Bible help

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="fbstar57"]

Agreed with Hatiko. Nibroc makes no sense. The bible has absolutely nothing to do with this. If this bible is untrue and we all evolved from a single celled organism "then we'd all be related, even if it's on a super distant level." So bible true or untrue we are still all very distantly related.

Hatiko

Topic : "Bible help"

We aren't talking about those so this response really didn't make any sense. If those are right then they are right, but we aren't talking about those. That's like someone saying "Why aren't oranges red" then someone comes in and goes "Well apples are" just simply because the apple is a fruit also doesn't mean it has a place in the conversation.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Well we have to look at what these people were like. Adam and Eve had the purest of all DNA. And by the time we get to Noah and his kids (who had wives) their DNA was also very pure also. The lifespan of people before the flood was very high (not as long as Adam)giving some credence to the fact that their DNA was still somehwat good due to the fact that their longer lifespan meant that they were healthier.

GabuEx

Wait, what? What does "pure DNA" mean? Genetic deformities come from mutated genes, not from "impure" DNA from their parents.

Maybe DNA was the wrong word. It was more that the genetic code was "polluted" enough to about the time of Moses that it was deemed unsafe to have close relative relations.

So Adam and Eve had the most "pure genetic code" and all of the incest over time to repopulate caused the downward shift in out genetic code until we have modern day humans.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] *Comes back from hiding* What if Scientologiests are right? And aliens came to earth like 3000 years ago and populated their new earth? Or if those who think aliens bred with monkeys and made humans? Then we wouldn't "all be related, even if it's on a super distant level" I'm with the Dirty one here, all this incestuous behavior found in the bible must be the cause of autism and other genetic defects.Nibroc420

Topic : "Bible help"

We aren't talking about those so this response really didn't make any sense. If those are right then they are right, but we aren't talking about those. That's like someone saying "Why aren't oranges red" then someone comes in and goes "Well apples are" just simply because the apple is a fruit also doesn't mean it has a place in the conversation.

The TC was talking specifically about the Christian Bible, try again.

Maybe DNA was the wrong word. It was more that the genetic code was "polluted" enough to about the time of Moses that it was deemed unsafe to have close relative relations.

So Adam and Eve had the most "pure genetic code" and all of the incest over time to repopulate caused the downward shift in out genetic code until we have modern day humans.

Hatiko

Considering our DNA is our genetic code I'm still confused as to what you mean. What exactly is a "pure" genetic code, and how does incest make it "impure"?

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"] then how did adam and eve have kids? how did noah and his kids repopulate the earth with humans?Nibroc420

Well we have to look at what these people were like. Adam and Eve had the purest of all DNA. And by the time we get to Noah and his kids (who had wives) their DNA was also very pure also. The lifespan of people before the flood was very high (not as long as Adam)giving some credence to the fact that their DNA was still somehwat good due to the fact that their longer lifespan meant that they were healthier.

You just toallyignored my post I made on the last page.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Well we have to look at what these people were like. Adam and Eve had the purest of all DNA. And by the time we get to Noah and his kids (who had wives) their DNA was also very pure also. The lifespan of people before the flood was very high (not as long as Adam)giving some credence to the fact that their DNA was still somehwat good due to the fact that their longer lifespan meant that they were healthier.

Hatiko

You just toallyignored my post I made on the last page.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Maybe DNA was the wrong word. It was more that the genetic code was "polluted" enough to about the time of Moses that it was deemed unsafe to have close relative relations.

So Adam and Eve had the most "pure genetic code" and all of the incest over time to repopulate caused the downward shift in out genetic code until we have modern day humans.

GabuEx

Considering our DNA is our genetic code I'm still confused as to what you mean. What exactly is a "pure" genetic code, and how does incest make it "impure"?

Well let's look at what incest does. It basically (most of the time) will produce a person with certain birth defects. Now at the time the people were alot more better in terms of health and adaptivity (how else do you live that long) and over time these "birth defects" were basically the fact that our lifespan and over-all well being declined. You can see that as time goes on in the Bible people's life span start to go down and down (this is also due to the floods impact on the earth).

So basically we are all inbred in a sense.

