1) Incest
God created only Adam and Eve meaning that the children of Adam and Eve would have had to commit incest to populate the world. Furthermore, if Noah and his family were the only one to survive the flood, then it had to be incest again to populate the world. Also, there are other incestuous relationships in the bible. However God is against inbreeding

2) Jesus's sacrifice
Jesus did not really sacrifice anything if he new that he was going to heaven all along. He knew his future with certainity. He was going to be betrayed, crucified and then straight to heaven. What did he sacrifice? A life of a carpenter/preacher? He wasnt some king living in luxury. Also, he was giving up the poor preacher life for a life of eternity in pleasurable heaven

3) The bible is incomplete
Missing books and lost translations. Yet, it doesnt bother christians that they are only acting on incomplete information

4) What moral lessons are we to learn from the Tower of babel?
That it is wrong to build towers? Or that God lives in the skies?

5) What moral lessons are we to learn from Lot and his daughters?
Lot gave his daughters to a mob of strangers to have se.x with.......

Reply to 1.
The bible says(yes, the bible says) that adam and eve were the first man and woman. So cain and others were bound to marry their female relatives. But looking at it from the bibilical basis, the curse God had placed on man because of sin had not yet really affected their DNA yet.
We can see that the lifespan of men in those days were huge, and gradually and generally began decreasing as a result of the curse and sin(according to the bible, mans mental and physical capabilities have greatly dininished. I've pointed it out before. The reason we have technological improvements in these days is because of the massive exchange of knowledge, also prophesied in the bible). Inbreeding at that time would not generate the genetic disorders we have. Noah and his sons were already married when they entered into the ark.

When the population of earth became great and inbreeding would begin to have harmful effects, God put a stop to it in leviticus.



Reply to 2.
Jesus sacrificed priviledges of his deity and humbled himself to become man. He humbled himself to become a poor man, a man persecuted for trying to save, a man who was tortured and killed for our sins. What a great sacrifice. Jesus died for the sins he did not commit. He was dead three days. He sacrificed the beauty of heaven to save wicked and sinful man who might not even esteem his sacrifice. He was wounded for our transgressions. This topic has been dealt very well with in the conversation between I and frank 3.16 in the conversion thread by bolaino.



Reply to 3.
The bible is not incomplete. It was canonized by men acting under Gods influence. It is enough for us. Through the written word, the living word reveals himself and his life to us.



Reply to 4.
This issue has been discussed in other threads also. When God scattered the people of the earth, it was to prevent himself from wiping them out in later years once more because of sin.

Sin thrives and grows when people have a common base and language and when people have common culture. The cataclysmic flood came because all people on earth were unrighteous, they were together with a common culture and base in unrighteousness. Apart from noah, no one else walked with God. It is better to scatter men and punish different clans or cities than to punish the whole race once more because of unrighteousness.




Reply to 5.
The account of lot and his daughters is a historical account. It was just recorded so we can understand how perverted the men of the city were and how they warranted Gods judgement. God punishes sin you see. The difference is that in our days, he's set a time and date to carry out judgement on earth, its written in the book of revelations. That's why I preach to men to accept God before his judgemebt comes. To escape the wrath to come

Viewing from the sidelines...

Joshthefirst:
Reply to 1.
The bible says(yes, the bible says) that adam and eve were the first man and woman. So cain and others were bound to marry their female relatives. But looking at it from the bibilical basis, the curse God had placed on man because of sin had not yet really affected their DNA yet.

Erm..

Man's knowledge just dey oscillate...

Joshthefirst:
We can see that the lifespan of men in those days were huge, and gradually and generally began decreasing as a result of the curse and sin(according to the bible, mans mental and physical capabilities have greatly dininished. I've pointed it out before.

Joshthefirst:
The reason we have technological improvements in these days is because of the massive exchange of knowledge

And this...

Joshthefirst:
Inbreeding at that time would not generate the genetic disorders we have

And how do you know this? The Bible never said anything about genetics. Never.

Joshthefirst:
When the population of earth became great and inbreeding would begin to have harmful effects, God put a stop to it in leviticus.

Of course, it was much easier than creating a Chinese man and woman, an African man and woman etc...

