The ONLY two created in the beginning?

[Anonymous]

Gen 7:18-22
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.


From this, I would say there were mountains before the flood. I would also gather that the flood was universal, if all flesh on the earth died as a result of the flood. Not proof, but what I see the Bible saying.

Here is a gentleman that says that the flood was mathematically impossible. (I believe the Biblical account )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Scarecrow]

"Here is a gentleman that says that the flood was mathematically impossible."

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

How big is your god? Apparently his isn't very big...

Luke 8:25 He said to them, "Where is your faith?" And they were afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, "Who then is this, that he commands even winds and water, and they obey him?"

Matthew 18:1-7 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!

Mark 10:13-16 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.

It sounds "cultish" to say, but we are simply required to believe. If research is employed the truths of the scriptures become evident. We are to be ready to give a reasonable answer for our faith...in other words we are supposed to be able to logically defend ourselves against those that challenge our faith. The teaching section of this organization are extremely helpful in this area...

viewforum.php?f=57

 

[Isabella]

I was joking with those comments, and I thought that it would be obvious.
I really feel like because you believe the Bible to be inconsistent, you have shielded yourself from the truth that it contains.

Actually, pretty much most of my dialogue was light-hearted and teasing. And I took all of your comments in good faith as I hope you do mine. I thought I made it quite clear what I believed to be truth, or perhaps I am too vague? I don't know, thing is, I don't really tend to talk about my personal beliefs much. I don't tend to have much patience for being preached to either (sorry, Dr. Allen, told you, you were wasting your time) but I do enjoy the wealth of scholarship that most of you employ and that is one thing that I have enjoyed with this thread also.

kind regards,

B

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

with no knowledge of good and evil would refrain from sex until the fall.

Welltan, I don't think that is the issue. They could have had sexual relations but the issue is at what point did Eve actually conceive? Ultimately conception is within the sovereign hand of God.

Thus to say they were in sin if they had not multiplied would that not be a violation of the conviction that God controls and governs conception? It seems more likely, does it not, that Adam and Eve were doing what was natural but that we

(1) Do not know how long it was from the command to multiply to the time of the fall and then until Cain's birth &
(2) That whether it was a long or short time that since the story is chronological the first mention of a child is likely the first child in the human race?

Seems to me that if we read the bible in a plain and natural way we would arrive at this as the most natural conclusion. I cannot think of why it would be a problem if the time in between Adam and Eve's first meeting that sin happened in a relatively quick manner and thus there is not mcuh time for much else to have taken place.

Granted someone might say well the first time we have a mention of sex is in Gen. 4 as well and to that I would agree that it gives weight to that as well in light that the time from the command of God to the act of it and the sin of the race was likely to have been such a short time that indeed these first references are indeed first because they are in the proper sequences of events as they took place.

Eve's reaction in Gen 4:1 gives support to the idea of Cain being the first human born. If not then why did she respond the way she did if she had seen other humans born?

Also, if Moses was tracing the origins of humanity would that not make the most sense if we believe the purpose of Genesis to be to tell how we all developed?

I just cannot seem to understand why we would choose to read more in between the lines of Scripture than what is there. It seems to me that had God wanted us to know or believe others existed before Cain that he would have said something directly to lead us to that belief. But since he did not it seems like we would be starting from a speculative base to try and add something into Scripture that God did not give to us for some reason. What would that reason be? Could it not be because the easiest and most simple solution is because it was not there, i.e. we have right before our eyes the natural progression as it really happened with nothing else in between?

Or do you think I am missing some direct statement or something that yields a stronger examination?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I don't really tend to talk about my personal beliefs much

Well outside of the public forum I sure would love to talk more about them and compare them with the gospel.

I don't consider you or the opportunity to discuss the gospel a waste of time. I actually consider it to be one of the best things to do with our time as friends and as humans who will one day die

On my end if you think I am on a road that ends bad I would dearly appreciate you taking the time to share with me why you think so or what evidences logically point that way so it could be compared with what I do affirm. Such would seem like a loving thing to do.

