Someone suggested reading this translation, supposedly a very good version for modern English readers. Anybody here know anything about it?

Seems to be a tad weak in the wording with a brush of political correctness.
Personally, i wouldn't use it.

And also, don't become a Christian of the footnotes.

[This message has been edited by InsanePoet02 (edited March 20, 2003).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by InsanePoet02:
And also, don't become a Christian of the footnotes.

[This message has been edited by InsanePoet02 (edited March 20, 2003).]

---

What's that supposed to mean?

I'm looking for someone who may actually know something about it beyond just flipping through a couple verses.

Having said that, it didn't look too bad from my cursory glance. The real thing I'd have to ask is, why do we need another version, excepting that someone wants to make money ?

But if you like it, read it, by all means. It's always wise to use more than one version though.

It's another attempt to make the Bible more readable - this translation boasts "2nd grade to scholar" readability. It also boasts perfect grammer.

How much this changes the meaning, I don't know. I'm not a biblical scholar. One should be wary of attempts at political correctness, though - that seems to be the major problem in many of today's newest attempts at translation.

Looks OK at first glance, but I'm still sticking with my NIV for now. I don't see a pressing need to change. It might be good for indtroducing people to the Bible, as it would be easy to understand.

Ooh, there's a nice note on Page 5 on the online version!

quote:

---

Who was Cain’s
wife? (4:17)
Because no
other human
families existed,
Cain must have
married his sister.
God seems to
have allowed all of
Adam and Eve’s
children to marry
each other.

---

Not quite politically correct .

I don't like the comment on page 2, though - the Garden of Eden would've been completely wiped during the flood; where it was is anybody's guess. The rivers with those names today are completely different from the pre-flood rivers.

My biggest worry is the notes in the margins of the online version - the contents may not always be correct, and may be misleading in some cases. I hope the authors didn't stumble on any of the major issues.

quote:

---

Not quite politically correct

---

And just plain wrong :-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by christian:
And just plain wrong :-)

---

How's it wrong?

†Caleb†

------------------
"True friendship is not characterized by the absence of conflict, but by the ability to resolve conflict."

All I can comment on - or rather will comment on at this point - is something that I myself skimmed over in Genesis 1...you have to look close and think about the language used. It's very interesting.

hint: replenish

(i'm gonna sit back and see how this unfolds now )

I don't know much about that Bible, so I can't rightly comment.

I'm replying because I've got a software package where I can have multiple Bibles opened at once and can read from each of them to see how/where they differ. The one I use is called QuickVerse...though I know there are others available. They add new translations from time-to-time, so that translation may show up. If it does it may help you to compare against other translations to see if it stays inline.

It's nice because I may have 4 different translations opened, plus have the greek/hebrew dictionary available too. They're all in sync, so if I move to John 2, say, then all the translations move there together.

Anyway, if you're looking for a way to delve more deeply into study, I've found this as a good method. My bedside Bible is NIV, though, just because it seems the most clear translation to me.

Christian:

quote:

---

Because Cain did not marry his sister, and because Adam and Eve were not alone.

---

Would you mind expanding on this? I'm interested in knowing how you've come to this conclusion, and what verses support that conclusion.

All the best!

-Krylar

------------------

[This message has been edited by krylar (edited March 21, 2003).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by christian:
Because Cain did not marry his sister, and because Adam and Eve were not alone.

---

I'm with Krylar - I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion.

http://www.quickverse.com/products/quickverse/qv7comparison.cfm

With the expanded and deluxe package it has this "God's Word" translation.

Also, the reason I was interested in this translation was that it is supposedly highly thought of by some Christian "big names"... which unfortunately I cannot remember the list of.

For my normal reading I usually stay with the NIV but if something better comes along...

[This message has been edited by GUMP (edited March 21, 2003).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by InsanePoet02:
Looked it over some.

Seems to be a tad weak in the wording with a brush of political correctness.
Personally, i wouldn't use it.

And also, don't become a Christian of the footnotes.

[This message has been edited by InsanePoet02 (edited March 20, 2003).]

---

Never said that I did know much about that translation. I was simple telling you what my impression of it was. It was only my opinion.

[This message has been edited by InsanePoet02 (edited March 21, 2003).]

†Caleb†

------------------
"True friendship is not characterized by the absence of conflict, but by the ability to resolve conflict."

(cuz I was always apalled by the thought of marry a sister. I have a sister, ya know...)

And no, I haven't read that version. I pretty much like NIV and NAS.

Later!

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

quote:

---

(cuz I was always apalled by the thought of marry a sister. I have a sister, ya know...)

---

Argument by outrage . . .

