How did Cain find a Wife ?

Apple Sky said:

Ok but where does it mention about Cains mark ?

Click to expand...

Genesis 4:15 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.

Apple Sky said:

This wasn't after the flood.

Click to expand...

Cain died long before the Flood.

So, no.

God did not put a mark on Cain after the Flood.

Apple Sky said:

This wasn't after the flood.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET is saying that God had not established a penalty for murder, until after the flood when God made a covenant with Noah. So before the flood it was not God's law that a murderer should be put to death. That law didn't get put into place until after the flood. So before the flood, no one was allowed to put Cain to death to punish him for murdering Able.

Apple Sky said:

Could these have been the people from Genesis 1:26 ?

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Click to expand...

That's known as the 8th Day Creation theory. Which isn't accepted by most theologians. The idea is God created Adam first in the Garden of Eden as the forefather of the Christ. And then after resting on the 7th day, created many other people outside of the Garden of Eden on the 8th day. And not just other people but the other races.

Apple Sky said:

And who did Cain build cities for ?

When God Marked Cain who was going to kill him ?

Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't tell us.

-CryptoLutheran

Apple Sky said:

It also doesn't state who Cain built the cities for.

Click to expand...

Correct. The Bible offers us no answers to questions like this.

-CryptoLutheran

Apple Sky said:

It also doesn't state who Cain built the cities for.

Click to expand...

From Matthew Poole's commentary:

Partly to divert his troubled mind with business and pleasure, and partly for his own security against the enemies and evils which his guilty conscience made him fear, notwithstanding the assurance which God had given him. And this he did as soon as he was in capacity for it, either by the increase of his own posterity, or by the accession of other degenerate sons of Adam to him, who either being banished, or having departed from the church, willingly associated themselves with their brethren in iniquity.

Apple Sky said:

Could these have been the people from Genesis 1:26

Click to expand...

I believe so. Cain was banished so he certainly would not have been able to marry a sister. Seth was the next born after Abel died. It states Adam had sons and daughters "after" Seth. It doesn't state that before. Also he found a wife in the land of Nod which is east of Eden. And if you do a search of the origin of the Hebrew word Cain it can mean an oriental tribe. So -east of Eden. I believe the world was quite populated by then. Adam and Eve are simply the bloodline that Christ would come from.

1. Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Israel, and of an Oriental tribe

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
Cain, Kenites
The same as qayin (with a play upon the affinity to qanah); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe -- Cain, Kenite(-s).

AV1611VET said:

So-called "Neanderthals" came afterwards; starting in Moses' time.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Click to expand...

...Objection. This scripture does not support Neanderthals appearing in Moses time. I am not familiar with any that do. Scripture in general does not support the existence of Neanderthals, but I accept their existence from the fossil record. Since apparently there was overlap between Homo sapien and Neanderthal, it seems like the first homo sapiens might have had a large Neanderthal population in the background to deal or interact with at least up until the flood time. Possibly the homo sapien genes were dominant where there was interbreeding.

Hence, these are the "others" that Cain is afraid will kill him when he is cast out. This is the tribe he takes his wife from and who he builds a city with and for. (otherwise, I don't think he builds a city - he builds a lean-to)

All in my opinion only, it's just a suggestion for anyone trying to reconcile the fossil record with the Genesis story of Cain.

Petros2015 said:

...Objection.

Click to expand...

...Overruled.

I bring in David's testimony as a witness.

Read his 38th Psalm.

He is suffering a terrible bone-altering disease that almost takes his life, and describes it in detail.

AV1611VET said:

...Overruled.

I bring in David's testimony as a witness.

Read his 38th Psalm.

He is suffering a terrible bone-altering disease that almost takes his life, and describes it in detail.

Click to expand...

So is your contention that there were no Neanderthals and fossil evidence for them was really of homo sapien disease sufferers? Neanderthalsitus, let's call it. Symptoms as described in the 38th Psalm.

Petros2015 said:

So is your contention that there were no Neanderthals and fossil evidence for them was really of homo sapien disease sufferers?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Petros2015 said:

Neanderthalsitus, let's call it.

Click to expand...

That'll do for a working term.

Petros2015 said:

Symptoms as described in the 38th Psalm.

Click to expand...

Affirmative.

ViaCrucis said:

Correct. The Bible offers us no answers to questions like this.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Indeed. It also would be of no Christological relevance that I can think of, and the entire point of the Old Testament according to Christ our True God in Luke ch.24 in his appearance to His disciples before His Ascension was to serve as Christological prophecy (where he opened the books and showed the disciples how all the Law and Prophets testified of Him).


Thus I am inclined to believe the fact that questions like this are unanswered serves as a reminder that the function of the Old Testament is not to serve as an end in an of itself, but rather as a beginning, introducing to us God, the problem of sin, and promising through prophecies that begin in Genesis chapter 1 and continue straight through, in every book accepted by the Orthodox as canon, the coming of Christ our Lord, the means of His incarnation, the manner of his death, the interval between His death and His Resurrection, and His redemption of His people.

