Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Isn't all truth, truth?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The ONLY two created in the beginning?
- Thread starter The Duke Of Marshall
- Start date
Isn't all truth, truth?
PolyDoc said:
Well, actually we do have the genetics in everyone of us to create a human being of other races. With that being said, we just don't see it happening. Yes, every now and then Caucasians will have dark skinned babies and Africans will have light skinned or albino babies, but it's EXTREMELY rare. Definately not enough to produce entire lineages and nations of people.
As far as being included or not in the record (i.e. the Scriptures), it would be hard to prove that the Scriptures are a direct record of every lineage that ever existed. In fact, as stated in the original post, the majority if not the entirety of the Scriptures is centered around the Hebrew lineage. Not the Asian, Persian, African, or any other lineage. There are mentions of other peoples and lineages in the scriptures, but only when those peoples are involved with the Hebrew people.
We all know that the Scriptures are not meant to be a detailed historical book. I don't think anyone here would make that claim. It would have been better for this discussion if it had been though.
God places differing weight on different truths. Some truth is more important than other truth. For example, not trusting in Christ as Lord and Savior for salvation would lead to eternal hell. But not believing in a certain spiritual gift would not be a salvific issue.
For example Christ spoke of weightier matters of the law (Matt. 23:23). This certainly shows degrees in truth.
He also spoke of he greatest law and the second greatest law.
Paul spoke of "love as being the greatest." Thse words show us degrees or variation in the weight of God's truth.
Plus, too we find that not all sin is equally as bad. For example, Christ said that the one who had handed him over to Pilate had comitted the greater sin.
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Step 2: How do we take a truth and determine what level it is on or what importance it is?
Can some truths just be completely ignored if we don't like them?
Todd,
GOod question. Do you have the notes from the GA retreat? I gave a break down of the three levels of truth and how they can be used practically. If not I'll give you a basic brakdown here.
Level one truth= salvific (see notes for what doctrines fall in this place). These are doctrines that have been called the fundamentals of the faith.
Level two=not essential for the Christian faih but important for a properly ordered spiritial organization so the people can work in concert.
Level three= debatable doctrines but not something to separate over.
ANd how do we know when to apply what? This is by wisdom and experience in the field of serving people in ministry. It is kinda like when a parent knows when to discipline and how much in different offenses.
And can we just ignore any truth? Well, no, a true believer will cherish all of the Word and seek to understand and believe it all. But a mature saint will be balanced and recognize that all of it is true but not every truth is as important as every other truth. We'll learn by experience, the Spirit, and from older people in the Lord how to apply what truth and in what degree to particular situations.
GOod question. Do you have the notes from the GA retreat? I gave a break down of the three levels of truth and how they can be used practically. If not I'll give you a basic brakdown here.
Level one truth= salvific (see notes for what doctrines fall in this place). These are doctrines that have been called the fundamentals of the faith.
Level two=not essential for the Christian faih but important for a properly ordered spiritial organization so the people can work in concert.
Level three= debatable doctrines but not something to separate over.
ANd how do we know when to apply what? This is by wisdom and experience in the field of serving people in ministry. It is kinda like when a parent knows when to discipline and how much in different offenses.
And can we just ignore any truth? Well, no, a true believer will cherish all of the Word and seek to understand and believe it all. But a mature saint will be balanced and recognize that all of it is true but not every truth is as important as every other truth. We'll learn by experience, the Spirit, and from older people in the Lord how to apply what truth and in what degree to particular situations.
The Duke Of Marshall said:
Duke,
Consider goin to the Answers in Genesis website and looing at their explanation of how all the races come from just two genetic beings (Adam and Eve). I believe they make a very strong scientific, as well as scriptural, case for "...Eve being the mother of all living."
Katie
It may not be EXHAUSTIVE, but it's the ONLY history book we have for what happened before approximately the time of the Tower of Babel in Genesis chapters 10 and 11. The Hebrew race started a few generations later than that.
As a side note, the oldest writing found by archeologists is a few clay tablets listing tithes paid to King Scorpion I of Egypt, dated as being 5,300 years old - but that would place it about 1,000 years before the Flood, which (as will be shown in a future post) is impossible. In fact, it MUST be post-Babel, because the Egyptian nation could not have existed until after the dispersion of Nations due to the confusion of languages.
Many conservative evangelical scholars believe that various people, including Adam, actually kept WRITTEN records that were passed down from generation to generation, eventually coming into Noah's possession, and finally into Moses' possession. This means that the book of Genesis is at least partially a collection of eyewitness accounts compiled and edited by Moses. Adam was told by direct divine revelation about Creation. (Remember, he was the next-to-last being created, and was sound asleep when the last being was made from a rib!)
