Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Regarding (1), I'm not sure what either my or your opinion of the NIV has to do with the discussion..

Neither am I

Jac3510 wrote:Regarding (3), no, Paul says "the first MAN, Adam." Look at the Greek. You can do so yourself here. You will be able to follow it even if you don't read Greek...

Yes, "...the first man Adam..." - my apologies - so Paul concurs with Gen 2: 7, and which I have no problem with at all. Indeed, from the start I have expressed my belief that the man Adam gave man a living soul.

Jac3510 wrote:Regarding (4), because Adam is the "first" man, as you are so fond of pointing out. If there were other people before Adam, then he either would not have been the first, or they would not have been men (that is, mankind). Yet Christ is the savior of MAN (anthropos). He's the savior of the Adamic race....

I don't understand your thinking here, Jac...? The man Adam gave mankind a living soul, Christ is the saviour of all mankind. What if we were to look at Gen 1 as the "prior spirit creation"... would that wash with you?

Jac3510 wrote:I appreciate your kind words with regard to the blog. But, no worries, a solution is not impossible because while there is little expansion, there is the presence of exclusive language (look, again, at 1 Cor 15:45, as already described).....

It was a pleasure to read, Jac.

I think a solution is impossible, Jac, as the author never saw fit to elaborate, and we are left with the impreession that Cain is the only existent sibling left on the earth. The third son, Seth, came when Adam was 130 years of age "...After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters..." So we get to Gen 5 before we are informed of Seth, and then the folloow on of other brothers and sisters. I believe the narrative of Cain in Gen 4, if we are looking for a solution, has to lead us to believe of co-existent people.

Jac3510 wrote:(3) Disagree. What evidence do you have of this? Do you have a text that says he was the only other sibling? And even if he were, how would this matter, for could not future children have had just as much desire to avenge Abel's death as anyone else, especially given your idea that non-Adamic people could have been so incensed by the event!

No, but alternately do you have a text that says there are other siblings? Or even a passage to vaguely suggest this? The narrative more than vaguely hints to a co-existent people.

Jac3510 wrote:(4) "There must have been" are very strong words. Where do you get that idea? It is certainly not true that there must have been. You've presented no argument to the case at all. The best you've provided is an incredulity based on your rejection of early incest, which we gave a plausible explanation a long time ago.!

I think my argument has gone beyond the "incest" question - it doesn't really trouble me as I believe incest wasn't necessary - and focuses entirely on the suggestion of the narrative. I seems clear to me that the narrative presupposes another existent people. If it seems clear to be, but not to you, then perhaps we should have a cup of coffee together, call it a truce, and chat about something else

Jac3510 wrote:(Your conclusion, then, is unwarranted. For something to be plausible--and certainly more plausible than another position--it has to best fit the evidence. The straight-forward reading of the text provides prima facie evidence for the traditional understanding, and the history of interpretation proves that to be the case, and 1 Cor 15:45 shows that Paul took this passage the traditional way as well. Against this, you have the objection to insect . . . that hardly counts as "more plausible."

Paul, I believe, is simply reading it the way I am reading it. The man Adam is the first spiritual man, the first of God's chosen. Back to the Cain narrative, I believe my take on this is far more plausible. I really don't see any suggestion or hint of other brothers and sisters. I'm not trying to fit scripture to my interpretation, rather I'm giving my interpretation to scripture, and i can't see how my interpretation is less rational than yours.

Jac3510 wrote:(Now, you may say, "Granted my lack of evidence, I still prefer to believe this for moral reasons." That's fine. It's not exactly rational. It's an emotional reading of the text. It's what you want it to say (or, in this case, not say), but that's fine. I can't tell you how the text looks to you. But when talking about more objective issues such as what is more plausible, then you simply are incorrect on this.

I disagree- rationality is the name of the game, and I believe I'm being perfectly rational

Jac3510 wrote:(Finally, a note about Gman's oddball source . . . 1 Cor 15:47 does refer to Christ as the "second man," but that is in context of 1 Cor 15:45, not the other way around. What Paul is doing is painting a theological picture. For him, there are only two men: Adam and Christ. Those who are "in Adam" will perish (see 1 Cor 15:22 which is in the context!), whereas those who are "in Christ" will live. In any case, 15:45 still stands. Mankind is distinguished from the individual Adam, and Paul goes out of his way to state that Adam was the first human being in that he quotes, and modifies, Gen 2:7. Adam, then, was the first man, which means that there were no other civilizations.

Gotcha! I see how you mean in terms of the "second man". I'm sorry to labour the point, but Adam, for me, is the first of God's chosen people. I could easily read this your way, and it would perhaps be tempting if it were not for the presupposition of other existent human beings. This doesn't mean I'm skewing scripture to fit my view, it means that yes, 1 Corinth 15: 45 makes me pause, but this one passage alone, erroneously tied in with Gen 2: 7, cannot be presented as the killer quote to disprove what Genesis 1 and 2 appears to suggest. But hey, I could be completely upside down on this whole issue, Jac.

