Originally posted by @chaney3From Wikipedia about Adam and Eve:
Don't you think you are reaching pretty far to give Adam and Eve a daughter, when one wasn't mentioned?
"Though it is up for debate, it has been said that Eve went through 120 pregnancies with Adam and each of these consisted of a set of twins: a boy and a girl. According to several sources, God took all of Adam's progeny from his back while they were still in heaven. He asked each of them "am I not your lord?" as read in Q 7:172 and they all replied yes. For this reason, it is believed that all humans are born with an innate knowledge of God. The most famous of Adam's children are Cain and Abel. Both the brothers were asked to offer up individual sacrifices to God. God accepted Abel's sacrifice because of Abel's righteousness and Cain, out of jealousy, threw a rock at Abel, leading to the first murder in human history: the murder of Abel by Cain. As Adam grieved his son, he would preach to his children about God and faith in Him. When Adam's death grew near, he appointed his son Seth as his successor."
Originally posted by @chaney3Who was Adam and Eve's first child, and it has to say this was the first, because the first
I have listed the verses in chronological order. There were NO daughters born to Adam and Eve until after Cain had a wife.
Your theory supposes that daughters were born, but not mentioned in the Bible. Why?
Why are you 'adding' something that is clearly not there? Because then, you can 'just add' anything else to the Bible, that 'fits' any story you want.
one mentioned does not mean it was the first? No making anything up either.
Originally posted by @kellyjayDid he really said so? Really?
Jesus said He is the Way, Truth, and the Light
It's in your religion to believe that, because everything that is in the bible is true. That's the christian dogma to believe that. It's a good example of the group thinking of yours.
If you still think he said so, please, give me a non-religious source that confirms this.
Originally posted by @chaney3@chaney3
A parallel account?
Don't you think you are reaching pretty far to give Adam and Eve a daughter, when one wasn't mentioned?
Having read a number of your posts spanning a number of threads, it is my considered and genuinely well-meant opinion that you should stop reading the Bible; it is doing you more harm than good. Not the Bible is doing you harm, but your reading of it. Your take on things you read there is bizarre, doctrinally untenable, and the issues you find troubling about the Bible indicate a thorough-going misreading of what is going on there. Really, where Cain's wife came from is not an issue. The issue is how man's soul came to be in need of salvation, through disobedience to God's will.
Your contentious sallies and frankly bizarre tack at this forum indicate that you're not getting what you need here.
If you are serious about becoming a Christian, you should get yourself to a mainstream church and let yourself be instructed. Preferably by a bishop who can trace his line, through the laying on of hands, back to one of the Apostles; that's how the glad tidings are passed on in true Christianity. DIY Christianity doesn't work.
From the Book of Jubilees, Chapter IV:
IV. 1. And in the third week in the second jubilee she gave birth to Cain, and in the fourth she gave birth to Abel, and in the fifth she gave birth to her daughter ’Âwân. 2. And in the first (year) of the third jubilee, Cain slew Abel because (God) accepted the sacrifice of Abel, and did not accept the offering of Cain. 3. And he slew him in the field: and his blood cried from the ground to heaven, complaining because he had slain him. 4. And the Lord reproved Cain because of Abel, because he had slain him, and he made him a fugitive on the earth because of the blood of his brother, and he cursed him upon the earth.
5. And on this account it is written on the heavenly tables, "Cursed is he who smiteth his neighbour treacherously, and let all who have seen and heard say, So be it; and the man who hath seen and not declared (it), let him be accursed as the other." 6. And for this reason we announce when we come before the Lord our God all the sin which is committed in heaven and on earth, and in light and in darkness, and everywhere. 7. And Adam and his wife mourned for Abel four weeks of years, and in the fourth year of the fifth week they became joyful, and Adam knew his wife again, and she bare him a son, and he called his name Seth; for he said "God hath raised up a second seed unto us on the earth instead of Abel; for Cain slew him."
8. And in the sixth week he begat his daughter ’Azûrâ. 9. And Cain took ’Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee. And in the first year of the first week of the fifth jubilee, houses were built on the earth, and Cain built a city, and called its name after the name of his son Enoch. 10. And Adam knew Eve his wife and she bare yet nine sons.
11. And in the fifth week of the fifth jubilee Seth took ’Azûrâ his sister to be his wife, and in the fourth (year of the sixth week) she bare him Enos. 12. He began to call on the name of the Lord on the earth.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jub/
This is from the full text of R. H. Charles' 1917 English translation.
Note: This book is named Jubilees after the custom of counting years in sevens. Each seven years is a year-week, and a jubilee is seven year-weeks, thus 49 years in a jubilee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jubilees
This is another account of the history of the world from Creation to Moses.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasIts group think to understand 1+1=2, does that mean its some how that is wrong? You
Did he really said so? Really?
It's in your religion to believe that, because everything that is in the bible is true. That's the christian dogma to believe that. It's a good example of the group thinking of yours.
If you still think he said so, please, give me a non-religious source that confirms this.
can look at those here who argue over what Jesus means. Simply accepting something
as truth on it's own merit does not mean its some how evil or wrong to do so. There are
plenty of things people accept like global warming that isn't as clear cut, evolutionary
beliefs that all life sprang up from non-living material and changed over time getting more
complex so that greater variety of life sprang up until we see what we do today.
