cane and abel

timetogetfit · 17-02-2008 4:46pm #1

Adam and eve had 2 sons cane and abel I was wondering

Who had cane and abels children?

Soul Winner · 17-02-2008 4:58pm

timetogetfit wrote: »

Adam and eve had 2 sons cane and abel I was wondering

Who had cane and abels children?

Good question. Don't know

Sisters?

timetogetfit · 17-02-2008 5:02pm

The whole question of how different races came about is also another issue?

wolfsbane · 17-02-2008 5:25pm

timetogetfit wrote: »

Adam and eve had 2 sons cane and abel I was wondering

Who had cane and abels children?

Sisters, though it doesn't specifically say Abel had children before he was murdered. The son God gave Eve to replace him, Seth, did have children. And Adam and Eve had more children after that.

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” 26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.

Genesis 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

wolfsbane · 17-02-2008 5:29pm

timetogetfit wrote: »

The whole question of how different races came about is also another issue?

All came from Adam, via Noah and his 3 sons. All 'races' belong to the one race: Man.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

Akrasia · 17-02-2008 5:51pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

All came from Adam, via Noah and his 3 sons. All 'races' belong to the one race: Man.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

Its all a bit incesty though, isn't it.

Soul Winner · 17-02-2008 6:06pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Its all a bit incesty though, isn't it.

Incest was not taboo back then.

wolfsbane · 17-02-2008 6:10pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Its all a bit incesty though, isn't it.

As Soul Winner points out, brother/sister marriage was not prohibited then. We now know the physical reasons behind the much later ban, but those reasons did not exist so close to the perfect physical creation of Adam and Eve.

mossieh · 18-02-2008 2:46pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

those reasons did not exist so close to the perfect physical creation of Adam and Eve.

How does that work then? Where in the bible does it explain that?

PDN · 18-02-2008 2:53pm

mossieh wrote: »

How does that work then? Where in the bible does it explain that?

I think he's arguing from a standpoint of common sense rather than claiming that the Bible makes any statement as to why incest was not forbidden in the earliest days.

Think of it this way. Incest between brother and sister would normally be considered biologically undesirable (increased risk of birth defects etc). However if a nuclear catastrophe left only 2 people alive on earth - a brother and a sister - then incest would become biologically desirable as the only way to continue the species.

mossieh · 18-02-2008 3:04pm

PDN wrote: »

I think he's arguing from a standpoint of common sense rather than claiming that the Bible makes any statement as to why incest was not forbidden in the earliest days.

Think of it this way. Incest between brother and sister would normally be considered biologically undesirable (increased risk of birth defects etc). However if a nuclear catastrophe left only 2 people alive on earth - a brother and a sister - then incest would become biologically desirable as the only way to continue the species.

A viable population could not be created from one breeding pair. Not enough genetic diversity. If he's arguing from the standpoint of common sense, then I've woken up on the wrong planet.

PDN · 18-02-2008 3:20pm

mossieh wrote: »

A viable population could not be created from one breeding pair. Not enough genetic diversity. If he's arguing from the standpoint of common sense, then I've woken up on the wrong planet.

I don't think that it would be beyond an omnipotent God to throw a few mutations into the mix to help along genetic diversity. Such an act would appear to be pretty easy for a being who had just recently spoken the entire universe into existence.

mossieh · 18-02-2008 3:34pm

PDN wrote: »

I don't think that it would be beyond an omnipotent God to throw a few mutations into the mix to help along genetic diversity. Such an act would appear to be pretty easy for a being who had just recently spoken the entire universe into existence.

Again, where is that mentioned in the bible? " And lo, god did create man with enough built-in genetic diversity to allow him to breed with eve (who was his female clone) producing children of such manifestly marvellous genes that they could actually breed with each other without becoming five-headed horror-shows within three or four generations."
from St. Pauls Letter to the Lesbians.

Curiously now, despite the gene pool expanding ever since then, our individual diversity seems to have lessened not grown (in defiance of logic/reality/everything) to the point where now cosanguinous breeding is regarded with contempt.

Once again I gaze in wonder at the mental agility required to shoe-horn this stuff into intelligent minds.

PDN · 18-02-2008 3:43pm

mossieh wrote: »

Again, where is that mentioned in the bible? " And lo, god did create man with enough built-in genetic diversity to allow him to breed with eve (who was his female clone) producing children of such manifestly marvellous genes that they could actually breed with each other without becoming five-headed horror-shows within three or four generations."
from St. Pauls Letter to the Lesbians.

Curiously now, despite the gene pool expanding ever since then, our individual diversity seems to have lessened not grown (in defiance of logic/reality/everything) to the point where now cosanguinous breeding is regarded with contempt.