God bless

Danny wrote:Neither am I

Then one of us has lost the other. Let me remind you of how this part of the exchange has gone:

• Jac: Argues Danny is wrong about 1 Cor 15:45 for at least four reasons: "1. The passage uses the definite article--it is THE first man, not A first man. Paul is speaking absolutely."
  Danny: Argues Danny may not be wrong; counters four reasons: "1. The NIV: "So it is written (Paul is not making a theological statement: Paul is reiterating Genesis 2: 7), 'the first Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life giving spirit." The NIV, for me, is the most thorough and conscientious compilation ever undertaken"
  Jac: Replies to Danny's rebuttal: "I'm not sure what either my or your opinion of the NIV has to do with the discussion."

My entire point was about Greek grammar--the definite article requires Adam to be the first human being (anthropos); to this, you replied by quoting the NIV and acclaimed its accuracy. In any case, it turns out that you misquoted the NIV anyway. Let's put yours and theirs side by side:

• NIV: So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
  Danny: "So it is written, 'the first Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life giving spirit.'

Notice that you left out the word "man", which the NIV includes. Perhaps you were actually quoting the TNIV, which I believe does leave it out. In any case, to leave out the word "man" is a mistranslation. The second point, which I will emphasize below, is that the word "man" here is more literally "human being." The word for "male" is aner. The word we are using is anthropos, meaning, "human."

Yes, "...the first man Adam..." - my apologies - so Paul concurs with Gen 2: 7, and which I have no problem with at all. Indeed, from the start I have expressed my belief that the man Adam gave man a living soul.

It doesn't appear that you have compared Gen 2:7 with 1 Cor 15:45. I mentioned this earlier, but perhaps it got lost in the discussion, so let me do it for you.

• 1 Cor 15:45 - houtos kai gegraptai, "egeneto ho protos anthropos adam eis psuchen zosan, ho eschatos adam eis pneuma zoopoioun"
  Gen 2:7 - egeneto ho anthropos psuchen zosan"

Now, I want you to focus on the part in bold in 1 Cor and compare it to Gen. The second is the LXX (the Septuagint, that is, the Greek translation of the OT) that Paul was quoting from when he wrote 1 Cor. Look at the differences in the two. In 1 Cor 15:45, Paul adds a few words: "protos" (first) and "adam" (Adam).

Now, let's look at this for a minute. In English, Gen 2:7 just reads, "The man became a living soul." Paul's quotation, however, reads, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." Why the change? Paul is not simply QUOTING Gen 2:7, although he is certainly appealing to it. He is commenting on it at the same time as he is referencing it. He makes it explicit that Adam--the historical figure of Gen 3--was the man created from the dust of the ground in Gen 2. Thus, if the text of Gen 2-3 is not obvious enough, we now know that the Adam who sinned in Eden was the same Adam who was formed from the dust of the ground.

But we can go further. The Greek word for "mankind" (humanity) is anthropos, as we have seen. The Hebrew word for this is adm. This has given rise to the confusion that the man created in Gen 1 and/or 2 is not the same as the Adam discussed in Gen 3. But we've already seen that Paul makes that impossible. But still further, it is well known that Hebrew names are often just normal Hebrew words. The name "Rachel" for instance is the word for "ewe." It isn't derived from it. It actually is it. The name "Eli" is the word for "My God." It is not derived from it. It actually is it. The name "Melchizedek" is the word for "King of Righteousness." It doesn't derive from it. It actually is it. Names were meant to symbolize characteristics. Thus, it makes perfect sense to name the first man "Adam" in the Hebrew tongue. His name was Man.

Finally, we can take this one step further. Paul doesn't just say that the historical Adam was the man of Genesis 2. He says that he was the "first" man. Notice, again, that phrase is not in Gen 2. That is Paul's commentary on Genesis 2. So, the man, Adam, in Genesis 2 was the first man. But Adam was not merely the first of men--he was the first anthropos. Now remember, that word means "human being." In fact, it is the SAME word used in Genesis 1 to describe the creation of mankind. Let me quote it for you:

• Gen 1:26, 27 - Then God said, "Let us make man in our image . . . So God created man" (NIV)
  Gen 1:26, 27 - ai eipen ho theos, "poiesomen anthropon . . . kai epoiesen ho theos ton anthropon (LXX)

See the word for "man" there? It's the same as in Gen 2 and in 1 Cor 15:45. Now, follow this, Danny:

1. The historical figure Adam talked about in Gen 3 is the same being God made in Gen 2
2. The Adam of Gen 2 is expressly called the FIRST anthropos
3. Gen 1 tells us that on day 6, God created the anthropos

Conclusion: the FIRST anthropos created on day 6 of Genesis 1 must be the historical Adam.

