Cain and Able

[OneLight]

Yes quite possibly but not nescessarily. I think its unclear but God couldve created more men after Adam and it would still be true that Adam and Eve were the firsts, nor would it affect the geneology of Christ, or the fact that sin entered the world through Adam.

Its statements like these that keep me wondering!

We all have places in scripture that we wonder about. Truth is, where scripture is silent, it is silent. We can either try to fill this silence with assumptions and speculations while taking the risk of believing false doctrine or allow them to remain silent and trust there is a reason.

The best thing is that it is not important. If it were, He would of included it. There will be a day where all our questions will be answered. I look forward to that day, while realizing how humble I will become we are shown that we all missed the mark.

[e lansing]

[name=canuckamuck' date='Jan 14 2010, 03:36 AM' post='1487950]

Had there have been other lines of men, God could have simply killed of the ones with the sin nature and kept those that were still innocent. It is hard to miss the fact that God stuck with Adam's line to bring Jesus to the world. He must have had a compelling reason

I think you present a very good argument and i agree with your 4 reasons. What do you mean by "pure"? Humans are humans are they not? If Adam and Eve sinned first why would this only effect there off spring and not, lets say, another line of humans that did not come from Adam? Adam blew it for all of the human race and the second Adam [Christ] came to fix what the first Adam blew for all the humans who would repent and put there faith in Jesus.

[e lansing]

Yes quite possibly but not nescessarily. I think its unclear but God couldve created more men after Adam and it would still be true that Adam and Eve were the firsts, nor would it affect the geneology of Christ, or the fact that sin entered the world through Adam.

Its statements like these that keep me wondering!

We all have places in scripture that we wonder about. Truth is, where scripture is silent, it is silent. We can either try to fill this silence with assumptions and speculations while taking the risk of believing false doctrine or allow them to remain silent and trust there is a reason.

The best thing is that it is not important. If it were, He would of included it. There will be a day where all our questions will be answered. I look forward to that day, while realizing how humble I will become we are shown that we all missed the mark.

Right! When i am out witnessing and get into debates I love being able to defend my faith. When ever i get stump i hate it and thats humbling. I love it when the Bible shuts to moutns of nonbelievers, but its harder when it silences a believer.

[OneLight]

Yes quite possibly but not nescessarily. I think its unclear but God couldve created more men after Adam and it would still be true that Adam and Eve were the firsts, nor would it affect the geneology of Christ, or the fact that sin entered the world through Adam.

Its statements like these that keep me wondering!

We all have places in scripture that we wonder about. Truth is, where scripture is silent, it is silent. We can either try to fill this silence with assumptions and speculations while taking the risk of believing false doctrine or allow them to remain silent and trust there is a reason.

The best thing is that it is not important. If it were, He would of included it. There will be a day where all our questions will be answered. I look forward to that day, while realizing how humble I will become we are shown that we all missed the mark.

Right! When i am out witnessing and get into debates I love being able to defend my faith. When ever i get stump i hate it and thats humbling. I love it when the Bible shuts to moutns of nonbelievers, but its harder when it silences a believer.

The world will always have questions that we will have no answer for, if you are looking for scripture to use. Be honest and tell them that the scripture is silent on that matter, or tell them you will get back to them after you find the answer. That will open the door for continuing the conversation with them. Being truthful is always the best answer.

[e lansing]

Yes quite possibly but not nescessarily. I think its unclear but God couldve created more men after Adam and it would still be true that Adam and Eve were the firsts, nor would it affect the geneology of Christ, or the fact that sin entered the world through Adam.

Its statements like these that keep me wondering!

We all have places in scripture that we wonder about. Truth is, where scripture is silent, it is silent. We can either try to fill this silence with assumptions and speculations while taking the risk of believing false doctrine or allow them to remain silent and trust there is a reason.

The best thing is that it is not important. If it were, He would of included it. There will be a day where all our questions will be answered. I look forward to that day, while realizing how humble I will become we are shown that we all missed the mark.

Right! When i am out witnessing and get into debates I love being able to defend my faith. When ever i get stump i hate it and thats humbling. I love it when the Bible shuts to moutns of nonbelievers, but its harder when it silences a believer.

The world will always have questions that we will have no answer for, if you are looking for scripture to use. Be honest and tell them that the scripture is silent on that matter, or tell them you will get back to them after you find the answer. That will open the door for continuing the conversation with them. Being truthful is always the best answer.

