Questions for the literalist.

[theIdi0t]

I have a question: if Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit, would Cain still have been able to kill Able?

And secondly if Adam and Eve were the first humans, and Cain and Able were their first children, why would Cain be afraid of other men, when he was the only one existing?

"Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight."

 

[laptoppop]

I don't have a lot of patience with "what if"s, but in the first one - yes, I think so.

This is just like where did their wives come from? Obviously, Adam and Eve had other kids. Long life, no birth control......

 

[crawfish]

Maybe the nephlim were cavemen.

 

[theIdi0t]

I don't have a lot of patience with "what if"s, but in the first one - yes, I think so..

Assuming this were true, wouldn't man of fallen regardless of Adam and Eve's actions? If all it would take would be an action like Cain's to do so?

This is just like where did their wives come from? Obviously, Adam and Eve had other kids. Long life, no birth control......

But Genesis tells us when Adam and Eve had relations again, but this was after the whole thing with Cain and Able:

Adam again had relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she called Seth. "God has granted me more offspring in place of Abel," she said, "because Cain slew him."

Genesis does not say Cain was afraid of his own brothers? Nor does the Bible say the Adam and Eve had more children than Cain and Able, until after Cain killed Able. Nor does Genesis say the Children of Adam migrated to the land of Nod, were Cain met his wife (or sister as you would have us believe)?

Reading with the plain meaning in mind, it doesn't seem that the people in Nod were Adam and Eve's kid, but do you still say otherwise?

It definitely not "obvious" that Adam and Eve had more kids prior to Cain killing Abel, and it seems far from "obvious" that the people in Nod were descendants of Adam as well, it seems more obvious that they were not. SO perhaps you should rethink your "obvious' word choice.

 

[HypnoToad]

Assuming this were true, wouldn't man of fallen regardless of Adam and Eve's actions? If all it would take would be an action like Cain's to do so?

So? Is there a point to this part of the question?

But Genesis tells us when Adam and Eve had relations again, but this was after the whole thing with Cain and Able:

It does not say that Seth was their third child. All it really says is that Seth was the first one born after the murder.

Genesis does not say Cain was afraid of his own brothers?

Argument from silence.

Nor does the Bible say the Adam and Eve had more children than Cain and Able, until after Cain killed Able.

Argument from silence.

Nor does Genesis say the Children of Adam migrated to the land of Nod,

Argument from silence.

were Cain met his wife?

False - the text does not say Cain met his wife in Nod.

it seems more obvious that they were not. SO perhaps you should rethink your "obvious' word choice.

With the exception of the one that's just false, all your little bits of "evidence" are all arguments from silence.

 

[theIdi0t]

So? Is there a point to this part of the question?

It does not say that Seth was their third child. All it really says is that Seth was the first one born after the murder.

Well, Genesis says that Adam and Eve had relations, and Cain was born then Abel, and in the same chapter it goes on to say that Adam and Eve again had relations and produced Seth.
It's doing a good job of tracking who Adam and Eve conceived. Not to mention the long list of Cain's children. So I see no reason to leave out a verses or anything that suggests that they had more offspring.

And there is not a single verse in Genesis that gives any support for the notion that Cain married his sister.

Cain is afraid of being killed because he is a wanderer, a nomad, and he believes anyone may kill him as a result. This only makes sense if he is a stranger to them. Why would they want to kill him if they are his brothers? And why would he and God refer to his brothers as "anyone", and not "brothers"?

False - the text does not say Cain met his wife in Nod.

Well it doesn't seem like they had any marriage traditions back then either. The text does seem to say that Cain had relations with a woman in Nod, and the text says Cain left for Nod, not he and his wife, or anyone else left with him.

With the exception of the one that's just false, all your little bits of "evidence" are all arguments from silence.

Don't be foolish and call these arguments from silence, they are arguments from what the plain reading of the texts suggests. Saying that he marries his sister is much more an argument for silence, than anything I have said.

 

[HypnoToad]

Well, Genesis says that Adam and Eve had relations, and Cain was born then Abel, and in the same chapter it goes on to say that Adam and Eve again had relations and produced Seth.

"Same chapter" is irrelevant. The originals had no chapter or verse numbers.

