Hypocritical Leviticus

someone declined to mention it, so now we have all sorts of people putting their two cents in. Who's right? Who knows? Yeah...it must have. Just like killing your brother must have been A-OK, too since Cain wasn't really punished and, in fact, God, protected him from the wrath of the other (mysterious) people and Cain went on to have multiple descendents. Do you have textual support for this? I am having trouble finding the passages which describe these assertions? You sure you aren't just making them up? (and etc...the rest of the questions can be answered here)From the text we cannot say, but we can calculate based on average ages of puberty. Starting at the expulsion of Eden (being conservative) Adam can be 1. Cain can be 2. The expulsion of Cain can be anywhere, but let's put it at 13 and his finding a wife at 14. Enoch arrives at Cain=15/Adam=16 (it looks really weird, but Adam was supposedly fully formed, but where was the time before Adam?)We take an average age of 15 for reproduction. So, Enoch=15 and Irad is born (30 years so far). Irad=15 and Mehujael is born (45 years so far). Mehujael=15 and Methusael is born (60 years so far). Methusael=15 and Lamech is born (75 years so far). Lamech had a couple of wives, but we can attach about 15 years to him, too (90 years so far). Lamech's wives both bore two known babies. Let's put them a year apart each.This now equals 106 years. 24 years give or take, before Seth is born at Adam's 130 years.Factoring Eve in at the same age as Adam (again not counting the pre-expulsion years, if any), this leaves Cain with a "land of Nod" consisting of maybe 10-13 (most women naturally don't give birth until they are done weaning at around two years of age...breast feeding suppresses breeding hormones, but it can be faulty) individuals. We have no reason to suspect that Cain was not the first born. So who were these people in the land of Nod? His juvenile brothers and sisters (if any..we aren't given any sort of textual evidence for other Eve babies, much less a whole people)? Right...but the calculation of the whole history of the Earth and all of us depends upon the accuracy of the genealogies in the OT and NT, so why not get it right? How old was Adam when he was expelled from Eden? If Adam's (and, by extension, Cain's) age isn't right, then how are we to know if the supposed age of the Earth is right? Do you know? How old was Cain when he migrated to Nod? Who was there? Why is that important? Do you not think of those questions when you read your book? Yeah, it could be a metaphor (for "heathen" cultures that surrounded early Jews), but why is the rest of Genesis not a metaphor in it's entirety? Why the selective thinking? You've failed to demonstrate anything, which is why you have chosen to quotemine bluejay.You cannot really prove much of your point without resorting to metaphysical propositions which some people may or may not agree with. No, we all acknowledge that a literal Genesis account says that Cain had to have slept with a sister. What you have apparently overlooked is how that could have been possible given the timeline of events.Unless the Genesis account omitted a few key details (ages of characters, identities of Nodians, interpretations of early human events) and, if so, why not just allow human interpretations to be human interpretations?Is not "mastering the facts of the Bible" just interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean. How can you tell the difference?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