Once again I gaze in wonder at the mental agility required to shoe-horn this stuff into intelligent minds.

Nobody said it was mentioned in the Bible. It was a piece of speculation prompted by a thread on an internet discussion board.

Contrary to your apparent expectations Christians do not believe that the Bible gives every little detail to back up every conceivable question that someone might ask. We believe that the Bible tells us the important stuff we need to know in order to be saved and to live a Christian life. Apart from that we have rational minds to think things through for ourselves and, hopefully, enough humility to realise that we will never know everything.

mossieh · 18-02-2008 3:55pm

PDN wrote: »

Nobody said it was mentioned in the Bible. It was a piece of speculation prompted by a thread on an internet discussion board.

Contrary to your apparent expectations Christians do not believe that the Bible gives every little detail to back up every conceivable question that someone might ask. We believe that the Bible tells us the important stuff we need to know in order to be saved and to live a Christian life. Apart from that we have rational minds to think things through for ourselves and, hopefully, enough humility to realise that we will never know everything.

Speculation. You could have stopped there, it's all I needed to know.

Wolfsbane sounds pretty certain though.

Zombrex · 18-02-2008 3:57pm

mossieh wrote: »

A viable population could not be created from one breeding pair. Not enough genetic diversity. If he's arguing from the standpoint of common sense, then I've woken up on the wrong planet.

Yes, "common sense" wouldn't exactly be the phrase I would use either

(what the heck were Adam and Eve's collection of daughters doing out in the land of Nod building cities before Cain stumbled upon them and decided to marry one of them?)

The point to remember though is that if a person started from the initial position that this must be true then any explanation can seem valid.

I think you guys are trying to say that this stuff doesn't make any sense, and therefore how can people believe it? But they don't believe it because it makes sense, they make it make sense because they believe it. If that makes sense.

mossieh · 18-02-2008 4:17pm

Wicknight wrote: »

they make it make sense because they believe it. If that makes sense.

it doesn't, but I know what you mean.

Asiaprod · 18-02-2008 10:11pm

mossieh, would appreciate you toning it down a little.

Gobán Saor · 18-02-2008 10:17pm

Did Adam and Eve have navels?

PDN · 18-02-2008 10:37pm

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Did Adam and Eve have navels?

That is known as the omphalos hypothesis (omphalos being Greek for navel).

My own opinion, for what its worth, is that Adam had a navel. After all, if he was eating a boiled egg in bed in the morning then God knew he would need somewhere to keep the salt!

PDN · 18-02-2008 10:42pm

mossieh wrote: »

Speculation. You could have stopped there, it's all I needed to know.

Yes, speculation, like 90% of what is discussed on boards.ie

So are you suggesting that we should avoid speculation altogether? That any time someone asks "How do Christians explain X?" we should just say nothing unless we are absolutely sure of the answer and have an explicit Scripture passage to back it up?

If you want to discuss issues concerning Christianity then I suggest you allow Christians to speculate on how their beliefs might work out in practice. Otherwise you're just trolling.

CaptainNemo · 19-02-2008 11:54am

PDN wrote: »

So are you suggesting that we should avoid speculation altogether? That any time someone asks "How do Christians explain X?" we should just say nothing unless we are absolutely sure of the answer and have an explicit Scripture passage to back it up?

If you want to discuss issues concerning Christianity then I suggest you allow Christians to speculate on how their beliefs might work out in practice. Otherwise you're just trolling.

I think his point was fair enough. Many people posting on religious forums feel that they have to give answers with a voice of weighty authority as if this is "THE ANSWER" and often it's good to remind us all that we are all only speculating, using our little brains to try and understand God's Creation...

mossieh · 19-02-2008 12:45pm

Asiaprod wrote: »

mossieh, would appreciate you toning it down a little.

Will do.

mossieh · 19-02-2008 12:58pm

CaptainNemo wrote: »

I think his point was fair enough. Many people posting on religious forums feel that they have to give answers with a voice of weighty authority as if this is "THE ANSWER" and often it's good to remind us all that we are all only speculating, using our little brains to try and understand God's Creation...

Well said CN. What bugs me is this air of absolute authority used (not mainly by PDN, in fairness) to make pronouncements which, when put under a little scrutiny, turn out to be guesswork. Often people react strongly (I know I do) to the tone of the statement, as much as the content.

Zombrex · 19-02-2008 5:40pm

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Did Adam and Eve have navels?

Well if Adam and Eve existed as (some) Christians believe, they would have been very different to humans as we know them.

{EDIT}
In keeping with the tone of the above comments, I should probably change that to "they probably would have been very different"

BrianCalgary · 20-02-2008 4:29pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well if Adam and Eve existed as (some) Christians believe, they would have been very different to humans as we know them.

