The Bible has no contradictions

Brian,

Actually, there are other possibilities:

1: Adam had another wife in this line that is not mentioned, one reason Cain and Abel are not mentioned in it.

2: Perhaps Cain and Abel were not of Adam's line per verse 4:1-2.

Gen 4:1

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD."

In this verse the word "knew" probably didnt mean that they had child together, perhaps just awareness of each other rather.

Per BLB/strong's concordance: the word "knew" was translated from the hebrew word "yada' " a prim root meaning "to know" where as the word "from" was translated from the hebrew word " 'eth" meaning "with, near or together".

So possibly, in this verse "I have aquired a man from the LORD" ment just that, the LORD and Eve had Cain together. This idea applies to Abel too per verse 4:2.

Edited by The Saint, : Spelling error/Correection.

Edited by The Saint, : Spelling error

ME2,

Actually Genesis 4:14-15 imply there are others.

"Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

"But the LORD said to him, "Not so [fn] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him."

As far as markings go, it's not like Cain traveled from Pakistan to California. He traveled by foot, within the same culture/mixed cultures. Most likely people could identify the markings and had similar understandings of markings.

Edited by The Saint, : Topic

ME2,

Actually there is nothing in the Bible that specifies other people didn't exist. The story just focuses on the two refered to commonly as Adam and Eve(the first man and woman). Adam was translated from the hebrew word "'adam" which is defined as "man" or "mankind". It's a species reference such as homo sapien. Per genesis 1:27-28, man was to multiply. The creation story in Genesis 2 was probably written as a way to deliver the story of the fall/sin. Explaining it from the vantage point that what God had created was good but then due to Satan man sinned. It's not a complicated story. I think it's hillarious when people analyze it.

I also think it's a common issue to think that the scriptures in the Bible are chronologically organized. They're likely not actually in order. Perhaps it is more logically understood if you read ch 5 before 4 for example.

Honestly, the Bible was not a book originally, it was developed into a book by " 'adam". The sciptures in the Bible were originally controlled by the power hungry Catholic church. Lol.

Edited by III, : Word Err

Coragyps,

Actully even though Genesis 1 and 2 are in contradiction of each other, it does not mean they're incompatible. The intention was probably, in Genesis 1, to tell a creation story while, in Genesis 2, was to tell the first half of the fall of "'adam". I am sure the intention was not to tell two different creation stories.

Catholic Scientist, thanks for the welcome! I have a long history of this debate.

So, I conclude that they had sex based on the entirety of the verse context "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived" not based upon the fact that it read "Cain knew his wife".

Example, "Cain knew his wife, and she died". Did she die naturally or did Cain kill her? There is enough room for skepticism so I don't conclude either.

Catholic Scientist writes: How could he "know" someone again if its just talking about awareness and not sex? And why put it alongside baring a son if its not talking about sex?

He can take a leave of "absence" and then return. They didn't have cell phones..... Men were providers in historic society, they took leave often.

Catholic Scientist writes: Would you say this means that he lost his awareness of her or that he stopped having sex with her?

Both Actually. If he is not aware of her anymore naturally they don't have sex. Another point, usage of words is not always the same, historically and currently.

Catholic Scientist writes: The only reason to change "he knew her and she had a kid" in one verse, to being two totally different and unrelated events is to remove any errors it would cause to read it the way its written.

If you're saying that because the phrase is being used in two different events and can be interpreted to mean they had sex, this does not mean that in both verses it actually means they had or are having sex..... That's one interpretation. I simply conclude what it reads "he knew his wife" or "he knew his wife no more" and conclude other points with that, if he didn't know his wife probably they are not having sex(I suppose you don't have to KNOW someone to have sex with them).

Catholic Scientist writes: "Did you know that Gen 2 was written before Gen 1? They're just two different folklores that were compiled next to each other into the Bible. One doesn't go with the other."

Yes I've heard this claim but this is just simply "according to some"..... Ideas change over time as to what something means... You should realize that simply due to writing style or perhaps the fact that it seems as if it was a copy from another document, does not MEAN that it is.... "Nothing is higher than a bit of skepticism"... I've provided that skepticism... Also it does not make the Bible any less authoritative simply because these documents are contradictory.

Edited by III, : Added 2nd response(missed it by accident).

Edited by III, : Added responses(Missed a couple of points)...

