Cain and his sister and other issues

GodSaves · Nov 1, 2004

Might I help a bit with context.

1 Timothy 1

Warning Against False Teachers of the Law

3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Titus 3

9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

Notice it says warn them about teaching endless genealogies. But you are right, I should have only told evolutionists it was wrong to do this twice, and then I should have nothing to do with them.

Ben_Hur · Nov 1, 2004

GodSaves said:
Might I help a bit with context.

1 Timothy 1

Warning Against False Teachers of the Law

3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Titus 3

9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

Notice it says warn them about teaching endless genealogies. But you are right, I should have only told evolutionists it was wrong to do this twice, and then I should have nothing to do with them.

This brings up an interesting irony. In this case, either side might consider the other to be teaching falsely.

The question has to be asked, though. Which side is promoting "foolish controversies," teaching "myths," "false doctrine," "endless genealogies," and/or "quarreling about the law?"

versastyle · Nov 1, 2004

Ben_Hur said:
This brings up an interesting irony. In this case, either side might consider the other to be teaching falsely.

I suggest both sides might be doing it.

Vance · Nov 3, 2004

I am still waiting for a YEC to provide a rebuttal to the analysis given in the OP. After calling for a delving into Scripture, I would have expected a substantive response, but have gotten none.

GodSaves · Nov 3, 2004

Simple. Gymnastics of scripture only exists for those who rely on their own intelligence for understanding. Those who don't have problems rely on God's understanding, hence faith. He said I believe it.

You cannot conceive it in your own mind, but you as a human must understand and make sense of it all. Job tried to do the samething. Who in here was there at the time of the beginning? Who was there when Cain was married? Who? Which one of you was there?

I was not there. I did not see. God gave the account of what happened then to Moses who recorded. That account I believe, and understand by God's Words that that was what happened. I have no need to continually try and understand something that which God plainly told.

One problem always exists in the academic world. Those who pride themselves in their intelligence must make everything more complicated then it is. They must try and show that their intelligence is that of higher understanding. So they complicate the issue with unnecessary questions, thinking they will get closer to the truth. And yet they only get farther away from the truth.

Your constant questioning of God and His Word only will get you farther from His Truth. If you followed as the child and simply believed you would find that your faith will grow tremedously. When we stop trying to teach ourselves and try to just believe we open ourselves up to allowing God to teach us.

Vance · Nov 3, 2004

Again, choosing not to address the issues raised. That speaks for itself.

Alchemist · Nov 3, 2004

GodSaves said:
Simple. G

GodSaves said:
ymnastics of scripture only exists for those who rely on their own intelligence for understanding. Those who don't have problems rely on God's understanding, hence faith. He said I believe it.

Define 'God's understanding'... isn't everybody's faith based on their own interpretations of scripture? I have faith that God created the earth. I just think he did it a long time ago. I wouldn't call that 'gymnastics of scripture'. Was Martin Luther using 'gymnastics of scripture'? Was Calvin using 'gymnastics of scripture'? Was Wesley using 'gymnastics of scripture'? If so, then I hope you are Catholic! (wait... they accept evolution )

GodSaves said:
You cannot conceive it in your own mind, but you as a human must understand and make sense of it all. Job tried to do the samething.

Agreed, I cannot understand the full nature of God; I never will. But some (all?) of us like to understand at least some things. Are you saying that human thought is detrimental to faith? I don't think one of us would believe in the Gospel, God, Jesus or the Resurrection if it was contradictory to our intelligence. Should I accept your 'literalist' interpretation of scripture, despite the fact that a) it appears to contradict a huge amount of (imo) unbiased scientific work for the last 200 years; b) is an interpretation that many of the earliest church scholars wrote off as contradictory and unlikely; and c) requires me to just ignore the fact it appears illogical to me? Surely God wants us to actually think about the validity of the Bible and His message?

"...You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."
- Matthew 22:37

If you can accept a young earth, sola fide, then good on you. But I cannot love God with all my mind, as Jesus told us to do, if I am constantly wondering just why scientists think the universe is over 13 billion years old; especially if the largest Christian denomination in the world doesn't have a problem with this fact...

I don't think I can know everything. I don't try to. But does this means that we should not try and understand anything at all?

