Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:01:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1149 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> Actually, there are many other theories that say that even though Adam and Eve
> were the first couple, they weren't the only one.
That's, IMO, just to explain it so that there was no incest. I don't see why
it couldn't be true though (as it is not mentioned either way in the Bible).
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not mentioned, it didn't neccessarily happen
or necessarily(1) NOT happen.
> Nod was already populated by the time Cain got there.
Nod means "wandering". It's not like it was a town named Nod or anything.
Ben Roller
1. I really should use words I don't know how to spell less often than this. :)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Eve (...) I don't think incest would have necessarily been an issue then, from a medical standpoint anyway. With a relatively "pure" gene pool, for example from 1st to 5th generations since Creation, incestual couplings would produce far fewer (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Yep. Not only that, but he'll bear a mark on his forehead, the curse mark. (...) Actually, there are many other theories that say that even though Adam and Eve were the first couple, they weren't the only one. That God had later created other (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
