Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
I agree with you that what you say if false. Biologically impossible.False.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I agree with you that what you say if false. Biologically impossible.False.
Whether you agree or not is beside the point. Not like you have anything to say about it. Impossible is just a little term to denote the restricted world man lives in at the moment.I agree with you that what you say if false. Biologically impossible.
A child being taught something does not mean it is true.
To be precise, I was not taught it; I read it in a book, which explained the basics of radiometric dating. What I have read and learnt since has confirmed what I learnt during the 1950s. I was also taught Christianity as a child, so by your argument .....
Wild Fox said:
"If she had Jesus in her womb she was not a virgin."
No, that is not true. Since she did not have sexual intercourse until after the birth of Jesus, her hymen wasn't broken when she conceived, therefore she was a virgin until she gave birth. And then her hymen was broken.
The great sign of the messiah being born to a virgin one day had to do with a baby from God that had no man as a father and had zero to do with sexual reproduction.Such a small piece of tissue that people take to mean so much.
It is quite possible to get pregnant without breaking the hymen. it is even possible to have sex without breaking it.
Hymen does not imply virginity or vice versa.
The great sign of the messiah being born to a virgin one day had to do with a baby from God that had no man as a father and had zero to do with sexual reproduction.
As I understand it, the scholarly view considers the virgin birth to be rather thin historical support. Apparently, there have been mistranslations of virgin and young girl, etc. For a book that fundamentalists claim is infallible and has been maintained accurately for millennia, there appear to be a lot of inaccuracies.Such a small piece of tissue that people take to mean so much.
It is quite possible to get pregnant without breaking the hymen. it is even possible to have sex without breaking it.
Hymen does not imply virginity or vice versa.
As I understand it, the scholarly view considers the virgin birth to be rather thin historical support. Apparently, there have been mistranslations of virgin and young girl, etc. For a book that fundamentalists claim is infallible and has been maintained accurately for millennia, there appear to be a lot of inaccuracies.
It all says to me that we really do not understand the Bible as well as some claim and we focus on parts without authority, while pitching the message of Christ out the window with the bath water.Yes, the specific OT verse referred to in the NT talks about a young girl, not a virgin. Furthermore, that young girl is clearly the wife of the prophet in question.
To me, there is no question of God as Creator who is able to split cells or enable things unusual from afar. The usual definition of virgin is that person who has not had sexual intercourse, that is true. The breaking of the hymen is usually part of the process.Such a small piece of tissue that people take to mean so much.
It is quite possible to get pregnant without breaking the hymen. it is even possible to have sex without breaking it.
Hymen does not imply virginity or vice versa.
For the female. There is no indicator at all for a male. Perhaps a stupid grin.To me, there is no question of God as Creator who is able to split cells or enable things unusual from afar. The usual definition of virgin is that person who has not had sexual intercourse, that is true. The breaking of the hymen is usually part of the process.
Ok I give in. The breaking of the hymen does not always mean a woman has had sexual intercourse. I'm going to leave it at that.Such a small piece of tissue that people take to mean so much.
It is quite possible to get pregnant without breaking the hymen. it is even possible to have sex without breaking it.
Hymen does not imply virginity or vice versa.
And a biblically supported one it is. So it currently seems to me. Although Joseph was listed on the genealogical records as Jesus' father. But the birth or rather the conception did not come about in the usual way.Thank you for your opinion.
just reading this..."The researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees—it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten." (No kidding... ain't that something?) About Lucy the chimp. https://phys.org/news/2020-05-chimp-human-child-phalangeal-genetic.htmlModern humans did not exist. We know what *did* exist through the fossils they left. And what did exist 2 million years ago was NOT the modern Homo sapiens sapiens. And, by the way, the fossils don't include just the bones. They include footprints (showing that they walked upright, but had very different feet than modern humans).
However, if you go to only 50,000 years ago, we know that anatomically modern humans *did* exist. Again, we know this by the fossils and tools they left. The array of tools by that time was quite diverse.
If, however, you go back 1 million years, you find a species, Homo erectus, that is easily distinguished from modern humans anatomically, but also has many of the characteristics of modern humans (upright posture, social groups, probably fire use, complex tool use, etc). There is even some suggestion that their hyoid bone had dropped in a way to allow more complex vocal sounds (beginnings of language? we don't know).
These are NOT just hypotheses: we have the actual bones and tools from that time period to show what existed at that time.
You asked how we know humans existed in the past. Well, we know that, because they left their remains behind and we can examine them.And that's a definite answer, as if it settles the question? (I don't think so. But, if you do, that's what counts by this time.)
Maybe their remains drifted, or were blown away to other parts and soil particles got mixed in and the elements corroded, etc. Maybe each 'day' wasn't the same amount of time.
just reading this..."The researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees—it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten." (No kidding... ain't that something?) About Lucy the chimp. https://phys.org/news/2020-05-chimp-human-child-phalangeal-genetic.html
Of course, chimps still remain chimps.Key word: *if*
Since it is likely that relatively small changes in a control protein would produce these effects, there is no good reason to think they take a long time.
I am aware that humans existed some 6000 years ago, for starters. But hundreds of thousands of years? Naw...even with "remains so-called left behind."You asked how we know humans existed in the past. Well, we know that, because they left their remains behind and we can examine them.
Are you asking how scientists date them?
You don't really think scientists are unaware of erosion and contamination, do you?