Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Feb 25, 2019.
Thanks for the information.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It depends on the percent population growth rate, the growth factor difference between births and deaths.
The arithmetic is very simple.
@ 7% steady growth in population produces an exponential population doubling time every 10 years.
most of the industrialized world is at negative population growth.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So, commenting on "population growth rate":
When you preach to us, you are preaching to the choir
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You said in Message #19, "If Adam and Eve didn't exist around 6 thousand years ago, according to your book, than Jesus didn't exist."
How does that follow? What possible connection is there between one and the other? In fact, we know that there never was a time when there were only two human beings on earth - i.e. Adam and Eve, as depicted in he story, did not exist. And the beginning of humanity was much more than 6 thousand years ago.
But there is a chance that Jesus did exist, though many/most of them are undoubtedly exaggerated and/or made up.
So there is no sense whatsoever in your claim.
I would be inclined to agree, again, based on what is written in the bible.
Nope. God personally fashioned everything in Genesis 1 as well as Genesis 2.
No discrepancy there. Same adam/Adam.
You're kidding, right? Because every syllable was not repeated exactly in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, you claim that they were different creations?
It would seems so.
No. God didn’t personally fashion everything, the He personally fashioned Adam.
Not the same.
According to the bible, God created mankind in one go. He ordered them to be fruitful, multiply, and REplenish the earth.
You cannot REplenish something of it was not at one time, plenished.
In the case of Adam, God personally moulded and fashioned Adam. One man.
If you cannot see a difference, then you are in serious denial.
It’s not just a rearrangement of words. The whole account is different.
It makes sense about Cain.
Why would you continue with an idea that is not backed up by the bible, and makes no sense on any front whatsoever?
It doesn't say that.
There's no such word as "plenish". "Replenish" does not mean "plenish again" any more than "repeat" means "peat again".
Yes, it's a different account of the same event. The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan both depict the D-Day invasion but in different ways.
That's what I'm asking you. You've been shown that Genesis 1 is about the creation of "him" - one man. There's no reason to think it was a different one man than "him" in Genesis 2.
And everything else, per the Bible.
The Hebrew word that was translated to "replenish" is male' - which means "to fill." Not refill, fill. It is translated both as "replenish" and "fill."
Amplifed Bible - Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth
Christian Standard Bible - Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth
Young's Literal Translation - Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth
Wycliffe Bible - Increase ye, and be ye multiplied, and fill ye the earth
World English Bible - Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth
Revised Standard Catholic Edition - Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth
Orthodox Jewish Bible - Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth
New King James Version - Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth
For someone who goes on and on about the Bible you don't seem to know much about it.
And then one woman. And then they had children. And their children had children. And humanity began to fill the Earth, per God's commandment.
Surely you are not now claiming that you must reword the Bible because it does not make sense? Large parts of the Bible don't make sense. That's no excuse to go changing all the words to force it to make sense to you. It says what it says, not what you want it to.
Doesn't work. They immediately interbred (according to the Bible). And then came the Flood.
That's before the biological evidence weighs in, even - which of course renders the entire speculation goofy.
Why would anyone try to get biological information from a collection of stories?
It does. By stating that Adam was personally fashioned, it shows the difference in creation between Adam, and Mankind.
Yes there is. It means to fill, stock, furnish, etc.
To REplenish means to refil, restock, refurnish, etc.
Don’t you find it weird that the one word that changes the whole structure of the current Christian belief system, has been regarded as nonexistent?
I don’t believe you truly accept that.
But it is not an account of the same event. There is absolutely no reason to even think it is.
That type of thinking is there to uphold, and give backing to an idea, which has become a religious idea.
I know you don’t mean that.
But I am interested in why you are so keen to perpetuate it.
Do you find it disturbing that the one word you have hung your entire argument on - isn't an accurate translation of the word in the original Bible?
But Genesis 1 doesn't say that adam was not personally fashioned by God. You're making that up.
I find it weird that you think that one word has any significance to the discussion. I know a lot of Christians and few, if any, would agree with your interpretation.
And yet most Christians do think it is the same event.
I'm not trying to perpetuate anything. The reading of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 doesn't need any effort to validate it. It's the standard Jewish and Christian reading.
I find it weird that you think that one word is the basis of the fact that the bible makes no mention, anywhere, that Adam was the first human being, and A+E were the origin of mankind.
?? That one word is not the basis of that.
The basis of that is the standard interpretation of the Bible by every major religion - that Adam and Eve were the first people. And that interpretation is supported by the actual wording of the Bible, even if you wish the words said something else.
It is believed that Adam and Eve were the first ever humans. It is not based on the bible.
The bible states that God created mankind, both male and female, on the sixth day.
Not every human have the typ of complexion that shows blood in the face. The majority of people in the face of the earth cannot even be detected as having blood in the face, unless you cut them.
Adam, the man, is described, via his name, as having a ruddy complexion due to the blood in his face. That is the mean of the name Adam (aw-dam). Showing blood in the face. So again you have been shown to be wrong.
It’s not an interpretation.
They simply comprehend what they are reading, without the dogma they have been programmed with.
It seems you like that programming.
Because Christianity is a religious institute, and you have to agree with its doctrine, in order to remainin it.
It shouldn’t need any effort to validate it, but it does. In no part of any scripture, does it say that Adam and Eve were the first ever humans, or the origin of the human race.
Nothing in our current existence, be it religious, science, or philosophy, even remotely validates that belief, other than its belief.
As an atheist, why are you so convinced that any scripture even remotely gives this idea. Especially as you now know that it doesn’t?
Exactly. By creating Adam and Eve. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Correct. The races did not become distinct until after Noah, per the Bible.
The Bible does not state anything about what color Adam's face was. The name was chosen because of the similarity to the word adamah, which means "earth." So from adamah came Adam; wordplay.
From an essay by the Christian Courier:
The following facts are most relevant to this issue.
All human beings are from a solitary human couple, Adam and Eve, who were fashioned by the hand of God himself (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7,21-23). In his discourse to the Athenians, Paul declared that God “made of one every nation [ethnos] of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26 – ASV).
The expression “of one,” as it appears in the Greek Testament, is ex henos, literally “out of one male.” The allusion clearly is to Adam, out of whose side came Eve (Gen. 2:21-23), and, ultimately all humanity (Gen. 3:20). From the divine vantage point, there is no diversity of ethnicity. . . .
Another element that must be factored into this scenario is the historical circumstance of the dispersing of the human family in the days of the post-Flood era. Early humanity largely had neglected the Creator’s charge to “fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). In fact, a significant portion absolutely refused to do so (see Gen. 11:4).
Accordingly, God “confounded” their speech and “scattered them abroad” (Gen. 11:6ff). The subsequent separations created the circumstances that accommodated the physical variations of the human family.
Separate names with a comma.