Cain said to the LORD , "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. Genesis 4:13-17

Heyo. I wasn't there when all this happened so I can't be sure, but I think this passage makes a lot more sense if we assume the existence of a lot of people living in the land. Why would Cain be worried about people killing him if it there were only a few members of his family on the entire planet. Why would Cain be building a city (though I think it can mean a settlement of any size) ? Adam was only 130 when he begat Seth (which happens after these events) so its hard to imagine he and Eve could have filled the land with their children. We also know there were some strange types like the Nephilim (Gen 6) running around at that time who are called the Sons of God and don't appear to be decendents of Adam.

I find it very hard to imagine God would punish Cain by causing him to sin (pologamy) even more, especially given that God says he will protect him.

On the other hand the Bible often says that all men came from Adam, but then the Bible also says we can call ourselves the children of Abraham, by faith and not geneaology (I presume those of us that aren't Jewish are unlikely to be actual descendents of Abraham).

I think ultimately this gets filed with all the other questions we can ask Jesus when we get to heaven, but it's very interesting...

Grace and Peace

Rowan

quote:

---

Originally posted by CobraA1:
Argument by outrage . . .

---

and that's supposed to mean... what?

interesting (to Rowanseymour's post)

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by CobraA1:
Argument by outrage . . .

and that's supposed to mean... what?

---

"I don't like it, therefore it didn't happen"

http://www.tektonics.org/outrage.html

quote:

---

Why would Cain be building a city (though I think it can mean a settlement of any size) ? Adam was only 130 when he begat Seth (which happens after these events) so its hard to imagine he and Eve could have filled the land with their children.

---

"Only" 130 is right - he lived to be several hundered years!

Even today, families can be quite large in some countries - in the U.S. and European nations, we have small families by choice. I've met people with 6 natural children, and I've heard of even more in some countries!

Now, if we can have, say, 6-10 children in only a fraction of Adam and Eve's lifespans, how many can they have?! As pointed out, they were still having children by the age of 130!

Now, factor in their children's children, and I can easily imagine quite a few people!

By the time Adam had Seth, he probably had great-great(perhaps great-great-great?) grandchildren. People these days who live to be more than 90 have often seen their great-grandchildren, so I don't think 2-3 generations (even more, perhaps?) by 130 is unreasonable.

Heck, if there's a generation every 20 years, there could (theoretically) be 5 generations by then!

Assuming ideal exponential growth, this would've been quite a large population within the first 3 generations!

God's order was, after all, to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth . . ." (Genesis 1:28)

Also, this leads to the question - how many people does it take to make a city? I imagine they were quite capable of building their own settlements.

I don't see a problem here.

quote:

---

We also know there were some strange types like the Nephilim (Gen 6) running around at that time who are called the Sons of God and don't appear to be decendents of Adam.

---

I know they are mentioned, but jumping from "Sons of God" (which I'm getting mixed messages as to who they really are) to "didn't appear to be descendents of Adam" is quite a jump IMHO.

On a side note, theories about "Sons of God" range from fallen angels to just another name for Adam's descendants, perhaps a certain line of descendents. Calling groups of people God's children doesn't seem to be unusual (Deueronomy 14:1, Isaiah 43:6, Hosea 11:1, a few others). IMHO, this probably refers to a group of people.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited March 22, 2003).]

And yes, families can get very large, very quickly. I know several families with 7 kids. (and more on the way!) With numbers like that, population can skyrocket.

Also, this may stretch things, but God hadn't told them not to marry siblings at that time. It was later. It's a hypothesis, at least.

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

quote:

---

Also, this may stretch things, but God hadn't told them not to marry siblings at that time. It was later. It's a hypothesis, at least.

---

IMHO, that's not stretching anything; before Moses and the ten Commandments, not much is known about what God's laws were. I know he had them, but not much is said until we get to Moses.

These days, not only is marrying so closely related immoral according to God's laws, but it's also a very bad idea: Doing so can amplify the effect of genetic problems. The results can be unpleasant. I've found that God's laws aren't arbitrary: They exist for very good reasons!

In the case of Adam and Eve, genetic errors would be practically non-exixtant, so they wouldn't have too many problems in the first few generations. It may be that God gave this law later, not earlier.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

quote:

---

Having said that, it didn't look too bad from my cursory glance. The real thing I'd have to ask is, why do we need another version, excepting that someone wants to make money ?

---

various reasons for a new version, I am not familiar with this version, but it could be the same one i am thinking of, and if it is the same, the reason was to have a version in language that even children really could read, and be very understandable for people to whom english is a second language.. And this is a very noble cause..

So many languages don't have a good , or complete, or evcen any translation of the bible in their language.. However there are many in those languages who have a basic grasp of english - to these millions , come billions of people - such a translation is the most accessible form of the Word of God..

and the word of God does go out, and it does produce fruit and does not come back void..

