Moral Codes before the 10 commandments?

[basics]

conon394,

When a person is born again of the Spirit of God the Faith that brings them to that belief is that of Jesus Christ which is imputed to them that they do believe. So, what is that Faith? The answer goes back to what Jesus asked the disciples Who they thought He was, the answer being that, " You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God..." and on which Jesus told them that, " ...on this Rock I will build My Church." and that they would have the keys to it. Those keys were then and are now the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, how? Because we are told that the Gospel is the Power of God unto Salvation. So, whatever feelings or faith a person has they are not the same as that imputed to new believers by the Lord Jesus Christ at their rebirth. There is only One God, one Saviour Jesus Christ and one Holy Spirit of God and it is His Gospel that can save anyone, meaning all others are false.

So, notice that throughout the Bible God has this habit of repeating Himself to confirm the veracity of His Word. Mathew and John were Jews whereas Mark and Luke were not so here again is that double confirmation by double witnessing by God to all peoples that His Word can be relied upon whatever the situation. The events of Pentecost came some fifty days after Jesus had been raised to Glory leaving them with instructions on what to do when that Feast arrived. They preached the Gospel and some three thousand were saved that day and more even after that. Of course Luke and Mark weren't there although as Mark's mother was a follower of Jesus it is possible that he was the point being that as these converted peoples returned to their lands written Word of what they now believed was sent to them to encourage and confirm their new lives in Christ. So to say that the writings were not done for many years after is not altogether factual.

Concerning Paul, a man taught by Gamaliel, the great teacher of Jewish Law, became feared because of his enemity to the Christian doctrine until that is God put him on his knees to convert him. Once converted he began preaching the same Gospel in places where it had not been preached and confirming it where it had. In other words he preached in places where churches had long been established as well as new places. His chief concern then was that some Jewish converts were still stuck to the Law and he had to convince them that this was no longer the case. That is why his letters are so important a part of the Bible.

When we come to the life of creation I am no expert on this but I will say that numbers have an important position with God and so if we are but six thousand plus years old and the signs pointing to Jesus's return are there then the year seven thousand looms up in prominance, why? It is prominant because God made us in six days and on the seventh He rested. Six is man's number which stops short at that but why? Because he fell short of gaining God's rest by falling into sin. That is why the evil trinity is numbered 666 because it was condemned on the same day. Am I correct? I don't know because it is all in God's perfect timing as His numbers have proved throughout His Word, the Bible.

Now concerning the Ark I think it is plain to see that modern shipping specifically container vessels can endure vast journeys no problem yet all the Ark had to do was stay afloat without any vast journey which it did and why? Because it was pitched inside and out to seal it plus having the overlooking of God to keep it safe exactly as God intended. Every detail of that was exacted by God and if He like He did with Adam to make Eve why couldn't He do the same with the animals on board? We don't know but what we do know is that every creature on board disembarked when Noah opened the door. Male and female of each kind did what they have always done and that's why I have had in my home two German Shepherds, one black and tan and the other long haired sable, one Belgian Malenois and two smashing Huskies.

[conon394]

Err see I knew you would do this - basically just move goal posts around and not directly answer anything I posted in direct response to you previous post...

So you assert the earth is ~6000 years. That is you are a very young earth creationist? So how come various people working from the Bible come of with different dates and times?

You ignored my request to tell me when you date the flood. But in general you have not addressed the problem of getting 1 Billion people by 1800. This is not something you can wave away with the flood changed things or buried things etc. This is a time frame covered by dated history and dated by multiple redundant methods and there simply no evidence for the kind massive persistently high growth of the humans to fit the time frame.

You are still failing to address the lack of Genetic bottle necks that should be observed in all things non aquatic.

Now concerning the Ark I think it is plain to see that modern shipping specifically container vessels can endure vast journeys no problem

This a non sensical statement. A modern container ship is made of steel and other modern alloys and components. It has pumps and modern ballast adjusting methods for stabilization, true water tight bulk heads etc etc. You cannot make one out of wood. Pitch is not something you apply once and set and forget it. And it says nothing about the structural reality the engineering reality of wooden construction...

Compare. 'Devil to pay' it not important the how it originated but this case its nautical association is a reminder. On a wooden ship you just did not stop caulking and pitching in the dock it was something sailors had to do constantly - why because the wood flexed and constantly started leaking.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/devil-to-pay.html

Or note the famous sea shanty 'Pump Shanty'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Hp17EAuPI

There is reason you need to keep pumping ships.