Adam was the first human being. There were none other before him. No other men were created. Adam was the only one.

I don't understand your thinking here, Jac...? The man Adam gave mankind a living soul, Christ is the saviour of all mankind. What if we were to look at Gen 1 as the "prior spirit creation"... would that wash with you?

The above should demonstrate that Gen 1 was not the prior spirit creation. Christ is the savior of all anthropos, of which Adam was the FIRST. Since the anthropos was created on day six in God's image, then Adam was the first human being ever created.

I think a solution is impossible, Jac, as the author never saw fit to elaborate, and we are left with the impreession that Cain is the only existent sibling left on the earth. The third son, Seth, came when Adam was 130 years of age "...After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters..." So we get to Gen 5 before we are informed of Seth, and then the folloow on of other brothers and sisters. I believe the narrative of Cain in Gen 4, if we are looking for a solution, has to lead us to believe of co-existent peop

Where does the text say that Seth was the third, or for that matter that Abel was the second, or for that matter? Regarding Abel, the text only says, "Later she gave birth to his brother Abel." How much later? Were there others in between? And how old were they when this happened? What if they were in their 30's? Or older? Don't you think Adam and Eve would have had many more children by the time Cain and Abel were young adults? Let's remember that they didn't have birth control then . . . my wife and I got pregnant our second month of marriage. Do you expect us to believe that Adam and Eve had Cain, then Abel, then NO OTHER CHILDREN for decades? And then, after that, started popping them out again? The text clearly says that they had "other sons and daughters." It doesn't say that they ONLY had them after the incident, now does it?

So how is this for a very simple possibility:

Cain was the eldest. They had other children, boys and girls. Eventually, they had a boy named Abel, who was a particularly devout child. He became a shepherd, while Cain was busy being a farmer. Years later--at least fifteen, maybe more, Cain kills Abel. In the meantime, Adam and Eve had had more children. Perhaps, even, by this time, some of their children had had children. Who knows? There could have been 10, 15, or 30 people by the time this event happens.

In fact, let's go FURTHER - Gen 5 tells us that Adam was 130 when he had Seth. Now, Seth was considered the replacement for Abel, so it is apparent that he was the first boy born after Abel's murder. That means that Adam was well over 100 years old when Cain murdered Abel! So, there actually could have been 40 or 50 children by then, just do Adam directly! And what of other nieces and nephews? There could have actually been well over a hundred people, Danny.

Seems to make perfect sense to me.

No, but alternately do you have a text that says there are other siblings? Or even a passage to vaguely suggest this? The narrative more than vaguely hints to a co-existent people.

See above.

I think my argument has gone beyond the "incest" question - it doesn't really trouble me as I believe incest wasn't necessary - and focuses entirely on the suggestion of the narrative. I seems clear to me that the narrative presupposes another existent people. If it seems clear to be, but not to you, then perhaps we should have a cup of coffee together, call it a truce, and chat about something else

Reconsider my above arguments. Having another existent people would violate the text.

Paul, I believe, is simply reading it the way I am reading it. The man Adam is the first spiritual man, the first of God's chosen. Back to the Cain narrative, I believe my take on this is far more plausible. I really don't see any suggestion or hint of other brothers and sisters. I'm not trying to fit scripture to my interpretation, rather I'm giving my interpretation to scripture, and i can't see how my interpretation is less rational than yours.

See my above argument. You can't take Adam as a "spiritual" man for the simple reason that the text goes to pains to clarify that Adam was the first historical man.

Your thoughts?

Jac,

I'm not ignoring your post, I'm seriously thinking about it. I will reply soon.

Dan

Jac,

Jac3510 wrote:Then one of us has lost the other. Let me remind you of how this part of the exchange has gone:

• Jac: Argues Danny is wrong about 1 Cor 15:45 for at least four reasons: "1. The passage uses the definite article--it is THE first man, not A first man. Paul is speaking absolutely."
  Danny: Argues Danny may not be wrong; counters four reasons: "1. The NIV: "So it is written (Paul is not making a theological statement: Paul is reiterating Genesis 2: 7), 'the first Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life giving spirit." The NIV, for me, is the most thorough and conscientious compilation ever undertaken"
  Jac: Replies to Danny's rebuttal: "I'm not sure what either my or your opinion of the NIV has to do with the discussion."

My entire point was about Greek grammar--the definite article requires Adam to be the first human being (anthropos); to this, you replied by quoting the NIV and acclaimed its accuracy.?

