U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-15-2011, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Gaston, North Carolina
4,213 posts, read 4,901,658 times
Reputation: 624

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
So the next generation would have been 1st cousins getting it on. That is considered incest. (sex between close relatives) Next generation would meant the 1st & 1st cousins, 2nd and 2nd cousins, and 1st and 2nd cousins would be getting it on. Of course there would be uncle/niece and aunt/nephew unions, but still close relative on close relative.

Makes for a very very shallow gene pool, with lots of inbreeding and the genetic hazards it causes. Taboo's and laws deal with the sex act between close relatives, however reality and biological fact show it is an unwise practice. Inbreeding leads to a higher probability of congenital birth defects because it increases that proportion of zygotes that are homozygous, in particular for deleterious recessive alleles that produce such disorders.

And of course today, now that the entire human genome has been decoded, the lack of diversity within the human gene pool would be easily proven by any lab capable of determining DNA sequences.

Then there is the obvious, the different races.

This is clearly shown in the danger of small numbers of different animal species, as it is difficult for the species to recover due to the lack of genetic diversity.

And of course this all follows the first shallow gene pool incestuous start to our species, the off spring of Adam and Eve. Of course Eve, made from Adam's rib would have almost identical DNA, while not incest (or is it?) would mean the gene pool has no depth at all. Did they also have daughters?..... really really shallow gene pool

And people wonder why atheists don't buy into the fable at all
Actually being made perfect it wouldhave taken many ganerations of sinful activity to hamper the genetic code. You show your lack of imagination with regards to Gods plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2011, 07:09 PM
 
16,301 posts, read 24,240,875 times
Reputation: 8261
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69 View Post
Actually being made perfect it wouldhave taken many ganerations of sinful activity to hamper the genetic code.
HUH A persons genes don't change based on their behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69 View Post
You show your lack of imagination with regards to Gods plan.
Right, I read fiction for entertainment, but for the real world I base decisions on reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 08:48 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,434,483 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The word for "world" back then was "kosmos" and meant "system." So they were taking a census of their entire system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane View Post
Well actually, there were quite a few words for the word "world" and since you are using a Greek word, I take it you are referring to "back then" as in the New Testament world and thus my reference to the "world" being taxed by the Romans.

In any event, the word you are looking for is "pas and not "kosmos". You might want to take a look here:

Pas - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James Version
Actually, the word used in the verse where Caesar is taxing the world is oikoumene and not "pas":

Luke 2:1 AndG1161 it came to passG1096 inG1722 thoseG1565 days,G2250 that there went outG1831 a decreeG1378 fromG3844 CaesarG2541 Augustus,G828 that allG3956 theG3588 worldG3625 should be taxed.G583

G3625
oikoumene
oy-kou-men'-ay
Feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication of G1093); land, that is, the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically the Roman empire: - earth, world.
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 09:18 PM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,713,437 times
Reputation: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Actually, the word used in the verse where Caesar is taxing the world is oikoumene and not "pas":

Luke 2:1 AndG1161 it came to passG1096 inG1722 thoseG1565 days,G2250 that there went outG1831 a decreeG1378 fromG3844 CaesarG2541 Augustus,G828 that allG3956 theG3588 worldG3625 should be taxed.G583

G3625
oikoumene
oy-kou-men'-ay
Feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication of G1093); land, that is, the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically the Roman empire: - earth, world.
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
It's neither here nor there for me, but you might want to look at the link again. Here's where it mentions Luke 2:1 which is the passage in question and the Greek word used is Pas.

Luke 1:3; Luke 1:6; Luke 1:10; Luke 1:37; Luke 1:48; Luke 1:65-66; Luke 1:71; Luke 1:75; Luke 2:1; Luke 2:3; Luke 2:10; Luke 2:18-20; Luke 2:23; Luke 2:31; Luke 2:38; Luke 2:47; Luke 2:51; Luke 3:3; Luke 3:5-6; Luke 3:9; Luke 3:15; Luke 3:19-20; Luke
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 09:25 PM
 
1,492 posts, read 2,223,224 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69 View Post
Actually being made perfect it wouldhave taken many ganerations of sinful activity to hamper the genetic code. You show your lack of imagination with regards to Gods plan.
exactly.the code was not as misconfigured then as it is now.
btq-there had to have been a default (the original,perfect genome) to get to where we are now..the faulty one.I believe adam and eve both had that bf the fall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 09:29 PM
 
1,492 posts, read 2,223,224 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
So the next generation would have been 1st cousins getting it on. That is considered incest. (sex between close relatives) Next generation would meant the 1st & 1st cousins, 2nd and 2nd cousins, and 1st and 2nd cousins would be getting it on. Of course there would be uncle/niece and aunt/nephew unions, but still close relative on close relative.

Makes for a very very shallow gene pool, with lots of inbreeding and the genetic hazards it causes. Taboo's and laws deal with the sex act between close relatives, however reality and biological fact show it is an unwise practice. Inbreeding leads to a higher probability of congenital birth defects because it increases that proportion of zygotes that are homozygous, in particular for deleterious recessive alleles that produce such disorders.

