[_ Old Earth _] How did Cain Find a Wife?

[lordkalvan]

Quotes from lordkalvan:
I didn't say that, sorry; please read more carefully. There are good, bad and indifferent science books
the only word you left out was books, but where do we learn and get our information from.. books, so in turn you did said that.... sorry..

This is bizarre. I 'left out' a word that I had no intention of putting in as it would have changed the meaning of what I wrote and you point out that I did leave it out, therefore I did say it. WTF?

As far as I am aware very few scientists are trying to 'prove' the Bible wrong..
are you kidding me... wow.. that is the agenda, to prove evolution so as to disprove God.....Yes, not every scientist, but alot, how many..... who knows, but look at our schools ... evolution as fact..the perfect starting place..

Please provide citations. Perhaps you would like to check out this site: http://www.eauk.org/resources/idea/bigquestion/archive/2005/bq7.cfm or even this one: http://www.cis.org.uk/

Are you concluding I am an atheist evolutionist? Is this solely on the grounds that I question a literal, inerrant Old Testament?
thank you.. you answered your own question...that was easy

Again your answer to the question that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible CANNOT be a Christian and must therefore be an atheist. What does John 14:2 mean to you?

Again, if you want to place the Bible on an equal footing with scientific understanding, YOU have to provide support for that argument.
on equal footing.... again you answered your own question... but yes science has only proven the bible right again and again...does that upset you?

Can you provide citations and references, please? That some of the Bible may have been shown to be 'right' (however you define 'right') does not mean that ALL of the Bible must therefore be 'right'. Some of Homer's Iliad has been shown to be 'right'; do you think all of Homer's Iliad is therefore 'right' as well?

you think that anyone who doesn't agree with the interpretation of Christianity that you favour is an atheist.
Well let me say this again.. read carefully this time.... Jesus said " I am the way, the truth and the life.. NO ONE comes to the Father but by Me" the NO ONE means NO ONE.. ever born or ever will be born, any other religion that teaches eternal life by ANY other means other than Jesus is a lie.

This seems to contradict what you said above. So all Christian faiths are 'true' after all? Roman Catholicism is as 'true' as Seventh Day Adventism, for example?

Where do you draw the line between 'true' Christians and atheists?
believers in Jesus the Christ, not some super cool jesus dude that says everything in life is ok as long as it makes you feel good... and as far as atheist.. they don't believe in Jesus.. and their fate is hell... like it or not,, thats my belief..

You didn't answer my specific questions. This is just handwaving rhetoric.

Ok now that I've answered your questions.. answer mine... what do you believe or don't...

You have already made your mind up about what I believe.

 

[lordkalvan]

Biblical errors? by....lordkalvan ....

'"There were giants in the earth in those days' (Genesis 6). Metaphorical giants or real giants? If real, evidence has yet to show these giants existed. Again the weight of evidence suggests this is an error." This one is a little different because there are cases of giant human remains found, now you can wish not to believe it or whatever.. as for me yes Goliath was said to be the last of his kind.. a giant
http://www.s8int.com/giants1.html lots of stuff on this site do I believe it all no.. but it has pictures of giant remains. just to show you that you can find things that make you think....

Well, I never for one moment expected you to acknowledge these errors as errors. I am sure that if I pointed to parts of the Old Testament that imply the Earth is flat you would either contest my interpretation or argue that for all we know the Earth WAS flat then; after all, no one now was alive then so how could anyone know for sure.

As to the reference above, I am afraid your link didn't work for me; it only took me as far as the site HTTP.COM. Is this one of the pictures you are referring to?

let me ask you a question.. why do they find human artifacts in 300 million year old coal?? should I go on...

Citation and reference, please.

By the way, there are no rivers of water on Jupiter:

Above the core lies the main bulk of the planet in the form of liquid metallic hydrogen. This exotic form of the most common of elements is possible only at pressures exceeding 4 million bars, as is the case in the interior of Jupiter (and Saturn). Liquid metallic hydrogen consists of ionized protons and electrons (like the interior of the Sun but at a far lower temperature). At the temperature and pressure of Jupiter's interior hydrogen is a liquid, not a gas. It is an electrical conductor and the source of Jupiter's magnetic field. This layer probably also contains some helium and traces of various "ices".

The outermost layer is composed primarily of ordinary molecular hydrogen and helium which is liquid in the interior and gaseous further out. The atmosphere we see is just the very top of this deep layer. Water, carbon dioxide, methane and other simple molecules are also present in tiny amounts.

From http://www.nineplanets.org/jupiter.html.

 

[Orion]

Free, are you actually implying that anyone who doesn't take the WHOLE Bible as completely error free and true must be an atheist? You would be absolutely wrong, if that is what I hear you saying. Please correct me if I read you wrong. :-?

 

[Paidion]

Insofar as all this is assertion unsupported by evidence and driven apparently solely by the need to establish the Bible as a literal and inerrant account of the history of creation and early mankind, you may as well claim that God created more than one set of humans. You have just as much biblical evidence for this as you or anyone else has for identifying the origins of the wives of Abel, Cain or Seth as the daughters of Adam and Eve - the Bible is entirely silent on the subject.

