Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Evolution or Creation Science?
Source:
Orthodox Church in America
URL Source: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-law ... /evolution-or-creation-science
Published: May 30, 2012
Author: Fr. Lawrence Farley
Post Date: 2018-02-14 09:59:32 by A Pole
Keywords: orthodox, creation, evolution
Views: 18184
Comments: 211
In my years as a priest and of sharing the Gospel, I have heard many reasons offered for not becoming a Christian: scandals associated with clergy, the wealth of the Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. I thought I had more or less heard it all, and so was unprepared for a reason one young man offered to justify his rejection of Orthodoxy—namely, that dinosaurs were not in the Bible. I blinked a few times, and was left temporarily speechless (something of a rarity with me, to which those who know me well can attest). His idea was that since dinosaurs obviously existed (their skeletons adorn our museums), then if the Bible was God’s Word, he should be able to read about dinosaurs in the Bible. Since he could not find them there (I refrained from mentioning certain fundamentalist interpretations of Leviathan and Behemoth in the Book of Job), then obviously the Bible could not be God’s Word and he could not remain Orthodox. He was referring of course to the old supposed conflict between Science and Religion, and in this arm-wrestling match, it was clear to him that Science had won. No Biblical dinosaurs, no more church-going. So, what’s the deal about dinosaurs? Why aren’t they in the creation stories in Genesis? Apart from the absurdity of supposing they’re not there because they aren’t mentioned by name (the duck-billed platypus isn’t mentioned by name either), it’s a valid question, and one that leads us headlong into the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Interpretation of the creation stories too often degenerates into an argument between the theory of evolution vs. what is sometimes called “creation science”. By “evolution” the average non-scientific person means the notion that Man descended from the apes, or from a common ancestor of apes and men. The name “Darwin” is usually thrown about, regardless of how the ideas in his On the Origin of Species have fared in the scientific community since Darwin wrote it in 1859, and most people’s knowledge of evolution is confined to looking at the famous evolutionary chart in National Geographic, showing how smaller hominids kept walking until they became human beings like us. By “creation science” is meant the view that the Genesis stories are to be taken as scientifically or historically factual, so that the earth (often considered to be comparatively young) was created by God in six twenty-four hour days. Since the time of the “Scopes monkey trial”, the argument between “evolutionists” and “creationists” has been going strong, and is often fought in the nation’s courts and departments of education. Arm-wrestling indeed. Happily for people with weak arms like myself, the Church does not call us to take part in this arm-wrestling match. The creation stories in Genesis were not written, I suggest, to give us a blow-by-blow account of how we got here. Rather, they were written to reveal something fundamental about the God of Israel and the privileged status of the people who worshipped Him. We assume today that the ancients wanted to know how we got here, and how we were created. In fact, they were mostly uninterested in such cosmic questions, and the creation myths that existed in the ancient near east spoke to other issues. Most people back then, if they thought of the question of cosmic origins at all, assumed that the world had always existed, and the various gods they worshipped were simply part of that eternal backdrop. That is where the creation stories were truly revolutionary. Their main point was not merely that God created the world; it was that the tribal God of the Jewish people was sovereign over the world. We take monotheism for granted, and spell “god” with a capital “G”. For us, God is singular and unique by definition. It was otherwise in the ancient near east. That age was populated by different gods, each with his or her own power, agenda, and career. And this is the point: in the Genesis stories, none of these gods are there. In the opening verses we read, “In the beginning God (Hebrew Elohim, a Jewish name for their God) created the heavens and the earth” and “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” The creating deity is called “Elohim” and “Yahweh”—the names for the Jewish God. Other rival deities are simply not there. It is as if they do not exist. They had been dethroned and demoted by their omission from the story. The opening verse of Genesis is a salvo fired into the world of polytheism, a ringing declaration that their gods were nobodies. We keep reading and discover that this Jewish God made everything that existed by His simple word of command. He simply said, “Light—exist!” (two words in the original Hebrew), and