By pure I meant like "original". Untouched and untainted. There was no mutated genes or birth defects.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] That doesn't make it any less incest. And God never condemned someone in the old testament for incest.Nibroc420

You just toallyignored my post I made on the last page.

He didn't do anything because it wasn't made law until Leviticus.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Maybe DNA was the wrong word. It was more that the genetic code was "polluted" enough to about the time of Moses that it was deemed unsafe to have close relative relations.

So Adam and Eve had the most "pure genetic code" and all of the incest over time to repopulate caused the downward shift in out genetic code until we have modern day humans.

GabuEx

Considering our DNA is our genetic code I'm still confused as to what you mean. What exactly is a "pure" genetic code, and how does incest make it "impure"?

Not sure exactly what he means but perhaps "pure" genetic code is DNA without any mutations in it. And as generations arose after Adam and Eve mutations in the geneic code arose. Eventually the mutations in the code became so great that when incest occured, mutations in the genetic code would create actual problems in the person born. So incest could possibly have been OK to a point when there were not that many mutations but eventually incest could no longer happen because the mutations in DNA would lead to problems with the person born (i.e. disease, deformations).

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Maybe DNA was the wrong word. It was more that the genetic code was "polluted" enough to about the time of Moses that it was deemed unsafe to have close relative relations.

So Adam and Eve had the most "pure genetic code" and all of the incest over time to repopulate caused the downward shift in out genetic code until we have modern day humans.

fbstar57

Considering our DNA is our genetic code I'm still confused as to what you mean. What exactly is a "pure" genetic code, and how does incest make it "impure"?

Not sure exactly what he means but perhaps "pure" genetic code is DNA without any mutations in it. And as generations arose after Adam and Eve mutations in the geneic code arose. Eventually the mutations in the code became so great that when incest occured, mutations in the genetic code would create actual problems in the person born. So incest could possibly have been OK to a point when there were not that many mutations but eventually incest could no longer happen because the mutations in DNA would lead to problems with the person born (i.e. disease, deformations).

That's what I meant. But we cannot say that problems didn't arise. We don't live to be 900+ years like Adam.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Hatiko"]

You just toallyignored my post I made on the last page.

Hatiko

He didn't do anything because it wasn't made law until Leviticus.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Did Incestuous behavior occur within the old testament? Yes. Did God do anything about it? No. Is incest wrong? Yes. I don't see where the issue lies bro?Nibroc420

He didn't do anything because it wasn't made law until Leviticus.

It was needed to make people exist. There was really no other way.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Hatiko"]

He didn't do anything because it wasn't made law until Leviticus.

Hatiko

It was needed to make people exist. There was really no other way.

Well let's look at what incest does. It basically (most of the time) will produce a person with certain birth defects. Now at the time the people were alot more better in terms of health and adaptivity (how else do you live that long) and over time these "birth defects" were basically the fact that our lifespan and over-all well being declined. You can see that as time goes on in the Bible people's life span start to go down and down (this is also due to the floods impact on the earth).

So basically we are all inbred in a sense.

By pure I meant like "original". Untouched and untainted. There was no mutated genes or birth defects.

Hatiko

No offense, but your response here makes me get the sense that you don't have any real idea regarding why incest results in a greater chance of birth defects and genetic abnormalities.

Within DNA, there are what are known as dominant and recessive genes. Dominant genes always manifest themselves, whereas recessive genes only manifest themselves when no dominant gene is present to inhibit it from doing so. Most people in the world probably have some form of genetic defects in their DNA, but they are not manifest because they have dominant genes for the same trait that cause them to be inert.

When two people have sex and conceive a child, that child gets some DNA from the father, and some DNA from the mother. When the father and mother have different DNA, it's highly likely that at least one of them will have DNA that they will pass to the child that will mask any adverse recessive traits that the other parent might pass to the child. On the other hand, however, when the father and mother have very similar DNA, the likelihood increases that both of them will have the same recessive trait that will then be passed to the child, leading to a phenotypical defect rather than simply a genotypical defect.

