About Cain and Able, and Evolution

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

So the Bible says God created Adam and Eva from whom all humans are decended.

Evolutionists on the other hand claim that we're decended from apes.

Now there's a lot of fighting and arguing over which one of these theories is the correct one between pius Bible believers and ordinary people. Both groups refuse to aknowlege that the either theory is remotly possible, so this is a fight that seem to be going on to the end of time.

However I have found the answer. Now according to the Bible, Adam and Eva had two sons, Cain and Abel. It has long been asked how on Earth, if Adam and Eva only had two sons, could there have been any more humans.

Well it's very simple. Cain and Able had children with monkeys. Thus both the evolutionists are correct in saying we decend from apes, and the Bible believers in saying we decend from Adam and Eva.

I'm ready to accept my Nobel prize for this great discovery.
 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Now according to the Bible, Adam and Eva had two sons, Cain and Abel. It has long been asked how on Earth, if Adam and Eva only had two sons, could there have been any more humans.

Gen 5:4 "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters."

Oh so they had sex with their sisters then? Actually even married them apperently Gen 4:17 specificly says Cain had a wife with whom he fathered Hanok.

Does this mean I can marry my sister? That'd be very simple, we wouldn't have to fight over who's parents home to spend Christmas at.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Have you even read the Bible jmfcst?

1st Peter 1:25 clearly says "God's word is forever" His rules never change. If incest is wrong now, it was also wrong then.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Clearly Jmfcst, you have mistaken God for Mitt Romney. God doesn't flip-flop on his positions. He is almighty and allknowing, and his word is his law, so if his words are forever, his law is forever. Why would God need to change the rules unless God is unperfect? We both know God is perfect, so his rules need not change.

It is indeed true that man didn't eat meat until after the Ark, but that has nothing to do with God changing the rules. He gives man the right to eat animals as a gift to them. My father can give me a gift as well, but that doesn't mean he changes the rules. Where in the Bible previous to Gen 9 does it say that man is forbidden from eating meat?

   

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I note jmfcst became awfully silent. Am I to take this as he's feeling defeated?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Evolutionists on the other hand claim that we're decended from apes.

*bangs head against the wall repeatedly*

No. No they don't. If you're going to try your hand at bashing religion at least use facts that are actually true to do it. Also, spelling words correctly might help.

Dibble take it easy, no need to crush your head against that wall. I'd be a pity to have a sensible poster break his head.

First I'm not trying to bash religion. Religion like all things has good and bad sides. I happen to believe in both God, and Jesus and is therefor myself religious. What I'm trying to mock (rather than bash) though is the Bible, and the fact that some people take it too literally.

As for evolution, if I'm not completely lost, a true evolutionist would say that humans are a sort of ape, that through mutations and natural selection has formed a new species but that still is in the family known as apes, so we'd not just be decended from them, we'd still be apes. Still it's a pretty accepted simplification to say that we evolved from apes.

What my spelling is concerned, I'm more than aware that it isn't perfect, so simply pointing out that fact won't do any good. If my mistakes bug you, I suggest you point them out, and I'll do my best not to repeat them. At least that'd be what I'd do if someone who did not have Swedish as a first language was making mistakes while trying to write the language.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I note jmfcst became awfully silent. Am I to take this as he's feeling defeated?

Gen 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Gen 9:1  Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

seems pretty clear to me that in Gen 1, God gave the plants as food...then in Gen 9, as he GAVE (past-tense) the plants, he NOW GIVES (present tense) meat.  (also notice that Noah was allowed to eat all meats, but the dietary restriction against unclean meats wasn't given until Moses)

sounds like a change of diet to me...but, hey, I'm not going to argue the obvious...the thread is yours

Humans chaning their diet does not equal God changing his laws.

Actually your post just proves what I was saying, that God  gave humans the right to eat meat as a gift. Now if my dad gives me a piece of chocolate and says, here you can eat this, he isn't changing a single rule.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Incorrect. Humans are hominids.

And hominds are apes, no?

Of course I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if I'm wrong.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Ok right, I think I'm following you now.