I stand by my statement regarding Genesis 1:1:
If we can't trust God to tell us how we got here and why we need a Savior, how can we trust Him for anything at all? If the Bible is not God's Word Inscribed, what is? Sure, we can quibble over a few books that maybe should or should not have been included in the canon of Scripture, but Genesis is not one of them so quibbled over. Nor is any one of the Gospels. The Gospel of John makes it VERY clear that the Word of God became God incarnate in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, meaning He is God come in the flesh, and that He was present at the creation. Without that truth, the rest of the Bible is no better than yesterday's newspaper. Without the truth found in Genesis chapters 1 - 3, the Gospels are so much rubbish.
As to more than Adam and Eve being created -
Verses like this just do not make any sense if there were more men than Adam created. Or maybe it should read, "The last Adams?" Who besides Jesus of Nazareth died for my sins?
Let's grant for a moment that God created only one man, but created more than one woman. He did not create more than one woman, but let's pretend.
No matter how many created woman there might have been, siblings or other close relatives still would have had to marry eventually, as soon as there was one more man born and grown up than the number of created women. So that does not solve the phantom "problem" of who Adam's and Eve's children married.
The science of genetics says there was no problem with siblings marrying until mankind's DNA deteriorated too much.
The reason for that is because each family line has LOST some genetic information. The DNA of Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives, between the six of them, had ALL genetic information that is now present in the DNA of the entire human race. Some of it has been lost irretrievably, barring a creative miracle from God. (I've often wondered what % of the original genetic information was lost due to the Flood? We can only speculate...)
Why do we always seem to desire to add to what the Bible says, but not believe what it DOES say?
Semper Fi!
sola scriptura said:
Just some boring science, Albinism is a genetic defect, not a race, it affects people of many ethnicities. Being light skinned, does not a European make, being dark skinned does not an African make.
Also, genetically speaking, yes there is an ancient Mitochondrial Mother of all, but her DNA is far more ancient than the root Y chromosome carried by every male on the planet. Therefore, there could well be an Adam and Eve but they did not live together.
Dems just genetics folks....don't shoot the messenger.
B
x
Yes, and the difference in age between the "ancient" mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome DNA is that from Creation to the Flood. Remember, there were THREE women on the Ark (presumably unrelated to Noah and Noah's wife except by marriage), but THREE MEN on the Ark were SONS of the fourth man, Noah.
So the root Y chromosome we men carry came from Noah, and the mitochondrial DNA the ladies carry came from Eve.
There would be approximately 1,700 years difference in the age of the two types of DNA according to Biblical chronology, which is at least partially a collection of eyewitness accounts, not speculation by someone living 4,000 to 6,000 years after the events being reported on.
But exactly HOW ancient secular scientists think the mitochondrial DNA might be is simply wishful thinking on their part - they need to imagine billions of years for their fairy tale (evolution) to have any semblance of appearing to be possibly true, so what's a few thousand years here or a few million years there?
My Bible tells me that Adam and Eve DID live together.
Dr. George, sign me up for the next class you are teaching brother 
I love your careful and systematic approach that values both common revelation as well as special revelation.
Your approach on this subject reminds me of what Dr. R.C. Sproul says we need more of, a holistic approach to theology that bridges the gap between the natural sciences and special grace revelation of the Lord. Our Brother Sproul rightly said:
Thank you for your time and service brother.
Sincerely,
One of your students
I love your careful and systematic approach that values both common revelation as well as special revelation.Your approach on this subject reminds me of what Dr. R.C. Sproul says we need more of, a holistic approach to theology that bridges the gap between the natural sciences and special grace revelation of the Lord. Our Brother Sproul rightly said:
Thank you for your time and service brother.
Sincerely,
One of your students
PolyDoc said:
That doesn't actually make sense, Noah's Y-DNA is still Adam's as a male descendant of his (the genealogy makes that perfectly clear). He isn't from an entirely new male line, his sons carry Adam's DNA also. It is the same DNA. Whatever the Bible tells you, it is not consistent with DNA evidence.
I really can't comment on the eyewitness account thing, sorry.
B
Then God is a liar, and secular scientists know more than He? Science changes from day-to-day. The Bible has NEVER been shown to be wrong. Should the Lord tarry another century, it is very highly probable that advances in genetic research will show that much of what we think we know now about DNA is wrong. But the Bible will still be right.
Why does it not make sense? Sure, Noah's Y-chromosome DNA ultimately came from Adam, AS DID EVE'S MITOCHONDRIAL DNA - Eve was formed from one of Adam's RIBS, which means ALL DNA, BOTH Y-chromosome AND mitochondrial, was originally present in Adam! (Does that mean God "split the Adam" and divided the DNA between male and female?
Pardon the pun...)Determining the "age" of Y-chromosome DNA would converge on Noah as the single ancestor carrying it - THREE of the men on the Ark were SONS of the Noah.
