You are going to have to show me where you get your information on Liberia from. Also, you still haven't done anything to prove that a population growth of 5% / year wouldn't be possible. As I pointed out earlier, the Bible is very clear in Exodus 1 "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them." So far, your proof that their PGR couldn't have been 5% is "'Cause I say so", which doesn't quite cut it.

Re: Liberia
The same place you got your info...I just happened to read all of it


And since you seem to enjoy perusing the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Numbers involved in the Exodus

Exodus 12:37 refers to 600,000 adult Hebrew men leaving Egypt with Moses, plus an unspecified but apparently large number of non-Hebrews ("A mixed multitude also went up with them" - Exodus 12:38); allowing for women and children, the total number involved may have been two million or more.[1] Egypt at the time might have supported a total population of around 3-4 million, maybe even up to 6 million,[2] although Napoleon estimated only 3 million when he invaded in 1798; in any event, the numbers given in Exodus 12:37 seem to represent something between half and almost the entire probable population of Egypt.

The logistics of the Exodus also present problems. A simple calculation shows that a group of 3 million walking 10 abreast with 6 ft between rows would extend for around 340 miles (3,000,000 / 10 * 6 = 1,800,000 ft. = 340 mi). The "very many cattle, both flocks and herds" which accompanied the fleeing Hebrews, plus straggling children and the elderly, would have increased this distance. Recent archaeological research has found no evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted millions of people, nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, estimated to have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000, at the end of the march.

Hebrew University professor Abraham Malamat points out that the Bible often refers to 600 and its multiples, as well as 1,000 and its multiples, typologically in order to convey the idea of a large military unit. "The issue of Exodus 12:37 is an interpretive one. The Hebrew word eleph can be translated 'thousand,' but it is also rendered in the Bible as 'clans' and 'military units.' There are thought to have been 20,000 men in the entire Egyptian army at the height of Egypt's empire. And at the battle of Ai in Joshua 7, there was a severe military setback when 36 troops were killed." Therefore if one reads alaphim (plural of eleph) as military units, the number of Hebrew fighting men lay between 5,000 and 6,000. In theory, this would give a total Hebrew population of less than 20,000, something within the range of historical possibility. Nevertheless the Bible several times cites a very specific number of people as in Numbers1:46 The total number was 603,550.

“Exodus 12:37 refers to 600,000 adult Hebrew men leaving Egypt with Moses, plus an unspecified but apparently large number of non-Hebrews ("A mixed multitude also went up with them" - Exodus 12:38); allowing for women and children, the total number involved may have been two million or more.[1]”

I was going to mention earlier when we got locked out of this thread that there were many converts as well who joined the Hebrews.

“Egypt at the time might have supported a total population of around 3-4 million, maybe even up to 6 million,[2] although Napoleon estimated only 3 million when he invaded in 1798; in any event, the numbers given in Exodus 12:37 seem to represent something between half and almost the entire probable population of Egypt.”

They base the number that Egypt had 6 million people on this author “Robert Feather, The Copper Scroll Decoded” I haven’t read the book, but I would love to see his evidence. I would love to know how they have a count, 3000 years ago, based on science. I also wonder if they are basing this after the entire Egyptian army was killed at sea as well as all the deaths of the first born and those that died during the ten plagues.

Even more interesting is the reliance on Napoleon’s estimate in 1798. How in the world does that represent how many people lived in Egypt 3000 years earlier???

Math is not my strong suit but let’s see if this makes any kind of sense. When they had a million man march in Washington D.C a few years ago are you telling me that they used up 120 miles to do so???

Manhattan has a population of 8 million and it’s about 8 miles long!?!?!? So how does it make any sense that you need 340 miles for 3 million people?!?!!

Honestly I am shocked at wikipedia for this type of shoddy research and reporting.

“Recent archaeological research has found no evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted millions of people,”

I love how they try to prove something with a LACK of evidence. Let’s see if I can follow the logic. They don’t have evidence of a nation who were constantly on the move in the desert (ergo, no permanent structures) who spent very little time in one particular place. This took place in a desert where sandstorms and shifting sands could have easily eradicated any trace from a temporary journey THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO!

If I can’t find evidence somehow that is proof that it didn’t happen???

