Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anyone from this forum..?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Hisw View Post
    it bother me because incest is wrong and the children, scientifically would not be healthy babies(pardon me if i am wrong on this one)
    Not that it necessarily took place, and understanding the cultural and theological implications of having such as some part of early family models, incest was not proscribed until much later in the unfolding plan of God; and as to genetic health, the gene pool would have been almost at its purest form within the first family, so the genetic abnormalities of later imbreeding would not be a factor at this early stage of transfering genetic material from one generation to another.

    In other words, though the Bible does not say where Cain's wife originated (though extrabiblical apocryphal texts indicate one of his unnamed sisters), it is indeed theologically distasteful to think it may have been his sister, though there would not have been the bio-genetic health concerns of later generations.

    Just as the Bible says is true of the words and actions of Jesus ("Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." -John 21:25), not all God has done is recorded for us in the Scriptures, and there are many questions we have which God has chosen not to answer for us at this time.

    With the Bible's silence on the matter I don't rule out other possibilities, and any speculations ought to be viewed in the light of God's purposeful silence, but I don't see why we could not entertain that perhaps God created a wife for Cain just as He did for Adam. However, one of the difficulties with such a theory, particularly as it touches the orthodox Christian teaching of Original Sin, is speculation as to whether or not such a new creative act would have rendered her (the wife) in a sinless state similar to Adam and Eve before the Fall (with God creating her as "very good"), or whether, being perhaps again "taken from" the man (Cain), she would have also partaken of his already present sinful state or nature.

    Comment


    • #17
      Abraham's wife Sarah is explained in the Bible to be his half-sister by blood (that is, they shared one parent) and God did not directly denounce it, so it's not "wrong" to suggest that Cain's wife was most likely his whole-sister by blood.

      Something I always wonder: why do people always ask "Who was Cain's wife?" yet never seem to wonder about Seth's wife?
      To This Day

      Comment


      • #18
        It has to be Cain's sister for the following reason:-

        And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. Gen 3:20 NKJV

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 9Marksfan View Post
          It has to be Cain's sister for the following reason:-

          And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. Gen 3:20 NKJV
          She wasn't Adam's mother and he was "living".

          That Cain and Seth married their sisters can only be referenced in the book of Jubilees and that isn't a reliable book.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Teke View Post
            She wasn't Adam's mother and he was "living".
            If you're going to be that picky, she wasn't mother to herself either!

            The thing is, we're told how Adam was born - he didn't have a mother!

            That Cain and Seth married their sisters can only be referenced in the book of Jubilees and that isn't a reliable book.
            It can also be deduced from what we are told in Genesis 2, 3 and 4.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 9Marksfan View Post
              It can also be deduced from what we are told in Genesis 2, 3 and 4.

              Genesis 5:4 mentions that Adam fathered sons and daughters.

              I found the Books of Adam and Eve quite touching. Not sure, but the Book of Jasher may also mention about the sons and daughters marrying each other as well. Since it was the beginning of humankind, obviously incest was not an issue until later on.

              Blessings.
              "A text without context is a pretext."

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Clifton View Post
                Genesis 5:4 mentions that Adam fathered sons and daughters.
                Sorry, meant to include ch5!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by markedward View Post
                  Then there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads as they stood with lowered wings. Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.
                  Pre-incarnate, though, arguably, it may be how He appears to man. His eternally existent being, I would think, transcends physical description.
                  Thankees
                  Exactly, and even at that point ( I was suggesting Before creation), the terms are "like that of a man",
                  "appeared to be his waist up" ..It seems they are not quite certain what they are seeing or how to describe.
                  Now to back-up before there was anything capable of beholding such a sight. I find it hard to imagine that
                  God was a Man-like form floating out there in a Void of nothingness.
                  Yes, transcends physical description. Perhaps - "transcends physical" -> period.
                  I mean, this is((God)) we talking about.

                  When I read the "Let Us make man in Our image," I don't think it refers so much to a physical image, but rather to the spiritual image. We are, after all, the only earthly creatures with spiritual awareness.
                  I mostly agree there, Not only that, I understand it as a direct testament that we Are Indeed in the very physical form
                  that God 'imagined' us to look like. His 'vision' of what Mans 'physical appearance' will be. God's Image!
                  Not some final step of Macro evolution. and Not ..Oh! He must look like us.

                  Again, I speculate - 'Before' man was created.
                  In whatever way we could have 'visualized/described' God (IF we ever could have) -
                  would He really have Gender ? Be of Gender ? I mean, not how man has always imagined God to be,
                  But, putting our(mans) arrogance/ignorance aside, Was God indisputably "male" ?
                  ...or None of the above (dual or genderless)?


                  ... this is hard to put to words for me. and I'm not trying to bend anyones mind anyway or other. It just that this subject Is important to many people, but always leads to just tossing scripture back and forth, which obviously, never answers the questions. These are questions asked by many, yet they may be questions we Can answer. right under our noses.
                  I sure won't claim to know.

