Creationism is NOT Biblical

[marktheblake]

Josephus did actually believe that Cain took along a sister for his wife, but the question remains, was this also the opinion of Moses or whomever authored Genesis

I don't think we have to make a position on that. It is also a possibility that Cain went to Nod alone, and many years passed before he 'took a wife'. His age is not stated when he had Enoch, so it could have even been centuries.

Note that when names are used in Hebrew, it is never trivial, it always means something, and the reader is meant to understand those underlying meanings.

The hebrew word for Nod means wandering. The word for Enoch means 'dedicated' and I think we can add God to that ( i cant recall the reference). From this we can understand that Cain was nomadic for perhaps a long time, and was eventually repentant. Well he appeared to remorseful initially but repentant is different.

because the plain reading of the text isn't crystal clear.

I know what you mean. But it only becomes unclear when contradictions are imposed on the text. I take it on faith that what Moses wrote is the truth. Thus if I come across something that appears to contradict something else I need to question if I understood it correctly. I had always wondered where Cains wife came from, but once thinking about it logically, its not a mystery.

Otherwise if Genesis was simply contrived fairy tales, i am sure that the ones who wrote it would have been clever enough to proof read it. One could not argue that author/s were intelligent - they described the order of creation in the correct order according to evolutionary theory.

Admittedly, the Jewish tradition would seem to favor the creationist position.

I wouldnt get hooked up on this too much, but its reasonable for us to assume that readers of the scriptures pre- modern era would have had far greater understanding, both of the meaning of the words and the known traditions.

 

[gluadys]

Quite obviously the only people he would need to fear is those who knew he killed Abel.

Not really. It is hardly unknown for people to kill strangers just because they are strangers or perhaps in the hope of finding something valuable in their possession. The "whoever" that Cain fears need not know anything personal about him at all. No more than the thieves knew anything about the man they left for dead on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem in Jesus' parable.

When God exiled Cain from his family, he also exiled him from the protection of his tribe and left him defenceless among (probably) hostile strangers.

 

[busterdog]

I know it is wishful thinking but why didn't Adam and Eve have lots of children during the 20 or more year period when Cain and Abel were growing up. They were under the command to be fruitful and multiply. So it "mangles" the chronology to assert that Adam and Eve did not have "other" children before Seth was born.

The Bible says they did, implicitly. The logic behind the idea that they had no other children is the wishful thinking. It is shockingly weak to assume they were satisfied with 2.5 children for all those years. I like your reasoning.

 

[huldah153]

The Bible says they did, implicitly. The logic behind the idea that they had no other children is the wishful thinking. It is shockingly weak to assume they were satisfied with 2.5 children for all those years. I like your reasoning.

So, in your opinion, did Cain marry Luluwa/Awan as recorded in the works of pseudepigrapha?

 

[Assyrian]

Does the Bible say the only children Adam and Eve had came after Seth?

Genesis 5:4 states that Adam lived 800 years after he became the father of Seth, and that he had sons and daughters. So it is an inference that all the sons and daughters came after Seth. However Cain was a son and he came before Seth. So the inference is unbiblical, and a logical impossibility. Thus the inference "mangles" the actual chronology.

When we have just been given an account of Cain, Abel and Seth the natural reading of the text is that the other sons and daughters are in addition to Cain, Able and Seth who had already been mentioned. Alternatively, you can read the genealogy as dealing with surviving children. Abel was dead and Cain disowned cast out of the tribe. Apart from his exile a number of verses suggest this, Seth being described as a son in Adam's image and likeness, in other word's Cain wasn't, read: Cain is not my son. Or Eve describing Seth as a seed in the place of Able. At first she thought Cain was the promised seed. Murdering his brother showed he was not and neither could Abel be the seed. Cain is cast off and the line of blessing starts again with Seth.

The text uses the waw consecutive to describe the sons and daughters Adam had, and places them after the birth of Seth. It does a lot of violence to the text to tear these other sons and daughters from Gen 5:4 and place them back in Gen 4 where there is no reference to them and make the language used in the chapter sound weird.

Cain would not have describe his mother and father as 'whoever find me'. That is a phrase you use for strangers

Would Cain have been afraid of younger kids when he had just slain the next oldest? The only ones in the family he was in danger from were Adam and Eve, Cain would not have describe his mother and father as 'whoever find me'. Even if there were brother and sisters, t doesn't fit family either. That is a phrase you use for strangers, people outside your own family.

Eve's statement when Seth was born does not fit her having other children either. She did not say God has appointed and other son in he place of Abel, which would be more natural if she had other sons and daughters. Seth did not just replace a missing son, she had another child again. And not just another child. Eve is talking seed language, she is looking for the seed the Lord had promised. It wasn't Cain the murderer and outcast, it may have been Abel but he was dead. Now if there were other children alive anyone of them might have been the promised seed, or the mantle of first born would have passed on to them. Her assumption that the seed is Seth tells us he was the only one.