If they want to say they don’t have proof either way, if it did or did not happen, that is legitimate. But to prove a negative because lack of evidence – doesn’t sound very scientific to me. It makes perfect sense why there wouldn’t be any evidence 3000 years later.

“nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, estimated to have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000, at the end of the march.”

First of all I don’t have exact number of how many Hebrews entered Canaan but many Hebrews (over tens of thousands) died in the desert because of sins they committed.

Secondly, in 1948 there were 650,000 Jews in the Israel. Today there are 5-6 million. I don’t see why it would be such a big deal to have major population growth. As far as evidence, lets remember that no land in history has been destroyed and conquered as many times as Israel has. That place has been built and razed hundreds of times. So it’s really not surprising that we don’t have evidence of a population surge over 3,000 years ago.

I figure why fret about this? God will reveal himself in time and if we die before then, or he isn't actually there (not likely), we could at least use our beliefs to comfort us. I don't care what other people think, I believe what I believe and I expect others to Believe what they believe.


As for the "science" question in the first post. I think If god showed up at the UN with documented proof of his works, Scientists would believe him IF he could do something right there to prove he is god and not some elaborate con artist. At which point, Scientists would have to study God, trying to figure out how he does that.

This is fun! ;-)

I didn't use Wikipedia.

Mainly because the information is biased and poorly researched, as PreciousLife has clearly shown.

Spidercbm wrote,



One would draw that conclusion based on one's own bias.

And the only way to get beyond personnal biases (we all have biases), is to share all the 'bias' information from both sides, and let people decide freely.

With that in mind, would you please share with us, the source of YOUR own 'bias', and equally poorly researched information?!?!?

We, the free people, will then render our verdict!

Sorry about the double posting!




One would draw that conclusion based on one's own bias.

And the only way to get beyond personnal biases (we all have biases), is to share all the 'bias' information from both sides, and let people decide freely.

With that in mind, would you please share with us, the source of YOUR own 'bias', and equally poorly researched information?!?!?

We, the free people, will then render our verdict!

Voileazur,

I used two sources...the Bible is one. The Bible MUST be used as a source as the information being discussed is only recorded there. The second source is "http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/lectures/population/example.html", which I already linked.

Which source is biased? The Bible? I guess so, but since it is the only source of that information and it's used by both sides of this debate, I see no problems there. So that leaves us an educational website that shows the formula for calculating population growth. Is math biased?

This post and yours could have been avoided if you actually READ the posts that I have made instead of falling back on "Claude" and running in accusing me of bias without a single clue in your head as to what you are talking about.

Oh yeah, I also used "https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/li.html". I think that this information probably isn't biased. It's just statistical information about Liberia.

One would draw that conclusion based on one's own bias.

And the only way to get beyond personnal biases (we all have biases), is to share all the 'bias' information from both sides, and let people decide freely.


Voileazur,

Its okay to disagree, but its important to maintain a logical integrity to a conversation. Honestly, do you feel, for example, that because Napoleon in 1798 estimated that Egypt had 3 million people that its fair to say that 3000 years earlier its not possible that Egypt had 10 million people?

Wikipedia uses that logic as one of their "proofs". Its simply not a logical argument and that bothers me. Will you acknowledge that? (As well as their point about 3 million people must take up 340 miles?)

Alright, last night I lost my Internet connection and was unable to properly address two things that Spider had stated that were totally out of line.



Yes, I most certainly do believe this because this has been my personal experience in life. When I was a young person I was very much aware of the difference between lust and love and I had no interested in participating in pure lust whatsoever. So I absolutely believe that two young people can have sex without feeling “lust”.

Clearly if you can’t comprehend this idea then this has not been your life’s experience. I can certainly understand that. But why should you expect to push your personality onto others? Everyone isn’t like you.



Exactly. There’s no need to interpret.

I was speaking in terms of genuine pure love. True sincere caring for another individual.

The problem here is not with any interpretations. The problem here seems to be with your personal belief that no one young people can have sexual attractions for another each other and be sincere about it. You insist that lust must be the motivation.

This speaks volumes of how you must have personally experience life as a young person. If you can’t even conceive of sexual attraction for motivations other than lust, then this must have been your life’s experience.

I have no problem at all understanding sexual attraction driven entirely by genuine sincere love, because this has always been my experience. I am not driven by lust now, and never have been, even in my youth.

So your conclusions here can only be from your own personal world perspective and experience. You’re trying to push your own personal experience of life onto others by judging them based on how you would have behaved.

