Who did Cain and Abel Marry?

[buttercup]

Maybe they just mated with apes :p

Attached files

[Ted]

weber:-6

The big bang and evolution are how I see it as well. I think you are right on.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

buttercup:-6

LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Raven]

Ted;447375 wrote: weber:-6



No slight was intended. I was trying to show that one must learn to discern what they are reading. You have one of the most important skills for that, a good dose of common sense. Put that together with our knowledge base, our culture, our history etc. and you are on the right track.



Many folks can write what appears to make sense. That is why I go to the people in the know, the scholars, whose work has been scruitinized by other scholars.



A good example is what I learned last night. In Hebrew the word "Dabhar" is mistranslated as "word" as in John's gospel the first chapter. What it actually meant in the ancient days was "the Divine Creative Energy". When you put that to John ! it can and does change the whole way it is interpreted. I do hope I learn something new everyday. It makes life exciting.



Shalom

Ted:-6
I have also read where the serpent said to Eve in the garden "you will not die!" Well......guess what? Why do you always insist on calling God a liar?

[Ted]

Raven:-6

Oh?

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Raven]

Ted honey, dont you think the Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of teaching what is true?

Who do you think is the better teacher? Man or GOD?

[Ted]

Raven:-6

The Divine is of course a much better teacher. I'm really not sure how that would suggest that I am calling God a liar, which I have never done.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Raven]

Ted;448175 wrote: Raven:-6



The Divine is of course a much better teacher. I'm really not sure how that would suggest that I am calling God a liar, which I have never done.



Shalom

Ted:-6
Yes you do. Every time someone mentions scripture, which we are to believe with the eyes of faith, you baldly, flat out say that it's not true. It's folk lore. It's legend. It's myth. It's metaphore. It's MIDRASH!

Satan said the same thing to Eve.

[Ted]

Raven:-6

Satan said the same thing to Eve! Really.

I have never said the Bible is not true. You see you are all hung up on the idea that unless something is historically accurate it is not true. Such a position is pure nonsense.

Parables are true they simply aren't historical events other than the telling of the parable which is a story presenting a truth.

That the Bible presents profound truths is unquestionable. Those truths come in many forms including myth, legend, folk tale etc. Teachers are well aware of the power of parable and myth for the teaching of truths.

As human beings we lack any language that could even come close to describing or defining the Divine. The only thing we have is metaphor. Look at the parables of Jesus: "The kingdom of God is like . . .? Fill in with whatever parable you like. Then we also have the parables about Jesus.

I refuse to commit idolatry by equating the Bible with God. The "word" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew "Dabhar" which in fact means "The Divine creative energy. Once we understand that and place it in the Bible both OT and NT it changes quite profoundly the meanings of what you read, for instance John 1.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Raven]

Ted;448190 wrote: Raven:-6



Satan said the same thing to Eve! Really.



I have never said the Bible is not true. You see you are all hung up on the idea that unless something is historically accurate it is not true. Such a position is pure nonsense.



Parables are true they simply aren't historical events other than the telling of the parable which is a story presenting a truth.



That the Bible presents profound truths is unquestionable. Those truths come in many forms including myth, legend, folk tale etc. Teachers are well aware of the power of parable and myth for the teaching of truths.



As human beings we lack any language that could even come close to describing or defining the Divine. The only thing we have is metaphor. Look at the parables of Jesus: "The kingdom of God is like . . .? Fill in with whatever parable you like. Then we also have the parables about Jesus.



I refuse to commit idolatry by equating the Bible with God. The "word" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew "Dabhar" which in fact means "The Divine creative energy. Once we understand that and place it in the Bible both OT and NT it changes quite profoundly the meanings of what you read, for instance John 1.



Shalom

Ted:-6
The divine creative 'energy' of which you speak, also told us HIS NAME! He does have one you know...And by speaking to His prophets is how we came to KNOW it!

[Ted]

Raven:-6

The Divine creative energy has thousands of names. One Hebrew name is Elohim, another is Yhwh and a third is "I am".

The name Yhwy has been traced back to and ancient arabic storm god. Any names we give to the Divine One are names that we have created. J. Meek "Hebrew Origins".

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Raven]

Not according to the bible. Ted, why dont you ever quote scripture to prove your midrashic point?

We didnt give Jesus His name. And we didnt name God, YHWH. HE said HIS name. "I AM." We were the ones to insert LORD and Father, because HIS name is to be feared with reverence and trembling. As is HIS due! Jehovah is the greek version. Only in latin it begins with an I. We did NOT name HIM.

[Ted]

Raven:-6

I will stand by what I have said.

The name Jehovah is a mistranslation of Yhwh just as "Dabhar" is mistranslated into "word".