Why are you so hung up on me acclaiming the NIV as the most authoritative? It was merely an obiter dictum which had nothing to do with the crux of the conversation. That's pretty much the end of the, err, story

Jac3510 wrote:In any case, it turns out that you misquoted the NIV anyway..?

Yes, for which I acknowledged and apologised, so what's your point?

Let's put yours and theirs side by side:

Jac3510 wrote:In any case, to leave out the word "man" is a mistranslation. The second point, which I will emphasize below, is that the word "man" here is more literally "human being." The word for "male" is aner. The word we are using is anthropos, meaning, "human.".

And your point is...

Jac3510 wrote:It doesn't appear that you have compared Gen 2:7 with 1 Cor 15:45. I mentioned this earlier, but perhaps it got lost in the discussion, so let me do it for you

• 1 Cor 15:45 - houtos kai gegraptai, "egeneto ho protos anthropos adam eis psuchen zosan, ho eschatos adam eis pneuma zoopoioun"
  Gen 2:7 - egeneto ho anthropos psuchen zosan"

Now, I want you to focus on the part in bold in 1 Cor and compare it to Gen. The second is the LXX (the Septuagint, that is, the Greek translation of the OT) that Paul was quoting from when he wrote 1 Cor. Look at the differences in the two. In 1 Cor 15:45, Paul adds a few words: "protos" (first) and "adam" (Adam)..".

So your acknowledging that Paul was quoting from the Greek translation of a classical Hebrew text, am I right?

Jac3510 wrote:Now, let's look at this for a minute. In English, Gen 2:7 just reads, "The man became a living soul." Paul's quotation, however, reads, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." Why the change? Paul is not simply QUOTING Gen 2:7, although he is certainly appealing to it. He is commenting on it at the same time as he is referencing it. He makes it explicit that Adam--the historical figure of Gen 3--was the man created from the dust of the ground in Gen 2. Thus, if the text of Gen 2-3 is not obvious enough, we now know that the Adam who sinned in Eden was the same Adam who was formed from the dust of the ground..".

No he doesn't make it explicit at all ! Paul is simply interpreting Genesis 2: 7 in his own way. So are you saying that Paul has suddenly found the lost missing word for which now has all become clear? Adam the man is the first of God's chosen. Adam the man could also have been the first of a whole influx of people. But I prefer, having read Genesis back and forth thousands of times (not an obiter dictum, absolutely relevent to our conversation) , that Adam was indeed chosen by God as his "special experiment" and the man Adam was chosen to interact with God.

Jac3510 wrote:But we can go further. The Greek word for "mankind" (humanity) is anthropos, as we have seen. The Hebrew word for this is adm. This has given rise to the confusion that the man created in Gen 1 and/or 2 is not the same as the Adam discussed in Gen 3. But we've already seen that Paul makes that impossible. But still further, it is well known that Hebrew names are often just normal Hebrew words. The name "Rachel" for instance is the word for "ewe." It isn't derived from it. It actually is it. The name "Eli" is the word for "My God." It is not derived from it. It actually is it. The name "Melchizedek" is the word for "King of Righteousness." It doesn't derive from it. It actually is it. Names were meant to symbolize characteristics. Thus, it makes perfect sense to name the first man "Adam" in the Hebrew tongue. His name was Man...".

Paul does nothing of the sort. Paul simply says "the first man Adam" and you would do well to ask why Paul is actually *emphasising* this by saying interjecting MAN and ADAM into the same sentence. Why doesn't Paul simply say Adam or The first man? Why is he seemingly emphasising both?

Jac3510 wrote:Finally, we can take this one step further. Paul doesn't just say that the historical Adam was the man of Genesis 2. He says that he was the "first" man. Notice, again, that phrase is not in Gen 2. That is Paul's commentary on Genesis 2. So, the man, Adam, in Genesis 2 was the first man. But Adam was not merely the first of men--he was the first anthropos. Now remember, that word means "human being." In fact, it is the SAME word used in Genesis 1 to describe the creation of mankind. Let me quote it for you:

• Gen 1:26, 27 - Then God said, "Let us make man in our image . . . So God created man" (NIV)
  Gen 1:26, 27 - ai eipen ho theos, "poiesomen anthropon . . . kai epoiesen ho theos ton anthropon (LXX)

See the word for "man" there? It's the same as in Gen 2 and in 1 Cor 15:45. Now, follow this, Danny:

1. The historical figure Adam talked about in Gen 3 is the same being God made in Gen 2
2. The Adam of Gen 2 is expressly called the FIRST anthropos
3. Gen 1 tells us that on day 6, God created the anthropos

Conclusion: the FIRST anthropos created on day 6 of Genesis 1 must be the historical Adam.

Adam was the first human being. There were none other before him. No other men were created. Adam was the only one.?

