Literal Genesis requires incest and would have created a threatened species

[Fascinated With God]

There were no other "man races". The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were the first two humans created.

Then what was the land of Nod where Cain found a wife? (Gen 4:16)

 

[mathetes123]

Then what was the land of Nod where Cain found a wife? (Gen 4:16)

It was settled by descendents of Adam and Eve. They lived hundreds of years and would have produced many offspring, who in turn would have produced offspring.

 

[Fascinated With God]

It was settled by descendents of Adam and Eve. They lived hundreds of years and would have produced many offspring, who in turn would have produced offspring.

That requires a dramatic time span between verse 16 and 17. That seems to me to be an assumption which the text does not directly support. There is no indication of a large time lap between verses 16 & 17.

 

[SkyWriting]

There were no other "man races". The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were the first two humans created.

It seems that if the change were only a spiritual creation or change of heart, then Eve would not have been needed. Plus mating with ""wild-people" would not have left a clean path for the line of Jesus. And Gods chosen people are big on ancestry and lineage and such.

 

[kenvin]

Just a point of information. People who believe in literal genesis think men have one less rib.

That is incorrect. Men and women have the same number of ribs. Yay biology and human physiology class.

 

[Assyrian]

Do people really believe that? You won't find creationists here who believe that.

 

[Jig]

Just a point of information. People who believe in literal genesis think men have one less rib.

That is incorrect. Men and women have the same number of ribs. Yay biology and human physiology class.

Although this is the common translation, the Hebrew word does not really mean 'rib'. The Hebrew word sela literally means 'side'. This same word is used in 2 Samuel 16:13 to mean the 'side' of a hill.

We don't know what God took out of Adam, but even if it was a rib this wouldn't have altered Adam's DNA. He still would have passed on the genes for a complete set of ribs.

 

[ChetSinger]

Just a point of information. People who believe in literal genesis think men have one less rib.

Not in my experience. But thanks for the chuckle.

 

[mathetes123]

Just a point of information. People who believe in literal genesis think men have one less rib.

That is incorrect. Men and women have the same number of ribs. Yay biology and human physiology class.

What a minority of men and women believe and what the Bible teach are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[mathetes123]

Then what was the land of Nod where Cain found a wife? (Gen 4:16)

If your suggesting there were men before the 6 day creation, how did they survive before the creation of animals, plants, the sun and moon, and land?

 

[Calminian]

Although this is the common translation, the Hebrew word does not really mean 'rib'. The Hebrew word sela literally means 'side'. This same word is used in 2 Samuel 16:13 to mean the 'side' of a hill.

We don't know what God took out of Adam, but even if it was a rib this wouldn't have altered Adam's DNA. He still would have passed on the genes for a complete set of ribs.

Was just going to comment similarly. You beat me to it.

 

[kenvin]

Although this is the common translation, the Hebrew word does not really mean 'rib'. The Hebrew word sela literally means 'side'. This same word is used in 2 Samuel 16:13 to mean the 'side' of a hill.

We don't know what God took out of Adam, but even if it was a rib this wouldn't have altered Adam's DNA. He still would have passed on the genes for a complete set of ribs.

Ah so the kjv is in error. Why should I take it literally?

 

[ChetSinger]

Ah so the kjv is in error. Why should I take it literally?

Hello. I would approach any 400-year-old translation with caution, for two reasons: 1) our language has changed since then, and 2) our knowledge and quantity of ancient sources has increased since then.

Young's and ESV still say 'rib', while NET Bible says 'side'. Myself, I don't think the difference has doctrinal significance.

As an interesting aside, if you wanted to remove a bone sample from the place in the human body most likely to grow back and leave the subject without permanent damage, you'd remove a rib. Coincidence?

 

[kenvin]

Hello. I would approach any 400-year-old translation with caution, for two reasons: 1) our language has changed since then, and 2) the quantity of our ancient sources has increased since then.

Young's and ESV still say 'rib', while NET Bible says 'side'. Myself, I don't think the difference has doctrinal significance.

As an interesting aside, if you wanted to remove a bone sample from the place in the human body most likely to grow back and leave the subject without permanent damage, you'd remove a rib.

So we don't know if it's murder I'd kill or rib vs side.

Doesn't seem like a book to take as literal history or science.

 

[ChetSinger]

So we don't know if it's murder I'd kill or rib vs side.

Doesn't seem like a book to take as literal history or science.

You're a brother, right? I think if we just take it as God's word, honor Him, and love the brethren, we'll be on the right track.

 

[kenvin]

You're a brother, right? I think if we just take it as God's word, honor Him, and love the brethren, we'll be on the right track.

Yes, and I agree.

 

[Jig]

Ah so the kjv is in error. Why should I take it literally?

I will not bite your bait and go off on a KJV-only tangent!

You commented that some people who read the Bible literally might believe that if God took the rib out of Adam to make the woman, then all men now have one less rib than women. Which we know is anatomically incorrect.

However, this last point must be assumed by the reader and does not come from a literal reading of the text - even if it says 'rib' and not 'side'. Just because God took one of Adam's ribs doesn't logically follow that his children would have one less rib too. The text no where suggests this.

That's like saying just because you lose a finger in an accident, your future children will also be missing a finger. That's not how genetics work.

 

[kenvin]

I will not bite your bait and go off on a KJV-only tangent!

You commented that some people who read the Bible literally might believe that if God took the rib out of Adam to make the woman, then all men now have one less rib than women. Which we know is anatomically incorrect.

However, this last point must be assumed by the reader and does not come from a literal reading of the text - even if it says 'rib' and not 'side'. Just because God took one of Adam's ribs doesn't logically follow that his children would have one less rib too. The text no where suggests this.

That's like saying just because you lose a finger in an accident, your future children will also be missing a finger. That's not how genetics work.

Many people think men have one less rib. Prob only slightly fewer than actually believe the world is 6000 years old. I know I have heard men have one less rib told to me as fact.

 

[Jig]

Many people think men have one less rib. Prob only slightly fewer than actually believe the world is 6000 years old. I know I have heard men have one less rib told to me as fact.

I'm not saying people don't believe this. I've heard that myth too. However, you are assuming there is a correlation between a belief in a young earth and belief in a "one less rib" man if the text is read for it's plain sense.

This is simply untrue. There cannot be a direct correlation if we use just the biblical text. While the text does not explicitly state (or even imply for that matter!) that Adam's male descendants would be born missing a rib, the text is very explicit that God created in six days.

 

[kenvin]

I'm not saying people don't believe this. I've heard that myth too. However, you are assuming there is a correlation between a belief in a young earth and belief in a "one less rib" man.

This is simple untrue. There cannot be a direct correlation if we use just the biblical text. While the text does not explicitly state (or even imply for that matter!) that Adam's male descendants would be born missing a rib, the text is very explicit that God created in six days.

The myth of men having one less rib is certainly correlated to the myth the world is 6000 years old.