It had to do a bit more than float. The flood does not read like gently filling a bath tub.

But if god did hand over profound wood working technology where did it go?

But your real answer is just well god made it so - than that works for everyone's creation myths if they believe them as well. WHich means that assertion has no explanative power.

Please define what mean by Kind.

that's why I have had in my home two German Shepherds, one black and tan and the other long haired sable, one Belgian Malenois and two smashing Huskies.

And if they all came from 2 dogs some 4000 years ago they would appear genetically as nearly clones but they do not.

In any case more germaine to the thread you have again sidestepped answering how God's approval of slavery would make today's world better. I mean I get why the people writing about Jesus did not care about slavery since they clearly all though he was coming back in their lifetime so what worry about being enslaved. But that dose not work for the OT.

[basics]

conon394,

Sorry ole fella but I don't retract anything I have said on the subject, why? Simply because once I never knew Him but now I do and that's what makes the difference between us. Oh I could argue every detail with you as I have already done in the past so what's the point of wasting my time when you, even if Jesus Christ stood before you, would still not believe what is written in the Bible. So, why don't you believe? As it is written God has blinded you through your own sin that you cannot believe and will not unless He reveals Jesus Christ and His Sacrifice to you resulting in your rebirth. As I am talking from experience all I can do is pray that someday your eyes too will be opened.

[conon394]

Oh I could argue every detail with you as I have already done in the past

Actually have you generally make a poor attempt and then do exactly what did about resort to I had a personal religious epiphany and thus everything in the Bible is even patently fantastical stuff. That is not really discussing or arguing a point.

Fine but the recent chatter has been ot but you still are not answering the relevant point that you are unwilling to defend you claim that gods approval of slavery will make the world a better place.

all I can do is pray that someday your eyes too will be opened.

Err you really should not. I though you views on predestination foreclosed turning Christianity into a transactional religion. I am sorta on my own and the result is already been determined. I mean if you were Roman Catholic sure pray away it be helpful.


-----

edit in passing how about the rather bizarre linages of Jesus crammed into Matthew and Luke since they are pointless. They should just be God -> Jesus if they are telling the truth. I mean if you some like to David or such they really should be tracing the maternal line.

[basics]

conon394,

Well if one delves into Mary's lineage you would see that she has an unbroken line whereas Joseph line was broken by a curse made on one of his ancestors. That makes Jesus lineage through Mary perfect. Getting back to the slavery issue, in dealing with a fallen race where every abuse was normal God whilst seeing it happen never condoned it. You and I both know that slavery is wrong in any shape or form and so does God. Next to giving God your all Jesus said that " loving your neighbour as yourself is the next greatest Commandment." Why would I want to be a slave or expect any man to be my slave if I followed Him?

[conon394]

Well if one delves into Mary's lineage you would see that she has an unbroken line whereas Joseph line was broken by a curse made on one of his ancestors. That makes Jesus lineage through Mary perfect.

But bizarrely that is not what the authors of the Gospels did. Of course because they could not because nobody cared about a woman's genealogy. Thus yes I think the argument that Luke is somehow a genealogy of Mary is beyond weak and forced. The simple fact its simply another difference between the authors of Matthew and Luke on all things Jesus. So they remain silly. They exist just try to link Jesus to David since that is what Jews wanted in a Messiah and not some guy rambling on about being the son of god.

Getting back to the slavery issue, in dealing with a fallen race where every abuse was normal God whilst seeing it happen never condoned it. You and I both know that slavery is wrong in any shape or form and so does God.

That is clearly not true. The 10 commandments and related law are explicitly telling you not to do things god wants to stop or not do. Like murderer and worshiping other gods. Yet god chooses to approve of slavery oh and obviously at Jericho geocide.

Next to giving God your all Jesus said that " loving your neighbour as yourself is the next greatest Commandment."

Immaterial I am talking about the law supposedly given to Moses. It is the law till God/Jesus/HS goes a bit of editing digression say at 5:17 (Matthew) where he is here to embody the law but then he launches in to edits some fairly radical like on divorce. But nope not one word on oh drop the slavery stuff.

Why would I want to be a slave or expect any man to be my slave if I followed Him?

I dunno maybe you commune with all the christians who did over the years even those of your persuasion of christianity. And do you glaze over Colossians 3:22. douloi is unambiguous it is not a hired free individual - any translation that is servants is obfuscating.

