christians argued that it did not mean 7 24-hour periods and that the earth was not necessarily 4,000 years old (at that time). Most Protestant groups do not agree with the Church Fathers because they contridict a lot of Protestant beliefs.

The Catholic Church does not specify that Adam and Eve were the first humanoid creatures, just the first fully human. This means that humans could have evolved and the first beings with a soul (fully human) were Adam and Eve. This being all of God's plan for creation.

Catholicism does not teach 6,000 year old earth or 7 day creation as litteral so ½ of the Christian world population is not taught this. Yet Atheists believe this is the norm for Christianity. This is because of media attention for the strick creationists. It makes more interesting news.

As for the comment of the Big Bang, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest had a lot to do with the theory.

Well my question was simple, but somehow it got twisted into a bunch of crap.

Adam and Eve had sex. They had children. They allowed their children to have sex with each other. Their children had sex with each other. Their children had sex with each other.

Is that what the bible teaches?

[jones4stangs]

ClockwrkOrangeS4, your question wasn’t ever specific, so your answer was not specific.

Half of the world’s 2 billion Christians are Catholic, so if any Protestant groups have similar beliefs to the Catholics, we have a majority.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is a first man named Adam and a first woman named Eve and they are the parents of the human race. The Church Fathers had differing opinions on what 7 days meant. Even back in the 3rd and 4th century, Christians argued that it did not mean 7 24-hour periods and that the earth was not necessarily 4,000 years old (at that time). Most Protestant groups do not agree with the Church Fathers because they contridict a lot of Protestant beliefs.

The Catholic Church does not specify that Adam and Eve were the first humanoid creatures, just the first fully human. This means that humans could have evolved and the first beings with a soul (fully human) were Adam and Eve. This being all of God's plan for creation.

Catholicism does not teach 6,000 year old earth or 7 day creation as litteral so ½ of the Christian world population is not taught this. Yet Atheists believe this is the norm for Christianity. This is because of media attention for the strick creationists. It makes more interesting news.

As for the comment of the Big Bang, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest had a lot to do with the theory.
Ok, so according Catholicism, scripture does not confine the age of the Earth to about 6,000 years old. How about the age of humans (with souls)? Are there gaps in the scriptural genealogies that would allow humans to be around for more than 6,000 years?

The fully human part of your post is interesting. What kind of behavior would you expect from a human without a soul? Hunter and gather stuff, use of tools, cave writing, villages, or full civilizations. Does this allow for unsouled humans to mate with souled humans?

[jones4stangs]

Well my question was simple, but somehow it got twisted into a bunch of crap.

Adam and Eve had sex. They had children. They allowed their children to have sex with each other. Their children had sex with each other. Their children had sex with each other.

Is that what the bible teaches?
So, your assumption is that inbreeded would not allow the population to increase? I'm not familiar with the genetic problems of inbreeding. I'll assume mutations will occur, but at what rate? What's the real cause of the mutations anyway?

Speaking of healthy practices, are there any Jewish laws from the bible that speak to the whole inbreeding thing?

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

So, your assumption is that inbreeded would not allow the population to increase? I'm not familiar with the genetic problems of inbreeding. I'll assume mutations will occur, but at what rate? What's the real cause of the mutations anyway?

Speaking of healthy practices, are there any Jewish laws from the bible that speak to the whole inbreeding thing?

No, it would increase.


Does the bible say anything about having sex with your brother/sister being bad? Kinda like the whole 'lie with another man' or whatever for gays?

[AdamLX]

My question would be why would inbreeding back then not have the same ill effects as it does today?

[Phillystang]

No, it would increase.


Does the bible say anything about having sex with your brother/sister being bad? Kinda like the whole 'lie with another man' or whatever for gays?

http://www.carm.org/questions/sex_incest.htm

No, incest is not okay. Incest is the sexual relations between family members either by birth or marriage. God has forbidden this in the Bible.

* Lev. 20:11-12, "If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 12 ‘If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
* Lev. 20:19-21, "You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they shall bear their guilt. 20 ‘If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. 21 ‘If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless."

But some may point out that Adam and Eve had children and since there were no other people around, their children would have had to commit incest in order to produce more children. At the time of creation, the genetic line was pure. It wasn't until later, at the time of Moses, that incest was then forbidden as the genetic pool became less and less able to stand interbreeding. "‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD," (Lev. 18:6).

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

http://www.carm.org/questions/sex_incest.htm

No, incest is not okay. Incest is the sexual relations between family members either by birth or marriage. God has forbidden this in the Bible.

* Lev. 20:11-12, "If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 12 ‘If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
* Lev. 20:19-21, "You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they shall bear their guilt. 20 ‘If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. 21 ‘If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless."

But some may point out that Adam and Eve had children and since there were no other people around, their children would have had to commit incest in order to produce more children. At the time of creation, the genetic line was pure. It wasn't until later, at the time of Moses, that incest was then forbidden as the genetic pool became less and less able to stand interbreeding. "‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD," (Lev. 18:6).

That doesn't contradict itself at all.

[jones4stangs]

http://www.carm.org/questions/sex_incest.htm

No, incest is not okay. Incest is the sexual relations between family members either by birth or marriage. God has forbidden this in the Bible.

* Lev. 20:11-12, "If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 12 ‘If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
* Lev. 20:19-21, "You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they shall bear their guilt. 20 ‘If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. 21 ‘If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless."

But some may point out that Adam and Eve had children and since there were no other people around, their children would have had to commit incest in order to produce more children. At the time of creation, the genetic line was pure. It wasn't until later, at the time of Moses, that incest was then forbidden as the genetic pool became less and less able to stand interbreeding. "‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD," (Lev. 18:6).
Cool, I figured the Jews had something worked out.

What does a pure genetic pool mean? What kind of genetic impurities do you think arose that would have an affect on interbreeding?