Yes, to claim Adam was 30 when Cain was born does not seem to fit. But Cain and Abel seem to be adults, with their own ground and flocks from which to make offerings, and so it is reasonable that Adam fathered kids 20 or more years before Seth was born. Now to make the inference Adam and Eve had no kids during the interval where Cain and Able grew to adulthood and tended flocks or tilled the ground, seems very unlikely. Such an inference "mangles" the chronology.

We don't know the age of Cain and Abel. At what age can kids murder each other, or be held morally responsible? At what are are children sent out minding the flocks in the Middle East today? How old do you have to be before you an be murdered by a jealous older brother? But whatever age they were, there is no reason Adam and Eve simply didn't have any other children until Seth. The Chronology places the other children after Seth, any mangling done is by placing them before.

Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom. Likewise, Eve did not mother everyone in the world, only those in Eden (or whichever region she was located). A similar refutation can be made for "there was not a man to till the ground".

Yes it is certainly true that "all" refers to all of the thing or group in view, and does not refer to stuff not in view. And you can also assert that "there was no man to till the ground" somehow only refers to that area.

Looks like we are talking local flood too then. But we really do have to limit the meaning of 'all living' because literally it means 'every creature'.

Bottom line, if it mangles the bible to believe something happened that is not specifically addresses, such as Adam and Eve have kids during the 20 or more years between Cain and Abel's birth and Seth's birth, but it does not mangle the bible to claim other men existed when there was not a man to till the ground, one must admit to a rather convoluted view of scripture.

That doesn't say they weren't other people, just that there wasn't a gardener

But seriously, I don't think we can take that passage literally. It tells us there were no plant because there wasn't a gardener. Apart from contradicting Gen 1, it makes no sense botanically. Plants do need water, they don't need people. Even cultivated plants can do ok on their own, especially in the beginning of human agriculture, when they were basically wild varieties to start with.

Nor does the interpretation that bush of the field is referring to cultivated plants work. In the same chapter 'beasts of the field' refer to wild animals as opposed to livestock, and bushes are associated with wilderness any time we come across them Gen 21:15 Job 30:4&7. It does make sense as a parable if it is describing figuratively that God created plants for humans and this is show in terms of in terms of God creating man, and declaring his dominion over nature, first.

As for the bible not addressing Adam and Eve's other children, it does, but unfortunately it places them after Seth.

 

[marktheblake]

The "whoever" that Cain fears need not know anything personal about him at all.

Oh please - Cain is clearly in anguish over the potential vengeance upon him for his action.

Not that everyone would want to kill him anyway, that was just his thinking at the time.

 

[marktheblake]

in other word's Cain wasn't, read: Cain is not my son.

Cain is not in the Geneology of Gen 5 because he is not in Noahs line.

The text uses the waw consecutive to describe the sons and daughters Adam had, and places them after the birth of Seth.

I would like to see that, where can I find this? the normal concordance doesnt show it (or doesnt point it out)

Nevertheless if we look at each and every Son mentioned in the Adam-Noah geneology, then you must be saying that they are all First Born?

Cain would not have describe his mother and father as 'whoever find me'.

Why? the actual hebrew text doesnt use a word for whoever, or anyone, that is added by the translation.

The simple transliteration would read " God place sign Cain except found kill"
(although we dont read Hebrew like that, of course it requires embellishment)

That is a phrase you use for strangers

Well thats the point isnt it, he wasnt referring to only mother and father.

Would Cain have been afraid of younger kids when he had just slain the next oldest?

His concern was not immediate, it was for his whole life. Younger kids eventually grow up, so do future generations. Cain's crime would have been legendary in the house of Adam.

Now if there were other children alive anyone of them might have been the promised seed,

The complete line to the messiah is not a line of first borns, so why should the line from Adam to Noah be the same?

Please take some time to explain what is the meaning of Zera (seed)as Eve does not refer to Seth as the firstborn specifically.

 

[Van]

First, the Bible does not place Adam and Eve's other children, other than Cain and Abel, after Seth. As I pointed out before, Genesis 5:4 says Adam lived 800 years after Seth. This statement has nothing to do with when Adam had children. Next it says Adam had children, but it does not say they were other children after Seth. The purpose of the phrase, he had sons and daughters is to indicate that the one listed is just one of his children, that the listing is not exhaustive. Note that Seth is not the first born of Adam, and the others in the line given in Genesis 5 were probably not the first born either.