--------


Also nothing in #83 addressed that on your time line we would could not have our observed generic diversity.

[basics]

conon394,

Quote, " According to traditional Jewish law, a person’s Jewish status is passed down through the mother. It is perhaps worth noting that in the biblical period, evidence points toward the custom of patrilineal descent, where children received their Israelite and tribal affiliation through their fathers. Patrilineal descent continues to be the practice of the community of Karaite Jews, whose Jewish legal framework differs significantly from rabbinic law and practice." unquote. So, as I said Joseph's line was broken by a curse whereas Mary's line was not making her perfect to bear Messias which she did and did according to the prophets.

As I said already, how can one justify taking slaves if one is to love their neighbour as themselves? If the Commandments had been followed even by so-called Christians never mind the rest of humanity this world would be a far better place. Unfortunately it is not why? Because slavery is alive and well even as I write yet people like International Justice fight against it everyday and do so in the name of Jesus Christ. You harp on about the past yet what are you doing to help stop it today? Servant is the word and servant it is.

Noah and his sons provide the generic diversity.

[conon394]

Noah and his sons provide the generic diversity.

That is simply not how genetics works. 4 individuals represent a profound bottle neck of human genetic diversity. If that bottle neck happened as recently the date (i'm still guess) you pick for the flood humanity would now have a profound lack of genetic diversity. So much so as I said you would almost certainly be able to get an organ transplant from anyone with no immunosuppression needed. Again that would contrast with the wide ranging diversity observable in aquatic creatures. A diversity not seen in humans or any other terrestrial animal [Note under the BIble story version of history - not in fact reality].

Of course humanity would so inbreed that it likely would have died out rather quickly.

As I said already, how can one justify taking slaves if one is to love their neighbour as themselves?

Not really my problem (*). It - the Bible that says its OK and thus Colossians 3:22. And also the fact when Jesus was busy editing the laws he was silent on slavery. I mean really Colossians is pretty harsh it doesn't seem to allow for say typical Greek shrine where a slave going there could seek a new master arguing the current one was excessively cruel.

* Also if god and Jesus are the same than there was not loving thy neighbor at Jericho.

If the Commandments had been followed even by so-called Christians never mind the rest of humanity this world would be a far better place

One with god approved slavery of Jews (although with some limitations) and god approved unlimited slavery for foreigners.

Because slavery is alive and well even as I write yet people like International Justice fight against it everyday and do so in the name of Jesus Christ

Seems contrary to the ten commandments

You harp on about the past yet what are you doing to help stop it today? Servant is the word and servant it is.

I don't see the point of this. So you are asserting that there are not any explicitly Christian NGOs that also are involved trying to prevent with trafficking and forced labor? I don't feel the need to list any NGOs that I might giving to or have volunteered for in my life. Are you implying that you are part of IJM, or that you give money or just nobody would care about the issue if they were not christians?

Quote, " According to traditional Jewish law, a person’s Jewish status is passed down through the mother. It is perhaps worth noting that in the biblical period, evidence points toward the custom of patrilineal descent, where children received their Israelite and tribal affiliation through their fathers. Patrilineal descent continues to be the practice of the community of Karaite Jews, whose Jewish legal framework differs significantly from rabbinic law and practice." unquote. So, as I said Joseph's line was broken by a curse whereas Mary's line was not making her perfect to bear Messias which she did and did according to the prophets.

Than it is pointless of Matthew to list Joseph's linage. And same for Luke sime the argument that he somehow intensely awkwardly doing Mary's is laughably weak.

I have to say Julius Africanus did a better job of explaining the mismatched linages and made the right assumption that they were both of Joseph. Also the curse (as you seem to understand it) is not the only reading - that it was extent and still applied.

[basics]

conon394,

Quote, " There are three basic mechanisms that have brought about the differences among humans. Scientist Walter Brown writes.


1. Natural selection This well-established phenomenon is not a mechanism for macroevolution, as a century of experimentation has shown, although it is an important mechanism for microevolution. . . . Nature selection filters out certain parental genes in successive generations, producing offspring with slightly different characteristics and less genetic variability. For example, a fair-skinned person living near the equator is susceptible to several health risks, such as skin cancer. Consequently the fair-skinned person has slightly less chance of living to reproductive age and passing on his or her genes for light skin color to a child. A similar situation exists for dark-skinned people living in the polar latitudes. Their dark skin screens out sunlight and tends to deprive them of vitamin D, which forms in skin exposed to sunlight. Absence of vitamin D, produces rickets. Therefore, over many generations, dark-skinned people tend to live near the equator and light-skinned people tend to live at the higher latitudes.

