Conflicting statements in the bible

[A_Nony_Mouse]

What on Earth are you talking about? Genesis 5:4 clearly states that Adam and Eve had more kids later on. John V didn’t invent anything.

It appears the dropping brain damage includes your inability to comprehend time. C&A are AFTER being kicked out. Every bible hugger declares they were the first children of A&E -- you are stuck with that story else you can claim to be a new prophet with a new revelation. If so I demand to know your authority.

It's me who said you were dropped on your head

My apologies. You get credit for that juvenile remark.

and you were, it's obvious. Statler Waldorf did not say that, you can't even keep up with who says what to you, if I were you I wouldn't give us anymore evidence of your brain damage. We will use it against you.

So many children. So little time to memorize all their names.

As far as Cain and Able being the first two born of Adam and Eve, it is presumed so, it's not absolute. By the way who are you to demand anything, you never bring anything relevant to an argument. have you set yourself up as king of this site, Tiberius might have something to say about his kingdom.

When someone declares himself to be a prophet with a new revelation a demand for evidence of their authority is normal. As to it being an assumption they are the only facts in evidence. Of course the human race died out for an inadequate gene pool of only two people. But if we take the jewish ideas about the tale of two trees then A&E were not the first two people but the origin of the Israelite bloodline there is a whole set of new problems but this one goes away.

But since you agree to LATER ON lets run with that. Do you have the least comprehension of the consequences of totally inbred incest? I assume you are not.

I do, I breed rottweilers and incest (if that's what you want to call it) brings with it a great risk of bad genes being doubled up, but the same applies for the good genes. The problem is we do not know which ones may be recessive, thus the real risk of inbreeding. Sometimes we risk it to try and save a quality that's very desirable for the rottweiler breed, but only after observing a few generations to try and determine if any bad genes have become progressive.

So your problem with breeding is that you have been inbreeding the pups of the original pair for generations without out the addition of new bloodlines. I think I have found your problem.

So now to Cain and Able including their siblings,

It is not permitted to make assumptions for the sole purpose of salvaging a story. All assumptions absent additional evidence are equally likely.

oh yes mom and dad too. Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve were created perfect, no genetic mutations, no genetic problems at all,

It is going to be amusing to see you produce the chapter and verse where it says exactly that. After you fumble with that one explain why not knowing good and evil is not a brain defect that you think a fruit can cure.

therefore no problem with intermarriage at this point, because their offspring are not effected by genetic problems. Apparently this did not become a problem until God gave a commandment that brother, sister and cousins were to no longer marry. Until the flood people were living hundreds of years and not just the ones named, so apparently they were having few genetic problems.

So you are firmly against evolution with your young earth theories and all of the fossils be damned.

Now, even if Cain and Able were Adam and Eve's first two born (I personally do, but that doesn't make it necessary) the scriptures say nothing about their ages when Cain killed Able, they could have been a couple hundred of years old. This means Adam and Eve could have had a hundred or so children, but not only that their children could have had many children and their children's children could have had many children, man were getting into a lot of people in just a couple hundred years. So yes these children had plenty of time to move around, even to Nod, and establish new areas to live in. No big deal here, at least for those of us who had doctors with good hands.

So your position is that they stories are recountings of events which really happened. How am I supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Moving right along, you can't to another "land" to find a wife unless there is an entire incestuous breeding population in Nod in the first place. Ignoring the fact that such an incestuous population cannot exist, just to keep the ridicule going, sons and daughters of A&E must have migrated to Nod many generations before Cane was born.

I address this above, and it was not an incestuous population, God had not given a commandment against this type of marriage. Sorry mouse you're wrong again.

The issue is the two stories which disagree. In no case it is rational or even very bright to assume they are about real events. However incest has a meaning. That meaning is independent of any prohibition of it which your story tellers thought could only come from god or other.

WHEN did they migrate from Eden to Nod? There are many other problems which your explanation must address although the absence of a breeding population that applies to A&E also applies to Nod.

Eden was off limits, so they did not leave from Eden, they did go to a place they named Nod. The problems you saw never existed except in your own mind.

You mean satellite images have found Eden? The story says they went to Nod not to a land he named Nod. If it had a name people were already there to have named it. The issue is only the inconsistencies in the stories about a mythical place and people. No rational person thinks they were all other than mythical.

Why are you personally attacking him? He’s been destroying you in this debate, so calling him stupid only makes you look even worse.

This is not a debate.

It certainly is not a debate from your side, all you can do is insult and demand, you have no idea what you're talking about. I know 4 year old children that know more than you do, they could argue you into the ground.

