cane and abel

wolfsbane · 25-02-2008 9:33pm

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.

The Creationist case is that the biosphere began perfect and mature, containing a wealth of genetic information. This wealth later enabled adaption and by loss of information produced the many varities of each original type we now see. But I don't want to turn this into another Bible, Creation & Prophecy thread :eek:, so it might be better if we left it there or you read up on that thread.

Popinjay · 26-02-2008 11:21am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Genesis 4:17 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.

He builds the city and names it after his son.

Why did he build a city? How many people are we talking about living in Nod? 10? 20?

Less???

santing · 26-02-2008 2:40pm

Popinjay wrote: »

Why did he build a city? How many people are we talking about living in Nod? 10? 20?

Less???

If you read Genesis 5, Cain might have lifted to the age of 900 years. That gives a good opportunity of seeing hundreds of children, grand children, great grand children etc.

Bduffman · 26-02-2008 2:48pm

Sorry to interupt but I just want to get something clear. Do some of you people actually believe that Adam & Eve existed or is this a purely hypothetical conversation?

Zombrex · 26-02-2008 2:53pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

And who exactly was he scared would kill him in Nod? The people who didn't live there?

mossieh · 26-02-2008 3:10pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Creationist case is that the biosphere began perfect and mature, containing a wealth of genetic information. This wealth later enabled adaption and by loss of information produced the many varities of each original type we now see. But I don't want to turn this into another Bible, Creation & Prophecy thread :eek:, so it might be better if we left it there or you read up on that thread.

I really don't know where to begin explaining how wrong that is. Sorry.

BrianCalgary · 26-02-2008 4:31pm

Bduffman wrote: »

Sorry to interupt but I just want to get something clear. Do some of you people actually believe that Adam & Eve existed or is this a purely hypothetical conversation?

They did. They are spoken of as historical figures in the NT.

Bduffman · 26-02-2008 4:56pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

They did. They are spoken of as historical figures in the NT.

So you honestly believe that the human race began with 2 people who lived for hundreds of years etc etc. I thought that creationism only existed in America. Is it any surprise there are atheists in this world?

Popinjay · 26-02-2008 6:17pm

santing wrote: »

If you read Genesis 5, Cain might have lifted to the age of 900 years. That gives a good opportunity of seeing hundreds of children, grand children, great grand children etc.

And????

I'd be delighted to leave a long line of descendants continuing through the centuries but I'm not going to build a city for them. Maybe I'm just being selfish but the act of building a city (Please note, not a town or village but a honking great city!) seems like it wouldn't leave a lot of time to create these descendants.

I'd build a house and then maybe another house when the need arose and so on. But it would seem Cain built it after the birth of Enoch but before that of Irad, Mehujael etc.

King James Version

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

Building an entire city for just the wife and son seems a tad extreme to me.

EDIT: I've already spoken to Zillah about the source of his nick but thought he might get a kick out of the next verse of this bit:

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

wolfsbane · 26-02-2008 6:47pm

mossieh wrote: »

I really don't know where to begin explaining how wrong that is. Sorry.

Others have made valient attempts (without success of course

): see Bible, Creation & Prophecy thread.

wolfsbane · 26-02-2008 6:50pm

Wicknight wrote: »

And who exactly was he scared would kill him in Nod? The people who didn't live there?

He would have foreseen the spread of his siblings and their descendants in the centuries to come - all remembering him as the one who murdered his brother.

wolfsbane · 26-02-2008 6:51pm

Bduffman wrote: »

Sorry to interupt but I just want to get something clear. Do some of you people actually believe that Adam & Eve existed or is this a purely hypothetical conversation?

Yes, the Christians among us believe they existed.

djpbarry · 26-02-2008 6:56pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the Christians among us believe they existed.

Christian does not necessarily mean creationist.

Zombrex · 26-02-2008 7:04pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

He would have foreseen the spread of his siblings and their descendants in the centuries to come - all remembering him as the one who murdered his brother.

Dare I ask, is any of that actually in the Bible? Does it actually say Cain married his sister?

Or is this like JC's "massive tectonic activity" that seemingly accompanied the Flood (ie you guys are just inventing an explanation)?

wolfsbane · 26-02-2008 7:31pm

Popinjay wrote: »

Why did he build a city? How many people are we talking about living in Nod? 10? 20?

Less???

The term city does not imply the very big town idea we use it for today. The Hebrew `iyr is used of a guarded habitation - emcampment, village, town, city. Since he called it after his son, a permanent village is in view - one that may have developed into a very large town. See: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=05892&t=KJV

wolfsbane · 26-02-2008 7:33pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Christian does not necessarily mean creationist.

Correct. But I think even the Theistic Evolutionists here would accept a literal Adam & Eve. Let them correct me if I'm wrong. There is only so far one can stretch the Scripture without it loosing all meaning.

wolfsbane · 26-02-2008 7:41pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Dare I ask, is any of that actually in the Bible? Does it actually say Cain married his sister?

