Cain Married His Sister

[Hugh McBryde]

I have said plenty of times that I am not a Christian, you know nothing more than that so stop attempting to claim you have some great insight into my mindset. You don't."

B, if you believed the Bible, you'd be a Christian. Thus you don't believe the Bible. I can't understand what possible importance there would be in a discussion of who Cain's wife was, since you can't possibly know and are only guessing.

I am not insulting you.

I'm describing you.

Please know the difference.

If you want me to play some game to defer to your easily ruffled feelings, by all means continue. I won't be a part of it any longer though.

If you're not easily ruffled, please be honest though. I am not after you and telling you what to think. I'm paraphrasing your beliefs accurately and putting in action. I'm then showing this to you and suggesting something:

You've missed the point. Cain isn't even important. We can't even answer the question of whether or not there was a Cain so why would it be important to discuss his unnamed wife?

You might as well discuss Lilith.

 

[Oreslag]

f we were to accept the speculation that he married a descendant of Eve, we'd merely be accepting the opinion of a man. To call such an opinion the truth of God would be criminal."

My point exactly about you Steve, you don't accept scripture as truth, thus more properly this discussion should be held as the title of another thread. Having it leak out as a legitimate view about scriptural characters and where they came from is off topic. I suggest (really I do in all sincerity) that you start a thread about the Bible as Truth. This is where your "point of tension" is. Not Cain and Mrs. Cain.

My point about you, Hugh, is that you accept your own opinion as biblical truth; and furthermore, you judge others who do not hold your opinion as biblical truth to be rejecting the bible as truth. The fact of the matter is that the only thing being rejected by myself is the preeminence of Hugh's opinion to scripture.

 

[Isabella]

I have said plenty of times that I am not a Christian, you know nothing more than that so stop attempting to claim you have some great insight into my mindset. You don't."

B, if you believed the Bible, you'd be a Christian.

I'm describing you.

This is factually incorrect, a person could very well believe that what is written is correct and still not be a Christian, lots of theistic Satanists believe that the Bible is completely true, they just reject the word in it. Not to mention the Bible is made up of more than one book, some of which Jews believe some which they do not believe, the Muslims believe pretty much all of the Bible except for Jesus being a demi God or God or whatever it is depending on what branch of Christian you talk to. They believe Jesus was a prophet though,

So again, I ask you to stop insulting my intelligence and making assumptions since you know nothing of who I am or what I believe.

This is not Hugh's personal thread, people have the right to discuss the issue and argue it if they choose.

B

 

[mystic]

* * *

Do not feed the troll.

* * *​

 

[Hugh McBryde]

My point about you, Hugh, is that you accept your own opinion as biblical truth; and furthermore, you judge others who do not hold your opinion as biblical truth to be rejecting the bible as truth. The fact of the matter is that the only thing being rejected by myself is the preeminence of Hugh's opinion to scripture."

Your point is to allow for a view that what we accept as Biblical, really isn't Biblical Steve. You continue to accuse me of characterizing you as saying something you're not. To modify slightly what I said to Isabella.

I am not mischaracterizing your position.

I am describing it.

There is no possibility in scripture for Cain getting another wife from outside Eve's offspring. Even Paul says that all men come from Adam and Eve in another way. That the first woman came out of man, but after that, all men and women come from out of woman. That's the Greek as well. I don't think that leaves you with a choice.

Your only "choice" comes when you DON'T abide by scripture, but let other sources into the mix. When you do that, I hope you realize two things:

• We really need to open a thread about the sources for and veracity of scripture and what scripture actually is.
  
  Until you accept what is written as true, we know that you DON'T accept it as true and Cain is utterly irrelevent except as some expression of a genetic/cultural myth, some product of our limbic system's root fears and desires.

This is factually incorrect, a person could very well believe that what is written is correct and still not be a Christian, lots of theistic Satanists believe that the Bible is completely true, they just reject the word in it."

Ok, my bad. "You reject the truth even though you know it" is a valid alternative. If this though is the case, you're still not being honest. You're chipping away at the truths told in scripture even though you know them to be truth. The scripture is a whole. The number of books doesn't raise conflict, it is a unity. Claiming that there is a division in what scripture says relates again to the first question about truth.

Who is the troll Mystic? I've been in this forum since the beginning. I'm not sure I qualify as a troll and there are many candidates here for that title. Let us remember that this is "Biblical Families" which assumes the Bible as the rule and measure of truth. Constantly chipping away at that fits the title of "troll" or "trolling" more accurately than any other activity.

 

[Isabella]

Actually Hugh a troll is not necessarily someone who fits in with the target group, it is someone who is inflammatory for the sake of being so, it is someone who doesn't accept other points of view and insist that their way is the only way, loudly and insistently.

Just an FYI.

Ok, my bad. "You reject the truth even though you know it" is a valid alternative. If this though is the case, you're still not being honest. You're chipping away at the truths told in scripture even though you know them to be truth. The scripture is a whole. The number of books doesn't raise conflict, it is a unity. Claiming that there is a division in what scripture says relates again to the first question about truth.