Why?

Zombrex · 20-02-2008 5:15pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Why?

Well because of all the systems in our body that have evolved to deal with issues that would not have existed in Eden when death and disease wouldn't have existed. Noses for example. And the immune system. And the stomach. Blood. Skin. etc

Of course I have heard some Christians claim that humans were created as we are now because God knew Adam would sin and that he would be punished with death and disease. Which is a bit nonsensical, but would have made for an interesting breakfast table discussion

Adam- "God, why do I have this funny liquid that comes out of my nose? In fact why do I have a nose?"

God- "Well my son, that is part of your immune system to expel bacteria when your body is under threat from disease"

Adam- "Oh right. Wait, what? What is disease? What is bacteria? What is an immune system?"

God- "Oh, I've said to much ... you will find out soon enough .. wink wink"

BrianCalgary · 21-02-2008 3:34pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well because of all the systems in our body that have evolved to deal with issues that would not have existed in Eden when death and disease wouldn't have existed. Noses for example. And the immune system. And the stomach. Blood. Skin. etc"

Noses, blood, skin? Wicknight sometimes. This isn't even close to a decent answer. God creates Adam and Eve in His own image, man and woman He created them. Nothing to evolve to.

I'll give you another chance.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course I have heard some Christians claim that humans were created as we are now because God knew Adam would sin and that he would be punished with death and disease. Which is a bit nonsensical, but would have made for an interesting breakfast table discussion "

Not nonsensical at all. Man is created withan immune system. Why wouldnt God give us one?

Wicknight wrote: »

Adam- "God, why do I have this funny liquid that comes out of my nose? In fact why do I have a nose?"

God- "Well my son, that is part of your immune system to expel bacteria when your body is under threat from disease"

Adam- "Oh right. Wait, what? What is disease? What is bacteria? What is an immune system?"

God- "Oh, I've said to much ... you will find out soon enough .. wink wink"

Th emucous in the nose just doesnt fight against bacterium and viruses it also prevents stuff like dust clogging up the lungs.

Give you an F for effort and an F for sense.:rolleyes:

Zombrex · 21-02-2008 4:10pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Noses, blood, skin? Wicknight sometimes. This isn't even close to a decent answer.

It is the answer, not sure what you mean by "decent" ... you seem to not understand the biology systems in our body that have little function except to help us survive biological infection, infection being other organisms attempting to literally consume us.

In Eden before the Fall none of this would be necessary at all, and neither would it be necessary for God to possess any of these systems.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God creates Adam and Eve in His own image, man and woman He created them. Nothing to evolve to.

God has fluid secreting pours on the inside of his anus to help kill bacteria does he? (that is just one colourful example)

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I'll give you another chance.

Another chance at what?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not nonsensical at all. Man is created withan immune system. Why wouldnt God give us one?

Because until the Fall there was no disease or death (seemingly). The immune system fights infection. And by fights infection I mean kills infection. Either we kill the infection or the infection kills us. Heck eating or walking around kills thousands of bacteria.

So did God create man with an immune system because he knew Adam would Fall? That would make little sense. What was Adam's immune system doing until that happened?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Th emucous in the nose just doesnt fight against bacterium and viruses it also prevents stuff like dust clogging up the lungs.

It certainly does. Why would Adam need that if he couldn't die?

wolfsbane · 25-02-2008 9:15pm

mossieh wrote: »

Well said CN. What bugs me is this air of absolute authority used (not mainly by PDN, in fairness) to make pronouncements which, when put under a little scrutiny, turn out to be guesswork. Often people react strongly (I know I do) to the tone of the statement, as much as the content.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer on the reasons why brother/sister breeding was OK in Eden.

Until fairly recently they were not known - and now it is still indeed speculation, for our understanding of God's reasoning can only be certain if He reveals it. He does not comment on His reason for the later ban on brother/sister sex.

That it was OK in Eden is sure; that it was banned much later, likewise. That such breeding is harmful in later man is a scientific 'fact'.

Hope that helps.

wolfsbane · 25-02-2008 9:26pm

Wicknight said:

Yes, "common sense" wouldn't exactly be the phrase I would use either (what the heck were Adam and Eve's collection of daughters doing out in the land of Nod building cities before Cain stumbled upon them and decided to marry one of them?)

Hmm. Even a cursory reading of the account shows Wickie either hasn't bothered to read it or has trouble keeping his imagination in check:
Genesis 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.

No need for city-building females meeting up with an errant brother - the simple explanation suffices:
Cain has already married, or takes a wife with him to accompany him in his banishment. He builds the city and names it after his son.

cane and abel

Comments