I can’t be held responsible for you inability to comprehend pure and true motivations. Your perspective on this has indeed revealed to me that you are unable of comprehending this ideal, and therefore I can only conclude that it has not been your life’s experience. Otherwise you wouldn’t see a problem with it and be laughing at the idea that someone can actually be pure of heart.

I was speaking entirely to the concept of love.

You are the one who bought lust into the picture.

This has nothing to do with any ‘interpretations’ of the Bible.

This is solely based on your inability to believe that any young person can be pure of heart.

Okay so lets define lust. Lust is the naughty version of sexual attraction, right? I guess in each person's mind lust is a different definition. I do not see lust as a sin, I see it as a chemical reaction that happens between two people, sexual attraction. Yes, it happens without love in the picture. Man, does it. Lusting and loving at the same time is the untimate goal but do not happen together all the time.

So to me lust is sexual attraction and is not a sin. I do not care what the grand book says. I am speaking from my own very trustworthy judgement here. I choose "sins" in my own life and I do not consider it a sin. It is my judgement to have after all.

Glad you are back abra

I am differing with you slightly on the lust subject. I do not see lust, which is just another word for sexual attraction, as a sin. I believe that we choose whether we act on lust we feel towards others but it happens to us regardless. Lust and love at the same time is the ultimate goal.

I see you as a loving man and I am sure you looked upon your loves with an open mind and heart so you were actually feeling both in that situation which is the pure true love you speak of.

I think abra it is a matter of words here and the definition of the words to each person.

Let's see that again...



One more time for the people in the back...



So you change your opinion from last night? Yesterday, it was a given that anyone who was having sex feels lust and now you have never experianced lust while having sex. Which is it?



Last night, you stated "And besides who has sex at any age without feeling lust????". Why the change now? Suddenly, time, space and all human history has changed and now nobody (other than me, of course) experiances lust when making love? And how does "sexual attraction" differ from lust?



Which completely contradicts what you posted last night.

And if your sexual attraction is driven purely by love, do you love anyone with whom you haven't had sex? You are making a completely false statement here and you know it. Sex drive, lust, sexual attraction, sex appeal, call it what you will, is an important part in the love between couples. Perhaps one's lust is inspired by one's love for the other person, but it is still lust. A sexual desire towards another person.

So basically, you wrote yourself into a corner. You admitted to feeling lust and then denied it later, so that's why you insulted me last night? Great reason for insulting someone. "He's winning the argument, so I'm going to go bat sh*t crazy for a minute and call him a sexual pervert".

Here's another gem....

You said "When I was a young person I was very much aware of the difference between lust and love and I had no interested in participating in pure lust whatsoever"

Surely you can see that even when you love someone, you can still feel lust for that person? It seems that you are half-a**ed admitting to feeling some lust for your past lovers. Maybe that lust was purely from intellectual attraction, but for whatever reason you sexually desired your lovers. Which goes back to the point, Jesus taught that lust between two people is wrong. Even when it isn't "pure lust" and it's only partially lust. Even when you love the person very very much. Even if you would die for the person. Even if you would marry the person. Whatever other excuse you come up with, Jesus called lust a sin equal to adultry. Only lust (which means sexual desire in the Bible) between a married couple was without sin.

“Okay so lets define lust. Lust is the naughty version of sexual attraction, right? I guess in each person's mind lust is a different definition. I do not see lust as a sin, I see it as a chemical reaction that happens between two people, sexual attraction.”

When we’re talking about sin, lust can only refer to intention. It makes no sense to use lust to refer to biological instincts. Biological instincts are innate, and are necessarily involved with love as well as lust.

After all, if two people who love each other (genuinely CARE about each other), didn’t also have the biological instinct to desire to be sexually intimate with each other, then they wouldn’t become sexually intimate with each other.

Clearly, the biological instinct to become sexually intimate is NOT lust.

Lust, is to want to act on that biological instinct purely for the sake of the physical pleasure it holds without caring about the person you use to fulfill that biological desires. That would be LUST.

If you genuinely CARE about the person you are attracted to, and you have every intention of honoring that person and loving them. Then you’re motivation is not based on LUST, but instead its based on LOVE.

The difference is quite simple. If you’re ONLY motivation to have sex is to experience the pleasure of it and you have absolutely no desire to become emotionally involved with the other person then your motivation is LUST.