Joshthefirst:
This issue has been discussed in other threads also. When God scattered the people of the earth, it was to prevent himself from wiping them out in later years once more because of sin.

Joshthefirst:
Sin thrives and grows when people have a common base and language and when people have common culture.

Did you even think this through?

In a nutshell, an apoplexy be this, not apologetics. Sorry for confusing you, Brah. You have my support now.

Errm Josh, one advice.

I don't think Logicboy set a deadline to reply to his posts. Why don't you modify those posts and get back to him when you've done a bit of study and communion with the Holy Spirit?

This is poor showing, even by trolling standards.

aManFromMars:




Erm..

Man's knowledge just dey oscillate...





And this...

And how do you know this? The Bible never said anything about genetics. Never.

it is implied in the bible. Remember we are discussing from a bibilical basis. The bible says adam and eve managed the garden of eden. From the bible's description, eden was actually a massive place, with four rivers flowing through it. Adam was also able to classify and name the animals created by God(though I understand that adaptation had not yeen rise to the various species because of the curse)

And the bible actually prophesied the increase of knowledge we see today:

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

aManFromMars: Of course, it was much easier than creating a Chinese man and woman, an African man and woman etc...





Did you even think this through?

In a nutshell, an apoplexy be this, not apologetics. Sorry for confusing you, Brah. You have my support now.

I don't get the bolded.


The bible says man was perfect. There was predominant chinese or african feature.
The different traits are due to adaptation and variation.

Joshthefirst: Reply to 1.
The bible says(yes, the bible says) that adam and eve were the first man and woman. So cain and others were bound to marry their female relatives. But looking at it from the bibilical basis, the curse God had placed on man because of sin had not yet really affected their DNA yet.
We can see that the lifespan of men in those days were huge, and gradually and generally began decreasing as a result of the curse and sin(according to the bible, mans mental and physical capabilities have greatly dininished. I've pointed it out before. The reason we have technological improvements in these days is because of the massive exchange of knowledge, also prophesied in the bible). Inbreeding at that time would not generate the genetic disorders we have. Noah and his sons were already married when they entered into the ark.

When the population of earth became great and inbreeding would begin to have harmful effects, God put a stop to it in leviticus.

1) Reply to 1

a) You claim that the curse of sin had not affected their DNA. Two problems- first, that is not supported by scripture and second, DNA has never been shown to be affected by a curse.

b) The bible doesnt talk about DNA and there is no scientific consensus that will claim that the disorders from incest did not occur among early humans.

STOP LYING....IT IS A SIN TO ADD TO THE BIBLE

c) Noah's children would still engage in

Joshthefirst:
Reply to 2.
Jesus sacrificed priviledges of his deity and humbled himself to become man. He humbled himself to become a poor man, a man persecuted for trying to save, a man who was tortured and killed for our sins. What a great sacrifice. Jesus died for the sins he did not commit. He was dead three days. He sacrificed the beauty of heaven to save wicked and sinful man who might not even esteem his sacrifice. He was wounded for our transgressions. This topic has been dealt very well with in the conversation between I and frank 3.16 in the conversion thread by bolaino.

2) Reply to 2

You claim that Jesus sacrificed the privileges of his deity. Erm, is he not a full deity- assuming that he is in heaven now? Was he ever going to lose the privilege of his deity forever?

Jesus sacrificed nothing that he couldnt get back

Joshthefirst:
Reply to 3.
The bible is not incomplete. It was canonized by men acting under Gods influence. It is enough for us. Through the written word, the living word reveals himself and his life to us.

Every single bible historian will tell you that the bible is incomplete. Lots of scriptures are missing or omitted. Furthermore, the scriptures were never meant to be canonized in the first place


There are words that are lost in translation. Apparently, you dont read the foot notes in your bible. Read your bible, christian

Joshthefirst:
Reply to 4.
This issue has been discussed in other threads also. When God scattered the people of the earth, it was to prevent himself from wiping them out in later years once more because of sin.

Sin thrives and grows when people have a common base and language and when people have common culture. The cataclysmic flood came because all people on earth were unrighteous, they were together with a common culture and base in unrighteousness. Apart from noah, no one else walked with God. It is better to scatter men and punish different clans or cities than to punish the whole race once more because of unrighteousness.

