Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

cane and abel

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but that is absolutely ludicrous. The current world average life expectancy is 67 years. The oldest confirmed recorded age for any human is 122 years (Jeanne Calment). The oldest recorded age of a pregnant woman is 66.
    ...

    Read the OT and you'll see some who lived much older. Especially pre-flood.

    Why is it ludicrous to imagine someone living that long?


  • Options
    #63
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    So what do we surmise from teh silence. Obviously that there were 11 per side, whether or not they were mentioned. Are we reading into the story by coming to that conclusion; no.

    Well that is the problem. There is obviously 11 people per side because you know they were playing football. You are told that. If you didn't know they were playing football, if you were just told that it said Paul and Harry were standing in a field talking would you assume there was 20 other people standing around them playing football if that wasn't mentioned?
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Plenty for Cain and Seth to marry.

    But that is never stated.

    You could say that we have no proof that Paul and Harry weren't playing football with 20 other people just because it is never mentioned that they weren't, but if they were playing with football with 20 others, why was this not mentioned?

    Equally why was it not mentioned that Adam and Eve had daughters before Seth when it is mentioned that they did after Seth? Why is it not mentioned that Cain married his sister if he did in fact marry his sister. That seems to be a detail you would want to include.


  • Options
    #64
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Why is it ludicrous to imagine someone living that long?

    Is that a serious question? Do you want the biological reason (a reason that has little to do with "perfect" genes btw)?


  • Options
    #65
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Read the OT and you'll see some who lived much older. Especially pre-flood.

    Why is it ludicrous to imagine someone living that long?

    Perhaps because there is no medical evidence that anyone ever lived that long?


  • Options
    #66
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well that is the problem. There is obviously 11 people per side because you know they were playing football. You are told that. If you didn't know they were playing football, if you were just told that it said Paul and Harry were standing in a field talking would you assume there was 20 other people standing around them playing football if that wasn't mentioned?



    But that is never stated.

    You could say that we have no proof that Paul and Harry weren't playing football with 20 other people just because it is never mentioned that they weren't, but if they were playing with football with 20 others, why was this not mentioned?

    Equally why was it not mentioned that Adam and Eve had daughters before Seth when it is mentioned that they did after Seth? Why is it not mentioned that Cain married his sister if he did in fact marry his sister. That seems to be a detail you would want to include.

    Using your logic above, it doesn't need to be stated. There were two parents, Adam and Eve, They had three sons. Two of them got married. The Bible says that Adam and Eve had many more children. Some where girls. The boys married their sisters.

    It's quite simple wicky.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Perhaps because there is no medical evidence that anyone ever lived that long?

    Yes there is, Read Genesis.


  • Options
    #68
    interestinguser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭interestinguser


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Yes there is, Read Genesis.
    There's medical evidence in there? Granted I've only read some of it, I haven't quite gotten through. I'll be looking forward to reading this evidence. So far all I've read are stories.


  • Options
    #69
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Yes there is, Read Genesis.
    Was Genesis written by a medical practitioner? If not, then it cannot be considered medical evidence.


  • Options
    #70
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Using your logic above, it doesn't need to be stated. There were two parents, Adam and Eve, They had three sons. Two of them got married. The Bible says that Adam and Eve had many more children. Some where girls. The boys married their sisters.

    It's quite simple wicky.

    But that is the point. It doesn't say they had daughters till after Seth was born. Then it says they had other sons and daughters. Cain, Abel Seth then a load of other not important brothers and sisters.

    To make this work you have to take the comment that they had other sons and daughters after Seth to mean that they also had other other daughters before Seth.

    Which you have to admit is stretching it a bit.


  • Options
    #71
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    Yes there is, Read Genesis.

    Sorry, I think you misunderstood - I said proof


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    djpbarry said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Hey! I was just going to say the same of Evolution.

    Evolution is inconvenient because...
    Because it is untrue, and hence distorts one's perception of reality, and opens one to dangerous concepts. Regarding one's fellowman as sophisticated chemicals removes a rational restraint on exterminating them.


  • Options
    #73
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Because it is untrue, and hence distorts one's perception of reality, and opens one to dangerous concepts.
    Yes, open-mindedness is a dangerous concept and must be strictly controlled :rolleyes:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Regarding one's fellowman as sophisticated chemicals removes a rational restraint on exterminating them.
    This has got to be the single, most ridiculous post I have come across on this website. Do you honestly believe that I am more likely to kill someone than you because I believe in evolution and you do not?