There are exceptions to this tendency. For example, the Eskimos have rather dark skin and yet live in artic latitudes. Their diet, which includes fish-live oils containing large amounts of vitamin D, prevents rickets.

2. Cultural Preference This takes the form of likes (as in mate selection) or dislikes (as in predjudices).

Likes. The old saying that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder probably plays a major role in explaining the so-called racial characteristics In other words, a person's cultural upbringing appears to influence mate selection among "racial" lines.
. .
Humans also have prejudices - some people more than others. Prejudices based upon physical appearances have led to wars, genocide, forced segregation, and voluntary isolation. . .

3. Small isolated populations A population of people (or any other form of life) has a large set of genetic characteristics. If a few members of this population move to an isolated region, such as an island, they will in general have a different and smaller set of genetic characteristics than the entire population. As a result, subsequent generations on that island will have different traits than the original population.

. .
There are at least four genes that determine skin color, not just one. Nevertheless there are thousands of traits each of which might cluster in an isolated geographic region if small groups broke off from the larger population. Thus specific characteristics can easily arise as they did when the eight survivors of the flood and their descendants eventually responded to God's command to spread out and repopulate the earth. From the listing of the descendants of Noah given in Genesis 10-11, we can see how the early migration patterns began. Shem's immediate descendants stayed generally near Ararat (which is in eastern Turkey) or migrated eastward. Ham's descendants migrated southward, while Japheth's descendants migrated northward. Undoubtedly, there were many other occasions where small groups colonized isolated regions and thus allowed their unique genetic characteristics to be expressed in subsequent generations (Walter Brown, In The Beginning, Phoenix, Arizona, Center for Scientific Creation, Fifth Edition, 1989, pp. 84-86).


Summary

The Flood in Noah's day, according to the biblical evidence, seems to have been universal in scope-at least as far as humanity is concerned. If this is the case, then all of humanity has descended from Noah and his family. The differences among humans can be explained by natural selection, cultural preference, and small isolated populations." Unquote.

[conon394]

So so just ignoring my other points well fine...

To say your posted text it is nonsensical would be an understatement.

A creationist Phd who is a Mechanical Engineer is not is not an expert on Genetics or a Biologist. That is not exactly a strong argument. Nothing in the text supports the summary conclusion. There is a reason Walter Brown would not be allowed to sign off on say a bridge design or waste treatment facility like PE Civil engineer, nor legally practice medicine nor suddenly be hired as an associate professor in Genetics.

But OK

Let see what an actual Biology Professor (who is also a christian) discuss bottlenecks.

https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2016...per-evolution/

[Note see how east that was no wall of text and you can use the about to see who the guy is and then easily find his CV (below)]

https://www.uakron.edu/ib/faculty-st...l.dot?u=rjduff

One can also cite another christian Francis Collins you know the guy who lead the Human Genome Project... From His Book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

" the concepts of Adam and Eve as the literal first couple and the ancestors of all humans simply ‘do not fit the evidence’"

In this context he is pointing out the same genetic issue with Adam and Eve in the 6000 year time frame of YEC but its the same for only more so for Noah and family.

Or here Dr. Dennis Venema:

"To get down to just two ancestors,Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."


https://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/13895...ve?ft=1&f=1001

https://www.twu.ca/profile/dennis-venema

I assume you have no ideal where or why Isle Royale in Lake Superior is pertantant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves...on_Isle_Royale

So basically ~1949 a pair of wolves migrated via ice bridge to island to what should have been wolf paradise. Lots of moose and no humans or any other large mammal rival for either moose or smaller pray. And indeed the population did grow but it became hopelessly inbreed. If read you the link you can see the population rose to 50 by 1980, but than basically crashed to two by 2016 who were so haplessly inbred they could not produce viable offspring. And as the link notes that process included a new male crossing over in the mid 1990s but the bit of genetic diversity was not going to stop the crash. The inbreed population was afflicted with a significant vulnerability to disease and persistent spinal defects. In other words to sum up a single pair population in ideal sition crashed to extinct in ~70 years.