Karl

as far as the cain sister debate..
i agree with rowan, that certian things the bible makes clear, and other things we won't really know until we are in heaven, and really don't affect the way we live our life of faith..

You know in bible later incest etc is outlawed, and thus any children of adam and eve marrying each other would be incest - though of course that law wasn't given by then, but God is the same and unchanging.. So would that be incest.. I personally don't think so (though the concept to me is icky), however the situation there was quite different.. With such laws you have to think of the reasons God made them.. Of course i am not God and such speculation at worst is dangerous, at medium is foolish.. However if you don't make such speculation to be doctrine, then it can be harmless, and with comparing to the nature of God reveled in scripture, and in prayer, can be helpful for developing your relationship with God, and alligning your worldview with Gods.

Anyway i believe alot of the laws were to protect us, and in probidding the sister/brother relationship you protect people in many ways - all God protecting us. God is wise and loving.. He protect people from the sexual abuse, and the also emotional abuse of such relationships, and also protects us from genetic deformities from the fact that such relationships narrow the gene range so much, because as a family our genes are narrowed so much anyway..

However after eden, there were not other people.. and even later, brothers and sisters married.. abraham and sarah were half siblings even.
as far as genetic issues i believe that adam and eve had complete genetic diversity, and thus there would be no issues with their offspring marrying and having children, i personally believe that adam and eves siblings would be a variety of colors because of their genetic diversity, and variety of other features, and hardly prone to genetic disorders because of lack of genetic variety..
(even white people in my country who marry a Maori can have interesting offspring, one of my friends you can not tell he has any maori in him, while is brother looks 100% maori.. if adam and eve had complete genetic diversity - how interesting)

In a genetic sense ,inbreeding, genetic incest of whatever occurs on greater scales where the genetic gene pool is limited.. but understandible greater the closer the relationship, with familiar incest the worst..

but look at my dog - a great dane.. the gene pool is so limited compared to those MUTS, and great danes have so many diseases from this genetic fact..

you can even say that a chinese breeding with a chinese is 'incest' , of course its not.. but in genetic diversity.. you aren't going to introduce certian genes at all.. and races were created by certian genes being excluded because of 'inbreeding' honestly i can tell certian common australian face shapes, and new zealand ones, and british etc etc.. i can tell the difference of our genetic inbreeding in the last few hundred years.. but chinese inbreeding is likely to produce much higher eyesight problems or other diseases with a genetic influence than different combinations..

all the above genetic stuff, is my understanding of science, and of the bible and the speculation of how these interact.. i don't take it as doctrine, and it doesn't affect the way God calls me to live my life, However i praise God for his creativity, his creating us, and the marvelous way he designed life, and stuff like that, which does affect my walk in a good way

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

There's no doubt that Adam and Eve could have loads of children, but I don't see any evidence that they had raised much of a family by the time Cain left, to explain who Cain was so afraid of and who he was building a city for. One would certainly expect any male children to be recorded, given the signifigance given to Seth's birth, he being a replacement for Abel. Was Cain afraid of some of his big sisters picking on him ?

What about Lamech's pologamy? Was that ok because God hadn't yet told them otherwise?

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward -when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4

And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." Numbers 13:32-33

So whats the general consensus on the Nephilim? Sethites? Fallen angels? Aliens ?

quote:

---

but I don't see any evidence that they had raised much of a family by the time Cain left, to explain who Cain was so afraid of and who he was building a city for.

---

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense . The Bible DOES mention that had other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4), yet no names are given, so yes there are sons and daughters the Bible does not name. Given God's command to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth . . ." (Genesis 1:28), I think it's entirely possible that they'd have many children (and grandchildren) by the time of Cain and Abel.

quote:

---

So whats the general consensus on the Nephilim?

---

I don't know about a consensus, but IMHO apparently a group of people who fell from God's ways. I found a resource for the origional biblical languages, and "Nephil" means bully or tyrant (translated "giant" in KJV). I'm still failing to see how this makes them not from Adam and Eve.

I was trying to make the point that although Adam and Eve did have many sons and daughters besides those whose names are given, I thought it would be unlikely that there were any unnamed sons before Seth, because such a son would be, in Cain's absence the first born and eldest son. Just a thought.

I don't think Genesis 1:28 is necessarily a command to Adam+Eve+family to have as many babies as they can with each other , but God anouncing that we humans have *can* reproduce and fill the world.

Grace and Peace

Also, the sons of god and human women and the pre-flood era... that could be a cool setting for a story or game... Could be a very fantasy like world... very surreal... interesting...

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

[This message has been edited by ArchAngel (edited March 23, 2003).]

I know that often between versus in the bible a long period of time can happen.. this is how i speculate..also i don't believe of the nephilim until a few generations later.
how i personally try to draw the dots between the glimpses that genesis give, that on the surfaec may seem contradictory - knowing that this has been debated throughout history so much, because of the surface contradiction..