light sprang into existence. In the creation myths of the pagan cultures of that time, the gods created by lots of huffing and puffing (in an Old Babylonian myth, the god Enlil uses a hoe), but not so the God of the Jews. He is above all that. For Him, a simple sovereign word suffices. In fact, in the first chapter of Genesis, all the cosmos was brought into being by Him uttering ten simple commands (yep, it does foreshadow the Ten Commandments, given later). And Man is portrayed in these stories as the sum and crown of creation, giving the human person a dignity never before known. Man is said to have been made “in the image of God”—a revolutionary statement, since in those days, only kings were thought to be in the divine image. Despite this, Genesis invests the common man with this royal dignity. And even more: it says that woman shares this image and rule with him. In the ancient near east, women were chattel; in Genesis, she is a co-ruler of creation with the man. The stories of Genesis cannot be read apart from their original cultural context, and when we read them as they were meant to be read, we see that the creation story was a gauntlet thrown down before the prevailing culture of its time. The creation stories affirmed that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people, alone made the whole cosmos. That meant that He was able to protect His People. It meant that, properly speaking, all the pagan nations should abandon their old gods and worship Him. These stories affirm that the Jewish God is powerful enough to have created everything by a few simple orders. They affirm that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth. And Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity. These are the real lessons of Genesis. It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere. So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-61) not displayed.
.
.
.
#62. To: Pinguinite (#53)
As a further aside (though related), is the contemplative issue or question of DNA at Man's/Life's inception. We and all material life as well as the Universe are devolving and growing weaker. This in accordance with The Second Law of Thermodynamics (alone dismissing the notion of EVO-lution)... Contemplate THIS: If our DNA is a copy of a copy of a copy etc down through the generations, much like the copy machine copy after thousands of copies, it pales with the originals. The age of respective people mentioned during pre-Flood days are crazy-old; anywhere from 350+-900 years old. AFTER the Flood, man's age was downgrades by God to be "120 years." I'd just posted links to "Giant" skeletons that have been discovered and documented in the New York Times in the early 1900s; There are also recent discoveries of giant skeletons on the island of Sardinia. These skeletal remains are also found in many other places. (Yes, the evidence being hidden/eliminated from public viewing.) The Bible speak OF "Giants." Goliath was a giant. The Great Flood left its evidence of a giant world embedded and sealed in its fossils and bone -- ferns, insects, dinosaurs, etc. Did that Great Flood event and all that went with it (change of magnetic field, elements, atmosphere, air pressure, shield from destructive radiation) alter man's DNA that adversely? (as well as the rest of life?) Just food for thought.
I respectfully disagree; It is clear as day. The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.) The meat of the matter -- what God wants ALL to "see" and understand is what is transparent.
I stand corrected to some degree -- You are right on this count; The Word does become more apparent or transparent to Believers as the Holy Spirit is embraced.
Your comment is silly, Liberator. Genesis did not predict Christ's GOSPEL.
You aren't understanding the context of my post, Buck.
Genesis was only written about 1000 BCE. It was written after the Babylon expulsion of the Jews. You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
You do realize that King Herod never met Jesus although that song pretends he did. However, the general mocking of Jesus by the Sandhedrin and priests and mobs is pretty accurate. The Monty Python clip is probably more blasphemous, though much of it is just cheeky Brit humor since Life Of Brian is a comedy about someone who is mistaken for a Jewish messiah. It's not about Jesus directly.
Probably not the final version. However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that. They didn't exactly have word processors or even printing presses in Moses' time.
I guess it did. But stated plainly, it was incest. Permitted at one time, but, if I'm not mistaken, specifically prohibited at another, and with Genesis avoiding any explicit mention of Cain's marrying his sister, as though it's something that was better off not mentioned. I would criticize it being regarded as a matter of "social context" however. That makes it sound like whether incest was acceptable or not is purely a cultural determination. Wasn't it prohibited in one of the myriad of laws established in the OT? (I don't remember).