  • Options
    #74
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Sorry, I think you misunderstood - I said proof

    No you didn't. You said evidence. Proof and evidence are quite distinct (but related) concepts.


  • Options
    #75
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    djpbarry said:
    Yes, open-mindedness is a dangerous concept and must be strictly controlled
    Indeed: when we open our minds to the idea that our fellowman is of no more significance than a rat, he is in danger of pest-control.:mad:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Regarding one's fellowman as sophisticated chemicals removes a rational restraint on exterminating them.

    This has got to be the single, most ridiculous post I have come across on this website. Do you honestly believe that I am more likely to kill someone than you because I believe in evolution and you do not?
    Depends if you follow through the logic of your primary belief. Thankfully, most evolutionists don't.:)

    They have been saddled with a conscience, probably indoctrinated to some extent by religious evaluations of man, and are also not in a place of enough power to act on the logic and get away with it.

    But those who are able to overcome those restraints: the 20thC. tells it all.


  • Options
    #76
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Indeed: when we open our minds to the idea that our fellowman is of no more significance than a rat, he is in danger of pest-control.
    Em, I was being sarcastic.

    I'm not sure that any rational person would argue that a man and a rat are equivalent, because they're quite obviously not. Unless it's quite a big rat, and the man is quite small and rat-like.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Depends if you follow through the logic of your primary belief. Thankfully, most evolutionists don't.
    I'm sorry, what logic is this? I am the result of billions of years of evolution, therefore it's about time I went on a murderous rampage?

    The United States would seem to poke a great big hole in that theory, given that acceptance of the creationist theory is widespread there, yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the world.


  • Options
    #77
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Indeed: when we open our minds to the idea that our fellowman is of no more significance than a rat, he is in danger of pest-control.:mad:

    Depends on if you are a rat I guess. The rats might think they are very valuable.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Depends if you follow through the logic of your primary belief. Thankfully, most evolutionists don't.:)

    The "primary belief" of evolution is that life developed on Earth through the filtering of minuet mutational changes, filtering that eventually adapt a species to its environment through a process of natural selection.

    How exactly does that make someone want to kill someone else?

    Are you honestly suggesting that he only reason you don't kill all the rest of us is because you believe you have been told not to by your god? You can't think of any other reason not to go on a murderous rampage? That is kinda disturbing don't you think?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    They have been saddled with a conscience
    Something we have evolutionary development to be thankful for.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    But those who are able to overcome those restraints: the 20thC. tells it all.

    What? not the 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th, 14, 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st where people were just killing each other because they believed their gods wanted them too?


  • Options
    #78
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    No you didn't. You said evidence. Proof and evidence are quite distinct (but related) concepts.

    Is the Bible evidence that people lived to 900 years old? Really?


  • Options
    #79
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Is the Bible evidence that people lived to 900 years old? Really?

    I would describe the Bible as evidence for that proposition. You, and millions of others, may deny the validity or accuracy of the evidence. I, and millions of others, accept its validity and accuracy. Either way, it is evidence.


  • Options
    #80
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    PDN wrote: »
    I would describe the Bible as evidence for that proposition. You, and millions of others, may deny the validity or accuracy of the evidence. I, and millions of others, accept its validity and accuracy. Either way, it is evidence.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the authors of the Book of Genesis are unknown? I think that puts a great big question mark over it's validity.


  • Options
    #81
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the authors of the Book of Genesis are unknown? I think that puts a great big question mark over it's validity.

    Not so. Historians accept the validity of inscriptions and documents all the time where the author is unknown.

    For example, if an inscription is uncovered in Egypt that speaks of the Israelites, then historians accept that as evidence that the Israelites were known in Egypt at the time when the inscription was made. They will also accept mentions of wars as evidence for the proposition that such wars actually took place. The fact that the authors are unknown is no impediment to accepting written data as evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    PDN wrote: »
    For example, if an inscription is uncovered in Egypt that speaks of the Israelites, then historians accept that as evidence that the Israelites were known in Egypt at the time when the inscription was made.
    Maybe, but it is unlikely that a large number of people will be convinced unless there is archaeological evidence to support the theory. The ancient Kingdom of Israel is a good example; it's history has been derived from sources such as the Old Testament, the Talmud, the Kebra Nagast and other ancient writings. But, this evidence has been supplemented by archaeological finds including Egyptian, Moabite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Israelite and Judean inscriptions. Despite all this, the details of the history are still pretty sketchy in places.

    Unless I am very much mistaken, there is no such body of evidence for Eden.