If there is two things that cain and his parents knew.. or maybe three or four.. They new painfully about the fall, the entry of sin, its curses and its consequences, as they toiled out their living, firsthand knowing the difference from before the fall and after (well for cain, secondhand knowing that).. they also knew God's command to go forth , breed like rabbits and fill the earth, they also knew they would die, but really didn't have a clue how far that would be - i mean adam lived over 900 years i think, which means he was around when alot of the other stuff was happening... and birth rate could populate the earth lots.. i mean in 400 years in egypt, israel went from 70 people to millions... and i bet preflood people probably had pretty decent fertility.. but alway cain would have been well aware of the command from God to multiply and fill the earth, and that in his lifetime sometime in the not so distant future, maybe just another couple of hundred years (for i don't know how old cain would have been when he killed abel, less than the age of adam when he had seth at least ... but he could be 90 or 80 or something.. and could have numerous sisters by now... and know that in just a few times longer that he is being alive (say i was 20, and thinking 3 times older i am 60 etc) and in that time the earth could be populated by people who hate me... that i'll be an infamous legend etc etc.. its just speculation, but then again so is trying to invent a whole nother people

as long as we don't try to twist it for our evil reasons, as the common belief in the 1700's and 1800's to justify slavery, that cain indeed mated with a gorrilla and the black people are the offspring of that unholy alliance, thus their subhuman class... which i can't believe people could accept.. i mean everything got wiped out in the flood.. and everybody comes from noah... so either one of noahs sons wives would be a half gorrilla, or noah kept some of these cain decendants in the pen next to the gorrillas... extreme folly that was..very sad, tragic and evil... (of c ourse i am not saying anybody is trying to do that.. people are just trying to join the dots with an exclamation to satisfy our interlect, the same as i am)..

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

Please add "in my opinion" to that sentence.

quote:

---

MaxX:
"Because Cain did not marry his sister, and because Adam and Eve were not alone."

---

explain.

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

[This message has been edited by ArchAngel (edited April 01, 2003).]

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

christian didn't prove his point too well and I was just curious if you had any more proof.

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

I'm happy to discuss this. Perhaps you could start by explaining where the four distinct races come from ?

How would I be classified? I am half Asian and half White. Asians say I'm white, and whites say I'm asian. I really could care less about races. But I do like to joke around with them.

There is no genetic evidence of distinct races. It was created by man.

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

I don't mean to be rude, but to suggest there is no such thing as race is plain ridiculous. I understand that these ideas come from misconceptions about what the Bible says and I admire the faith that allows people to believe obvious fiction rather than question what they have been told about God.

tell me then, are most arabs, jews (and if you must add even though proof is against it - americans and englishmen) decendant from abraham?
what is the race - races of each of them according to you?

and another thing.. you then don't believe that all people on earth have come from noah? and through that line from adam?

genesis 7:4
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Christian , you never seem to amaze me 1) with your doctrine,
but more specifically with the way you treat people, belittle people, pull them down, rubbish the words they speak..

its definately not correcting in love - as far as i can see love is utterly absent.
its not edifying, or encouraging..
It seems not to display any christian fruit at all..

I had really thought for some time, that you had stopped taking pot shots at posters here, new or old.. It grieves me to see that i am wrong.

Karl

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

its definately not correcting in love - as far as i can see love is utterly absent.
its not edifying, or encouraging..
It seems not to display any christian fruit at all..

---

*sigh* given some of our recent exchanges I think this is a pot and kettle situation. Yes, I am showing my frustration at being exposed to doctrines that plainly come from comic books. I thought I did a reasonable job of doing so politely.

I'm sorry that this has capsized discussion on more important issues. What you believe about Noah will not save your soul.

For the record, there are at least four distinct races, and that does not take into account South American, or indeed native North American folks. Australian Aborigines are racially different to native Africans, then you have Asian races, which have their own variations, and of course, us whiteys. A lot of pseudo science goes into trying to prove otherwise, and all it does it make us all look stupid. As I said, I admire the ability of someone's faith to exist in blatant disregard of facts, but that is still what it is.

quote:

---

23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

---

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me.

The same in the Hebrew. Was Cain driven from our planet, or from the presence of God ?

If there is such a thing as race, where do the races come from ? What is 'my context' ? If race is fluid, then you're talking evolution. Why aren't we Aussies looking more like native Australians, after 200 years ? Or are you saying something else ? How do such different groups of characteristics come from three couples ? For that matter, why aren't we all drooling on our keyboards, being totally inbred ? Any claims of 'super genes' will require some Bible backing.

quote:

---

tell me then, are most arabs, jews (and if you must add even though proof is against it - americans and englishmen) decendant from abraham?

