jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (257 posts)

After the Great Flood, How Was The World Populated

  1. Shakka James profile image84
    Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago

    If Noah and his family were the only ones left on Earth, then how was it populated. Does this mean that we are all brothers and sisters?

    1. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Works for me. big_smile

    2. Cristale profile image88
      Cristaleposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They had to do this so they could re-populate. Like when it was just Adam and Eve, but then the population increased with Cain and Abel. Who did the men mate with if there was just one woman, Eve?

      1. Shakka James profile image84
        Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In Genesis, chapter 5 it states that when Adam was 800 years old he had other sons and daughters. The bible does not state that there were in daughters during the Cain, Abel or Seth. It could be a possibility the daughters of Adam and Eve were present but the bible does not mention them. Or, it could be that the Book of Genesis is a myth.

        1. Cristale profile image88
          Cristaleposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          who did the sons and daughters mate with?

          1. paxwill profile image80
            paxwillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well if you have fewer than 10 brain cells and take the Bible as literal truth, then I guess they all did the nasty with each other.  They sure must have had some ugly babies.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image87
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Gay people don't have babies, unless they get a bit of outside help.  Ugly or beautiful.

        2. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I can;t imagine people that old having sex, yecky

          1. jonnycomelately profile image87
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Errr.... don't you be too sure, CP.  I am 70, and there's still a lot energy here yet.  As long as we get our early-afternoon nap, there's no stopping us!

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              70 years old is alright , I know a guy age 107 he farms everyday, rides a bike, swim and has sex at times. He is my Hero.

              But age 600 to a age 900 , they were taller than people than in the NBA  and  maybe by their med evil way ( like on Halloween) they Pump-kin

              Sorry, I can't imagine it

          2. Chris Neal profile image84
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Me either, but apparently it was quite common for people to live to be that age back then. At least according to Genesis. Although famously Abraham and Sarah were 100 and 90, respectively, when Isaac was born and were well past the age of child-bearing.

            God works in mysterious ways.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do you mean misery way ? (not mysterious way) of tiring to understand it

              1. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, I mean mysterious.

        3. be4real profile image59
          be4realposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Bible is written in an allegorical form with a spiritual interpretation Nothing more.

      2. MrMaranatha profile image87
        MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The Bible mostly only records the Male Births as they are the ones that carry on the family name... only in a few cases like where there was only a female left and that female required a Kinsman Redeemer to keep alive that branch of the family name... then the Female names were recorded in the process of Genealogy records.

        Another interesting thing to note is the interference of Angelic Beings with the gene pool of Humans. You can find this in Genesis 6

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          We have Angels in our DNA,? How sweet, but little on the scientific dumb side

      3. Waqas Haider profile image59
        Waqas Haiderposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        God created the Adam and Eve and then descended them from heavens to this Earth. Cain and Abel were two sons of Adam and Eve, one of them (sons) killed other because one was not happy due to his marriage with a girl to whom he thought less beautiful than the other girl. It was the first murder/killing of human race. Afterwards the human race grew and Earth was populated in this way. But one thing is confusing that Laws of God are same and they can never be changed. In my opinion (just saying) more male and female must be created by the God for the male and female those were given birth by Eve. Because marriage with daughter, sister, niece, son, brother or nephew are against the law of religions i.e., educations by God.
        But I'm more excited about the human who will be the last to born on this planet Earth :-D
        What gender will be of that human??? He, She or Trans-Gender.. These are the mysteries of which science has no answer and dumb are those fellow people who find science in every-thing. Yes reason is there for everything happening, but some of them are really mysteries and enigmatic things..

    3. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What Great flood? lol

      1. Shakka James profile image84
        Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When it rained on the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights.

        1. Cagsil profile image82
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, you mean the myth. I see.

          1. Shakka James profile image84
            Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There is proof that it did exist. How do you explain the Ark being found above sea level, near the peak of Mount Ararat?

            1. Cagsil profile image82
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There's proof that many floods happened. But, none of which is exactly as it's described in the bible.
              I'm sure plenty of boats have been found. It doesn't mean it makes the Ark anymore true.

              Mathematically the Ark would not be a sea worthy vehicle to carry all which it claims to have done. It wouldn't have enough space for every 2 of every animal necessary.

              1. Paul Wingert profile image79
                Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There is NO proof that the Ark is on top of Mt Ararat. To build a wooden vessel 2/3 the size of the Titanic, Noah would need a working knowledge of ship architecture and physics. If he did know something about these, he's quickly realize that he would have a better odds of survival (30%) if he was on Titanic's maiden voyage versus being on the Ark (less than 0%). As far as a worldwide flood, no way. But it is possible to flood the earth by ancient philosophies at the time. But since then, we discovered that the earth is round with a molted core and not an island on an endless sea and that the sky is not a canopy supported by four mountain ranges. Noah's Ark, cute story.

            2. nightwork4 profile image60
              nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              what proof? if there was proof, everyone would have heard about it and christians would be so happy, there wouldn't even be words to descibe it. there is no proof what so ever though, it is a myth and anyone who thinks clearly realize it.

          2. Waqas Haider profile image59
            Waqas Haiderposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Everything is not a myth bro..
            some are really mysteries in this Universe of which materialistic science has no answer but Bible and Quran has the answers for it only (you can say it as science of spirits)..
            ALL WAS CREATED FROM NOTHINGNESS

        2. kirstenblog profile image76
          kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Um, thats what they call summertime in Wales. Doesn't sound like anywhere near enough raining to me.

    4. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So God saved such sinners as these, and drowned the rest of the world.  Apparently there is no reason to believe everything that we read.



      We are all HOMO SAPIENS, but it has nothing to do with some nonsense about fictional characters in a dubious book of ignorance.

      1. Shakka James profile image84
        Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, are you saving that we evolved from Ape's to humans. If so, there should be no Ape's in the world. Ape's should not exist because they should have all evolved into humans.

        1. autumn18 profile image68
          autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think evolution works like that.

        2. getitrite profile image79
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          NO!!!



          It has NOT been stated in the Theory of Evolution that humans evolved from APES. 
          HUMANS ARE APES!!!  It seems that you need to study the bare rudiments of Evolution before you make statements like this.  This is a totally uneducated perception of the Theory.



          This statement shows more abject ignorance of the Theory of Evolution.  Please learn the Theory first, then you'll have more credibility.

          1. Shakka James profile image84
            Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I know this, tell it to the other guy who said we are all Homo Sapiens.

            1. getitrite profile image79
              getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Just what are you talking about?  Don't you remember:  I was the guy who said "we are all Homo Sapiens?

              Do you really have the basic understanding of The Theory of Evolution?  Or is there some comprehension issue?  Your comments suggest that you don't understand the Theory.

