Adam and Eve

Ark Guy · #31 7th September 2003, 10:28 AM

lucaspa:
However, if the Bible is literally inerrant, as you suppose, then the time line has to be accurate too, doesn't it? And the Bible says that daughters were not born until after it says Cain and Seth took wives. So, unless the Bible is not an accurate time line, then the daughters weren't even born yet to be wives to Cain and Seth.

The bible in this section of Genesis list the ancestral accounts.

For example,

GEN 5:1 This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.

Now, if your theory of literally inerrant and time lines is correct then the whole bible is screw up. Why?

Read on my evo friend:

GEN 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

WAIT A SECOND....how can the creation happen after Cain was tossed out of the land and taken a wife?

It becomes rather obvious that you are misapplying scripture again.

Vance · #32 7th September 2003, 11:46 AM

Um, I think you are missing his point. It is you who are arguing for inerrancy and, based on that inerrancy, your "Cain married his sisters" won't work.

So, your points about how the timeline won't work is well taken.

Ark Guy · #33 7th September 2003, 02:45 PM

Wrong vance.

There is nothing in the accounts of Genesis (or the rest of the bible) that would contradict that theory.

...or can you present it?

For now, consider your self corrected.

Vance · #34 7th September 2003, 08:19 PM

Arkguy:

Are you saying that a straightforward, plain reading of the account doesn't seem to indicated that there were others living at the time of the murder?

The simple chronology of the literal story is very clear. Adam and Eve have the brothers, the brothers have a rift and Cain kills Abel. Cain is condemned and is worried that when we wanders, others will kill him. There has not yet been any indication of anyone else being born to Adam and Eve. Cain heads out.

Since Seth was born when Adam was 135, and the text STRONGLY implies that he is the first born after Abel's death, then this all makes for a VERY strained reading to imply that Cain married his sisters. If you want to give a model that works without getting very far from the plain reading of the text, go right ahead. No matter what, you would have to read in an AWFUL lot into the text, and read it in a very odd way to get the result you want. The bottom line is that NOBODY would ever read that into the text unless it was absolutely imperative in order to fit with their other beliefs.

And the genealogy given later does not contradict the chronology concept, as you suggest before, since when someone is giving genealogy, they will very naturally start again at the first person in the lineage.

Now, as for evidence of pre-existing humans, the evidence is all inferred rather than explicit, much like your theory about Cain marrying his sister. Both theories require reading between the lines. The only thing is that the Cain marrying his sister idea takes a lot more gymnastics to arrive at its point.

Ark Guy · #35 7th September 2003, 10:30 PM

Vance I read your post and you are so wrong and mis-directed.

Arkguy:

Are you saying that a straightforward, plain reading of the account doesn't seem to indicated that there were others living at the time of the murder?

The bible doesn't comr right out and say there were others. Perhaps there were perhaps there weren't. When you read the bible it seems to indicate that there were others at the time of the murder. This point is not in dispute.

I think cain and Able were the first two siblings and in the course of time prior to the murders there were others born.
Just because the bible only mentions Cain and Able doesn't mean there were not other brothers and sisters prior to the murder. You must remember that the account was about the murder and not the other family members. The "whoever" mentioned in GEN 4:14 had to have been either brother and sisters or nieces and nephews.

The problem comes in when you push the concept that the others were a bunch of soulless people who were around prior to Adam and Eve. That concept is un-biblical. If it was a biblical concept then you would have absolutly no problem presenting the theology...but instead you continue to hem and haw around the subject...omitting the biblical connection.

The simple chronology of the literal story is very clear. Adam and Eve have the brothers, the brothers have a rift and Cain kills Abel. Cain is condemned and is worried that when we wanders, others will kill him. There has not yet been any indication of anyone else being born to Adam and Eve. Cain heads out.

The bible does not say that the brotherS killed Able. It says Cain killed Able.

You also seem to have forgotten that other sections of the scripture clearly indicate that there were other brother and sisters. GEN 5:4 comes to mind.

Since Seth was born when Adam was 135, and the text STRONGLY implies that he is the first born after Abel's death,

Yeah? So what???

then this all makes for a VERY strained reading to imply that Cain married his sisters. If you want to give a model that works without getting very far from the plain reading of the text, go right ahead. No matter what, you would have to read in an AWFUL lot into the text, and read it in a very odd way to get the result you want. The bottom line is that NOBODY would ever read that into the text unless it was absolutely imperative in order to fit with their other beliefs.