Right! I do not believe i have been dishonset, just unable to answer tuff questions. I will learn to be ok with being silent on such matters and take what i have learn from Gods people and try to articulated it the best i can.

[Axxman]

so you wasted your time with all the rest that you posted. you lost credibility when you completely twisted what i said within your second paragraph. but bottom line, you're making up stuff to fit your theory when scripture does not support what you are saying. scripture does, however, support the argument i have presented, and most bible scholars and theologians agree.

have a nice nite, axxman. i'll talk with you some other time in a thread where we can actually agree on something. as rare as those occasions are, it's about the only time the two of us can speak civilly, and i, for one, am not going to waste any more time being uncivil. or maybe we usually remain civil in disagreements. i'm not really sure at the moment, i just know my fuse was way too short tonight and i'm not up to being nice about it, so i'll say goodnight and be done with it.

Aw...sorry I always seem to push your buttons Sis!

If you feel that i am misrepresenting your point just let me know...because it is never my intent. I replied to what I thought you were saying. For what its worth I'm glad to know that I took it wrong, because quite honestly what I thought you were saying was nutso (thus the emote at the end of my reply.) For what its worth I think we get along fine most of the time...which may be a testimony to your extreme patience with me...lol. Sorry again.

[Axxman]

In order to get from 2 to 6,000,000,000+ people, there needed to be reproduction between close relatives. This was the plan, not an oversight. All believers are saved through Jesus because of this fact. If this were not true, God would have had to find not only a righteous man to do Noah's job, but this man would have also had to have be proven to be purely of the line of Adam, any marriage in to Noah's line from any other source would have caused complications, and Noah's wife as well would have had to been equally pure. And the same would also have to have been true for all of the wives of Noah's sons. This would be a real problem since God could only find one righteous man. What would have been the odds that Noah matched all the other criteria had there have been other lines of mankind intermarrying Adam's children.

Hello Canuckamuck,

Couple of things. Noah's lineage to Adam is traced through the men of the line, not the females. So, if God created mates for the males in Adam's lineage (Cain, Abel, and Seth) just as God created a mate for their father Adam...it doesn't disrupt the lineage, and it keeps the lineage free from patently impure breeding cycles. It is also not true that God could only find one righteous man...Noah. There were plenty of righteous men. Methuselah was one, Noah's father Lamech was another. What the bible says about Noah is that he was righteous (not the only one) and blameless among the people of his time.

When sin entered the world the perfection of the human species was compromised by the curse. One of the manifestations of the curse is mutations at a genetic level. At a certain point in history, humans had accumulated so many defective traits that he only way to protect humanity from extinction was to forbid marriage between close family members. This was done as a matter of our protection, not because it was against God's nature. It is a moral issue today for at least 4 reasons

1) Because God said it is wrong

2) Because incest is irresponsible and it creates health problems and birth defects for the children of these relationships.

3) Because it is has become a cultural pariah which will bring all manner of abuse and psychological burdens on the family from outside the home.

4) Because it is inherently abusive in the current cultural reality, and because of the sin nature which was originally not present in man.

Ask any animal breeder and they will tell you that animals are prone to genetic defects when breeding pairs are too closely related. In the garden this would not have been true. Nor would it have been true for Adam's kids. It took generations for the mutations to develop.

Couple more things. Since we are discussing incest, we should discuss what incest is. The bible is pretty specific in Leviticus 18 as to what God considers incest and who can have relations with whom. Oddly, in the entire list of people who cannot have relations, cousins are not mentioned. A sister is incest according to God...that leaves the whole idea of Cain and Abel marrying their sisters out. Heck, even step-sisters were taboo. However, a man was not forbidden to marry a niece or a cousin. In fact, marrying a cousin was mentioned in several places in scripture with Gods approval. It is still very common and very legal to this day in most of the world including almost all of Europe and half of the U.S. On the flip-side, marrying a sister is still strictly taboo. Science has also shown that there is almost no increase in birth defects amongst cousin marriages (2-3%).