On the other hand, if you genuinely care about the other person and would indeed give them all your love then you’re motivation is LOVE.

It’s not rocket science.

There were plenty of sexy girls around when I was young. From a purely biological view I would have had great physical pleasure in having sex with that. (That is a fact, not an act, neither in reality, nor in my mind).

Even though I knew that having sex with those sexy girls would result in an explosive orgasm, I had absolutely not interest in pursuing them sexually. On the contrary, I turned down sexual opportunities that came my way of that nature. And there were plenty of them! I turned down a LOT of opportunities to have sex motivated by pure lust. I had no interest in pure lust. Sure, I knew it would be an explosive orgasmic experience. I wasn’t stupid, or ignorant of that fact. But I also knew that it would be based on pure lust. And I had no spiritual desire to partake in that. Even at a young age I was capable of knowing the difference between spiritual things and acts based on pure physicality.

The ONLY girls that I was interested in having sexual relationships with were the girls that I was genuinely interested in, and cared for. I was not interested in having sex with any girl that I wouldn’t also be willing to marry and spend the rest of my life with. That was my conscious and Free Will CHOICE.

However, because I had been taught that all pre-marital sex was a sin, I was even hesitant to engage in sex with the girls I was genuinely in LOVE WITH! A THAT is the huge mistake that I made in life!!!

Had I not been ‘religiously inhibited’ in thinking that pre-marital sex was a sin, I wouldn’t have HESITATED to have made love to those girls that I genuinely loved!!! In fact, it probably only would have taken the first one and I probably would have married her and been monogamous ever-after.

So the religious beliefs that I was taught when I was young basically RUINED my life. Because it prevented me from acting on the natural instinct of LOVE. The girls that I loved, obviously weren’t interested in waiting and so they found other men who had lesser morals. (or a differnet understanding of their religious views)

Actually though, most of the girls I was emotionally attracted to ended up with some serious scum bags.

I only wish that religion hadn’t gotten in the way. Had I simply been taught that premarital sexual delight was perfectly acceptable if done with a pure heart I would have acting entirely differently. It would have change my ENTIRE LIFE.

Trying to be a wholesome person basically RUINED my life. All because I was under the believe that premarital sex was a sin, and I didn’t want to purposefully and knowingly commit any sin.

I believed that God would deliver to me that woman who would appreciate my wholesomeness. But that never happened. God failed to deliver anything. God was as totally unappreciative of my desire to adhere to what I believed to be his request of me. Instead of rewarding me for my good behavior, by sending me a good woman, he punished me by setting me up for a life of loneliness. My good intentions resulted in me never marrying. They girls were always swept away by men who were too quick to act on LUST.

Men who “Knew what they wanted and weren’t afraid to go after it”. But then after they conquered it they tossed it aside and moved on to the next conquest. Men who were motivated purely by LUST and had no love in their heart.

okay, abra, I will give you that to you lust is the intention of an unsavory act. I do not interpret it that way. But I will give you the personal view of this. You are probably closer to the biblical definition anyway

That was in response to your accusations. And it was taken out of context.

Unfortunately those posts were removed so I can’t quote them.

I was responding to your suggestion last night that ‘lust’ is just any physical attraction. And in that context of the your meaning of ‘lust’ then who wouldn’t’ feel lust at any age?

I think I covered it quite well in my previous post.

If you equate ‘lust’ to simply enjoying a physical act, then everything we do is done in ‘lust’.

That’s just an erroneous definition of the word.

When speaking of sin you need to speak in terms of intention.

Is the intention based on lust? Or is the intention based on love?

This is the bottom line Spider.

All of my intentions throughout my entire life have always been based on love.

Any attempt to pervert that is nothing short of sick.

I based my life on LOVE.

What do you base your life on Spider?

Trying to pervert what everyone else says????

Well, if we allow that 'lust' simply refers to enjoying an act then any attempt to enjoy anything in life would be considered "lust".

That would be a seriously sick philosophy don't you think?

Although, I think a lot of religious fundamentalists do try to pervert religion into implying this is indeed the case.

In fact, that’s what RUINED my life. I was taught that ACTS are sins, rather than INTENTIONS.

But now I know that can’t possibly be the case because that would be ludicrous and it makes absolutely no sense at all.