GodSaves said:
Who in here was there at the time of the beginning? Who was there when Cain was married? Who? Which one of you was there?

Well I sure wasn't! But I think that means that my interpretation of scripture is just as good as yours.

GodSaves said:
God gave the account of what happened then to Moses who recorded. That account I believe, and understand by God's Words that that was what happened. I have no need to continually try and understand something that which God plainly told.

God told us what He wanted us to hear. If you think that your interpretation (literally) is good, then accept it. Again, we think there is a lot more to the Bible than just literally accepting every word. Everyone who has ever studied the Bible probably agrees. If it were just a case of taking every word at face value, do you think that there would be so many schools of thought within Christiandom? I could name a few doctrines off the top of my head that wouldn't be around without Christian scholarship...

GodSaves said:
One problem always exists in the academic world. Those who pride themselves in their intelligence must make everything more complicated then it is.

I must agree that within the academic community there are people who take pride in their understanding. But this again doesn't mean that everyone who accepts what they discover has a pride issue.

GodSaves said:
They must try and show that their intelligence is that of higher understanding. So they complicate the issue with unnecessary questions, thinking they will get closer to the truth. And yet they only get farther away from the truth.

Define truth...

GodSaves said:
Your constant questioning of God and His Word only will get you farther from His Truth.

Really? I think I am a much stronger believer in God now that I am a theistic evolutionist. I do not question God's word. I question dogmatic assertions of what scripture says; something that only forces others (fallible) human thinking on the Bible. I am not saying I am infallible. I'm saying we all are. But if your interpretation drives me away from God, and from respect of his word, then why should I accept yours, just because it works for you?

GodSaves said:
If you followed as the child and simply believed you would find that your faith will grow tremedously.

The problem is, who do you listen to? Your church? A YEC? A TE? An atheist? Or search the scriptures for yourself, and believe what makes sense to you, in light of the Bible and the world around you?

"But Christ has blessed you with the Holy Spirit. Now the Spirit stays in you, and you don't need any teachers. The Spirit is truthful and teaches you everything. So stay one in your heart with Christ, just as the Spirit has taught you to do."
- 1 John 2:27

GodSaves said:
When we stop trying to teach ourselves and try to just believe we open ourselves up to allowing God to teach us.

I am trying to just believe. And I believe in God (in part) because of evolution. Evolution is complicated. Chemistry is complicated. Physics is complicated. The universe is complicated. Through this, God has taught me that He created the universe. Maybe He has taught you something different. But that the universe is so amazing makes me believe in Him a lot more than just believing that the Earth magically appeared 6000 years ago.

Peace,
Alchemist

TwinCrier · Nov 3, 2004

Vance said:
I am still waiting for a YEC to provide a rebuttal to the analysis given in the OP. After calling for a delving into Scripture, I would have expected a substantive response, but have gotten none.

Speculative would be to insist that after a hundred or so years Adam and Eve only were able to conceive 3 children. Cain and Abel appear to be grown men at the time of the murder. Either eve was menopause free or suffered from a slight infertility problem. They would seem to have neglected that command to be fruitful and multiply. Cain would not have needed a mark and God's protection if he could flee to another race of people who did not know himWhy would a totally different race of Homo Sapiens take vengeance against him for his brother, Abels, death. If what you suggest is true, some on Earth may be decendant of this other race and not related to Adam or Eve in any way, shape or form.

Vance · Nov 3, 2004

Yes, one very possible explanation if you hold to a literal Adam and Eve is that there were other humans on the earth at the time which were not in the Garden, and this is believed by a lot of the Gap folks, as well as others.

But all the first part of your post confuses me. How does this address the issues I raised, exactly.

As far as your question as to why anyone would kill Cain, there is nothing in the Scripture which says that he would be killed because of his murder of Abel, just that he would be killed by those he met as a vagabond, wandering on the earth. This would lead one to believe that wandering vagabonds were not very welcome in the neighboring areas.

TwinCrier · Nov 3, 2004

Then how did putting a mark on him prevent this? Being homeless is no reason to kill. This other race you believe in sure were sinful considering they were not of Adam's line (illedgedly).

