- Aug 30, 2012
- 1,432
- 75
- 58
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
Then what was the land of Nod where Cain found a wife? (Gen 4:16)
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then what was the land of Nod where Cain found a wife? (Gen 4:16)There were no other "man races". The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were the first two humans created.
Then what was the land of Nod where Cain found a wife? (Gen 4:16)
That requires a dramatic time span between verse 16 and 17. That seems to me to be an assumption which the text does not directly support. There is no indication of a large time lap between verses 16 & 17.It was settled by descendents of Adam and Eve. They lived hundreds of years and would have produced many offspring, who in turn would have produced offspring.
There were no other "man races". The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were the first two humans created.
Just a point of information. People who believe in literal genesis think men have one less rib.
That is incorrect. Men and women have the same number of ribs. Yay biology and human physiology class.
Not in my experience. But thanks for the chuckle.Just a point of information. People who believe in literal genesis think men have one less rib.
Just a point of information. People who believe in literal genesis think men have one less rib.
That is incorrect. Men and women have the same number of ribs. Yay biology and human physiology class.
Then what was the land of Nod where Cain found a wife? (Gen 4:16)
Although this is the common translation, the Hebrew word does not really mean 'rib'. The Hebrew word sela literally means 'side'. This same word is used in 2 Samuel 16:13 to mean the 'side' of a hill.
We don't know what God took out of Adam, but even if it was a rib this wouldn't have altered Adam's DNA. He still would have passed on the genes for a complete set of ribs.
Although this is the common translation, the Hebrew word does not really mean 'rib'. The Hebrew word sela literally means 'side'. This same word is used in 2 Samuel 16:13 to mean the 'side' of a hill.
We don't know what God took out of Adam, but even if it was a rib this wouldn't have altered Adam's DNA. He still would have passed on the genes for a complete set of ribs.
Hello. I would approach any 400-year-old translation with caution, for two reasons: 1) our language has changed since then, and 2) our knowledge and quantity of ancient sources has increased since then.Ah so the kjv is in error. Why should I take it literally?
Hello. I would approach any 400-year-old translation with caution, for two reasons: 1) our language has changed since then, and 2) the quantity of our ancient sources has increased since then.
Young's and ESV still say 'rib', while NET Bible says 'side'. Myself, I don't think the difference has doctrinal significance.
As an interesting aside, if you wanted to remove a bone sample from the place in the human body most likely to grow back and leave the subject without permanent damage, you'd remove a rib.
You're a brother, right? I think if we just take it as God's word, honor Him, and love the brethren, we'll be on the right track.So we don't know if it's murder I'd kill or rib vs side.
Doesn't seem like a book to take as literal history or science.
You're a brother, right? I think if we just take it as God's word, honor Him, and love the brethren, we'll be on the right track.
Ah so the kjv is in error. Why should I take it literally?
I will not bite your bait and go off on a KJV-only tangent!
You commented that some people who read the Bible literally might believe that if God took the rib out of Adam to make the woman, then all men now have one less rib than women. Which we know is anatomically incorrect.
However, this last point must be assumed by the reader and does not come from a literal reading of the text - even if it says 'rib' and not 'side'. Just because God took one of Adam's ribs doesn't logically follow that his children would have one less rib too. The text no where suggests this.
That's like saying just because you lose a finger in an accident, your future children will also be missing a finger. That's not how genetics work.
Many people think men have one less rib. Prob only slightly fewer than actually believe the world is 6000 years old. I know I have heard men have one less rib told to me as fact.
I'm not saying people don't believe this. I've heard that myth too. However, you are assuming there is a correlation between a belief in a young earth and belief in a "one less rib" man.
This is simple untrue. There cannot be a direct correlation if we use just the biblical text. While the text does not explicitly state (or even imply for that matter!) that Adam's male descendants would be born missing a rib, the text is very explicit that God created in six days.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?