Cain's Wife

[nhboy]

you are just some lonely blowhard who thinks he knows everything.

"Blowhard is a fictional character, a mutant in the Marvel Comics Universe."

 

[PsyOps]

"Blowhard is a fictional character, a mutant in the Marvel Comics Universe."

Well, it confirms for me that you're a fictional character and a mutant. No surprise here.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Thing is there are only two options here: Cain found other people (and the Bible left them out for some reason, maybe because the literal creation story isn't true) or Cain committed incest (which leaves the literalists scrambling for an explanation for why it was once OK...). Either way, it is just one of the many places in the Bible where stories like creation fall apart; well...where a literal interpretation falls apart anyway...

Ohh, so now you're a Bible expert? Nice!

and still, you have yet to show any passage that shows that cains wife could not have been eve, it is one of the few possibilites. It might be less likely, but according to the book she would have been one of the few women around at the time.
You seem to think that disagreeing with you is akin to disagreeing with god, but you aint him, you are just some lonely blowhard who thinks he knows everything. Sadly, your prujdice influences your reading of the scripture, as you continually try to force it to fit your interpretation.

As I've said: It wouldn't matter to you what I show you...and btw, if you're going to start name calling and the personal attacks, I'm going to tell your mommy to take your computer away from you...

 

[This_person]

Thing is there are only two options here: Cain found other people (and the Bible left them out for some reason, maybe because the literal creation story isn't true)

Why is it literally incorrect to have something left out of the Bible. Do you believe it is every last thing there ever is to know about everything?

It's not.

Just because it's NOT written doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Literally, it does not say Adam was the only human created from the earth. It says mankind was created, then talks about the man it chooses to talk about.

There is no literal contridiction. The only contridiction comes from what is assumed vs. what may have happened. If you ASSUME Adam was the only human created from the earth, then there's a contridiction. In every literal sense, this is not what is written.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Thing is there are only two options here: Cain found other people (and the Bible left them out for some reason, maybe because the literal creation story isn't true) or Cain committed incest (which leaves the literalists scrambling for an explanation for why it was once OK...). Either way, it is just one of the many places in the Bible where stories like creation fall apart; well...where a literal interpretation falls apart anyway...

Ohh, so now you're a Bible expert? Nice!

and still, you have yet to show any passage that shows that cains wife could not have been eve, it is one of the few possibilites. It might be less likely, but according to the book she would have been one of the few women around at the time.
You seem to think that disagreeing with you is akin to disagreeing with god, but you aint him, you are just some lonely blowhard who thinks he knows everything. Sadly, your prujdice influences your reading of the scripture, as you continually try to force it to fit your interpretation.

As I've said: It wouldn't matter to you what I show you...and btw, if you're going to start name calling and the personal attacks, I'm going to tell your mommy to take your computer away from you...

You can't, I am open to read them, but you just can't. So far the closest you have given is some passages about cooking a goat. On the other hand we have the detailed account of lot and his daughters. One requires no interpretation, lot fathered two children with two of his daughters. The other, well you didn't even try to offer a real interpretation, you just proclaimed "wining" after you said it

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Ohh, so now you're a Bible expert? Nice!

No, I work in logic...sorry!

Is that you're response? Or can you actually refute me?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Thing is there are only two options here: Cain found other people (and the Bible left them out for some reason, maybe because the literal creation story isn't true)

Why is it literally incorrect to have something left out of the Bible. Do you believe it is every last thing there ever is to know about everything?

It's not.

Just because it's NOT written doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Literally, it does not say Adam was the only human created from the earth. It says mankind was created, then talks about the man it chooses to talk about.

There is no literal contridiction. The only contridiction comes from what is assumed vs. what may have happened. If you ASSUME Adam was the only human created from the earth, then there's a contridiction. In every literal sense, this is not what is written.

Oh, I completely agree. But since it is the literalists I have fun debating (no offense Psy but it's not as fun when you agree ) I took a literal interpretation!

