who was there for Cain to marry?

[RhetorTheo]

Why can't both Creationism and evolution both be true? If God created Adam and Eve, and there were other humans who evolved outside the Garden, then Cain could have chosen a wife from the evolved humans.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Why can't both Creationism and evolution both be true? If God created Adam and Eve, and there were other humans who evolved outside the Garden, then Cain could have chosen a wife from the evolved humans.

I think they can both be, BUT a faith in the current science observations infallibility does lead to some contradictions.

if you disagree witht the infalabilty of science, then you'll get flamed for sugesting that the word of God is right insted.

day, translated, means time of work. morning, begining of work, evining ending of work.

 

[Nova]

Why can't both Creationism and evolution both be true? If God created Adam and Eve, and there were other humans who evolved outside the Garden, then Cain could have chosen a wife from the evolved humans.

As a christian, when you present some scripture to back up that opinion I will listen.

 

[Nova]

I believe that the Garden of Eden was part of a non-decaying existence that was the prototype of the perfection of what humans could be... but with free will.

The Garden of Eden was the real thing. Not a proto-type.


God created a few *2* humans in the garden, and surely a few of the other animals. When the fall happened God created a number of other humans, temporally at the same time, as in gen 1... Although the animals had been created in the garden after Adam had.

Where does the bible claim this happened? If you can't show it through scripture then you should scrap the idea less you get accused of adding to the bible.


It seems obvious to me that the garden was timeless and as the fall occurs God created other humans on the same model for the rest of humanity.

Once again where is the biblical proof for this statement?

which, i think, explains why animals where created after man in gen2 but before man in gen 1.

Didn't you mean mankind instead of man? (check your scripture)

of course, with all scripture, i could be interpreting it wrong.

Where do you get this interpretation fom? can you show us?

 

[Nova]

but the soul can exist without the body- I mean when we die, that's what happens. So couldn't the 2 have been seperated before Adam was born.

The spirit can exist with out the body.

You need to seperate soul from spirit. They are different.

 

[Larry]

This thread is getting rich. I think I'll sit back and watch it unfold. This ought to be good entertainment.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

I believe that the Garden of Eden was part of a non-decaying existence that was the prototype of the perfection of what humans could be... but with free will.

The Garden of Eden was the real thing. Not a proto-type.

Of course it was real, but it was also unaging and on a timeline other than the one in gen 1.

God created a few *2* humans in the garden, and surely a few of the other animals. When the fall happened God created a number of other humans, temporally at the same time, as in gen 1... Although the animals had been created in the garden after Adam had.

Where does the bible claim this happened? If you can't show it through scripture then you should scrap the idea less you get accused of adding to the bible.

I don't want to add to the bible, surly, so this is my basis:
time line diference:

gen 2:
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [3] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

oviously something that happned before

gen 1:
11 And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12 And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;
13 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day third.

I agree that quite literaly both happned, but it also looks like we're looking at 1: a etherial time line found in the guarden of edan, and 2: a worldly timeline in genisis 1.

the time line of undieing ness that's found in gen 2 is that of the creation of man, how God came up with us and how he created us.. quite literaly, quite factuay. i belive the time line of creation being spoke into existance day after day is quite literal as well, the aparent contradiction only hapening if you don't understand that the etherial guarden of eden was, though on earth, not in the temporal reality that A&E brought down upon us through their sinfull action.
if you think i'm still adding to the bible i welcome your scriptural rebuke, i'm happy to change my views to best agree with scripture.

It seems obvious to me that the garden was timeless and as the fall occurs God created other humans on the same model for the rest of humanity.

Once again where is the biblical proof for this statement?

Right here it says that the retoric in genisis is an account of the preperations:
Gen 2: 4

These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being
prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;

It links the two statments and gives perspective of how the second relates to the first.
which, i think, explains why animals where created after man in gen2 but before man in gen 1.

Didn't you mean mankind instead of man? (check your scripture)

i'm not sure what the question is inreference to.. please clarify.

of course, with all scripture, i could be interpreting it wrong.

Where do you get this interpretation fom? can you show us?

As i don't belive that a church can tell you the 'proper' view of a scripture i didn't get it from anything but my prayer and reading of the scriptures.

ps

if you can find scripture to rebuke me with i'll be more than happy to receive it.

 

[Sinai]

Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh (or nephesh) and neshama (or nishmath), and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that “God created…every living creature,” it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of life--i.e., they are living creatures. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation that distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third “creation” mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our human soul (or God's spirit or God's breath of life or the capacity to fellowship with God), our neshama (the first two “creations” were of the universe and of life).



The closing of Genesis 2:7 has a subtlety lost in the English: It is usually translated as: “…and [God] breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the adam became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Dr. Gerald Schroeder has noted that the Hebrew text actually states: “…and the adam became to a living soul.” Over 700 years ago, Nahmanides wrote that the “to” (the Hebrew letter lamed prefixed to the word “soul” in the verse) is superfluous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach something. Lamed, he noted, indicates a change in form and may have been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of mineral, plant, fish, and animal. Finally, upon receiving the neshama, that creature which had already been formed became a human. He concludes his extensive commentary on the implications of this lamed by saying that “it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.”



According to Nahmanides, who is generally regarded as being one of the all-time greatest Jewish theologians and commentators on the Bible, the biblical text has told us that before the neshama, there could have been something like a man that was not quite a human. Note that Nahmanides’ writings preceded discoveries of modern paleontology by hundreds of years---and the Bible said it three thousand years before discoveries of modern science.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

The bible is alwase right Sinai, thanks for the informed perspective.

 

[lucaspa]

when looked at in the hebrew you'll find that God did not create a man and a woman. he created men and women, plural. It's just that A&E where the first.

WHOA! There is nothing in Genesis 3 to indicate that God created any more humans from dust or any other way after Adam and Eve!

Thank you for confirming what I said about Genesis 1 -- God created men and women, plural. But all that does is show up the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[lucaspa]

The bible is alwase right Sinai, thanks for the informed perspective.

Magus, you did note that Sinai is saying that humans evolved, didn't you? You have been denying evolution all along.

 

[lucaspa]

God created a few *2* humans in the garden, and surely a few of the other animals. When the fall happened God created a number of other humans, temporally at the same time, as in gen 1... Although the animals had been created in the garden after Adam had.

So you get to make stuff up outside the Bible and add to it?

What you are saying is that the Bible is indeed fallible -- it doesn't tell us the whole truth. Thanks for destroying your own "the Bible is inerrant" argument.

It seems obvious to me that the garden was timeless and as the fall occurs God created other humans on the same model for the rest of humanity.

And just where in the Bible does it say that? If you get to make it up as you go along, how is that different from Joseph Smith making up a visit by Jesus to the New World after his death? Not in the Bible, so what's to stop it from being correct?

For someone that advocates the Bible being the basis for faith, you are awfully eager to abandon it and just assume you can add to it whatever you want.

It's not that you are interpreting it wrong that bothers me, but that you are so inconsistent between the basic claims you make. It appears that you really don't have any constants to guide you, but can do whatever your human desire is.

 

[Sinai]

Magus, you did note that Sinai is saying that humans evolved, didn't you? You have been denying evolution all along.

Actually, I didn't say that humans evolved. I merely pointed out that the original Hebrew verses do not close the door on either that possibility or on the possibility of there being others who were physically like or similar to Adam and Eve but who lacked the neshama (or nishmath).

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Magus, you did note that Sinai is saying that humans evolved, didn't you? You have been denying evolution all along.

I said that theire are some problems with how it's viewed today.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

What you are saying is that the Bible is indeed fallible -- it doesn't tell us the whole truth. Thanks for destroying your own "the Bible is inerrant" argument.

the inerancy of the bible is not brought into question just because we don't understand it.