              To IMPLY that The Theory of Evolution ASSERTS that monkeys turned into humans does not show an understanding of the Theory...and is completely absurd.

        3. nightwork4 profile image60
          nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          i love how christians still use the ape thing as a way of dissing evolution. if you want to debate, at least spend some time reading up on the subject.

        4. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There is no excuse for not understanding basic evolution theory, especially if you are trying to make arguments against it.  Making childish statements like "all the apes would have become humans", or another I hear frequently, "you believe your grandmother was a monkey", only illustrate a closed and infantile mindset.

          And belief in the constructed story of the ark on ararat is just evidence of  gullibility.

      2. jonnycomelately profile image87
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The name Homo Sapiens was given to this species by ..... Humans! 

        I wonder what the ducks, and the pigs, and the whales, and eagles call us.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They do have a few talking animal in the Bible, but they all talked about Satan.

    5. gabgirl12 profile image61
      gabgirl12posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That was actually Lot's daughters Shakka because they assumed no more people were alive after Sodom and Gomorrah. What happened with Noah was that one of his kids saw him without clothes and instead of covering him, he went and told his brothers.

      1. Shakka James profile image84
        Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are absolutely, correct. I got it wrong. Thanks for correcting me!

    6. kess profile image61
      kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The sons had wives...

      1. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really? And where exactly did the wives come from?

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          According to the story their wives were on the ark.

          1. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's nice, but that still doesn't answer the question of where did they come from? lol

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not sure an indepth explanation of the birds and the bees is allowed. Go ask your mother. smile

            2. gabgirl12 profile image61
              gabgirl12posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Cagsil, the son's of Noah had wives before the flood happened. They came from the 'original' offspring of Adam and Eve. There had to have been 8 people altogether (unless there were children or refugees no one talks about).

              1. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol lol

      2. Shakka James profile image84
        Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Even if the sons had wives, who did their children mate with to produce offspring?

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is the obvious so unbelivable that you need to ask?

          1. Shakka James profile image84
            Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It is not obvious to me. I want to know why GOD destroyed humanity in the first place all to bring us back into the world born of sin from incest. To top it off, he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins. When it was GOD's hand that made it possible for the Earth to be repopulated through the sin of incest.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not quite sure but I don't think incest is considered a sin.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I would have to agree...According to the OT, marrying your sister, niece or cousin was completely ok and considered the norm...

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's what I thought... Leviticus has some stuff about fornication with close relatives.  Fornication however in that context means sex outside of marriage... correct?  As it was lawful biblically to marry your sister but a sin to deny sex to your husband I would assume that it's fine to have marital relations with your siblings as long as you are married to them.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                    DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, fornication is sexual relations prior to being married. But, Abraham and a few others were married to their sisters (daughters of their father by other wives). And many married first cousins or nieces to keep the wealth of the family within the family.

                    And Cagsil, sadly here in the good ol'US of A. There are close to 20 states that allow marriage to cousins, from first cousins to more distant ones...

                2. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It was when those were the only poeple to marry. Then it wasn't, and was forbidden.

                  If you actually read the OT, you'll notice that many of the people who DID marry their sib's, or had children by close blood relatives, often had miserable lives and their offspring (even those that made the proverbial "mighty nations") were not nice people and almost always their nations were destroyed.

              2. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Last time I checked it was against U.S. man-made laws(federal), and possibly against some State laws as well. But, a "sin"? Nope.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  *smiles* Not really a problem I need to worry personally about hon... there is no one in my family I would have sex with even if I wasn't related to them.  I was just discussing it within the confines of the bible.

                  1. Cagsil profile image82
                    Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So was I. tongue

                2. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, it is.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sorry Chris but this time you are wrong.

              3. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It definitely is. The Mosaic Law has sanctions against sleeping with your sister, brother, father, mother, even your step-mother.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  *Sighs* No.  It has laws against fornicating with relatives... fornicating meaning sex outside of marriage.  It is specifically sanctioned in several verses through-out the bible that you can MARRY them.  Then you won't be fornicating with them and sex is your marital duty.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image84
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Okay, so this whole argument hinges on the word "fornication," right?

                    Okay, went to Biblegateway. Looked at the NIV, Young's Literal Translation, ASV, King James and Holman. Checked Liviticus 18, the list of who you shall not have sex with. Word "fornication"? Not there. Interpretations say "uncover their nakedness" (KJV, NASB, Young's,) "have sex with"(Holman,) "sexual intercourse" (NIV.)

                    Cracked open my own personal KJV. It agrees with the online version.

                    Looked at my Interlinear (based on the Textus Receptus.) It also says "not you shall draw near to uncover the nakedness."

                    None of these give  the "out" of allowing you to marry the person first. According to the Levitical rules, family members are forbidden.

            2. rebekahELLE profile image92
              rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It all sounds a bit dysfunctional, doesn't it??

    7. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, that's exactly what it would mean. It would just be another extension of the old "brotherhood of man" idea, although that one was based on the idea that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

    8. prettydarkhorse profile image62
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That part maybe is a figure of speech, hyperbole. We have known for a fact that the reduction of world population before the medieval and up to medieval times are due to wars, famines and sickness, maladies (epidemic) which can be cured if we have vaccinations and antibiotics (scientific medicine).

      After the Industrial Revolution, the population rise and continue to rise because of advancement in medicine. And then the World Wars.

      Now we are almost 7B. The rate of growth declines are due to lowering of the birth rates (which are due to education, technology, women empowerment and advances in medicine).

      The total number of population will continue to rise because the base is big even though the rate of growth is decreasing. It is growing exponentially like a bank interest not geometrically.

    9. prettydarkhorse profile image62
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      it is complicated, bec the bible said that Adam and Eve populated the earth. So did Cain and Abel slept with their mom --  incest --  to start populating the world? Maybe it is just the way it is before or this is hyperbole or baloney story.

      Don't get me wrong I am still a Christian, the bible I can't seem to understand  at times!

      1. jonnycomelately profile image87
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Look at the incest in Genesis..... just after the story (misinterpreted in the extreme) about Sodom and Gomorrah.  No one complained about it then.

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You talking about Lot and his daughters?

          Do you really think the Bible made that out to be okay?

          And what would the correct interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah be?

          1. jonnycomelately profile image87
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Most certainly not a universal condemnation of homosexual love.  Also, I very much doubt that we need to worry about such ancient writings even if they are historically accurate.  I am not aware of anything that was written there which claimed to be a law appertaining to society thousands of years hence.

            We can make laws for today, based upon our values and circumstances of today.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image82
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Good point. What applies today too may not apply tomorrow or in future generations.

