Re: Re no death prior to the fall....

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Sun Sep 18 2005 - 15:04:30 EDT

Re: the space travel option. It does not solve the problem unless there
are no travel capacity limitations.
If the travel is necessitated and happens when crowding occurs (after
there is a lot of brainpower present and sufficient time has passed for
ideas to mature), then tremendous transportation capacity is required,
and that capacity has to be maintained if the world population is large
to keep bleeding off something like half the population with each
generation.
That might suggest transporting them earlier, when the numbers are more
manageable, but that would certainly change the demographics of the
world to a much smaller population than we "enjoy" today.
Might have worked for the ark - maybe Moses misread the instructions?
Just thinking out loud some more.

JimA

Joanna Woo wrote:

> oops, i copied-and-pasted that wrong. please ignore that last post.
> the correct one is this:
>
>
> the point of this discussion is to try to see what would happen if we
> take the Bible at face value, minus the Fall, and assume no death if
> no Fall. so, in answer to George's comment, 2 kids per couple is
> linear growth if nobody dies.
>
> as for where we get wives for Cain and Seth, consider the features of
> the Bible-at-face-value model:
> a) Eve and Adam are the first and only humans to be created by God
> without reproduction
> b) God created this couple to be "very good" like the rest of
> creation, which i extrapolate to mean "without genetic flaws" among
> other things.
>
> one consequence of point b) is that incest would not produce
> deformities in children. a possible reason for the prohibitions
> against incest in the Torah is that incest produces deformities and
> retardation. but if that is not a worry in a genetically perfect
> world, the prohibition against incest would not be needed.
>
> so, a natural result of the Bible-at-face-value model is that Cain and
> Seth (remember that Abel was killed - aren't i a nitpicker?? :P)
> married their sisters and that was perfectly acceptable.
>
> that's why i modified Jim's original model to each couple having 4
> kids, with incest occuring at least in the early generations.
>
> but Jim, you've got a point in saying that we were likely made to have
> way more kids. i read somewhere that a woman's ovaries contain on the
> order of 10^5 eggs! yikes! the best suggestion i can think of to
> allow everyone to live forever is the one i gave earlier: that God
> must have meant for us to space travel. boy, with all that space in
> the universe and all the cool things to study out there, how could God
> *not* have meant for us to space travel? another point to consider is
> that Jesus said that in the kingdom of God, people don't marry. so
> maybe God ushers in the "kingdom" at some point, somehow, during the
> history of our model civilisation (no death, no Fall).
>
> so, in short, i feel that the Bible-at-face-value model (no death
> prior to the Fall) *can* work with the addition of a reasonable free
> parameter (eg, space travel, or a time-boundary condition).
>
> jo
>
Received on Sun Sep 18 15:06:32 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 18 2005 - 15:06:32 EDT