 

[ItalianScallion]

You can't, I am open to read them, but you just can't. So far the closest you have given is some passages about cooking a goat. On the other hand we have the detailed account of lot and his daughters. One requires no interpretation, lot fathered two children with two of his daughters. The other, well you didn't even try to offer a real interpretation, you just proclaimed "wining" after you said it

I've offered a crystal clear interpretation to you but, AS USUAL, you're here to just argue and piss & moan by taking the opposing (ridiculous) views ALL THE TIME...Just like Nucklesack used to do, but he got tired of being wrong, and he left...

God wants us to use our brain to discern what the Bible says when it doesn't directly say something. I'll explain. Libby started a thread a while back, demanding a verse that says: "that we are to accept Christ as our personal Savior"? The truth is, it doesn't say that directly but we can safely say that because the Bible implies it in a number of places.

Ok, now on to your issue. Under those same principles, it doesn't directly say that Cain boinked a sister or a neice (or Eve) but we can safely say that, because of God's principles, sex with a parent is NEVER an option so THAT sick thought is out. With our gift of discernment, we can safely say that it was:

1) Not a cousin, because Adam & Eve had no brothers or sisters.
2) Not Eve because that would be seriously wrong and VERY unlikely.
3) Not someone else whom God created because that would make the Bible contradict itself later. (Gen 3:20 & Acts 17:26)
4) Surely a niece or sister since there are really no other options.

No, I work in logic...sorry!
Is that you're response? Or can you actually refute me?

No need to refute you again. I've done it before and you didn't budge. I've explained it clearly a couple of times. You can read my reply to "thatguy" above here ^^^^.

 

[thatguy]

I've offered a crystal clear interpretation to you but, AS USUAL, you're here to just argue and piss & moan by taking the opposing (ridiculous) views ALL THE TIME...Just like Nucklesack used to do, but he got tired of being wrong, and he left...

God wants us to use our brain to discern what the Bible says when it doesn't directly say something. I'll explain. Libby started a thread a while back, demanding a verse that says: "that we are to accept Christ as our personal Savior"? The truth is, it doesn't say that directly but we can safely say that because the Bible implies it in a number of places.

Ok, now on to your issue. Under those same principles, it doesn't directly say that Cain boinked a sister or a neice (or Eve) but we can safely say that, because of God's principles, sex with a parent is NEVER an option so THAT sick thought is out. With our gift of discernment, we can safely say that it was:

1) Not a cousin, because Adam & Eve had no brothers or sisters.
2) Not Eve because that would be seriously wrong and VERY unlikely.
3) Not someone else whom God created because that would make the Bible contradict itself later. (Gen 3:20 & Acts 17:26)
4) Surely a niece or sister since there are really no other options.

No need to refute you again. I've done it before and you didn't budge. I've explained it clearly a couple of times. You can read my reply to "thatguy" above here ^^^^.

so you think a crytal clear interpretation of a passage describing how to make sacrifices to the lord during various festivals is to twist it into a meaning it doesn't have?

The Three Annual Festivals
14 “Three times a year you are to celebrate a festival to me.
15 “Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread; for seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

“No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

16 “Celebrate the Festival of Harvest with the firstfruits of the crops you sow in your field.

“Celebrate the Festival of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in your crops from the field.

17 “Three times a year all the men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD.

18 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast.

“The fat of my festival offerings must not be kept until morning.

19 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.

“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.

Your problem is that you start with your conclusion and then try to find passages that support it. There is NO WAY that you can honestly be saying that the passage about cooking a goat has anythign to do with incest between a mother and a child.

 

[ItalianScallion]

so you think a crytal clear interpretation of a passage describing how to make sacrifices to the lord during various festivals is to twist it into a meaning it doesn't have?

