Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

[Jac3510]

How does the third mentioned son equal the third son?

If I say, "I have a daughter," does that mean that I don't have a son?

Genesis 1-2 never mentions bacteria. Does that mean that God didn't create it? Using your "literal hermeneutic," it seems to me that is the necessary conclusion, is it not?

[DannyM]

How does the third mentioned son equal the third son?

If I say, "I have a daughter," does that mean that I don't have a son?

Genesis 1-2 never mentions bacteria. Does that mean that God didn't create it? Using your "literal hermeneutic," it seems to me that is the necessary conclusion, is it not?

You can either take it as it is, or you can insert other siblings until your heart's content.

God bless

[DannyM]

How does the third mentioned son equal the third son?

If I say, "I have a daughter," does that mean that I don't have a son?

Genesis 1-2 never mentions bacteria. Does that mean that God didn't create it? Using your "literal hermeneutic," it seems to me that is the necessary conclusion, is it not?

Jac, I've been on my doghnut, pondering this, and I don't think I am taking anything literally. I could say to you, "as opposed to what?" I am just taking it as it is; if I don't take it as it is, then where do I stop? I cannot just invent a number of "possible" siblings. So I don't think it's a literal take on things, as the opposite would lead to all sorts of speculation. The narrator never saw fit to clarify anything that might have needed clarification. I am going on what we have; to do otherwise is to go into deep speculative territory.

God bless

[Jac3510]

What is the difference in "inventing" possible siblings and "inventing" an entire other race of people? The text only says that Cain was afraid of "other" people. Why is it that it is not inventing things to take it as another unmentioned race, but it is inventing to take it as other siblings (especially given the fact that, if we don't take there to be other siblings, then we have to assume that Adam only managed to have three children in 130 years)?

[warhoop]

DannyM: All you need do is count from the first mentioned son through the third mentioned son. Seth is the third mentioned son.

It is not the purpose of a biblical narrative to name all the players. In fact, to get a credit in a biblical narrative really only occurs if that person in some way shape or form contributes to the narrative, which is why you cannot go backwards through the generations to get a birthdate for the planet, there's just not enough information. Thus, despite your desire to read the bible "literally," unless you are doing your "literal" reading from the mindset of one who has comprehension of form, structure, and style of the biblical narrative, you are not actually doing a "literal" reading at all.

[DannyM]

DannyM: All you need do is count from the first mentioned son through the third mentioned son. Seth is the third mentioned son.

It is not the purpose of a biblical narrative to name all the players. In fact, to get a credit in a biblical narrative really only occurs if that person in some way shape or form contributes to the narrative, which is why you cannot go backwards through the generations to get a birthdate for the planet, there's just not enough information. Thus, despite your desire to read the bible "literally," unless you are doing your "literal" reading from the mindset of one who has comprehension of form, structure, and style of the biblical narrative, you are not actually doing a "literal" reading at all.

I do not read the bible literally; I am not a literalist. If I am being literal in reading that there are three sons, then what is your opposing view? How many siblings do you wish to insert? How can It be wrong for me to take the text as it is when there is no alternative? There is not one presupposition towards the existence of other siblings; the presupposition is towards another existent society.

Tell me - if Cain was under threat of death from other brothers and sisters, then why would God need to "mark" him? Jac didn't answer this, maybe you will... If you were sent to the land of Nod for fear of reprisals from your siblings for killing your brother, would you need a mark on your forehead for them to be able to regognise you? Surely not? Your brothers and sisters know you because...well...they are your brothers and sisters. God would simply say: "You will not take vengence upon your brother Cain, anyone of you who does this will suffer vengence seven times over." Why does Cain need a mark on his head to be regognised by his "siblings"?

I'm the last person who can be accused of being a literalist. Realist, perhaps, but not a literalist.

God bless

[warhoop]

You know, I hate it when a question is answered with a question, but sometimes I'm that guy. If you are supposing a prexistant civilization that do not know who God is, then what purpose would "the mark" serve? How would that mark save Cain from retaliation or retribution, for what else would cause Cain to fear? Indeed, why would they retaliate? They would not know Cain from Adam. (oh come on, that's a little funny)

[DannyM]

You know, I hate it when a question is answered with a question, but sometimes I'm that guy. If you are supposing a prexistant civilization that do not know who God is, then what purpose would "the mark" serve? How would that mark save Cain from retaliation or retribution, for what else would cause Cain to fear? Indeed, why would they retaliate? They would not know Cain from Adam. (oh come on, that's a little funny)

Hey Warhoop, question for a question where did I say that a coexistent creation did not know God, or who he is? I didn't. So in a way, I think this answers your question.

[warhoop]

Hey Warhoop, question for a question where did I say that a coexistent creation did not know God, or who he is? I didn't. So in a way, I think this answers your question.

Soooo... you have another civilization created by God, that knows or has a relationship with God, indeed to support your hypothesis they must know God in order for the "mark" to have any meaning. Based upon Romans 5:12, this other civilization had to have been a sinless one, but I don't really get that impression from Genesis 4:23-24. How do you reconcile these 2 thoughts?

