Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:51:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ben Roller writes:
> 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).
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 genetic deformations than they do today. The "bad" recessive genes
simply haven't had the time to surface. This little tidbit is used quite
frequently historically, especially in royal and professional breeding
programs. And there have been several places in the Bible where incest was
sanctioned, for various needs.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