I have ultimate faith in the Divine. I do not have ultimate faith in the words of man.

Of course we didn't name Jesus. His mother did. Jesus is the Greek translation for Joshua. There have been many Joshuas throughout history. In fact I have a grandson named Joshua.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[charles_r51]

Ted;448262 wrote: Raven:-6

I will stand by what I have said.

The name Jehovah is a mistranslation of Yhwh just as "Dabhar" is mistranslated into "word".

I have ultimate faith in the Divine. I do not have ultimate faith in the words of man.

Of course we didn't name Jesus. His mother did. Jesus is the Greek translation for Joshua. There have been many Joshuas throughout history. In fact I have a grandson named Joshua.

Shalom

Ted:-6


ted,

shouldn't it actually be yeshua, the hebrew word for joshua?:-4:-4

[charles_r51]

rainbowsmiles;420903 wrote: I know this is probably an old question for some but it recently came up in a group where we were discussing religions of the world. The topic of Cain and Abel and who they married came up and whether or not we are all descended from Adam and Eve. My personal view is that we are not. One of the people involved in our group is a Christian and regularly attends Bible study and she asked me to point out in the bible why I believe we are not all descended from Adam and Eve. This is the scripture I used:

Genesis 4:13-15

Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me. But the Lord said to him, "Not so, if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

Her question was "then who did Cain and Abel marry" if Adam and Eve were the only people on earth? My point was that Cain and Abel were the FIRST man and woman created but not the only ones. Just because God created Adam and Eve did not mean he didn't create more people after. The scripture, I believe, backs up my beliefs.

I'm curious as to what others think of that scripture.

I forgot to say, it also, I believe, backs up my belief that some of us could be descended from other groups and not just Adam and Eve.


ted.

just curious, but in reading this first post on this subject , i noticed that you wrote "cain and abel were the first man and woman created". anyone else catch the error? i know what you meant, but i'm curious about how careful the readers of these posts are. :-4

[Ted]

charles:-6

rotator cuff repair.



Early Hebrew--no vowels.

ted

[Bryn Mawr]

Ted;451715 wrote: charles:-6

rotator cuff repair.



Early Hebrew--no vowels.

ted


Welcome back

How did it go? How long a recovery?

[Ted]

Bryn Mawr

Typing is lousy so is comp operation.

I was told to expect to be trussed up tight for a few weeks at least.

Thanks

Ted

[Bryn Mawr]

Ted;451729 wrote: Bryn Mawr

Typing is lousy so is comp operation.

I was told to expect to be trussed up tight for a few weeks at least.

Thanks

Ted


I hope it's not too painful for you.

And I hope it's fully fixed when they let you loose :-6

[charles_r51]

Ted;451715 wrote: charles:-6

rotator cuff repair.



Early Hebrew--no vowels.

ted


ouch! those cuffs can hurt.

cain and able, adam and eve. just seems odd they'd spell them the same-even in hebrew without vowels. that or you just typed with one arm:) :-4

[Ted]

charles

first man woman and children were myths. they never existed as far as that story goes.

ted:-6

[charles_r51]

Ted;451740 wrote: charles

first man woman and children were myths. they never existed as far as that story goes.

ted:-6


what? no first couple? there goes the neighborhood. guess i gotta believe in evolution since i at least had some forebears- but monkeys? why not porpoises, or bigfoot? or even platipusses? but monkeys?:wah: :wah:

[Ted]

charles

i'll be monkey's uncle! LOL

Ted

[charles_r51]

Ted;451776 wrote: charles

i'll be monkey's uncle! LOL

Ted


does god have a complaint department? i wanna file a complaint about this monkey business. sounds like he goofed up, like he did with the avocado pits. :-4

[Ted]

charles

LOL

ted

[charles_r51]

Ted;451824 wrote: charles

LOL

ted


it may be time to change this direction. who did cain marry anyway? able died and i don't ever remember him getting hitched. or did he? :-3 :-4

[guppy]

who cares, the moral of the story is far more important. it taught that greed and deciet caused hate and mistrust among the brothers. if you dont get anything out of it, get the fact that parents have a big impact on how their kids turn out. imho.