[DannyM]

Hey Warhoop, question for a question where did I say that a coexistent creation did not know God, or who he is? I didn't. So in a way, I think this answers your question.

Soooo... you have another civilization created by God, that knows or has a relationship with God, indeed to support your hypothesis they must know God in order for the "mark" to have any meaning. Based upon Romans 5:12, this other civilization had to have been a sinless one, but I don't really get that impression from Genesis 4:23-24. How do you reconcile these 2 thoughts?

Hey Warhoop, I am ready to answer this; I am poised, fingers hovering above the keyboard ready to pounce. But before I do, could you please answer the initial dilemma I put to you, as it might have some bearing on any answer I give to the above. Thanks.

God bless

[warhoop]

Tell me - if Cain was under threat of death from other brothers and sisters, then why would God need to "mark" him?

Just so we're clear, is this the original dilemna to which you were referring?

[DannyM]

[quote="DannyM]
If you were sent to the land of Nod for fear of reprisals from your siblings for killing your brother, would you need a mark on your forehead for them to be able to regognise you? Surely not? Your brothers and sisters know you because...well...they are your brothers and sisters. God would simply say: "You will not take vengence upon your brother Cain, anyone of you who does this will suffer vengence seven times over." Why does Cain need a mark on his head to be regognised by his "siblings"?[/quote]

Yes, the above is the dilemma I was referring to. It's a little like me arranging to meet my sister at Waterloo Station, London, and saying, "I'll be the man standing under the big clock wearing a black Boss suit with a Yellow Rose in the left breast pocket." This would simply never happen; it would never *need* to happen.

God bless

[Jac3510]

It doesn't say the mark was so that they would recognize him. It was a mark to prove that God had made the command not to kill him. If Cain just said to his siblings "No, you can't kill me. God said so," how would they know he was telling the truth? God provided the mark to confirm it.

You haven't answered the dilemma that's been proposed twice to you now: if the other race of humans was not a spiritual people, then what would any mark do to deter them? Would a mark of any kind prevent a lion or bear from eating you? It presupposes that they would understand God's vengeance, which presupposes that they understand who God is. Therefore, they must have been fully spiritual humans. Are you now proposing that Adam was not the first fully spiritual man (whatever that would mean)?

Second, you never answered my last question. What is the difference in "inventing" siblings and "inventing" an entire other race of people?

[DannyM]

It doesn't say the mark was so that they would recognize him. It was a mark to prove that God had made the command not to kill him. If Cain just said to his siblings "No, you can't kill me. God said so," how would they know he was telling the truth? God provided the mark to confirm it.?

Okay, same question then: why would these "siblings" need a mark to be put upon Cain to remind them that God had said that no-one should kill Cain? Or did God not converse with these "siblings" like he did with Abel and Cain? The dilemma does not go away.

You haven't answered the dilemma that's been proposed twice to you now: if the other race of humans was not a spiritual people, then what would any mark do to deter them? Would a mark of any kind prevent a lion or bear from eating you? It presupposes that they would understand God's vengeance, which presupposes that they understand who God is. Therefore, they must have been fully spiritual humans. Are you now proposing that Adam was not the first fully spiritual man (whatever that would mean)??

Trust me, I'm not in the business of not answering questions; rather I wait for my "first-asked" questions to be attended to before returning the favour. And so long as my questions go unanswered, then well, the rest is obvious. But on this occasion I'll let yuor avoidence of my initial dilemma slide.

Why would a non-spiritual people not know what the mark meant? Is there any logical reason why a non-spiritual person not understand an order from God? And why would they have to be non-spiritual anyway? We are just summising. And how do you know that a lion or a bear would not have undestood God's command? Remember, God was very much hands-on and the animals may very well have known or understood God's word. So why the assumptions?

Second, you never answered my last question. What is the difference in "inventing" siblings and "inventing" an entire other race of people?

I do find it ammusing when accused of not answering questions by the very person who seems to not want to answer my questions I actually think I have answered this one, because the answer seems so obvious:

How am I "inventing" a coexistent people, when the bible clearly presupposes this? You are inventing siblings (even putting a number on how many of these siblings you think there mighht be) that are *not* presupposed in Genesis. There is clearly a presupposition towards an existent/coexistent/pre-existent creation, and not towards brothers and sisters of Abel and Cain. End of story, as far as I'm concerned. Just read the text - it cleary presupposes another people. So I am not inventing anything; rather it is you who is inventing and even putting a number on your invention.

God bless

[Jac3510]

Okay, same question then: why would these "siblings" need a mark to be put upon Cain to remind them that God had said that no-one should kill Cain? Or did God not converse with these "siblings" like he did with Abel and Cain? The dilemma does not go away.

Why should we believe that God talked to everyone? Are we to assume that every single person born, God would appear to them at a certain age and say, "Oh, yeah, and don't kill Cain"? For someone who likes to complain about "assuming" siblings, you sure do make a lot of assumptions yourself? Yet for some reason, your assumptions aren't really assumptions. Special pleading is a wonderful thing.

