Cain and Abel

Jonny7

For those who take the Bible very literally, how did Cain and Abel have kids? and thus propagate the human race, etc.

I watched a video of a priest stumped on this one just now, so I am wondering what the official explanation is.

Apologies if there's already been a thread on this, etc.

philologos

At the risk of sparking disagreement:

From looking at Genesis 4 it seems that there were other people around:

Genesis 4:13-14 wrote:

Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me

If Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel were the only people in creation. How could it be that there could be people other than them to kill Cain when he ran away?

PDN

Can you provide a link to that video? I would be genuinely surprised if there is really a priest out there who would be dumb enough to be stumped by that old chestnut. I would love to see it, for amusement sake.

The Quadratic Equation

Jonny7 wrote: »

so I am wondering what the official explanation is.

The short answer is Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters, not just Cain and Abel, even if you insist on interpreting Genesis literally, (and remember many take it figuratively instead).

PDN wrote: »

Can you provide a link to that video? I would be genuinely surprised if there is really a priest out there who would be dumb enough to be stumped by that old chestnut. I would love to see it, for amusement sake.

If it's the usual edited clip I'm thinking of, it looked like a case of being caught on the hop and wondering how to word the answer on some lightweight american show, and not making a very good job of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgfyVZEHcLQ

homer911

http://www.gotquestions.org/Cains-wife.html

Doc Farrell

Jonny7 wrote: »

For those who take the Bible very literally, how did Cain and Abel have kids? and thus propagate the human race, etc.

I watched a video of a priest stumped on this one just now, so I am wondering what the official explanation is.

Apologies if there's already been a thread on this, etc.

Your post is confusing. You don't have to take book of Genesis literally in Catholicism.

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

PDN

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Your post is confusing. You don't have to take book of Genesis literally in Catholicism.

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

And, if we're going to use the word 'literally' literally, no-one takes the Bible literally.

Every Christian sees the Bible as containing figures of speech and metaphors. No-one, for example, thinks that Jesus is a literal vine and that we are literal branches.

Onesimus

The reason is because the inspired writer wants us to focus on the important stories of the scriptures. It is naturally assumed therefore through oral Tradition that Adam and Eve had other children before or after Cain and Abel or during Cain and Abels lifespan but the writer was focusing just on Cain and Abel seeing as they were the firstborn. They expect the reader therefore to naturally assume that Adam and Eve had other children.

This is why we are not people of the Book, but people of the Church and it is from the Holy Spirit through his Church that we receive the Bible ''which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." ( Tim:3:15)

Thats the Catholic perspective. One that could propose an argument from our protestant brethren who believe that the Bible is the Pillar and Bulwark of the truth, yet an argument on that is not welcome in this thread as I am aware there is a thread already created for such debate and if I wanted a debate on that I'd go there.

God bless
Onesimus ( why it wont let me take it all off ''I'' font is beyond me. lol

ISAW

Jonny7 wrote: »

For those who take the Bible very literally, how did Cain and Abel have kids? and thus propagate the human race, etc.

I watched a video of a priest stumped on this one just now, so I am wondering what the official explanation is.

Apologies if there's already been a thread on this, etc.

Ah now dont be leaving out Seth. and the people of the Land of Nod East of Eden
It is all in the Command & Conquer video game anyway isn't it?

Manach

ISAW wrote: »

Ah now dont be leaving out Seth. and the people of the Land of Nod East of Eden
It is all in the Command & Conquer video game anyway isn't it?

That depends if you believe Kane's or GDI's version or not.

lmaopml

I suspect 'gamers' are afoot!

What ever happened to Tomb Raider, what a great game huh? I remember spending many hours trying to curtail my need to shout 'S*hyte' every time I fell off a cliff or drowned, and heard Lara do that death gurgle thing. Only to have to start from a save point.

I won't go back to that though, like a good book, a good game means the children go unfed and unwashed until it's finished....(kidding) kinda!:D

wolfsbane

Onesimus wrote: »

The reason is because the inspired writer wants us to focus on the important stories of the scriptures. It is naturally assumed therefore through oral Tradition that Adam and Eve had other children before or after Cain and Abel or during Cain and Abels lifespan but the writer was focusing just on Cain and Abel seeing as they were the firstborn. They expect the reader therefore to naturally assume that Adam and Eve had other children.

