Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Re no death prior to the fall....

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 19:03:30 EDT

Well, I'm a little embarrassed at the oversimplification! But upon
reflection, I made the assumption that Cain and Abel's wives came from
outside the Adamic line (they must have come from somewhere, so the
count for that second generation is 4 adults. I confess to unwitting
making the "came from somewhere else" assumption apply for mates of
subsequent generations as well. That would create the progression 2
(Adam and Eve): 4 (Cain and Abel + 2 spouses); 8 (Cain and Abel's 2
kids apiece + 4 spouses): etc., the progression I described.

OK, that might be an unrealistic assumption if the Adamic folks
eventually turn to marying within the "tribe", the Adamic line. On the
other hand, perhaps more than two (e.g., 4?) children per couple is not
an unrealistic assumption considering that the childbearing couples do
not die.Would these be offsetting? I dunno? But why not? My cousins
and I have siblings ranging from 2 to 12 in number.

Also, there is the matter of those folks from which the wives of Cain
and Abel came. Are they also having more children among themselves? If
that is a parallel "society" you might find something approximating a
1:1 mapping between any child in the Adamic line and one in the "other"
line. That too would would then account for the population progression I

OK, if none of these work for you, then the progression slows down, but
a purely linear growth rate makes for a very restrictive (and in my mind
unlikely) constraint..

As to the partriarchs being born of old parents, that appears not to be
any norm, instead something exceptional as a feature of the story.
Brides in the OT times seemed to be selected young. Also, families
seemed to be routinely larger than two children in the OT.

Or so it seemeth to me.

Regards - JimA


Joanna Woo wrote:

> 2 children per couple is only linear growth, not expontial. for
> exponential growth, you need *4* children per couple (2 children per
> person), with an equal amount of females as males. and we have to
> assume that *everybody* marries and has kids early. however, recall
> that many of the patriarchs were born when their fathers were several
> hundreds of years old - at least an order of magnitude correction to
> the model, if the numbers are to be taken at face value.
> other thoughts: i think that God meant for us to learn how to space
> travel. and if nobody dies, collective knowledge increases much
> faster because the original brains can keep thinking without having to
> spend time learning the basics, like the children do.
> jo
> On 8/2/05, Jim Armstrong <
> <>> wrote:
> You bet! Any other thoughts about how this can be worked around?
> JimA
> Bill Hamilton wrote:
>> Jim Armstrong <> <>
>> wrote:
>> While the idea of no death before the fall is clearly
>> somewhat widely
>> accepted, I sure can't figure out why that idea would stick
>> after a
>> little thought.
>> Suppose that death has not entered the world, that
>> reproduction and
>> population of the Earth has always been a part of God's
>> master plan, and
>> that children mercifully wait until the adults are 20 years old.
>> Adam and Eve are generation 1.
>> Adam and Eve beget Cain and Abel - Generation 2 - and the
>> population has
>> doubled.
>> Cain and Abel take wives (wherever they came from) and
>> produce children
>> - generation 3 - and the population has at least doubled
>> again (for this
>> exercise, I just assumed 2 children per couple).
>> Harkening back to an old math tale about such doubling, a
>> peasant makes
>> a deal for one grain of wheat for the first square of a
>> checkerboard, 2
>> grains for the second, 4 for the third square and so on, with
>> the result
>> that by the end of the checkboard he had "won" more than the
>> world's
>> production of wheat.
>> Sure enough, it turns out that it takes just 32
>> generation-to-generation
>> doublings (640 years) to reach our present world population
>> if noone dies.
>> If you just continue this doubling process for 14 more
>> generations (940
>> years total), we are running out of space for people on Earth
>> with about
>> one person for every square yard.
>> If this continues for 6000 years, just 300 generations, there
>> are more
>> people than atoms in the universe (by some reckonings).
>> What's wrong with this picture?
>> The math is not wrong, and it's simple to check.
>> Is the idea of reproducing and populating the world wrong?
>> Probably not.
>> Or maybe reproductive sex is also the result of the fall!?
>> While thinking about this problem a number of years ago I
>> concluded that maybe reproductive sex was the result of the
>> fall. But Scripture throws cold water on that one: God said
>> to Eve, "I will _greatly increase_ your pains in
>> childbearing". Childbearing is assumed. Since God said, "In
>> the day (there's that pesky word again) you eat of it, you
>> will die." So following the literalist path we need to look
>> for something that happened in the day Adam and Eve ate of
>> the tree. In that day they were banished from the Garden,
>> where they enjoyed close communion with God. Is the loss of
>> close communion with God a kind of death? Seems reasonable.
>> Bill Hamilton
>> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
>> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
>> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
>> <*>
Received on Fri Sep 16 19:07:16 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 19:07:16 EDT