            2. Chris Neal profile image84
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Of course, we do make laws based on social mores and customs, and I'm not just talking about re: homosexuality.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I believe some Muslims believe Cain married his sister. Females aren't always named in  lineage in the old book because they were considered lesser than the male heirs.  Still are in some areas of the Middle East I believe. 

        But the flood myth is just that.  there isn't enough water to flood the world much less hoist a theoretical ark on Ararat.  The story was stolen from an earlier saga.  It makes no sense at any rate.  smile

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        1. prettydarkhorse profile image62
          prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          K, I get it now.

          Happy Fathers Day to you Randy and all the fathers here!

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks Maita, good to see you! smile

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
          DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If I remember right, this story is located in the Apocrypha texts called: The First and Second Books of Adam and Eve..

          But the Story goes, that Cain had a twin sister and so did Abel and they "married" the other twin...And part of the "fight" between them was over the "wives" as Cain's twin (Abel's wife) was a "hottie" and Able's twin (Cain's wife) wasn't.

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image62
            prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's an interesting story. Maybe they share wives before as they deem women as properties.

            1. MrMaranatha profile image87
              MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Considering Wives as property to be  sold and swapped is something from another part of humanity.  Polygamy and swapping was not a Jewish custom in those times... although at various times after that, they may have "adopted" some of the pagan customs from around them... those who would have done so in earlier times however would have been severally rebuked by the mainstream line of Adam...

    10. jonnycomelately profile image87
      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not wishing to sound flippant here, an important question:  What was Noah's skin colour?  If there were so few survivors, who had the task of re-populating the earth, how quickly did the mutations arise which brought about the lighter skin colours?
      Are we all cousins?  I would say yes.... and it's about time we started honouring the fact.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe depending on where they decided to settle determined skin colour. Not sure about the language? In saying that our cultures ancient language is not the same as our modern language. Perhaps they made up languages when they migrated to different parts of the globe? Mind boggling.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image87
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Penny.  I was not being flippant, but was just poking fun at the whole exercise in delving into the past.  I see this process as interesting, educating but not scientific (as far as I am aware, might be wrong).

          Even where studies have been done, trying to ascertain the facts of that Noah's Ark story, people will still believe it if they wish to, disbelieve it if not.

          Does such research influence our life in this century for the better?

          1. pennyofheaven profile image82
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I wouldn't think it does? Yet there are people who may allow it to. To discuss the possibilities of an ancient time where there is no way to prove or disprove much, for me, can reveal some valuable insights into the diversity of the human mind though.

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Genesis 9:20-27

        The sons of Noah's son Ham were cursed with dark skin after Ham saw Noah naked in drunkenness...

        Those silly 7 verses btw were pretty much the sole argument of Christians in general and the KKK in specific to condone slavery and segregation.

        Much like that silly Leviticus verse is used by homophobes.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image87
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is that where the term "Ham-strung" came from?  big_smile

          Honestly, the ridiculous dependence on texts which were written thousands of years ago is dragging our modern world backwards.  Surely we can find the intelligence to work out what is best for all of us, here and now, in this century.

          When even a layman, like myself, reads those verses in Genesis 9, it's very obvious that it is speaking of families or tribes. No man can live physically for 350 years.  Also it is probably metaphor, therefore not really understandable by we who do not live in that culture.  The nakedness of Noah is probably a reporting of an actual incident, but after that it's used somehow as an analogy and expanded into prophesy, to include the tribes which flourished after the flood.  As someone in an earlier post has said, the "World" to people of those days was all they could imagine in terms of the eastern Mediterranean.

          There will be historians who can expand or correct this, I am not educated in such matters, but simply applying common sense human experience we can see the verses are not to be taken literally, certainly not for the 21st century.

        2. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Christians in general?

          Because in the North, Christianity was the impetus for abolition, not slavery.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes Chris... pretty much all Christians.  Just because the North was the first to change it's mind collectively never meant that it never owned slaves.  Just because you change your mind doesn't mean you never felt a certain way.

            The north became industrialized first... which meant that it had less need for slaves.  The south stayed rural and agricultural which meant man-power was needed more and slaves were cheaper.  Thus the institution was more important to them and they held on to the concept longer.

    11. 61
      jah1zposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This should help for insight. Consider what Cain said after God laid out his punishment---- "My punishment is greater than I can bear, lest anyone find me shall kill me."

      Who would kill him if he just killed his only brother and there was no other siblings? It have to be reasoned there was other people beside Cain and Abel....Cain's own statement pointed to it.

      Another element here were the Sons of God, the Simmerians that predates the Bible, as a growing number of people are saying in this age.

    12. 61
      nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It wasn't repopulated, we just refuse to accept that we've been dead the whole time. We think we die but we don't, we just keep returning to this. The twilight zone was an awesome show but it was fiction. I think we all know where the next part of this comment is going.

      The bible was a work of fiction, a way to pass time for the bored savages of the past.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image87
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So you gravitated to HubPages and pass the time with us modern savages!
        Hahaha!

        1. 61
          nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Of course. Mindless savages tend to gravitate toward one another.

    13. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      According to the story, Noah's three sons went aboard the craft with their wives.
      It was common practice that one could marry their third cousin, within a bloodline. So, a mere three to ten year difference in age, among their offspring, would allow for population. I believe a total of 25 sons (+ daughters) came from the three sons of Noah (Japheth, Ham, Shem).

      Geneology Map

      1. jonnycomelately profile image87
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I was unable to link to that Geneology Map, jacharless, but just to clarify, as I see it, the definition of "3rd Cousin." 
        You are 1st cousins if you have a common grandparent.
        You are 2nd cousins if you have a common Great-grandparent.
        You are 3rd cousins if you have a common Great-Great-grandparent,
        Etc.

        1. jacharless profile image81
          jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Essentially, a woman could begin baring children at age 14. By the age of 24 would have 10 children, average. In fact, by that age were considered old-wombs. So, having 10 children and equally splitting boy-girl for two additional generations from Shem, Ham, Japeth would allow marriages.

          Shem Ham Japheth
          g1 their kin (30 offspring)
          grand parent - g2 kin of g1 (3000 offspring) :probable, but unlikely
          great grand parent - g3 kin of g2 (30000 offspring)  :acceptable
          great great grand parent - g4 kin of g3 (300,000 offspring)
          great great great grand parent g5 kin of g4 (3 million offspring) **

          ** this would be about 50 years of lineage, respectively **

          http://www.ldolphin.org/shj.jpg
          right click to view full size smile

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Not really. Pregnancy rarely happens while females are nursing infants.  A child every three years is a little more realistic.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yep, almost every woman nursed their children at the time in question.  JChas shows how gender may affect one's reasoning abilities.  I doubt he considered the nursing aspect of the birth rate.  And besides, you're pretty smart for a girl, Melissa.  lol

              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I try.  It helps that I was raised around so many guys.  You become intelligent as a form of self defense...