Genesis 4:14-15 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Vance · Nov 4, 2004

TwinCrier said:
Then how did putting a mark on him prevent this? Being homeless is no reason to kill. This other race you believe in sure were sinful considering they were not of Adam's line (illedgedly).

Genesis 4:14-15 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

First, we don't know what that mark would have meant to those peoples, but obviously God was able to convey a message to those peoples that this man was not to be harmed. God can do that, I believe.

Second, what would make them more sinful than Adam's line (assuming a literal Adam)?

But really, you seemed to have missed the point of the entire original post. The point was that if you want to hold to a "Cain married his sister" approach, you have to do a LOT of interpretive gymnastics to make this happen. You have to read the text VERY un-plainly to get there, very much contrary to the most straightforward reading. In short, you have to twist it around like a pretzel to force it to match with other conclusions resulting from a strict literal reading.

How is this NOT the case?

And since it is the case, how can the literalist claim that they are just taking the Bible at face value, using the most straightforward and plain meaning?

Look at the responses you get from the strict literalists when faced with the long list of factual contradictions in Scripture posted elsewhere. You can get dizzy just trying to follow their convoluted re-interpretations to make it all "work".

Can you not see that attempting to hold fast to a strict literalism and inerrancy in every little factual detail (as opposed to inerrancy in the message) just ends up damaging the credibility of Scripture dramatically more than the non-literal reading that is accused to "disbelief in Scripture"? A huge irony there, if you ask me.

TwinCrier · Nov 4, 2004

Vance said:
First, we don't know what that mark would have meant to those peoples, but obviously God was able to convey a message to those peoples that this man was not to be harmed. God can do that, I believe.

Second, what would make them more sinful than Adam's line (assuming a literal Adam)?

But really, you seemed to have missed the point of the entire original post. The point was that if you want to hold to a "Cain married his sister" approach, you have to do a LOT of interpretive gymnastics to make this happen. You have to read the text VERY un-plainly to get there, very much contrary to the most straightforward reading. In short, you have to twist it around like a pretzel to force it to match with other conclusions resulting from a strict literal reading.

How is this NOT the case?

And since it is the case, how can the literalist claim that they are just taking the Bible at face value, using the most straightforward and plain meaning?

Look at the responses you get from the strict literalists when faced with the long list of factual contradictions in Scripture posted elsewhere. You can get dizzy just trying to follow their convoluted re-interpretations to make it all "work".

Can you not see that attempting to hold fast to a strict literalism and inerrancy in every little factual detail (as opposed to inerrancy in the message) just ends up damaging the credibility of Scripture dramatically more than the non-literal reading that is accused to "disbelief in Scripture"? A huge irony there, if you ask me.

But there was no sin before Adam and Eve only death. Didn't we already establish that as a TE belif?
How can it be more plain then Cain had to marry his sister since Adam and Eve were the first man and woman unless you are saying God created other people from the ground after these two. There is no scriptural support for this. There is no reinterpretation here. This is the only thing you can conclude unless you dismiss that Adam and Eve are the first humans. How ironic to accuse me of doing gymnastics to support my belief when you have done that yourself. IF there were any other humans created before or after Adam and Eve, either by God or through evolution, scripture does not elude to it at all.

Vance · Nov 4, 2004

TwinCrier said:
But there was no sin before Adam and Eve only death. Didn't we already establish that as a TE belif?
How can it be more plain then Cain had to marry his sister since Adam and Eve were the first man and woman unless you are saying God created other people from the ground after these two. There is no scriptural support for this. There is no reinterpretation here. This is the only thing you can conclude unless you dismiss that Adam and Eve are the first humans. How ironic to accuse me of doing gymnastics to support my belief when you have done that yourself. IF there were any other humans created before or after Adam and Eve, either by God or through evolution, scripture does not elude to it at all.

There are a lot of things Scripture does not allude to, which are still true.

The point is that you have done nothing to answer any of the problems with your literal reading. You just say "that must be the answer because there could be no other answer." But what about the problems I point out?

I think it is clear from the Scripture that at the time that Cain was banished that there were other humans on the earth. No, the Scripture does not mention this happening, but again, it does not mention a LOT of things that obviously happened at part of His creation.

