Is the Bible the Word of God II?

quote:

---

Originally posted by no2creation:

At this time Adam, Eve and Cain should have been the only humans on earth (Abel was slain by Cain). So where did Cain's wife come from? God does not explain that he made more humans. Did he leave this part out? If so, why?

---

It's not often you see a link to a Roman Catholic website on the forum , but here is a good one which goes into the question of Antediluvian genealogy in scholarly detail. It's a very good brief summary of current biblical study in the subject. It doesn't directly answer the question "where did Cain's wife come from", but it does explain the scholarly identification of Cain and Cainan: see Genesis 5. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01551c.htmGenesis 5 at the very least says that Adam had more sons and daughters than just Cain and Abel, so I don't think its an issue. It is one of the favourite "gotcha" questions raised by each generation of biblical-contradiction-hunters.Pamboli

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B]

When there were only four people on the entire earth (Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel), Cain kills Abel ...

Ah you've skipped verse three you naughty thing ... "And in process of time it came to pass" which can (to coin a phrase) cover a multitude of sins.

Gen 4:15b Then the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who found him would kill him.

​

-The only people available to find and kill Cain at the time were Adam and Eve.

I think the implication of "no-one" extends rather further than to his father and mother, no? The suggestion is surely that he was marked as a sign to identify him as one who should not be killed - hardly necessary if he is the only other human on the planet!The word "mark" is translated in the Vulgate as "signum", a sign, and other translations accord with this.You know what I think is going on? The OT is so mysogynistic that they have no interest in Cain's wife until he "lies" with her. After all, what else she was good for? Hardly worth a mention except as the world's first sex object.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

---

Mister Pamboli writes:
Ah you've skipped verse three you naughty thing ...

---

​

Since Adam and Eve do not have additional children until after Cain kills Abel, and since Gen 4:3 precedes the murder, that verse is irrelevant.
...
Since there were no wives to be had at the time of Abel's death ...
--Percy

---

Genesis 1-4 covers the creation myth and the fall and the various shenanigans up to Cain and his progeny. Genesis 5 is a genealogy, ending with Noah, leading into the next major myth of the flood.The pattern is quite clear: myths - genealogy (Genesis 5) - myths (flood) - genealogy Genesis 10) - myth of Abraham and subsequent myths stitched together with little genealogies.It does have the feel of two original sources - a collection of myths of the orgins of the tribe, and a genealogy of the kings. These are stitched together as appropriate. The myths don't include detailed genealogies because that isn't their purpose. The genealogy at Genesis 5 can be read as a separate genealogy of those who formed the ancestors of the tribe.Cain doesn't figure in the genealogy because his role is to contribute to the myth not the genealogy.His wife, poor woman, doesn't figure in the genealogy for the same reason and only figures in the myth as a broodmare for his Cain's progeny: her genealogy and origin are of no importance to the moral and theological issues with which the myth deals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

A further point is that if the chronology of the Bible is so loose that 14 years can possibly be inserted between any two sentences when required to close the distance to the realm of possibility, then there are too many alternate possible interpretations to make it a useful reference about anything.
--Percy

---

Hey don't get me wrong, Percy, I for one am not claiming the Biblcial account is historically accurate. In this case it just a pretty typical ancient text and it has the same flaws and lapses as you would find in any early genealogy. But it seemed a shame to see you pick a hole where there wasn't one.I would agree that it is not a useful "reference" in the sense that one cannot look it up like an encyclopedia to find the lineage or chronology of the ancient near east, but when cross-referenced with the archaeology and other primary sources, it is a wonderful set of documents.And of course it is useless as a guide to the physical origins of the earth or humankind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding your original point. You came to the Bible's defense when No2creation raised the question of where Cain's wife came from, saying you didn't think it was an issue, that it was a favorite "gotcha" among Biblical contradiction seekers. I answered that I thought it was a stretch given that it required the insertion of at least 14 years between two consecutive sentences.
...
But this isn't the impression the Bible story leaves in one's mind while it's being read.
...
There's nothing special about this problem. There are many other similar problems in the Bible, some worse, some not so bad. I'm not trying to make a big deal about this particular problem. I just didn't think it was accurate to say it wasn't a problem.
--Percy

---

I don't want to labour this point either, but may I take a few sentneces to clarify?The point I was trying to make was that there are two sources - one mythical and the other genealogical. The mythical source has no particular interest in chronology - it is concerned with a moral fable. If I were a fundie who held that that the two must reconcile perfectly, then it would indeed be a problem. But for textual analysis there is no real difficulty.
Narrative texts constantly do this kind of thing, only touching the incidents they are interested in, with holes often being filled in by other, chronologically parallel, passages. The significant incidents and detail are selected by the mindset of the writer, thus my slightly facetious point that the source of the creation and fall legends had no interest in Cain's wife or her origins until she had a function in the plot.My concern in raising the issue was that sometimes on this forum the textual analysis of the Bible, which has yielded wonderful information in the last 150 years, is often squeezed out between the rationalist and fundamentalist views on this forum.Damn - I have laboured the point now. I'm off for a coffee.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Oh and as for the veggies live 33% longer ...

---

They don't. It just seems longer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by techristian:
When Adam was first created his DNA was perfect there was no incest back then.