So why would God, who never changes, allow incest (marrying sisters) which He has clearly disapproved of? He wouldn't in my opinion. It would be much more viable, and pure to create mates for at least Cain and Abel just as God had done for Adam. Then Cain and Abel's children would be free to marry as cousins. Furthermore, when Seth comes along he is free to marry one of their children (a niece.) This keeps the lineage of Adam pure, without incest from a scriptural standpoint, and without dishonor.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is also not true that God could only find one righteous man...Noah. There were plenty of righteous men. Methuselah was one, Noah's father Lamech was another. What the bible says about Noah is that he was righteous (not the only one) and blameless among the people of his time.

If there were other righteous people, why were they not brought on to the ark? Why would God only make provision for family of one righteous man? The wording of the text implies that Noah was distinct from "all flesh" (including his own sons). Noah is pictured as the only man of his day that found grace in the eyes of the Lord. That would not be true if other righteous people existed at that time.

So why would God, who never changes, allow incest (marrying sisters) which He has clearly disapproved of? He wouldn't in my opinion.

Incest as the Leviticus it, only applies to having sexual relations with close family members outside of wedlock. Abraham married his half sister and God blessed that union. The part about marrying sisters is not incest. The text says not to take your wife's sister as a "rival" wife and have sexual relations with her while the wife is still alive.

To argue that God created other people is nothing but conjecture. It is more likely that early on when the population was extremely small, people married close relatives. There is nothing intrinsically immoral or impure about that.

[Guest LadyC]

so you wasted your time with all the rest that you posted. you lost credibility when you completely twisted what i said within your second paragraph. but bottom line, you're making up stuff to fit your theory when scripture does not support what you are saying. scripture does, however, support the argument i have presented, and most bible scholars and theologians agree.

have a nice nite, axxman. i'll talk with you some other time in a thread where we can actually agree on something. as rare as those occasions are, it's about the only time the two of us can speak civilly, and i, for one, am not going to waste any more time being uncivil. or maybe we usually remain civil in disagreements. i'm not really sure at the moment, i just know my fuse was way too short tonight and i'm not up to being nice about it, so i'll say goodnight and be done with it.

Aw...sorry I always seem to push your buttons Sis!

If you feel that i am misrepresenting your point just let me know...because it is never my intent. I replied to what I thought you were saying. For what its worth I'm glad to know that I took it wrong, because quite honestly what I thought you were saying was nutso (thus the emote at the end of my reply.) For what its worth I think we get along fine most of the time...which may be a testimony to your extreme patience with me...lol. Sorry again.

apology accepted. and you have as much patience with me as i do with you, most of the time. so if you'll also accept my apology, i'm offering it.

but i'm also going to be whiny for a minute and justify my attitude from last night LOL. i've been sick with a head cold and sinus infection for an entire week... tuesday i had totally lost my voice and couldn't speak at all. wednesday (yesterday) i thought i was feeling much better, which is good, because i had to work. it was a short shift, only four hours, but i was working pretty hard and was getting over-heated (they keep the store too warm anyway IMO), and by the time i got home, i felt worse than i had at any time during the past week. finally at 3 a.m. i got the humidifier out and God produced a miracle.... a bottle of vaporizer stuff to put in it that i SWEAR we did not have. within ten minutes, my coughing had stopped, my nose had cleared, and i drifted into a sound sleep.

feel sorry for me yet?

[Axxman]

If there were other righteous people, why were they not brought on to the ark? Why would God only make provision for family of one righteous man? The wording of the text implies that Noah was distinct from "all flesh" (including his own sons). Noah is pictured as the only man of his day that found grace in the eyes of the Lord. That would not be true if other righteous people existed at that time.

God saved Noah because He listened to Gods command. The bible does not say that Noah was the only righteous man. History itself proves this wrong. Methuselah was certainly a righteous man and died days before the great flood. God did not promise to allow Methuselah on the Ark..but did promise to spare him from the deluge. Lemech, Noah's father was also a Godly man, who died before the flood. God chose Noah because he would listen to Gods command to build the ark...and because the people found him blameless. Either way..Noah is waaaayyyy off-topic (my fault on that one I guess.)

To argue that God created other people is nothing but conjecture. It is more likely that early on when the population was extremely small, people married close relatives. There is nothing intrinsically immoral or impure about that.

Truthfully, both sides are conjecture. Nothing in scripture tells us that they committed incest either. My conjecture is that God had already shown that He would create a mate. On the flip-side of that, no one can show any evidence that God has ever approved of sleeping with a sister or daughter. I don't see why my conjecture is so frowned upon...but the idea of Adam sleeping with his daughter is openly accepted.