Back your statement with facts based on scientific research and discovery. You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE. Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians, it was cultural tradition within that empire to write. There are records going back before even 1000 BCE, but for the Jews, there is nothing. Why? They were nomadic in nature before the Babylonians taught them otherwise.
This is your theory, which of course runs counter to evolutionary theory. No, not necessarily. For example, a rock rolling up hill might be viewed as violating the laws of thermodynamics. But what if that hill was beside a much taller mountain that had a land slide? Rocks falling from that mountain gain speed, and their momentum carries them up the smaller hill. End result: rocks roll uphill without any violation of the law of thermal dynamics. Evolution of life into more complex life forms could similarly be the outplay of a much greater dissipation of energy. While the perspective of Genesis being a literal book is one people take, I do not see how it's origin as merely a collection of stories created and refined in times of old, purely as the work of man created out of a need to explain man's origins and give satisfaction to the natural distress of people who otherwise saw themselves as perishable as any animal, could be so easily dismissed. So **why** should someone believe Genesis is anything other than that? I would suggest it's for the same reason it was believed long ago -- out of a desperate need to believe we are more than human and that our existence does not end with death. That is quite understandable. Like you, I believe we ARE more than human. In fact, I believe we are far more than human than even Christianity teaches, which seems to be that the soul is sort of a that minor part is left over after a person dies. But Genesis is simply not the only explanation available to reach the conclusion that we are more than human. The soul is our primary identity, our human nature only secondary. In my view, it is not inaccurate to say we are, in fact, angels living in human bodies for a short time, and our origin, as angels, is not earthly. Only our human bodies originated from earth, not us as souls or, perhaps, angels. Stated another way in contemporary terms, human bodies are mere rental units for souls, and not something that is created as a result of human conception, which is an idea that is quite illogical, frankly. But because of the natural assumption that our physical bodies define all there is about us, our tendency, and the tendency of the ancients who composed Genesis, is/was to bring God down to man's level, and that's what Genesis largely does. Everything just works under this model. Including evolution, which becomes completely inconsequential in this context. It also explains why God would care about us more than animals.
The Mosaic books, being the first five books of the Old Testament i.e. the Torah, were all undoubtedly the result of oral tradition. Even as late as the time of Jesus, oral tradition still had a strong hold. Some other Jewish groups, like the Yemeni Jews, kept their oral tradition alive into modern times. Not dissimilar to old-time Catholics some of us can recall that could recite extensive portions of Latin rites and phrases from memory. An oral tradition can be a powerful thing, very personal. You don't just read it; you affirm it positively by saying it in unison, adding a social communitarian element to the recital of traditional beliefs. Due to Jews traveling and trading widely across the old Greek empire, Greek became more important and knowledge of Hebrew was less common. So the Greek version of the Old Testament was produced around 300 B.C., albeit not officially endorsed properly by the relevant Jewish authorities. Yet it spread across the Greek world, even across Israel. We see in scripture that Jesus and his disciples were familiar with it and they quoted it, along with Hebraicisms, when they disputed with Pharisees or discussed traditional Jewish beliefs of the era. That version of the Old Testament was the Septuagint. Today, only the Catholics really advocate for it. The Jews use the Masoretic text. Protestants do too. But you can't really deny that Jesus and the disciples knew the text of the Septuagint.
Not even this scene, classic Python humor? C'mon, I know you think that's funny.