I know a great many learned people who would disagree with you there and I am rather partial to their wisdom, so for myself I am happy to just state my disagreement on that particular topic and reiterate the fact that not everyone on this thread believes as you do.

B

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Isabella,

Long ago for reasons that are probably very different than you suppose, I came to the understanding that the 66 books of the Old and New Testament, as we have them, are unvarnished truth. Also, I am "classic" in my understanding of truth, and not a believer in Hegelian synthesis or the dialectic. Thus the statement "my truth" or "your truth" has no meaning. "Your opinion" and "My opinion" do have meaning.

In classic logic there "givens" and conclusions that can be drawn from those givens.

One of the "givens" here is very simple and related to the word "Biblical."

The Bible is truth, that's why we are polygynous or "plural" in our descriptions of marriage practices. That's the "Family" part.

Realizing of course that the emphasis is always on "Family" when it comes to being Biblical, we are, nonetheless, "Biblical." We would simply be less liberated thinkers if we weren't Biblical, choosing as our "Style Statement" a nostalgic but not necessarily realistic or true view of marriage and family. It would be like a Civil War Re-enactors group or a Medieval club. Quaint.

So, once again, trying to get you to be accepting of MY view, as I am in fact accepting of YOURS, here's the deal:

From a Biblical Truth perspective (right or wrong though it may be in YOUR view), Cain married a direct descendant of his mother Eve. This is bolstered in both Old and New Testament writings. There's no allowance large enough to drive another wife through other than one of Eve's direct descendants, someone dependent entirely on Adam and Eve for their gene map. The MOST LIKELY candidate is his sister, given the time frames involved and the mess with Abel, murder and having to get out of Dodge (so to speak) . It could be by some possible but contortive circumstance, his own daughter, but still a direct lineal descendant of Eve and Adam.

Your view is admittedly hard to decipher. So far you've allowed for the possibility that it's all true (as scripture tells it) but you reject it. It's possible you see it as quaint and interesting, but simply not true. You also may have a Hegelian view of truth and various "truths" (true for me, true for you, not true for both of us, etc, etc.)

Scripture is classic in it's approach to truth. If A is true, and B is not possible with A being true, then B is not true. We don't work toward a "blending" of ideas to "Find a New Truth."

You need to pick an identity for your point of view, a starting point, and express it. Then we can better understand "where you're coming from" and believe me, unless it's the Satanist's point of view that WE as Christians HOLD to the truth, but that YOU as a Satanist fight against it, I'll have respect for that point of view, and you too. If it's the Satanists point of view, I'll respect your honesty.

As for the great many others that disagree, I don't care. I'm not bound by numbers and this too is a classic error of logic known as "argumentum ad populum." As to their level of expertise and education, these too have fancy Latin names regarding errors in logic. As for me, this is where I am "coming from:"

Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.

Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
for it is ever with me.

I have more understanding than all my teachers,
for your testimonies are my meditation.

I understand more than the aged,
for I keep your precepts.

I hold back my feet from every evil way,
in order to keep your word.

I do not turn aside from your rules,
for you have taught me.

How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!

Through your precepts I get understanding;
therefore I hate every false way."

 

[Isabella]

Isabella,

Long ago for reasons ....

tl:dr

Sorry Hugh I am not really interested so I haven't bothered to read this, I am just replying so you don't think I read it and was just ignoring it.

I have said all I needed to say on this issue and frankly I have better things to do.

B

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I will note that you have no intention of listening to reason. You would rather characterize me as opposed to reason with me. So it goes. Well and good. As you wish.

 

[FollowingHim]

Hugh, just so you don't feel like everyone's against you, I fully agree with your view of what the scripture says on this issue. I also appreciate Oreslag's insistence on not making assumptions, but I don't agree that this particular one is an assumption, we can be very sure Cain married some descendent of his parents. On this particular issue Bels I'm not concerned what your opinion is, I'm sure you understand!

However I can't be bothered having another debate about it, we've done that, all these points have been made on both sides in the thread linked to on the first page of this discussion. There's no point in making them again, they didn't change anyone's mind the first time so I doubt repeating them a second time will make any difference.

I agree a separate thread on Biblical reliability / interpretation would be useful, to cut to the key issue at the heart of this dispute instead of alluding to it all the time in regard to Cain's wife.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I agree a separate thread on Biblical reliability / interpretation would be useful, to cut to the key issue at the heart of this dispute instead of alluding to it all the time in regard to Cain's wife."

If you're going to cap the discussion and cut it off with that pronouncement, you have my hearty agreement.

 

[Oreslag]

There is no possibility in scripture for Cain getting another wife from outside Eve's offspring.

Then let's make this a study thread: prove your point from scripture without any assumptions. This will give us all an opportunity to critique and discuss the points of your argument.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

There is no possibility in scripture for Cain getting another wife from outside Eve's offspring."

