A Question about Adam and Eve...
15 Jan 2010, 10:54 pm
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Some points to consider.
1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.
2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.
3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.
1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.
2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.
3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.
Well if you want to bring DNA into it, if you go back to the time of the Olduvai near-extinction where mankind was almost wiped out - genetically all humans are related to one female 'eve' and seven male 'adam's - that's why racism is so stupid. Everybody is related - inbreeding is the perctipibility to genetic mutation over time by said mutations being passed on from parent to child. If you build up enough hereditary mutation in your family tree line, then that risk naturally increases. There's a biological imperitive to breed as far away from your genetic line. There's been famous cases of family tree collapse - particularly in the German monarchy line.
As for the Bible, I think it should be read with a degree of open-mindness and open-spirit. When major players are said to have lived for 900 years etc - that was written before the use of our current calendar - so why assume 1 year = 365 days. And genesis says light was divided from day - before the 'ground' i.e. Earth was created - so why would we assume it was a 24 hour day? A day to God could be a trillion years for all we know.
It's a script for people trying to understand big mysteries. It's a faith textbook, not a science textbook.
A day is the time it takes Earth to spin once on it's axis. There are other names for other periods of time.
There was no ground on the first day, therefore there was no Earth to spin on its axis, therefore the first day couldn't have been equal to our present length of time.
A day is the length of time it takes for any planet to spin once on it's own axis. Mercury is about 58 earth days. Jupiter is about 9 hours. How can the first day have equalled 24 hours if the Earth wasn't even formed yet? Also there were no people around to witness this event - only God.
The axial spin rate on Earth actually slowed when the moon was formed and is still slowing down.
To assume that the Bible was written for a planet that had a different rate of spin is quite interesting. Any other interplanetary references?
Well I believe that in the original account of Genesis - the original Hebrew version - on the second day - before the Earth is created - when god creates the 'firmament' which in the Bible he calls Heaven - in the original version the word 'heaven' isn't used - it's the word Shama - which means celestial bodies.
And about your point on days - elsewhere in scripture it refers to a "day of the lord" - and it explicit says the day of the lord is 7 years. So there's already a case where they say a day is longer than 24 hours within its own internal logic.
But if that don't make sense, then explain this:
Peter 3:2
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, abeloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. "
Open to a bit of wiggle room? Yes I think so.
15 Jan 2010, 11:10 pm
mjs82 wrote:
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Some points to consider.
1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.
2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.
3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.
1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.
2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.
3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.
Well if you want to bring DNA into it, if you go back to the time of the Olduvai near-extinction where mankind was almost wiped out - genetically all humans are related to one female 'eve' and seven male 'adam's - that's why racism is so stupid. Everybody is related - inbreeding is the perctipibility to genetic mutation over time by said mutations being passed on from parent to child. If you build up enough hereditary mutation in your family tree line, then that risk naturally increases. There's a biological imperitive to breed as far away from your genetic line. There's been famous cases of family tree collapse - particularly in the German monarchy line.
As for the Bible, I think it should be read with a degree of open-mindness and open-spirit. When major players are said to have lived for 900 years etc - that was written before the use of our current calendar - so why assume 1 year = 365 days. And genesis says light was divided from day - before the 'ground' i.e. Earth was created - so why would we assume it was a 24 hour day? A day to God could be a trillion years for all we know.
It's a script for people trying to understand big mysteries. It's a faith textbook, not a science textbook.
A day is the time it takes Earth to spin once on it's axis. There are other names for other periods of time.
There was no ground on the first day, therefore there was no Earth to spin on its axis, therefore the first day couldn't have been equal to our present length of time.
A day is the length of time it takes for any planet to spin once on it's own axis. Mercury is about 58 earth days. Jupiter is about 9 hours. How can the first day have equalled 24 hours if the Earth wasn't even formed yet? Also there were no people around to witness this event - only God.
The axial spin rate on Earth actually slowed when the moon was formed and is still slowing down.
To assume that the Bible was written for a planet that had a different rate of spin is quite interesting. Any other interplanetary references?
Well I believe that in the original account of Genesis - the original Hebrew version - on the second day - before the Earth is created - when god creates the 'firmament' which in the Bible he calls Heaven - in the original version the word 'heaven' isn't used - it's the word Shama - which means celestial bodies.
And about your point on days - elsewhere in scripture it refers to a "day of the lord" - and it explicit says the day of the lord is 7 years. So there's already a case where they say a day is longer than 24 hours within its own internal logic.
But if that don't make sense, then explain this:
Peter 3:2
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, abeloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. "
Open to a bit of wiggle room? Yes I think so.