I'm not reading a thing into the text. Your claim seem to be that the first 3 children born were Cain, Able then Seth. The text seems to indicate other wise. Read my above answers in this paragraph.

And the genealogy given later does not contradict the chronology concept, as you suggest before, since when someone is giving genealogy, they will very naturally start again at the first person in the lineage.

...Please show me where I made this statement. I believe IT WAS YOU who claimed there was a contradiction. I could be wrong, it may have been lucaspa or someone else.

Now, as for evidence of pre-existing humans, the evidence is all inferred rather than explicit, much like your theory about Cain marrying his sister. Both theories require reading between the lines. The only thing is that the Cain marrying his sister idea takes a lot more gymnastics to arrive at its point.

You'll need to explain why it would require more gymnastic.
If you look at scripture it mentions the others, and it mentions the brothers and sisters...no where does it mention a souless race.

As a matter of fact the bible clearly say...

GEN 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

The above speaks of Adam and Eve. It clearly say Adam and Eve were the first of mankind....not some oother souless man.

Posts: 514

Return to Top
ÊPages (4): Prev 1 2 3 [4]

pudmuddle · #36 7th September 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

Arkguy:

Are you saying that a straightforward, plain reading of the account doesn't seem to indicated that there were others living at the time of the murder?

The simple chronology of the literal story is very clear. Adam and Eve have the brothers, the brothers have a rift and Cain kills Abel. Cain is condemned and is worried that when we wanders, others will kill him. There has not yet been any indication of anyone else being born to Adam and Eve. Cain heads out.

Since Seth was born when Adam was 135, and the text STRONGLY implies that he is the first born after Abel's death, then this all makes for a VERY strained reading to imply that Cain married his sisters. If you want to give a model that works without getting very far from the plain reading of the text, go right ahead. No matter what, you would have to read in an AWFUL lot into the text, and read it in a very odd way to get the result you want. The bottom line is that NOBODY would ever read that into the text unless it was absolutely imperative in order to fit with their other beliefs.

And the genealogy given later does not contradict the chronology concept, as you suggest before, since when someone is giving genealogy, they will very naturally start again at the first person in the lineage.

Now, as for evidence of pre-existing humans, the evidence is all inferred rather than explicit, much like your theory about Cain marrying his sister. Both theories require reading between the lines. The only thing is that the Cain marrying his sister idea takes a lot more gymnastics to arrive at its point.

I don't see any of mention of when the daughters were born, or how much time had passed before Cain took a wife.
Ok, you have to read between the lines to have Cain marrying a sister, but it is the most logical explanation.
Creating a whole other humaniod species and totally forgetting to mention it, seems like a huge stretch to me.
Don't know why people feel the need to complicate the Bible, when they could just read and believe. :rolleyes:

BInC · #37 8th September 2003, 01:24 AM

I agree with an earlier post made by Sinai. I think alot of the subtler concepts in the bible were lost in the translation to english. I find it helps to keep that in mind when reading any scripture that seems to be contradictory, and allowing for slight changes in the meanings of words clears up most discrepencies.

I also believe that it might be possible for a pre-human race to have existed. It is an interesting idea. I believe in the concept of the first "day" lasting longer than what we now ocnsider a day. To God, being imortal and all, it would have been no longer than a day. What better way for God to create a diverse collection of animals than giving them a slightly imperfect genetic copying mechanism?

Thus, to the recorder of Genisis, seeing a vision of creation in super-fast motion, man would be seen to be made from dust. Which is exactly what would have happened, over a longer period of time. Being created in God's image might be meant to mean, as suggested earlier I believe, that God's soul was infused into an "animal" of the time, creating man. I am not saying that man existed before adam and eve. Adam would have been the first Man, becuase anything before him was just animal.

I know that the scripture says nothing about this, but that may simply be because it was assumed to be common knowledge at the time. Kind of like in 1 and 2 Kings it makes mention of the other deeds of the kings being recorded elswhere.

Again, I am not saying I believe this, but I do think it is a concept worth consideration.

lucaspa · #38 8th September 2003, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

lucaspa:
However, if the Bible is literally inerrant, as you suppose, then the time line has to be accurate too, doesn't it? And the Bible says that daughters were not born until after it says Cain and Seth took wives. So, unless the Bible is not an accurate time line, then the daughters weren't even born yet to be wives to Cain and Seth.