I don't think any more needs to be said about other people on the earth besides those mentioned - Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. If you can't comprehend that you just can't.As far as murder being acceptable with God, I assume that you read the story. But I have my doubts.Did Cain think that his punishment was bearable or unbearable?By being sent forth from the presence of God he simultaneously became a stranger to the face of the earth. Read it. It is true that God had not yet allowed human government to excerccise capital punishmnet.Man was still under the rule of human conscience. This was like a God ordained libertarian anarchy. I mean anarchy in the positive sense. Human government had not yet been ordained by God and each man was to be ruled by his conscience.So the fact that God did not allow Cain to be killed in revenge was something like the modern murderer being given a life sentence rather than the death penalty. At any rate the distress of Cain indicates that he had no sense of getting scott free for anything. Look at the recorded ages from before the flood and compare them to people after the flood. It is a deduction. Many have thought that some paradise like conditions existed until the time of the flood.I can't think of a single passage that tells this. It is a deduction. And I could be wrong. But the length of human ages dropped off around the time of the flood. One thing is sure to me. The writer of the five books of Moses could be detail oriented when he needed to, as the minute discriptions of the measurements of the tabernacle prove.So I assume if the numbers didn't make sense he would know it, however it tallies up. The history or age of the planet earth does not depend on the tally of years in the genealogies. The earth was found waste and void in verses 2 of chapter 1. We are told that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.It is not possible for us to know when the beginning was. I think it is logical to read that in sex days God performed some restoration work and further creation work to prepare the world for human beings. These would be the tradition six creation days plus the seventh day.However, a gap of unspecified time - an interval exists between the in the beginning and the commencing of restoring the earth from a condition of being without form and void.We are given some hints of some events in the Pre-Adamic time on the planet, but not much. It is not of much interest to God now that man is created on the planet. His main interest is human beings.My chief reasons for believing in an ancient pre-Adamic earth are theological and not based on dating methods of geology, primarily. My primary reasons for believing in an ancient earth are to account for a pre-Adamic rebellion of Satan that took place sometime before the earth became waste and void in Genesis 1:22. I come to the Bible to touch God Himself firstly.I think coming to the Bible and failing to contact God Himself is an abuse of the Bible. I don't come to the Bible merely to tickly my curiosity about this or that. I try to make touching God my focus.It is a book of life. If you calculate all these numbers and come away with lots of data and lots of information but you had no encounter with God, that is a tragedy.I teach people how to believe the Bible. Many on this forum concentrate on teaching people how to disbelieve the Bible. I like to teach people how to believe it.Nothing you've said is overwhelmingly demonstrative of the innacuracy of the record of Genesis. Though we are not told all the details we are told what is most vital to the record.The people mentioned are mentioned because they are central to what the prophetic Spirit working in the writer wants us to know. If hundreds or thousands of other people were not mentioned by name in the geneology, it is because they are not central to what we are suppose to know.Cain's wife came out of number of other people not specifically singled out by name for inclusion the account. That's all.Did you ever here the saying of Christ about straining out a gnat and swollowing a camel? I think possibly you're straining out a gnat and swollowing a camel. It doesn't read like Cain founded a metaphorical city."And Cain went forth from the presence of Jehovah and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden" "East" of a purely abstract place is not likely. Dimensions in the abstract realm are hard to imagine."And Cain knew his wife" - that doesn't sound abstract." ... and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch" - neither does this sound existencial or abstract." ... and he built a city and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch" - this sounds practical to me not metaphorical.Now it has significance, even spiritually. Cain is developing a culture to essentially replace God the presence of whom he has lost.
The verses following highlight how the human culture is developing.One thing I immediately notice is Lamech. He abuses the word of God and twists it to protect himself from vengence after his own crime of murder:" ... I have slain a man for wounding me, even a young man for striking me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold." (Gen. 4:23,24)You have the first instance of man twisting God's words to get some kind of social advantage. OF course the multiple wives of Lamech highlight the unbridled and greedy lust of man developing more and more.Then we have the origins of nomadic agriculture, and musical intertainment, and probably weopontry or metal industry - in Jabal (v.20), Jubal (v.21), and Tubalcain (v.22).Man apart from the presence of God is developing a godless culture. The invention of his amusement, protection, and provision all seem like noble things to us. But the contrast is being established between the line of those who live by faith in God and those who plunge ahead to replace the loss of God with their culture.I have to continue latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

How old was Cain when he knew his wife?How old was his wife?The timeline does not make it impossible that Cain married some female, knew her, and had a child. Maybe it was his sister. Maybe it was not. You're free to develop your opinion. The interpetation that it is impossible that Cain married another descendent that had Adam and Eve as ancestors is to me not reliable.I don't know if it was a sister or not. But I do know that both Cain and his wife had Adam and Eve as their ancestors one way or another.I don't think that Genesis is tracing the creation of the first man and his wife AND implying that besides them there were other first progenitors at the time.I don't know what your problem is. Lots of skeptics want me to believe that all living organisms have one organism as their ultimate parent via Natural Selection. So why so much problem with Adam and Eve being the first parents of all humans? The fact recorded is that Eve was the mother of all living. You can say "Well, I don't believe that." You can say "No, Cain's wife could not have had any relationship to Eve."The fact recorded is that Eve was the mother of all living. Upon that recorded fact then I form my interpretation that Cain married some relative of his.Let me ask you this. Is it possible that Cain's wife could have been many years younger than he?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The problem is with the timescale. With the kind of super evolution involved to create all the genetic variations in the population from a single parental couple in such a short time means that my kids could be black even though both my spouse and I are white.