---

Evidence please? Thanks in advance.[b] [QUOTE]No you're not evolving, but DEVOLVING due to entropy.[/b][/QUOTE]Well, obviously individuals do not evolve in the post-Darwinian sense. What do you mean by "devolving?" What evidence do you have for it?[b] [QUOTE]"How did different skin colors come to be?"It was ALL in Adams genes.[/b][/QUOTE]Evidence agin please? Thanks.
[b] [QUOTE]Did you ever see a black haired child born to 2 BLONDE parents. It may have been from a grandparent (the genes are far more vast than only those which are passed on).[/b][/QUOTE]So what did Adam look like? To put it genetically, as you seem to be fond of the subject, which genes were dominant and recessive? Take a simple example - the one we are discussing - what colour was Adam's skin?[b] [QUOTE]Order doesn't come by itself without outside influence.[/b][/QUOTE]Why do you say that? Can you explain?[b] [QUOTE]"-If God is all forgiving, why is there a hell at all?"Because he is also a just God. If he says that he will punish the wicked, then he will punish the wicked. You have a simple choice to avoid Hell. Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved.[/b][/QUOTE]Why does she say she will punish the wicked? Why does not she not directly intervene to set them on the path to goodness?How does one choose to believe? If one chooses to believe in something without sufficient evidence to prove it, how can one know one is making the right choice? For example, if I choose to believe in the inerrancy of the Koran, would I be judged wrong for that? If I chose to believe in the truth of the Bhagavad Gita, would I be judged wrong?
[b] [QUOTE]"-Doesn't killing animals for food constitute a violation of the First Commandment (i might be wrong on this, the one that says 'Thou shalt not kill')"This is the common cry of Animal rights activists, but most of the same activists think nothing of murdering a child in the womb.[/b][/QUOTE]Evidence for this assertion? Thanks.[b] [QUOTE]Just because your newspaper will record murders and crime, it doesn't mean that it condones it. The Bible records this case of Cain killing Abel. It doesn't condone it. (I'm getting the feeling that these questions are being posted with no knowledge whatsoever. Will this person even be back to read the replies?)[/b][/QUOTE]I have read the replies, I have some Bible knowledge, and I do hope you will respond to me.There are of course many places where the Bible does condone killing, indeed encourages it.Deuteronomy 20:13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:Deuteronomy 7:2And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto themThis is exactly the point that was being made - that the Bible is full of this stuff. Comments? Thanks.
[b] [QUOTE]"Could God have rather created the first ameobas and let us evolve?"We'll throw a bunch of car parts out and tell me 10 million years from now if they assemble themselves together.[/b][/QUOTE]Perhaps if they were thrown out by being of infinite power, wisdom and foresight? Or is your God not up to setting evolution in motion?

quote:

---

Ok I should choose my words more carefully. Since the majority here are trying to use science to disprove the bible, I have only presented a scientific POSSIBILITY which would work. How can you prove that Adam WASN'T created with perfect DNA?

---

Firstly, you should perhaps consider what it means to "present a possibility" - an unsupported assertion dressed up in vaguely scientific language just doesn't advance the discussion even one step. Falling back on the old "prove it wasn't so" position does nothing to give your point of view any more credibility - you could say it of anything. Adam was 40 feet tall, bright green and spoke entirely in finely modulated variations of the word "wibble." Prove it wasn't so! Please, do choose your words more carefully.Secondly, I doubt if anyone here is trying to "disprove the bible." I'm not even sure what the phrase means. There are some of us who try to show that particular sections of the bible are not to be taken as literal accounts of actual events. Again, "disprove the bible" is such a sweeping statement as to be quite unhelpful in the argument.

quote:

---

Why does she say she will punish the wicked? Why does not she not directly intervene to set them on the path to goodness?

​

Have you ever worked with a ROBOT? I work in an auto factory and see robots every day. They do just exactly what we tell them to do and that makes them very boring companions. God created man with FREE WILL. You have the choice. Use it wisely.

---

Actually I spend a large part of my time trying to make computers and artificial systems more interesting "companions." We surely have a long way to go! My point remains however - god could intervene to show the wicked the path to virtue, indeed she did so with Saul on the road to Damascus. Saul still had free will as to whether to follow gods direction. My suggestion is simply that there between the two extremes of free will and total control, god could do a lot more to guide us, but she does not. I am not saying that the christian god does not provide guidance - through the church, etc - but I am saying that she could imaginably do more. One would have thought that a good, loving god would do everything possible to save people from punishment.

quote:

---

Yes there are, but the example of Cane and Abel was the example used by the original person posting the question. I cases where people were considered UTTERLY EVIL, God not only condoned the killing of the EVILDOERS, but their entire families also. We do not understand everything from this earthly perspective. In the eternal perspective, however, the young children and innocents killed this way may have gone directly to Heaven rather than grow up like their evil parents and go to Hell for eternal suffering.

---

Again, it seems that god is either powerless or unwilling to find alternative ways to achieve these ends.

quote:

---

You have dug yourself you own hole to fall in here. That is precisely why evolution couldn't work.

---

I'm disappointed you didn't answer my question: was god not capable of setting evolution in motion such that it would work?

quote:

---

That is why scientists have almost totally abandoned Dawinian evolution. Darwin was not a scientist

---

Wow! You love your broad unsupported assertions, don't you? You'll find Darwininan evolution is very much alive and kicking. Sure it has developed a lot since Darwin's day - just like every other branch of scientific enquiry - but it has not been abandoned.I wonder why you say Darwin was not a scientist?

quote:

---

but an atheist who sought to justify his evil by trying to explain away God.

---

I don't think poor Darwin was ever evil. He certainly struggled with faith, and quite possibly did abandon it, but he certainly didn't explain away god. Indeed, many of his supporters were churchmen. And of course, to this day, many christians find no difficulty in accepting an evolutionary explanation of the diversity life.

quote:

---

Anyone who has ever looked through a modern day microscope will tell you that the "single cell" organism of Darwinism is infinitely more complex.

---

Than what?