---

Modern Jewry is made up of all races, and even those who are Jews are by definition only a remnant of Israel, comprising only two tribes. ( and half of Levi, if I remember correctly ). Arabs, I believe, descend from Esau, but I am willing to be corrected there.

quote:

---

you then don't believe that all people on earth have come from noah? and through that line from adam?

---

No, I do not.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

As far as I am concerned, this verse says that the children of Adam and Eve, the first people God dealt with, married the daughters of other people in their area, seeing as they were no longer in Eden. I've heard to stories about angels having sex, and so on, and I don't believe they make any sense of this verse. Either way, Gen 1 and Gen 2 clearly speak of two different events, the creation of men, and the forming of one man from the dust of the earth.

And after all that, I don't really want to argue over something so pointless. But you've had the chance to feel all holy by calling me names, so I guess that's a plus. Perhaps we can give the self rightoues posturing a rest for a while, what do you think ? In return, I'll keep in mind that I don't have the same right to disagree with people that you do. I'm happy to explore this issue, as I have said, it's not one I consider totally vital, and I'd consider myself 95% convinced, rather than 100%, of what I am saying. Either way, I could care less if God made the world in 6 minutes, 400 years ago, so long as the rest of the Bible makes sense in that light. If the Bible says it plainly, that matters more to me than 'science'.

It breaks my heart that so many Christians think the weight of scientific evidence is against the Bible. The world says evolution is obvious and we are fools not to accept it, because in their godless understanding, it IS the only possible explanation. I urge them to investigate the evidence for themselves.

Is anyone here going to say that God cannot flood the entire earth or raise up the human race from one man ? I hope not. So why is it so ridiculous to believe so.

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 2 Peter 2:4-5

The greek used for world here is kosmos, which ALWAYS refers to the universe or the entire earth. Seems to settle the argument

Grace and Peace

Rowan

quote:

---

I don't mean to be rude, but to suggest there is no such thing as race is plain ridiculous. I understand that these ideas come from misconceptions about what the Bible says and I admire the faith that allows people to believe obvious fiction rather than question what they have been told about God.

---

I, for one, would LOVE to see any "evidence" for the "races". In science, in the Bible, or anywhere else. I have yet to find any anywhere.

And while we're at it, I should point out that we are ONE species for sure - we can all interbreed, even between "races". "races" is not science IMNSHO.

quote:

---

A lot of pseudo science goes into trying to prove otherwise, and all it does it make us all look stupid.

---

Yeah, right. I think it's a simple case of logic and critical thinking - we all have human DNA, we all can interbreed, etc. etc. I think the weight is on you to prove to us that these "races" exist.

quote:

---

If race is fluid, then you're talking evolution. Why aren't we Aussies looking more like native Australians, after 200 years ? Or are you saying something else ?

---

Because people tend to breed with people who are similar. We ARE seing such hybrids of the "races" in the USA. Your claim that this is somehow "fluid" is a distortion of well-known Mendel genetics - we are a combination of millions of traits, which can mixed and matched in trillions of ways. You can see this in action in inter"racial" marriages.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

quote:

---

Christian: I think we all agree that this is not a salvation issue, but you've stated quite clearly that you think people are fools for believing in a world wide flood or that the human race was raised from one man.

---

I guess I've again managed to 'state clearly' something I do not mean. I TRIED to state clearly that anyone who thinks there are no different races on the earth is clearly ignoring the facts. I believe 100 % that the world does not come from Adam, and while I would cite inbreeding as an evidence, my main and only totally compelling evidence for this is the Bible record. As for the flood, I maintain that there are Bible problems with the idea of a world wide flood, as I have said. In addition, there is the problem of the different races coming from one family with three different wives, i.e. no races at all, at most 3 half bred races.

But, having said that, God could make the world in as short a time as He liked, as recently as He liked. He could flood the world as easily. My list of things I believe God cannot do:

1. Lie
2. Break His word
3. Act unrighteously.

Cobra1:

Dogs clearly have different breeds and they can intermingle. Why should people be different ? A dog is a dog, and a person is a person, but physically, a poodle is not a great dane. If you don't believe there is such a thing as race, that leaves you believing in evolution as the reason that people in sunny climes have dark skin, and so on. Evolution is an incredibly unBiblical position to take, and I urge you to reconsider.

quote:

---

Dogs clearly have different breeds and they can intermingle. Why should people be different ? A dog is a dog, and a person is a person, but physically, a poodle is not a great dane. If you don't believe there is such a thing as race, that leaves you believing in evolution as the reason that people in sunny climes have dark skin, and so on. Evolution is an incredibly unBiblical position to take, and I urge you to reconsider.