everyone is free to think what they like, it doesn't make them right. The world is full of senseless disputes over interpretation. It all comes down to what is it you actually believe? I know what God has shown me personally and it confirms Scripture, so there is no debate
Hebrew was being used long before and after that: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language_history.html
I have no doubt about the verbal memory. However, there were some things written down as well. Do you think they memorized the lineage? This is a funny example from back when The Simpsons was actually good:
Absolutely. Look at the various recitations of lineage, generally of the house of David. Many of these are eminently easy to memorize, probably more so in the ancient tongue. An interesting feature of lineage in Genesis is comparing Genesis 4 to Genesis 5. In Genesis 4, Adam and Even had sons Cain and Abel, Cain murdered Abel and was driven from the garden, Cain's children became various tent-dwellers and keepers of cattle and musicians and blacksmiths. But they all dwelt outside Eden. Back in Eden, Adam and Eve had another son named Seth. But in Genesis 5, we see a different pattern: 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died. . . . Here, we see the name of each male sire, the age he was when his firstborn son was born, whether he had additional sons and daughters, and how many more years he lived after the birth of his firstborn son. It is striking and I think it was probably easily recited recited in ancient Hebrew, possibly with what they would consider poetic meter (a huge aid to memorization). I find it striking that it seems to have been written by an entirely different writer and in a different style. And while Genesis 4 prominently features Cain and Abel and finally barely mentions the birth of Seth, in Genesis 5 we see that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born and no mention of Cain and Abel is made. None. And Eve is not named: Adam in Genesis 5 signifies both Adam and his wife as a pair. That is striking, as though Moses combined another account. In truth (and fairness to Moses), the story of Cain and Abel and the later careers of Cain's offspring simply cannot be as important as the birth of Seth, the ancestor of Noah. Anyway, these are commonly remarked upon features of Genesis. Many many others have noticed the striking difference between these two accounts of the family of Adam and Eve. So, via a longwinded route, yes, absolutely, I think that lineages was among the most important parts of the Oral History. Not the central teaching but an essential requirement. The fact that we seem to have two accounts of Adam's family merged together (IMO) would indicate the great importance attached to it.
Even Jesus announced that Moses wrote (not spoke) of him. It was obvious there were written texts: "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”
Sure, Moses wrote. But Moses came along a very long time after the time of Adam and Eve and Seth and Noah. In between, there was an Oral Tradition in Judaism. And that is exactly what we should expect to find in that era. I wasn't disputing that Moses wrote. I was suggesting that much or all of what Moses wrote was previously in the Oral History. Perhaps I wandered too far into a comparison of the actual accounts produced in Genesis.
Orthodox consider Septuagint as the inspired text, not the thousand years later Masoretic text
I wasn't suggesting that we debate the merits of the modern Masoretic OT to the LXX. Like that would be useful anyway. I thought I indicated the more ancient pedigree of the LXX clearly enough as well as listing a merit or demerit or two. It wasn't really unfair IMO. You are right though that I mentioned the Catholics but didn't include the EO as its fiercest adherents. When it comes to preserving tradition and texts, the EO have no rivals in Christendom.
Luberator finds that erotic, actually.
Congratulations on your recent success with the Parole Board. That Trump University diploma finally paid off!
It reminded me a lot of something Mel Brooks did in a movie. Just slapstick comedy.
Same way Latin was still the language of the European people, even into the eighteenth century AD. "Latin was also supreme as an international language of diplomatic correspondence, used in negotiations between nations and the writing of treaties, e.g. the peace treaties of Osnabrück and Münster (1648). As an auxiliary language to the local vernaculars, New Latin appeared in a wide variety of documents, ecclesiastical, legal, diplomatic, academic, and scientific. While a text written in English, French, or Spanish at this time might be understood by a significant cross section of the learned, only a Latin text could be certain of finding someone to interpret it anywhere between Lisbon and Helsinki. As late as the 1720s, Latin was still used conversationally, and was serviceable as an international auxiliary language between people of different countries who had no other language in common. For instance, the Hanoverian king George I of Great Britain (reigned 1714–1727), who had no command of spoken English, communicated in Latin with his Prime Minister Robert Walpole, who knew neither German nor French."
Biggus Vicus!
What Herod's "women" really looked like...
You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE. Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians, it was cultural tradition within that empire to write. There are records going back before even 1000 BCE, but for the Jews, there is nothing. So are you telling us that Hebrews, Jews, or their ancestors would not nor could not have learned ANOTHER or different language and written history?