Brian,

You forgot to add "possibly". These stories are POSSIBLY from different traditions. Perhaps the two traditions came from the scripture in the Bible. The Bible does read to the affect that it is coming from the creator.

Catholic Scientist,

You may want to re post. I added some responses to my post. When you "re post" I will respond here again.

Edited by III, : Added message.

Edited by III, : Added message

ringo,

ringo writes: better example might be, "Cain shot his wife and she died." There's a clear connection between the shooting and the death just as there is between the "knowledge" and the conception. Ignoring context isn't skepticism. It's just wrong.

If it was that specific, there would be very little need for doubt hence the skepticism. This is just right. I am not ignoring context, you're, read below...

Skepticism:

skep·ti·cism
   /ˈskɛptəˌsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[skep-tuh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
skeptical attitude or temper; doubt.
2.
doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, especially christianity.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics; universal doubt.

—Synonyms
1. questioning, probing, testing. 2. disbelief, atheism, agnosticism.

—Antonyms
2. faith.

Yes you took this debate to this level. Now we're talking about definitions. I question the thought that when the Bible words "xxx knew his wife" that it means xxx had sex with his wife. This is skepticism. I don't care what is commonly accepted, this changes with time.

REF: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skepticism

Edited by III, : Reference

Catholic Scientist writes: Huh? Regardless, as I've shown, in the Bible when it says that some guy "knew" some girl then it means that they had sex. In Gen 4:1, Adam had sex with Eve and she birthed Cain.

You have not shown that though. You have provided evidence that can be interpreted several different ways. We have a clear difference of opinion with respect to the evidence provided. This is skepticism. I will even acknowledge, I could be wrong. Again, this is true skepticism.

The real Gen 4:1

And Adam knew Eve(was aware of Eve) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD(Cain was possibly a descendant of God and Eve per the Evidence)".

Catholic Scientist writes: How can you become not aware of someone? That's a ridiculous interpretation.

Take a leave of absence.

a·ware
   /əˈwɛər/ Show Spelled[uh-wair] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
having knowledge; conscious; cognizant: aware of danger.
2.
informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated: She is one of the most politically aware young women around.

—Synonyms
1. mindful.

See conscious.

—Antonyms
1. oblivious.

When you are away from somebody you're not aware of them. You may know their name, You may know of them but you have no idea if they are breathing or what else they are doing. This is all part of awareness. People change or die. Your thought of that person may be accurate for the time but as soon as you take a leave you are not aware of them in the deep meaning of the word awareness. So to know this person is to say you are aware of them, you know them currently per the moment.

Catholic Scientist writes: Indeed. Like, we don't use the word "know" to refer to sex anymore like they did back in them Bible days.

1: They may not have used it in that context then.
2: People may use it in that context now.

This is skepticism.

Catholic Scientist writes: Huh? That's how languages work. You could just as well argue that just because it says there were ten commandments, doesn't mean that it really meant that there were 10 of them, it could have been 9, just because ten means 10 in other passages doesn't mean it doesn't mean 9 in this one Really!? To know someone meant to have sex with them. My actual point was that there's no reason other than an attempt to rationalize a potential error to interpret this as anything else but what it says it is.

Flawed logic.

It's not how language works. Language is different for everybody just like how psychology is different for everybody.

FYI: We know there is 10 commandments because we can count them.
FYI: To know someone COULD be to have sex with them.
FYI: You don't KNOW what it is... You believe you KNOW what it is. This is FAITH. Read below.

My point is we don't know. This is skepticism. The nature of my posts are skepticism. The nature of your posts are faith. Faith is not skepticism. You're not being skeptical.

Edited by III, : Err in OP

Edited by III, : Added meaning.

Edited by III, : Err

Edited by III, : Err

ringo,

ringo writes: There is no need for doubt. "He knew his wife and she conceived," means he got her pregnant just like, "It's raining cats and dogs," means it's raining hard.

Reason or no reason, I question it. Mere questioning is skepticism. Doubt is skepticism. Testing is skepticism. It is all Skepticism. In your mind there is no REASON. That is called faith and hence is not being skeptical. You're not being skeptical.

"He knew his wife and she conceived,

This is the full context though and is much different than

"He knew his wife".

Edited by III, : Added message.

ringo,

No, that is what I am telling you people. LOL.

You all need to read the context... And if you have to, refer BACK to the Hebrew words for that context...

