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.
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.
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
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:
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
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.
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.
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!!!!)
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
.
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.