------------

"Shem's immediate descendants stayed generally near Ararat (which is in eastern Turkey) or migrated eastward. Ham's descendants migrated southward, while Japheth's descendants migrated northward."

This in no way would explain why humans in Africa have the most genetic diversity.

Also nothing in your posted text would explain why we don't observe extremely comparly greater genetic diversity in aquatic life compared to terrestrial life.

[basics]

conon394,

In 1984 the FBI made this report, " Authorities estimate incest occurs in over 10 percent of American families, yet only 20 percent of these offenses are reported. " That amounts to some 33 million children or even adults indulging in incestuous relationships yet America carries on as if everything is normal. Assuming this goes on in other countries and the populations are increasing in most shouldn't it be the very opposite according to you?

[conon394]

conon394,

In 1984 the FBI made this report, " Authorities estimate incest occurs in over 10 percent of American families, yet only 20 percent of these offenses are reported. " That amounts to some 33 million children or even adults indulging in incestuous relationships yet America carries on as if everything is normal. Assuming this goes on in other countries and the populations are increasing in most shouldn't it be the very opposite according to you?

That is a completely meaningless data point. What point are you trying to make?

Again I am not sure I should even try to respond since once again you failed to source your data so I have to go hunting for it. I hope you never entertained going to graduate school.

It is here by the way

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digiti...93130NCJRS.pdf

Assuming this goes on in other countries and the populations are increasing in most shouldn't it be the very opposite according to you?

Simple/Short Answer - No - and that is really all the reply I should bother with if you cannot see the difference between what you just typed and the Noah problem.

Anyway So first umm I don't mean in rude way but your calculations are umm creative shall I say. You seem to have take the 10% and what applied that to the current US population (that being around 332 million). That is not sound maths. You should have at least used the number for 1987, 242 million for which the FBI estimate (or guess rather) is valid. That is a minor issue really since you aduced number is a nonsense calculation. That is because the total population is not a number of families it just a head count.

First lets look at what the FBI link says.

"The reported cases of incest represent only a small percentage of the actual figure. It has been estimated that between 60,000 and 100,000 female children are sexually abused annually, and yet, only 20 percent of these crimes are reported.'Authorities believe incest affects over 10 percent of all American families, with at least 5,000 cases of father/daughter incest. In a 1965 survey of over 1,000 college-aged women, more than 25 percent reported having a sexual experience with an adult before age 13. In only 6 percent of those cases were the incidents reported to the authorities. It has been estimated that one out of every four women will be sexually abused before reaching the age of 18." (page 2)

Now again since you provide no real discussion of your assumptions I have to guess. You seem to imagining? Implying? In your calculation some 33 million cases of incest where a female relative is the victim or perpetrator of the crime a child and both produced and carried to term. That is not supported by the facts. It is in fact rather detached from them.

First as as you must realize incest is a broad crime as used in the discussion and it includes all manor of sexual abuse between family members including grandparents, siblings. The focus (in the FBI document) does seem to be only abuse of females and thus ignores other types of incest. However the terms used 'abused', 'Sexeual experiance' are generalized. Those terms are vague enough to cover abuse by siblings and female relatives as well. Also its needs to noted on the college survey data 13 (years old) would be before the vast majority of women attain menarche (*), so that would not lead to pregnancy. The last data point seems lazy to me the 1 and 4 figure is almost certainly all abuse both inside and outside of the family not sure why it was added. Compare this study from near in time:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...45213483900650

"For example: 16% of these women reported at least one experience of intrafamilialsexual abuse before the age of 18 years; 12% reported at least one such experience before the age of 14 years; 31% reported at least one experience of extrafamilial sexual abuse before the age of 18 years;and 20% reported at least one such experience before the age of 14 years. When both categories of sexual abuse are combined, 38% reported at least one experience before the age of 18 years; and 28% reported at least one such experience before the age of 14 years"

Note the drop of incest after 14 and that to reach one out four type numbers for over 18 you are adding all sexual assaults. This was an FBI bulletin for law enforcement so I can suppose the aim here was to hit hard that this incest and rape was a problem one vastly underreported out of shame so I guess I can't knock the author for stressing the point. Considering its now 25 years later and US police do complete crap job on dealing with rape or incest - I suppose I should say the author was making a good call.