---

Thou shalt accept Prometheus as thy savior for HE is the true light of Humanity and the World.

Hi jay, Let me throw a monkey wrench into the fray here and see if I can spur your thinking a little. This is just food for thought.I do not think that there was a Pre-Adamic time.
I believe the first man was created the same day as the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1 as the generations in Genesis 2:4 declares.
I believe everything in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26 took place in the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.You say how could that be?Well there was no night until Genesis 1:5.The day was already gone so God began with the evening and the morning 12 hours later being the first day.You ask how long was that first period of light, what went on in that period?It lasted from the beginning until Genesis 1:5.There is no telling what went on other than what is described in Gen. 2:4 - Gen. 4:26 as this is all the Bible say's. Neither can science tell us, as Science can only go back 13.7 billion years, but "In The Beginning" was a very, very, very, very long time ago as we count time.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT writes

quote:

---

I do not think that there was a Pre-Adamic time.
I believe the first man was created the same day as the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1 as the generations in Genesis 2:4 declares.
I believe everything in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:26 took place in the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.

​

You say how could that be?

​

Well there was no night until Genesis 1:5.

---

Based on this reasoning, we could go a step further.Gen 1:6-136 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning”the second day.

​

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

​

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning”the third day.
In other words, in the first day there was no dry land, no vegetation, no sky, and no sea. Furthermore...Gen 1:20-26
[i]20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning”the fifth day.24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
[/i]
In the first day, there were also no birds, no land animal, no livestock, no fish, and no concept of reproduction.But Gen 2:4 through Gen 4:26 made it clear that there were dry land, sea, sky, vegetation, birds, fish, animal, livestock, etc.

quote:

---

Keeping this is in mind, and taking into account that the Bible is theoretically the inerrant word of God, how do you explain the fact that the information in the Bible leaves no avenue for belief outside the notion that Adam and his descendants would have had to reproduce with each other in order to keep populating the world? Even if Adam/Cain/Seth were by some chance, able to find other families(keeping in mind that the Bible gives no evidence for the existence of others outside Adam's family), wouldn't they "run into each other" somewhere down the line.

---

Perhaps that document has caught you. On careful examination, one sees that not just Adam, but also Jacob [who married two sisters - forbidden in the OT laws], can be pointed to in the premise of incest. But at this time - the law was not given. Thus no sin/crime occured, this being based on the transgression of a law, and in a fully aware and conscious manner.The OT laws are very precise and takes into consideration all things for all generations, even boldly specifyinhg, not to add or subtract anything. This is the reason no other scripture was able to give humanity any additional laws, nor negate any of the OT laws. The exacting words in a commandment can be seen in such words cushioned in the verses, but can escape the uninitiated: 'UNTO YOU'; 'WHEN YOU ENTER THE LAND' - making these laws specific and conditional. This also means that Adam and Eve can only be judged relative to their own space time.

quote:

---

I do not think that there was a Pre-Adamic time.
I believe the first man was created the same day as the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1 as the generations in Genesis 2:4 declares.

---

All was created in a single click - in their potentiality - else they could not emerge. The caveat is - 'in ts due time' ['I WILL GIVE YOU YOUR RAINS IN ITS DUE TIME - THE EARLY RAINS AND THE LATTER RAINS']- which applies to the revelation and actualising of the potentiality.The opening verse states both the heavens [galaxies] and the earth were created in the beginning [at one time/instant], which means the universe is finite [had a beginning], and all its components occured at that beginning click. The next verse says, the contents were existent but without form and order: meaning their due time for it to become formed and orderly had not yet arrived.This means MC2 and gravity existed in the beginning point, but was not revealed yet. It also means a song which will be written in a 1000 years from now - already exists now in an unrevealed state without form or order.'THERE IS NOTHING NEW' [King Solomon].

quote:

---

The problem is with the timescale. With the kind of super evolution involved to create all the genetic variations in the population from a single parental couple in such a short time means that my kids could be black even though both my spouse and I are white.