And like a four year old you believe the stories describe real people, places and events. That was never a premise of this discussion. The premise was only different versions of the myth. You do not appear to keep that straight.

[Whateverist]

I can't be bothered to read through any thread where bible quotes are likely to abound. But, out of curiosity, can anyone tell me if someone has actually argued that the bible is devoid of conflicting statements? Or is this more a thread to share your favorite ones?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

When he was created there either was or was not a (hopefully) hot chick with him. As a man I can say I would have noticed her presence or absence.

As the first man you would have noticed her presence, but it's doubtful you would notice the absence of something that had never as yet existed.

One story says created at the same time. The other says at different times. She was either there or not there. If the former she was there with Adam. In that latter not there. Trust me. A guy would notice a hot chick.

So the clown was so stupid he did not know the difference between Eve not existing and Eve getting him a beer?

See above.

Pay closer attention. This is about two versions of the same myth which differ in significant details. It is still not clear to me why believers have such an issue about two different versions of the same myth. Who would expect the to be the same in the first place?

You believers are so fucking stupid!

Er, you're the one who thinks people should notice the absence of something that never existed, and you're calling us stupid?

You have never read both stories have you.

Here all I raise are the obvious contradictions and your answers show the totally insane naming process only 6000 years ago, long after humans appeared in the Americas. As I SAID I will accept NO mutually exclusive explanations.

This response expects me to accept, in this one case, the creationist BS claim of a young earth to explain what is clearly impossible. Get your heads in order if you want to discuss the matter.

There WAS NO ADAM viewpoint because he never existed. There WAS NO EDEN because it never existed. NOTHING in either story makes a lick of sense, is all crap created by no one knows who, and you are all trying to explain the obvious contradictions by assuming there is something factual in the content.

Red herring much?

Knowing the two stories are about mythical people and events is hardly a red herring.

---

Remember what I said about mutually exclusive and contradictory? If not scroll back.

I will take your poorly thought out excuse fact. The OTHER children which you think you were clever to invent, living outside the garden, had already been expelled from the garden for no know reason.

Your problem is now to reconcile being kicked out, voluntarily leaving with the Tale of Two Trees. Please impress me with your creativity. I need something to keep my attention after all the lame crap so far.

Huh? Ch 5 tells us A&E had other sons and daughters beside the few who were named after being expelled from the garden.

The Cane and Abel myth is separate from any additional mythological details added later in a different story. The issue is solely the consistency among the myths. It has nothing to do with they nonsense assumption any of it is other than myth.

---

I can't be bothered to read through any thread where bible quotes are likely to abound. But, out of curiosity, can anyone tell me if someone has actually argued that the bible is devoid of conflicting statements? Or is this more a thread to share your favorite ones?

The believers are arguing there are no contradictions in the bible fiction. One of the most obvious things is that the authors who created this anthology were in desperate need of several good editors.

---

It appears the dropping brain damage includes your inability to comprehend time. C&A are AFTER being kicked out. Every bible hugger declares they were the first children of A&E -- you are stuck with that story else you can claim to be a new prophet with a new revelation. If so I demand to know your authority.

Yes, Cain and Able are after the fall, how is that relevant to who Cain had children with? Did I miss something here? Are you getting your conversations confused?

The myth has it they were commanded to fuck like bunnies. But there is no mention of fruit eating children so Eve was not pregnant at the time the snake explained the lie of their god. (Your god would not expel an innocent fetus would it? It was conceived before there was sin to be passed on.) Therefore all children were conceived after expulsion. Some of them must have traveled off to a place they named Nod before the C&A myth supposedly occurs.

In Nod there were nothing but degenerate inbred people from the same parents. So maybe the author didn't know anything about breeding animals which is always a possibility. However this was not described as a contradiction but rather a remark in passing.

But since you agree to LATER ON lets run with that. Do you have the least comprehension of the consequences of totally inbred incest? I assume you are not.

Do you know why incestuous relationships can sometimes lead to birth defects? Obviously not if you think it would have led to them back then.

It always happens if one constantly inbreeds the offspring of the same to parents. It will take a few generations but they will all eventually die out. So the story was not created to reflect any kind of reality but of myth only. You can run further with the "mark of Cain" and note his brothers and sisters and his own children would try to kill him. But as he is described as the son of A&E he is first generation only his parents might also join in the administration of justice. And of course the god in the story appears to have no problem with murder. So clearly the storyteller had no intention of even attempting to recite other than a myth.

sons and daughters of A&E must have migrated to Nod many generations before Cane was born.