 

[Isabella]

I don't really tend to talk about my personal beliefs much

Well outside of the public forum I sure would love to talk more about them and compare them with the gospel.

I don't consider you or the opportunity to discuss the gospel a waste of time. I actually consider it to be one of the best things to do with our time as friends and as humans who will one day die

On my end if you think I am on a road that ends bad I would dearly appreciate you taking the time to share with me why you think so or what evidences logically point that way so it could be compared with what I do affirm. Such would seem like a loving thing to do.

Wow, why would you think that I have the right to tell you that I think you are on a road that ends badly? I would never presume such a thing. I don't know you personally and even if I had met you, if you are anything like what you write I am sure you are a very kind man who cares a lot for others. I have total respect for that, to me, that is a good road, very good and I can't imagine that ending bad for you, we all have our own paths Dr. Allen, mine is right for me, yours is right for you. My particular road has taken me away from feeling the need to convince anyone of my own position, I have enough confidence within myself that I don't need to be seen to be 'right' all the time by everyone. I did that yes and I told people I thought they were wrong, not giving them any credit for that they did that was right. I hope that I have grown from being that person and that those personal beliefs which I hold dear (albeit fairly privately) are one of the things that has helped me to grow from a pretty intolerant brat, to an open minded, fairly compassionate woman. Who would like to think she would get along with and be friendly with people from most walks of life who, as long as they accept me for who I am, I know that I will get along with them.

kindest regards,

B
x

 

[steve]

Gen 7:18-22
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

From this, I would say there were mountains before the flood. I would also gather that the flood was universal, if all flesh on the earth died as a result of the flood. Not proof, but what I see the Bible saying.

the hebrew word includes both hills and mountains (the same one is used in both verses). your point is correct, but the "mountains" may not have been very high. high being a relative term (anything taller than adam such as trees or hills might be considered high)

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

if you are anything like what you write I am sure you are a very kind man who cares a lot for others.

Why how so very gracious and kind of you to say such a thing. Thank you.

Well, in any case, I do hope one day we can indeed sit down and talk face to face over such personal beliefs.

I too value tolerance, at least to the degree that we are allowed by Christ. Normally I call it the "Theological Triage" where some truths take a higher position over other truths. I just am always concerned that we can indeed slip on a theological banana peel and in our tolerance actually slip into ambivalence towards another and in the end really hurt them. To that end it would not be tolerance but a lack of love for the good of another. And if Christ's words are true where he said: "I am the life, the way, and the truth" and that "no one can see the Father but through him" I tremble at the thought of someone I know not being there with me to see and live with our Father. My heart truly hurts over the thought of that for anyone I know.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

And if Christ's words are true where he said: "I am the life, the way, and the truth" and that "no one can see the Father but through him" I tremble at the thought of someone I know not being there with me to see and live with our Father. My heart truly hurts over the thought of that for anyone I know.

Amen, brother!

Three preachers were standing by the road. One had a sign that said, "The end is near!" The second had a sign that said, "Turn around before it's too late!" The third was wildly waving his arms at every car that went by, trying to draw attention to the two signs.

Some guy driving by stopped, rolled down his window, and yelled, "Mind your own business, you intolerant wackos!" then sped away. As he disappeared around the curve and the three preachers heard his car splash into the river, one said to the others, "Maybe one of us should have a sign that says, 'the bridge is out.'"

Sometimes, we try to share the Gospel message with well-intentioned but ill-conceived messages like on those signs. No wonder we are called intolerant!

When we share the Gospel message, we are talking about where our friends, our loved ones, and our neighbors will spend eternity.

The bridge is out. But God has made a way for us.