And of course today, now that the entire human genome has been decoded, the lack of diversity within the human gene pool would be easily proven by any lab capable of determining DNA sequences.

Then there is the obvious, the different races.

This is clearly shown in the danger of small numbers of different animal species, as it is difficult for the species to recover due to the lack of genetic diversity.

And of course this all follows the first shallow gene pool incestuous start to our species, the off spring of Adam and Eve. Of course Eve, made from Adam's rib would have almost identical DNA, while not incest (or is it?) would mean the gene pool has no depth at all. Did they also have daughters?..... really really shallow gene pool

And people wonder why atheists don't buy into the fable at all
if you bother to look it up,even nowadays,1st cousins and having kids is not that much of a problem.it's even legal in many places.
my sponsor child was molested by her grandfather and had a perfectly healthy baby.sad but true,and at least she's healthy. (not that I condone that by any means though!!!!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 09:52 PM
 
16,301 posts, read 24,240,875 times
Reputation: 8261
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC122 View Post
if you bother to look it up,even nowadays,1st cousins and having kids is not that much of a problem.it's even legal in many places.
my sponsor child was molested by her grandfather and had a perfectly healthy baby.sad but true,and at least she's healthy. (not that I condone that by any means though!!!!)
Yes, I am well aware that a good deal of the taboo of cousins was based in ignorance, but if every person on the planet started from the very very shallow gene pool of Noah and family, even if the sons had wives from different gene pools, it would leave a very very shallow gene pool, which is completely counter to the possibilities of all the different races that exist.

The diversity of DNA that exists proves this fable, just that a fable.

And ALL the species that exist would have a very very common DNA sequence, as even though there were half a dozen humans, there were only 2 of every other species.

In the light of DNA evidence, the fable holds no water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2011, 05:35 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,434,483 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Actually, the word used in the verse where Caesar is taxing the world is oikoumene and not "pas":

Luke 2:1 AndG1161 it came to passG1096 inG1722 thoseG1565 days,G2250 that there went outG1831 a decreeG1378 fromG3844 CaesarG2541 Augustus,G828 that allG3956 theG3588 worldG3625 should be taxed.G583

G3625
oikoumene
oy-kou-men'-ay
Feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication of G1093); land, that is, the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically the Roman empire: - earth, world.
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane View Post
It's neither here nor there for me, but you might want to look at the link again. Here's where it mentions Luke 2:1 which is the passage in question and the Greek word used is Pas.

Luke 1:3; Luke 1:6; Luke 1:10; Luke 1:37; Luke 1:48; Luke 1:65-66; Luke 1:71; Luke 1:75; Luke 2:1; Luke 2:3; Luke 2:10; Luke 2:18-20; Luke 2:23; Luke 2:31; Luke 2:38; Luke 2:47; Luke 2:51; Luke 3:3; Luke 3:5-6; Luke 3:9; Luke 3:15; Luke 3:19-20; Luke
Sure Insane, first you state this:
Quote:
In any event, the word you are looking for is "pas and not "kosmos".
And when it was pointed out to you that the word used in Luke 2:1 was not "pas" but "oikoumene you state "it's neither here nor there for me." Well, it is here and there for me.

You accuse us of moving the goal posts.

So Caesar did not try to tax South America or Hawaii or the entire world but the entire oikoumene (land or Roman empire).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2011, 07:01 AM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,713,437 times
Reputation: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Sure Insane, first you state this:


And when it was pointed out to you that the word used in Luke 2:1 was not "pas" but "oikoumene you state "it's neither here nor there for me." Well, it is here and there for me.

You accuse us of moving the goal posts.

So Caesar did not try to tax South America or Hawaii or the entire world but the entire oikoumene (land or Roman empire).
I meant that this is semantics right now. The BIGGER picture is, if you interpret "entire earth" in Noah's story as the WHOLE earth, then why all of a sudden get technical when it comes to Luke 2:1 to say "world" ONLY meant the "Roman world" despite the fact the word used in the plain old KJV and NKJV is "world?" My original point was, the writer of Genesis, no doubt, was referring to THEIR visible and KNOWN "world" (which he MAY have thought was the ENTIRE earth) and not the entire earth (by what we know today) as in the same way the writer of Luke was referring to HIS KNOWN "world" and not the entire planet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2011, 08:21 AM
 
Location: On The Road Full Time RVing
2,342 posts, read 2,788,498 times
Reputation: 2214
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobeable View Post
so you dont beleive the flood killed everyone except Noahs kids????

No I don't the believe God's flood killed everyone except Noah's kids ...

The Flood God Our Holy Father made killed every man, woman, and child except for ...

Noah and his Wife, there three Son's, and there three Wives, which makes ( 8 people ) who were kept alive to populate the whole world like the Holy Word Of God Says In The Bible.
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top