                As for the considering nursing and birth rate... I'm pregnant and have boobs.  I use the boobs apparently for getting pregnant and NOT getting pregnant.  They are versatile like that. 

                (Yep... TMI in response to a sexist comment wink Keep going and we'll talk about menstrual cycles for the rest of the thread)

                1. recommend1 profile image70
                  recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If your boobs control your ability to get pregnant - which is the on switch and which is the off switch,  I guess push button not switches ?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There is absolutely no answer I can think of to that question that won't get me banned and/or divorced.

                2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, Okay, no need to go there!  yikes  Offensive and defensive boobs?  Wow,I never drempt...!  smile

                                                   http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                  1. Cagsil profile image82
                    Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol lol

          2. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey James, how many years for the generation? 14 years? If so, 3x14? It's 42. lol But, interesting post though. smile

            I'm taking that a generation would be 14 because that would be youngest one would be able to give birth at that time. Today's day and age, they seem to be younger. Just read and article about a week or so ago that a 10 year gave birth. I don't know if that's physically possible or medically possible, unless C-section.

    14. Cardisa profile image91
      Cardisaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We need to understand the bible and how it was written a little better in order to understand what certain scriptures mean. The meaning of the world as is today is vastly different from what it meant 2000+ years ago.

      1. Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and there were no scriptures stating that they were the only man and woman God made. When Cain killed Able and had to run away he went into the land of Canaan and [b]took[/i] unto himself a wife. We now assume that there were other people in Canaan. These people in Canaan were not children of Eve, so where did they come from? God I suppose.

      2. Based on the fact that there are several different races around the world that are original to certain parts of this world we assume that God made several different peoples after he made Adam and Eve.

      3. The "flood" took place in the land inhabited by Noah and his people. All the inhabitants of the world and those across the sea would not have been privy to Noah and his Ark, so we then assume that Noah and his sons, his wife and his sons wives repopulated the land that was flooded and not the entire earth.

    15. 61
      Junebug39posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That somes it up pretty good. Awesome, Extremely conceiveable.

  2. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    Being that only male children were being born to Adam and Eve, the guys started banging Bonobos.

    1. Shakka James profile image84
      Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who is Bonobos?

      1. paxwill profile image80
        paxwillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        your great great great great grandpa.

  3. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    That's what the real fight between Cain and Abel was all about....

  4. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    There is no proof of a great flood....nor is there any ark on Ararat. Zero evidence points to any life emerging from that region.

    Evolution (in the case of primates) does not require (by any stretch of the imagination) ALL of something to transform into something else. Anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant.

    Hey Cags, remember, it wasn't 2 of every animal....Seven pairs of the "clean" and two of the "unclean"....There would have been far more animals on board than most people give credit for.  Either way, that would have made the "Ark" even more unseaworthy.

    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ahem. There is evidence of coastal regions where people lived where the village sites are 300 ft underwater, and, there is ample evidence that there is even less water on the surface of the earth than there was 4000 years ago (Water in a free flowing state, anyways) further, the oldest and one of most advanced neolithic sites, Gobekli Tepi in S. Turkey would be just a few days journey by foot to Ararat, which is virtually surrounded by neolithic sites, but this one is different, because it has been dated to 10,000 yrs ago. It is also an hours drive to the birthplace of Abraham, and the wheat which grows on the hills surrounding the area is the oldest strain of domesticated wheat on Earth. According to the Noah story, Noah's sons had wives. I still think the gene pool wouldn't stand. Determining how diverse the gene pool was ten to eleven thousand years ago should be something that is determinable. Anybody out there got access to the data?

    2. Shakka James profile image84
      Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is ignorant, right. Tell me what you know of that has evolved? Besides, the buildings, infrastructure, sculptures, landmasses, etc. Name some things that have evolved biologically? I can tell you, nothing. Evolution is just a scientific theory and my reason for asking "If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes" Is to show that there is no such thing as Evolution.

      If we did not evolve from an Ape, because there is no scientific findings that indicates so. There is no living thing that has changed from an animal to a human or human into an animal. Why are we still not evolving? Why hasn't a creature from the sea moved from the sea to dry land?

      You say there is no proof of a great flood. Yet, a boat was found 13,000 feet above sea level, near the peak of Mount Ararat, which had compartments that looked like it built to house animals.  How can you explain a boat being nearly at the top of a mountain.

      I say there is no proof of human evolution. No, I know there is no proof of human evolution or evolution of any kind of living thing.

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not sure if you are asking me, I do know that there is definite evidence that we have been around a lot longer than conventional christian thought says we have. Just Gobekli  Tepi alone, at ten thousand years isn't the oldest evidence of modern man's presence. That has recently been adjusted back to about 400,000 thousand years...so, even the science is changing.

      2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
        DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Here is an interesting link from YouTube, you might like...

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw

      3. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "I say there is no proof of human evolution. No, I know there is no proof of human evolution or evolution of any kind of living thing." So who are you to say so? There are a countless number of biologists, paleontologist and other scientist that say otherwise. These people have a real university education (not some Mickey Mouse Bible school BS) with much more credibility than that poorly educated pasture who reads the Bible to his or her congregation every Sunday.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hartman's Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation (Section B Subsection 4 Paragraph 7)

          Any forum response insulting the intelligence and/or education of another person or group of people will have at least one glaring grammatical error.



          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6764160_f248.jpg

      4. jonnycomelately profile image87
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Shakka, it's pretty certain that we ARE still evolving.  You would not be able to see the evidence in space of a human life time, i.e., approx. 70 years.  However, if we were able to observe development over, say, 2-3,000 years, with a good record-keeping during that period, you would see changes.

        Think of the effect of deaths and gross injuries caused by motor vehicle and dangerous sports activities today.  The majority are young males.  Those who cannot take precautions to ensure their survival will die out, without having reproduced.  Those have a self-protective gene which aids in taking precautionary measures, and prevents early deaths, will survive and reproduce.

        I feel certain that the evolutionary process is real and the major process for creating life forms which survive, however what the source of the genes is, I do not know.  Is there a Great Designer?  On a different plane of existence, may be!

    3. DoubleScorpion profile image86
      DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And if we follow the "counting" of the time, it was two males (with females) and seven males (with females)...So 4 Unclean and 14 Clean animals...

    4. jonnycomelately profile image87
      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And the smell would have been unbearable after a few days!

  5. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    You have.

    Cells...the original life form, have evolved tremendously. You are made of tiny little creatures that learned how to work in communities (colonies) over time (forming tissues). The mitochondria in each of your cells is actually a prokaryotic life form. It is a single cell organism with its own DNA. Somehow over time your larger cell (the host) picked up this parasite, and they worked well together. Not ALL cells went down this path, which is why single-cell organisms are abundantly found.