 

[Anonymous]

Steve wrote,
the hebrew word includes both hills and mountains (the same one is used in both verses). your point is correct, but the "mountains" may not have been very high. high being a relative term (anything taller than adam such as trees or hills might be considered high)

Yeppers, must have been something in the context to determine how it was translated, or maybe, what we see in Strongs is the root for both words like PolyDoc wrote elsewhere. Anywho, no one or thing can swim forever, exept a fish. :lol:

Gen 7:19-20
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

 

[welltan]

with no knowledge of good and evil would refrain from sex until the fall.

Welltan, I don't think that is the issue. They could have had sexual relations but the issue is at what point did Eve actually conceive? Ultimately conception is within the sovereign hand of God.

True, and logic and chronology would imply that God would have instructed them to procreate when he wanted them to. Giving the instruction and then preventing conception would have been confusion which is not a character of God.
Thus to say they were in sin if they had not multiplied would that not be a violation of the conviction that God controls and governs conception? It seems more likely, does it not, that Adam and Eve were doing what was natural but that we

(1) Do not know how long it was from the command to multiply to the time of the fall and then until Cain's birth &
(2) That whether it was a long or short time that since the story is chronological the first mention of a child is likely the first child in the human race?
You add nothing to your position that God purposely delayed conception. Your better argument should include some reason that God would have delayed conception, which you as yet fail to supply. However your use of the word "likely" twice here crumbles your foundational argument and grants the possibility that my speculation is actually solid. Thank you.
Seems to me that if we read the bible in a plain and natural way we would arrive at this as the most natural conclusion. I cannot think of why it would be a problem if the time in between Adam and Eve's first meeting that sin happened in a relatively quick manner and thus there is not mcuh time for much else to have taken place.
You just stated a defense of a desire to have sin arrive before conception? Birth? For what reason? A plain and natural reading would include perfect individuals that would not have conception difficulties loaded upon them without reason during a perfect creation.

Granted someone might say well the first time we have a mention of sex is in Gen. 4 as well and to that I would agree that it gives weight to that as well in light that the time from the command of God to the act of it and the sin of the race was likely to have been such a short time that indeed these first references are indeed first because they are in the proper sequences of events as they took place.

Remarkable that you abandon your argument that God delayed conception and now prefer that God or Adam or Eve delayed sex and find solace that a delayal of sex by default prevented conception until Cain.

Eve's reaction in Gen 4:1 gives support to the idea of Cain being the first human born. If not then why did she respond the way she did if she had seen other humans born?

I take it then you have never been present at childbirth, which I have six times. Praises and glory and credit to God, a woman may utter at the sixth birth as strongly as the first. When you have children and watch the Godly glow and listen to the words of a new mother you will understand. I think you can get the idea though by remembering how a birth is announced in church announcements. It doesn't matter if she has 10 children. The pastor always announces the birth as the joy of a new mother, never an old mother having another child.

Also, if Moses was tracing the origins of humanity would that not make the most sense if we believe the purpose of Genesis to be to tell how we all developed?

I just cannot seem to understand why we would choose to read more in between the lines of Scripture than what is there. It seems to me that had God wanted us to know or believe others existed before Cain that he would have said something directly to lead us to that belief. But since he did not it seems like we would be starting from a speculative base to try and add something into Scripture that God did not give to us for some reason. What would that reason be? Could it not be because the easiest and most simple solution is because it was not there, i.e. we have right before our eyes the natural progression as it really happened with nothing else in between?

You are correct, and that is why I choose to not read in without basis or reason stated by God or man or your argument why God would have delayed conception, or feel the need to speed up the whole Genesis account to a quick weekend where sin is required on a Saturday and birth on the Sunday. I also fail to hear any reason that sin and the fall is a requirement for childbirth, or that sin is required before sex (which you did not say but is a natural reading of your position). Sex and sin are not synonyms.
Or do you think I am missing some direct statement or something that yields a stronger examination?