Interestingly enough to say, a modern Pagan, who was on a Reader's Digest forum (before the forum closed down) believed the Bible does teach that God created more than one set of humans. He thought that Genesis 1, describes the Elohim's creation. He understood the Elohim to be a pantheon of gods. Then in chapter 2, according to this Pagan, Yahweh, who imagined himself as the supreme God, created Adam and Eve. The Pagan thought himself to be a descendent of the first group, and so he did not need the redemption provided for the offspring of Adam and Eve, for he supposedly did not inherit the sinful nature.

I'd like to post his explanation of Genesis 1 and 2, but I don't think the operators of the forum would be happy with that. However, if anyone, just for interest's sake would like to read what the man said, just PM me, and I'll send it to you.

 

[Paidion]

Insofar as all this is assertion unsupported by evidence and driven apparently solely by the need to establish the Bible as a literal and inerrant account of the history of creation and early mankind, you may as well claim that God created more than one set of humans. You have just as much biblical evidence for this as you or anyone else has for identifying the origins of the wives of Abel, Cain or Seth as the daughters of Adam and Eve - the Bible is entirely silent on the subject.

Interestingly enough to say, a modern Pagan, who was on a Reader's Digest forum (before the forum closed down) believed the Bible does teach that God created more than one set of humans. He thought that Genesis 1, describes the Elohim's creation. He understood the Elohim to be a pantheon of gods. Then in chapter 2, according to this Pagan, Yahweh, who imagined himself as the supreme God, created Adam and Eve. The Pagan thought himself to be a descendent of the first group, and so he did not need the redemption provided for the offspring of Adam and Eve, for he supposedly did not inherit the sinful nature.

I'd like to post his explanation of Genesis 1 and 2, but I don't think the operators of the forum would be happy with that. However, if anyone, just for interest's sake would like to read what the man said, just PM me, and I'll send it to you.

 

[Orion]

Insofar as all this is assertion unsupported by evidence and driven apparently solely by the need to establish the Bible as a literal and inerrant account of the history of creation and early mankind, you may as well claim that God created more than one set of humans. You have just as much biblical evidence for this as you or anyone else has for identifying the origins of the wives of Abel, Cain or Seth as the daughters of Adam and Eve - the Bible is entirely silent on the subject.

Interestingly enough to say, a modern Pagan, who was on a Reader's Digest forum (before the forum closed down) believed the Bible does teach that God created more than one set of humans. He thought that Genesis 1, describes the Elohim's creation. He understood the Elohim to be a pantheon of gods. Then in chapter 2, according to this Pagan, Yahweh, who imagined himself as the supreme God, created Adam and Eve. The Pagan thought himself to be a descendent of the first group, and so he did not need the redemption provided for the offspring of Adam and Eve, for he supposedly did not inherit the sinful nature.

I'd like to post his explanation of Genesis 1 and 2, but I don't think the operators of the forum would be happy with that. However, if anyone, just for interest's sake would like to read what the man said, just PM me, and I'll send it to you.

I've heard that as well, . . . and it can be read that way Biblically. If it were the case, there could be an undeterminable amount of time that could have passed between Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2.

 

[freeway]

freeway01 wrote:Quotes from lordkalvan:
I didn't say that, sorry; please read more carefully. There are good, bad and indifferent science books
the only word you left out was books, but where do we learn and get our information from.. books,so in turn you did said that.... sorry..
Ok so I added the work book.......(SORRY).... but on the same note do you pick and choose which books of science you want to use or feel comfortable with, ones that push you belief ... whats the difference if I added book or books?. Or... did you sit in every scientific experiment and examine the outcome? .. just wondering, because if you did, then I have you all wrong...

by Orion
Free, are you actually implying that anyone who doesn't take the WHOLE Bible as completely error free and true must be an atheist? You would be absolutely wrong, if that is what I hear you saying. Please correct me if I read you wrong.
I think you are trying to read to much into what I wrote... is the whole bible 100% error free, no.. but on the issues of great important it is error free... through translation better words could have been used to bring the point out better, English is not as beautiful of a language as Greek or Hebrew.. but we have to make do. The translators have done a remarkable job at that and no if you do not believe the bible 100% error free or if you do not choose to believe the bible 100%, that does not mean you are an atheist by default, But in the same token you can believe their is a God or gods and still not believe in the deity of Jesus, you still end up in the same place as the atheist....hell.........sorry if that burn you...


lordkalvan thinks
Well, I never for one moment expected you to acknowledge these errors as errors. I am sure that if I pointed to parts of the Old Testament that imply the Earth is flat you would either contest my interpretation or argue that for all we know the Earth WAS flat then; after all, no one now was alive then so how could anyone know for sure.
well the thing is ..... they weren't errors as you wished they where, they where verses that you misinterpreted thats all ........sorry again for your misunderstanding of the bible. and as for the bible teaching a flat earth... sorry,, don't confuse what someone in the bibe believed to what the bible really says... after all if thats the line you want to take.. the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah.. so should we say that the bible teaches Jesus is not the Messiah... well you know where I stand on that... or do you...
http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html

OH MAN, THERES NO RIVERS ON JUPITER?... cool, man you learn something new everyday!!! :wink:
I know I've missed some of your arguments,, but I think you will let me know :wink: and I will try to answer them... 8-) 8-)

 

[lordkalvan]

Ok so I added the work book.......(SORRY).... but on the same note do you pick and choose which books of science you want to use or feel comfortable with, ones that push you belief ... whats the difference if I added book or books?. Or... did you sit in every scientific experiment and examine the outcome? .. just wondering, because if you did, then I have you all wrong...