    This is also the level of life where evolution happens the quickest, and where it is most easily observed.

    You can tell me nothing because you know nothing. You have made this abundantly clear.

    You obviously have no idea what "theory" means either. At least evidence is required for a theory to exist....unlike the unsupported hypotheses you brandy about.

  6. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    The only thing mentioned here that there's ABSOLUTELY no proof of is dear old Noah...

    Humans live near water....they have to. Sure, when they reached the ability of being able to dig wells and channel water away from their sources society began fanning out, but for millennia this was not the case. Water....seasonal changes....think rivers...do floods occur periodically?

    Let us look at Mesopotamia (where at least a good portion of the Biblical story came from), and we see two powerful rivers flowing high from the Anatolian highlands through an area lower than the river channels themselves. When the Tigris or Euphrates (or both, for that matter) overrun their channels, what happens to human society living in between?

    It does not take divine inspiration to come up with this stuff.

    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And then there is Gilgamesh, which is similar to Noah. Flood tales occur in nearly every culture. It is actually, quite possibly connected to the complete meltoff of the polar and glacial regions, much like what we are experiencing right now. One thing which I don't believe has been factored in is another form of water being locked, at least for a time out of the general ecosystem. Human beings. Each of us is over eighty percent water, so most of the body weight of a human being is H2O. There are 6 billion of us running around...that's a lotta water!

  7. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    The entire human genome would have been affected. In diversity is strength. That indicates that, although flood stories can be found in separate cultures, they are probably more localized than what the biblical story claims, but, in that there might be a clue. Not knowing how big the world really was and is, it is easy to imagine that to a secluded culture, might think their whole world was flooded. The proximity of Gobekli Tepi and it's antiquity does seem to indicate that something singular did occur in the vicinity of Ararat....the site I mention was buried intentionally and is only partly excavated.

    1. gabgirl12 profile image61
      gabgirl12posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have to agree. I think considering humanity didn't have the 'internet' or anything linking it globally, a flood must have been thought of as encompassing everything. The same happened with Lot's daughter and Sodom and Gomorrah. Even though Moses who wrote stories wrote the assumption of the girls about the fact that there were no more human beings so they slept with their father, perhaps the same occured to Moses but because the story was passed from one generation to the next eventually 'a big flood that came and wiped out our town' became 'a big flood wiped out the whole world'.

  8. Cagsil profile image82
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    Here is West Virginia's incest laws.

    http://statutes.laws.com/west-virginia/61/61-8-12

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am so going to jail if anyone anyone ever decides to investigate me...

      WV is an interesting state... you should visit sometime.

      1. tussin profile image60
        tussinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Let me see if I have this right, I read the link above, and it's illegal to have sex with a relative closer than a cousin (eg sibling, parent, grandparent, child, aunt/uncle). That means you had sex with someone in this category??? Unknowingly I hope...

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I responded to the wrong post... I was responding to the lewd and lascivious post above that one.

          No. I've never committed incest.

  9. grandyat38 profile image59
    grandyat38posted 4 years ago

    There was Noah and his wife and their three sons.  And each of them had a wife.

    I hope this answer your question.

  10. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    The incest laws are in the Mosaic tradition are some of the earliest forms of contradiction...

    If there were only two people on the planet, then everyone is related. Given that Israelites, then cut down to just Jews, typically (if not mostly) intermarried amongst their own group, there is no way to avoid incest..

    This is one of the justifications I use to show that there is no "God" in these laws, or in this design....or at least anything resembling what they depict as "God".

    Adam was procreating with his own rib for crying out loud.....and Seth was, at best, diddling with his sister.

    1. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Although not stated quite as, ah, colorfully as you did, these last two statements are preached from pulpits across America.

      The point that you're missing is that the Mosaic Laws came much, much, much, much later than Adam, or even Seth. Or Abraham. Or Amram.

      I'm not thrilled with it, and incest under any circumstances makes me queasy. But God allowed it when there weren't enough people to populate the planet otherwise. The severity of the prohibition in Mosaic Law suggests that God never liked it.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I can not response to this thread, due the honor and honest feelings for my Family, in a non orgy way

        Adam's  Family and Noah sinned big time and are Aristocratic

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm puking my guts out, now,

          1. Chris Neal profile image84
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not feeling so good right now, either.

        2. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That last line? The first part is not arguable, of course they did. So has everybody else who's ever lived.

          The second part? Can you explain that a little better?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You mean everyone has had incest?

            Here is the second part explained a little better

            hagga AHGGG  AGGGHHHGA  BLAAAA,,,,bllllaaaaa Bla,!!!!!!

            See what you made me do

            1. Chris Neal profile image84
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I do have that effect on some people.

              No, I didn't mean that at all. I guess I didn't understand what you were saying, if that was your definition of "sin."

      2. mikelong profile image83
        mikelongposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I understand the technicality you are mentioning. But Mosaic Law is "God's Law"...unless God changed somehow during the period between Adam and Moses. But, if 1,000 years is one day to God, that would be a difficult thing to do.

        God never liked it?

        God made people, and everything, supposedly.

        How can this deity then make such a flawed system?

        This just shows, again, the wackiness behind the whole "belief".

        1. gabgirl12 profile image61
          gabgirl12posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LOL, took the words right out of my mouth. People continue to rationalize the Bible. It comes from those who are indoctrinated with having a subjective point of view, not an objective one. It's even worse for women. sad

          If they were more objective, they'd see the flaws within the belief. Yet still there is a higher incidence of faith in the world. I think atheism is starting to grow more considering how those who a religious in the extreme are fighting so hard against it. Those are the ones destroying all the 'good work' out there. Frankly I just chill because non believers are in higher numbers due to the lack of 'trust' in the religious clergy.

          I'm still surprised at the atrocities committed, like nuns having abortions, lesbianism, and catholic priests and pedophilia, yet people still follow. Nothing is being done to punish them on the same grounds as regular pedos in that they are convicted and put on a list so that if you look them up you'll know where they are.

          It's tiresome to see the religious above the law and no justice or action taken against them because they are 'justified by God', ughh good grief!

          Have you ever heard of a catholic priest step down and actually admit he did this? No! They get transferred!

        2. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That would be the implication, yes. No, God didn't change. But humans did, although very, very slowly. We're talking hundreds to thousands of years. The technicality is no small thing. There are things I take on faith, such as that God originally created two people, Adam and Eve. And things that humans grow up with, culturally, can be very slow to change and often need external prodding, like the incest laws. And the fact that they were written at all, let alone so strongly, does indeed imply that God never liked it.



