• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Maybe Lamech did not sin?

D

DiscussingTheTopic

Member
Male
An illogical objection to polygyny is Lamech was bad and he had two wives therefor Lamech was bad

But if a man injured Lamech would it be wrong for him to kill the man in self-defense? Where does the Bible say Lamech sinned by killing a young man? Did he kill a man in the past or plan to kill one in the future? Even if he planned to kill one in the future was it a plan to kill a man in self-defense if the man attacks and wounds him contingent on the man actually attacking him and not a premeditated murder of a non-violent man? Was it wrong for Lamech to kill him because it exceeded eye for an eye tooth for a tooth and life for a life?

(in some cases the word kill can be substituted with plan to kill in this paragraph because I did not want to write out kill in the past or plan to kill in the future every time the word kill appears so I just wrote kill as short-hand)
 
Overthinking, DTT.

He SAID he had killed, past tense, for wounding him. The book of Jasher, which is referenced in the Bible in a couple of places, makes it clear that it was a self-defense situation occurring during an attack upon himself.

Not wrong or sinful of Lamech to defend himself.
 
CecilW said:
Overthinking, DTT.

He SAID he had killed, past tense, for wounding him. The book of Jasher, which is referenced in the Bible in a couple of places, makes it clear that it was a self-defense situation occurring during an attack upon himself.

Not wrong or sinful of Lamech to defend himself.
Click to expand...


23 Lamech said to his wives,

“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed[h] a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
[h] Genesis 4:23 Or I will kill
Genesis 4:23 NIV 1984
 
CecilW said:
Overthinking, DTT.

He SAID he had killed, past tense, for wounding him. The book of Jasher, which is referenced in the Bible in a couple of places, makes it clear that it was a self-defense situation occurring during an attack upon himself.

Not wrong or sinful of Lamech to defend himself.
Click to expand...

How did you find the book of Jasher?
 
The "Lamech was evil so polygamy is evil" argument is absurd.

Lamech states that a man wounded him and in retaliation Lamech killed him. Lamech committed murder.

We are told that and eye for an eye is sufficient - in other words restitution is allowed, but more than what is allowed by God's law is sinful. An eye for an eye may be better stated as NO MORE than an eye for an eye. Lamech had the right for restitution and justice, but took matters into his own hands and as judge and jury sentenced the man to death. The fact that he did this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he is the first person mentioned in the Bible that had more than one wife. We are also unaware of others that may have had more than one wife before Lamech that simply were not mentioned. The focus on those verses is Lamech's desire to take vengeance upon another to a greater degree than is allowed by God's law.
 
I find it odd that if he was such a rotten guy, why would a few generations later (probably still in his lifetime) name another kid Lamech :oops: :eek:
 
"Lamech was a murderer AND Lamech was a polygamist AND murder is immoral SO polygamy is immoral."

Love the logic. Following it to it's logical conclusion ...

"Cain was a murderer AND Cain was a farmer AND murder is immoral SO farming is immoral."

Let's all go on Atkins, and disfellowship those heretical vegetarians!

:roll: :eek: Oooops!
:lol:
 
CecilW said:
"Cain was a murderer AND Cain was a farmer AND murder is immoral SO farming is immoral."
Click to expand...
That's a great illustration actually Cecil, I've been trying to think of such a clear contrary example from early Genesis and hadn't spotted that one, I'll file that one away!

By the way, Abel was a shepherd, but they weren't given meat to eat until the time of Noah. So Abel's entire focus must have been wool, & maybe skins. Cain was providing food for the family, while Abel was providing clothing. Nothing deep and meaningful there, it's just an interesting window into the lives of the first family, and the immediate division of labour and skill specialisation to increase efficiency.
 
FollowingHim said:
By the way, Abel was a shepherd, but they weren't given meat to eat until the time of Noah. So Abel's entire focus must have been wool, & maybe skins.
Click to expand...
Milk? Butter? Cheese?

What did God do with the carcii when he obtained skins with which to replace their original clothing of leaves? Did He perhaps have a BBQ? At the time of the flood, there was already a knowledge of which animals were "clean" and which not.
 
Scarecrow said:
The "Lamech was evil so polygamy is evil" argument is absurd.

Lamech states that a man wounded him and in retaliation Lamech killed him. Lamech committed murder.
Click to expand...

So sorry, but that isn't really in evidence, is it? Nothing is said about a time separation. If he strove with an attacker, the attacker got a wounding blow in, Lamech struck back, but at his blow the other man fell dead, that would also match the above sparse narrative, would it not?