Determining the "age" of mitochondrial DNA would converge on a single ancestor before the time of Noah - there were FOUR woman on the Ark who, in all likelihood, had DIFFERENT mothers.
Dr. Allen wrote:
You are quite welcome, and thank you for your kind words.
But I have learned a whole bunch from you, as well. And from DocInMO, Pastor John Whitten, CecilW, Nathan, and a few other regular contributors who always seem to give thoughtful, Bible-based answers in this forum.
I believe that our Heavenly Father is bringing us together for a purpose. It excites me to think that He has chosen me to join with all of you for whatever He has in mind.
Thank all of you VERY MUCH!
one of YOUR students :ugeek:
Thank you for your time and service brother.
Sincerely,
One of your students
You are quite welcome, and thank you for your kind words.
But I have learned a whole bunch from you, as well. And from DocInMO, Pastor John Whitten, CecilW, Nathan, and a few other regular contributors who always seem to give thoughtful, Bible-based answers in this forum.
I believe that our Heavenly Father is bringing us together for a purpose. It excites me to think that He has chosen me to join with all of you for whatever He has in mind.
Thank all of you VERY MUCH!
one of YOUR students :ugeek:
PolyDoc said:
It is not for science to say, religion is not science, science is not religion, I was just remarking on what science says, I am not qualified to talk religion.
No, it means that Noah has the same y-chromosome as Adam, since he is a direct male descendant. Eve has nothing to do with it, as Mitochondria should, in theory, according to the rules set down by you, be the same age as the Y-chromosome, especially, if, as you say, both sets of DNA come from Adam, as it is, they don't and therefore your Noah theory just...doesn't...add...up.
B
Wrong.
And I did not set the rules down.
DNA's "age" can be traced back to when there was ONE man or woman with that DNA. Beyond that, it it a SINGLE LINE, the age of which can not be determined.
That is, unless I totally misunderstand how it works. If so, could someone who has studied genetics in-depth please inform me? I'm very teachable; in fact, I'm eager to learn more.
True science will AGREE with true "religion." Modern so-called "science" is more of a religion than any religion I am aware of. It takes more faith to believe the "goo-zoo-you" myth than to believe the Bible. Evolution starts with the PRESUPPOSITION that THERE IS NO GOD, not with the question WE ARE HERE, HOW DID IT COME ABOUT.
ALL OF MODERN "science" has as its foundation the MYTH OF EVOLUTION. Therefore, all MODERN "science" is suspect. MOST "SCIENTIFIC" RESEARCH IS AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD. In the process, scientists sometimes stumble upon real truth, and if that gets in the way of their pet myth, it is IGNORED or EXPLAINED AWAY.
If you are not qualified to talk about religion, please read everything you can find on the Biblical Families website. Dr. Allen has some outstanding articles about what Christians believe. If one could absorb just what he has written, that should be worth at least a BA in religion! Then add in all the other contributors, people like Doc Burkhart, John Whitten, and others I have named in other posts, and it should add up to at least an MA...
*sigh*
I HAVE studied genetics. Why do you think I have wasted my time answering this particular question? I said I was not qualified to talk religion, I am, however, well enough qualified to answer your question and you are mistaken, women do not carry y DNA so, only through the male line can it pass, therefore, IF Noah is a direct male descendant of Adam, than your theory is nonsensical, Noah did not create a bottleneck because his Y DNA was the same as Adam's, does this make sense or am I just confusing you still?
Men do not pass on mitochondria so you can't trace it through a male line, which is why Eve is not applicable to the discussion at hand.
They are different cells which when measured have different aged roots. You can choose not to believe it, I don't really mind if you don't but please don't accuse me of not knowing my science, I don't accuse you of not knowing what you know.
As for religion, that is not the point, because if I was qualified in religion it would not erase the genetics.
Please do not get defensive, I am not attacking you.
B
I HAVE studied genetics. Why do you think I have wasted my time answering this particular question? I said I was not qualified to talk religion, I am, however, well enough qualified to answer your question and you are mistaken, women do not carry y DNA so, only through the male line can it pass, therefore, IF Noah is a direct male descendant of Adam, than your theory is nonsensical, Noah did not create a bottleneck because his Y DNA was the same as Adam's, does this make sense or am I just confusing you still?
Men do not pass on mitochondria so you can't trace it through a male line, which is why Eve is not applicable to the discussion at hand.
They are different cells which when measured have different aged roots. You can choose not to believe it, I don't really mind if you don't but please don't accuse me of not knowing my science, I don't accuse you of not knowing what you know.
As for religion, that is not the point, because if I was qualified in religion it would not erase the genetics.
Please do not get defensive, I am not attacking you.
B
The REAL issue is where a person will spend eternity, not what some particular branch or another of science is saying today.
