There is another alternative explanation of Cain's wife, by a strict reading of Genesis. Genesis 6 discusses the Nephilim (giants), who were the offspring of the unknown and previously unmentioned "sons of God" and the "daughters of Men".

So if we take Genesis literally, that opens up the alternative that Cain could have taken a wife from these unknown Others.

quote:

Originally posted by njauto:
Yes. And there are many things that we just can’t fully understand as humans. And all those who point to “science” should realize many things in the Bible have been proven by those scientist.

I like how you put "science" in quotes. I'm not sure your point. Certainly things in the bible are true. Nobody is saying it's a complete work of fiction, are they?

The mere fact that some things are true, and may have been proven by "science" means nothing in terms of whether the Adam and Eve story is historical fact or not.

I dont believe it, nor do I feel the need to convince someone else otherwise. Science vs Faith will always have its conflicts.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
Has the OP answered his own question?

Yes, I have.
Sometimes I ask questions of others to help me answer them for myself. This question, however, is not one of them. I know what my belief is; what I am attempting is to learn what others’ beliefs are.

And in any event, it is already far too common in our society for people who ask such questions to do so in an effort to obtain certain answers rather than gain information. I cannot imagine that my answer to this question would have any significant influence on anyone else who has pondered it, but it would nevertheless be inappropriate for me to inject my views into the discussion. At least now.

quote:

Originally posted by soflaac:

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:

Again I will ask: where did Cain's wife come from? The record is incomplete. It does not prove it false, it merely proves that we do not and cannot have the whole story.

Answered you on page 2.

quote:

Originally posted by soflaac:

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
Where did Cain's wife come from?

Cain's wife was his sister, there isn't a whole lot of room for a different explanation.

Ok, but there is no record of this, and indeed it could have been a niece, cousin, or unknown. Because it's incomplete. That's my point.

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:

Ok, but there is no record of this, and indeed it could have been a niece, cousin, or unknown. Because it's incomplete. That's my point.

Got it, you weren't actually asking a question, it was a set-up for a point you wanted to make.

I recommend reading "The Rational Bible" by Dennis Prager. It's two volumes (so far) and goes through the Books of Genesis and Exodus verse by verse. Prager is an observant Jew and has studied the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament for you Gentile types) his whole life. He analyzes the book in relation to the time it was written and the audience it was written for.

It is surprisingly thorough and completely devoid of any "just because" arguments. I am fascinated by the logic in it all.

Yes I do, and I believe the bible is the word of God.

No.

Absolutely ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by AITG:
I recommend reading "The Rational Bible" by Dennis Prager. It's two volumes (so far) and goes through the Books of Genesis and Exodus verse by verse. Prager is an observant Jew and has studied the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament for you Gentile types) his whole life. He analyzes the book in relation to the time it was written and the audience it was written for.

Thanks for the tip, I checked out his theory on why God is Masculine, dunno how I missed his other stuff.

James 1:5-8

It is a fool’s errand to attempt to reconcile the creation account with natural science. Such was never intended.

If I recall correctly, the creation account occupies a handful of pages of material, if using double spacing and a font size of 12. One can’t cover the breadth of American History within that length, much less the history of the Roman Empire. Thus, perhaps we shouldn’t illogically attempt to reconcile those few chapters to science! Such is not the purpose of Genesis.

The Bible reveals God’s eternal plan to redeem the world. The opening chapters of Genesis set the stage for that plan. God created all, including mankind. Created in God’s image, man (and woman) were to serve as God’s steward in governing over creation. Everything was “very good”. Man lived in the presence of and in relationship to God within his perfect creation.

God specifically commanded man to leave justice to Him. Yet man was not satisfied and thus rebelled In order “to be like God, knowing good and evil.” As a result of this sin, God cursed man and all of creation.

Everything that is broken in this world traces back to that original sin and it’s deserved curse. Yet, God announced even then that he would one day restore everything. In Genesis 3:15, he provides the early Gospel announcement that the offspring of the woman would crush the offspring of the serpent. Genesis then proceeds to describe the early generations of that offspring which ultimately lead to a future Son of David, who is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

That essentially is the purpose for the initial chapters of Genesis. The exalted prose is not intended for us to question the exact dating of events, the exact manner of creation, the actual time involved for creation, nor whether snakes once talked. Focusing on such things simply distracts one from facing questions related to the true nature of sin, its consequences and any ability we have (uh...none) to save ourselves.

Don’t focus on snakes. Instead focus on the name of that tree. The garden didn’t include both a Tree of Good and a Tree of Evil. Yet, we are inclined to live in that manner. We think life is about properly choosing the correct tree and we, of course, contend that we are both smart enough and good enough to eat from the good tree. And, of course, those other morons eat from the bad tree.

