40,000 years of history? Man before Adam?

[Waggles]

I was going to post a Bible study on the problem of how Cain married his wife and migrated to the land of Nod - but it would seem that this thread has been hijacked by some and is no longer viable. 

Thankyou @DeighAnn and also @LearningToLetGo for your interest in the topic and also bringing up the problem concerning Cain marrying a woman (seems so old fashioned these days). 

Leviticus 18:6  “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD. 
7  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 
8  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. 
9  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 
10  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 

Deu 27:22  Cursed be anyone who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

Ezekiel 22:11  One commits abomination with his neighbour's wife; another lewdly defiles his daughter-in-law; another in you violates his sister, his father's daughter.

Genesis 4:16  Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 
17  Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Waggles

[DeighAnn]

So It could just as well be future, as it could past, there is not yet enough information given to back up either side, agreed?

But if you could go about connecting it to your 'future' belief,  I can go about connecting it to the 'past', and then by the preponderance and of the strength of the scripture, and  ONLY if it it doesn't lead to any contradictions, and then if it FITS to open up a bigger picture of truth, WE may come up with the  answer.  

How many verses are necessary for it to be considered 'information that scripture gives us'?

 

10 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

This is my GUESS, based on reading the bible on the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, letting scripture interpretate scripture and of course your astute comparison of Jeremiah and Revelation.  Since God did not answer the question in the bible, it is impossible to state dogmaticly

But here is my guess

They have not yet taken place. 

Up to Verse 18 Jeremiah was talking about the destruction Kingdom of Israel and warning the kingdom of Judah to avoid a similar destruction. 

After Solomon's death the kingdom split and Ten northern tribes became The Kingdom of Israel Under Jeroboam with Benjamin and Judah  becoming the kingdom of Judah. Israel set up a new false temple(the Abominations)  and had a straight succession of evil kings.

So God was going to have them captured and dispersed by Assyria. Judah kept the temple in Jerusalem and had a mixture of Good and Bad Kings, and were eventually taken away into captivity by Babylon and returned 70 years later,

From verse 19 on the conversation (I believe) switches to the destruction of the world in the Tribulation.  For the same reason Jerusalem was eventually destroyed by the Babylonians.  They left God.

 

I do not claim to have all the answers, but by letting the bible interpret the bible. This is the conclusion that seems most likely.  You are asking me to make a conclusion that really isn't called for and it is outside of the information that  scripture gives us.

 

 

Then my question would be is there a second witness for this?  Would this be during or after trib, before or after wrath?  

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Any way, 

Isaiah 45:15 Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.

Isaiah 45:16 They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them: they shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols.

Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

Doesn't this 
 

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

seem a our of sorts with this? 
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


Does the possibility that the earth BECAME null and void or does it seem more likely it was created that way?

[DeighAnn]

19 minutes ago, Waggles said:

Genesis 4:16  Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 
17  Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. 

I agree.  When we read it as put forth (not adding any children ourselves) it is clear who was next born (and you are going to get nailed with the 'law' wasn't law yet thing but that is just a diversion from the marriage of brother to the never mentioned sibling who WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT OUT BEFORE CAIN AND ABEL? making no sense either,  AND why would CAIN need to be 'marked' for  his brothers and sisters. 

[Waggles]

Thanks, but as this thread has been hijacked by a couple of avid chatters with their banter over women in church there is no purpose in continuing the thread.

There is so much more scriptural evidence  concerning pre-Adamic peoples let alone the evidence before our eyes in archaeology and anthropology.

We have the Negroid peoples of Africa through to Melanesia; the Indo-Aryan peoples of south Asia; the Chinese peoples of eastern Asia; the indigenous peoples of the Americas; the Aryan-Caucasian peoples of the Middle East through to Europe (the greatest diversity of peoples in physical features and the famous red hair). Supposedly all these racial types "evolved" over 6,000 years from just two people who were black? white? brown? red? 

[Michael37]

2 hours ago, Waggles said:

Thanks, but as this thread has been hijacked by a couple of avid chatters with their banter over women in church there is no purpose in continuing the thread.