  • Options
    #83
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Maybe, but it is unlikely that a large number of people will be convinced unless there is archaeological evidence to support the theory.

    Now, now - you know that isn't true. An extremely large number of people are convinced by the evidence of Genesis.


  • Options
    #84
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    PDN wrote: »
    Now, now - you know that isn't true. An extremely large number of people are convinced by the evidence of Genesis.
    I was referring to your example of Egyptian inscriptions.


  • Options
    #85
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I would describe the Bible as evidence for that proposition. You, and millions of others, may deny the validity or accuracy of the evidence. I, and millions of others, accept its validity and accuracy. Either way, it is evidence.

    Well I suppose if you define evidence like that then anything is evidence for anything. Star Wars is "evidence" that the Jedi exist.

    To me evidence is something that supports a position, not the position itself.

    The Bible states that people lived to 900 years plus. You are saying the existence of that assertion is evidence in support of that assertion.

    That would become rather cyclical, using the existence of a position as evidence for the position itself. I could say "I'm the sexiest person alive" and the existence of such a position becomes evidence supporting that position. I could say "well there is evidence it is true, I did after all just state it"


  • Options
    #86
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well I suppose if you define evidence like that then anything is evidence for anything. Star Wars is "evidence" that the Jedi exist.

    To me evidence is something that supports a position, not the position itself.

    The Bible states that people lived to 900 years plus. You are saying the existence of that assertion is evidence in support of that assertion.

    That would become rather cyclical, using the existence of a position as evidence for the position itself. I could say "I'm the sexiest person alive" and the existence of such a position becomes evidence supporting that position. I could say "well there is evidence it is true, I did after all just state it"

    The position is that people lived to 900 years old. The evidence for that is the testimony of the authors of Genesis.

    In a court of law a rape victim's testimony counts as evidence, even if she was the one who made the original accusation. Whether it is compelling evidence or not is decided by the jury - but I don't think they would condemn it out of hand purely on the grounds that it was cyclical.

    As for your evidence that you are the sexiest person alive - I suspect that contradictory evidence could easily be gathered from most of the women who are personally acquainted with you. ;)


  • Options
    #87
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    I would describe the Bible as evidence for that proposition. You, and millions of others, may deny the validity or accuracy of the evidence. I, and millions of others, accept its validity and accuracy. Either way, it is evidence.
    It is evidence in the same sense that the Book of Mormon is evidence for Jesus visiting an American teenager in 1820, except that, unlike the Book of Genesis, we know when the Book of Mormon was written, we know where it was written, and we know who wrote it.

    As Wicknight points out, the existence of an assertion is not evidence that the assertion is true.

    You seem to be rather selective in your choice of testimony -- I presume you do not accept the testimony of Joseph Smith, accepted as true by millions of people worldwide?


  • Options
    #88
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    It is evidence in the same sense that the Book of Mormon is evidence for Jesus visiting an American teenager in 1820, except that, unlike the Book of Genesis, we know when the Book of Mormon was written, we know where it was written, and we know who wrote it.

    As Wicknight points out, the existence of an assertion is not evidence that the assertion is true.

    You seem to be rather selective in your choice of testimony -- I presume you do not accept the testimony of Joseph Smith, accepted as true by millions of people worldwide?

    Yes, the Book of Mormon is evidence for those events. It is evidence that I reject as unreliable, but evidence none the less. The fact that millions of people accept it as valid evidence certainly prompted me to research that particular issue a bit more than if it had not such popular support.

    The existence of an assertion is not proof that the assertion is true. This is where we must weigh up the character of the witnesses concerned, the existence of contradictory evidence etc. That is a whole different ball game which we have argued before and no doubt will continue to do so without coming to any agreement.


  • Options
    #89
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, the Book of Mormon is evidence for those events. It is evidence that I reject as unreliable...
    Yet the "evidence" that is the Book of Genesis IS reliable? I'm curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion?


  • Options
    #90
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    I wouldn't interpret the opening chapters of Genesis so literally. The fact that Adam's sons had wives from unnamed sources is a major hole in a literalist reading.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Húrin wrote: »
    I wouldn't interpret the opening chapters of Genesis so literally. The fact that Adam's sons had wives from unnamed sources is a major hole in a literalist reading.

    I don't think it is a hole at all. The wives weren't named, but neither are many wives.

    For example, James and John in the New Testament were "the sons of Zebedee". The fact that their mother is not named is no reason to doubt that the account is literal.


Advertisement