Yes, you miss your stronger theological argument in desperation to defend the status quo of common Genesis Sunday school chronology. But I will supply it for you. Your better argument is the affect of the fall on perfect individuals (children of Adam and Eve) if they already exist before the fall. You should have referenced the fact that Adam seemed to need to join Eve in partaking of the fruit to join her in the fall. If so then any other of the offspring of Adam and Eve would also have needed to partake of the fruit also to fall or they would have escaped sin and death and would still be walking around the earth today somewhere. However, if I might continue to supply some opposing ideas, you are thinking that I would not have mentioned this strong objection without rebuttal or solution. Of course, now you are correct! Death and sin and the fall happened everywhere upon all life as a result of Adams and Eves sin. Indeed it fell upon you and I also, and we never ate of the fruit. But I am sure that you will join with me in giving glory to God for our salvation which the angel announced to Mary and Mary's Immaculate Conception at that time without delay.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Giving the instruction and then preventing conception would have been confusion which is not a character of God.

How would that be illogical?

Prevention? Would it not rather be that it takes time and is it not then possible that even if they were having sex on the first day that by the time the child was born they had already sinned?

Taking Genesis 4:1 totally out of the picture and simply talking about human physiology would it not be likely that Adam and Eve sinned before any other children were here?

And assuming for a moment there were other children already alive then why would Moses have not told us that?

Also how would that command differ than from any other couple today? Is it sinful or disorderly or confusing for God to tell people to multiply today and yet it still take time to conceive and then time to actually deliver the child?

Unless you are saying that a woman, Eve in this case, could conceive 24/7 I do not see how the idea of prevention would the applicable way to view it.

And yes, we both, holding to the federal headship view as we both do, would still wind up with all people falling in Adam whe he sinned as the head. We agree there for sure. I just cannot figure out on what biblical basis one would have to insert the idea that there had to be or needed to be children before Adam sinned or even before Cain.

 

[welltan]

Giving the instruction and then preventing conception would have been confusion which is not a character of God.

How would that be illogical?

What you quote is not illogical, glad we agree.

Prevention? Would it not rather be that it takes time and is it not then possible that even if they were having sex on the first day that by the time the child was born they had already sinned?

Conceived in perfection, born in sin. I do not have a problem with that. That would make them older than Cain of course. Again, thank you for your support.

Taking Genesis 4:1 totally out of the picture and simply talking about human physiology would it not be likely that Adam and Eve sinned before any other children were here?

'totally out of the picture'? nah..let's not toss out any Scripture now.

And assuming for a moment there were other children already alive then why would Moses have not told us that?

The answer would be the same as for why Moses did not tell us anything now known. Perhaps Moses did not feel the need. Also if we put creation (according to Usher) at 4004 BC and we put the flood at 2348 BC and Moses and the Exodus around 1491 BC then Moses was writing (with inspiration of course) 2513 years after creation and the garden (give or take 40 years). He as we also rely on the creation facts as carried through the flood by Noah who was busier with the hammer then the pen and his reliably accurate children which as far as I know wrote nothing. A better question would be why God did not tell us by inspiration if there were other children already alive. And then the answer would be why God does not tell us anything as opposed to everything. What color were the leaves on the tree of knowledge?

Also how would that command differ than from any other couple today? Is it sinful or disorderly or confusing for God to tell people to multiply today and yet it still take time to conceive and then time to actually deliver the child?

I appreciate that you are now adding a longer time frame to the argument, which your argument before excluded.

Unless you are saying that a woman, Eve in this case, could conceive 24/7 I do not see how the idea of prevention would the applicable way to view it.

Your points included the idea of delay. Without prevention sovereign or otherwise , I fail to see a delay for birth in your position. If you want to throw out the idea of delay/prevention then I accept your concession.

And yes, we both, holding to the federal headship view as we both do, would still wind up with all people falling in Adam when he sinned as the head. We agree there for sure. I just cannot figure out on what biblical basis one would have to insert the idea that there had to be or needed to be children before Adam sinned or even before Cain.