Now, where did these others come from? There are lots of ideas. Some OEC's believe that they were "sons of God" mentioned elsewhere. Or that God simply created other humans after He created Adam and Eve. There is nothing which says they were the ONLY humans He created, and we now know from genetics how a single woman CAN be the mother of all humans even if there were other humans around at the time.

For TE's it is much simpler. Either the stories are figurative and/or typological, in which Adam, Even, Cain and Abel are "types" for human behavior and exemplars God is using to explain what happened with Mankind as a whole. Or, God breathed life into all mankind, but chose out a literal Adam and placed him in the Garden.

But, again, if you are going to stick to your "Cain married his sister" then you will have to explain the problems I have raised.

And, more importantly, you still are missing the main point of the thread, which I will restate:

The point was that if you want to hold to a "Cain married his sister" approach, you have to do a LOT of interpretive gymnastics to make this happen. You have to read the text VERY un-plainly to get there, very much contrary to the most straightforward reading. In short, you have to twist it around like a pretzel to force it to match with other conclusions resulting from a strict literal reading.

How is this NOT the case?

And since it is the case, how can the literalist claim that they are just taking the Bible at face value, using the most straightforward and plain meaning?

Look at the responses you get from the strict literalists when faced with the long list of factual contradictions in Scripture posted elsewhere. You can get dizzy just trying to follow their convoluted re-interpretations to make it all "work".

Can you not see that attempting to hold fast to a strict literalism and inerrancy in every little factual detail (as opposed to inerrancy in the message) just ends up damaging the credibility of Scripture dramatically more than the non-literal reading that is accused to "disbelief in Scripture"? A huge irony there, if you ask me.

Remus · Nov 4, 2004

I finally have a little bit of time, so I'll take a crack at this.

Vance said:
1. the evidence from the text is very strong that Seth was the third born child. Look at 4:25. Just after it tells of Cains banishment and fate (then takes the time to set out Cains line while on that subject), it goes on to say that Adam lay with his wife again, and they had Seth. Eve named him Seth ("granted") because God had granted him to Adam and Eve "in place of Abel". In 5:3, it says that when Adam as 130 years old, he had Seth. In 5:4, it says that "After Seth was born", Adam had other sons and daughters. So, it is absolute that Seth was born *after* Abels death and the evidence is very strong from the text itself that the order of birth was Cain, Abel and then Seth, and *then* the "other sons and daughters".

I'll focus on this point since it seems that your entire argument is based on this being true. First, it is true that Seth was obviously born after Abel's death, so there's no disagreement in 4:25. However, your reading of 5:3-4 is where you're reading more than what is being said.

Gen 5:4 said:
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

I'll agree that reading it by itself, it is possible to assume that the order is as stated. So we should look for other examples where the same language is used, but the order is obviously not being indicated.

In Gen 11, we find this:

Gen 11:11 said:
And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

Going by what you have asserted, this would mean that Arphaxad would have to have been Shem's first born. But, we find that 1 Ch 1:17 indicates otherwise:

1 Ch 1:17 said:
The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech.

Thus we can't conclude that no other children were born to Adam and Eve before Seth.

2. Cain was worried about being killed by others immediately after he kills Abel. In 4:14, Cain is distressed at his banishment, saying that if wanders the earth, whoever finds him will kill him. The only plain reading of this is that, at the time of the murder, there *were* other humans around besides Adam and Eve. If Seth was not born yet, and all the other children were born *after* Seth, according to the plainest reading of 5:4, then the others that Cain was worried about could *not* have been Adam and Eves children.

3. These others were not in the immediate area, as in a family grouping, but were distant enough that Cain would be fearful of them when he was wandering in his banishment from the land, off in Nod, east of Eden.

Since the assumption that "all the other children were born *after* Seth" is false, these points aren't valid.

4. There were enough other people during Cains lifetime to fill his created "city", which he named Enoch after his first born son. Even though this was more likely a small settlement of some kind, it still implies something more than a small family grouping.

I see no reason that this could not start out as a small family grouping and grow into a city. The Bible does state that Cain built it, but that doesn't mean that we should assume that it was a large population when he started. Besides, who would move to this city.

So, in order to get a "Cain married his sister" scenario, you have to find come to some very "non-plain" conclusions.

1. You would have to say that, despite the plain reading of 5:4, there were actually children born to Adam and Eve before Seth.