---

if you use this as your example then it shows your ignorance to the facts.. most breeds of dogs are but a few hundred years old come a few thousand years old.. they are the result of breeding out certian gene ranges, and breeding in certian gene ranges... all dogs are wolves at heart.. being a great dane owner , i know this, this history of the great dane over the centuraries since its origin about 1000 years ago as a distinct breed. However it has a lot of health issues, because through inbreeding to make it the dog it is - people have interfered with nature - with the genetic diversity that God gave dog/wolf.. Its kind of sad..
you don't have to believe in evolution to believe genetic diversity..
you just have to believe in reality..

I like to take the bible at face value, in the flood scrpture i sent earlier it said he wiped out all mankind - thus if these other races exist they are not part of mankind - and thus also not eligible for salvation.. so we may as well treat them as animals - and actually if you research the source of your own doctrine - it was devised to rid the human conscience of guilt regarding slavery of the black people... so variations go further 'amalgamation' that black people are decendant of cain mating with a gorrilla... a common belief in the 1800's..

anyhow my last post on this matter

Karl

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

you don't have to believe in evolution to believe genetic diversity..
you just have to believe in reality..

---

Seeing as the this was your last post on the matter, I won't bother to comment further. I guess we are each left feeling that the other does not have a grip on reality, and as you say, as it's not a salvation issue, there really is no point in arguing about the obvious.

quote:

---

and actually if you research the source of your own doctrine - it was devised to rid the human conscience of guilt regarding slavery of the black people... so variations go further 'amalgamation' that black people are decendant of cain mating with a gorrilla... a common belief in the 1800's..

---

But I'll add this:

I expect you to withdraw any implication that I was claiming that coloured people are in any way less human, simply because they are racially disposed to have different features. I don't see how my claiming that there are races has any link to slavery, or gorillas, or anything else. It has closer links with scientific fact than you do, but no links to racism that I can see.

quote:

---

Dogs clearly have different breeds and they can intermingle. Why should people be different ?

---

We aren't. I never said we were.

quote:

---

A dog is a dog, and a person is a person, but physically, a poodle is not a great dane.

---

True, to a certain extent. While different breeds exist, it is not uncommon to see dogs that have more than one breed in their family lines. Note that a "breed" is simply a combination of traits that we've decided are important for determining "breed".

Note that there are a lot of traits that we don't attribute to race - every individual is unique, even within "races". "Race" is only determined by a fraction of our traits that we've decided are somehow "important" for distinguishing "races".

quote:

---

If you don't believe there is such a thing as race, that leaves you believing in evolution as the reason that people in sunny climes have dark skin, and so on.

---

Nope, now you're jumping to conclusions. "Race" is simply the product of certain parts of the genes expressing themselves - skin color is nothing but differences in the amount of melanin. There can be more differences in the DNA between individuals in a single race than between races.

This is NOT a product of Evolution, it's a product of well-known genetics. Evolution requires the creation of new information, but genetics only deals with existing information - in order for a child to have a certain trait, that trait must already exist in the parents' genes.

In fact, I think you have things a bit reversed - sometimes people will attempt to call the existance of "races" a product of evolution, and will attempt to push white supremacist views because they think that whites have "evolved" to a better state and that "natural selection" has to be applied to the other races.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4184cen_d1999.asp

quote:

---

Evolution is an incredibly unBiblical position to take, and I urge you to reconsider.

---

I completely and fully agree. I would never stand with Evolution.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

quote:

---

But I'll add this:

I expect you to withdraw any implication that I was claiming that coloured people are in any way less human, simply because they are racially disposed to have different features. I don't see how my claiming that there are races has any link to slavery, or gorillas, or anything else. It has closer links with scientific fact than you do, but no links to racism that I can see.

---

its like say yoga..

Yoga is a hindu spritiaulism channeling of energy/spirits through the charka points..

However a westerner might have a form of it, that says there is nothing spiritual to it, its just their particular exercise schedule..

However one came from the other.. thats all i meant. I didn't mean you use it in a racist way.. though i'm sure the fruits of it in the long run will end up that way - as it always have..

however if God wiped out all mankind in the flood.. then these other races (not from noah) are not part of mankind..

and thus not eligible for salvation realy.. for it was for mankind, people that Jesus came to save..

oh and b.t.w there are 'arabs' who are decendant of esau, thus still abraham, as other 'arabs' from lots children... mostly because the different races in the area have been assimialated into arabdom..
but arabs specifically are decendant from ishamel, and thus abraham also..

signing off, Karl

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

I agree, obviously, that the things that determine race are irrelevant, and the claim that white people are 'more highly evolved' is disgusting to me, as I am sure it is to you. But the fact that racists make these claims does not mean that the underlying fact of race is not true. Genetic varation had to *start* somewhere, unless you're claiming small 'e' evolution, in which case ou have the basic problem that it isn't happening now, and it must happen pretty quickly if the earth is only 6,000 years old.

quote:

---

OK, let's take a step back. How did three men, all of the same father, and three women, presumably of different fathers, but in your eyes ultimately from Adam, create, for example, Aborigines, who are never that dark again once a white person has become part of the family tree ?