---

The time factor contradicts evolution - the reason we do not see transit points of cross speciation, which should occur all places, continuously w/o pause. because evolution is given as an ongoing process. The time scale does not apply with an ongoing process, while the absence of transitory imprints of speciation negates the accumulated/gradual effect sited for evolution.That modern humans are akin to what is described in genesis is not faulty: this refers to speech endowed humans, and this factor is vindicated as limited to 6000 years. To offset it, one must be able, at the very least, to evidence a 'NAME' older than 6000 - the correct mark of modern man, as opposed to skeletal and biological imprints, which are common to all life forms - but still devoid of speech. There is no history per se past 6000 - and no names - the latter not requiring writings and recallable via oral transmission, which also apply to folks songs, recipes, beliefs, etc.The aspect of different colored groups of humanity is not a problem, and is akin to different colored eyes, bone structures and heights, as opposed a fundamental variation. Often we find throw backs which do not fit the geneaological thread, such as the aspect of a prodigy child in maths or music, when it is a clear breakway from the rest of the family. Thus a skin color variation is not different from the other variances seen in humans. A fundamental difference would be if a human cannot speak [varied from a mute condition] - as this is the factor which marks a human, and this factor is limited to 6000. It does not negate the aspect of another prototype life forms - but clearly, no other life form progressed to speech, despite their advantage of time.

At the risk of being booted for going off topic, let's discuss this some more. What reasons make you believe that we ain't got no "transit points" in the ongoing process of evolution?

Defining transit points clearly is to determine it. I'm well aware of the claims made, certain imprints on one fossil can be alligned to another as proof of adaptation and speciation. But this defies the required evidence of its claimed conclusion. The fact is, when seen comprehensively, those factors of allignment can be pointing to other factors than what is chosen as their meaning, such as the commonality factors of all life, relating to skeletal and biological imprints. If the ToE factors were correct - we would see other life forms with speech, as opposed only one. We do not, nor does it appear this will occur. That all life forms possess some unique factors is not contested; but this does not alter the premise all life forms appear on one side of the page - and humans with speech on the other side. This factor was not regarded by ToE, which allocated all evolution to a time factor, and based its evidence on skeletal and dna imprints only. It erred.Humans are a seperate species, listed as such in Genesis, which first introduced the chronological emergence of species. What darwin did, was to examine the minutae details of how life forms adapt - to their own species - and placed this as a premise for all life. It agrees with genesis upto a certain point, but varies after a certain point. n effect, darwin made a car manual - and said there is no car maker, and the car occured of itself - but millions of years ago - yet it is an on-going process. Really? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Excuse me, but I see three completely unfounded assertions there.

1. ToE predicts that there should be more than one species with the capacity for speech.
   ​
   How do you derive that from the theory? Can you cite a serious source in ToE, or demonstrate a logical progression of accepted hypotheses to support it? (What sorts of "expected but missing" examples would you include in this alleged "prediction"? Not talking serpents, I hope. )
   ​
2. We do not see other life forms with speech.
   ​
   But how certain are we about the true nature of communication among, say, whales? We don't really have a physical or conceptual frame of reference for understanding what they might be doing (successes of human/whale communication at Sea World notwithstanding). We can observe animal behaviors relative to the "signals" they emit, and deduce relations between "signals" and events/behavior, but if there is communication that does not relate directly to events/behavior, we're sort of at a loss to figure that out, so far.
   ​
3. Development of speech in other species/life forms is unlikely to occur.
   ​
   Well, I suppose not in our life-times, though some of the experimentation that has been done with teaching communicative behaviors to other primate species seems to show that some amount of the required cognitive ability is present there, even though the appropriate physiology is lacking for speech. But over the next million years or so... who can say? I don't think we can rule it out. (*)
   