They were pretty much at war between themselves and others such as Syria and Mesopotamia to perform anything constructive other than goat herding before 1000 BCE. Once the Babylonians crushed them, and educated them to the maximum extent possible, they were expelled and created the foundations for the Torah. Of course, the information was taken from the Oral Torah which was briefly mentioned, although not identified. With a little social structure by the Babylonians, the Hebrews stepped away from just being goat herders. Pretty remarkable!
You're full of shit.
It's pretty obvious they did.
Where are there documented records of the Torah prior to the Babylonians? If you use the Dead Sea Scrolls as a first guess, you will be way off base because of carbon dating methods for historical records.
How do you verify carbon dating?
You are probably ignorant of the fact that lava formations from Mount saint Helen's that were formed in 1986 were dated at 350,000 years old. So take your carbon dating theory to the trash can. Only a person with a lying agenda would bring up bullshit claims about carbon dating being science.
I think the Bible pretty much covers what will happen when you fall away from him. They were stuck in a foreign land for a long time. They were going to learn new things. That doesn't mean they ever abandoned who they were:
Simply said, there is a known and precise "half life" of the carbon element of the material being sampled. A great example is Carbon-14 with a known decaying activity.
I would criticize it being regarded as a matter of "social context" however. That makes it sound like whether incest was acceptable or not is purely a cultural determination. Wasn't it prohibited in one of the myriad of laws established in the OT? (I don't remember). There's quite a bit not explicitly mentioned in Genesis; We must cobble together a lot through dot-connecting of ancient texts and historian accounts, oral accounts and tradition, common sense and...educated speculation. Yes, you are correct; Incest in Scripture was "permitted at one time, bu...specifically prohibited at another." I can understand why you have an immediate visceral objection to incest. We ALL do, frankly. But the "social context" facet is totally legit. The "culture" At The Beginning" was in its infancy, obviously. As to the question about Cain and the nature of his marriage to obviously a sister begotten from parents Adam and Eve (and subsequent children of theirs), of course I understand the discomforting feeling. BECAUSE we are considering it through our lens of contemporary society. Yes, when we think of "Incest," we think of deformities and Hillbillies. Perversions. OR even Muzzies. :-) Again, his comparison is not fair, and doesn't/can't even be applied within the same context. BACK to what this is about: The onset of man AT THE Beginning, and how man became "fruitful and multiplied." what does the Bible record tell us? Or oral/written tradition? (it's all we have as reference): According to Genesis 5:4, we are told Adam and Eve "begat sons and daughters." Jewish historian Josephus helps out -- he stated that "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters." Adam and Eve obviously had a bunch of children, essential to "being "fruitful and multiplying." Cain obviously had to find his wife -- among them, a sister, one of Adam & Eve's off-spring. (Even Abraham married his half-sister. At that time the law hadn't yet forbidden incestual marriage, and no, God didn't condemn that union.) Even if we discount Josephus account, what of the "Incest" issue and the law? The law against close intermarriage was not given until the time of Moses, when the law changed. By that time apparently God felt that the earth had been populated sufficiently, preceded by, "none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him" as stated in Leviticus 18:6). So...There was nothing wrong with brother/sister marriages, originally. How could there be? It was the only way to populate the planet. Moreover, Human DNA of Adam and Eve was as perfect it was ever going to be as the first of many millions of "copies," so defects were not going to affect the early descendants.
Simply stated someone told you what to think and you obeyed. Why don't you go find something to cut and paste about Mount saint Helen's false readings on carbon dating. Because don't know what you are talking about.
Again how do they verify? Oh you don't have a clue. You are about informative as a parrot.
OK, you say, "I AM full of SHIT." So, beyond the Dead Sea Scrolls, what documented evidence for and about the Torah exists? None. The coincidence in time of the Babylonian influence over the Hebrews is remarkable with respect to Carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls! You should perform some independent research, yourself besides listening to, "HELL FIRE & BRIMSTONE" sermons. Using your own intellectual capacity can be a good activity and strengthen your critical thinking approach to all of life around you.
Bla bla bullshit.