I know nothing of Greek grammar and even less of Hebrew grammar, so I am certainly skating on thin ice when I make an assertion concerning how "waw consecutive" is used in Genesis 5:4. But my understanding is the construction demonstrates Adam, the subject, caused the action, fathered or begat, Seth. It may also demonstrate that Adam fathered or begat sons and daughters. But the construction in no way suggests that the fathering or begatting always occurred after Seth was born.

 

[Van]

The idea of Cain and Abel providing offerings to the Lord indicates ownership of the crop or flock, thus the idea they were kids has no merit.

 

[gluadys]

Oh please - Cain is clearly in anguish over the potential vengeance upon him for his action.

No, he clearly fears for his life, but vengeance is not necessarily implied. "Whoever finds" him could have any of a variety of motives to kill a lone person without protection.

 

[Assyrian]

Cain is not in the Geneology of Gen 5 because he is not in Noahs line.

Yet the other sons and daughters are mentioned. But my comment was not based on him not being in the genealogy, but on the rather pointed comment that introduced Seth as a son after Adam's likeness and image. Wasn't Cain Adam's son too, his likeness and image? But Cain was disowned.

I would like to see that, where can I find this? the normal concordance doesnt show it (or doesnt point it out)

It is Hebrew grammar rather Hebrew words, and even though it involves the Hebrew word 'and' that usually slips under the radar of most lexicons. I have Genesius' Hebrew Grammar on the computer, but it you can ignore the garbled Hebrew letters you can see the relevant page here http://fdier.free.fr/Gesenius_web/Gesenius_web/bwghg111.htm
Basically Hebrew shows a series of consecutive events, such as you get in a narrative, by tagging the Hebrew word for 'and', which is the Hebrew letter waw, to the start of a verb. You can see it in translations where a string of sentences and phrases begin And... and... then... Usually it means the events happen one after the other, though it is also used to indicate things that follow as a logical consequence.

Nevertheless if we look at each and every Son mentioned in the Adam-Noah geneology, then you must be saying that they are all First Born?

Good question. It is what the genealogy seems to indicate. Maybe the blessing was the birthright of the firstborn? Ask Jacob and Esau about that one. I don't understand the ages of the Patriarchs, but looking at the list all of the children named were born early on in their father's life (relatively speaking) and the other sons and daughters seem to belong to the much longer period after the birth of the named child.

Why? the actual hebrew text doesnt use a word for whoever, or anyone, that is added by the translation.

The simple transliteration would read " God place sign Cain except found kill"
(although we dont read Hebrew like that, of course it requires embellishment)

If you are using an AV with strong's numbers, a lot of the smaller Hebrew words slip though the gaps, I have mentioned 'and', pronouns get lost too, as very often the Hebrew word for all, any, every which is kol H3605. These word disappear even more easily if they are attached to another Hebrew word, all the pronouns him are tagged onto the end of the verbs and the Hebrew all is attached to the start of find. The Hebrew is nearer: to.soasnot smite.him all-finding.him
That said I am only dabbling in Hebrew myself

Well thats the point isnt it, he wasnt referring to only mother and father.

They were the only family mentioned, and even if he had younger siblings, he was going away far from home. You still don't talk of your family as whoever finds me.

His concern was not immediate, it was for his whole life. Younger kids eventually grow up, so do future generations. Cain's crime would have been legendary in the house of Adam.

Who ever worries about kid brother's growing up? Maybe if a vendetta had been going on for generations the more cold blooded might think of dealing with the kids before they grow older, but it isn't the way people normally think. Cain's fear, terror even, was immediate. He was crushed by it "My punishment is greater than I can bear."

The complete line to the messiah is not a line of first borns, so why should the line from Adam to Noah be the same?

If there were other children alive the seed could have been any one of them. It is not that Seth was the oldest, though blessings were the birthright of the eldest, but it is that Seth was the only child she had. Abel was dead and Cain an outcast.

Please take some time to explain what is the meaning of Zera (seed)as Eve does not refer to Seth as the firstborn specifically.

It is the earliest messianic promise in Gen 3, the seed of the woman who would bruise the serpent's head. Eve seemed to think Cain was the promised redeemer "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD." It could even be translated "I have gotten a man, the LORD." That is probably pushing it too far. But Eve was expecting her seed to deliver them from the serpent, quite possibly in that generation. But even if she saw it as a heritage to be passed on, there is no reason to think Seth was it, if there were other children running around who might be the seed.

 

[Assyrian]

The idea of Cain and Abel providing offerings to the Lord indicates ownership of the crop or flock, thus the idea they were kids has no merit.

