Hypocritical Leviticus

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Incest, and what constitutes it, is very well enumerated in Leviticus, which does not present this law without a copious listing. Strangely, it is permitted for a man to marry his neice, but not a woman marrying a nephew: this has scientific impacts, not feminist issues.We have a situation which is very coherently acceptable, that at one time, the first emergence of modern humans would have been either one or a set of one family unit, and that incest for repro was unavoidable. The issue of this being a sin, as included in Leviticus later on, must be measured by other factors and laws in the same source, as this an intergrated document. Sin/crime/violation of a law - only occurs when this is done wantonly, intentionally and with full mental ability. We know for example, that Jacob married two sisters, and that this was not accounted as a sin - this is because the law against incest was not yet revealed [Moses appeared 400 years later]. This would apply to Noah and all space-times prior to Moses.For a law to be active and effective - it must be written down and mandated as law - this is how the judiciary system works today. If it is not written as a law - it is not a law. There is no contradiction in Leviticus; it is also scientifically vindicated that marrying kin is prone to numerous problems. So both Genesis and Leviticus are subject to and vindicated today - because they are testable and attestable.It does not mean that where certain factors are not seen the same, that Genesis is not scientific or that it is scientifically incorrect: it is more probable the issue of the current scientific understanding is in error. Example: Geneis posits some factors which may or may not be in allignment with today's status quo of science, including:The universe is finite; that speech is less than 6000 years old and casts modern humans a seperate species by virture of that attribute; that the first of every species were dual-gendered singularities, namely that Adam & Eve were two positive/negative humans in one ['Male and female created he them']; that evolution is 'seed' factored as opposed million year dna mutations; etc. These factors are difficult to prove or disprove - they are not scientifically disproven - nothing whatsoever is negated in genesis. Mostly, people disdain anything connected with religion - but genesis is not just a religion - it is far more than that - religions have nothing to say on science and the universe origins! Further, any variances with today's science does not make genesis non-scientific; it only signifies a different scientific perspective. Genesis is in fact the first scientific treatise, opening with an account of creation which is both cosmology and biology. It is perhaps the most mysterious document in existence.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

but the figure you give represents the currently known maximum time-depth for extant physical records of language (i.e. speech being transmuted into visual symbols that could be preserved as durable objects).

---

Not really. Human recall does not require writings, as with folksongs, recipes and cultural traditions. A *NAME* 6,100 years old will KO me. The point you have missed is, aside from having no evidences - that very premise of not having written evidence, and relying on this factor, makes Genesis a huge mystery no less. Fact is, we have no history per se pre-6000 [Hint!-Nudge!].Burials, beads, cave scratchings, alledged agriculture - have no impact - even as these are not seen in transit grads of populations and mental prowess. Like it or not - you have to give the point to Genesis for its bold, daring, high risk declaration. I think its crazy for any document to brave such a stat - and its even more crazy how it is vindicated.Liviticus must be measured relative to its space time - and how it is way ahead: consider it is posited in the world's first advanced alphabetical book [HINT! NUDGE!] - whatever happened to all those mighty nations which preceded and then lasted 2000 years after - where are their alphabetical books and how is mental advancement measured?This is the first document which forbade human sacrifice - which was conducted for a 1000 years after elsewhere. Liviticus forbade animal sacrifice any place but the temple - thereby eliminating 99% of daily sacrifices. Leviticus forbade any sacrifice for wanton crimes, and limited this to accidental crimes - thus making a punishment for a wanton crime inescapable. Liviticus made all such sacrifices subject to the temple standing - marking the exact period all sacrfices becoming null and void 2000 years ago. The brilliance of this stratagem was done by not disregarding the nature of man, which prevailed for 1000s of years of inculcated animal and human sacrifices ingrained as a belief: often a family would sacrifice their most cherished child on the advice of a soerceror. Leviticus forbade sorcery. Medicine, a foremost faculty of science, comes from here: the first seperation from the occult occured with the ID, treatment and quarantine of contagious and infectious malignancies such as leprosy.leviticus did all this in a manner which totally eliminated one's inherent desire and belief of this faculty for sacrifice - and it made its adherants miles ahead of the rest of the world. It did it by 'CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF MAN' and 'SPEAKING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE'. Leviticus did not demand people worship half-man/half-beast deities bashing other deities to reign supreme, but presented an invisable, indescribable, unknowable Creator: has anyone yet been able to negate, disprove or better that one - or is Leviticus totally vindicated today?Thus one must be relative when they pick on an issue - else it constitues either an ignorance or a lie-by-imission. *THINK* about it again - does one have to be a rocket scientist in 2008 to say sacrifice is bad - and how do you say that 3,500 years ago? Therein is the rub.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.