(do let me know if you agree with that hypothesis regarding unanswered questions such as this one in the Old Testament - noting that I am not speaking about all unanswered questions, for example, some people believe Melchizedek was a Christophany, but this is disputed question, lacking a clear answer, but it is obviously an issue of Christological relevance since Hebrews identifies Melchizedek explicitly as a type of Christ, thus reinforcing Luke 24 (this also might add weight to the idea that St. Luke was mentored by St. Paul in his writing of his synoptic gospel, and that St. Luke assisted St. Paul in writing Hebrews, since the writing of Hebrews is of a much more refined literary style than that of the Pauline epistles, which of the New Testament writers, St. Luke was known to have the most proficiency in the Greek language, being a Hellenized Jew and a physician, therefore, a scholar, before conversion to Christ).

The Liturgist said:

Indeed. It also would be of no Christological relevance that I can think of, and the entire point of the Old Testament according to Christ our True God in Luke ch.24 in his appearance to His disciples before His Ascension was to serve as Christological prophecy (where he opened the books and showed the disciples how all the Law and Prophets testified of Him).

Click to expand...

I would only add a slight correction - Jesus did not mean the Old Testament as we know it. We do not know which Scriptures He meant, specifically. Or which textual versions of which Scriptures.

trophy33 said:

I would only add a slight correction - Jesus did not mean the Old Testament as we know it. We do not know which Scriptures He meant, specifically. Or which textual versions of which Scriptures.

Click to expand...

That’s not really accurate - Christ specifically refers to “all the books of the Law and the Prophets”, which would mean in the context of Judaism the five books of the Pentateuch and various other books in the Old Testament.*

Additionally, there are clear prophecies of our Lord in the Old Testament, a great many of which were explicitly cited by St. Matthew in his Gospel, and others of which were called to mind in the Gospel of St. John, for example, its recapitulation of John 1:1. And there are numerous direct quotations of the Old Testament throughout the New.

Finally, what I have said regarding this, that the Old Testament is Christological prophecy, is the Patristic view, the view of traditional liturgical churches such as the Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants and Assyrians (it is for this reason the ancient lectionaries such as the East Syriac, Mozarabic, Gallican and Ambrosian lectionaries, the Roman Rite lectionary and its Protestant derivatives, and the Byzantine, Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian and Armenian lectionaries, as well as the Revised Common Lectionary and the other recent three year lectionaries such as that of the Novus Ordo Missae will preface, in one way or another, New Testament lessons with Old Testament lessons, either in the Eucharistic liturgy itself or in the Divine Office (for instance, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches tend to reserve the Divine Liturgy for the reading of the New Testament, and read the Old Testament prophecies that pertain to the liturgical occasion the night before at Vespers).

Many of the most obvious Christological prophecies pertaining specifically to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ are read on Holy Saturday morning at the Vesperal Divine Liturgy in the Eastern Orthodox church, where 14 lessons are read, or the Paschal Vigil Mass of the Roman Rite in its pre-1954 form** where 12 lessons are read; these exist to be read during the baptism of catechumens, and historically additional prophecies would be read as needed until the baptisms were complete, thus preparing the baptized neophytes for hearing the Gospel and partaking of the Eucharist at the Paschal liturgy.

* It is true, however, that the early Church never agreed exactly on the contents of the canon of Old Testament scripture, with variations existing between the various ancient liturgical rites and even slight variations within the Byzantine Rite as practiced by Eastern Orthodox of the Mediterranean and the Byzantine Rite as practiced by Eastern Orthodox speaking Church Slavonic, such as the Serbians, Russians, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, etc. And additionally there is the issue of the divergent Old Testament used by the Ethiopians and Eritreans before and after their conversion, which has never been enough of an issue for the Coptic Orthodox Church to try to act to suppress it, but which does include books such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees not found elsewhere, although St. Jude in his epistle appears to quote 1 Enoch. In the Protestant reformation, a number of churches adopted the 66 book Masoretic canon, but the Anglicans did not, nor did John Calvin, who apparently regarded Baruch as canonical, nor really Martin Luther, who would have preferred Esther be removed from the canon (it is my understanding that Lutherans have an open canon with regards to the Old Testament). However, it must be stressed that these differences are minor, for the most important prophetic texts exist across all canons of Old Testament Scripture.

** Before the 1954 reforms of Pope Pius XII, Paschal Vigils was celebrated in the morning, and some traditional Latin mass groups within the Roman Catholic Church, but not the SSPX, follow this practice; additionally, ,the reforms of Pius XII also changed the Mass of the Presanctified so that it no longer resembled the Presanctified Liturgy used by the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Catholics, for both liturgies were based on a revised presanctified liturgy composed by Pope St. Gregory I Diologos, also known as St. Gregory the Great, among his numerous other liturgical contributions, such as Gregorian chant.