Right. And when everybody starts re-interpreting what the Bible says any passage can mean anything at all. The Moon could mean the Moons of Saturn and light could mean electrons or photons or any other particle and one year could mean seven years or a thousand years or any number of years you could conceive and this is not wiggle room, it is saying that the word of God is whatever anybody wants to think it is and God had very poor control of expressing Himself.and what the hell, the Bible isn't a scientific document, it's just a collection of folk lore and those guys who wrote it had no conception of the nature of the universe. Sure. I can live with that. Wiggle room indeed!
16 Jan 2010, 2:13 am
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Some points to consider.
1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.
2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.
3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.
1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.
2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.
3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.
Well if you want to bring DNA into it, if you go back to the time of the Olduvai near-extinction where mankind was almost wiped out - genetically all humans are related to one female 'eve' and seven male 'adam's - that's why racism is so stupid. Everybody is related - inbreeding is the perctipibility to genetic mutation over time by said mutations being passed on from parent to child. If you build up enough hereditary mutation in your family tree line, then that risk naturally increases. There's a biological imperitive to breed as far away from your genetic line. There's been famous cases of family tree collapse - particularly in the German monarchy line.
As for the Bible, I think it should be read with a degree of open-mindness and open-spirit. When major players are said to have lived for 900 years etc - that was written before the use of our current calendar - so why assume 1 year = 365 days. And genesis says light was divided from day - before the 'ground' i.e. Earth was created - so why would we assume it was a 24 hour day? A day to God could be a trillion years for all we know.
It's a script for people trying to understand big mysteries. It's a faith textbook, not a science textbook.
A day is the time it takes Earth to spin once on it's axis. There are other names for other periods of time.
There was no ground on the first day, therefore there was no Earth to spin on its axis, therefore the first day couldn't have been equal to our present length of time.
A day is the length of time it takes for any planet to spin once on it's own axis. Mercury is about 58 earth days. Jupiter is about 9 hours. How can the first day have equalled 24 hours if the Earth wasn't even formed yet? Also there were no people around to witness this event - only God.
The axial spin rate on Earth actually slowed when the moon was formed and is still slowing down.
To assume that the Bible was written for a planet that had a different rate of spin is quite interesting. Any other interplanetary references?
Well I believe that in the original account of Genesis - the original Hebrew version - on the second day - before the Earth is created - when god creates the 'firmament' which in the Bible he calls Heaven - in the original version the word 'heaven' isn't used - it's the word Shama - which means celestial bodies.
And about your point on days - elsewhere in scripture it refers to a "day of the lord" - and it explicit says the day of the lord is 7 years. So there's already a case where they say a day is longer than 24 hours within its own internal logic.
But if that don't make sense, then explain this:
Peter 3:2
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, abeloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. "
Open to a bit of wiggle room? Yes I think so.
Right. And when everybody starts re-interpreting what the Bible says any passage can mean anything at all. The Moon could mean the Moons of Saturn and light could mean electrons or photons or any other particle and one year could mean seven years or a thousand years or any number of years you could conceive and this is not wiggle room, it is saying that the word of God is whatever anybody wants to think it is and God had very poor control of expressing Himself.and what the hell, the Bible isn't a scientific document, it's just a collection of folk lore and those guys who wrote it had no conception of the nature of the universe. Sure. I can live with that. Wiggle room indeed!
I imagine everyone who reads the bible does interpret it in their own way - that's the nature of subjectivity. That's why there's hundreds of different Christian sects. Your reading is different to mine. Fair enough. I'm not going to get all crotchety about it. But look at the book itself - the 4 gospels have discepancies in their recording of Jesus' life. Which of the gospels is correct? How come Christians don't stone to death rape victims along with the rapists - as it outlines as law in the Old Testament?
In fact the authors who translated it to English inserted phrases into it that don't exist in the ancient Hebrew version - there is no ancient Hebrew word or phrase for "then there was". Yet that's in the modern version - should we take "then there was" as 100% truth when it has been introduced? Although I'm not a muslim, disciples of Islam point out that the Koran was created to address such corruptions.
At worst the Bible is a book written by men trying to understand the nature of things whilst feeling inspired by God. It's a mixture of folklore, biography, history, famous quotes and legal text. If history, religion and science have taught us anything - it's that mortal men make mistakes. You're right that it's all about interpretation - because if you go right back to Adam and Eve you'll understand that the major theme of the work is free will.
16 Jan 2010, 8:09 am
mjs82 wrote:
There was no ground on the first day, therefore there was no Earth to spin on its axis, therefore the first day couldn't have been equal to our present length of time.
Depends. My seminary friend states that the original text says that the Earth was "in chaos." There is the distinct possibility that Earth was here already in a pre-life state and God chose to work with it.
16 Jan 2010, 8:25 am
What ticks me off is people who take this mythology seriously.
If I were to ask: "What did Odin or Thor mean by this" you would think I was an idiot.
If I insisted that the Grand Canyon was created by the "Great Serpent" you would say I was deluded.