There is so much more scriptural evidence  concerning pre-Adamic peoples let alone the evidence before our eyes in archaeology and anthropology.

We have the Negroid peoples of Africa through to Melanesia; the Indo-Aryan peoples of south Asia; the Chinese peoples of eastern Asia; the indigenous peoples of the Americas; the Aryan-Caucasian peoples of the Middle East through to Europe (the greatest diversity of peoples in physical features and the famous red hair). Supposedly all these racial types "evolved" over 6,000 years from just two people who were black? white? brown? red? 

Humankind has always been humankind. The genetic variations are not due to any theoretical evolutionary process according to the scientists I follow.

[Waggles]

Luke 3:23  Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 
24  the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 

36  the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 
37  the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 
38  the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. 

[appy]

@Waggles

 

Scripture is silent about Abel's age at death, but Genesis 5 tells us that Adam and Eve produced many sons and daughters.

Before the flood, and immediately after the flood; the only option people had, was to intermarry. They had no other choice, but to do so.  It wasn't till Moses, that God instituted the decree of not marrying close relatives. 

Scripture does not specify that the Seth was the firstborn after Able, rather Seth's line like Abel was chosen from which eventually would produce the Messiah. In this sense, Seth, replaced Abel. It is very likely that many other children were born between Abel and Seth. And from these, would Cain's wife come from. Making her a daughter or granddaughter of Adam. So who would Cain be afraid of? They would be his own brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces, who were already born and would be capable of seeking revenge.

 

[appy]

It seems to me that a lot of Christians in general speaking, believe in evolution and are attempting to have scripture agree with the notion of evolution and to explain where Cain's wife came from instead of excepting the fact that Adam and Eve produced many sons and daughters (Genesis 5). And so, I think that these ideas are reading way, way to far between the lines.

Take it as you will or will not. The first sentence in Genesis is more of an introduction of what was soon to be spoken of. It is flatly stating that God is the creator of heaven and earth, and then scripture moves on to explain how the creation took place.

If you're thinking at this point... man, appy doesn't agree with pre-adamic people, your right I do NOT. I also do NOT believe in evolution. There is nothing wrong with science, but the revelation that comes from evolution teachings is man's attempt at explaining creation, while attempting to leave God out of the picture at the same time.

[Justin Adams]

There are some really telling Mesopotamian beliefs that in the second to third century led to the full blown gnostic doctrines. To get a really good handle on all this one must see God as the One that began it all and used it for His purposes. Often the ancient scriptures are polemics against the gods of the pantheons.

God often gives us what we crave, such as in Babel - the scatterings under the auspices of the lesser sons of God that became corrupt. (Psalm 82) (Deut 32) etc.

We see often deliberate ambiguities. It is like the Lord is giving us what we crave and to subvert His Creation is one such item. Throughout the scriptures it can be seen that God did make all that is, seen and unseen. But sometimes, due to our lusts (feeling, gnosis, alternates) some will latch on to this or that and it takes a donkey to tell us to stop because this is the wrong way to go.

The flat earth idea is a good example. I have been castigated and despised by my family for my failure to see this set of armchair facts. I have actually travelled both polar routes, and been on the other side of the world and even flew planes there. I KNOW the earth is not flat from first hand experience. But still I am vilified because the ancient texts tell us the earth is flat and the sky a dome. That was their ancient  worldview and God did not see fit to give them a 21st century understanding of physics and the other sciences. He took the writers where they were and with their worldview. We should understand that and not impose our modern views on the texts. We ought to focus on the truth propositions.

Genesis is not an exhaustive repository of all that happened early on. It is what the Lord wanted us to have and that is it. Reading things into these accounts is disingenuous at best and fallacious at worst.

 

[johnthebaptist]

8 hours ago, Riverwalker said:

In Church...not in a Church

that is what the word says.  They didn't have church buildings in Paul's time. They met in people's homes

What Paul is talking about here is not what we have come to identify as a building with pews and a steeple. but rather a gathering

"If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."