Only you and your buddy Nonnoboy are trying to twist the meaning of this passage. I know what it means, I know why it was written and I'm not trying to change it's meaning. I brought it up because it states a "principle" that stands throughout the Bible. An underlying principle like that one, is what we use to discern the meaning of other passages...like where Cains wife came from. God's moral laws never change so we can safely say that Cain and Eve......didn't.

Your problem is that you start with your conclusion and then try to find passages that support it. There is NO WAY that you can honestly be saying that the passage about cooking a goat has anythign to do with incest between a mother and a child.

No, not my problem. It's your lack of ability to follow a biblical principle.

I read the passage about Cain's wife. I then go to other Bible passages to find "principles" that will help me better understand it. Don't be upset that God didn't give you the ability to see those principles. He wants to, but you won't allow Him to. See?

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

so you think a crytal clear interpretation of a passage describing how to make sacrifices to the lord during various festivals is to twist it into a meaning it doesn't have?

Only you and your buddy Nonnoboy are trying to twist the meaning of this passage. I know what it means, I know why it was written and I'm not trying to change it's meaning. I brought it up because it states a "principle" that stands throughout the Bible. An underlying principle like that one, is what we use to discern the meaning of other passages...like where Cains wife came from. God's moral laws never change so we can safely say that Cain and Eve......didn't.

Your problem is that you start with your conclusion and then try to find passages that support it. There is NO WAY that you can honestly be saying that the passage about cooking a goat has anythign to do with incest between a mother and a child.

No, not my problem. It's your lack of ability to follow a biblical principle.

I read the passage about Cain's wife. I then go to other Bible passages to find "principles" that will help me better understand it. Don't be upset that God didn't give you the ability to see those principles. He wants to, but you won't allow Him to. See?

Dude, I posted the entire passage and you still want to pretend that line is prohibition on incest? Try actually reading the words

And still you offer no passages that actually talk to the issue, meanwhile the story of lot is a clear, he had children with both of his daughters

Why is the idea of sibling incest so much more problematic than parent child?
Also, if gods morals never change then how was sibling incest ok for Adam and eve's kids but now it isn't?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

so you think a crytal clear interpretation of a passage describing how to make sacrifices to the lord during various festivals is to twist it into a meaning it doesn't have?

Only you and your buddy Nonnoboy are trying to twist the meaning of this passage. I know what it means, I know why it was written and I'm not trying to change it's meaning. I brought it up because it states a "principle" that stands throughout the Bible. An underlying principle like that one, is what we use to discern the meaning of other passages...like where Cains wife came from. God's moral laws never change so we can safely say that Cain and Eve......didn't.

Your problem is that you start with your conclusion and then try to find passages that support it. There is NO WAY that you can honestly be saying that the passage about cooking a goat has anythign to do with incest between a mother and a child.

No, not my problem. It's your lack of ability to follow a biblical principle.

I read the passage about Cain's wife. I then go to other Bible passages to find "principles" that will help me better understand it. Don't be upset that God didn't give you the ability to see those principles. He wants to, but you won't allow Him to. See?

Dude, I posted the entire passage and you still want to pretend that line is prohibition on incest? Try actually reading the words

And still you offer no passages that actually talk to the issue, meanwhile the story of lot is a clear, he had children with both of his daughters

Why is the idea of sibling incest so much more problematic than parent child?
Also, if gods morals never change then how was sibling incest ok for Adam and eve's kids but now it isn't?

I forget, the the bible say Adam and Eve had children other that Cain and Able?

 

[PsyOps]

I forget, the the bible say Adam and Eve had children other that Cain and Able?

Yes, there was Seth (Genesis 4:25).

However, this passage implies there were already people on the earth when Cain and Abel were around:

Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.​

Although literalists will likely assume Adam and Eve had other children around the time they had Cain and Abel; these passage make me believe all-the-more that there were people all over the earth during the times of Adam and Eve giving credence to the possibility of a larger creation of man perhaps through an evolutionary process or other process.