If I maintained that the "Volcano God" was angry with us so we must throw a few virgins into it then you would have me locked up.
16 Jan 2010, 9:41 am
It's quite obvious that much of Biblical mythology was derived from the mythology of other cultures and, taken as such, has the same embodied moralities, charm and cruelty. In its way, it is as delightful and amusing and ridiculous as all the others. It's just when it is taken as absolute truth that it becomes a problem.
16 Jan 2010, 9:46 am
mjs82 wrote:
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
Sand wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Let us work from the premise that Adam and Eve were the first two humans. Some points to consider.
1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.
2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.
3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.
1. The concept of inbreeding is based on current biology. We like to think that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder and hence have the most complex of the DNA strands, but in truth, much lower forms of life have more chromosome pairs than humans. Odd since we are so specialized by comparison. Perhaps the early humans were more "evolved" on the DNA level and multiple generations of inbreeding had no ill effect. Likewise, environmental changes since the dawn of creation may have damaged human DNA to the point that inbreeding produces problems where it previously had not. Since we can't examine a living person from that time, we will never know.
2. Since both in the garden and after the great flood God ordered man to be fruitful and multiply, it is possible the dangers of inbreeding for several generations was negated by supernatural means.
3. There is contention that Adam and Eve had many kids but only their first two sons (Cain and Able) were documented in the Bible. This would be consistent as the Bible does chronicle the lives of men in greater detail and more frequently than it tends to focus on women. Remember Lot's wife? She had a name, but nobody saw fit to record that.
Well if you want to bring DNA into it, if you go back to the time of the Olduvai near-extinction where mankind was almost wiped out - genetically all humans are related to one female 'eve' and seven male 'adam's - that's why racism is so stupid. Everybody is related - inbreeding is the perctipibility to genetic mutation over time by said mutations being passed on from parent to child. If you build up enough hereditary mutation in your family tree line, then that risk naturally increases. There's a biological imperitive to breed as far away from your genetic line. There's been famous cases of family tree collapse - particularly in the German monarchy line.
As for the Bible, I think it should be read with a degree of open-mindness and open-spirit. When major players are said to have lived for 900 years etc - that was written before the use of our current calendar - so why assume 1 year = 365 days. And genesis says light was divided from day - before the 'ground' i.e. Earth was created - so why would we assume it was a 24 hour day? A day to God could be a trillion years for all we know.
It's a script for people trying to understand big mysteries. It's a faith textbook, not a science textbook.
A day is the time it takes Earth to spin once on it's axis. There are other names for other periods of time.
There was no ground on the first day, therefore there was no Earth to spin on its axis, therefore the first day couldn't have been equal to our present length of time.
A day is the length of time it takes for any planet to spin once on it's own axis. Mercury is about 58 earth days. Jupiter is about 9 hours. How can the first day have equalled 24 hours if the Earth wasn't even formed yet? Also there were no people around to witness this event - only God.
The axial spin rate on Earth actually slowed when the moon was formed and is still slowing down.
To assume that the Bible was written for a planet that had a different rate of spin is quite interesting. Any other interplanetary references?
Well I believe that in the original account of Genesis - the original Hebrew version - on the second day - before the Earth is created - when god creates the 'firmament' which in the Bible he calls Heaven - in the original version the word 'heaven' isn't used - it's the word Shama - which means celestial bodies.
And about your point on days - elsewhere in scripture it refers to a "day of the lord" - and it explicit says the day of the lord is 7 years. So there's already a case where they say a day is longer than 24 hours within its own internal logic.
But if that don't make sense, then explain this:
Peter 3:2
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, abeloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. "
Open to a bit of wiggle room? Yes I think so.
Right. And when everybody starts re-interpreting what the Bible says any passage can mean anything at all. The Moon could mean the Moons of Saturn and light could mean electrons or photons or any other particle and one year could mean seven years or a thousand years or any number of years you could conceive and this is not wiggle room, it is saying that the word of God is whatever anybody wants to think it is and God had very poor control of expressing Himself.and what the hell, the Bible isn't a scientific document, it's just a collection of folk lore and those guys who wrote it had no conception of the nature of the universe. Sure. I can live with that. Wiggle room indeed!
I imagine everyone who reads the bible does interpret it in their own way - that's the nature of subjectivity. That's why there's hundreds of different Christian sects. Your reading is different to mine. Fair enough. I'm not going to get all crotchety about it. But look at the book itself - the 4 gospels have discepancies in their recording of Jesus' life. Which of the gospels is correct? How come Christians don't stone to death rape victims along with the rapists - as it outlines as law in the Old Testament?
In fact the authors who translated it to English inserted phrases into it that don't exist in the ancient Hebrew version - there is no ancient Hebrew word or phrase for "then there was". Yet that's in the modern version - should we take "then there was" as 100% truth when it has been introduced? Although I'm not a muslim, disciples of Islam point out that the Koran was created to address such corruptions.