Abel could have been given his own lamb to mind when he was two or three. Jacob did pretty well for himself in just a few years. How long would it have taken a clever dedicated young lad to build up a decent flock? Make it even more poignant if he was a child or young teenager offering up a sacrifice form his very own flock. Maybe Abel was much older. It still doesn't mean he had younger brothers and sisters. But thinking over the jibe "am I my brother's keeper?" That sound so like a big brother talking about annoying kid brother, What am I? His child minder?

 

[Assyrian]

First, the Bible does not place Adam and Eve's other children, other than Cain and Abel, after Seth. As I pointed out before, Genesis 5:4 says Adam lived 800 years after Seth. This statement has nothing to do with when Adam had children. Next it says Adam had children, but it does not say they were other children after Seth. The purpose of the phrase, he had sons and daughters is to indicate that the one listed is just one of his children, that the listing is not exhaustive. Note that Seth is not the first born of Adam, and the others in the line given in Genesis 5 were probably not the first born either.

I know nothing of Greek grammar and even less of Hebrew grammar, so I am certainly skating on thin ice when I make an assertion concerning how "waw consecutive" is used in Genesis 5:4. But my understanding is the construction demonstrates Adam, the subject, caused the action, fathered or begat, Seth. It may also demonstrate that Adam fathered or begat sons and daughters. But the construction in no way suggests that the fathering or begatting always occurred after Seth was born.

That is the normal way subject and object of a verb work. The waw consecutive gives us more information. It tells us the verbs happen in a temporal or logical sequence. Adam was able to have other sons and daughters because he lived 800 years after Seth.

 

[huldah153]

Well, it seems that the TE's are gaining the upper hand over the YEC's in this thread.

Creationists, you could have intelligently argued that since the Book of Jasher (which states that Adam and Eve had three daughters before Seth's birth) was referred to in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, it is therefore a credible source of evidence. Yet ironically, it's your fundamentalist dogma, which excludes everything outside of the Bible, that prevents you from doing so.

And that, is my final post in this thread. I'm outta here.

 

[busterdog]

Well, it seems that the TE's are gaining the upper hand over the YEC's in this thread.

Creationists, you could have intelligently argued that since the Book of Jasher (which states that Adam and Eve had three daughters before Seth's birth) was referred to in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, it is therefore a credible source of evidence. Yet ironically, it's your fundamentalist dogma, which excludes everything outside of the Bible, that prevents you from doing so.

And that, is my final post in this thread. I'm outta here.

\\\


????????????????????????????????



You cant be serious. Not everyone else agrees when you declare victory.

I was gong to reply to Assyrian, having thought about his post for a couple of days. I appreciate his points about the inferences that the YECs and creationists use. And he is right, if you assume that the Bible is not inerrant.

Adam and Eve must have had other children in order to make sense of the Bible -- or God must have created a bunch of other people. At some point you do have to fill in missing information in order to make sense of the situation, which is what you tried to do. There are plainly more people around than was clear in the text. So, you simply fill in the blank.

I wonder whether you can see how you did the same thing in trying to use the text to bring reason back to the situation where reason for you requires that the text be full of error. When one uses inference to build the argument, one hits these places where you have two options in the text and the multiple choice is usually decided by the a priori you bring to the text. As a believer in the inerrant Word, that does not bother me at all.

What does bother me is the irrationality of demanding in a very clear case of optional meanings (absent a particular world view) that one should accept the a priori that dictates a particular option because one has chosen and argued from a particular option.

By the way, I am going to go out and get me a few wives. Is that OK? It was OK for David, so it must be OK for me? Things are different? My point being that things change. Yet, you argue that incest must have been not OK at the time of Cain and Abel because why exactly? Where is the prohibition against incest prior to the law being given 2,000 or so later?

Lets look at another set of option meanings. God tells Adam and Even to be fruitful and multiply. One optional meaning is that there wasnt another mechanism for population, which is why God gave them this charge to cover the earth. One might assume that Adam and Eve were obedient in this respect. One might assume that Adam was accurate when he called Eve the mother of all living. I cant think of any particular place where the Bible says that Adam and Eve had to be the parents of all subsequent generations except these texts. The spirit of the text seems to reject the notion that God created other people elsewhere.

 

[busterdog]

So, in your opinion, did Cain marry Luluwa/Awan as recorded in the works of pseudepigrapha?

I havent the first clue.

 

[busterdog]

Your answer was in Jurassic Park all along, though!

Yes, yes, I know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpZCwvRSrW8

 

[artybloke]

It's amazing how many pages of text have been expended on trying to make Genesis "fit" a literal reading of it. A non-literal meaning just saves so much more time: one doesn't expect a story to fit together with this kind of minuteness. It's just a detail in the story.

That's the problem with creationism: it's all a giant exercise in missing the point.