Why? The text never says Cain was not married when he left to go to Nod. It simply says he conceived his first child while in Nod.

Lands do not get names until people go there and name them. He is first generation. Who else is the story suggesting might have been there to marry?

[quotes]

WHEN did they migrate from Eden to Nod? There are many other problems which your explanation must address although the absence of a breeding population that applies to A&E also applies to Nod.

…only if you do not actually know why incest can cause birth defects; it would not have been an issue for them.[/quote]

I could explain it to you but you can as easily google it. Look for minimum sizes of breeding populations.

Is this not enough for you crazy young earth creationists?

No, your displayed ignorance of basic genetic principles is not enough for me to change my position.

Perhaps you could suggest some URLs which support your apparent belief that a breeding population of two will lead to a stable population instead of dying out.

[Godscreated]

@ Mouse, you are the most irresponsible person I've ever talked to, Min you're off the hook and out of the sandbox, Mouse is in, please explain to him the rules of the sand box.

[The Reality Salesman01]

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man"

Bill Craig tries to use this statement to strengthen his cosmology arguments, in this case, I will direct it to the evidence of Abiogenesis. The evidence that given the right circumstances and the right chemicals, the building blocks of life can form from nonliving matter. That is all that is needed to dispute your claim that nonlife can in fact, produce nonlife. Any additional qualifier is merely an attempt to ignore that your argument is defeated. You ignore logic and reason in the face of evidence in order to desperately cling to your flimsy beliefs. I have no interest in continuing a debate with anyone that refuses to abide by the rules of logic and ignore evidence that cripples their claims. I would be happy to entertain any intelligent argument or a clear claim about God, but as of yet, you have not provided either.

[Godscreated]

@ Statler Waldorf, sorry for spoiling your surprise, I just couldn't resist. Did you see his pathetic reply, this person really needs help, I feel sorry for him.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

@ Mouse, you are the most irresponsible person I've ever talked to, Min you're off the hook and out of the sandbox, Mouse is in, please explain to him the rules of the sand box.

What rule requires participants to pretend Genesis recounts real events so that one can imagine different viewpoints of it?

[John V]

One story says created at the same time.

Again, this is incorrect. You are going beyond what's written to try to force a discrepancy. The first says nothing about timing.

[Statler Waldorf]

Of course the human race died out for an inadequate gene pool of only two people.

Do you know why two people are considered to be inadequate now? Obviously not.

So your problem with breeding is that you have been inbreeding the pups of the original pair for generations without out the addition of new bloodlines. I think I have found your problem.

That’s not a problem if the original pair had perfect genomes free of mutations.

It is not permitted to make assumptions for the sole purpose of salvaging a story.

If this were an actual logical contradiction a person would not be able to even postulate an assumption that reconciled it, so by providing assumptions that do just that GC has disproven your claim that this is indeed a contradiction.

It is going to be amusing to see you produce the chapter and verse where it says exactly that. After you fumble with that one explain why not knowing good and evil is not a brain defect that you think a fruit can cure.

That’s very basic Christian doctrine: death, decay, and disease did not exist until after the fall, so therefore neither did genetic mutations. Without any genetic mutations there’d be zero chance of genetic defects. You’ve actually created a larger problem for yourself because even Darwinists believe the entire Human species is the result of incest (all Humans descend from one women), and so now how do you reconcile this problem?

So you are firmly against evolution with your young earth theories and all of the fossils be damned.

No, worldwide fossils are some of the best evidence we have to support the flood, so we are quite thankful that they exist.

So your position is that they stories are recountings of events which really happened. How am I supposed to take anything you say seriously?

What’s with the feint surprise? Why would you be surprised when you find out Christians believe what Christians believe? I would think you’d know a bit more about your opponent’s position before you tried debating them.

You mean satellite images have found Eden?

Nope, it was destroyed in Genesis 6.

The story says they went to Nod not to a land he named Nod. If it had a name people were already there to have named it.

Really? So there are people living on Neptune right now because it has a name? How about the star Polaris? I’d think it’d be too hot for people to be living there, but you are the expert!

One story says created at the same time. The other says at different times. She was either there or not there. If the former she was there with Adam. In that latter not there. Trust me. A guy would notice a hot chick.

It never says they were created at the same time, you’re making that up.

Knowing the two stories are about mythical people and events is hardly a red herring.

You’re right, it’s a straw-man argument; the stories are not about mythical people at all.

The Cane and Abel myth is separate from any additional mythological details added later in a different story.