---

ok, how come that if you cross a great dane introduce a labrador into the family tree of purebreed great danes that the decendants will never quite be 'great danish'.. well not at least for many generations (which of course passes quicker than human generations and I could breed a great dane generation every 2 years.

with the aboriginies , these lighter ones have definately more than just a few white genes in them.. its not like one generation of white, in the great great greate grandfather.. I know lots of people who are only a very small percent.. maybe 1/128th something and nobodcy in their family show any sign of that race in them.. however of course one person every so often will show more of it.. thus genetic diversity.. i.e my wife is the only one in her family that looks native american indian, and she looks that way a lot..

anyway if you really want an answer to your question, go sign up for a course in genetics.. Honestly many scientists are becoming christian because genetics poitns away from evolution to intelligent design.. And as a christian student of science, you more you learn, the greater your AWE is of God and the amazing way he created things..

Karl
will this be the last post?

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

quote:

---

Originally posted by christian:
OK, let's take a step back. How did three men, all of the same father, and three women, presumably of different fathers, but in your eyes ultimately from Adam, create, for example, Aborigines, who are never that dark again once a white person has become part of the family tree ?

---

I would start by wondering the details about the claim that they "are never dark again" would be entirely accurate. I would ask about the genetics behind this statement. It might be rare if it's a recessive trait, but still possible.

quote:

---

I agree, obviously, that the things that determine race are irrelevant, and the claim that white people are 'more highly evolved' is disgusting to me, as I am sure it is to you. But the fact that racists make these claims does not mean that the underlying fact of race is not true. Genetic varation had to *start* somewhere, unless you're claiming small 'e' evolution, in which case ou have the basic problem that it isn't happening now, and it must happen pretty quickly if the earth is only 6,000 years old.

---

Adam and Eve sounds like a good starting point for genetic variation . I imagine they have a *very* diverse set of genes - probably had both the dominant and recessive versions of every trait. And that's just in one of them, considering humans are diploid Within the first few generations, you would already be seeing an immense amount of diversity.

On a side note, the words "Evolution" and "evolution" are a common trap for word games - people will use the small "e" to stand for genetic diversity, and silently switch it with the big "E" in a bait-and-switch style . . .

I prefer to be more specific - I'll refer to the big "E" as "molecules-to-man Evolution" or something similar . . .

BTW, although the *exact* age of the earth is hard to determine, I lean more towards 10,000 than 6,000 years.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by christian:
Interesting. So you don't believe that God made the earth in 6 literal days, with Adam being made on the 6th ?

---

Huh? Who are you addressing? - I do believe the 6 literal days, and I do believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, with Adam being created on the 6th . . .

quote:

---

But you believe the world is only 10,000 years old ? What's your theory on dinosaur bones ?

---

Global flood. Noah's flood.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited April 05, 2003).]

quote:

---

Huh? Who are you addressing? - I do believe the 6 literal days, and I do believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, with Adam being created on the 6th . . .

---

Then if the earth is 10,000 years old, the Bible is a lie. It's 6,000 years from Adam, it's easy to establish that.

You know, I left this forum for a day and I have to read, like, an entire novel. Because of that, I'm lost (though not really).

I agree with nfektious, the age is really unimportant.

And I don't think CobraA1 was saying the Bible is a lie. Geez.

Also, this might be steping back to far, but I want to to know why you called me "blind." If you're going to call me that, I hope you have proof.
I'm not taking this personally, though I might sound like that.

One last note, science is in no way contridictory to the Bible. They never argue against each other. Science is the search for the truth, and the Bile is the Truth. Now, scientists, they're human. Just want to make that clear. Not implying anything about anyone.

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

We however, read the Bible, and then debate whether it fits into our narrow understanding of the world. And ask if it is reasonable to believe it and if it complies with our man-made rules of science. Is this wisdom?

So when everything goes pear-shaped, the child knows they are safe because they have an unquestioning faith in a God who has a history of doing awesome things. We on the otherhand, having crushed our faith in God into everything we consider likely or reasonable, have an unsure faith in an impotent God.

If we are going to read Genesis as a string of metaphors, we might as well read the Gospels as metaphors.

Just a thought, not directed at anyone

And I think it's clear this is going in circles. I don't see any point in discussing this further.

quote:

---

Originally posted by christian:
Then if the earth is 10,000 years old, the Bible is a lie. It's 6,000 years from Adam, it's easy to establish that.

