cane and abel

timetogetfit

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

Who had cane and abels children?

Soul Winner

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

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

wolfsbane

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

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

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

Akrasia wrote: »

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

Incest was not taboo back then.

wolfsbane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mossieh, would appreciate you toning it down a little.

Gobán Saor

Did Adam and Eve have navels?

PDN

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

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

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

Asiaprod wrote: »

mossieh, would appreciate you toning it down a little.

Will do.

mossieh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

wolfsbane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the Christians among us believe they existed.

Christian does not necessarily mean creationist.

Zombrex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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