FYI: You could just simply refer back to MY post.

Edited by III, : Added message.

Edited by III, : Added message.

Edited by III, : Added message.

Edited by III, : err

Edited by III, : err

arachnophilia,

You can pretend to think you know something all you want but what you know is mere faith. You have faith in your last post to be true. This is faith not skepticism...

My point, when dealing with history or reality we all build what we think around what we want to think. If you're a naturalist you want to be, if you're a christian you want to be. If you want to believe this, you will. Skepticism has its intended use and I am using it perfectly. There MAYBE a contradiction in gen 4-5. Gravity may not exist. We learn as we go. Humanity is primitive.

arachnophilia,

This is a decent argument. I have not heard this one before and actually it's almost adoptable but yet it still does not subtract from the other argument that Cain and Abel may not have been descendants of Adam.

This is pretty much a wasted post so I will respond to post 189. "Exactly".

Edited by III, : err

Edited by III, : No reason given.

Edited by III, : err

Edited by III, : Corrections!

Catholic Scientist,

Catholic Scientist writes: Sure I have. Anyone but the strictest pedant can see it.

Apparently your not learning. No, you have not provided anything but evidence that can be interpreted several ways. The fact that you adhere to one interpretation of facts displays nothing but your opinion. Honestly your opinion does not ring true. It only rings commonly accepted(The easy way out).

Catholic scientist writes: Not really... "he knew her and she conceived" can only mean that he had sex with her. And it doesn't even really matter what the word is: "he smurfed her and she conceived" means the same thing.

Exactly but only because you have "she conceived" at the end. however, if you add the very end of 4:1 to the context it slightly changes the meaning to a possibility that in MAYBE Cain and Abel were descendants of LORD God. Which would make sense as to why they are not listed in Gen 5.

Catholic Scientist writes: No, that is solipsism <-- clicky. Are you familiar with solipsism and how totally ghey it is? Do you think that we can know anything?

You take my argument out of context.

Catholic Scientist writes: Wait, how can you claim its the real one if you're so "skeptical"!?

Your right. My bad. I don't know if it's a exact copy of the autograph.

Catholic Scientist writes: That's a stinking pile of bullshit. You're just trying to interpret away a perceived error. Its not honest.

Your claim, not mine.

Catholic Scientist writes: What? Everytime I leave for work in the morning, I loose my awareness for my girlfriend!? That's just silly.

Maybe you don't know her at all. Yes, you're right, you do loose your awareness of her when she leaves and it translates into what you think you know about her. The image you paint of her, or rather the one she paints for you.

Catholic Scientist writes: How old are you? (I'll be 30 this year.) You're comming off as immature because you're arguing for solipsism and have to bust out the dictionary to make semantic arguments. Quit wasting my time.

It seemed that you didn't know the definition to the meaning of the word because your argument was ridiculous.

Catholic Scientist writes: False. And shouldn't you be "skeptical" of that?

I am. See, I am Christian but it's a faith choice and I accept that. I accept that the things I believe are built around faith and not complete awareness. Naturalist's have a hard time with this idea. They assume uniformity of place/time and Natural causality.

Catholic Scientist writes: That's got to be one of the stupidest interpretation I have ever read. Everytime someone walks out of the room, I no longer know them

You may have never knew them.....

Catholic Scientist writes: If that were true then nobody could communicate.

Actually people can but there is always a communication barrier. Yes I am skeptical of this, it is however what I believe.

Catholic Scientist writes: How about this: Fuck skepticism! Who says I have to be skeptical? Why would you want to be so skeptical to the point where you can't know anything? And then contradict yourself and claim that your interpretation is the real one Its blatantly obvious that the Bible uses the idiom "to know" to trefer to sex and that its done it in the passage you're trying to chop up and twist to fit your needs. And what you're refering to is solipsism. Do you think we can know anything at all?

I don't claim that my interpretation is the real one. I claim that possibly the commonly accepted idea or other interpretations are possible. "Skepticism". Interpretations are different for everybody. We know what we think we know, end of story.

Edited by III, : Correction

Edited by III, : Another....

So.... I get what you "beleive". Whether or not you realize it's a "belief" is the real issue. I realized your point the first time you posted. My argument still stands. Providing a way to analyze the data does not help your argument or make it true. We're still dealing with probabilities.

Edited by III, : err