• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Genesis inbreeding

arg-fallbackName="iamthedinger"/>
james...you're posts are very informative on the way the bible has been mistranslated over the years but the fact still remains. the bible that is commonly in use today...the kjv, and of course i'm speaking of english speaking countries, there was one man and one woman in the beginning. this is the concept that many people believe, have written about, crafted paintings, and preach about. i have no doubt in my mind that people have mistranslated what the bible originally said for centuries, but the general consensus is....1 man...1 woman. this is the basis of the genesis inbreeding comment. maybe if people really want to know what the bible originally said they can always learn whatever language it was written in and then find and read the original text.

all in all, this book was written by man. the information in it may have been well written thousands of years ago, but due to mistranslations and misinterpretation of many different words, it has become the most rediculous nonsense i've ever attempted to fully read.

and i'll say this one more time. the generally accepted interpretation of genesis states, one man, one woman. and that's not even going into the flood where it may be even more difficult to explain through modern understanding of what is written, how exactly a handful of people could repopulate the world without mixing their gene pool within an unacceptable seperation of similar dna.

please stop giving word definitions...it just confuses the idea even further because even those definitions could be wrong.

or you could make it your life's work to rewrite the bible..
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
iamthedinger said:
james...you're posts are very informative on the way the bible has been mistranslated over the years but the fact still remains. the bible that is commonly in use today...the kjv, and of course i'm speaking of english speaking countries, there was one man and one woman in the beginning. this is the concept that many people believe, have written about, crafted paintings, and preach about. i have no doubt in my mind that people have mistranslated what the bible originally said for centuries, but the general consensus is....1 man...1 woman. this is the basis of the genesis inbreeding comment. maybe if people really want to know what the bible originally said they can always learn whatever language it was written in and then find and read the original text.

all in all, this book was written by man. the information in it may have been well written thousands of years ago, but due to mistranslations and misinterpretation of many different words, it has become the most rediculous nonsense i've ever attempted to fully read.

and i'll say this one more time. the generally accepted interpretation of genesis states, one man, one woman. and that's not even going into the flood where it may be even more difficult to explain through modern understanding of what is written, how exactly a handful of people could repopulate the world without mixing their gene pool within an unacceptable seperation of similar dna.

please stop giving word definitions...it just confuses the idea even further because even those definitions could be wrong.

or you could make it your life's work to rewrite the bible..
Click to expand...
Sorry if I'm confusing you further! ;)

Coming from a RC background, we had these explained to us in Religion class by priests - this was back in the early seventies(!) - and I sometimes find it hard to resist pointing these things out when I see people, who appear unaware of the background history, discuss/write about them.

I'm not questioning the inconsistencies in the Bible - there are plenty to go round. It isn't surprising that there are, given that they were orally transmitted through several centuries before being written down at a time when mankind's understanding of the world about him was limited.

I understand that the topic's title - and the tongue-in-cheek tone - is aimed more at the "literalists" unquestioning acceptance of their scripture, whether the Bible or any other ones.

I just wish to clear up some obvious misconceptions that were apparent to me in the discussion.

Might I also point out that, since scholars, historians and other scientists are now investigating the Holy Land, and finding all sorts of things that undermine the alleged "inerrancy" of the Bible, making people (literalists) more aware of these translations being part of a "story" - an agenda - is all the more important.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
iamthedinger said:
james you're awesome..sorry if i seemed bitter!
Click to expand...
All you need is to let JEEEEE-sus into your life! :D

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Cnidarious"/>
Producing a reproductively viable population is unsustainable with only two members as
the source of all material in the gene pool. It simply can`t work.
 
arg-fallbackName="JTB"/>
Instead or worrying about they missing plot devices in their Reader's Digest condensed versions, why don't they just go back to the original texts from Sumeria? They're much more internally consistent.
 
arg-fallbackName="Irokesengranate"/>
ThePuppyTurtle said:
Adam and Eve ha no Mutations to get Compounded by inbreeding
Click to expand...
Still, did Cain and Abel (I can never remember who was the bad one) sleep with their mother or with each other to produce the next generation?
 
arg-fallbackName="ThePuppyTurtle"/>
Irokesengranate said:
ThePuppyTurtle said:
Adam and Eve ha no Mutations to get Compounded by inbreeding
Click to expand...
Still, did Cain and Abel (I can never remember who was the bad one) sleep with their mother or with each other to produce the next generation?
Click to expand...
Adam Had Hundreds of Children
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top