There is no biblical basis that there were not children before Cain, nor have you supplied a reason for such children existing to wear upon any theology, or holy doctrine.

But as it stands you defend the position/event of Satan's deception of Eve and the fall as a prerequisite for child birth. Now who (not saying you are )can we think of that would desire to establish the impossibility of a sinless birth?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

There is no same biblical basis that there were not children before Cain, nor have you supplied a reason for such children existing to wear upon any theology, or holy doctrine

.

Nah, I'm with you there for sure, so long as the headship of Adam and the fall of all people when he sinned is upheld there is not per se a violation of any doctrine or any other text as it would still fit with Romans 5 and Acts 17.

I'm just trying to examine it both ways. I certainly do think Cain was the first child because I read it chronologically but as far as saying there is some doctrinal violation if he was not I would not say that when the headship position is in place.

The doctrinal violation would only be, I think, if there was supposedly more than Adam and Eve in the beginning or if someone were to say that others born before were somehow not affected by Adam's fall, as such a position as that certainly would create a problem with other texts of Scripture.

The all in/from Adam is the real issue but I'm trying to figure out what would even be the reason for Moses not mentioning it. I'll read over your points again and contemplate it some more.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

I have been hesitant to enter this discussion. Not because I am ignorant of the subject matter, but because I was not sure where to begin in teaching it.

My late father was a pastor, and was very interested in creation science. He got me interested, too, at a rather early age. I was not yet a teen when Dad and I started studying creation science together. My study of the topic did not stop until last year, when I turned my considerable intellect :lol: (all three neurons! ) to the study of Biblical Marriage.

During my years of rebellion against God, I continued the study of origins – but from the other side of the fence, trying to prove that God does not exist. All I succeeded in doing was to prove to myself how foolish an endeavor that is, and I found myself literally on my face before the Creator I had tried to deny, repenting for over three hours. He is now my Lord and my God.

Having studied Origins Science for more than 45 years, hopefully I have learned something about it.

Dates of Biblical events reported throughout this and my future posts on the general topic are from Ussher's Annals of the World. There will also be references to books and other writings by creation scientists. All works referenced in the text will be listed at the end of the article in which they are used.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Anyone who really believes this bold statement will also believe the rest of the Bible. This is a unique statement in all of ancient and modern non-Judeo-Christian literature. According to Dr. Henry Morris, writing in his Genesis commentary, The Genesis Record, only the Bible, in its opening statement, starts with the actual creation from nothing (creation scientists use the Latin phrase, "Creation Ex Nihilo") of the space-time-matter of our universe by an eternally self-existant God:

...all of the other ancient religious books and religious systems, as well as all modern philosophies, begin, not with God, but with preexisting matter or energy in some form. [Morris, p. 38]

Anyone who believes in a transcendent God Who created something from nothing simply by speaking it into existence should have no trouble at all in believing that the same God could and did form everything in the universe from that space-time-matter which He spoke into existence, and that He would be able to transmit to us an accurate record of what He did, as well as to preserve that record throughout history.

Genesis does NOT tell us that God directly created more than two humans, Adam and Eve. Could not the God Who created something out of nothing have designed His creation to start with only one pair of humans, and that the entire earth would be populated from their offspring? And could not that design include in its genetic information all the diversity we see in the human race?

Had He directly created more humans than just Adam and Eve, His inscribed Word (the record He transmitted to us) would tell us that. The most common objection to this is the fact that Mosaic law forbids marriage with close relatives – like brother and sister – so who did Adam's and Eve's children marry? The claim is made that if it was sin in 1491 BC, it was sin in 4004 BC as well. [dates found in Ussher p. 4 par. 1, p. 37 par. 198]

Not so. God sometimes institutes laws for the protection of man when conditions change that would make such a new law necessary. Adam and Eve were not told to leave the Garden of Eden (that was a new law, and was enforced by a cherub with a flaming sword! Geneses 3:23-24) until conditions were such that it was dangerous for mankind to eat of the Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden. The danger is mentioned in Genesis 3:22.