I hate to simply be dismissive out of hand, but this tells me precisely nothing. You are simply overstating your case by trying to blind me with wording which is irrelevent; first man, first human being, it makes no difference to my core point, Adam was not and does not have to be the first man. Genesis clearly, in more than one scenario. presupposes another (at least one) already existent creation. Nothing you have presented me with has nudged the little logic button inside my brain. I don't know whether it is a misconceived notion of orthodoxy which has made you take this stance, but orthodoxy plays no part here.

And to the part I've really been waiting for...

Jac3510 wrote:Where does the text say that Seth was the third, or for that matter that Abel was the second, or for that matter? Regarding Abel, the text only says, "Later she gave birth to his brother Abel." How much later? Were there others in between? And how old were they when this happened? What if they were in their 30's? Or older? Don't you think Adam and Eve would have had many more children by the time Cain and Abel were young adults? Let's remember that they didn't have birth control then . . . my wife and I got pregnant our second month of marriage. Do you expect us to believe that Adam and Eve had Cain, then Abel, then NO OTHER CHILDREN for decades? And then, after that, started popping them out again? The text clearly says that they had "other sons and daughters." It doesn't say that they ONLY had them after the incident, now does it?.

The text clearly mentions only Cain and Abel. It is you who is inventing all sorts here to support yourself. What if this, what if that... All we have to go on is what we have, and whart we have is Cain and Abwl and then the third born son Seth. Now if you want to inject lots of little kiddies inbetween this then go ahead, but please don't expect rationality or logic to be on your side.

No it doesn't say thast they ONLY had them after the incident, but it doesn't say the opposite either. What on earth is your point? Genesis tends to continue along the line, so it is logically correct for me to continue reading Genesis alpong the line, not to try to divert Genesis 5 back to perhaps in between Cain and Abel, who I'm now told were 15 years apart from eachother. If you say so...

Jac3510 wrote:So how is this for a very simple possibility:

Cain was the eldest. They had other children, boys and girls. Eventually, they had a boy named Abel, who was a particularly devout child. He became a shepherd, while Cain was busy being a farmer. Years later--at least fifteen, maybe more, Cain kills Abel. In the meantime, Adam and Eve had had more children. Perhaps, even, by this time, some of their children had had children. Who knows? There could have been 10, 15, or 30 people by the time this event happens.

In fact, let's go FURTHER - Gen 5 tells us that Adam was 130 when he had Seth. Now, Seth was considered the replacement for Abel, so it is apparent that he was the first boy born after Abel's murder. That means that Adam was well over 100 years old when Cain murdered Abel! So, there actually could have been 40 or 50 children by then, just do Adam directly! And what of other nieces and nephews? There could have actually been well over a hundred people, Danny.

Seems to make perfect sense to me..

You arte literally inventing your own little story here! I'm sorry, but I'm almost speechless at this. One word - nonsense. Sorry. You are now guessing the age difference between Cain and Abel, just so that you can fit in other phantom siblings. Am I really reading you right?

Jac3510 wrote:Reconsider my above arguments. Having another existent people would violate the text.

See my above argument. You can't take Adam as a "spiritual" man for the simple reason that the text goes to pains to clarify that Adam was the first historical man.

Your thoughts?

I've reconsidered, I've re-read my reply, and having another existent creation would not "violate" anything and would actually support the text. And as for Adam as the first spiritual man - I can take him as such and I have. And until I see anything persuasive to the contrary I will remain with this belief.

God bless

Question for DannyM

If there was another existent creation, and Adam was only the first "spiritual" man, then what happened to those people from the existent creation when they died? Did they go to Abraham's Bosom? If they were not "spiritual", then what is a "spiritless" man?

erawdrah wrote:Question for DannyM

If there was another existent creation, and Adam was only the first "spiritual" man, then what happened to those people from the existent creation when they died? Did they go to Abraham's Bosom? If they were not "spiritual", then what is a "spiritless" man?

Wow... "Abraham's Bosom"? Well, first of all, you're going to have to explain to me what this is, and then I will try to give you an answer.

God bless

Questin for anyone denying a coexistent creation-
If both Cain and God feared reprisals for the killing of Abel, then from whom did they fear these reprisals? How many nonexistent "brothers" and "sisters" do we propose there to be?

Dan

Didn't I answer that already, Dan?

I wrote:In fact, let's go FURTHER - Gen 5 tells us that Adam was 130 when he had Seth. Now, Seth was considered the replacement for Abel, so it is apparent that he was the first boy born after Abel's murder. That means that Adam was well over 100 years old when Cain murdered Abel! So, there actually could have been 40 or 50 children by then, just do Adam directly! And what of other nieces and nephews? There could have actually been well over a hundred people, Danny.