There are physiological as well as neurological prerequisites for speech as we know it: a vocal tract configuration that supports several dimensions of acoustic differentiation (at a bare minimum, ability to form at least 3 distinct vowels, and at least 3 points of consonant articulation with at least 3 distinct degrees of airflow obstruction for consonants - all languages exceed the minimum, but they all have at least these dimensions in common); a larynx suitable for phonation with a wide range of control for loudness and pitch; and plenty of brain cells to handle it all.I haven't kept up with the research on the hominid tree as represented in the fossil records, but I know researchers have been trying to establish the epoch during which the combined development of vocal tract physiology and brain capacity would have supported the onset of human language. We don't actually have a way to know whether it happened only once within hominid development, or, if it did happen more than once, whether the linguistic behaviors we know of happen to reflect more than one independent origin.Whatever the timing and conditions for the emergence of language, the impact of its onset would have been relatively explosive in comparison to other evolutionary processes. Language, like the domestication of animals, the development of agriculture, and the depth of awareness that all these skills entail, would obviously yield advantages for adaptability and species survival that far outweigh anything that mere physical mutation could achieve.If language (and/or agriculture, animal husbandry, etc) did occur only once, that one time alone would be plenty sufficient to account for where we find ourselves now: one single species of mammal able to inhabit virtually any environment on the planet surface (even floating for months on the oceans), with all other species trailing behind developmentally by a seemingly impassible distance.(*) Actually, if two different species had similar capacities for cognition and within-species communication, this could increase the likelihood that they would ultimately be competing for the same resources and environments. While the two groups would, by definition, be incompatible for reproduction, it's very likely that they would otherwise have many similarities -- i.e. land mammals with various advanced skills in addition to language. Unless the cognitive abilities of at least one species were sufficiently elaborate to understand and "allow for" the needs of the other, the possible outcomes would be either (a) they both manage to sustain themselves in separate, non-intersecting niches, or (b) one of them annihilates the other.The latter case, which might be the more likely one, could easily have been a scenario in the evolution of hominid branches to account for "just one human species today." It's also, I'd say, a recurring strategy when different groups within the human species come into contact/conflict with one another. If only religious belief could live up to its claims of exerting ethical and moral influence to the betterment of mankind, we might finally grow out of this sort of behavior. Alas, more often than not, religion is used as a means to exacerbate the conflict.Edited by Otto Tellick, : added lengthy (*) footnote for the discussion of point 3.Edited by Otto Tellick, : (grammar repairs in the footnote)

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

ToE predicts that there should be more than one species with the capacity for speech.
---
How do you derive that from the theory? Can you cite a serious source in ToE, or demonstrate a logical progression of accepted hypotheses to support it? (What sorts of "expected but missing" examples would you include in this alleged "prediction"? Not talking serpents, I hope. )
We do not see other life forms with speech.
But how certain are we about the true nature of communication among, say, whales? We don't really have a physical or conceptual frame of reference for understanding what they might be doing (successes of human/whale communication at Sea World notwithstanding).

---

There is no need to prove other life forms can communicate, even in a manner humans cannot. But speech is markedly different from communication, by kind than degree. Speech is unique among all life forms by virtue all life possesses communication and can be put on one half of the page - but humans can be put on the other half of the page as being different from all communicating life forms. Here, the difference is more than the commonalities, and it does not signify a derivitive of the adaptation process, which is dependent on time, among other factors: humans have had the least time of all life forms.

quote:

---

Development of speech in other species/life forms is unlikely to occur.
Well, I suppose not in our life-times, though some of the experimentation that has been done with teaching communicative behaviors to other primate species seems to show that some amount of the required cognitive ability is present there, even though the appropriate physiology is lacking for speech. But over the next million years or so... who can say? I don't think we can rule it out. (*)

---

Cognitive also does not apply. In their own way, an animal is smarter than humans in its own environment, and if anything, this factor goes against the premise of adaptation, as opposed supporting it: a cognitive being will more likely adapt to speech if this was the applicable factor. Mimickry, as with parots, does not apply here - it is not speech.

quote:

---

There are physiological as well as neurological prerequisites for speech as we know it: a vocal tract configuration that supports several dimensions of acoustic differentiation (at a bare minimum, ability to form at least 3 distinct vowels, and at least 3 points of consonant articulation with at least 3 distinct degrees of airflow obstruction for consonants - all languages exceed the minimum, but they all have at least these dimensions in common); a larynx suitable for phonation with a wide range of control for loudness and pitch; and plenty of brain cells to handle it all.

