Cain married his sister (or possibly a niece). The Bible says Adam "begot sons and daughters" (Gen 5:4). In fact, since Adam lived 930 years (Gen 5:5), he had plenty of time for plenty of children! Cain could have married one of his many sisters, or even a niece, if he married after his brothers and sisters had grown daughters. In that case, of course, one of his brothers would have married a sister, which was not forbidden until much later (Lev. 18:9)
[This message has been edited by Conspirator, 03-06-2003]
Genesis 1 gives the order of events; Genesis 2 provides more content about them. Genesis 2 does not contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply days he brought the animals (which he had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them. The focus in chapter 2 is on the naming of the animals, not on creating them. Genesis 1 provides the outline of events, and chapter 2 gives details. Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more complete picture of the creation events. The differences, then, can be summarized as follows:
ME2, what in the hell are you talking about? I did answer your "contradiction". I've answered every one of your little "contradictions" already and yet you still won't accept it. I don't have the time or the patience to deal with you if you say that I didn't answer you when I obviously did. And hey, if you can't accept that the Bible has no contradictions, then it's not my problem it's just something that you'll just have to work out for your little self. I'm not your parents. I DID answer you. Did you not understand that point of my post? Because if you don't, then you don't really belong here as it was painfully obvious that I did answer you. So...what is the problem?
And ohhhh woooow, I'm arrogant. Your point?
[This message has been edited by Conspirator, 03-08-2003]
2. you didn't answer of why the two creations of "MAN"...WHAT YOU ANSWERD WAS ABOUT THE ANIMALS..there is a difference..
Humans = animals.
4.MY PARENTS A NO LONGER WITH ME...SO I WILL APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD KEEP THEM OUT OF YOUR MOUTH AND BOARD DISCUSSIONS...THERE IS NO NEED OR PLACE FOR IT....
Ok. I apologize.
And as for Jesus riding in on two donkeys....
Both animals were involved in Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. There is no mistake in the accounts because Mark and Luke mention just the colt (polos), and Matthew refers to the colt (polos, 21:5) and its mother. The passage in Matthew is pointing out the literal fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 which states, "Behold your king is coming to you. . . humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey." The Greek version of the OT uses the same word for colt (polos) as the NT passages. Matthew literally states that once the disciples placed their garments on the donkeys, Jesus sat on them, that is, on their garments. Matthew does not say that Jesus rode on both the mother and the colt. It merely states that Jesus sat on the garments that the disciples had placed on the donkeys. Perhaps they placed some garments on the mother and others on the colt, and Jesus sat on those garments which were placed on the colt. The fact is the text of Matthew simply does not say on which donkey Jesus sat. Mark and Luke focus on the colt which Jesus rode, while Matthew mentions the presence of the colt's mother. Her presence may have been necessary because the colt was so young. Mark 11:12 states that no one had ridden on the colt, and that the colt would be taking a passenger through a noisy crowd (Mark 11:9). Perhaps the mother was brought along in order to be a claiming influence upon her young.
001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,and every winged fowl after his kind
Yes, he created every living creature here.
001:023 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
So he goes and makes evening and morning.
001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
I think this is the problem that you seem to have trouble dealing with. "Bring forth" simply means to come to life. He created every living creature in verse 21, but were they alive? No, they didn't have to be and it didn't say they were. It simply says he created them. he didn't say if they were alive or not. In this verse they come to life, they weren't being created again.
001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind
This is probably on the same day, so repeating it doesn't mean he created them twice.
creature..meaning a lower animal..
No it doesn't. Creature could mean ANY animal.
under your blanket term ANIMAL yeah...we all fall into that pot..but take note..this is your interpretation of it and it's wrong...
Then would mind telling me how my interpretation of it is wrong instead of just saying it is without clarifying your point?
well the book of genesis was written in a sequencial order of events and creation...and if you follow them (which you don't want to)...you will see that whales,cattle fowls,etc..was created of the 5TH DAY..
Amd as I explained, they weren't created on the fifth day. They were brought to life on the fifth day. Big difference.
man and MORE animals were created on the 6THDAY...
No they weren't. They were brought to life on the 6th day. It says let us make man in our image. That means they had to have been alive before that.
And could an Admin or someone else delete 2 of my messages in my posts? Thanks.
Yeah, I'm just going to ignore ME2 for now because I'm not going to sink to his level. I've never claimed to be a Bible scholar also. I believe that the Bible has no contradictions. Of course, I can't provide answers to every one of them at this moment, but it's what I believe and I believe that one day they will all have answers. With that said....I'll answer schrafinator.
Both gospel writers are correct in their assertions. The difficulty is answered when we realize that each Gospel writer used a different time system. John follws the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system.
According to Roman time, the day ran from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hour period in the evening at 6 p.m. and the morning of that day began at 6 a.m. Therefore, when Mark asserts that at the third hour Christ was crucified, this was about 9 a.m. John stated that Christ's trial was about the sixth hour. This would place the trial before the crucifixion and this would not negate any testimony of the Gospel writers. This fits with John's other references to time. For example, he speaks about Jesus being weary from his journey from his trip from Judea to Samaria at the "sixth hour" and asking for water from the woman at the well. Considering the length of his trip, his weariness, and the normal evening time when people come to the well to drink and to water their animals, this fits better with 6 p.m., which is "the sixth hour" of the night by Roman time reckoning. The same is true of John's reference to the tenth hour in John 1:39, which would be 10 a.m., a more likely time to be out preaching at 4 a.m.
bruh..you're right...this thread has me scratching my head and looking dumb founded as to how a person can pull answers like these out of his rump and present them with no proof to back the up with convection...
It look to me like you can't follow your own advice because you haven't responded with your proof either, so I guess that makes us even.
conscriptor...you don't have to respond to me anymore.
Fine. I wasn't planning on doing it.
there is more than enough posters that can pose question to you that you can't answer...
you started this thread and started answering questions i might add in an arrogant mannor...
Yeah, I agree. I apologize.
1.you dodge and evaded.
No I didn't. I said I couldn't answer them. That's not dodging or evading.
2.you presented lame answers
We BOTH did.
3.you were hypocritical at times.
4.in terms of me...you've folded your arms,pouted,and is stamping your feet...and why...b\c i'm pointing out your flawed interpretations or b\c i won't follow a flawed docterine..
No I really didn't. I tried to answer your interpretations, but you were the one that said I was wrong without telling me why I was wrong a lot of the time and continued ignoring me and thought that your interpretation was the only valid one. You told me to look in the dictionary for the word creature without presenting a definition and did other things like that.
CAN YOU PROVE THIS...
Why not try studying Roman history and find out for yourself?