It's doing a good job of tracking who Adam and Eve conceived. Not to mention the long list of Cain's children. So I see no reason to leave out a verses or anything that suggests that they had more offspring.

"Good job"?? 5:4 just says "other sons and daughters" and never names any of them. Not much "tracking" going on at all.

And there is not a single verse in Genesis that gives any support for the notion that Cain married his sister.

Sure there is. Scripture states there was only Adam and Eve, so Cain could only have married a sister or a niece.

Cain is afraid of being killed because he is a wanderer, a nomad, and he believes anyone may kill him as a result. This only makes sense if he is a stranger to them. Why would they want to kill him if they are his brothers?

Because Cain murdered THEIR brother. It makes perfect sense that they'd want to avenge Abel's murder.

And why would he and God refer to his brothers as "anyone", and not "brothers"?

There's nothing inaccurate about using "anyone".

Well it doesn't seem like they had any marriage traditions back then either. The text does seem to say that Cain had relations with a woman in Nod, and the text says Cain left for Nod, not he and his wife, or anyone else left with him.

Wouldn't anyone reading it assume his family would go with him?

Don't be foolish and call these arguments from silence, they are arguments from what the plain reading of the texts suggests. Saying that he marries his sister is much more an argument for silence, than anything I have said.

No, because the text does indicate that Adam and Eve were the only humans created, leaving NO OTHER OPTION for who Cain married. That is not an argument from silence, whereas every evidence for your position is.

 

[Assyrian]

Argument from silence.

Argument from silence.

Argument from silence.

False - the text does not say Cain met his wife in Nod.

With the exception of the one that's just false, all your little bits of "evidence" are all arguments from silence.

It is interesting that so much of the YEC interpretation of story isn't supported by the text.

Genesis does talk of Adam having other sons and daughters, but it places them after the birth of Seth. The narrative describes a story where Adam and Eve have Cain, Able, and then Seth is born after Able is killed. The use of 'again' is redundant in describing the conception of Seth, if there had been load of other kids in between. So is Eve declaring "God has appointed to me another seed in place of Abel" echoing the promise in Gen 3:15 And I will put (appoint) enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed. This is the language on someone who had no other children until Seth came along.

Similarly, the 'whoever finds me' is a really odd way to describe his mum and dad, and unmentioned younger brothers and sisters.

But when Genesis does describe the other sons and daughters in 5:4, it uses the waw consecutive construction to place the begetting of other sons and daughters after Seth.

Again the TE reading of the passage is the much more natural meaning of the text. Cain did not commit incest by marrying his sister because there were no brothers and sisters until Seth came along. Cain really was afraid of unknown strangers, not his grief stricken family. Seth was the next child born in the family.

No, because the text does indicate that Adam and Eve were the only humans created, leaving NO OTHER OPTION for who Cain married. That is not an argument from silence, whereas every evidence for your position is.

Actually it is an argument from silence, because the text does not say Adam and Eve were the only ones around. As we have seen, the text seems to assume that there were others for Cain to be afraid of.

 

[theIdi0t]

"
Because Cain murdered THEIR brother. It makes perfect sense that they'd want to avenge Abel's murder.

"Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight."

Come on Jedi, let's not be specious. Cain said since he is banished from the soil, and is to become a restless wanderer anyone might kill him at sight and not "my brothers are going to kill me regardless because I killed Abel." The text clearly implies that he would be killed because he was now a wanderer, not that he would be killed because he killed Abel, so who are you fooling?

Do I need to use specious logic to believe in your literal interpretation? Is that what you are telling us?

Wouldn't anyone reading it assume his family would go with him?

What family? If the scripture suggests he had no brothers and sisters, why would I assume he had a family to begin with? If there were no people in Nod, then he should have been happy to be a wanderer, because he would be away from his supposed brothers in Eden.

No, because the text does indicate that Adam and Eve were the only humans created, leaving NO OTHER OPTION for who Cain married.

Where does the text indicate that Adam and Eve were the only humans created? By the specious logic you used to justify that Adam and Eve had more unmentioned children between Cain and Seth, you might as well say that God created more unmentioned people from the dust so Cain wouldn't have to marry his sister.

 

[shernren]

I have a question: if Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit, would Cain still have been able to kill Able?