And some other odd things mentioned in Chapter 5 of Genesis are the ages of the people back then and the age they were when they started having kids. But that's for another thread

 

[thatguy]

Yes, there was Seth (Genesis 4:25).

However, this passage implies there were already people on the earth when Cain and Abel were around:



Although literalists will likely assume Adam and Eve had other children around the time they had Cain and Abel; these passage make me believe all-the-more that there were people all over the earth during the times of Adam and Eve giving credence to the possibility of a larger creation of man perhaps through an evolutionary process or other process.

And some other odd things mentioned in Chapter 5 of Genesis are the ages of the people back then and the age they were when they started having kids. But that's for another thread

I disagree that the passage means there were other people (outside of those in the story) in that Cain could have feared retribution from his parents, and knowing that they could have more children, his currently unmentioned, or soon to be born siblings. Considering the length of lives at the time, cain could have been assuming he would be wandering for several generations, therefore there would potentially be hundreds of his relatives to fear.

 

[PsyOps]

I disagree that the passage means there were other people (outside of those in the story) in that Cain could have feared retribution from his parents, and knowing that they could have more children, his currently unmentioned, or soon to be born siblings. Considering the length of lives at the time, cain could have been assuming he would be wandering for several generations, therefore there would potentially be hundreds of his relatives to fear.

I suppose that's another way of looking at it.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

I forget, the the bible say Adam and Eve had children other that Cain and Able?

Yes, there was Seth (Genesis 4:25).

However, this passage implies there were already people on the earth when Cain and Abel were around:

Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.​

Although literalists will likely assume Adam and Eve had other children around the time they had Cain and Abel; these passage make me believe all-the-more that there were people all over the earth during the times of Adam and Eve giving credence to the possibility of a larger creation of man perhaps through an evolutionary process or other process.

And some other odd things mentioned in Chapter 5 of Genesis are the ages of the people back then and the age they were when they started having kids. But that's for another thread

Seth, male. So no sister then?

I had forgotten about the relevance of Cain's protection from 'whomever finds him'. If it were only Adam, Eve, Cain and apparently Seth (at some point) why would God have to protect him? Good point!

I suppose this - may - lend to the belief that God 'kick-started' evolution?

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

I forget, the the bible say Adam and Eve had children other that Cain and Able?

Yes, there was Seth (Genesis 4:25).

However, this passage implies there were already people on the earth when Cain and Abel were around:

Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.​

Although literalists will likely assume Adam and Eve had other children around the time they had Cain and Abel; these passage make me believe all-the-more that there were people all over the earth during the times of Adam and Eve giving credence to the possibility of a larger creation of man perhaps through an evolutionary process or other process.

And some other odd things mentioned in Chapter 5 of Genesis are the ages of the people back then and the age they were when they started having kids. But that's for another thread

Seth, male. So no sister then?

I had forgotten about the relevance of Cain's protection from 'whomever finds him'. If it were only Adam, Eve, Cain and apparently Seth (at some point) why would God have to protect him? Good point!

I suppose this - may - lend to the belief that God 'kick-started' evolution?

Why would Cain need to be protected from people he had done no wrong to? Why would people outside of his clan want to kill him? The only people who would want vengeance would be relatives and friends of Able.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

I forget, the the bible say Adam and Eve had children other that Cain and Able?

Yes, there was Seth (Genesis 4:25).

However, this passage implies there were already people on the earth when Cain and Abel were around:

Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

But the LORD said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.​

Although literalists will likely assume Adam and Eve had other children around the time they had Cain and Abel; these passage make me believe all-the-more that there were people all over the earth during the times of Adam and Eve giving credence to the possibility of a larger creation of man perhaps through an evolutionary process or other process.

And some other odd things mentioned in Chapter 5 of Genesis are the ages of the people back then and the age they were when they started having kids. But that's for another thread

Seth, male. So no sister then?