This is why we are not people of the Book, but people of the Church and it is from the Holy Spirit through his Church that we receive the Bible ''which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." ( Tim:3:15)

Thats the Catholic perspective. One that could propose an argument from our protestant brethren who believe that the Bible is the Pillar and Bulwark of the truth, yet an argument on that is not welcome in this thread as I am aware there is a thread already created for such debate and if I wanted a debate on that I'd go there.

God bless
Onesimus ( why it wont let me take it all off ''I'' font is beyond me. lol

Just a note to say the Protestant argument is not that the Bible is the Pillar and Bulwark of the truth. The Church is.

However, the Bible - the word of God - is what formed the Church. It is the authority under which the Church sits. The Church holds out that word to mankind, but is not the author of the word. God is the author.

The Church preaches and defends the Word - and submits to it.

*********************************************************************
Genesis 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

J C

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Your post is confusing. You don't have to take book of Genesis literally in Catholicism.

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

... That's not surprising ... because you don't have to take the words of Jesus Christ literally in Catholocism, either!!!:eek:

Matthew 23:9
King James Version (KJV)

And call no man your father upon the earth: for One is your Father, which is in heaven.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Onesimus
The reason is because the inspired writer wants us to focus on the important stories of the scriptures. It is naturally assumed therefore through oral Tradition that Adam and Eve had other children before or after Cain and Abel or during Cain and Abels lifespan

There is no need to assume anything ... or to resort to so-called 'oral tradition' ... about Adam and Eve's children ...
... the Written Word of God is crystal clear on it !!!!:)

Gen 5:1-5
1This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God.

2He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth.

4And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

5And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

The Quadratic Equation

J C wrote: »

... That's not surprising ... because you don't have to take the words of Jesus Christ literally in Catholocism, either!!!:eek:

John 6: 48-68

J C wrote: »

And call no man your father upon the earth: for One is your Father, which is in heaven.

Refering of course to God the Father.

Including your own father, and father in law I suppose ? What do you call them ?
Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac." 1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus." . Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers." 1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders' ministry to the people like a father with his children. Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus. 1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church "fathers." etc. etc. etc.

Doc Farrell

J C wrote: »

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Your post is confusing. You don't have to take book of Genesis literally in Catholicism.

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

... That's not surprising ... because you don't have to take the words of Jesus Christ literally in Catholocism, either!!!:eek:

[COLOR="Blue"]Matthew 23:9
King James Version (KJV)

And call no man your father upon the earth: for One is your Father, which is in heaven.[/COLOR]

I guess it's my paranoia kicking in again but I have to ask whether u are agreeing or disagreeing here. My original post was that the op made no sense since why would a catholic priest be concerned about a literal interpretation of Genesis.
I hope you agree with me it's just that your bible quote is from Jesus denouncing the scribes and Pharisees which is quite a scary chapter about hypocrisy!

J C

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Including your own father I suppose.
So remind us who did Jesus call father again, would it be God the father by any chance, don't call anyone on earth God the father, sounds right to me.

The verse is clearly within the context of Church Governance. Jesus was talking about the Scribes and the Pharisees (who were the religious authorities of the time).
So it is quite acceptable to call you biological father ... 'Father' ... (because that is what he is and Jesus wasn't talking about biological fathers in these verses) ... but, in a Faith/Church Governance context, Jesus is saying that the only person who should be referred to as 'Father' is God.
Jesus confirms in verse 8 that the correct terminology between Christians (from a Church Governance perspctive) is 'brethern' (or brother / sister) in current English.

Here is the verse in full context:-
Mt 23:1-11
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Onesimus

One of the oldest protestant views in the book dude.

When Jesus is referring to call no man father he is telling the apostles not to raise the pharisees to this status of ''Father'' ''Rabbis'' and ''Masters'' because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us never to elevate anyone to the status of is heavenly father.

Plus many protestants call their pastors ''teacher'' right? ( another interpretation for ''master'' ) and yet if protestants are to argue that we are to call no man Father then we are to call NO MAN either protestant pastor or not as it goes for every man ''teacher'' either.

Paul also writes ''I became your father in Christ Jesus'' ( 1:Cor:4:15 )

Happy New Year to you.

im invisible

Incest is the answer OP

PDN

A lot of off topic posts here that should be deleted or moved to the Protestant/Catholic Debate Thread. But since this thread is about done anyway, I'll just lock it.