          Good question. Why didn't He just create robots? I mean, why make us actually, you know, human with the ability to choose right and wrong, and the ability to feel remorse for bad decisions? Wouldn't everything just be better all around if He had made us without that capacity? Sure, we wouldn't actually be human any more, wouldn't be stamped with the image of God, wouldn't be able to have true relationships with other people, let alone God, but everything would certainly be better then, wouldn't it?



          Obviously, I disagree.

  11. 60
    rugbyguy25posted 4 years ago

    So we starts with Adam and Eve they have two sons,Cain and Able then what.......where did their wives come from......or do we have a Jerry Springer show episode here "I slept with My Mom,Sister Cousin" I know this is gonna offend some and there must be some type of divine intervention to explain it all away but then it happens again with the flood and Noah so how the world was populated and again and could someone explain all the different ethnic groups that resulted.........and how did Noah manage the logistics of gathering up two of every species of animal from every continent and on the planet and what did they eat while on the ark, how were animals from arid hot regions kept warm similarly how were animals from cold climates looked after and fed... and then after the flood was over where did the food supply for all these animals come from after leaving the ark, where did the safe desalinated drinking water come from.... wouldn't the salinity of the oceans mixing with lake water render the lake water dangerous to consume for both animals and humans as well as contaminating the soil with salt residue after the water receeded .......let me guess help from our loving God and his mysterious ways were not to question........here comes the hate mail   

    sorry if this offends some and I'm sure I will probably be banned and receive plenty of angry and quite possibly threatning responses for my questions and or statements, again sorry your filled with such  hate for those who question you beliefs  and values

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I HATE YOU AND I'M GOING TO BAND YOU FOR OFFENDING MY GOD!!!

      Just kidding , people here are more civil and far less med evil then back in those Religious Hay Days. Just watch out personal attacks,  bad luggage  and language.

      Welcome to the hub pages,rugby

      1. diyomarpandan profile image60
        diyomarpandanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          MAY ALL OF YOUR BABIES BE BORN NAKED!! Just kidding too..er...not really!  lol

          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Being naked is a sin after age 2 (unwritten rule)

        2. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          diyomarpandan

          I'm not anti anything, that's a christian job,

          Who invented job?,..mmm... I've got it... Satan!

        3. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Be impotent for the rest of my life

          I'm too old to have kids, and who wants to over populate the world anyways

          1. Paul Wingert profile image79
            Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Too late! The world is already over populated.

            1. diyomarpandan profile image60
              diyomarpandanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. MrMaranatha profile image87
                MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Please Specify:  Which Church?  Roman Catholic Church? That is not the entirety of Christianity but rather a large Corperation that has more or less Hijacked the name Christian and uses it to its own ends.

                Catholacism has allot of things that the rest of us do not agree with...

                As for Married couples using Condoms... that is between them and God....

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The Pope wants more Catholics any way he can , no Comdoms rule is unethical

                2. diyomarpandan profile image60
                  diyomarpandanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Catholic push for more babies than Protestants do and all christian have as much sex as any other nonbeliever dose. The main different is non believer do not carry the quilt and the luggage of sin around with them for the rest of their lives

                  2. Chris Neal profile image84
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know about Eastern Orthodox, but most Protestant denominations say that contraception is between the couple and God.

          2. diyomarpandan profile image60
            diyomarpandanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. jonnycomelately profile image87
              jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Loving gay relationships have all the benefits of union and mutual support, plus giving lots of energy back to society, without increasing the world population.

              I'm sure the Lord would be all in favour.

  12. barryll profile image60
    barryllposted 4 years ago

    omg! finally someone else asks the question. this would definately mean that we are all the results of incest. i am so tired of so called christians refusing to answer a simple question. they are so good at beating around the bush. it makes me sick.

    1. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Most people don't have the stomach to really look at it.

  13. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago
    1. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting...

      In this polarized age, it's a sad commentary that there are fellow Christians who feel so embattled that they can't simply accept a statement of science without feeling the need to storm out like that. I'm sure Nye was probably a bit more confrontational than the story made out (since the statement, although it is rudimentary science, was made in the context of talking about Genesis.) But still, it's sad that the audience members didn't simply "turn the other cheek" and let Bill know, quietly but firmly, that we Christians are indeed aware basic science.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image82
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't get it on the other thread. Why would one walk out anyway? What Christian belief does it oppose?

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wow.

          By now, others may have posted about this. I am embarrassed to admit that I am guilty of not checking dates on this, but this story is six years old!

          Here's a link to an interview with the actual reporter:

          http://www.examiner.com/article/reporte … ory-speaks

          1. pennyofheaven profile image82
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Amazing article. Puts everything into perspective. All over the greater and lesser light and the woman walking out. Sensationalism. Made me laugh once I got it.

            1. Chris Neal profile image84
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, it's not just the fact that the story is over half a decade old but all the other details that were blown out of context that put the whole thing in perspective.

              For me, the moral is to check everything out, because I accepted the story at face value and only stumbled on this article by accident.

  14. paradigmsearch profile image89
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    "After the Great Flood, How Was The World Populated"

    Frisky little paradigmsearch's wandered the land. The problem was solved in no time...

  15. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 4 years ago

    @Melissa: My understanding is BF lasts up to 18 months, max. Once the baby has enough teeth to begin soft solids. But, I could be wrong. My son didn't BF.

    @Cagsil: lol, my math was off a bit. But, yes, one generation would be about 14 years. 42, 50 -not much difference there. essentially the firstborn would be 14-15 years old when the youngest/last was born. PS, I didn't know a person could get pregnant that young. Goodness, that is a bit creepy.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In modern industrialized society bf lasts up to two years.  In undeveloped areas generally it is extended until three or over.  I'm assuming that biblical post-ark times signifies undeveloped.

      But even assuming that the woman nurses for 18 months... ovulates the second she stops nursing (which is unlikely to happen for at least a few more months) and takes the standard 10 months to be pregnant... that's still 28 months between children.  Which is three times your previous "pop them out like Pez" theory.

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol Pez! Sigh, I miss being a kid.

        It was merely considered calculation, not emphatic.
        Ten to fifteen kids per family was not uncommon. So, repopulation would have only taken a few generations, based on those three families. Even at 50 or 100 years, reaching 3M+ could easily happen.

    2. 61
      nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There was a case in Mexico;

      A 9 year old girl was molested and became pregnant. Child births in the middle ages were commonly followed by death, for much the same reason, only then it was legal to sell one's daughter or to form allegiances in much the same manner.

  16. bernard.sinai profile image83
    bernard.sinaiposted 4 years ago

    I believe the Bible uses Noah as an example. I don’t believe he or his family were the only ones left on the Earth during the time of the great flood. There were probably other people who survived. However, only one could be used as the example.

  17. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    Not all of the Bible can be taken literally. There is a great deal of hidden wisdom within it. And it takes work and humility to find that wisdom.