I had forgotten about the relevance of Cain's protection from 'whomever finds him'. If it were only Adam, Eve, Cain and apparently Seth (at some point) why would God have to protect him? Good point!

I suppose this - may - lend to the belief that God 'kick-started' evolution?

Why would Cain need to be protected from people he had done no wrong to? Why would people outside of his clan want to kill him? The only people who would want vengeance would be relatives and friends of Able.

Yet another contradiction in the Bible, IMO. I still don't think Cain should be held acceptable for doing something he didn't understand. No one had died yet, I don't think he would have fully understood the consequences of his actions.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Why would Cain need to be protected from people he had done no wrong to? Why would people outside of his clan want to kill him? The only people who would want vengeance would be relatives and friends of Able.

That last statement is right, because they were all family. He murdered a family member. Everyone came from A & E.

However, this passage implies there were already people on the earth when Cain and Abel were around:
Although literalists will likely assume Adam and Eve had other children around the time they had Cain and Abel; these passage make me believe all-the-more that there were people all over the earth during the times of Adam and Eve giving credence to the possibility of a larger creation of man perhaps through an evolutionary process or other process.

It does imply that there were others around at the time Cain murdered Abel but it does not say that there was "the possibility of a larger creation...or other process". You're implying a meaning that would contradict verses that can NOT be contradicted. That is, those verses that say that A & E were the parents of ALL the living. There could have been no other creation or those verses would be wrong. We have to base our statements about Cain's wife on those very verses...

The Bible doesn't say how many of Adam & Eves "other" kids were around when Cain murdered Abel but think about it logically: After Cain murdered Abel, he went to Nod and found a wife. If Eve hadn't had any daughters yet, Cain would have had to wait years until one was born and grown up (Unless he was muslim)

Most people assume that Cain & Abel were grown and mature before Seth was born (I'm hoping that a 5 year old didn't murder his brother). What they miss is the fact that A & E probably had some daughters right after Cain & Abel were born. Although we don't know how old Cain or Abel were, they could have been teens or they could have been 90 or any other age but we must stick with one fact that we do know: A & E were the parents of everyone who ever lived and, so, our conclusions start from there...

Yet another contradiction in the Bible, IMO. I still don't think Cain should be held acceptable for doing something he didn't understand. No one had died yet, I don't think he would have fully understood the consequences of his actions.

Nope; just another concept that you can't understand because you refuse to...

Cain FULLY understood what he had done UNA. "Wrong" is pre-programmed in all of our consciences from birth. If he didn't know that what he did was wrong:

Why did he try to hide from God?
Why did he get upset when God asked him about Abel?
Why did he worry about someone trying to kill him?
Why did he argue with God about his punishment instead of saying: You can't hold me responsible for this! I didn't know that murder was wrong. See?

 

[UNA]

another concept that you can't understand because you refuse to...

Yeah, I have no clue where people get the idea that you're prideful...

Cain FULLY understood what he had done UNA. "Wrong" is pre-programmed in all of our consciences from birth.

This is actually a concept that is debated in the field of psychology today. It's a tough one to study as it may require less-than-ethical research. I don't happen to agree with ""Wrong" is pre-programmed in all of our consciences from birth" because there are indeed individuals in our society that do NOT recognize the concept of "wrong", if this weren't the case, my 5 year old nephew wouldn't hit is friends (he is of course disciplined for this and doesn't do it anymore). He went through a stage - like many young kids do - where he hit people. It's wrong to hit people but he didn't know that yet!

If he didn't know that what he did was wrong:

Why did he try to hide from God?
Why did he get upset when God asked him about Abel?
Why did he worry about someone trying to kill him?
Why did he argue with God about his punishment instead of saying: You can't hold me responsible for this! I didn't know that murder was wrong. See?

Once Able died he obviously realized he'd done wrong. And why didn't he argue with god?? If God really was there in the way these verses says he was (i.e. Cain could talk to him) I wouldn't have argued with him either, he's frgn god! He can strike me dead!