40 or 50 kids. I haven't had a chance to respond to your last point, but it's worth saying here that we aren't making up age differences. The text tells us that Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth. Seth was the first son after Abel's murder. Can was obviously the first son he ever had. So between Cain and Seth are 130 years. Somewhere in there, Abel was born.

Now, let me ask you a question: in a world with no birth control, how many children will a couple have if they have been "relating" for 130 years? Isn't it also rather reasonable to suppose that some of those children would have had children of their own by then, too? If you average a child every other year, that's 65 children. So fine, drop it to 50. On the avg of 25 boys and 25 girls, suppose the first quarter of those were old enough to have their own children. That's five more couples having children for well over 50 years. That's another 25 kids per couple, or 125 more kids. That puts the society around 175. Add a few grand kids and great grand kids and you have a society well over 200.

My great grandmother is not even 100 yet, and she has well over 50 people in her family, and that from having only I think 7 direct children. The numbers could have been very well above 200. I'm just trying to be really conservative here . . .

AND, add to this the fact that he could have been fearing not only those who were then alive, but those who would soon be born. Who is to say Abel's great, great grandson doesn't decide to avenge his death by killing Cain when he gets old enough to find out what happened. Add another generation or two worth of danger, and you could have Cain fearing hundreds of people. You hardly need to invoke another race of non-humans.

Anyway, I'll get to your previous response later.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Didn't I answer that already, Dan?


In fact, let's go FURTHER - Gen 5 tells us that Adam was 130 when he had Seth. Now, Seth was considered the replacement for Abel, so it is apparent that he was the first boy born after Abel's murder. That means that Adam was well over 100 years old when Cain murdered Abel! So, there actually could have been 40 or 50 children by then, just do Adam directly! And what of other nieces and nephews? There could have actually been well over a hundred people, Danny.

40 or 50 kids. I haven't had a chance to respond to your last point, but it's worth saying here that we aren't making up age differences. The text tells us that Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth. Seth was the first son after Abel's murder. Can was obviously the first son he ever had. So between Cain and Seth are 130 years. Somewhere in there, Abel was born..

Jac where is it conseidered that Seth is a replacement for Abel? Although I do not deny the merit in wanting to replace a lost son with another son, or child. And how, evidentially, do you get to Adam being 100 or over at the time Cain killed Abel? There are a lot of "could haves" in your thinking Jac and, while you're not exactly wrong, you're not right, either. Abel came "later" after Cain- this could be 2 years later or 20 years later- the point is that what we have to go on is what scripture tells us; guesswork is not sufficient here.

Jac3510 wrote:Now, let me ask you a question: in a world with no birth control, how many children will a couple have if they have been "relating" for 130 years? Isn't it also rather reasonable to suppose that some of those children would have had children of their own by then, too? If you average a child every other year, that's 65 children. So fine, drop it to 50. On the avg of 25 boys and 25 girls, suppose the first quarter of those were old enough to have their own children. That's five more couples having children for well over 50 years. That's another 25 kids per couple, or 125 more kids. That puts the society around 175. Add a few grand kids and great grand kids and you have a society well over 200.

This is all conjecture, Jac. You may well be right, but the fact that it is conjecture remains the uppermost fact of your point. You are, effectively, conjuring enough siblings to support your stance; I am simply reading the text and seemingly coming to the most rational conclusion. It seems I have taken the role of the literalist

Jac3510 wrote:My great grandmother is not even 100 yet, and she has well over 50 people in her family, and that from having only I think 7 direct children. The numbers could have been very well above 200. I'm just trying to be really conservative here . . .

AND, add to this the fact that he could have been fearing not only those who were then alive, but those who would soon be born. Who is to say Abel's great, great grandson doesn't decide to avenge his death by killing Cain when he gets old enough to find out what happened. Add another generation or two worth of danger, and you could have Cain fearing hundreds of people. You hardly need to invoke another race of non-humans.

Anyway, I'll get to your previous response later..

The text omits any hint of fear from other siblings and quite "apparently" (me being conservative) presupposes an already coexistent society/civilisation/creation. You and I are gonna thrash this out if it's the last thing I do- we are going to somehow reach an easy truce. I'm having an identical debate over here with another of the same opinion as your good self- it's like groundhog day all over again

God bless

Jac where is it conseidered that Seth is a replacement for Abel?

Right here:

• Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

Gen 4:25.

Although I do not deny the merit in wanting to replace a lost son with another son, or child. And how, evidentially, do you get to Adam being 100 or over at the time Cain killed Abel?

Since Seth was the replacement for Abel, Seth must have been the next son born after the murder. Adam was 130 when Seth was born. Unless you want to posit dozens of years of Adam having no children, it's rather clear that Seth was born within a few years of Abel's murder. Let's be very generous and say that it was 10 years apart. Fine. So that means that Adam was 120 when the murder happened.