Levitical law isn't perfect, and can be changed. Even though the word of God is forever, his law can change just like you need to change the priest once the old one pass away. But then how can we trust Levitical law at all? How do we know which laws God still intends us to follow? I mean some people try to claim that Leviticus 18:22 isn't valid anymore... so if God's law is relative, how do we know these people aren't correct when they say that Leviticus 18:22 isn't valid any longer.

I mean Leviticus 18:6 to 18:16 clearly states that no form of incest should take place, but if God at one point found incest acceptable, what is to say he don't find or found homosexuality acceptable at one point as well? Or to tie back to my original theory about Cain, Abel and the monkeys, how do we know that God always held Leviticus 18:23 as a law, and didn't make an exception to the rule that man should not sleep with animals in order for Cain and Abel to breed without having sex with their sisters?
 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

So... I should break yours instead? Interesting. I'll consider that.

Why don't you just do what I do when I'm mad... break your alarm clock.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I understand that. I do not think that we are evolved from orangutans or chimpanzees or any modern ape, as their species have evolved as much as humans have. So I completely understand that. The species of apes living back then, would still be a form of ape though, even if it's not a modern ape. I admit that "Humans descended from apes" is not a sentence my Biology teacher would accept in a paper on evolution, however considering that this post was aimed at creationists, I think it appropriet that I use their terms and language.   

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

But if God could put Adam to sleep and create a wife for him out of his rib, rather than having him mate with an unsuitable animal, why didn't he do the same for Adam and Eva's children, rather than to have them mate with eachother, which according to Lectivus God doesn't find suitable either?

So... I should break yours instead? Interesting. I'll consider that.

Why don't you just do what I do when I'm mad... break your alarm clock.

So you're the bastard who broke my alarm clock. You're really in for it now!

Oh shi... p *Runs*

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with using their terms and language in this case is that it continues to let them live in ignorance of what the theory actually states, which is not helpful at all.
[/quote]

That is a fair point, and I guess you're probably right. I will phrase it differently in the future.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Matthew 5:17-5:20 would disagree with you. Jesus himself said that he had no intention to change the laws of the prophets. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This passage would seem to suggest that you are incorrect, and that the law of the prophets is forever, or at least until after the world has been undone. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't admiting anything. Please, Jmfcst if you can't even interpet my posts, how can I trust you to interpet the Bible correctly. What I said was that I am following you, in other words I understand your argument and point of view, that doesn't mean that I accept it as the truth.

My belief is that God's words, and thus his laws, are eternal. I do however believe that laws can be mistranslated and misinterpeted. So when Jesus says that he does not mean to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them, he does not change the laws themselves, he just clearifies  them.

Take for example Matthew 12, in which the followers of Jesus pick grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees accuses Jesus and his followers as it is according to Levitical law forbidden to work on the Saabbath. Nowhere in those verses do Jesus say, "new era guys, God has just changed that law" What he does however is to clearify the law, which was never intended to stop people from preparing food for themselves or do good, like healing someone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did Jesus fulfil and accomplish the requirements of the Law or not?  If so, then it is done away with.  If not, then you need to go buy yourself a lamb to sacrifice and be in Jerusalem for Passover.[/quote]

That doesn't make sense. By fulfilling a law you do not do away with it. Actually it says right there that not a single letter from the law will disappear until heaven and earth disappear, and that is what Jesus refers to when he says "until everything is accomplished" not him fulfilling the law.

As for the lamb, as you know Jesus sacrifised himself in the place of a lamb so that all humankind could be saved. That doesn't mean that the law to sacrifice was changed, but Jesus has already made that sacrifice for us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's simply not true for two reasons. Jesus does not give them any new comandments. He, as I've explained, only clearifies what the old laws actually meant. And even if he did give them new comandments to follow, verse 19 does clearly refer to the law Jesus has just talked about, and not the ones he's about to talk about. If I tell people about a number of rules, and then say they must follow these rules, I clearly mean the rules I have just mentioned and not the ones I'm about to mention.