Adam and Eve

[lucaspa]

To be honest...no one really knows...but the marrying to their sisters is possible and probable.

It's nice to see that you don't know.

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.

Now, if God isn't changeable, then incest is always a sin. Yet here (and after the Flood) you are happy to have incest. Isn't that saying morals are relative?

 

[lucaspa]

No, the bible says Adam and Eve were the first Humans...Now it doesn't say that directly, but the context surely says it.

God made "man" from the dust..his name was Adam.

The context surely says that Adam and Eve didn't have daughters until after Cain and Seth took wives. Sauce for the goose.

 

[lucaspa]

There is a lot we don't know about. The question is, is it feasable? Is it possible? Could ithave happened this way?


Evos like to present this kind of nonsense as if it's impossible....like this issue, the evos stand corrected rather quickly.

If you take a literal, inerrant Bible and an unchanging God, Cain and Seth marrying their sisters is impossible.

Now, if you give up that literal, inerrant Bible, then there is no reason not to accept a non-literal reading that will allow you to accept evolution.

Sorry to present what may appear to be a cruel choice to you, but there it is.

 

[Sinai]

This is one of those topics we can probably discuss and debate as long as we wish without ever coming up with an authoritative and satisfying answer. Since Cain was outside the line of promise, the Bible apparently did not consider this issue important enough to tell us the answer. We are therefore left to our speculations.

Thus far, the responses given on this thread tend to fall into two groups: (1) those that think Cain married a relative (i.e., a sister, niece, or other descendent of Adam and/or Eve), and (2) those that think he married a non-relative (i.e., someone not related to Adam and Eve. Sure, that’s an oversimplification, it’s patently obvious, and it pretty well takes in the entire realm of possibilities of Biblical choices.

At first glance, it would appear that only the first of those possibilities could be consistent with what the Bible says. After all, doesn’t the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth? Therefore, they and their children would comprise all of mankind, wouldn’t they?

Although we would be justified in reaching that conclusion from a literal reading of our English versions of the Bible, that is not necessarily what the Bible says. The original Hebrew text and passages from the Talmud (the collection of writings constituting the Jewish civil and religious law) and from ancient Jewish commentators indicate that the Bible does not close the door on the possibility that there were other people—including men before Adam—but that Adam was the first human being to be created with an eternal soul.

Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh (or nephesh) and neshama (or nishmath), and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that “God created…every living creature,” it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of life--i.e., they are living creatures. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation that distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third “creation” mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our human soul (or God's spirit or God's breath of life or the capacity to fellowship with God), our neshama (the first two “creations” were of the universe and of life).

The closing of Genesis 2:7 has a subtlety lost in the English: It is usually translated as: “…and [God] breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the adam became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Dr. Gerald Schroeder has noted that the Hebrew text actually states: “…and the adam became to a living soul.” Nahmanides, seven hundred years ago, wrote that the “to” (the Hebrew letter lamed prefixed to the word “soul” in the verse) is superfluous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach something. Lamed, he noted, indicates a change in form and may have been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of mineral, plant, fish, and animal. Finally, upon receiving the neshama, that creature which had already been formed became a human. He concludes his extensive commentary on the implications of this lamed as “Or it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.”

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa:
If you take a literal, inerrant Bible and an unchanging God, Cain and Seth marrying their sisters is impossible.

why?

 

[Vance]

Because God doesn't change and what is sin doesn't change. If later incest is described as a sin, then it was always a sin. The concept that "humans were different so the rules were different" is all just backfill to avoid this problem. There is nothing to indicate that the rules were different then.

Yes, I know that a whole little theory has built up around the state of immediately post-fall Man being somehow "closer" to Man's perfect state, so they lived longer, etc, etc, etc, but there is nothing at all in the Scripture to directly support this concept. When Man fell, he fell and was in sin. Proximity in time to the Garden would have nothing to do with anything. Did the pain in childbirth *increase* to its current level? Did the soil *gradually* cause more sweat on the brow? No, I don't see any of this supported in Scripture. It is simply a theory based on the need to explain long lives and the "right" for Cain to marry a sister. The problem is that these little pet theories begin to be taught like Gospel truth. And you complain about the instutionalizing of evolution!

 

[Ark Guy]

Vance:
Because God doesn't change and what is sin doesn't change. If later incest is described as a sin, then it was always a sin.

vance, do you have a verse to support that statement?

 

[Ark Guy]

Where are these theories/concepts taught as the gospel truth?

...or are you suggesting that a pre-adamic race with no souls shold be taught as the gospel thruth?

 

[Vance]

Oh, no, not at all.

See, that is the point. I am not sure at all how it happened, and do not think it is possible to be sure. Thus, unlike the YEC position, I refuse to be dogmatic about such issues. I think it is best to teach that there are various views on all these issues, that they are not salvation issues, and that a belief different than the early, traditional reading does not mean you have to disbelieve the Bible.

If all Christians did this, then there would be a LOT fewer people losing their Faith over these issues. And, yes, it does happen all the time. A couple of people on this board said they came very close to abandoning Christianity because they were taught that to believe in an old earth or in evolution was the equivalent of disbelieving the Bible.

And, as for where they are taught as being wholly and, without doubt, the true and proper reading, that is easy. I grew up in a variety of fundamentalist churches (my father was an Assembly of God minister) and I have visited dozens over my lifetime. I have been in and around the fundamentalist movement and they do, indeed, teach all these issues as if there were only one correct way to read them.

 

[Ark Guy]

Vance, once again...show me scripture that shows there was a soulless bunch of guys running around with Cain.

You claim it may have happened, so lets see some evidence.

Heck, you might as well said aliens stopped in on the way to K-pax and left off a few relatives for Cain to marry.

So which one makes the most and probable sense?

1) Cain married as sister
2) Cain married a girl from K-Pax
3) Cain married a girl with no soul

 

[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?

It becomes rather obvious that you are misapplying scripture again.

 

[Vance]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[BInC]

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]

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]

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]

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.