Any source I give you will be dismissed by 'group' thinking arguments, I doubt you have
the capacity to think things through if I were to give you reasons outside of scripture
without a group think rebuttal, we will see.
I believe God created everything, I do not believe everything came from nothing. I do not
believe that everything is eternal we see in this universe that it is all dated, and is it is all
winding down. Since it all works together it has a purpose, and I believe that purpose is
life. Scripture unlike Harry Potter books get shown as true in the history of man..
Thanks for the biblical quotes, Suzi.
Not to dispute your theology, but ...
If all humanity was in fact descended from only two people, whose immediate progeny mated with siblings, we wouldn't be here. As the following article shows, even with two original males instead of one, inbreeding leads to catastrophic (i.e., infertile) genetic defects after only five generations:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170726-the-polygamous-town-facing-genetic-disaster
I must therefore assume that the story recounted in Genesis applies to the provenance of the Hebrews, not to h. saps in toto, and was meant as an allegorical account of man's spiritual descent, not as a literal-factual account of h. saps' biological descent. This is in essence the position of the Vatican: namely, that h.saps evolved in the manner in which Dawkins and others say he did, and that God "ensouled" man at a certain point in evolution and thereby made man aware of God. This is the sense in which the Hebrews are God's chosen people: they were the 'man-apes' who got ensouled; whereas the rest of humanity were still soulless man-apes waiting to hear the Word.
Just keep theology and biology separate, and I'm cool with that. Confusing the two leads to nonsense, pseudo-science, and heretical religion.
Cheers,
moonbus
Originally posted by @moonbusBut this is not "nonsense, pseudo-science, and heretical religion". (Well, maybe "heretical religion", as the Book of Jubilees is not modern Protestant [or Catholic] Christian canon. I recognize that it was ruled out of canon at the First Council of Nicea, as well as the First Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon, but after all, they [the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch] DO pre-date Chalcedonian Christianity.)
Thanks for the biblical quotes, Suzi.
Not to dispute your theology, but ...
If all humanity was in fact descended from only two people, whose immediate progeny mated with siblings, we wouldn't be here. As the following article shows, even with two original males instead of one, inbreeding leads to catastrophic (i.e., infertile) genetic defects after o ...[text shortened]... Confusing the two leads to nonsense, pseudo-science, and heretical religion.
Cheers,
moonbus
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is that this early in Genesis, man was more "perfect". Only a generation or two out from Adam, who was made in the image of God, and therefore perfect, genetic defects would not be a concern.. He was not like man of today, tainted as man is with untold generations of original sin destroying him from within. Today, because of Adam's fall, we live only "threescore and ten" years, but Adam lived 930 years, according to Gen. 5:5. A "perfect" man would not have progeny who was nearly as susceptible to genetic defects, even through interbreeding.
This is also considering Genesis as a history book. Personally, I'm not nearly that fundamentalist. I consider Genesis as more allegory than fact. Just as children's books contain more fiction than fact, the OT was written for man of 3500 years ago, so it's not going to contain blueprints of Apollo vehicles or the specifics of cancer therapy. My thinking is more along the lines of your second-to-last paragraph about h. sapiens becoming "ensouled" at the point of "God-awareness". I do not believe Adam and Eve were even the "first humans".
Originally posted by @moonbusIn the beginning before the fall there wasn't any genetic defects, even after the fall man' life expectancy was hundreds of years. As time passed that became an important issue, not at first.
Thanks for the biblical quotes, Suzi.
Not to dispute your theology, but ...
If all humanity was in fact descended from only two people, whose immediate progeny mated with siblings, we wouldn't be here. As the following article shows, even with two original males instead of one, inbreeding leads to catastrophic (i.e., infertile) genetic defects after o ...[text shortened]... Confusing the two leads to nonsense, pseudo-science, and heretical religion.
Cheers,
moonbus
Originally posted by @kellyjayDo you believe that Adam and Eve's children had sex with each other before or after "the fall"?
In the beginning before the fall there wasn't any genetic defects, even after the fall man' life expectancy was hundreds of years. As time passed that became an important issue, not at first.
Originally posted by @kellyjayNo, believing that 1+1=2 is pure mathematics that can be proved.
Its group think to understand 1+1=2, does that mean its some how that is wrong?
Believing that Jesus is born by a virgin woman with no evidence at all, of the sole reason that you will end up in hell if you don't, is group thinking.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasProof or evidence what do you want?
No, believing that 1+1=2 is pure mathematics that can be proved.
Believing that Jesus is born by a virgin woman with no evidence at all, of the sole reason that you will end up in hell if you don't, is group thinking.
Originally posted by @moonbusSpare me this meaningless lecture, and tell me who was Cain's wife, when no other humans were supposed to be on earth.
@chaney3
Having read a number of your posts spanning a number of threads, it is my considered and genuinely well-meant opinion that you should stop reading the Bible; it is doing you more harm than good. Not the Bible is doing you harm, but your reading of it. Your take on things you read there is bizarre, doctrinally untenable, and the issues you find t ...[text shortened]... s how the glad tidings are passed on in true Christianity. DIY Christianity doesn't work.
But it seems you don't care about the details, and likely ignore the parts of the Bible that YOU find meaningless.
Cain's wife, Noah's flood, Jonah and the whale, etc., should be questioned. Or do you choose to cherry pick the portions of the Bible that suit your personal beliefs, and discard the rest?