Then let's make this a study thread: prove your point from scripture without any assumptions. This will give us all an opportunity to critique and discuss the points of your argument."

No Steve, you are WRONG. W-R-O-N-G.

I also appreciate Oreslag's insistence on not making assumptions, but I don't agree that this particular one is an assumption, we can be very sure Cain married some descendent of his parents."

We are NOT assuming. It's a LOCK. You put all the possibilities on a chalk board, look at all of scripture, and start crossing them off. What you're left with is that Cain married an immediate or generational descendant flowing from Eve's womb.

If you want to talk about the nuances of Greek that form the basis of your uncertainty, then let's do as "Following" (Samuel) suggests. Start a thread on what scripture is, and what makes it reliable or not. That's really what we're talking about with the proxy being Cain's wife.

 

[Oreslag]

No Steve, you are WRONG. W-R-O-N-G.

Then put your money where your mouth is and PROVE it. No screwing around. Let's see you use scripture without relying on your assumptions. I've yet to read anything substantial from you except vague criticism of others. Get to it brother; use the word you are so very confident that you know and understand.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I did. Eve is the mother of all living. This is clearly and absolutely declared in scripture. This alone is enough. I have put my money where my mouth is and you're just mouthing off saying I haven't.

There are other scriptures that bolster this view and in fact DEPEND on it for correct doctrine. The fall is a specific event through which all sin in the world flows. This too is clearly declared in scripture. Through ONE MAN sin entered the world. All men are sinful. DO YOU DISPUTE this? What follows is that the sin of another cannot have come from any but Adam, so since all men are sinful (women are included in this sort of universal declaration) and sin entered the world through Adam and was passed on to successive generations through Adam, this too proves the point that ALL are his offspring. Cain's bride, if not of Cain's mother and father, is by definition SINLESS, and not in need of a savior. All have sinned. All have gone astray. All have gone their own way. All of this is traceable only to ADAM.

I could go on and on, and I have. You're engaging in an internet tactic involving repeatedly asking to be shown something that hasn't been shown to you and getting that in on the LAST PAGE so that the impression stands to the casual reader that you haven't been told. You've been told. YOU ARE WRONG.

If however, you wish to preach another Gospel, you are not bound to these things, but you ARE discovered.

 

[NeoPatriarch]

There is at the least one rock that has not yet been turned over...

Genesis 2:18 then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him.

Adam was alone. As in no others.

Genesis 2:20 the man gave names to all the livestock and to the birds of the heavens and every beast of the field. but for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

None of the living creatures could help Adam. No monkey, no pre-human, no one to help in the way Adam needed.

For that God created Eve, and we understand that mankind does not reproduce with another kind.

Therefore Cain married his sister (or cousin perhaps).

I think that seals the deal. I don't see any wiggle room, except perhaps to say, scripture was wrong and there actually was a helper available, when scripture says there was not.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

This is good to note Neo. In addition, God rested from his work of creation after the sixth day, in which he created man, who as you point out, was alone. The work of creation is done and God rests on the seventh day. There are no other people.

 

[Isabella]

This is good to note Neo. In addition, God rested from his work of creation after the sixth day, in which he created man, who as you point out, was alone. The work of creation is done and God rests on the seventh day. There are no other people.

Actually it says men and women were created on the sixth day, Adam is not created until the next chapter.

I don't know how you managed to miss it but it is there.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

You see them as two different stories about two different events as opposed to two different renderings of the same story by two different witnesses. Scripture DOES emphasize later that by two or more witnesses, a thing shall be said to be true.

Two genealogical lines contribute their story to the first chapters of Genesis before the flood. The family of Cain, and that of Seth. They tell the story differently, with one family taking an almost accountant's approach to what happened when and where. The second creation story is more elliptical. Both are about the same thing but one pays more attention to order than the other does. See them as Matthew and Luke (orderliness & detail) vs Mark (brevity).

Read on. It's very likely that the more detailed of the two accounts is that of Cain. It follows that he passed that day to day story down since the genealogy that follows for his family is more detailed and the story of Lamech and his two wives, the first significant ink given to any event after creation, the fall and Abel's murder. Seth's line gives a much more brief account of what passes between Abel's murder and Noah. If I had to guess, Cain, the legalistic one, wrote and kept the 7 day account, and passed it to his sons. Seth wrote the more poetic of the two. It could be the other way around though. In any case one is a retelling of the other, a sort of poetic summing up.

Neither contradicts the other or is inaccurate. Both are about the same events.

We don't know if Cain wrote one and Seth the other. One man could have passed down both stories. The text tells us that Cains family told their story, up to the flood, and so did Seth's. Seth's line continues after the flood and history becomes Seth's story after that.

 

[Isabella]

You see them as two different stories about two different events as opposed to two different renderings of the same story by two different witnesses. Scripture DOES emphasize later that by two or more witnesses, a thing shall be said to be true.

You have no proof of any of that, it is just supposition, I thought you were not supposed to add to scripture?

Sorry not buying it.