[charles_r51]

guppy;451962 wrote: who cares, the moral of the story is far more important. it taught that greed and deciet caused hate and mistrust among the brothers. if you dont get anything out of it, get the fact that parents have a big impact on how their kids turn out. imho.


not greed and deceit, but jealosy, was the reason cain killed able. cain's offering was not acceptable while able's was. cain's jealosy made him strike out and resulted in the death of able.:driving: :driving:

[skeeter2]

I don't have my Bible right in front of me but as I recall Cain went to live in the land of Nod...that would of course indicate to me that there were people there and I have thought that they were the decendants of the evil angels that were kicked out of heaven when Satan lost his battle in heaven to be "better and stronger than God"...he took a third of the angels and I feel that they are the ones that populated Nod and some of the other little places but since WE are not of Satans line then it stands to reason that we carry the genes of Adam and Eve since they were the first that God made on earth..the others would have been the angels that got kicked out...known as the children of man.......I could get really confused here without reading it freshly but to me that is the way it went and those that were from the dethroned angels were the huge men that were tsk,tsk,tsk, bad angels....I too believe that the Bible is unerring and it explains itself..I believe it was written by the Holy Spirit and so no mistakes were made, if you find mistakes or things that make you question its validity then they were human mistakes as God is perfect and unable to make mistakes. Amen.

[charles_r51]

skeeter2;456268 wrote: I don't have my Bible right in front of me but as I recall Cain went to live in the land of Nod...that would of course indicate to me that there were people there and I have thought that they were the decendants of the evil angels that were kicked out of heaven when Satan lost his battle in heaven to be "better and stronger than God"...he took a third of the angels and I feel that they are the ones that populated Nod and some of the other little places but since WE are not of Satans line then it stands to reason that we carry the genes of Adam and Eve since they were the first that God made on earth..the others would have been the angels that got kicked out...known as the children of man.......I could get really confused here without reading it freshly but to me that is the way it went and those that were from the dethroned angels were the huge men that were tsk,tsk,tsk, bad angels....I too believe that the Bible is unerring and it explains itself..I believe it was written by the Holy Spirit and so no mistakes were made, if you find mistakes or things that make you question its validity then they were human mistakes as God is perfect and unable to make mistakes. Amen.
while i respect your committment to your religious beliefs, you yourself state that first, it is an unerring book, then turn around and say if mistakes were made, they were mhuman mistakes. that in itself ttells me that you don't know which case is true. it either is or isn't unerring, there cannot be any errors if it is written by "the holy spirit" but since it was, is, and always will be determined to be an editted version in printed form, the material is erroroneous simply because men, not the holy spirit transalate it from one language to another. the meaning of a single word may have one definition today, but had a differennt meaning in the past as well as having had varying meanoings depending on the context that a single word is used in. manypeople believe in biblical inerrancy, but in any translated work, errors are made. the bible is from many translated works and depending on which version you acccept, the differences exist.

whether one reads the vulgate, the king james, the roman catholic, the jerusalem or whether from english, german, latin, chinese or greek orthodox, the differences are there. if there were no differences then there would be a "book written by the holy spirit" but those differences are there so no such book "written by the holy spirit" exists. to make any such claim is to deny the facts, and history itself.:-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

Magenta flame;456430 wrote: I think you have to understand that people of the ancient of dayslived many years longer than we . The bible states when this longevity came to an end after the flood. Before this though people lived to 900 years of age . By the time Cain and able married they would have been a great deal 'removed' from their wives.

Some claim that the human life span was not really so long back then and that the years mentioned in the Bible account were really months. Well, consider the case of Mahalalel. The Bible says: "Mahalalel lived on for sixty-five years. Then he became father to Jared. . . . All the days of Mahalalel amounted to eight hundred and ninety-five years and he died." (Genesis 5:15-17) If a year means a month, Mahalalel fathered his son when only five years old! People then were closer to the perfect vitality of the first man, Adam. They really did live for centuries.

Many centuries before the Flood, earth's population had grown to such an extent that Adam's son Cain was able to build a city, which he called Enoch. (Genesis 4:17) Down through the pre-Flood ages, a variety of industries developed. There were forges for "every sort of tool of copper and iron." (Genesis 4:22) Doubtless these tools were used for construction, carpentry, tailoring, and agriculture. All these trades are referred to in the accounts of the earth's earliest human inhabitants.
enoch, if you read the works about him, was a person, not a place. and in those works, he is given much to accomplish, but beijng a city was not one of them. it also states in genesis that enoch "walked with god" and since cities don't move anbout, it is clear that he was an individual.

as for how long a year was, one must remeber that a thousand years was a day, and a day as a thousand years to the lord.

this tells us one very importnt thing. time is irrelevant to the lord. not being fixed, time should be examined as something fluid and it was of little importance to people of the day, it being more important to explain some aspect, not define it for those who seek to understand the reasoning in giving instruction to those who were to follow.:-4 :-4

[Bryn Mawr]

Magenta flame;456430 wrote: I think you have to understand that people of the ancient of dayslived many years longer than we . The bible states when this longevity came to an end after the flood. Before this though people lived to 900 years of age . By the time Cain and able married they would have been a great deal 'removed' from their wives.




The time period involved does not actually change the situation.

