Could all humans begin from just two people?

And the above statement/claim is based on what facts or proof exactly?

Maybe you can explain why the magic man in the sky can't convey truth we can understand such as (for example) germ theory, or any other easily understood science. Or just demonstrate the truth of his/her existence by a modern day, and hence verifiable, appearance.

 

I'm not surprised that we may have lost some of the full meaning of Genesis as it was created by a people who we really don't know anything about.

I think there are two Genesis creation allegoies that have different orders of creation. Also, there are issues with biology (only 2 people), and Cain going to live with some other population in the land of Lot. I don't agree with those who suggest there is no meaning in Genesis. But, I don't accept it as literal.

When we have the technology to look back to very close to the beginning of our universe I don't believe we can simply discard what we actually see simply because it does not match a literal translation of Genesis.

My own view is that what we see is real. I don't accept the idea that we can ignore what we have learned about light and gravity, for example. Humans have not learned everything about how this universe came about or how it works, but there are some basics. That doesn't suggest there is no god, but it is strong evidence that Genesis is allegorical - that it's truth is in the realm of religion rather than science.

 

That assumes that they are problems, and not population control mechanisms.

 

I'm answering the title question and not the poll question.

I don't think that this is an impossible idea, but it does require some assumptions. First is the supposed life span of the early humans. Given multiple centuries of life, that also means centuries of productive as well as child bearing years. If we also assume the initial two were genetically perfect, thus inbreeding would not cause problems because there was no resessive damaged genes to cause birth defects and the like, then it is logical to assume that a large population could be brought about before genetic breakdowns were introduced.

 

As I pointed out in my previous post, it's not impossible for only two to populate the world, given the conditions outlined. Granted it would be based upon our current genetic status.

As to Cain and that supposed paradox, keep in mind that there is a lot of missing detail. We don't really know how old Cain and Able were when the murder occured, nor is any time frame given between that and Cain entering Nod. However, there had to already be a decent size population, since Cain was worried about other people killing him. Not his parents, but other people. Adam and Eve were fully functioning adults before they were literally a single year of age. And I find it hard to believe that they were not already making babies prior to the Fall since God added pain to child birth. He didn't introduce child birth, He added pain to it. Thus it was already there. So there really isn't a paradox at all, unless you ignore the context.

 

This is one of those things where context can make all the difference. If the human population wasn't all that spread out, then there would not be a need to flood the entire planet. Just the area where humans lived. At that time, as far as humans were concerned, that was the entire world.

 

Correct.

The Bible is never wrong but many of our interpretations are.

I think it's important that people realize they shouldn't focus on the story but what message God is telling with it.

People who spend time trying to prove the Bible wrong are completely missing the point.

 

I don't believe that even made a dent in either of the two chronology problems - of population and of order of creation.

For example, when there are only two indiviuals of a species, the population goes extinct.

Yes, there is essentially no detail or completeness in the creation stories.

 

I think if God is involved he could fix that, don't you?

 

This dodges everything that is important about the Noah allegory.

And, even at that it requires you to take huge license with what was said - a tactic that you reserve for your own argument while denying others its use.

 

It doesn't dodge the lesson of the story which is all that is important.

Only unbelievers care about proving the Bible wrong.

 

I don't see that as a relevant issue. Genesis isn't about what God COULD have made happen at every instance that an inconsistency is noted.

I think you're just saying that God didn't just create our universe in 7 days - he constantly tweaked it for generations, because His original creation would otherwise have failed to perform in the way He wanted.

If you decide to add daily magic, explicily denying everything we know about how this universe works and postulate a God that couldn't make a universe that works, I think you end up with a hodgepodge that really has no meaning at all.

The study of Genesis has to be more oriented to what Genesis means in terms of spirituality, purpose, etc., not what it means in terms of science.

 

I'm not interested in "proving the bible wrong".

Allegories can carry more meaning than can literal chronologies. Genesis is weakened by insisting that it is literal. And, that insistance also leads to ignoring truths that are being communicated.

 

I can agree with that, with the exception that I don't bleieve there is a god. And, I'm not here to convince anyone to change their beliefs about God, so that shouldn't matter.

I would point out that those who promote Genesis as a scientific chronology are also completely missing the point. Genesis is an amazing piece of work, but suggesting it is a science manual is a major mistake and serious distraction from meaning that is present.

 

Again, what you suggest is contrary to fundamental principles of biology.

You are simply choosing to believe that Genesis world was nothing at all like the last few hundred centuries.

 

I' really pretty OK with people believing that.

But, that's not the issue for me.

The issue for me is that all evidence points to this universe being created once and only once with one complete set of physics and that humans may meaningfully observe this universe. That is, it isn't being faked.

 

Christian people who believe the earth is old are influenced by nonbeliever scientists. Geology supports a young earth because there are other ways to interpret geology. I dont agree with carbon dating because people use carbon dating to support evolution, which is a hypothesis. https://creation.com/geology-and-the-young-earth

 

Christians believe that the universe was created once and only once.

 

You are showing that there are parallels in the bible and in science. But, those correlations do NOT show causation. Correlation doesn't indicate causation. That kind of argument is a well known logical fallacy.

Worse than that, the correlations selected aren't even necessarily true. For example, science includes the possibility that this universe is eternal - one of several possible directions. But, your CITE wants a correlation, so it chooses the version of science that matches it's own religious belief!! There's NOTHING legit about that.

Let's remember that humans wrote Genesis, most likely after passing it down for centuries as oral tradition.

The idea that what they wrote has some level of correlation with real life can't come as some sort of proof of being scientific. In fact, as has been pointed out in several places in this thread, there are SERIOUS differences between literal interpretation of Genesis and science - differences that are supported by observation of our universe, NOT based on correlation/causation fallacy.

 

The age of this universe is supported by numerous fields of science.

And, Earth is part of that pictuure.

You can't get to "young Earth" by simply suggesting that all of geology is monumentally fake. That's just not enough!

Besides, there is no evidence of that being the case.

 

Some Christian people believe that the Earth is old. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution Hoax/old_earth-young_man.htm

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean that the universe is eternal.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/heraclitus-original-proponent-eternal-universe/

Genesis and science dont confict. Genesis mentions that there's a day, night, and dawn. Genesis mentions the firmament and the book of Job mentions that the earth is round.

 

Those fields of science are related to people not agreeing with the Bible.

 

Complete agreement with you except for the amazing part. I read it once and that was enough.

 

If two people live for 800 plus years, have no genetic defects to make inbreeding a problem, and birth a child once a year for a couple of centuries at a minimum, with those offspring generating one child every year once sexually mature, that would rapidly create a large population. The rate of population increase would sharply rise about every 15 years, give or take.

 

And exactly where have I denied such for other's use?