Did that really make sense?

Is it a sin to build a tower? What is the moral story?

And as for your theory, you are a liar. Sin happens irrespective of language.

Joshthefirst:
Reply to 5.
The account of lot and his daughters is a historical account. It was just recorded so we can understand how perverted the men of the city were and how they warranted Gods judgement. God punishes sin you see. The difference is that in our days, he's set a time and date to carry out judgement on earth, its written in the book of revelations. That's why I preach to men to accept God before his judgemebt comes. To escape the wrath to come

5) Reply to 5



What is the moral of the story? Would you tell your children such a story? A 6 year old about such? Is the bible good for children?

aManFromMars: Errm Josh, one advice.

I don't think Logicboy set a deadline to reply to his posts. Why don't you modify those posts and get back to him when you've done a bit of study and communion with the Holy Spirit?

This is poor showing, even by trolling standards.

how is it poor showing sir? Can you be more specific?

Cain(after man had n cursed) went away from the prescence of God and built a city

Would you be able to build a city by yourself?
Genesis shows different things these supposed cavemen built and fashioned.
Jubal fashioned and mastered the harp and organ.
Tubal-cain was a master of brass and iron
Forgery.

Noah was able to build the ark.

Much knowledge you think are new are actually from lost civilizations.
The romans first used concrete, etc.

There was a hint of reinforced concrete in the book of daniel.

The bible implies mans mental and physical prowess have been greatly diminished. We have suffered from 6000 years of the curse.

There is just exchange of knowledge because people interact with each other more now than before.

Interesting...Nice one,lb, at reply one.

Hehe. xtian brains are a work in progress.
Can't even answer simple questions.

Logicboy03:

1) Reply to 1

a) You claim that the curse of sin had not affected their DNA. Two problems- first, that is not supported by scripture and second, DNA has never been shown to be affected by a curse.

b) The bible doesnt talk about DNA and there is no scientific consensus that will claim that the disorders from incest did not occur among early humans.

STOP LYING....IT IS A SIN TO ADD TO THE BIBLE

this is supported by scripture actually. The lifespans of ancient men according to the bible were massive.
Methuselah was 969, others were 800's and 900's. If this is true, we should also notice that there must have been much more delayed physical developments in ancient men.

And the fossil records confirm this.
There are records of infant like children who already had evidence of wellformed teeth and evidence that they had used their teeth well enough. When looking at it from the genesis perspective, we won't be surprised and we won't have questions.

Logicboy03:
2) Reply to 2

You claim that Jesus sacrificed the privileges of his deity. Erm, is he not a full deity- assuming that he is in heaven now? Was he ever going to lose the privilege of his deity forever?

Jesus sacrificed nothing that he couldnt get back

he didn't sacrifice deity(edit: he sacrificed the some of the priviledges of deity), he sacrificed his life and died the death of a common criminal for our sins. What do you mean wouldn't get back.
See the definition of sacrifice

Sacrifice:
n.
1 a the act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else more important or worthy. b a thing given up in this way. c the loss entailed in this.
2 a the slaughter of an animal or person or the surrender of a possession as an offering to a deity. b an animal, person, or thing offered in this way.

Jesus sacrificed his life so he could gain us into his kingdom. He considered it the greater good to sacrifice his life and deity a while and become a poor and common man so we could become part of the rich and peculiar kingdom of God.

Logicboy03:
Every single bible historian will tell you that the bible is incomplete. Lots of scriptures are missing or omitted. Furthermore, the scriptures were never meant to be canonized in the first place


There are words that are lost in translation. Apparently, you dont read the foot notes in your bible. Read your bible, christian

yes, there are a lot of missing text, and much has been lost in translation, but we have enough, and God is using the written word to reveal his living word.

Logicboy03:


Did that really make sense?

Is it a sin to build a tower? What is the moral story?

And as for your theory, you are a liar. Sin happens irrespective of language.

I'd not say sin happens irrespective of language, neither did I say it is a sin to build a tower. I said sin thrives when there is a common ground of language and culture. Try to understand, if God had let those people establish themselves as one with one language and base, sin would have spread cataclysmically as in the days on noah, and during judgement, he would have to punish them all
Better to scatter them into different language groups and divide them than let them be united in sin. God saved those people by confusing them.