Question: how many children do you think Adam and Eve would have had by 120?

Jac3510 wrote:Right here:

• Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

Gen 4:25.

But it doesn't say "God has *immediately* granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him". Genesis tells us that that Eve gave birth to Cain- later she gave birth to his brother Abel- Seth was the third born son- after Seth was born, Adam lived another 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Now unless you wish to insert Genesis 5 verse 4 back into Genesis 4 verse 1d then it is surely a rational must to accept the text as it is given.

Jac3510 wrote:Since Seth was the replacement for Abel, Seth must have been the next son born after the murder. Adam was 130 when Seth was born. Unless you want to posit dozens of years of Adam having no children, it's rather clear that Seth was born within a few years of Abel's murder. Let's be very generous and say that it was 10 years apart. Fine. So that means that Adam was 120 when the murder happened.?

Seth was the replacement, we have to agree, but then you are taking a leap in assumption as to if and how many children were had by Adam and Eve had between Cain and Abel. Assumtions will get us nowhere without textual and evidential support.

Jac3510 wrote:Question: how many children do you think Adam and Eve would have had by 120?

I have no idea, which is my precise point: we have scripture to go on, and, as clear as can be, scripture tells us that we had Cain, then Adam, and then Seth. Then we had other brothers and sisters. Anything else is conjecture and simply conjured, pretty much like the bunny rabbit out of the magicians hat.

God bless

Dan, you are ignoring the text.

Adam had Cain (which we assume to be the first child). He later had Abel (who knows how many between? Text doesn't say!). Chapter 4 tells us that Cain murded Abel. We don't know how old they were. THEN we have the birth of Seth. Loo again at the verse:

• Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

Seth was Abel's replacement. Obviously, we don't know how long after the murder this happened, but since he was the replacement, it makes perfect sense to read this as the next son following Abel's death. It makes no since to say that they had dozens of sons and then some random one is called Abel's replacement. You want to be a literalist, then you have to recognize authorial intent. The fact that he is called a replacement tells us that he was the next son after the murder.

Now, when was this replacement born? When Adam was 130. This means that Adam could not have been younger than 100 when the first murder happened. If he was around 100, then there is no way to avoid the obvious conclusion that there were many other siblings, and probably even extended family, to deal with. There's far less conjecture in my view than yours. You expect us a completely unmentioned race into Cain's fear of others, when the text itself implies other siblings--and very probably a great many of them. Why should your conjecture be any less conjecture than mine? Why should your assumption of a non-Adamic race of non-spiritual humans be any less conjecture than assumption that Adam and Eve didn't wait 100 years to have children again? Why is my conjecture of a purely natural process that we all experience bunny rabbits out of a magicians hat, but your unknown non-human human race is not?

In fact, the text itself mitages agaist your assumption. Look God's response to Cain's fears:

• 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.

We don't know what this mark is, but whatever it was, it served as an apt deterrant from anyone taking revenge on Cain. It is evident that such an action would result in divine retribution seven times over, but a non-spiritual person has no concept of God. They cannot be deterred by warnings of such punishment. Try telling an ape that if they do something, God will smite them, and see their response. Thus, the text again tells us something of the nature of the people he feared: namely, those people understood something of divine retribution, meaning they were spiritual people, meaning they had to be in the line of Adam.

All the evidence is against your position, Dan. You are trying to build your case entirely on arguments from silence and ignoring the progressively accumulating weight against it. You keep saying, "Well, you COULD BE right on that, BUT what about this alternate idea which we can get if we assert that we don't really know?!?"

I don't mean to make light of your view, but why should we bother considering something that can only be held if we don't know?

Jac3510 wrote:Dan, you are ignoring the text.

Adam had Cain (which we assume to be the first child). He later had Abel (who knows how many between? Text doesn't say!). Chapter 4 tells us that Cain murded Abel. We don't know how old they were. THEN we have the birth of Seth. Loo again at the verse:

• Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

Seth was Abel's replacement. Obviously, we don't know how long after the murder this happened, but since he was the replacement, it makes perfect sense to read this as the next son following Abel's death. It makes no since to say that they had dozens of sons and then some random one is called Abel's replacement. You want to be a literalist, then you have to recognize authorial intent. The fact that he is called a replacement tells us that he was the next son after the murder.?

Yes, and I *am* reading Seth as being the third son- I *haven't* stated otherwise. You need to reread my post Jac. Let me put it straight- Cain murdered Abel, God banished Cain with a mark on his head after acknowledging the threat of reprisals for Cain. These reprisals *can only* come from an already coexistent people as there *were no other* people within "Adam's line" from whom to fear reprisals.