(Do NOT try to say that polygyny was lawful then but not now. Were that true, His Word would very clearly say so – but it does not. Nothing has changed that would make polygyny dangerous for mankind when it was not dangerous before. Polygyny was part of God's original design for marriage, and still is. The same law given to Moses in 1491 BC which forbade what we now call 'incest' also has regulations governing plural marriage, and even requiring it under certain circumstances. That has not changed, as many other articles on this website show.)

When Adam and Eve were created, their DNA, just like the rest of creation, was absolutely perfect. (Genesis 1:31) When Adam sinned, and God pronounced the curse that resulted from that sin, mankind's DNA started to deteriorate.

Decay, deterioration, and death were all part of the curse. Read Genesis chapter 3 to see that this is true.

As will be shown in my future posts to this thread, conditions on the Earth before the Deluge of Genesis chapters 6 – 9 were much different than now. No harmful radiation was able to reach the surface of the Earth. Men lived as long as 969 years (Methuselah, Genesis 5:27.)

After the Deluge, our DNA started sustaining more rapid damage due to climate and other environmental changes. By the time the Law was given to Moses in 1491 BC, mankind's DNA had deteriorated to the point that it was dangerous to the offspring of a marriage for close relatives to marry. So God, because of His love for us, gave us the necessary laws – for our protection.

Adam and Eve were the only two humans created. All other humans are descended from them.

_________________
References:

Ussher: Ussher, James; tr. by Larry Pierce. The Annals of the World. 1650-1654. ISBN: (pdf document, download from http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/chronology.html). {Page numbers are as supplied by the PDF reader, not the pagination of the document.}

Morris: Morris, Dr. Henry M; The Genesis Record : A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. 1976. ISBN: 0-8010-6004-4.
_________________

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Had He directly created more humans than just Adam and Eve, His inscribed Word (the record He transmitted to us) would tell us that. The most common objection to this is the fact that Mosaic law forbids marriage with close relatives – like brother and sister – so who did Adam's and Eve's children marry? The claim is made that if it was sin in 1491 BC, it was sin in 4004 BC as well. [dates found in Ussher p. 4 par. 1, p. 37 par. 198] Not so. God sometimes institutes laws for the protection of man when conditions change that would make such a new law necessary. Adam and Eve were not told to leave the Garden of Eden (that was a new law, and was enforced by a cherub with a flaming sword! Geneses 3:23-24) until conditions were such that it was dangerous for mankind to eat of the Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden. The danger is mentioned in Genesis 3:22. (Do NOT try to say that polygyny was lawful then but not now. Were that true, His Word would very clearly say so – but it does not. Nothing has changed that would make polygyny dangerous for mankind when it was not dangerous before. Polygyny was part of God's original design for marriage, and still is. The same law given to Moses in 1491 BC which forbade what we now call 'incest' also has regulations governing plural marriage, and even requiring it under certain circumstances. That has not changed, as many other articles on this website show.) When Adam and Eve were created, their DNA, just like the rest of creation, was absolutely perfect. (Genesis 1:31) When Adam sinned, and God pronounced the curse that resulted from that sin, mankind's DNA started to deteriorate. Decay, deterioration, and death were all part of the curse. Read Genesis chapter 3 to see that this is true.

Dr. George, well said.

Since you love this field I'd also suggest the three volume set called the Creation Trilogy, also by the most brilliant Morris family. There may not be another set so packed with as much biblical and scientific support. Volume one is all theology, volume two is all science, and volume three is practicals that extend from the proper views of both science and theology.

You are correct about the break down of the DNA which has been proven through science through numerous scientific studies over and over, and verified through the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics. The variations of the human population, which was of course foreknown to the omniscient God, as it broke down led to new laws to protect mankind in their condition. Thus incest became sinful because it became damaging when siblings mated whereas it was not in the early era of a more healthy DNA period.