Logicboy03:
5) Reply to 5



What is the moral of the story? Would you tell your children such a story? A 6 year old about such? Is the bible good for children?

what do you mean moral of the story? Everything in the bible is not pretty sir. Some things are recorded for historical purposes. It won't be pretty to a 6 year old. How is the perversion and wicked homosexuality of the men of sodom pretty?

KraticKratus: Hehe. xtian brains are a work in progress.
Can't even answer simple questions.

Actually, I think it is the other way round.
To conclude so, based on the opinion of a particular christain, can only emanate from a brain in progress.
You can ask for clarity

@Josh (and any other interested person)

These are recycled arguments that have been well and truly destroyed on NL. That is why many old-timers and veterans don't bother with them. I'm a bit on the busy side these days and I lost interest in these games quite a while ago and still haven't quite regained it, that's why I'm not engaging so much. As I find time, I'll pull up links where these arguments have been beaten to death yet again and post the so that interested persons, questioning persons and the like can study them.

For #1, on Purist's thread, In Defence Of Logicboy, the argument began here: https://www.nairaland.com/1028529/defence-logicboy/2#12064836. Mr Anony amd myself principally engaged Logicboy on the issue of Inbreeding in the first family assuming that part of Genesis to be literal history. I'll leave each student to exercise their intellect in deciding how justified Lb's dredging up the matter again is.

Cheers, guys.

Ihedinobi: @Josh (and any other interested person)

These are recycled arguments that have been well and truly destroyed on NL. That is why many old-timers and veterans don't bother with them. I'm a bit on the busy side these days and I lost interest in these games quite a while ago and still haven't quite regained it, that's why I'm not engaging so much. As I find time, I'll pull up links where these arguments have been beaten to death yet again and post the so that interested persons, questioning persons and the like can study them.

For #1, on Purist's thread, In Defence Of Logicboy, the argument began here: https://www.nairaland.com/1028529/defence-logicboy/2#12064836. Mr Anony amd myself principally engaged Logicboy on the issue of Inbreeding in the first family assuming that part of Genesis to be literal history. I'll leave each student to exercise their intellect in deciding how justified Lb's dredging up the matter again is.

Cheers, guys.

See lies. I have never made the last two arguments here on NL before.


Recycled my foot

Ihedinobi: @Josh (and any other interested person)

These are recycled arguments that have been well and truly destroyed on NL. That is why many old-timers and veterans don't bother with them. I'm a bit on the busy side these days and I lost interest in these games quite a while ago and still haven't quite regained it, that's why I'm not engaging so much. As I find time, I'll pull up links where these arguments have been beaten to death yet again and post the so that interested persons, questioning persons and the like can study them.

For #1, on Purist's thread, In Defence Of Logicboy, the argument began here: https://www.nairaland.com/1028529/defence-logicboy/2#12064836. Mr Anony amd myself principally engaged Logicboy on the issue of Inbreeding in the first family assuming that part of Genesis to be literal history. I'll leave each student to exercise their intellect in deciding how justified Lb's dredging up the matter again is.

Cheers, guys.

thank you sir.

That thread made my day.

Logicboy03:


See lies. I have never made the last two arguments here on NL before.


Recycled my foot

That you never made them yourself (not agreeing in fact that you never actually made them, I don't know your post history across all your accounts that well) does not mean that they have never been made before on NL. I have no intention to go searching NL for evidence of those two though. Suffice to say that you wrongly accused me of lying - something you find rather too easy to do, I might add.

@Josh, you're welcome, bro

Joshthefirst: this is supported by scripture actually. The lifespans of ancient men according to the bible were massive.
Methuselah was 969, others were 800's and 900's. If this is true, we should also notice that there must have been much more delayed physical developments in ancient men.

And the fossil records confirm this.
There are records of infant like children who already had evidence of wellformed teeth and evidence that they had used their teeth well enough. When looking at it from the genesis perspective, we won't be surprised and we won't have questions.

he didn't just sacrifice deity, he sacrificed his life and died the death of a common criminal for our sins. What do you mean wouldn't get back.
See the definition of sacrifice

Sacrifice:
n.
1 a the act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else more important or worthy. b a thing given up in this way. c the loss entailed in this.
2 a the slaughter of an animal or person or the surrender of a possession as an offering to a deity. b an animal, person, or thing offered in this way.