Science changes frequently. When I was a teen, all the "experts" were predicting another ice age; a couple of decades ago, the same "experts" were predicting that we would all fry because of global warming. Now it looks like the ice age scare is being brought back.
Maybe my Noah idea is right. Maybe it's wrong.
I do know this: all of those genetic studies you are so proud of have one basic flaw. The scientists performing the experiments started with the assumption that man evolved from some lower life form. Therefore, they expected their experiments to show that, and the experiments were designed with that assumption in mind.
At the instant Adam was created, his age was exactly ZERO - yet he had the appearance of a full-grown man. Same for Eve. (Except she looked like a full-grown woman ) Might the same not be also true of the apparent age of the DNA? Just another theory - maybe our Creator had a reason not yet discovered by science for making the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA appear to be different ages. Maybe environmental factors, or the curse on creation pronounced in Genesis chapter 3 because of sin, or both, affected their apparent relative ages.
Or maybe the apparent age of DNA is an illusion, something that resulted from the faulty "goo-zoo-you" presupposition of the scientists. :?:
Isabella, there are only two choices - eternal life in the presence of our Creator, or eternal punishment in hell.
I choose life. I hope you will, too. If you want someone to pray with you about it, feel free to send me a PM and I'll reply with my phone number. (Or my wife's phone number if you prefer, as soon as we can replace her cell phone - it went through the washing machine...probably will have her new one Wednesday.)
NOTHING in this life is worth holding on to if it results in missing Heaven. That includes the wisdom of man - no matter how wise, intelligent, or smart a man that wisdom comes from, no matter how much alphabet soup is behind a man's name. Man's wisdom is foolishness to God. His ways are so mush higher than our ways we can't begin to fathom the difference.
So I choose to believe His Word. What if I'm wrong? No one will ever know...but if I'm right, there is a hell to avoid, and the Bible is our road map to Heaven.
John 3:16. That's how much He loves us.
Science changes frequently. When I was a teen, all the "experts" were predicting another ice age; a couple of decades ago, the same "experts" were predicting that we would all fry because of global warming. Now it looks like the ice age scare is being brought back.
Maybe my Noah idea is right. Maybe it's wrong.
I do know this: all of those genetic studies you are so proud of have one basic flaw. The scientists performing the experiments started with the assumption that man evolved from some lower life form. Therefore, they expected their experiments to show that, and the experiments were designed with that assumption in mind.
At the instant Adam was created, his age was exactly ZERO - yet he had the appearance of a full-grown man. Same for Eve. (Except she looked like a full-grown woman
) Might the same not be also true of the apparent age of the DNA? Just another theory - maybe our Creator had a reason not yet discovered by science for making the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA appear to be different ages. Maybe environmental factors, or the curse on creation pronounced in Genesis chapter 3 because of sin, or both, affected their apparent relative ages.Or maybe the apparent age of DNA is an illusion, something that resulted from the faulty "goo-zoo-you" presupposition of the scientists. :?:
Isabella, there are only two choices - eternal life in the presence of our Creator, or eternal punishment in hell.
I choose life. I hope you will, too. If you want someone to pray with you about it, feel free to send me a PM and I'll reply with my phone number. (Or my wife's phone number if you prefer, as soon as we can replace her cell phone - it went through the washing machine...probably will have her new one Wednesday.)
NOTHING in this life is worth holding on to if it results in missing Heaven. That includes the wisdom of man - no matter how wise, intelligent, or smart a man that wisdom comes from, no matter how much alphabet soup is behind a man's name. Man's wisdom is foolishness to God. His ways are so mush higher than our ways we can't begin to fathom the difference.
So I choose to believe His Word. What if I'm wrong? No one will ever know...but if I'm right, there is a hell to avoid, and the Bible is our road map to Heaven.
John 3:16. That's how much He loves us.
sola scriptura said:
Do you have that link?
PolyDoc said:
Well, true, but then again what you are speaking of is the sin that was committed and brought into the world. Not the number of people.
PolyDoc said:
A statement such "the first man Adam" doesn't state "the first and only created man in the beginning Adam". Without supporting evidence it would just be inferred from just that verse. There's no dispute that Adam was "first".
PolyDoc said:
That would be the easiest to understand. However, is there supporting evidence to suggest that humanity's DNA has deteriorated since the beginning? Is it still deteriorating today? If not, at what point did it stop deteriorating and why? If so, then what does our future hold for us as a species with a deteriorating DNA?
I hope you don't take me as argumentative, but I'm generally someone who likes to hold people's feet to the fire so that they produce evidence instead of just here-say. What you have stated is extremely intriguing and I would like to see more about it. It's just that humanity's DNA "evolving" sounds a lot like..........well............evolution.
Shalom brother.
PolyDoc said:
lol, I could go a lot of different ways with that.