Looks plain to me. All you have to do is let the Bible interpret itself.

2. You would have to say that the murder of Abel by Cain occurred *after* all these other children were born and spread out far enough for Cain to be afraid of them killing him while he was banished from the land, out of the Lords Presence. In short, people living also in these more distant areas. This multiplying and spreading out, moreover, would have to take place before Seth was born, which we know was when Adam was 130.

How "distant" would it have to be? Other sons of Adam could very well travel to where Cain was to kill him and then come back. It's not like they would have to live in that area to begin with. I think it was also pointed out that the most logical people to kill Cain would be his brothers.

3. If you believed that other *sons* were born before Seth, this would make for a VERY strained reading of Eves statement that Seth was a replacement for Abel.

Why? This only indicates that Seth was the next son born after Abel was killed. There is no problem here.

If you believed that only daughters were born, it would be difficult to understand how the family could have multiplied with Adam being the only non-banished male left to impregnate all these girls (which would again raise the incest issue).

What incest issue?

So, you can see that whatever scenario you create results in VERY strained readings of the Scripture, much less following the plain reading. If you are willing to read *this* text in anything other than the plainest, simplest meaning, and willing to add in so many details to support that theory, but refuse to consider such a method elsewhere, then who is "picking and choosing"? I see all of this as not "picking and choosing" but consideration and analysis.

You are just forcing the Scripture to have a problem that isn't there. You have taken one verse (Gen 5:4) and created these problems and used other verses to add to the problem. When this initial point fails, then your entire argument fails.

Vance · Nov 4, 2004

Thanks for looking at this seriously.

First, you seem to acknowledge that the plain reading of the text itself is how I set it out. You then find a way to read it differently (a non-straightforward reading) by comparison to another Scripture. This still means you are accepting the less straightforward reading. But, regardless, lets look at your analogous Scripture:

You cite Gen 11:11 and I Chron. 1:17 together. The problem with the latter for your argument is that it does not indicate that the list of Seth's sons is given in order of birth. So, this is really no indicator at all, much less one that is solid enough to override the most straightforward reading.

The simple reading of the text is that Seth was the child sent to replace Abel. It then goes on to say that AFTER Seth was born, he had other sons and daughters. If you handed this to 1000 readers and asked them what they believed this meant, you would have to agree that almot 100% of them would say that Seth was the third born child.

You ask what incest issue? Your analysis is that Seth is the third born son, but that there must have been lots of daughters in between, and that Cain murdered Abel after all these daughters were born, grew up, had children, moved away, etc. Now, who impregnated all these daughters? Cain, Adam and Abel.

So, here is your version of the story: After Abel, Adam and Eve have a bunch of daughters who are all empregnated by Adam, Cain or Abel (their father and brothers). Then, these girls had time to grow up and have these children, some of them moved away (with no men, other than their possible sons) an live far enough away for Cain to be worried about them as he wandered as a vagabond. Only then, after all this, does Cain kill Abel. Then Cain heads out and Adam and Eve have Seth.

Now, tell me this is what a plain and straightforward reading of Genesis 2 gives us. I am not saying it can not be how it happened, but you have to admit that this is NOT the plain reading, but a series of conjectures read INTO the text in order for it to fit your belief that there could not have been other humans alive other than Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel.

TwinCrier · Nov 4, 2004

Vance said:
You ask what incest issue? Your analysis is that Seth is the third born son, but that there must have been lots of daughters in between, and that Cain murdered Abel after all these daughters were born, grew up, had children, moved away, etc. Now, who impregnated all these daughters? Cain, Adam and Abel.

So, here is your version of the story: After Abel, Adam and Eve have a bunch of daughters who are all empregnated by Adam, Cain or Abel (their father and brothers). Then, these girls had time to grow up and have these children, some of them moved away (with no men, other than their possible sons) an live far enough away for Cain to be worried about them as he wandered as a vagabond. Only then, after all this, does Cain kill Abel. Then Cain heads out and Adam and Eve have Seth.

