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?