It has been you throughout our discussion who has invented "50" odd siblings who could be a possible threat to Cain. I am sticking to the apparent truth of the text. There is nothing literalist about this- I am simply taking what I read. I have not read of "50" siblings. I have not read of the "age gap" between any siblings. It is all *pure conjecture* on your part.

Jac3510 wrote:Now, when was this replacement born? When Adam was 130. This means that Adam could not have been younger than 100 when the first murder happened. If he was around 100, then there is no way to avoid the obvious conclusion that there were many other siblings, and probably even extended family, to deal with. There's far less conjecture in my view than yours. You expect us a completely unmentioned race into Cain's fear of others, when the text itself implies other siblings--and very probably a great many of them. Why should your conjecture be any less conjecture than mine? Why should your assumption of a non-Adamic race of non-spiritual humans be any less conjecture than assumption that Adam and Eve didn't wait 100 years to have children again? Why is my conjecture of a purely natural process that we all experience bunny rabbits out of a magicians hat, but your unknown non-human human race is not??

How on earth do you conclude this with precisely nothing but your imagination to go by? The text tells us nothing of other siblings. Do you admit that it is possible that Adam and Eve had no other cchildren between Cain and Abel? Leave aside the fact that other siblings are only mentioned after the birth of Seth, and here they "went on" to have other brothers and sisters. Everything points to you being utterly wrong on this one and me being right. Your presumptions are complete guesswork- you are presuming that there were other siblings in between Cain and Abel; not only this, you are actually estimating *how many* siblings and fitting this into your argument for why Cain feared reprisals. I am purely and simply taking as I find- I am not inventing *anything*.

You could well be right, and I could well be wrong, but scripture *clealry* suports me here, and not you.

Jac3510 wrote:In fact, the text itself mitages agaist your assumption. Look God's response to Cain's fears:

• 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.

We don't know what this mark is, but whatever it was, it served as an apt deterrant from anyone taking revenge on Cain. It is evident that such an action would result in divine retribution seven times over, but a non-spiritual person has no concept of God. They cannot be deterred by warnings of such punishment. Try telling an ape that if they do something, God will smite them, and see their response. Thus, the text again tells us something of the nature of the people he feared: namely, those people understood something of divine retribution, meaning they were spiritual people, meaning they had to be in the line of Adam.

All the evidence is against your position, Dan. You are trying to build your case entirely on arguments from silence and ignoring the progressively accumulating weight against it. You keep saying, "Well, you COULD BE right on that, BUT what about this alternate idea which we can get if we assert that we don't really know?!?"

I don't mean to make light of your view, but why should we bother considering something that can only be held if we don't know?

Jac these are surely desperste times. If there were other siblings old enough to remember their brother Cain killing their brother Abel then why would they need a mark to remind them of who their brother is? Your argument has fallen down completely in my view. You have not only invented other siblings on the basis of presumption, you have even guesstimated their number- astonishing.

It is right and proper of me to say you *could* be right; it is the duty of the debater not to completely dismiss the alternative view. But let us be clear here: I believe wholeheartedly in my side of the argument; you have presented me with precisely nothing to even dare to convince me otherwise. I am the one using logic and reason. You are presupposing a little army of siblings as the threat to Cain, and the textual evidence is completely to the contrary. In my humble opinion, of course

God bless

Danny wrote:Yes, and I *am* reading Seth as being the third son- I *haven't* stated otherwise.

Tell me, can you show me a verse that says that Seth was the third born son, or is that conjecture on your part?

While your at it, would you care to explain to me how Adam and Eve managed to have only three children over 130 years? Maybe God didn't do a very good job of making them fertile?

Jac3510 wrote:

Danny wrote:Yes, and I *am* reading Seth as being the third son- I *haven't* stated otherwise.

Tell me, can you show me a verse that says that Seth was the third born son, or is that conjecture on your part?

While your at it, would you care to explain to me how Adam and Eve managed to have only three children over 130 years? Maybe God didn't do a very good job of making them fertile?

Sorry for delay Jac. All you need do is count from the first mentioned son through the third mentioned son. Seth is the third mentioned son. This is not conjecture, not when reading the bible as it appears to be meant.

As for the having thre children in 130 years: this may seem strange to you and I, but since they went on to have "other sons and daughters" then maybe, with such a long life span, the averages actually make sense. Say I live to be 80 years old - God willing - and it is normal for me to be having children at the age of 18-21 - that's a 1/4 of my life span. Adam lived for 930 years, and had three children by the time he was 130 - that's just over 1/7 of his life span. I don't really see too much of a difference here to be worried. Especially when you consider he and Eve went on to have other sons and daughters.

By the way, I've looked at the home page from the link Gman provided us with, and now I think I know why you called it "odd-ball". Apart from the Cain article, I saw some "different" views on there which I haven't come across before.
But the Cain page I think sums up what I generally feel.

God bless