I already answered this. The reason for the mark was to confirm what God said to Cain to everyone else, whether alive at that moment or alive in the future. It's nothing the Israelites to which Moses wrote would not have related to. Remember circumcision? What was the purpose? It was a visible sign of a specific covenant between them and God. It set them apart. In the same way, the mark set Cain apart. It's perfectly contextual.

Trust me, I'm not in the business of not answering questions; rather I wait for my "first-asked" questions to be attended to before returning the favour. And so long as my questions go unanswered, then well, the rest is obvious. But on this occasion I'll let yuor avoidence of my initial dilemma slide.

I answered your question a long time ago.

Why would a non-spiritual people not know what the mark meant? Is there any logical reason why a non-spiritual person not understand an order from God? And why would they have to be non-spiritual anyway? We are just summising. And how do you know that a lion or a bear would not have undestood God's command? Remember, God was very much hands-on and the animals may very well have known or understood God's word. So why the assumptions?

Would a lion or a bear recognize some mark as a rule set down by God that if it killed Cain, then God would take vengeance on them? Isn't it fairly obvious that only a spiritual being can understand a spiritual threat? Your non-spiritual people would be no more capable of understanding a threat from God than any other animal.

I do find it ammusing when accused of not answering questions by the very person who seems to not want to answer my questions I actually think I have answered this one, because the answer seems so obvious:

If this "seems so obvious," that tells me a lot about your thought processes, my friend. I suppose I can see why you can't see what actually is obvious in the text.

How am I "inventing" a coexistent people, when the bible clearly presupposes this?

This is a circular argument. This is, apparently, why you can't see the fault in your position. The Bible could just as well presuppose siblings.

You are inventing siblings (even putting a number on how many of these siblings you think there mighht be) that are *not* presupposed in Genesis.

Again, circular for the same reason as above. What EVIDENCE do you have that siblings are not what is presupposed? What evidence do you have that another race of people is what IS presupposed?

There is clearly a presupposition towards an existent/coexistent/pre-existent creation

Evidence?

and not towards brothers and sisters of Abel and Cain.

Evidence?

End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

Circular argument

Just read the text - it cleary presupposes another people. So I am not inventing anything; rather it is you who is inventing and even putting a number on your invention.

[/quote]
I ran the numbers on what a potential population would be. I don't know how many there were. I said there could have been hundreds and I proved it was possible. The ASSUMPTION is on your part:

1. That Adam and Eve didn't procreate in the same way we do now (evidence?)
2. That there was, instead, a preexisting people (evidence?)

Your special pleading and circular arguments tell me a lot about your ability to reason properly, Danny. Just saying "clearly" a lot doesn't prove your point. You've provided no evidence. Do you not realize that offering a possible reading is not the same thing as offering evidence for that reading? The evidence for my position is as follows:

1. Nowhere in the Bible is any other race of humans mentioned;
2. Genesis 1-2 never states that two classes of humans were created, one spiritual and one non-spiritual, but only that mankind was made in God's image;
3. The murder happened when Adam was around 130 years old. There is no reason in the text to suppose that humans did not procreate normally (against this, God tells them expressly to be fruitful and multiply, implying that procreation would have been normal, if not particularly easy!), that is, as they do today. In fact, there is nothing anywhere in the entire Bible that suggests the methods of procreation have changed. Thus, it is highly likely that a large number of people would have been born to Adam and his children and grand children
4. The text nowhere says that Seth was the third son, only that he was the replacement for Abel. It is an ASSUMPTION to say that he was the THIRD son. The text simply does not say that, so there is no warrant for making that claim.
5. Cain was worried that other people would kill him--the word "kill" (Heb. harag) is used only of one man killing another, as in homicide. Animals don't harag. People do, which means Cain was afraid of other people--spiritual people. That could only be from his father's family.
6. The mark on Cain presumes that the people would not kill Cain due to their recognition of a divine threat, which presupposes their ability to understand the divine, which presupposes their own spirituality. Thus, again, we see the people that Cain feared had to be from his father's family.
7. The people to whom Moses wrote were very familiar with revenge killing. Likewise, Cain was afraid of revenge killing, not general murder. The only people who could avenge Abel were his family. People outside of Abel's family (immediate or extended) would in no way by taking "revenge." Heck, if there was an entirely different species of people (some non-spiritual humans, whatever that would mean), there would be no more need to take revenge than we take revenge on a lion who kills a zebra.
8. The text itself DOES presuppose siblings, because Cain took HIS WIFE (4:17), which could not have come from a non-spiritual race of humans (that would imply that Cain's children were a mix of spiritual and non-spiritual; again, the Bible knows nothing of this). Thus, Cain's wife had to be from Adam's family, which proves Adam had other children. If he had girls, why not other boys as well? Or who is to say that the women might not have tried to kill him?

In light of all this, we have overwhelming reason to believe that Cain was afraid of his own siblings. You are inventing an entirely different race of people that the Bible knows nothing about. I mean, CLEARLY, that's the case.

So, would you care to provide any evidence for your claim?