---

These too goes against your motion: animals have a far greater audio dexterity than humans, and can perform pitches humans cannot.Speech is a stumbling block for ToE. I have posted in other threads, leading scientists saying so: that speech is different from communication; and that speech presents a great difficulty for ToE to overcome. It is speech, not their skelatal imprints, nor their brains, which seperate humans from other life forms: this is why Genesis cast humans as a seperate category, while ToE places humans as a progression of the animal species, disregarding the significance of speech.Correctly, this belongs in a thread marking the commonalities and differences between ToE and Genesis' version of Evolution. It should not be misplaced, that Genesis introduced the premise of evolution, speciation and adaptation, in the first and correct recording of the chronological emergence of life forms:“LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS - HERB YIELDING SEED - AND FRUIT-TREE
BEARING FRUIT [# EVOLUTION]AFTER ITS KIND [# SPECIATION - LIMITED TO ITS OWN SPECIES - NAMELY WATER, AIR OR LAND BASED]- WHEREIN IS THE SEED THEREOF - UPON THE EARTH” [# ADAPTATION IS SEED BASED - NOT TIME BASED].Only the Genesis version is vindicated today.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The latter case, which might be the more likely one, could easily have been a scenario in the evolution of hominid branches to account for "just one human species today." It's also, I'd say, a recurring strategy when different groups within the human species come into contact/conflict with one another. If only religious belief could live up to its claims of exerting ethical and moral influence to the betterment of mankind, we might finally grow out of this sort of behavior. Alas, more often than not, religion is used as a means to exacerbate the conflict.

---

True, but what you call religions, or what the world sees this as, is in fact a take-over of a document by christianity and islam - which they never understood or ever followed, and it is at this point the term 'religion' emerges as a generic term. We find tho, that the OT is varied both in kind and degree from the other two: only one possesses a scientific, mathematical and historically evidenced treatise, while the other two are based on 'belief'.Science emerged from Genesis, which gives the first introduction of the universe being FINITE, and presents the unfolding of the universe in a cosmological mode. medicine was also introduced in this document, marking the first seperation of it from the occult - namely with the ID and treatment of infectious and contagious malignancies [Leprosy; etc]. That these precepts are framed in a biblical speech should not cast a shadow - it was written long ago, and stands as correct for all generations. But the term 'religion' has fastooned itself upon humanity, in a negative mode today - because of the term 'religion' and its generic application. Seperating the belief from the factual is the rub.

Then why is Genesis not subject to critical investigation, and revision to accommodate new evidence, as is the case with all other scientific discourse? If you want the world to understand Genesis as an initial scientific document, why insist that none of its assertions can be disproved or amended by observable evidence? I can agree with the "written long ago" part, but "correct for all generations"? I'm sorry, but being "framed in biblical speech" does pose some problems. The vocabulary is simply not sufficient, and there is rather a staggering amount of relevant detail that is lacking.Just making stuff up to fill in the details so as to preserve the appearance of veracity for all the explicit assertions in Genesis is not going to work. You can't properly find the truth among discrepant made-up stories until you start looking for evidence. Once start to do that, then you have to be ready to question the original assertions, just as any evidence-based scientific inquiry must do.But we seem to have strayed off-topic for this thread, which has to do with an apparent discrepancy between the moral status of incest, as expressed in Leviticus, and the biological necessities of reproduction for the first generations after Adam and Eve, (and for that matter, after the great flood -- I suppose mating with first cousins, as presumably happened among Noah's grandchildren, might not have been incestuous according to Leviticus, though it is frowned upon today). In any case, who knows what really happened? Virtually nothing is said of any daughters, or of who married whom.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.