Jesus sacrificed his life so he could gain us into his kingdom. He considered it the greater good to sacrifice his life and deity a while and become a poor and common man so we could become part of the rich and peculiar kingdom of God.


yes, there are a lot of missing text, and much has been lost in translation, but we have enough, and God is using the written word to reveal his living word.



I'd not say sin happens irrespective of language, neither did I say it is a sin to build a tower. I said sin thrives when there is a common ground of language and culture. Try to understand, if God had let those people establish themselves as one with one language and base, sin would have spread cataclysmically as in the days on noah, and during judgement, he would have to punish them all
Better to scatter them into different language groups and divide them than let them be united in sin. God saved those people by confusing them.



what do you mean moral of the story? Everything in the bible is not pretty sir. Some things are recorded for historical purposes. It won't be pretty to a 6 year old. How is the perversion and wicked homosexuality of the men of sodom pretty?

There
1) The bible does not talk about DNA. It is also impossible for a man to live up to 900 years. Unless human beings evolved from some kind of aliens...

I would like to see evidence for your claims and fossil records

2) Jesus didnt sacrifice his deity as he never truly lost it in the first place. He was always going back to heaven as the son of God or God.

3) So you disagreed that the bible was incomplete but now you are agreeing that it is incomplete.


4) Lot gave out his daughters to strangers to molest. Why would such be in the bible? To tell us that God watches silently while girls get molested in horror?

5) Tower of babel guys were not sinning. Is God afraid of towers?

^^^@number 5

He was saving them by confusing them.

Joshthefirst ran away?

No. He didn't.
He just realized that this thread would end in a never-ending cycle of repeated questions and repeated answers.

Here's your link:
http://creation.mobi/neanderthal-childrens-fossils

Joshthefirst: No. He didn't.
He just realized that this thread would end in a never-ending cycle of repeated questions and repeated answers.

Here's your link:
http://creation.mobi/neanderthal-childrens-fossils

Lol.... Running with style. You think that link is the answer to all the questions here?

Logicboy03:


Lol.... Running with style. You think that link is the answer to all the questions here?

no. Its the answer to the only question that was not repeated.

Joshthefirst: no. Its the answer to the only question that was not repeated.

Run, soldier of christ

Logicboy03:

Run, soldier of christ

smh.

Do you have any other questions? Any honest person will understand my answers to the first batch.

Joshthefirst: smh.

Do you have any other questions? Any honest person will understand my answers to the first batch.

I honestly think you did not make sense.

@joshdafirst

Since humanity is on mental and physical decline, since the DNA is deterioriating rapidly, why is such decline immediate to inbreeding rather than reproduction generally?

nwuyag:
I honestly think you did not make sense.

how? Have you read the contents of the link?

Kay 17: @joshdafirst

Since humanity is on mental and physical decline, since the DNA is deterioriating rapidly, why is such decline immediate to inbreeding rather than reproduction generally?

during inbreeding, there is a higher probability of the two individuals having the same halves of imperfect genes(as they are siblings of the same immediate parents)

The probability of getting the same versions of imperfect genes from parents who are not closely related is lower. Much lower.

Joshthefirst: during inbreeding, there is a higher probability of the two individuals having the same halves of imperfect genes(as they are siblings of the same immediate parents)

The probability of getting the same versions of imperfect genes from parents who are not closely related is lower. Much lower.

Good point!

However note that all human populations are from the same roots (Adam and Eve), even though you would argue that Adam and Eve have perfect genes, yet all their descendants ought to experience the same rates of entropy with the same extents as inbreeding

The fact we don't have that and the fact there is a great deal of diversity in homo sapiens, takes away credibility from Adam/Eve theory to human evolution.

Kay 17:

Good point!

However note that all human populations are from the same roots (Adam and Eve), even though you would argue that Adam and Eve have perfect genes, yet all their descendants ought to experience the same rates of entropy with the same extents as inbreeding

The fact we don't have that and the fact there is a great deal of diversity in homo sapiens, takes away credibility from Adam/Eve theory to human evolution.

no ma'am. I don't think genetics teaches us that.