Comments (103 - 211) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#63. To: A Pole (#61)
(Edited)
Genesis is a mystical book with hidden meaning visible to the elect
#64. To: A Pole (#61)
...visible to the elect
#65. To: Liberator (#63)
The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.)
#66. To: buckeroo (#65)
#67. To: Liberator (#66)
#68. To: Willie Green (#47)
(Edited)
Brian Cohen is born in a stable next door to the one in which Jesus is born, which initially confuses the three wise men who come to praise the future King of the Jews. Brian grows up an idealistic young man who resents the continuing Roman occupation of Judea. While attending Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Brian becomes infatuated with an attractive young rebel, Judith. His desire for her and hatred for the Romans lead him to join the "People's Front of Judea", one of many fractious and bickering independence movements, who spend more time fighting each other than the Romans.
#69. To: buckeroo (#67)
You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
#70. To: Liberator (#59)
Both "The Beginning" and post-Noah's Flood occurred at an obviously different time and social context.
#71. To: no gnu taxes (#69)
However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that.
#72. To: Liberator (#62)
We and all material life as well as the Universe are devolving and growing weaker.
This in accordance with The Second Law of Thermodynamics (alone dismissing the notion of EVO-lution)...
#73. To: no gnu taxes (#69)
Probably not the final version. However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that. They didn't exactly have word processors or even printing presses in Moses' time.
#74. To: Liberator (#58)
A flick I NEVER found humorous in the least.
#75. To: A Pole (#60)
Orthodox do not need permission, they are free to believe without Pope telling them what to think.
#76. To: buckeroo (#71)
#77. To: Tooconservative (#73)
#78. To: no gnu taxes, Liberator, redleghunter (#77)
I have no doubt about the verbal memory. However, there were some things written down as well. Do you think they memorized the lineage?
BibleGateway: Genesis 5 KJV 5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
#79. To: Tooconservative (#78)
#80. To: no gnu taxes (#79)
(Edited)
Even Jesus announced that Moses wrote (not spoke) of him. It was obvious there were written texts:
#81. To: Tooconservative (#73)
That version of the Old Testament was the Septuagint. Today, only the Catholics really advocate for it. The Jews use the Masoretic text. Protestants do too.
#82. To: A Pole (#81)
(Edited)
Orthodox consider Septuagint as the inspired text, not the thousand years later Masoretic text
#83. To: Tooconservative (#74)
#84. To: Biff Tannen (#83)
#85. To: Biff Tannen (#83)
Luberator finds that erotic, actually.
#86. To: no gnu taxes, Vicomte13 (#76)
One of the most compelling evidences for the continued use of Hebrew into the 2nd Century A.D. is a letter from the Jewish General Simon Bar Kockba (Shimon ben Kosva, as the first line of the letter states in the above picture), which is dated at 135 A.D., which he wrote during the second Jewish revolt against Rome. This letter, along with many others, was written in Hebrew, establishing the fact that Hebrew was still the language of the Jewish people, even into the second century AD.
#87. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13 (#74)
#88. To: Willie Green (#47)
#89. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes (#71)
Back your statement with facts based on scientific research and discovery.
#90. To: Liberator (#89)
#91. To: buckeroo (#90)
#92. To: Liberator (#89)
So are you telling us that Hebrews, Jews, or their ancestors would not nor could not have learned ANOTHER or different language and written history?
#93. To: A K A Stone (#91)
#94. To: buckeroo (#93)
#95. To: buckeroo (#93)
#96. To: buckeroo (#90)
They were pretty much at war between themselves
#97. To: A K A Stone (#94)
#98. To: Pinguinite (#70)
But stated plainly, it was incest. Permitted at one time, but, if I'm not mistaken, specifically prohibited at another, and with Genesis avoiding any explicit mention of Cain's marrying his sister, as though it's something that was better off not mentioned.
#99. To: buckeroo (#97)
#100. To: buckeroo (#97)
#101. To: A K A Stone (#99)
#102. To: buckeroo (#101)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]