                  .
                  .
                  .
                  .
                  "Let no man deceive you"

                  I also am "man" - this includes myself !

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Clifton View Post
                    Ditto on Mark's response... I'll further add a scripture reference:

                    “After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.” (Genesis 5:4 NKJV)

                    Blessings.
                    The only other thought that would make sense to me would be, that Cain might have married a niece. Probably a sister though. I don't see what the problem is with this. At that time mankind had not "de-evolved" () to the sickly physical folks we are now. There were no bad genes to worry about giving a kid a double portion of.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by IamBill View Post
                      Again, I speculate - 'Before' man was created.
                      In whatever way we could have 'visualized/described' God (IF we ever could have) -
                      would He really have Gender ? Be of Gender ? I mean, not how man has always imagined God to be,
                      But, putting our(mans) arrogance/ignorance aside, Was God indisputably "male" ?
                      ...or None of the above (dual or genderless)?
                      Jesus called Him "Father". Sounds male to me...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Buck shot View Post
                        Jesus called Him "Father". Sounds male to me...
                        Jesus also referred to Himself with the analogy of a mother hen gathering her chicks.

                        Hosea described God as a mother bear robbed of "her" cubs.

                        Isaiah calls God a "mother" that "comforts her child" and also to a "woman" with a "nursing child."

                        God, through Jeremiah, equates the people making offerings to the "queen of heaven" with them having made offerings to God Himself.

                        The term "helper" that is applied to Eve in Genesis is used most often otherwise in reference to God.

                        No I'm not saying God is "female." But it should seem obvious that God is described in both masculine and feminine characteristics, and that He Himself transcends gender. If "there is neither male nor female" for humans beings who are united in Christ, how much moreso that Christ, and even God Himself, is neither male nor female.
                        To This Day

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by markedward View Post
                          Jesus also referred to Himself with the analogy of a mother hen gathering her chicks.

                          Hosea described God as a mother bear robbed of "her" cubs.

                          Isaiah calls God a "mother" that "comforts her child" and also to a "woman" with a "nursing child."

                          God, through Jeremiah, equates the people making offerings to the "queen of heaven" with them having made offerings to God Himself.
                          Jeremiah 44:25Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.
                          26Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. 27Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them.

                          These were not offerings to God but to false gods. Notice the punishment!

                          The term "helper" that is applied to Eve in Genesis is used most often otherwise in reference to God.

                          No I'm not saying God is "female." But it should seem obvious that God is described in both masculine and feminine characteristics, and that He Himself transcends gender. If "there is neither male nor female" for humans beings who are united in Christ, how much moreso that Christ, and even God Himself, is neither male nor female.
                          Even the angels (which are neither male or female) are seen as men. God is always refered to as He in the Bible. To be making Him into anything else is not scriptural. I agree that He posseses all attributes but we do not need to start thinking of the Almighty God as an it or he/she. HE is the great I AM.
                          Genesis 19: 15And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. 16And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Buck shot View Post
                            Jeremiah 44:25Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.
                            26Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. 27Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them.

                            These were not offerings to God but to false gods. Notice the punishment!
                            Hm, this was my mistake then. Thanks for point this out - looks like I misread it.

                            Even the angels (which are neither male or female) are seen as men. God is always refered to as He in the Bible. To be making Him into anything else is not scriptural. I agree that He posseses all attributes but we do not need to start thinking of the Almighty God as an it or he/she. HE is the great I AM.
                            I never said God was an "it," and I never said He was a "he/she." I said that He transcends gender.

                            What is it that makes a male a male? A physical body with male reproductive organs. What is it that makes a female a female? A physical body with female reproductive organs. Jesus stated that He was not a spirit because He had "flesh and bones." He also referred to God as "spirit." If God is a spiritual being in His very nature, He doesn't have "flesh and bones." That would most certainly include the defining physical traits of what makes a persona a male and female.

                            If God has no male or female reproductive organs, it seems to me that He is neither male nor female, and that we refer to Him with terms such as "He" or "Him" out of ease of understanding that He is a living being and not an "it."

                            It's almost as if you ignored the final paragraph of my previous post.
                            To This Day

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by IamBill View Post
                              BEFORE Jesus was made flesh, What do you think God looked like ?
                              He looked like a tree. Jesus was the "Tree of Life".
                              In Christ,

                              -- Rev

                              “To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.” – Daniel Webster, 4th of July, 1800, Oration at Hanover, N.H.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                There are rational reasons as to why incest wasn't forbidden in the book of Genesis. First, as time goes on, the genetic risk of marrying a close relative grows. Second, incest prohibits God's plan to unify mankind in love. Cross-family marriage is the best way to break down barriers between clans.

                                In Cain's day the genetic issue needn't have been present AND in-family-marriage was not detrimental to the love & unity of mankind.
                                The Matthew Never Knew
                                The Knew Kingdom

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X