Inbreeding would drastically increase the probably of gross genetic disorders.

@Joshthefirst and Kay17

Are you guys Jew to be adhering and passionately defending an ofshoot of Jewish religion? I just don't get it. Don't you know that if the Europeans colonialists/missionaries and Arab jihadists who converted our fore-fathers to their religions were to be Asians Taoists, Buddhists, Shintoists and Hindus. So would you be defending the Gita and Buddha and Shiva and Confucious etc . Guys think deep. We are Africans for facts sake. We have our ancestral believe systems too, which if you don't like it for whatever reasons, it's better to be atheist than fervently embracing the believe system of another race thousands of miles away. That's why the world don't respect us because we have nothing self-identifying and unique to present.

I'm getting tired of NL everyday when I read posters (who presumably black african) strongly defend Jesus, supports Adam and Eve, defend Islam, support foreign religions that aren't ours with all their might. I always think - do these people think.

The Asians and all their paganism gave the world many things from culture/entertainment (Ninja, Naruto, Samurai etc) to technology (Konami, Sony, Samsung etc), the Scandinavians with all their pagan past and myths gave the world entertainment/culture (Thor,Vikings,Loki etc) to technology (Nokia, retention of submerged underwater vessels etc), the Arabs (investments here and there, funding satellite launches) the Jews (Uzi guns, best intelligence security) the Russians (so many too), the caucasians (Euro-america) gave the world uncountable things from Apple, BB, Xbox, Aircrafts, Vehicle, Train, Telecommunications (internet) etc etc etc . Questions what do we as A F R I C A N S contribute to the world rather than defending what isn't ours, when in fact we have so many uncountable Native Advances Sciences (juju) that we could research and technologize to appeal to a modern world.

I'm fed up.

ghostofsparta: @Joshthefirst and Kay17

Are you guys Jew to be adhering and passionately defending an ofshoot of Jewish religion? I just don't get it. Don't you know that if the Europeans colonialists/missionaries and Arab jihadists who converted our fore-fathers to their religions were to be Asians Taoists, Buddhists, Shintoists and Hindus. So would you be defending the Gita and Buddha and Shiva and Confucious etc . Guys think deep. We are Africans for facts sake. We have our ancestral believe systems too, which if you don't like it for whatever reasons, it's better to be atheist than fervently embracing the believe system of another race thousands of miles away. That's why the world don't respect us because we have nothing self-identifying and unique to present.

I'm getting tired of NL everyday when I read posters (who presumably black african) strongly defend Jesus, supports Adam and Eve, defend Islam, support foreign religions that aren't ours with all their might. I always think - do these people think.

The Asians and all their paganism gave the world many things from culture/entertainment (Ninja, Naruto, Samurai etc) to technology (Konami, Sony, Samsung etc), the Scandinavians with all their pagan past and myths gave the world entertainment/culture (Thor,Vikings,Loki etc) to technology (Nokia, retention of submerged underwater vessels etc), the Arabs (investments here and there, funding satellite launches) the Jews (Uzi guns, best intelligence security) the Russians (so many too), the caucasians (Euro-america) gave the world uncountable things from Apple, BB, Xbox, Aircrafts, Vehicle, Train, Telecommunications (internet) etc etc etc . Questions what do we as A F R I C A N S contribute to the world rather than defending what isn't ours, when in fact we have so many uncountable Native Advances Sciences (juju) that we could research and technologize to appeal to a modern world.

I'm fed up.

I'm sure you can do better than believing lies to justify your unbelief.

Colonialists were not missionaries.

Missionaries came way before colonialists, leaving the comfort of england and traveling to africa. They sometimes died in the thousands and still came, all in an effort to getsome news to our fore fathers. Some vital news.

Their sacrifices are not in vain on me.

Missionaries can never be colonialists, a missionaries work is to spread the gospel, not cheat and exploit the people.

Stop delibrately believing lies.

Christianity is not a jewish religion or a religion at all.

Its deeper than that.

Jesus is not just a jew. Jesus is the son of God that made paul travel around the known world in peril and persecution preaching.

Christianity is shown by lifestyle.

Jesus is no longer known according to the flesh.