    Take for instance the biblical timeline. Even Sir Isaac Newton tried his hand at a timeline. But the most popular one is that of Archbishop Ussher, giving us 4004 BC for the start of it all.

    Great scholarship on Ussher's part, but even he would likely not agree with the timeline if he knew what we know today. Science says the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that humanity is at least 200,000 years old. Science wins.

    But so does the Bible!

    In a series of hubs I wrote on Genesis I cover a new interpretation which reveals some of this hidden wisdom.

    For the Flood, Ussher gives us 2348 BC, but 3 years after this the 6th Dynasty of Egypt started. And 13 years after the Flood date, Sargon the Great conquered Sumer, quickly establishing an empire that stretched from Iran to the Mediterranean. Where did all those people come from? The Flood cannot have happened when Ussher said it did.

    The new timeline pegs the Flood at 27,970 BC. And the new timeline pegs the beginning of Homo sapiens at far earlier than 200,000 BC.

    Many cultures have myths of worldwide floods. More than one Noah?

    And the new date for the Flood gives us a clue as to the purpose of the Flood and the identity of the wicked "daughters of men."

    1. kirstenblog profile image76
      kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If you can't take all of it literally, how can you take any of it literally? It presents itself as a book to be taken literally.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image87
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If that suits you, fine.   But be careful how you use it in relation to others who might not be of the same persuasion.

        1. kirstenblog profile image76
          kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thats the point, it doesn't suit me at all. The post I responded to stated you can't take the bible literally and yet seems to imply that you can take it as 'the word of god', which makes no sense. It doesn't come with warnings as to what is 'historical account' as so many claim it to be and what is simply metaphor. When its history is full of people who have lost their lives for interpreting it differently or 'wrong' (according to the supposed church of the time) while others have lost their lives for not accepting it as truthful and completely historically accurate it seems ludicrous to say that it is anything to do with 'god' but isn't a completely accurate historical account, which would of course expose the belief so many put in it as foolishness.

        2. 61
          nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +1

    2. 61
      jah1zposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The Universe has to be time-indefinitely. Can you even fathom a beginning for the Universe? And "what was" before the Universe appeared 13.7 billion years ago?

      I remember reading the book of Apocryphal and God describing creation before earthly creation and He said something to the effect that outside of the bounds is nothing. What is "nothing." What does it look like?

      To save my own sanity, I didn't dwell on it too much. Trying to comprehend the expansion (nothing) outside of the universe spooks the consciousness in a bad way. Is the book of Apocryphal even credible?

      1. jonnycomelately profile image87
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The only way in which I can contemplate this notion of some"thing" before the big bang (theory), is to look upon our existence, our consciousness, as a "thought process."  In the way that some people speak of the "Divine Consciousness," the Godhead or the Self, if the moment of the "Big Bank" was the moment when that Infinite something, what ever it is/was, thought our world into existence.   The Infinite begat Finite, it's opposite.  In order to have any consciousness you need an opposite, some way of producing a contrast, or a difference.  Without that contrast you and I can not know anything.   Without the contrast there is nothing.

        1. 61
          jah1zposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting, yet mind-boggling. So, Infinite has a beginning ---- you see how that trips up the harmony within the consciousness?

        2. 61
          jah1zposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Could you tell me if the Universe is still expanding? And if it is, what is the expansion before it is covered or conquered with the Universe? What does "nothing" look like? A free-falling to no end?

          1. jonnycomelately profile image87
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nothing cannot look like anything!  lol

            Seriously though, not treating your question disrespectfully, "nothing" has not dimension at all.... no length or breadth or height and no time.   Each of these qualities needs to be finite, i.e., with some kind of boundary, in order to be measured.  "Nothing" is infinite.  It cannot be measured.  You cannot see it, or feel it, or hear it, or smell it, or taste it. 

            You cannot really imagine it, because "imagining" it means bringing in limitations, boundaries,  so that in your imagination would be a "thing."  Finite.

            The real answer (in my understanding, and open to infinite discussion!)  is that finite and infinite are two sides of the same coin, so-to-speak.  Neither side of a coin can see the other side.  Different planes of existence. 

            Now, does that further confuse you?

            1. pennyofheaven profile image82
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So best not try to define what nothing is because as soon as we do, whatever it is or is not is lost. Funny that.

            2. 61
              jah1zposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting. It makes sense when we conform it to the limitation of our understanding but I have to believe it is more complex than that. You know what I think? If the human brain can fathom beyond the bounds of the Universe, to the very surface of nothingness then,  the brain will cease to function.

              That is death or comatose ---- look at it in imagination  and picture yourself going outside the bounds of the Universe and seeing what? Doesn't that spook the consciousness? It's maddening that the Universe could held up by another expansion and that expansion by yet another expansion. It can drive the mind insane. Good post, however.

            3. mikelong profile image83
              mikelongposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, "nothing" has been measured.

              A book I came across (and I will post its name as soon as I locate it) discusses experiments where "nothing" was weighed. Additionally, from an interview with the author I listened to, "nothing" actually is a creative force that will generate "something" spontaneously. It is being proposed that it is this "nothing" that is responsible for the movement of the galaxies, and larger expansion of the universe.

              1. jonnycomelately profile image87
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Fascinating... I had not heard of that.   
                Now, would you thing that "nothing" force would be a negative force or a positive force.....wink

              2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                mikelong
                Actually, "nothing" has been measured.

                A book I came across (and I will post its name as soon as I locate it)

                Sounds like this guy and the book are lost in space

        3. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A process we do not understand nor can it be measured by the best minds.

  18. Xenonlit profile image61
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    So much BS. I wish that God would reach down here and push the reset button on the truth.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image87
      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh Xenonlit, would such a loving father step in and spoil all the fun?

      1. Xenonlit profile image61
        Xenonlitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile   We know that ancient people defined the "world" as the farthest distance that anyone could travel then get  home to tell about it.

        Based on that, it makes sense that the "world" did flood. The vast majority of people did not get flooded. The myth worked better when it looked like Noah and his crew were the only humans left.

        The world was fine and it was populated with plenty of people.


        The science is this: there are such events as "atmospheric rivers". California has had several of them where the volume of 60 Mississippi rivers was dumped on the state over  rainy periods that were about 40 days long.

        We recently found out about atmospheric rivers because of the NASA satellite arrays that started to catch them in operation.




        Massive volumes of water are literally picked up by certain types of storms that start in Asia. Then the water dumped when the storm hits land.

        We call them "pineapple express" because milder versions happen every year. But scientists expect another catastrophic atmospheric river to happen any year now. The potential is for the entire central valley of the state to flood to about 20 feet after 40 days or more of straight, heavy rains.

