I am just curious, what is wrong with putting a little faith into a book that was written thousands of years ago and yes science has proved some of the fairy tales written by wandering desert nomads to be of some substance, the Exodus for example. I happen to be a ex-catholic, I prefer to read The Scriptures, which is a book published and distributed by the Institute For Scripture Research in South Africa. I could go on and on about the questions that I have raised about the Scriptures myself, like if Adam and Eve had only three sons-Cain, Abel and Seth, who was the woman in which their son, Cain took as his wife in the land of Nod? Why is it there are hundreds of books that even Jesus used for his teachings, but yet every single religion's Bibles contain only the books that they see fit for their followers to read? For example, Enoch is mentioned in Genesis, a descedant of Adam, and Noah's grandfather so to speak. He was favored by God, and disappeared for God took him, he did not suffer death. Yet the only Bible that includes The Book of Enoch, is the Ethiopic Bible, the Catholics do make reference to the book in their Bible, so at least they are agreeing to its existence. I was told this book offers to much knowledge that is why it isn't included, I read it and it is very detailed and informative and I could understand how it would have scared the pants off people 120 years ago. Long story short, this book and many others are considered Pseudepigrapha and/or Apocrypha.
So, if angels did come down from the Heavens and have sex with the women and Nephilliam were the outcome of this union and God caused the great flood to destroy them (although not all if you read closely) , Noah & his family being saved then where did this blood factor come from? If you believe in Darwin and we evolved from apes-then having a factor that is also found in monkeys could be somewhat understandable, but yet why doesn't everyone have it? If you put some thought into the great flood, is the factor a result of Noah, or the Nephilliam that obviously still existed after. I found it interesting that the first child born is usually unaffected, but if not taken care of following babies risk death. Does this have something to do with all the stories in Scripture that speak of women not being able to have children?
I fall in the 15% of population that does not have the RH factor, and had to have the shot after my child was born. He was +, as his father.
This subject became important because my husbands brother takes some things to the extreme, when he has children with his wife, she to would have to have this shot. But he is undecided if he will allow it, his faith says you basically don't mess with God's will, therefore she may just have to take that chance. And I can understand his faith but his wife is upset (her faith is not the same).
Sorry for the long reply, just needed to explain some stuff.