Incest doesn't "pollute" the genes; rather, it increases the likelihood that a recessive, harmful gene will be passed to the child without any mitigating factor. This is one of the reasons why genetic diversity is very important for the survival of a species. The only thing that incest does is allow defective genes that already existed to manifest themselves; it doesn't create the defective genes.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

Well let's look at what incest does. It basically (most of the time) will produce a person with certain birth defects. Now at the time the people were alot more better in terms of health and adaptivity (how else do you live that long) and over time these "birth defects" were basically the fact that our lifespan and over-all well being declined. You can see that as time goes on in the Bible people's life span start to go down and down (this is also due to the floods impact on the earth).

So basically we are all inbred in a sense.

By pure I meant like "original". Untouched and untainted. There was no mutated genes or birth defects.

GabuEx

No offense, but your response here makes me get the sense that you don't have any real idea regarding why incest results in a greater chance of birth defects and genetic abnormalities.

Within DNA, there are what are known as dominant and recessive genes. Dominant genes always manifest themselves, whereas recessive genes only manifest themselves when no dominant gene is present to inhibit it from doing so. Most people in the world probably have some form of genetic defects in their DNA, but they are not manifest because they have dominant genes for the same trait that cause them to be inert.

When two people have sex and conceive a child, that child gets some DNA from the father, and some DNA from the mother. When the father and mother have different DNA, it's highly likely that at least one of them will have DNA that they will pass to the child that will mask any adverse recessive traits that the other parent might pass to the child. On the other hand, however, when the father and mother have very similar DNA, the likelihood increases that both of them will have the same recessive trait that will then be passed to the child, leading to a phenotypical defect rather than simply a genotypical defect.

Incest doesn't "pollute" the genes; rather, it increases the likelihood that a recessive, harmful gene will be passed to the child without any mitigating factor. This is one of the reasons why genetic diversity is very important for the survival of a species. The only thing that incest does is allow defective genes that already existed to manifest themselves; it doesn't create the defective genes.

Ah, thanks. I knew it had something to do with similar alleles but I didn't know exactly what did it.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] So at one point within the bible, God was 100% cool with a bro/sis relationship... Yea count me out ;)Nibroc420

It was needed to make people exist. There was really no other way.

Who decided that it was wrong?

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] So at one point within the bible, God was 100% cool with a bro/sis relationship... Yea count me out ;)Nibroc420

It was needed to make people exist. There was really no other way.

What? But it wasn't dictated as wrong by God until later.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Hatiko"]

It was needed to make people exist. There was really no other way.

Hatiko

What? But it wasn't dictated as wrong by God until later.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] People will always try to rationalize when they've done something wrong. It doesn't make it less wrong.Nibroc420

What? But it wasn't dictated as wrong by God until later.

I would argue that God had given the commandments before the 10 commandments were given. The 10 commandments just wrapped them up more nicely into one easily readable and understandable list. In Genesis 2 God creates man and woman to be one flesh as husband and wife which I would see as condemning adultery as they are supposed to be one. In Genesis 4 God punishes Cain for murdering Abel, condemning murder. When Adam and Eve take from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God casts them out of the garden of Eden for taking what does not belong to them, condemning stealing. Who is the source of morals?

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] People will always try to rationalize when they've done something wrong. It doesn't make it less wrong.Nibroc420

What? But it wasn't dictated as wrong by God until later.

God gave humans a concience. They knew what was right and wrong but when Moses took the Jews from Egypt God needed to lay out the rules so that their could be a society that flourished in his name. That is where we get the 10 commandments and levitivus from.

I do not have much time this morning so I'll quote my ESV Study Bible to give an overview:

"The brevity of the description of Noah's drunkenness is an indication of disapproval. Ham's actions, however, are the object of serious criticism because Ham unashamedly looks on the nakedness of his father in the tent and then reports this to his brothers (v. 22). There is no indication, however, that perverse sexual behavior was involved in addition to Ham seeing his father drunk and naked. Though the text does not explicitly state what happened, it is clear that Ham humiliated and dishonored his father and that he apparently sought to make his brothers a party to that humiliation. Instead, Ham's brothers make every effort to avoid seeing Noah's naked body, as readers are told twice that they approached him backward (v. 23). The response of Shem and Japheth is in sharp contrast to Ham's actions, as the brothers honor their father despite his foolish behavior (Ex. 20:12)."

As a side note, I have also heard some argue that Ham sexually assaulted his father but as stated above, I am not so sure the evidence for that is clear enough to say with certainty.