|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 18:35:48 GMT
Genesis does make it pretty clear that Adam and Eve had many more children, given the patriarchal society at the time the fact that the girls are not mentioned is not a huge stretch. Incidentally, Cain is not marked as having found a wife in Nod, he is marked as having knew her in Nod, he could well have taken her from Eden.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 22, 2018 18:40:14 GMT
Genesis does make it pretty clear that Adam and Eve had many more children, given the patriarchal society at the time the fact that the girls are not mentioned is not a huge stretch. Incidentally, Cain is not marked as having found a wife in Nod, he is marked as having knew her in Nod, he could well have taken her from Eden. I believe the word "knew" is used in the carnal sense in that passage.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 22, 2018 18:45:43 GMT
Genesis does make it pretty clear that Adam and Eve had many more children, given the patriarchal society at the time the fact that the girls are not mentioned is not a huge stretch. Incidentally, Cain is not marked as having found a wife in Nod, he is marked as having knew her in Nod, he could well have taken her from Eden. I believe the word "knew" is used in the carnal sense in that passage. That is totally correct. The passage could be paraphrased as "Cain consummated a marriage" or "Cain finally got laid."
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 18:46:32 GMT
Genesis does make it pretty clear that Adam and Eve had many more children, given the patriarchal society at the time the fact that the girls are not mentioned is not a huge stretch. Incidentally, Cain is not marked as having found a wife in Nod, he is marked as having knew her in Nod, he could well have taken her from Eden. I believe the word "knew" is used in the carnal sense in that passage. Exactly, it usually is. So he may have been acquainted with her in Eden, but did not KNOW her until Nod
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 22, 2018 21:19:15 GMT
gadreel
Really?
Next all of you will be posting the wedding videos.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 21:30:16 GMT
gadreel
Really?
Next all of you will be posting the wedding videos. Have you got anything useful to add or are you just spurting shit out of another hole?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 21:38:02 GMT
It's possible that he was slamming his sister. It's also possible that we don't need to treat this narrative as 100% historical fact, so it really doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 21:39:37 GMT
It's possible that he was slamming his sister. It's also possible that we don't need to treat this narrative as 100% historical fact, so it really doesn't matter. It is interesting though. It makes perfect sense for him to be married to his sister, arguably the first humans were perfect, so the inbreeding issues are null, otherwise Adam and Eve should not breed, they are the same DNA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 21:43:51 GMT
It's possible that he was slamming his sister. It's also possible that we don't need to treat this narrative as 100% historical fact, so it really doesn't matter. It is interesting though. It makes perfect sense for him to be married to his sister, arguably the first humans were perfect, so the inbreeding issues are null, otherwise Adam and Eve should not breed, they are the same DNA. Going by the text alone, I would say the implication was that his wife was a blood relative, yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 21:45:10 GMT
I fully believe Cain slept with one blood relative or another. There's nothing controversial about it, given the time period and the context. It's not like the rules of engagement didn't shift elsewhere in the Bible. For Pete's sake, the most important plot of the Bible - salvation - evolves as the text moved forward in time. This is not only uncontroversial, it's necessary when dealing with books that were written thousands of years apart.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 22, 2018 21:45:38 GMT
It's possible that he was slamming his sister. It's also possible that we don't need to treat this narrative as 100% historical fact, so it really doesn't matter. It is interesting though. It makes perfect sense for him to be married to his sister, arguably the first humans were perfect, so the inbreeding issues are null, otherwise Adam and Eve should not breed, they are the same DNA. This is the same horrible argument made by people like Cody and Quyst. "Perfect" is meaningless when talking about biological processes. A man and woman who have the same mother and father also share ~50% of the same genes and this assumes the mother and father didn't already share most of the same genetics.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 22, 2018 21:50:57 GMT
I fully believe Cain slept with one blood relative or another. There's nothing controversial about it, given the time period and the context. It's not like the rules of engagement didn't shift elsewhere in the Bible. For Pete's sake, the most important plot of the Bible - salvation - evolves as the text moved forward in time. This is not only uncontroversial, it's necessary when dealing with books that were written thousands of ears apart. Although I don't think incest would have been the norm in patriarchal times, it would have to be more common just based off what we've read. Salvation has not evolved since there's no reason for it to.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 21:51:45 GMT
It is interesting though. It makes perfect sense for him to be married to his sister, arguably the first humans were perfect, so the inbreeding issues are null, otherwise Adam and Eve should not breed, they are the same DNA. This is the same horrible argument made by people like Cody and Quyst. "Perfect" is meaningless when talking about biological processes. A man and woman who have the same mother and father also share ~50% of the same genes and this assumes the mother and father didn't already share most of the same genetics. Yeah but what i mean though is that if you take genesis as literal (why you would is beyond me but anyway clearly (fuck you erjen) we are), then God™ clearly (fuck you erjen) would have to have a plan in place to make sure that the children of the first humans were not tentacled monstrosities. So for lack of a better term I said they had perfect DNA. I admit I could have worded it better, but the intention stands, God™ would need to ensure that they were going to breed ok, I suppose you could also argue that the chances of inbreeding and issues from it were introduced after the fall and Gods™ actual intention was that we are free to bone our closest loved ones as much as we like. (my tongue is firmly in my cheek in the last part of that comment)
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Jan 22, 2018 21:52:45 GMT