---

a) I said that I leaned towards 10,000 - I didn't say that I was going to follow that age dogmatically.

b) It's easy to establish exactly when Adam & Eve were on the earth? This is new to me. Please explain.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

There was an Irish Archbishop (only an Irishman would) James Ussher who dated it to Oct 23rd 4004BC

This falls within my "estimate range", which is about 6,000-10,000 years old. As long as it's not in the (m/b/tr)illions, I'm willing to accept a slightly younger earth.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited April 05, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited April 05, 2003).]

Some say that dinosaurs were preadam..

However i believe in the literal creation of the world in 6 days..
but even if i can accept preadam dinosaurs

what i can't accept would be ones that died, or that killed each other.. BEfore sin was introduced into this world i don't believe there was pain nor death.. so nature was quite different that the one we know now.. of course saying these things makes a lot of loose threads to tie together, but i don't have to because its not really an important issue, and has nothing to do with my faith in God day to day, or my spiritual walk..

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

How did Adam and Eve co-exist with dinosaurs, once sin was introduced and the velociraptors figured out what their teeth were for ?

The current creationist *theory* AFAIK (subject to change ) is:
-most of the animals on the earth (dinosaurs included) were rapidly buried during the flood, which accounts for the majority of the "fossil record".

-There's been some theorizing that an ice age followed. It's interesting to note that at least two sources I've heard from have independently come to that conclusion - Answers In Genesis came to this conclusion in http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/iceage.asp, and a speaker who's been to the antarctic and done studies there. Can't say for sure that there really was an ice age, but that's the theory.

I wasn't aware that trilobites possessed any particular problems for creationist theory. The closest article I could find in my resources is here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n1trilobite.asp

Interesting, you stated in an earlier post that:

quote:

---

Evolution is an incredibly unBiblical position to take, and I urge you to reconsider.

---

But you're asking how I explain this stuff?

Now you've got me interested - may I ask the same of you? What's your impression of the dinosaur bones?

Or to be more general - what's your view of the history of the Earth before Adam and Eve?

Seeing as we've both stated our how's and why's on the matter, I won't pursue this thread any more unless you think I should (except maybe a little bit on the trilobites ).

EDIT: Fixed link - CCN's automatic linking included the comma in the link .

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited April 07, 2003).]

quote:

---

Now you've got me interested - may I ask the same of you? What's your impression of the dinosaur bones?

Or to be more general - what's your view of the history of the Earth before Adam and Eve?

---

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two different accounts, so there is no way to know how old the earth is. The fossil record shows that there were dinosaurs, before there was man. This is beyond doubt, in my mind. Why God made dinosaurs, I have absolutely no idea. I hope to ask Him one day :0)

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited April 07, 2003).]

No, I'm a hardcore creationist.

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

quote:

---

. . . and I just realized I completely agree

How quickly I forget stuff when I'm half-asleep . . .

The Spirit performs works through us . . . we, being physical beings can't do much by ourselves - it's the Spirit that works through us. Being that the Spirit CAN do anything, I have to agree . I think I'm on christian's frequency now. Things are getting less muddy . . .

---

You do a better job at opening our eyes than you give yourself credit for .

I'm not afraid to re-evaluate my position - are you? We must be attempting to follow God's word, not the word of a religious organization! LCMS, ELCA, RCI, Roman Catholicism, etc. are all falliable institutions made by man - please don't fall into the trap of thinking that your organization is always right!

*sigh*

I've stated my reasons as far as my beliefs on race and creationism go - I assumed the conversation was over. If you'd like me continue the conversation and address the issues of the 2 creation accounts and man not apppearing with the dinosaurs, I can. Otherwise, this thread, as far as I'm concerned, is over.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

quote:

---

please don't fall into the trap of thinking that your organization is always right!

---

Never, ever. Even RCI corporately does not think that way, and is not scared to change it's position if proven wrong.

I've been left feeling pretty drained by all this. I am reading the site you linked to, and I am finding it partially a great resource, partially challenging in that I don't agree with it all. In the same way that I'd direct anyone interested in the recent BI discussion to the RCI site, I think the site you gave me does as good a job of explaining your position as you will, so I think there's nothing lost to leave it at that.

I'm gonna take a break from the forums.

Maybe a less draining topic next time - such as programming or something.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

The debates did give me more insight.

ArchAngel Out.

------------------
Fight(as in overkill) the Good Fight of Faith...

†Caleb†

------------------
"True friendship is not characterized by the absence of conflict, but by the ability to resolve conflict."

But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

matt 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest

john 4:14

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

"If you enter your neighbour's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket." Deuteronomy 23:24

"A fool's lips bring him strife, and his mouth invites a beating" Proverbs 18:6

"This was the inventory: gold dishes 30 silver dishes 1,000 silver pans 29" Ezra 1:9

Grace and Peace, Rowan