It's that added word that changed the intent of what I wrote. perhaps the fault was mine in my choice of word; maybe if I'd have written 'scientific method' rather than 'science' my meaning would have been clearer. And, no, I didn't sit in on every scientific experiment..... :wink:

lordkalvan thinks
Well, I never for one moment expected you to acknowledge these errors as errors. I am sure that if I pointed to parts of the Old Testament that imply the Earth is flat you would either contest my interpretation or argue that for all we know the Earth WAS flat then; after all, no one now was alive then so how could anyone know for sure.
well the thing is ..... they weren't errors as you wished they where, they where verses that you misinterpreted thats all ........sorry again for your misunderstanding of the bible. and as for the bible teaching a flat earth... sorry,, don't confuse what someone in the bibe believed to what the bible really says... after all if thats the line you want to take.. the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah.. so should we say that the bible teaches Jesus is not the Messiah... well you know where I stand on that... or do you...

So it's all a matter of interpretation? In that case, how can you be certain that the misunderstanding is mine rather than yours? And how do I know when there is a difference between waht the Bible really says and what someone in the Bible erroneously believes?

OH MAN, THERES NO RIVERS ON JUPITER?[/b]... cool, man you learn something new everyday!!! :wink:

Glad to be of help. :-D

I know I've missed some of your arguments,, but I think you will let me know :wink: and I will try to answer them... 8-) 8-)

I am still interested in your giants reference that I couldn't link to.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I read the giant references. They were the remains of the great apes....far from homosapien.

 

[Orion]

I think you are trying to read to much into what I wrote... is the whole bible 100% error free, no.. but on the issues of great important it is error free... through translation better words could have been used to bring the point out better, English is not as beautiful of a language as Greek or Hebrew.. but we have to make do. The translators have done a remarkable job at that and no if you do not believe the bible 100% error free or if you do not choose to believe the bible 100%, that does not mean you are an atheist by default, But in the same token you can believe their is a God or gods and still not believe in the deity of Jesus, you still end up in the same place as the atheist....hell.........sorry if that burn you...

It doesn't "burn me", freeway. I don't believe as you do (about hell). But that is for a different topic.

Thank you for restating about the issue I brought up. When I say that I don't believe the bible to be completely literal or error free, that by no means, indicates a rejection of God, or even the person of Jesus.

 

[KenEOTE]

I think you are trying to read to much into what I wrote... is the whole bible 100% error free, no.. but on the issues of great important it is error free... through translation better words could have been used to bring the point out better, English is not as beautiful of a language as Greek or Hebrew.. but we have to make do. The translators have done a remarkable job at that and no if you do not believe the bible 100% error free or if you do not choose to believe the bible 100%, that does not mean you are an atheist by default, But in the same token you can believe their is a God or gods and still not believe in the deity of Jesus, you still end up in the same place as the atheist....hell.........sorry if that burn you...

It doesn't "burn me", freeway. I don't believe as you do (about hell). But that is for a different topic.

Thank you for restating about the issue I brought up. When I say that I don't believe the bible to be completely literal or error free, that by no means, indicates a rejection of God, or even the person of Jesus.[/quote]

But what about Cains wife?

 

[Orion]

What about Cain's wife?

Again, I'm of the belief that this story was never meant to be read as a literal event.

 

[KenEOTE]

So then there was no Cain. How were you Able to come to that conclusion?

 

[Orion]

There is no evidence of the story being literal. That doesn't make a reference to a fictional person as "someone not telling the truth". It is an analogy that one can use and it can be useful to make a point to those who would understand where the story was coming from. "The boy who cried wolf." That's all I need to say for you to understand a concept without me having to explain it.

There may have been an actual cain, who DID kill his brother and was ostracized from the camp, and the event was used to tell a story. Not a very good one at that, if you really think of all the consequences of it.

 

[KenEOTE]

Orion obviously my pun went over your head.

 

[Orion]

Yes, . . . . . . .I suppose it did! :D

 

[VaultZero4Me]

So then there was no Cain. How were you Able to come to that conclusion?

cute

 

[Malachi45]

Oh well, Cain married Abel's twin sister, Aklemia: and Abel married Cain's twin sister, Luluwa. Cain and Abel were three years apart in age. It's all written in the Forgotten Books of Eden. And it was stated that Cain wanted to marry his sister and was another reason for his jealousy. Boy they lived strange in those days. Anyway, Enoch married Abel's wife, Cain's sister.