Canon does not define particularly who Cain's wife was, and while there are alternate possibilities to it being his sister, his sister is the most obvious conclusion. It's not certainty, though. It's entirely possible it was his niece.Apocryphal books declare that Cain's wife was Abel's twin sister. Regardless, there's nothing noteworthy about the Biblical texts within the confines of this debate. This still begs the question, how was a niece created with Abel dead? Assuming it was Seth's child still begs the question of who Seth "knew" in order to create a niece.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 21:59:53 GMT
I fully believe Cain slept with one blood relative or another. There's nothing controversial about it, given the time period and the context. It's not like the rules of engagement didn't shift elsewhere in the Bible. For Pete's sake, the most important plot of the Bible - salvation - evolves as the text moved forward in time. This is not only uncontroversial, it's necessary when dealing with books that were written thousands of ears apart. Although I don't think incest would have been the norm in patriarchal times, it would have to be more common just based off what we've read. Salvation has not evolved since there's no reason for it to. Sure it has. There's a whole chapter on this in Hebrews. Those who lived before Jesus were saved strictly by faith. Faith in a coming savior. Those who lived after were saved by grace. This, of course, relies completely on the notion that we are discussing salvation as it pertains to "the promise of salvation," i.e. a covenant with God as opposed to "literal salvation," which is not received until White Throne Judgement for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 22, 2018 22:08:27 GMT
This is the same horrible argument made by people like Cody and Quyst. "Perfect" is meaningless when talking about biological processes. A man and woman who have the same mother and father also share ~50% of the same genes and this assumes the mother and father didn't already share most of the same genetics. Yeah but what i mean though is that if you take genesis as literal (why you would is beyond me but anyway clearly (fuck you erjen) we are), then God™ clearly (fuck you erjen) would have to have a plan in place to make sure that the children of the first humans were not tentacled monstrosities. So for lack of a better term I said they had perfect DNA. I admit I could have worded it better, but the intention stands, God™ would need to ensure that they were going to breed ok, I suppose you could also argue that the chances of inbreeding and issues from it were introduced after the fall and Gods™ actual intention was that we are free to bone our closest loved ones as much as we like. (my tongue is firmly in my cheek in the last part of that comment) It's not even a certainty that people born of siblings now would be monstrosities, just more likely since we are all largely mutts with all kinds of medical issues (Sorry Aryan people). There were hundreds of years of inbreeding among relatives. Much of the Israelite nation were related by virtue of being related to Abraham although it is possible that intermarriage routinely happened in Egypt when Joseph was vice-pharoah. Abraham was married to his half sister and specifically looked for a relative for Isaac to marry eventually marrying two of his 2nd cousins. Genetic defects simply weren't that big of an issue regardless of perfection. After all, no one was perfect at that time. Culturally speaking, in patriarchal times, it was socially more beneficial to be around people you knew which meant it was not unusual to marry cousins or uncles or nieces and, yes, the occasional brother or sister.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 22, 2018 22:11:17 GMT
Yeah but what i mean though is that if you take genesis as literal (why you would is beyond me but anyway clearly (fuck you erjen) we are), then God™ clearly (fuck you erjen) would have to have a plan in place to make sure that the children of the first humans were not tentacled monstrosities. So for lack of a better term I said they had perfect DNA. I admit I could have worded it better, but the intention stands, God™ would need to ensure that they were going to breed ok, I suppose you could also argue that the chances of inbreeding and issues from it were introduced after the fall and Gods™ actual intention was that we are free to bone our closest loved ones as much as we like. (my tongue is firmly in my cheek in the last part of that comment) It's not even a certainty that people born of siblings now would be monstrosities, just more likely since we are all largely mutts with all kinds of medical issues (Sorry Aryan people). There were hundreds of years of inbreeding among relatives. Much of the Israelite nation were related by virtue of being related to Abraham although it is possible that intermarriage routinely happened in Egypt when Joseph was vice-pharoah. Abraham was married to his half sister and specifically looked for a relative for Isaac to marry eventually marrying two of his 2nd cousins. Genetic defects simply weren't that big of an issue regardless of perfection. After all, no one was perfect at that time. Culturally speaking, in patriarchal times, it was socially more beneficial to be around people you knew which meant it was not unusual to marry cousins or uncles or nieces and, yes, the occasional brother or sister. We are still in mostly patriarchal times, but I get what you are driving at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 22:14:41 GMT
Canon does not define particularly who Cain's wife was, and while there are alternate possibilities to it being his sister, his sister is the most obvious conclusion. It's not certainty, though. It's entirely possible it was his niece.Apocryphal books declare that Cain's wife was Abel's twin sister. Regardless, there's nothing noteworthy about the Biblical texts within the confines of this debate. This still begs the question, how was a niece created with Abel dead? Assuming it was Seth's child still begs the question of who Seth "knew" in order to create a niece. In all likelihood, Seth also "knew" his own sister. Not that I love quoting Apocrypha, but here I go again doing it. According to apocryphal texts, Abel and Cain both had twin sisters and the idea was for Cain to take Abel's sister and for Abel to take Cain's. Since Canon is not specific, Seth's options are the same as Cain's and Abel's options. Regardless, either Cain or Seth slept with a sister (also likely that both did) and the other could have slept with a niece. None of above is very controversial to a serious student of the text, though.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 22, 2018 22:14:54 GMT
Now somebody has replied as though Abraham was a real person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 22:24:04 GMT
The Lannisters have been inbreeding for generations. It's kept our bloodline pure.
|
|