Let’s look at this mathematically. I told you that I thought Eve could have had 100 daughters in her lifetime. Adam did live 930 years if you believe the Bible.
Those 100 daughters could have each had 100 daughters. Now we have 10,000 women.
Those 10,000 women could have had 100 daughters. Now we have 1 million daughters.
Those 1 million daughters could have had 100 daughters. Now we have 100 million daughters.
So, assuming the premises I stated, it is possible to populate the earth fairly rapidly. (No logic is conclusive if based on inaccurate premises. Please don’t be another one to tell me logic cannot be applied to questionable premises, because you too would be wrong.)
But that really doesn’t prove much even if the earth could be populated that fast, because…
Enter the Flood of Noah’s day.
We get a complete restart at replenishing the earth, starting with 4 married couples. A little more challenging since life expectancy has dropped. But there could have been multiple children in a birth. We are told of Esau and Jacob. The mathematics of growth rate is still possible to populate the earth.
Extremely so. I am highly critical. If you have seen me do so, please let me know, so I can reexamine the scripture and my use of it. I have put a good bit of scripture on a forum that has nothing to do with Bible scripture. So you have some evidence to examine.
Here’s a question: why do we not believe for example, the religion of the Ancient Greeks and refer to it as mythology yet, when it come to Judeo-christian beliefs we refuse to accept that at least some of them are myths? Why the bigotry?
A simple answer that you will not like is:
Romans 3:1, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”
But it lies within my axiom of the Bible. Just simple logic. Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or not? I do, so it is completely logical and has nothing to do with bigotry.
And include textural criticism. I agree 100%, from where I was when I began to wonder how could the Bible possibly be the word of God, if there even is a great God.
I could have taken that approach. But as far in the dark I was with Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, I would have lost interest to prove what I already believed. Not to mention the total waste of time that I would considered it to be. All my “Bible believers” could barely explain why they believe, just that I should believe. You may or may not believe this, but the most common reasoning was, “What have you got to loose, believing the Bible?” That was an argument to a STEM? I assure you I was a more committed atheist than you are.
So, I took the totally opposite STEM approach. Show me a contradiction in the Bible and I will loose confidence that it could be the word of God.
No. At least one party of the marriage is right with God. Now, that said, if I were the wife, it would be a tall order to be subject to a husband that was totally out of the will of God. Hopefully, he would walk in the spirit much more than he walked in the flesh.
That’s all the feminists of the world need to hear, to disagree.
Edit:
I agree. And if the husband is a non-believer and trying to force that on her, it would seem to invalidate the marriage(what would it mean to a non-believer to “submit…as unto the Lord?”).
1 Corinthians 7:10-16 addresses staying wed or breaking the wedding bond. It addresses most cases, but there is some wiggle room that IMO needs much prayer to make the proper decision. It seems inconceivable that a God fearing man would use his wife as a punching bag whose frustrations he would inflict on his wife. He is an unbeliever in my opinion.
I sure don’t see the connection.
Do you believe that “The Lord of the Rings” holds the path to everlasting life and a model of a life to live? I don’t know anything about the Lord of the Rings or who wrote it. That book seems to have no significance to anything of life’s existence. Just another book written by a man. Just stack them all up.
I thought that I have made it very clear that my axiom is that the sole editor of the Bible is the Holy Spirit. All my logic is based on that foundation. I have heard a pastor say: “There are no proven errors in the Bible of its text or its context.” That’s a pretty bold claim. Why not test that statement?
A lot of well-respected and knowledgeable Christians have very good things to say about Tolkien’s writings, including the LOTR series. Might not be a bad book to check out if you never have.
You are just too easy. You should keep in mind that you are conversing with an intensely logical person. Think your reply through before you jump onto the keyboard.
It is just a matter of opinion that is supported by logic. The opinion aspect is that if you are an atheist, then IMO, I was more committed than you. And why are you so paranoid that I was assuming you were an atheist? In fact, I wasn’t at all, but your limited knowledge of logic led you to make that conclusion.
Let’s help you get your arms around the logic aspect. If you are a Christian, I was a more committed atheist than you. Now that is pretty much a no brainer. Is that logic over your head.
You can accuse me of making an implication, but all that is, is an accusation. I cannot keep you from making an inference. That was not my intent. My intent was making you look foolish. If you are going to talk about logic, you need to be a little sharper.