As it happens, that is how the book of Jasher tells the story.
 
CecilW said:
FollowingHim said:
By the way, Abel was a shepherd, but they weren't given meat to eat until the time of Noah. So Abel's entire focus must have been wool, & maybe skins.
Click to expand...
Milk? Butter? Cheese?

What did God do with the carcii when he obtained skins with which to replace their original clothing of leaves? Did He perhaps have a BBQ? At the time of the flood, there was already a knowledge of which animals were "clean" and which not.
Click to expand...
Maybe dairy products, but not something specifically given to Adam as food. All we know is plants were given to Adam, and animals to Noah. Knowledge of clean and unclean could have been purely for sacrifice, or given to Noah at the time by God, the Bible doesn't say. Today we waste a good chunk of a carcass in offal, no reason for them to not waste a bit more. Great compost for your veges!

Why am I arguing for vegetarianism? :D
 
FollowingHim said:
Why am I arguing for vegetarianism? :D
Click to expand...

Amongst folks who lived to be, not 70-80 but 900++ years old?

I dunno. :shock:

(Oh, This is fun ... :lol: :lol: :lol: )
 
the fall gave us carnivores. i am going with the assumption that man became an omnivore at that time also.

if YHWH discarded the bodies after skinning the animals that He killed, then i guess that the buffalo hunters were in good company? (killing them for their skins alone)

personally, i like the idea that adam and eve honoured the animals by consuming them.
 
steve said:
the fall gave us carnivores. i am going with the assumption that man became an omnivore at that time also.

if YHWH discarded the bodies after skinning the animals that He killed, then i guess that the buffalo hunters were in good company? (killing them for their skins alone)

personally, i like the idea that adam and eve honoured the animals by consuming them.
Click to expand...
God killed those animals to make some clothes, then kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden. Doesn't sound like they had time to sit down and have a barbeque. Genesis 9 has very clear instructions given to Noah that God was giving him animals for food, and they would fear him. Why would God have bothered giving this instruction to him if they'd already been eating animals for centuries?

I'd actually go with Cecil's comment, that in the pre-flood world vegetarianism was far healthier and contributed to their long lifespans (along with many other potential factors). Following the flood many edible plant species may have been lost (everything had to regenerate from floating seeds etc), and the environment was less conducive to growing nutritious plants (no longer a warm greenhouse you could run around naked in all day). So animals were given to supplement the human requirements for protein and nutrients, as animals are able to eat less palatable foods and concentrate their nutrition into a form humans can consume.

You'd probably still be healthier today if you had a fully-balanced vegetarian diet, but that takes a bit of thought, and meat is just so tasty and was given to us by God after all... :D
 
when they were given the fur coverings adam and eve were living in such a temperate climate that they were completely comfortable naked 24 hrs a day. i do not see that changing until the flood. i very much doubt that they needed anything more than a rabbit-skin loincloth.
hmmm, that is interesting, i just caught myself on that one. rabbits, being an unclean animal, would not have been eaten by them. (noah, given instructions by YHWH about bringing the additional clean animals, evidently knew about the difference between clean and unclean animals. why presume that adam did not have the information? but i digress :D )
i have long thought that the animals that died may well have been friends of theirs and that they had communicated with them. after all, we are not told that eve showed any surprise when the reptile (upright lizard has been proposed as the best translation) communicated with her.
anyway, they may have been small animals that were carried out of the garden by adam and eve and consumed later.
 
steve said:
anyway, they may have been small animals that were carried out of the garden by adam and eve and consumed later.
Click to expand...

Or God may have conducted the butchering outside the gates thereof, so as not to contaminate it. All conjecture. Would be fun to watch the divine video someday.
 
I've always wondered if, when we go to heaven, we will just 'know' the answers to these random things. I feel that God quite often speaks to me by me just 'knowing' something I didn't know before. It just appears in my brain :lol: . Or perhaps we will be able to sit down with Him and have a real good natter about how it all was and how it will be.

Most likely we won't care about what Adam and Eve ate as we will be with God which is far more exciting!
 
ChrisM said:
I find it odd that if he was such a rotten guy, why would a few generations later (probably still in his lifetime) name another kid Lamech :oops: :eek:
Click to expand...
In studying genealogy it is very possible that Lemech's daughter married Methuselah and she named her son Lemech after her father. that would explain why Cain's lineage was remembered at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top