There is nothing stating that Seth was the 3rd born son. He was the first son born after Abel was murdered, but Both Cain and Avel were grown men as they were required to make sacrifice to God. Since Adam and Eve were to be fruitful it is unlikely she was made barren for a couple decades. The scripture states that many of these people lived well into their hundreds. Even presumming that all the women had normal fertility they certainly had time to grow up, have children, and live to see several generations. You making the wild assumption that Adam and Eve only ever had 3 sons. Not very fruitful.

Vance · Nov 4, 2004

Read the Scripture again, Twincrier. First, I never said that they didn't have other sons, the Bible clearly says they did, after Abel. It also says that they had Cain and Abel, that Abel was murdered, then Seth was born as a replacement for Abel. Then it says that AFTER Seth, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters.

As for their age, we have no idea how long they were in the Garden, so we have no idea how old they were when they came out.

But the point is that the plain reading is, indeed, very plain. What you are doing is adding INTO Scripture what is not there and, moreover, what is contrary to the most straightforward and obvious reading. The meaning that EVERYBODY would get if they weren't starting with an assumption of no other people living besides Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel is that obviously such other people were out there. You have to admit that. If it was not for this starting point belief, this initial presumption, there is no way you would read those Scriptures as you do right now. Thus, you are letting another belief influence and change HOW you read that text, and actually letting you read it DIFFERENTLY than the plain, straightforward reading. And it is not as if there is a Scripture that TELLS you that there were no other people living, only an assumption based on what? Your interpretation of OTHER Scripture (or on the absence of a Scriptural reference)! Thus, you start with one assumption based on an interpretation, then this causes you to add lots of new assumptions into OTHER Scripture just so you can remain consistent, and in the process read what would be a very simple text in a very un-simple way.

Fine, but then don't claim to be the one who just takes Scripture "as it is written", just accepting the Bible the way God wrote it, etc.

Remus · Nov 4, 2004

Vance said:
Thanks for looking at this seriously.

My pleasure.

First, you seem to acknowledge that the plain reading of the text itself is how I set it out.

I simply acknowledge that the text can be misunderstood, especially if that is one's intention.

You then find a way to read it differently (a non-straightforward reading) by comparison to another Scripture. This still means you are accepting the less straightforward reading.

I don't agree that what you state as a "straightforward reading" is accurate.

You cite Gen 11:11 and I Chron. 1:17 together. The problem with the latter for your argument is that it does not indicate that the list of Seth's sons is given in order of birth. So, this is really no indicator at all, much less one that is solid enough to override the most straightforward reading.

Admittedly, 1 Ch 1:17 isn't a strong argument, but it's enough to show that your conclusion of what is "straightforward" is in fact not true. Can one argue that the names were listed in some arbitrary order? Sure, but we find his sons listed in the same order in Gen 10:22 as well. This means that "the evidence from the text is very strong that Seth was the third born child" isn't as strong as you would like it to be.

The simple reading of the text is that Seth was the child sent to replace Abel. It then goes on to say that AFTER Seth was born, he had other sons and daughters.

Simple reading now? I understand that your entire argument rests on this, but it is really weak. You should just discard it and move on.

If you handed this to 1000 readers and asked them what they believed this meant, you would have to agree that almot 100% of them would say that Seth was the third born child.

Absurd claim.

You ask what incest issue? Your analysis is that Seth is the third born son, but that there must have been lots of daughters in between, and that Cain murdered Abel after all these daughters were born, grew up, had children, moved away, etc.

That is not my analysis at all. In fact, I gave every indication that other sons were possible between Abel and Seth. And what is "lots"? How many does there have to be?

Now, who impregnated all these daughters? Cain, Adam and Abel.

Cain, Abel, other brothers? Why is this an issue?

So, here is your version of the story:

Not sure whose posts you are reading to come to all of this. A lot of problems with all of this. I'll go through it to show how you are attempting to mischaracterize my arguments and me. I suppose that I could just not respond, you seem perfectly capable of debating yourself.

After Abel, Adam and Eve have a bunch of daughters who are all empregnated by Adam, Cain or Abel (their father and brothers).

I would have guessed that this "bunch of daughters" would have paired up with their brothers. Maybe nieces or nephews before too long. Anyway, to argue that Adam and Eve had no other children during this time is absurd.

Then, these girls had time to grow up and have these children, some of them moved away (with no men, other than their possible sons)

See above, I never said there were no other brothers.

an live far enough away for Cain to be worried about them as he wandered as a vagabond.