It’s not a myth and details given later are certainly relevant.

Therefore all children were conceived after expulsion.

I thought that was obvious.

Some of them must have traveled off to a place they named Nod before the C&A myth supposedly occurs.

Not at all; it never says that in the text, nor does it even imply it.

In Nod there were nothing but degenerate inbred people from the same parents. So maybe the author didn't know anything about breeding animals which is always a possibility. However this was not described as a contradiction but rather a remark in passing.

I think it’s quite obvious that you do not know anything about genetics.

It always happens if one constantly inbreeds the offspring of the same to parents. It will take a few generations but they will all eventually die out.

Not if there are no mutations present silly boy. I find it quite amusing that you keep harping on this issue and yet you believe that all life on Earth is the result of an incestuous relationship, talk about contradicting your own position.

Lands do not get names until people go there and name them.

Neptune? Polaris?

Not only this, but the Greeks actually named Antarctica (Anti-Arkitos) nearly 2,000 years before it was first visited, you’re so full of beans.

He is first generation. Who else is the story suggesting might have been there to marry?

The story never suggests anyone else is there to marry, obviously he took his wife with him.

I could explain it to you but you can as easily google it. Look for minimum sizes of breeding populations.

Those apply today because of the known prevalence of genetic mutations, they would not have applied back then when there were no genetic mutations; you’re really not very good at this Mouse.

Perhaps you could suggest some URLs which support your apparent belief that a breeding population of two will lead to a stable population instead of dying out.

I do not need to, it’s basic logic. If you understood the reason why small breeding populations die out (the presence of multiple mutations on the same recessive alleles) you’d know that a breeding population devoid of nearly all genetic mutations (we know they would not have had nearly any mutations because we can empirically measure the rate at which mutations occur per generation and Cain was part of only the second generation) would not suffer from any birth defects. In fact, this just adds support to the Biblical account because incest was not considered to be harmful until the time of Moses when it was prohibited.

What gave birth to the first Human and what did the first Human mate with?

The evidence that given the right circumstances and the right chemicals, the building blocks of life can form from nonliving matter. That is all that is needed to dispute your claim that nonlife can in fact, produce nonlife.

Well I hope you meant “non-life can produce life”, perhaps the simple notion of that occurring is so absurd that your fingers didn’t even want to type it correctly. Nice little bait and switch there though; producing the building blocks of life in a lab does not give any support to the claim that those building blocks can randomly assembled and produce life. Once you demonstrated that they can self-assemble and produce life you must then prove that they in fact did. Couple this with the fact that nobody has actually produced the correct building blocks in the laboratory (produced racemic mixtures in the lab does not prove that the mono-chirality required to create life can be produced naturally) and you’ve got yourself quite the blind faith position. Since you claim to be such an expert in this field, I am sure you already were aware that you had a long way to go and you were simply overplaying your hand hoping I wouldn’t call your bluff. The fact that you would accept such an absurd position solely upon blind faith just goes to show that you were never interested in evidence or even the truth for that matter.

Any additional qualifier is merely an attempt to ignore that your argument is defeated. You ignore logic and reason in the face of evidence in order to desperately cling to your flimsy beliefs. I have no interest in continuing a debate with anyone that refuses to abide by the rules of logic and ignore evidence that cripples their claims. I would be happy to entertain any intelligent argument or a clear claim about God, but as of yet, you have not provided either.

So I am assuming the fact you are now running from the debate is proof that you couldn’t answer any of my questions? I accept your rather unexpected but nonetheless welcomed concession of defeat.

@ Statler Waldorf, sorry for spoiling your surprise, I just couldn't resist. Did you see his pathetic reply, this person really needs help, I feel sorry for him.

Yes, I was a bit surprised at the inadequacy of his response; I guess I should know better by now. Hypothetically, if you were given two rottweilers that you knew were genetically perfect (or even nearly perfect) would you even hesitate for a second to breed the pups from their litter with one another? I think I know the answer you’ll give

[The Reality Salesman01]

So the theory that it took mmillions of years for life to evolve is busted because science cannot yet speed the process up any further beyond showing that nonliving compounds can develop into all that is needed for more complex ones to ultimately evolve? You take the position that because they didn't produce a human baby in their pitri dish, that biogenesis is a wasted science? That's an absurd statement, but you're certainly allowed to believe anything you want. I'm backing out of the debate because of you're inability to debate and recognize when your arguments fail. I have no interest in giving you lessons in rational thought in order for you to understand rational thoughts. Peace!