Yet, the tree was instead named in regards to the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is quite different and our stubborn taste for that fruit is the root of all that is screwed up.

I believe that scripture is the very Word of God. Yet, he elected to work thru ordinary authors and allowed their various styles and perspectives to shape the various books within. I do strongly believe in the doctrine of original sin and thus the Adam and Eve account must have some basis in history. But Genesis is not written in a manner that requires a believer to contend that such occurred only 5,000 years ago, etc. I contend that such arguments are straw men that are presented in order to deflect the basic question as to how one gets right with a holy and righteous God.

“Our daily inclination is to draw a line between good and evil and then place ourselves on the good side of the line.” Ted Peters, Lutheran theologian

Simply stated; yes I do. The Bible is the infallible Word of God.

quote:

Originally posted by soflaac:

Got it, you weren't actually asking a question, it was a set-up for a point you wanted to make.

It's known as a rhetorical question, because the Bible is incapable of providing an answer. It just isn't there, and we're left with speculation.

As often as Jesus, the son of God and God in the flesh spoke in parables so that those that followed him could understand, how is it hard to understand that the prophets that came before did not also speak in parables?

But inconsistencies abound, and it takes a lot of effort to reconcile them. For example, what were the last words Jesus spoke before he died? How many times did the rooster crow? What was Joseph's ancestry? People have come up with explanations for all of these, but it takes a lot of "well what he really meant was...." to do it. It's hard to reconcile that with being a perfect unaltered record.

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:

quote:

Originally posted by soflaac:

Got it, you weren't actually asking a question, it was a set-up for a point you wanted to make.

It's known as a rhetorical question, because the Bible is incapable of providing an answer. It just isn't there, and we're left with speculation.

As often as Jesus, the son of God and God in the flesh spoke in parables so that those that followed him could understand, how is it hard to understand that the prophets that came before did not also speak in parables?

But inconsistencies abound, and it takes a lot of effort to reconcile them. For example, what were the last words Jesus spoke before he died? How many times did the rooster crow? What was Joseph's ancestry? People have come up with explanations for all of these, but it takes a lot of "well what he really meant was...." to do it. It's hard to reconcile that with being a perfect unaltered record.

So you are saying the Bible doesn't have all of the answers? Shocking!

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
No.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Be polite

I think he (bobtheelf) is partially referring to the fact that eyewitness accounts typically have inconsistencies. If you were to interview my wife and I in separate sessions and ask us each to describe the start of our relationship 32 years ago, you would observe a number of differences in details recalled, points of emphasis, etc.

I’d be suspicious if such differences didn’t exist.

Yet, such differences do not hold any significance to key points of Christian doctrine.

An excellent book on this topic is:
https://www.amazon.com/Heresy-...ianity/dp/1433501430

quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:
I think he (bobtheelf) is partially referring to the fact that eyewitness accounts typically have inconsistencies. If you were to interview my wife and I in separate sessions and ask us each to describe the start of our relationship 32 years ago, you would observe a number of differences in details recalled, points of emphasis, etc.

I’d be suspicious if such differences didn’t exist.

Yet, such differences do not hold any significance to key points of Christian doctrine.

An excellent book on this topic is:
https://www.amazon.com/Heresy-...ianity/dp/1433501430

To me, such inconsistencies are to be expected from eyewitness accounts that were written down at separate times by separate people and translated and copied so many times over hundreds of years.

But they also lead me to believe that one cannot take everything as the literal perfect complete truth, such that we must disbelieve our senses and the evidence of the world around us. Believing the truth of the Bible as the best record that our tiny brains could comprehend is not incompatible with what we have used our gifts to discover of the world around us.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Salty Dawg:
I think that much of the Old Testament is stories being passed down from folks trying to explain stuff they couldn't (and we still can't) comprehend. I don't think it makes any sense to treat stories like Adam and Even, 200-year old (or whatever it was) Abraham, Noah and the Ark, etc. as historical accounts.

That is the way I see it. Maybe there was someone who is our Abraham or Moses - but I don't see an actual parting of the Red Sea as a real thing, just as an example of something that isn't literally true.

The original creation story sounds like so many other creation myths in so many other cultures - the stories of primitive peoples trying to explain what they can't possibly understand. Not that myths aren't important - they are super-important. They just don't have to be literally true.

And yet, parts of it may be. I remember taking a class in college to fulfill a lib Ed requirement, and it had to do with comparing texts like the Bible, Greek mythology, and some other text, and realizing that there were correlations between them at certain points in time. Like the great flood, for instance. They all mentioned some aspect of this, and the prof’s point was that these writings were done in different parts of the world, at a point in time where there wouldn’t be communication to compare notes..and the “stories” all agreed that it happened. I found that very interesting.

No. It's a story made up to explain something which could not, at the time, be explained.