"'Authorities believe incest affects over 10 percent of all American families, with at least 5,000 cases of father/daughter incest"

So out of that you picked this and it is a difficult number to work with. Its described as a belief and it provides no context to include other male potential perpetrators (Uncles, Siblings, Grand Parent). Is this 10% number all women at the hands of a male relative and they are just noting father/daughter in particular for emphasis?

But I mean you did raise the issue so I will add this:

Recall of Childhood Trauma: A Prospective Study of Women's Memories of Child Sexual Abuse

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...xual-abuse.pdf

Its not (very much not) fun reading but it reinforces a point abuse in many cases is much more prevalent with girls before puberty. As awful as that is the point I'm trying to get at is the 10% number is not directly transferable as a live incest birth every year.

That fact is reinforced but some other facts.

Let's recall incest is a very serious crime and serious taboo in the US. If caught and prosecuted you face either a very long sentence in isolation or if in gen pop almost certain execution by fellow prisoner. Outside of a statistically insignificant set of fringe religious groups/cults in 1987 insest was not producing generation after generation of incest children. In other words we are talking about a predatory crime with grave risks where the perpetrators is almost certainly not trying produce evidence of their crime.

Second in 1987 Incest was a noted reason for abortion

https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/pol...reasons.html#3

I still have no way to turn all that to a meaningful basis to a 10% of households where girls suffered incest to a number of live incest births in 1987. But I can confidently say it was not 10% of them. Don't worry I going somewhere with this.

"American families"

Its unfortunate the FBI does not define what they mean with that because the US census provides a lot of granularity but by households - not families until they do it a bit slapdash if you ask me.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...24/p20-424.pdf

It the most wide definition in 1987 there were 89.5 million households in the US. Average household size was ~3.2. But from Table One we can see there only ~58 million families with children under 18. This seems the closest thing to what the FBI might be talking about. But we can net out the reported own children under 6 of 14.6 million . So 43.4 [And this is an over count since the jump is 6 to 18 with no 10 or 12)

Thus basics using you original crude application of 10% we now at least have a better number to apply it too: 43.4 million. 10% of that is of course 4.34 million. But of course remember we are only interested in females in this endeavor. Thus we are down to 2.17 million. But I don't think you considered what you were implying in posting. In 1987 there ~3.829 million live births in the US. Do you really mean argue the majority were via incest well nigh 2/3rds?

I should hope not. Obviously the number is vastly smaller as the above data examination showed. The Russel study would imply a 2% rate of abuse after 14 (can't be sure can only read the abstract - not going to pay 30 dollars to buy the whole article).So we can I suppose adjust your number to something like 43,000. That still assumes an incest birth a year (in other words an unrealistic high pregnancy rate) and ignores abortion and the fact that we could only drop girls under 6 not a say from 7-11 - which if had would likely slice the result in half of 43,000).

But sure fine for purposes of argument that is less than 43,000 (again really less then 21,000 or so and by that I mean very much less) births vs a total live birth of 3.829 million. And in that year 1987 recall the US admitted ~600,000 legal immigrants and was in the process of providing amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants. Thus to be clear even allow the fantastical generous 43,000 number the US incest birth rate was only 0.4% of all the new gene inflow and births into the country that year.

In conclusion: Long Answer - No. That is no the US was not massively inbreeding in 1987 nor currently either. Your non argument data point has no relation to genetic issues created by the Noah story.

I am just curious how did you think your post had any relation to anything I posted in #90

* This is a bit tricky the age has fallen since when most of the studies cited here 1987 and before were done in the US and Europe. At the time 13.5 - 14 is more likely a better number.

Of course I will have wasted my time since you will now I presume assert that you have a personal relationship with god and thus the Bible is literality true and the factual observations of the existing world are false correct if they contradict the bible version you like, or some assumed bit of god magic otherwise unstated will solve the issue (and of course nobody else's assumed bit of magic is true)?

And you still are also again on the point of this topic not justifying why god though slavery was good when he was dictating to Moses (as you believe).

[basics]

conon394,

My point is that you said that through incest, going back to Noah's family, we should all be dying out whereas it's the opposite. Populations in the main are growing even those where incest has been involved and never exposed. My point is that there are people out there in the world who came into it by incestuous relationships and who do not have a health problem any more than you or me.

[conon394]

My point is that you said that through incest, going back to Noah's family, we should all be dying out whereas it's the opposite.

Yes and I provided a explanation of why that would be and two concrete examples of the process so far.