Or is this like JC's "massive tectonic activity" that seemingly accompanied the Flood (ie you guys are just inventing an explanation)?

It does not say he married his sister. But logic forces one to that conclusion: since Adam & Eve are the sole parents, any wife must come from them.

I suppose one could argue from silence that Abel may have married before his death and had a daughter, and it was a niece Cain married. But the Bible says nothing of this, nothing of Abel having offspring, while it records Cain's.

So brother/sister seems the only realistic scenario.

wolfsbane · 26-02-2008 7:58pm

Bduffman wrote: »

So you honestly believe that the human race began with 2 people who lived for hundreds of years etc etc. I thought that creationism only existed in America. Is it any surprise there are atheists in this world?

Please let me butt in before Brian replies.

The Creation account as narrative history is the historic position of the Church. After Darwin, many Christians tried to accommodate Scripture with evolutionary theory, but others stood their ground. In the mid-20th C. a movement amongst Christians in the scientific community presented a scientific defence of the Creation account. That has become known as Creationism.

It is well represented throughout the world: for example, I estimate that most Evangelical churches in Ireland hold to it.

As to atheism as a reaction to creationism, I doubt it. More likely we gain converts through our challenge to the irrationality of evolution and the nihilism that it encourages.

:):)

wolfsbane · 26-02-2008 8:06pm

Popinjay signs:

If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.

BETTER:

If we are going to teach evolution as an alternative to creation science, then we should also teach the spontaneous generation theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.

:D:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Bduffman · 27-02-2008 9:39am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Please let me butt in before Brian replies.

The Creation account as narrative history is the historic position of the Church. After Darwin, many Christians tried to accommodate Scripture with evolutionary theory, but others stood their ground. In the mid-20th C. a movement amongst Christians in the scientific community presented a scientific defence of the Creation account. That has become known as Creationism.

It is well represented throughout the world: for example, I estimate that most Evangelical churches in Ireland hold to it.

As to atheism as a reaction to creationism, I doubt it. More likely we gain converts through our challenge to the irrationality of evolution and the nihilism that it encourages. :):)

So you actually believe in creationism??? Are there many more like you in Ireland? I can't believe you can find evolution irrational and at the same time believe in creationism as its recounted in the bible - is that a really rational explanation for anything? And I'm sure christians can easily accomodate scripture with evolutionary theory if they want - after all several other undisputed scientific discoveries have been accomodated in the past - scripture has historically proven to be adaptable in the past

Zombrex · 27-02-2008 11:54am

wolfsbane wrote: »

It does not say he married his sister. But logic forces one to that conclusion: since Adam & Eve are the sole parents, any wife must come from them.

Well I think logic left the building a while ago Wolfsbane.

Throughout the entire chapter 4 of Genesis it never once mentions that any of the off spring married their sisters or female relatives, or that Adam and Eve ever had daughters to provide these wives.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I suppose one could argue from silence that Abel may have married before his death and had a daughter, and it was a niece Cain married. But the Bible says nothing of this, nothing of Abel having offspring, while it records Cain's.

It says nothing of any daughters born between Cain and Abel and Seth either.

Seth was born when Adam was 130. The Bible never mentions any other children born between Cain and Seth, though it does say that Cain murdered Abel before Seth was born, as Seth replaced him. So any daughter of Cain would need to be married between Cain and Seth in that 130 years. Yet there is no mention of this at all. It never even says he had unnamed daughters.

After Seth was born the Bible says that Adam had other sons and daughters. It never mentions any before Seth. We know he had Cain and Abel but that is it.

Popinjay · 27-02-2008 1:16pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

BETTER:

If we are going to teach evolution as an alternative to creation science, then we should also teach the spontaneous generation theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. :D:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

I can accept the alteration, both are as likely.

I know a lot of young people find the idea that parents have intercourse disturbing but I really don't think that advancing the theory that you may have just appeared in a crib (or otherwise) is really a beleivable alternative. Sometimes it's best to just accept the uncomfortable truth that even parents have sexual needs and desires. It's ok, it used to disturb me too but I'm ok with it now.

Anyway, sorry for the interruption. Back on topic.

Zombrex · 27-02-2008 3:27pm

Popinjay wrote: »

I know a lot of young people find the idea that parents have intercourse disturbing but I really don't think that advancing the theory that you may have just appeared in a crib (or otherwise) is really a beleivable alternative. Sometimes it's best to just accept the uncomfortable truth that even parents have sexual needs and desires. It's ok, it used to disturb me too but I'm ok with it now.

That is a pretty good analogy for Creationism, the rejection of an uncomfortable truth.

BrianCalgary · 27-02-2008 4:36pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Dare I ask, is any of that actually in the Bible? Does it actually say Cain married his sister?

Or is this like JC's "massive tectonic activity" that seemingly accompanied the Flood (ie you guys are just inventing an explanation)?

