14 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by nemesio*Lifted eyebrow*
No one knows.
You might be amused by these answers:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/cains_wife.html
http://www.moseshand.com/studies/faq3.htm
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/CainsWife.htm
Well then! That certainly explains that! Too bad they didn't have that at the monkey trial.
Still, she should have a name ...
Edit: Loved the chart. Nice to have stuff clearly presented ...
14 Dec 04
2 edits
Originally posted by nemesioActually, I'm most amused by your answer "No one knows." As if the question has a factual answer and we have simply lost the information or it was never put on record. As if Adam and Eve were factually the first people, and as if Cain was factually their son. If all of these characters are allegorical, what difference does it make if we say that Cain's wife was named Candy? If these characters are allegorical, does it make sense to say that "no one knows" who Cain's wife was? It's like saying no one knows how long Zeus's penis was.
No one knows.
You might be amused by these answers:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/cains_wife.html
http://www.moseshand.com/studies/faq3.htm
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/CainsWife.htm
The most amusing part from your links is this: "Cain may not have married one of his sisters, but rather a descendant of one of his siblings." Turtles all the way down, for where did those descendants come from if not from an inter-sibling coupling!
In friendship,
Dr. S
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesActually, no one cares what Cain's wife's name was. It's just a story after all.
Actually, I'm most amused by your answer "No one knows." As if the question has a factual answer and we have simply lost the information or it was never put on record. As if Adam and Eve were factually the first people, and as if Cain was factually their son. If all of these characters are allegorical, what difference does it make if we say tha ...[text shortened]... did those descendants come from if not from an inter-sibling coupling!
In friendship,
Dr. S
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI took the question to mean, 'Who was Cain's wife, as told within
Actually, I'm most amused by your answer "No one knows." As if the question has a factual answer and we have simply lost the information or it was never put on record. As if Adam and Eve were factually the first people, and as if Cain was factually their son. If all of these characters are allegorical, what difference does it make if we say tha ...[text shortened]... did those descendants come from if not from an inter-sibling coupling!
In friendship,
Dr. S
the context of the Bible.'
For example: Who was Moses' wife? Zipporah.
or, 'Who was Cain's wife, according to apocryphal tradition?'
For example: What was the name of the centurion at the foot
of Jesus' cross? Longinus.
Of course it has no allegorical or Biblical significance, anymore
than the names of Moses' sons (who had no part to play), yet
their names are included.
I believe that the question was to raise some eyebrows at the
notion of 'incest.' Of course, literalists have concocted a 'back
door' of semi-logic based on a poor understanding of genes,
and mutations (and I love the part about the pre-Flood atmosphere
being more protective of cosmic radiation). They have also
used 'chronology' to establish that incest was morally permissible
until Moses, where God in grave concern of the genetic implications,
now forbid incest.
Nemesio
14 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by nemesioNot really about incest, or any ather Hollywood explainations, just that Cain's wife probably came from somewhere else. Do you really believe that Adam etc were the only humans at that time?
I took the question to mean, 'Who was Cain's wife, as told within
the context of the Bible.'
For example: Who was Moses' wife? Zipporah.
or, 'Who was Cain's wife, according to apocryphal tradition?'
For example: What was t ...[text shortened]... oncern of the genetic implications,
now forbid incest.
Nemesio
Edit: What am I saying!? WHAT time????
14 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by nemesioOr maybe the fire-breathing crocodiles were put on the earth to absorb all cosmic radiation, internally store it and convert it to fuel, and then use it to burn the enemies of God's chosen people. If not this, then why would fire-breathers be put on Earth?
Easily!
The layer of water that would become 'the Flood' was the
protective barrier.
Nemesio
And isn't it a coincidence that today, cosmic radiation is higher AND we no longer have fire-breathing crocodiles?
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by nemesioYes and the Bible also says that Adam had many other Children.
No one knows.
You might be amused by these answers:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/cains_wife.html
http://www.moseshand.com/studies/faq3.htm
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/CainsWife.htm
The Bible also says that a lot of people live over hundreds of years to help populate the Earth.
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by KneverKnightWell, as it pertains to standard Christian doctrine,
Not really about incest, or any ather Hollywood explainations, just that Cain's wife probably came from somewhere else. Do you really believe that Adam etc were the only humans at that time?
Edit: What am I saying!? WHAT time????
there were no other groups of humans anywhere else.
At least, I can't think of a major denomination that
holds a literal opinion of Scripture that doesn't hold
the view that Adam and Eve were the first and
only family and that all people derive from them.
I, of course, do not lend any historical credence to the
story and feel none the poorer for it. It's allegorical
signficance far outweighs the importance of its historical
claims (which Jews of the time would not have made).
I find the suspension of rationale when it pertains to the
independent scientific claims in geology, genetics, radioactive
dating, biology, physics, and so forth absurd.
I also believe that people ought to believe whatever
tickles them as long as they don't impost the presumptions
of that belief upon others.
Nemesio