The bible in this section of Genesis list the ancestral accounts.

For example,

GEN 5:1 This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.

Now, if your theory of literally inerrant and time lines is correct then the whole bible is screw up. Why?

Read on my evo friend:

GEN 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

WAIT A SECOND....how can the creation happen after Cain was tossed out of the land and taken a wife?

LOL!!

1. This is a quick recap of creation.
2. This is the creation of Genesis 1, and contradicts Genesis 2. Of course, you wouldn't notice that, would you. You forgot to continue:

"When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years,; and he had other sons and daughters."

That doesn't help you, or were you just thinking we were not going to look at the Bible?

So, what do we have here? We get a quick recap of creation and then get the same timeline we had in Genesis 4!

Those two sentences don't interrupt the timeline, they are an editorial comment.

Thank you for showing how convoluted creationists have to be and how far they go from a plain reading. Vance will be pleased that you demonstrated his point so well.

However, within the story of Genesis 2-4, we have a

lucaspa · #39 8th September 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by pudmuddle

I don't see any of mention of when the daughters were born, or how much time had passed before Cain took a wife.
Ok, you have to read between the lines to have Cain marrying a sister, but it is the most logical explanation.

The most logical explanation is that we are not dealing with a historical story, but a symbolic one.

If you can "read between the lines" then you are no longer reading the plain Word of God. You get to make up anything you want in order to fit your interpretation.

Creating a whole other humaniod species and totally forgetting to mention it, seems like a huge stretch to me.

Why? The species were extinct by the time the Bible was written. How is God going to explain this to the people at the time? Also, what bearing does it have to the theology God wants to impart thru the Bible?

Don't know why people feel the need to complicate the Bible, when they could just read and believe.

Because your literal interpretation is unbelievable.

lucaspa · #40 8th September 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

I think cain and Able were the first two siblings and in the course of time prior to the murders there were others born.
Just because the bible only mentions Cain and Able doesn't mean there were not other brothers and sisters prior to the murder.

Keep this in mind when we say that the Bible doesn't mention evolution. Just because the Bible doesn't mention it doesn't mean it did not happen.

Sauce for the goose.

So what you are saying is that the Bible is inerrant but incomplete. Right? If information necessary to understanding the story is left out, isn't that a kind of error?

You must remember that the account was about the murder and not the other family members. The "whoever" mentioned in GEN 4:14 had to have been either brother and sisters or nieces and nephews.

It doesn't have to be that. Instead, it can also be that there are other people. After all, both Genesis 1 and Genesis 5 say God made men and women.

[Vance] The simple chronology of the literal story is very clear. Adam and Eve have the brothers, the brothers have a rift and Cain kills Abel. Cain is condemned and is worried that when we wanders, others will kill him. There has not yet been any indication of anyone else being born to Adam and Eve. Cain heads out.

The bible does not say that the brotherS killed Able. It says Cain killed Able.

ArkGuy, Vance did not say "brothers killed Able". Look again, he said "the brothers have a rift and Cain kills Abel." How did you misread this so badly? It does explain your misreading of the Bible, however. As below:

You also seem to have forgotten that other sections of the scripture clearly indicate that there were other brother and sisters. GEN 5:4 comes to mind.

Genesis 5:4 (quoted in my previous post) says that the brothers and sisters came after Seth. Not before. So they weren't around when Cain killed Abel. They are the only kids existing then.

I'm not reading a thing into the text. Your claim seem to be that the first 3 children born were Cain, Able then Seth. The text seems to indicate other wise. Read my above answers in this paragraph.

Yes, that is what we are claiming: Cain, Abel, then Seth. The text indicates this exactly and your answers don't address the issue. Look again at Genesis 5:3. Seth is the first kid mentioned. It talks about Adam living for 665 after he had Seth, and in that time he had sons and daughters. If there were sons and daughters before Seth, we wouldn't have the order of Seth first. Some other son would be first.

Maybe it took Adam 135 years to figure out how to have sex. After all, there's no one to teach him.

As a matter of fact the bible clearly say...

GEN 5:2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

And you put a quote that shows that multiple people were created. "man" is synonymous with mankind, which is more than a single man and woman. Whether they were souless or not is beside the point. What is shown is that there were more people around than Adam and Eve and their children.