What is "far enough away"? How far would it really have to be? I really don't think Adam and Eve took up a lot of land. And didn't Cain form a city? How could he have done that if he "wandered as a vagabond"?

Only then, after all this, does Cain kill Abel. Then Cain heads out and Adam and Eve have Seth.

You have an imagination, I'll grant you that much.

Now, tell me this is what a plain and straightforward reading of Genesis 2 gives us.

The Bible is one book, not a series of little stories. If the "plain and straightforward reading" says one thing, then the rest must agree. If it isn't clear, then it should be read in agreement with the rest of the Bible.

I am not saying it can not be how it happened, but you have to admit that this is NOT the plain reading, but a series of conjectures read INTO the text in order for it to fit your belief that there could not have been other humans alive other than Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel.

Here's your argument in a nutshell. We have one verse (Gen 5:4) that is possilbe to read in more than one way. Since it can be read in more than one way, any way is twisting it to fit your belief. This doesn't follow.

The fact is this verse is to be read in a way that makes sense and agrees with the rest of the Bible.

Micaiah · Nov 4, 2004

TwinCrier said:
There is nothing stating that Seth was the 3rd born son. He was the first son born after Abel was murdered, but Both Cain and Avel were grown men as they were required to make sacrifice to God. Since Adam and Eve were to be fruitful it is unlikely she was made barren for a couple decades. The scripture states that many of these people lived well into their hundreds. Even presumming that all the women had normal fertility they certainly had time to grow up, have children, and live to see several generations. You making the wild assumption that Adam and Eve only ever had 3 sons. Not very fruitful.

I believe TwinCrier has provided telling responses to your questions Vance. Ironical that you should be telling those who accept the plain truth of Scripture how they should interpret Scripture by that method. Anyway, good to see you at least understand what the 'plain and simple' interpretation of Scripture is when you want.

From what I've read, the passage in Genesis 5 does not preclude the possibility that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters prior to Seth.

Genesis 5

The Family of Adam

The Family of Adam
(1) 1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. 3And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 7After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. 8So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
9Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan.[1] 10After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and daughters. 11So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
12Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. 13After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons and daughters. 14So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
15Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared. 16After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years, and had sons and daughters. 17So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.
18Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. 19After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 20So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
21Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. 22After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 23So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
25Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech. 26After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters. 27So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
28Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. 29And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed." 30After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters. 31So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.
32And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Chapter 5 gives the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a descendent of Seth, so it would be appropriate to single him out from other offspring of Adam.

AIG answers the questions raised in the following link.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

I accept that it is easy to infer from Genesis 4:25-26 that Abel was the next child after Abel, but it does not explicitly state that. Eve may have had other reasons to consider Seth a replacement for Abel.

The Family of Cain
16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son--Enoch. 18To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech.
19Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21His brother's name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.
23Then Lamech said to his wives:

"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold."

A New Son
25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, "For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed."26And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh.[3] Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.

Something to think about. Pretend Adam and Eve have a boy, then three years later a girl. The children grow up, and when the boy reaches twenty, marries his sister, then they have children. They have a boy, then three years later a girl. Their children - Adam and Eve's grandchildren - grow up, marry each other, then have children. First a boy, then three years later a girl, and so on and so on.

At twenty years, there are two new children born and there are now 4 people on earth. Adam, Eve, and their two children. After the next twenty years, ie. forty years, four new children are born, two to Adam and Eve, and two to their children. There are now 8 people on earth in total. At sixty years, there are 8 new children born and 16 people on earth in total.

Assuming the number of people who die is negligible (a questionable assumption) it would take 32 generations for the earth's population to exceed the current population of 6 billion people. In 640 years, you would have 8,589,934,592 people.

Now obviously some people would die, so the population growth rate would be lower. That aside, it does illustrate how quickly the earth's population can grow at a time when people lived to an old age, the death rate was low, and people could marry their brothers and sisters.

Cain and his sister and other issues

Well-Known Member

Me at the Races...

hopeless guide

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Seeking in Orthodoxy

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Contributor

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Contributor

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Contributor

Senior Member

Contributor

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Contributor

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency