Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174732 | ||
First, the idea that Adam and Eve had additional children prior to Seth is simply not Biblical. Read what is written. I have reviewed the text in many different translations of Genesis 5:4, and *every single one of them* is consistent in saying that AFTER Seth was born, Adam lived for 800 years and fathered many children. Not a single translation that I have read puts Adam fathering additional children prior to the birth of Seth. Even though the specific dates are not mentioned, the order of events is as significant in Biblical writings as specifying dates. As such, the order of reporting of events is, in fact, providing us with the order of events. So the question does remain, where did those other people come from? Since, as described above, they were not from Adam and Eve (and if anyone can identify SCRIPTURALLY how they were actual descendents of Adam and Eve, I will happily concede this whole idea), it really leaves only one option: They were created by God. In fact, the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:26-27 does not mean a specific man, but rather mankind or humankind, according to the Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius’ "The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon". If we look at the Bible as directions for living for Him and ending up in eternity with Him, it stands to reason that everything we need to reach Him is written in the Word. The corollary to this is that there are facts and ideas that are true but are not included because they are not germane to our goal of reaching Him and ultimately serving Him in eternity, just as a road map showing the route from Los Angeles to New York would give us the pertinent information for our journey, but wouldn’t mention anything about Japan. Even so, we may be able to infer that Japan exists, perhaps by the mention of a Japanese Embassy, or perhaps an advertisement on the map for a Toyota. By the same token, we can infer things that are not mentioned specifically in the Word by some key phrases in other parts of the Word. The specific example here is that Cain did marry someone and he did build cities for someone. Other people *did* exist. So using this logic, doesn’t the possibility exist that God did in fact create the other people that are mentioned in the Bible, but because their creation is not germane to us seeking, finding, and following Him, they are not clearly identified? Mark, you said, “Since your argument is from the silence of Scriptures, one could assert with Equal Validity that Cain was concerned about the Little People, who had travelled back in time from Middle Earth, or whatever else you want.” I submit that my assertion and yours are not of equal validity as you claim. As you can see from what is written above, I am basing my assertion on logic using what *is* written in The Word as well as acknowledging what is being excluded. I doubt you could say the same for your suggestion of the Little People. Your tone, quite frankly, is one of disrespect and ridicule. I would appreciate a tone that is more suited for discussion and learning rather than derision. WOS, you asked, “So you imply that adding to the Word is wrong but still do it? Where does God tell us there were others before Adam and Eve?” I am not taking away from, nor adding to, God’s Word here. Other people did exist, a Biblical fact, with no explanation directly provided for their origin. The explanation I’m providing is in line with the Hebrew word used in Gen 1:26-27 (see above). Again, the lack of specificity means that in the grand scheme of things, whether He created other people in addition to Adam and Eve is truly not important to becoming a follower of Him. You also asked, “Does it say ‘created man’ or ‘re-created man’?” If God *did* create mankind, then created Adam as I’m suggesting, is that a “re-creation” or “creating a new being”? If God created man in Genesis 1:26-27, is it not possible that He created mankind, then created a separate people starting with Adam and Eve to be the ancestors of His Son and His Chosen People? Between much prayer and study and discussion, this is what I came up with. Seeing that Cain could not have married a sister that had not yet been born. Seeing that there were enough people for Cain to build a city. Seeing that the Hebrew wording is one of mankind, not just one man. And recognizing that in other places in the Scriptures, Adam is identified as first man *relative to Eve’s creation* in 1 Timothy 2:13, and as the bringer of sin in Romans 5:12 – “just as sin entered the world through one man”, which simply defines Adam as the man through whom sin entered the world, as he was the first to be given a command, then subsequently break that command. Adam was made especially by God as the first of the line that would become His Chosen People, the Jews, and the ones who would beget His only Son. |
||||||
2 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | Wild Olive Shoot | 174743 | ||
Sorry Magellan, If your theory is correct, then God lied to us in His Word. Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. I'll take God's Word over yours my friend. No need to debate it any further. That another "people" existed before Adam is not supported biblically. The fact that there were none IS. You take the logical explanation and fantasize it into something that isn't real. You compromise the Word of God and rationalize the Scripture to form an understanding that you can comprehend, neither of which I support. In the end, I agree with you that it is really of no importance from where Cain’s wife originated since it has never been revealed to us by the only authoritative source that we should rely on. If God thinks it insignificant, maybe we should too. WOS |
||||||
3 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174850 | ||
Except that the wording of this verse in the Hebrew included the word "hayah", which refers to a future event, not a past or current event. That would cause the text to read that Eve "_would become_ the mother of all the living", which happened in Genesis 7:21-23 when all mankind perished except Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their three wives. Noah was descended from Adam and Eve. God does not lie. Please continue taking God’s Word over mine. But make sure it is actually God’s Word and not simply Traditional Interpretation to which you are clinging. "That another "people" existed before Adam is not supported biblically. The fact that there were none IS." I have yet to see you or anyone else here provide anything that suggests this statement is true, though eklektos has come close. I have just shown how your misinterpretation of Genesis 3:20 is based on the English usage of the word "was" rather than the Hebrew word "hayah" that can be transliterated into the English "was". So please try again? I really would love to find something in the Word that disproves my theory, as that would make things much easier for me. So far, however, I have yet to find anything, nor has anyone else with whom I have spoken or written to about this. You suggest that I "take the logical explanation and fantasize it into something that isn't real", yet I have been able to back up every single point I've made with Biblical evidence and support. I have cross-referenced both Old Testament and New Testament. I have gone to the original Hebrew, demonstrating how the original words were used. So I ask you the same as I asked Mark...how is this fantasizing? How is this not real? How is this not supported Biblically? How is this compromising the Word of God? Rather than simply stating that I am doing these things, please show me how your assertions are true! Show me what in the Word am I compromising? Show how what I’m saying and presenting is rationalizing? Don't just say the words! What I’m doing is looking at all implications of this. I’m looking at how this piece fits in, not just with what is written in the Bible, but also the sciences, history, and sociology. It is supported by physical evidence, and has the virtue of not being antagonistic with scientists. It is the only theory I have ever heard that meshes with everything, and in fact provides Christians with ammunition against Evolution beyond "God said so," which is not convincing when dealing with someone who doesn't believe in God as most Evolutionists don't. Your “Cain’s sister” theory falls short on all counts except that it is not contradicted directly (though certainly not supported) in the Word. Which brings us to one thing I have only briefly touched on so far – the scientific implications of this. Do you know that every physical science can be reconciled with the Bible except two? Those two are anthropology and paleontology. Do you know why? Because once upon a time, someone in the church said that the Hebrew word “adam” used in Genesis 1:26-27 meaning man in a plural sense really meant the Adam in Genesis 2, thus suggesting that Adam in Genesis 2 was the first man. When this was accepted, it limited the age of the world to approximately 12,000 years. This had, quite literally, no impact until the theory of evolution was fully developed and took precedence as the standard view of the origins of man. Unfortunately, anthropology and paleontology have too much physical evidence that supports the earth being older than 12,000 years old, and thus are contradictory to the misinterpretation of Genesis 1:26-27. This led to an impossible battle, with the church saying one thing, and science contradicting. Because science is observable, it becomes easier to understand, and easier to accept. And now we have problems in our schools because of it. The truth of Creationism is becoming illegal to teach in favor of the falsehood brought about (Evolution) by observable evidence. The physical sciences are, simply put, the study of the observation of God’s creation. If so, there *must* be a reconciliation between the two. Science cannot observe something that isn’t part of God’s creation. The *interpretation* of the observation certainly can be mistaken (note: evolution – BIG mistake!), but the actual observations *must* be part of what God created! He created everything! Because of the far-reaching impacts to the scientific community, and the waterfall effect into our schools, I submit that this really is far more important than I initially said. As a Christian, it becomes a moot point. However, to those who are not saved and put more trust in the observable, this becomes a much greater issue. |
||||||
4 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | Wild Olive Shoot | 174863 | ||
magellan, I did say there is no reason to debate this. I'll keep it there. The verse I posted refutes in total, your entire theory. If your theory contradicts one little teeny piece of God's word, then it is not true. God's word is truth my friend. Eve was and is the mother of all living. Now if you can't understand this in it's simplest terms we are right back at the beginning of this debate because I can in no way explain it any better than that. Please, let's get beyond this subject and on to more enlightening things that God offers us in His truth, His Word. By the way, concerning the usage of hayah and as you say refers to a future event. Well isn’t that obvious? When Adam made the statement, Eve was not yet a mother of anything. Why do you have to take the generations all the way to Noah? At the birth of Cain, this was made true and continued endlessly from that point. WOS |
||||||