To be fair, a YEC perspective would have very little Scriptural data to answer speculative questions like this. There is no remotely literal interpretation of Revelations that matches up well with Genesis in such a way that it would help them figure out what an unfallen world would look like.

 

[HypnoToad]

Idiot, you're going way off on irrelevant tangents.

Your question on Cain was answered. Cain was afraid of his family avenging Abel's murder. There's absolutely nothing in the text refuting the plausibility of the literalist view. Everything you've tried to use to argue against it is an argument from silence.

 

[theIdi0t]

Idiot, you're going way off on irrelevant tangents.

Your question on Cain was answered. Cain was afraid of his family avenging Abel's murder. There's absolutely nothing in the text refuting the plausibility of the literalist view. Everything you've tried to use to argue against it is an argument from silence.

"an arguments from silence can be a valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning."

argumentum a silentio

Telling someone his argument is invalid because he is using an argument from silence to support his case, is meaningless, particularly when I make my case from what the text alludes to, rather what it refrains from alluding to.

SO perhaps, you need to figure out a better method for arguing your case rather than misusing logical fallacies.

 

[HypnoToad]

What you claim it "alludes to" is just your opinion and has no bearing on the plausibility of the literalist view.

 

[theIdi0t]

What you claim it "alludes to" is just your opinion and has no bearing on the plausibility of the literalist view.

XianJedi: "Cain was afraid of his family avenging Abel's murder."

from: "Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight."

I see "since I am banished from the soil, and made into a restless wanderer", as the reason Cain fears being killed on first sight, by "anyone".

You take "anyone" to be his family, and the whole part about him being banished from the soil, and be made a wanderer to have nothing to do with why "anyone" would kill him at first sight. And then you throw in this other notion that it was because his family was seeking to avenge their brother's death.

(Notice the text doesn't even say "seek")

My interpretation is much more plausible than yours and you know that, but of course specious reasoning makes all things permissible, and if that is what a literalist has to result to, to defend his position then I am happy to call myself a non-literalist.

 

[HypnoToad]

XianJedi: "Cain was afraid of his family avenging Abel's murder."

from: "Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight."

I see "since I am banished from the soil, and made into a restless wanderer", as the reason Cain fears being killed on first sight, by "anyone".

"Since" is a questionable translation, the Hebrew is "behold".

Seriously, think about it - you think people want to kill him for wandering? For WANDERING?? Why on earth would that make people want to kill him?

You take "anyone" to be his family,

In the literal view, "anyone" would be his family, as they are the only ones on the planet.

and the whole part about him being banished from the soil, and be made a wanderer to have nothing to do with why "anyone" would kill him at first sight.

Addressed above.

And then you throw in this other notion that it was because his family was seeking to avenge their brother's death.

(Notice the text doesn't even say "seek")

What does the presence of the word "seek" have to do with anything??

My interpretation is much more plausible than yours and you know that,

Oh, yeah, you can presume to tell me what I know??

but of course specious reasoning makes all things permissible, and if that is what a literalist has to result to, to defend his position then I am happy to call myself a non-literalist.

You can call it "specious" all day long; that doesn't make it so. All you keep giving is your opinion, having no bearing on the literal view.

 

[crawfish]

Here's a question.

I don't see any easy answers to the Cain question. You can say that he is afraid of his brothers and sisters, but to make that assumption goes beyond the scope of what God tells us in that story. God also doesn't tell us that He created any other humans. Why do you believe that choice #1 is more "literal" than #2? I see two assumptions being made here with no real support, but the latter making more logical sense than the former.

 

[HypnoToad]

I don't see any easy answers to the Cain question. You can say that he is afraid of his brothers and sisters, but to make that assumption goes beyond the scope of what God tells us in that story. God also doesn't tell us that He created any other humans. Why do you believe that choice #1 is more "literal" than #2? I see two assumptions being made here with no real support, but the latter making more logical sense than the former.

Is the "latter assumption" that God did make other humans, or that God did NOT make other humans?

 

[crawfish]

Is the "latter assumption" that God did make other humans, or that God did NOT make other humans?

Sorry. The two assumptions are:

1) Adam & Eve had many children before Seth that weren't documented
2) God created other humans that weren't documented.