And that is where I think the motive is in a lot of the discussion. In Case Cumulative Apologeticswe are taught to try and find a motive behind the argument or position being presented, as Dr. John Feinberg taught. And it seems to me the motive is that some see the incest laws of the Mosaic Code and thus struggle to see a different law code for Adam and Eve's era that differs from the Mosaic era. Thus because of that underlying motive there is a need to create or propose the idea of more than Adam and Eve so that they can transfer back to Adam and Eve the Mosaic Law code.

It appears that at times that is done because those of that persuasion would feel or think that if we allow a "change" in one place that opens the door for a change in another place to which some would object. Granted I applaud them in their effort for trying to systematize Scripture but think that approach is less than desirable as it does things like this, creates more problems than it solves and leave us with some very speculative ideas that lack direct biblical support. As professor Bill Luck says of this, "the Mosaic Law is holy and in it we can and should find good principles as it applies per principle but it as a whole code does not apply universally to all in its exact form at all times an all places."

I would not see the issue over the Mosaic law code to be an issue because a law can change so long as the character of the lawgiver does not. In every law code of God we find his characte displayed and we can find principles from it. I see the character of God as what is unchanging, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever even though he administers his law in progressive form and in various ways in various ages just like an earthly father can give one law to his child at age 3 and then adjust the law when that child is 21.

God, as the ultimate parent, adjusts his laws yet his love and character does not change just like an earthly father can adjust his law without altering his love or character, which is the purpose of Galatians 2-3, Romans 10, and Hebrews 7.

Systematically and also scientifically it is easier to make all of the puzzle pieces fit by seeing all coming forth from Adam and allowing for a time of sibling relations until God gave the Mosaic Law code.

Inserting another set of people in the Garden creates a conflict with other specific texts of Scripture, especially Acts 17 and Romans 5. And thus since we all clearly see at least one change in he law code where sacrifices were altered we can also reasonably believe sibling relatins laws changed as well. If one law form can change without it violating God's word then another addition or change in form cannot by itself automatically be suspect and discarded based upon that alone.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

I see the character of God as what is unchanging, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever even though he administers his law in progressive form and in various ways in various ages just like an earthly father can give one law to his child at age 3 and then adjust the law when that child is 21.

My Bible agrees with that, telling me that God changes not. (Malachi 3:6 and others.) It is we humans who change, and so different stages in the development or degeneration of humans requires a different set of rules.

I infer God's unchanging principle to be that we humans should not do something that harms another human. When our DNA was less corrupted, marriage between a brother and sister produced babies without genetic birth defects - so no harm was done to the children because of a marriage relationship that we now call 'incest.' For example, Sarai was the half-sister of Abram, not his step-sister as some try to claim. (Genesis 20:12.)

After 6,000 years of sin, our DNA is so corrupted that first cousin marriage is likely to produce genetic birth defects in the children, which is most definitely harmful to those children. Thus, our loving Father changed the rules in order to protect the next generation.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Dr. George, that my brother would fit well with Christ's teaching on the whole essence of the Law, which was to love God first and our neighbors as ourselves. That's how I see it to. At one time sibling relations did not hurt the conceived child but later it did and thus God knew that because of his omniscience and thus out of love added that to his law code.

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

Could we save this for another thread? Or just put it on hold? There are so many factors in this question, such as...

what is your definition of "law"? only the torah?
did God give any instructions to Adam? wouldn't the "do not eat" qualify as a law?

Actually I think that would make for a very good study. And definitely better in another thread instead of risking this thread going off track.

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

On my end if you think I am on a road that ends bad I would dearly appreciate you taking the time to share with me why you think so or what evidences logically point that way so it could be compared with what I do affirm. Such would seem like a loving thing to do.

Really? lol, EN-GUARD!!!

lol, Just kidding, but seriously you probably already know what I would differ with you on.