Populations in the main are growing even those where incest has been involved and never exposed

And I demonstrated that the potential for incest births is so fantastically small in has no deleterious impact on the US. It is not a model for the situation posed by Noah.

My point is that there are people out there in the world who came into it by incestuous relationships and who do not have a health problem any more than you or me.

I never claimed that the immediate result of any particualr insestuous relationship was giving birth to Joseph Merrick. I talking about the nature of population genetics in aggregate. In this case we are not talking about the odd incest birth that has no impact on a huge diverse population.

Again I provided a clear and well documented example of how a fast a single pair population can crash even in ideal circumstances. I have posted the results of the significant (but not down to a handful of individuals) but still a bottle neck in Cheetahs. One might add the say the Ashkenazi as well. A significantly closed population they carry various inherited disease rates much higher than the over population.

https://arupconsult.com/content/ashk...netic-diseases

Here look this how the F coefficient a measure of inbreeding rose at Isle Royale



1 is perfectly inbreed. As you can see it took only 40 years for a original pair to be at .8 and rapidly approaching over .9 - thus inbreeding overwhelmed whatever modest diversity could arrive out of randome mutation/sexula reproduction in the short run. Adding one new wold at best was a band aid for a couple years and than the trend was back on course. The population was already weighed down with inhered physical defects and difficulty in producing litters that were viable and of the needed size. And of course when a novel virus got introduced it had almost no members who had any significant resistance to it so a massive die off occured.

Starting with a bottle neck of just 6 individuals we do not observe anything we would expect. Profoundly minimal genetic variation in all humans (again we should be like a cheetah and be able to take an organ transplant from anyone). The comparison to aquatic life should stand out like night and day. The story cannot explain why Africa has the most diversity of human Genetics.

Also of course you have to assume fantastical consistent world wide human growth beth 1800 to reach a population of billion people. With no adverse events (think Black plague) and the historical record simply does not provide that evidence.


-----


So still not will describe how god approved slavery makes the world better.

[basics]

conon394,

And you have still not explained where it says in the Ten Commandments that God approves of slavery?

[conon394]

I have several times now.

Exodus 20:17. And Leviticus 25:44–46 for foreign slave trade w/o the nice bits for enslaved Hebrews.

Titius 2:9 for the New Testament (Just one example). "doulous"/"despotais" cannot be constructed as anything any other way than referring to a slave in context (and Classical world one at that - no maybe not unless in the mines as bad off as a black african slave cutting sugarcane in Haiti but still a slave) . So apparently when Paul was having his visons of Jesus, Jesus did not say that the love they neighbor line meant oh and no slaves.

But as I said I raised this several times and you either ignore it or talk around it or deflect. Just as you now drop the issue of the genetic realities (and also population growth rate) that contradicts the noah myth.

[basics]

conon394,

So, where in the Ten Commandments does it say that God approves of slavery?

[conon394]

Umm you are trying to be annoying?

Exodus 20:17. And Leviticus 25:44–46 for foreign slave trade w/o the nice bits for enslaved Hebrews.

You do have a bible correct, I believe the citations I provided were clear.

[basics]

conon394,

As it doesn't say in the Ten Commandments that God approves of slavery are we then to assume He does?

[conon394]

Again why are you being I dunno obtuse about this and not directly answering the text.

So the Bible is some combination of the word of god or inspired words of god correct (In your understanding). The 10 commandments in Exodus are the start than of the law coade God imposes on his chosen people . That carries over after in Exodus and other books like Leviticus. The later law is more technical the 10 commandments are clearly big do or do not issues.

Thus I think its a fair statement that God does not approve of Murder and he does not approve of having other gods besides himself. Thus clearly stated bans on those (although its seems the one on murder is clearly for Hebrews only in a ridgid way seeing as god routinely approves of murder, genocide and appalling cruelty). This would be an ideal place where god could have said no keeping slaves slaves. Exodus 20:17 makes it clear slavery is approved. The implication is thinks slavery is fine.

Leviticus 25:44–46 makes this clear when god specifically indicated absolute slavery for foreigners is approved.

Titius 2:9 makes it clear that at least in visions of Jesus PAul never got an indication that the love thy neighbor line meant god had changed gods mind about slavery being fine.

Clear persistent approval of slavery, no attempt to stop it. I can only conclude God was happy with it.

But if you want to narrative it a different way please rather than ask the same question over and over or provide no argument.