If you consider the family tree :-

Adam = Eve

|

,----------------------------,--------------------,-----------------,

Cain Abel XXX YYY



then, regardless of the timescale involved, either there were other people in the world or Cain (and Able or any later siblings) had children with Eve or with one of their sisters - there is no other way to get to a third generation.

So were there people in the world not of the line of Adam and Eve or was incest allowed before the flood?

[Bryn Mawr]

charles_r51;456711 wrote: enoch, if you read the works about him, was a person, not a place. and in those works, he is given much to accomplish, but beijng a city was not one of them. it also states in genesis that enoch "walked with god" and since cities don't move anbout, it is clear that he was an individual.

as for how long a year was, one must remeber that a thousand years was a day, and a day as a thousand years to the lord.

this tells us one very importnt thing. time is irrelevant to the lord. not being fixed, time should be examined as something fluid and it was of little importance to people of the day, it being more important to explain some aspect, not define it for those who seek to understand the reasoning in giving instruction to those who were to follow.:-4 :-4


I think you'll find Enoch was both :-

Early translations instead stated that he departed "to the Land of Nod", which is generally considered a mistranslation of the Hebrew word Nod, meaning wandering. Despite being cursed to wander Cain is later mentioned as fathering a lineage of children, and founding a city, which he named Enoch after the name of his son.

[weber]

[QUOTE=Bryn Mawr;457077]The time period involved does not actually change the situation.

If you consider the family tree :-

Adam = Eve

|

,----------------------------,--------------------,-----------------,

Cain Abel XXX YYY



then, regardless of the timescale involved, either there were other people in the world or Cain (and Able or any later siblings) had children with Eve or with one of their sisters - there is no other way to get to a third generation.

So were there people in the world not of the line of Adam and Eve or was incest allowed before the flood?[/QUOTE

It wasn't called incest then. It didn't have to be. The gene pool was pristine. After many, perhaps hundreds of years of family marriage, the gene pool was not at all pristine and a halt was called to intermarriage, or marriage within family and the closer the family, the more dangerous to have unhealthy children. I don't know a whole lot, but it makes sense to me.

[charles_r51]

Bryn Mawr;457077 wrote: The time period involved does not actually change the situation.

If you consider the family tree :-

Adam = Eve

|

,----------------------------,--------------------,-----------------,

Cain Abel XXX YYY



then, regardless of the timescale involved, either there were other people in the world or Cain (and Able or any later siblings) had children with Eve or with one of their sisters - there is no other way to get to a third generation.

So were there people in the world not of the line of Adam and Eve or was incest allowed before the flood?
it was quite impossible for able to father children when cain was sent to the land of nod, or sent wandering for that matter, since he was dead. yes adam and eve bore other children but that too, is irrelevant since it states quite clearly that all life, human, that is, except for noah, his wife , this three sons, and their wives were all that were left of humanity. to claim anything else is to claim that not all humanity had been killed in the flood. thyere being only four pairs, the gene pool would have been insufficient to sustain a viable humanity. regardless of how many children each had, the inbreeding, if calculated from those four pairs, would require morew progeny and more than several generations of them, than was possible to reach the sustainable level of the period from 4500 bc .

literal translations are quite popular, but are regarded as simplistic and not reflective of what was actually occuuring.

cain , according to genesis, only had one brother, before being sent away, but adam and eve did have another son, seth, or ham, i believe, but at no time are sisters mentioned. a literal translation therefore cannot account for any other people unless one reads something into the book, which under literalism, cannot be done. for that , cain could not have taken a wife since adam and eve both died without having any girl children. ther is, however a phrase in genesis which states that adam and eve were not individuals, but a people. if that were the case, cain would also have been a people sent out to wander, which may very well be the nomadic peoples of the rgion as derived through archeological, and historical records going back to a time before adam and eve could have lived. they are also, according to sumerian and babylonian texts, very much similar to the prgenitors of those civilizations which date back before the egyptians.

additionally, many other civilizations mention much of the biblical narratives and are known to be pre-hebraic, hence,pre-biblical in origin and some speculate that the bible was just a more modernistic re-telling of earlier works since those earlier works contain variations of the biblical narratives in the book of genesis.

additionally, civilizations known to have no contact or source for biblical historical narratives mention many of the same story lines and even make many of the same claims as in the biblical narratives.

whether they are from one source seems problematic to some, but such evidence cannot be denied just because it was written in the bible. it more likely indicates that some larger civilization was around and the sources can be attributed to the remnants of that civilization having been scatterred over tha numerous continents which seem to have been left.

one can argue that all things have a simngle source, but what, where, when, and how that source became scatterred over the whole globe has to be part of the conclusion, and not a point of contention.:-4 :guitarist