Wicknight wrote: »

Throughout the entire chapter 4 of Genesis it never once mentions that any of the off spring married their sisters or female relatives, or that Adam and Eve ever had daughters to provide these wives.

It says nothing of any daughters born between Cain and Abel and Seth either.

Seth was born when Adam was 130. The Bible never mentions any other children born between Cain and Seth, though it does say that Cain murdered Abel before Seth was born, as Seth replaced him. So any daughter of Cain would need to be married between Cain and Seth in that 130 years. Yet there is no mention of this at all. It never even says he had unnamed daughters.

After Seth was born the Bible says that Adam had other sons and daughters. It never mentions any before Seth. We know he had Cain and Abel but that is it.)?

No it's not, but it doesn't have to be.

Read some accounts of the weekends football matches. In writing the stories there are players that aren't mentioned, doesn't mean that they weren't on the pitch.

djpbarry · 27-02-2008 5:21pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Read some accounts of the weekends football matches. In writing the stories there are players that aren't mentioned, doesn't mean that they weren't on the pitch.

We only know that they were on the pitch if someone can verify that they were i.e. an alternative source. Assuming that they were on the pitch, wihout confirmation, is just speculation.

wolfsbane · 27-02-2008 5:53pm

Bduffman wrote: »

So you actually believe in creationism??? Are there many more like you in Ireland? I can't believe you can find evolution irrational and at the same time believe in creationism as its recounted in the bible - is that a really rational explanation for anything? And I'm sure christians can easily accomodate scripture with evolutionary theory if they want - after all several other undisputed scientific discoveries have been accomodated in the past - scripture has historically proven to be adaptable in the past

Yes, Creationism would be the majority view in most Evangelical churches here, as far as I can ascertain.

Yes, I find the creation account as logically credible as the idea of abiogenesis.

Christians can indeed accommodate Scripture with human ideas. It is called compromise or corruption, coming from either being deceived or wilful sell-out.

Christians have no problem with undisputed scientific discoveries. Indeed they have made many of them.

Scripture cannot be adapted: it is either kept pure or twisted. The honest thing for those no longer believing it is to say so - that Scripture was mistaken - not tamper with it to give the illusion it says something it plainly does not.

BrianCalgary · 27-02-2008 5:56pm

djpbarry wrote: »

We only know that they were on the pitch if someone can verify that they were i.e. an alternative source. Assuming that they were on the pitch, wihout confirmation, is just speculation.

Where I sit with sketchy reports on football matches and very small ones. One little column every Sunday to give all of Saturdays matches you are lucky if only two players are mentioned, and some matches it is just the score.

So what do we surmise from teh silence. Obviously that there were 11 per side, whether or not they were mentioned. Are we reading into the story by coming to that conclusion; no.

Same with Genesis, we do know that Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. We know that Cain killed Abel.

We know that Cain married and lay with his wife.

We also know that Eve gave birth to Seth. They were 130 when this happened.

Genesis 5:4 says that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters.
Adam lived to 930 years, a child every two years? = 465 kids.

Plenty for Cain and Seth to marry.

wolfsbane · 27-02-2008 6:08pm

Wicknight said:

Throughout the entire chapter 4 of Genesis it never once mentions that any of the off spring married their sisters or female relatives, or that Adam and Eve ever had daughters to provide these wives.

Seth was born when Adam was 130. The Bible never mentions any other children born between Cain and Seth, though it does say that Cain murdered Abel before Seth was born, as Seth replaced him. So any daughter of Cain would need to be married between Cain and Seth in that 130 years. Yet there is no mention of this at all. It never even says he had unnamed daughters.

After Seth was born the Bible says that Adam had other sons and daughters. It never mentions any before Seth. We know he had Cain and Abel but that is it.

The mention of daughters is in the genealogy, and does not mean they had to be after Seth. The daughters were ignored in the account up to it encompassing all of Adam's life. The focus was on Cain, Abel and Seth.

The genealogy follows the same pattern from then on: focusing on the first-born son, until another special event came up and Noah's three sons are discussed.

wolfsbane · 27-02-2008 6:11pm

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a pretty good analogy for Creationism, the rejection of an uncomfortable truth.

Hey! I was just going to say the same of Evolution.:D

djpbarry · 27-02-2008 6:46pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So what do we surmise from teh silence. Obviously that there were 11 per side, whether or not they were mentioned. Are we reading into the story by coming to that conclusion; no.

I assumed you were talking about specific players, rather than a number.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

They were 130 when this happened.
...
Adam lived to 930 years...

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely ludicrous. The current world average life expectancy is 67 years. The oldest confirmed recorded age for any human is 122 years (Jeanne Calment). The oldest recorded age of a pregnant woman is 66.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hey! I was just going to say the same of Evolution.:D

Evolution is inconvenient because...

cane and abel

Comments