At worst the Bible is a book written by men trying to understand the nature of things whilst feeling inspired by God. It's a mixture of folklore, biography, history, famous quotes and legal text. If history, religion and science have taught us anything - it's that mortal men make mistakes. You're right that it's all about interpretation - because if you go right back to Adam and Eve you'll understand that the major theme of the work is free will.
I would't take the bible on a literal term but then again I know that's hard for most of us aspies.
Personally I don't believe the hogwash, I just look at it like I do most mythologies...fables and stories to entertain the not so entertaining.
_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan
16 Jan 2010, 10:39 am
zer0netgain wrote:
mjs82 wrote:
There was no ground on the first day, therefore there was no Earth to spin on its axis, therefore the first day couldn't have been equal to our present length of time.
Depends. My seminary friend states that the original text says that the Earth was "in chaos." There is the distinct possibility that Earth was here already in a pre-life state and God chose to work with it.
Ok that's interesting, I remember reading something about that years ago and it was suggested that it could mean that God seeded various other planets. All just a theory/interpretation of course.
Any how if anybody hasn't seen it, I really recommend you watch Stanley Kramer's seminal classic Inherit The Wind about the Darwin vs God trial in the 20's. The final moment of the film involves Spencer Tracy as he analyses two books - The Bible and Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Pay attention as to what he does to them.
17 Jan 2010, 3:19 am
That's one thing I thought "what the..?" about. It says in mine that they took wives. From where? Their sisters? Then, let me check again if it said they took wives before it says Adam and Eve had sons and Daughters. (I was wandering where people kept getting the idea that humans were part extra terrestrial) I'm just saying.
My version does the same thing with Adam nameing the animals. Did Adam come first, or did the animals come first? Well mine sais it happened both ways, so yeah two adams? heheh. no. -.-; gee.. Confusion is simple to get there. I still believe in a God though.
Two adams.. 
'joke' Oh noes! There was a Steve.. He was Adam's twin
17 Jan 2010, 4:14 am
A friend sent me this in an e-mail. It seems to clear up a lot of the problems.
A child was asked to write a book report on the entire Bible.
The Children's Bible in a Nutshell
In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there was nothing but God, darkness, and some gas. The Bible says, 'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than that.
Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did.
Then God made the world.
He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked, but they weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't been invented yet.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad apple, so they were driven from the Garden of Eden......Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have cars.
Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long as he was Abel.
Pretty soon all of the early people died off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.
One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy, but one of his kids was kind of a Ham. Noah built a large boat and put his family and some animals on it. He asked some other people to join him, but they said they would have to take a rain check.
After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more famous than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his birthmark in exchange for some pot roast. Jacob had a son named Joseph who wore a really loud sports coat.
Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was Charlton Heston. Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on Pharaoh's people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice, bowels, and no cable.
God fed the Israel Lights every day with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments. These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your neighbor's stuff.
Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more: Humor thy father and thy mother.
One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first Bible guy to use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol and the fence fell over on the town.
After Joshua came David. He got to be king by killing a giant with a slingshot. He had a son named Solomon who had about 300 wives and 500 porcupines. My teacher says he was wise, but that doesn't sound very wise to me.
After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets. One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then barfed up on the shore.
There were also some minor league prophets, but I guess we don't have to worry about them.
After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the star of The New. He was born in Bethlehem in a barn. (I wish I had been born in a barn too, because my mom is always saying to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would be nice to say, 'As a matter of fact, I was.')
During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like the Pharisees and the Democrats.
Jesus also had twelve opossums.
The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they named a terrible vegetable after him.
Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even preached to some Germans on the Mount.
But all those guys put Jesus on trial before Pontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed his hands instead.
Anyways, Jesus died for our sins, then came back to life again. He went up to Heaven but will be back at the end of the Aluminum.. His return is foretold in the book of Revolution.
18 Jan 2010, 12:43 am
I've heard it suggested that there was the entire genetic potential for the entire human race was contained in Adam and Eve and that it's got "watered-down" so to speak over all the generations of humanity. So marrying your sister wouldn't have been a problem when all that potential was there but now it is because it's all been spread out so far. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this because I don't claim to have an understanding of the logistics of this, just that this is a theory that was suggested to me to account for the inbreeding question.
_________________
-M&S
?Two men looked through prison bars; one saw mud and the other stars.? Frederick Langbridge
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
|
Question if there is more to psychosis than just SZA
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
10 Apr 2024, 8:18 pm |
| Autism Question. |
10 Mar 2024, 6:30 pm |
| DND Question: What do I need to know to be a good DM |
12 Mar 2024, 6:38 pm |
| Hi, new WP user with question |
14 Mar 2024, 9:09 pm |