        The last catastrophic "atmospheric river" was in the 1800s and forced the the California governor to escape from the state capitol in Los Angeles,  to San Francisco. The state capital never moved back to anywhere south of Sacramento for obvious reasons. 

        This is the one that hit California a few years ago.

        http://urbanearth.gps.caltech.edu/wp-co … AR_SSM.jpg

        1. jonnycomelately profile image87
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Fascinating information, thanks a lot.

        2. Shakka James profile image84
          Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If you believe in God, then you believe the impossible could be achieved. Naturally speaking, if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the earth would not flood. In some areas, YES. However, supernaturally speaking, if it rained for 40 days and nights. Yes, the earth could be flooded.

          1. 61
            nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It rained for 3 months in India in recent years, yet the world didn't flood.

            I'd be inclined to think that, that part of the world see's rains like that more often than one would think.

            1. Shakka James profile image84
              Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Post a pic and let me see your face. What are you hiding. Of course the world would not flood in 3 months.

              1. 61
                nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm a comedian. I have to protect my true identity, for obvious reasons.

                1. Shakka James profile image84
                  Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ???????

                  1. 61
                    nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If I put my true name and likeness up, I'd be in violation of certain contracts.

                    Understand?

                2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm sure you've provided a few laughs for some here, nonto.  lol  You can always put up a fake picture as many do here.  The ladies do it all of the time! 

                  PS-I'm not really a snake, despite some folks thoughts to the contrary!  Any fool can get followers using a fake avatar of some good looking person.  Try doing it with an asp for a photo!   smile


                                                   http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes... goodness knows my pic isn't really me.  I put a picture of a much less attractive woman so I wouldn't be swarmed by offers of relationships and gifts.

                  2. Shakka James profile image84
                    Shakka Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yea, some people use real photos and alias name. Others use fake photos and real names. Some use fake photos and fake names. Some use photos and names that really depict who they are...........

        3. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is interesting! Thank you so much!

    2. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Is God into real science and computers too?

  19. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    What does supernatural rain look like?

    1. 61
      nonto21posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know but I'm pretty sure it falls up.

    2. pennyofheaven profile image82
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Might need to ask Noah.

  20. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    That's a hard journey to come by....some kind of peyote-lsd-magic mushrooms would be necessary for such an audience to be granted unto me.

    I'll have to remember to speak to Abraham Lincoln as well. I've been trying to reach him for the longest time.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image82
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Haha

  21. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 2 years ago

    XENONLIT WROTE:
    big_smile   We know that ancient people defined the "world" as the farthest distance that anyone could travel then get  home to tell about it.
    =================
    ABSOLUTELY CORRECT  or verry close proximety.
    The same world that Cyrus was talking about when he said "The Lord God of heaven has given me the whole world and has charged (Told him to) build him a house in Israel which is in Judea. And when the temple was built this fulfilled all of those prophesy concerning the Temple being built again.

    Something similar can be said concerning translation of the word Earth, which is usually speaking of the Promised land r Judea.
    Not to change the subject or anything, just thought this a good opportunity to put in my 2 cents worth .

  22. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 2 years ago

    Shakka James, we don't know for certain. There are so many Flood myths in various cultures, it's quite possible that there may have been more than one Noah. Just as Adam in Genesis 5:2 represents a tribe (more than an individual).

    We know, however, that the literal date for Noah's Flood (2348 BC by Ussher) is wrong, because there were too many people living at that time. Three years after that date, Egypt's 6th dynasty started. Thirteen years after that date, Sargon the Great conquered Sumer.

    We know from science that Homo sapiens has been around for at least 200,000 years, so "Adam" the tribe started far earlier than the literal biblical timeline date of 4004 BC.

    If you read Genesis with the spirit, rather than the letter (2 Cor. 3:6), then you can see a timeline compatible with those of science.

    The Flood occurred 27,970 BC. And one very specific species was targeted by the Flood -- a species which went extinct 28,000 BC -- a species which is described in Genesis 6.

    The world was populated by procreation. It had over 20,000 years to do it.

    And even if there were multiple Noah's, we still are brothers and sisters.

    God created us in His image and likeness, but He is not Homo sapiens. God wants His children back, but not the bodies they wear.

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting.

      26,000 years is about one full cycle of the Precession of the Equinoxes. So that would make your flood just about a Galactic Year ago.

      How do you get your particular timeline?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "Galactic Year"?  I don't see the galaxy caring much about how a minor ball of mud on the outskirts of the galaxy precesses it's axis.  Isn't that just a bit egocentric?

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, I meant to say "Great Year". A galactic year is the time it takes the solar system to travel around the galaxy. Plato termed the Great Year for the Precession.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Either way, I'm not sure how naming natural time cycles is "ego-centric". Should we not name time cycles? Is saying "day" or "year" ego-centric too? Would you prefer if I called a year "one of Earth's revolutions around the sun"?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Well, a galactic year designation for the time to for our planet to circle the galaxy would make sense.  It matches the physical description of the solar year, commonly called just "year".

              Slight egocentric, but then it makes sense, again, to be so.  Residents of Saturn would not wish to use the same year we do, after all.

              Interesting that Plato was able to detect and measure his "great year".  He wouldn't have known what caused it, but to even detect it then is impressive.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think he detected it, it was another guy, but I can't remember his name. Plato just coined the term. I will look up his name, because I hate not remembering things:)

                The precession can be determined pretty easily though, it just takes keeping records for a few hundred years.

                Oddly, the cycle is about 1 degree for every 72 years, so a person wouldn't be able to detect it probably in their lifetime, thus the good record keeping of the rising of individual stars.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, doesn't matter who did the work - just that it was so long ago.  That people could measure the location and time of observation close enough to see that even over a couple hundred years is pretty good. 

                  We don't give our ancestors enough credit, partly because we are such a "now" society.  Anything that takes more than a week or so is beyond our comprehension, or at least seems that way sometimes.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah. They didn't have TV or the internet....they had to have SOMETHING to do:)

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      From where did you pull those numbers? What species went extinct there?

    3. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The word 'galaxy' wasn't used until around the 14th century. It also took 1500 years to prove to most people the world was not flat.

      Not long ago comes the world largest creationist museum and the science guy to prove to us the world is a little over 6000 years old. Still not much better proven facts than the Flintstone show  to me

    4. jonnycomelately profile image87
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting mix here;  first you use science in order to speak about proof of when things "happened," then you use your belief system to talk about what God wants. 

      Without scientific research you would know nothing of history.   Yet there is nothing scientific about "God."  It's all conjecture to fit your perceptions.

  23. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    It was Hipparchus.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Impressive guy - not only the precession, but prediction of solar eclipses, development of trigonometry and invention of the astrolabe.  The Einstein and Newton of his day.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, a really smart guy.

 
working