Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: no title given Message-ID: Date: 18 Mar 91 16:12:35 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton Lines: 112 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (ALAN WAYNE MURRAY) writes: >> [In a discussion of the plausibility of early accounts in Gen, >> Alan Murray mentioned the fact that Cain would have had to >> marry his sister. --clh] >> >> As the moderator pointed out, the Bible does not give birth records of >> every person born in the first couple of years of civilization. Therefore, >> it is quite possiable that Cain could have married an unrelated woman. > >How could Cain have married an unrelated woman when the first two people >on earth were Adam and Eve? Are you saying that Adam and Eve were not >the first two human beings to be put on the earth? That's not how the >Bible reads to me. Does it not plainly state that Adam was the first >human being and that Eve was created of/for Adam? I find it strange that the controversial cover story from Newsweek a year or more ago has not been mentioned in this thread. The story dealt with the research of a team of geneticists which claim that gene matching shows us to have all descended from a single woman. (Who some have labled "Eve".) The major thrust of their conclusion was not that Genesis is correct, but that theories of parralel development of a number of protomen which mingled to produce Homo Sapiens appear to be mistaken. (Someone please correct me if I have mis-remembered). The story was also given play by NPR. > I find this very strange indeed. Why is it OK for Cain to commit >incest or adultery? You say it is not yet a law. Why then was Cain >punished for murder? Murder was not 'outlawed' at the time either...yet >Cain was punished for it (by God Himself). Are not murder and adultery >'forbidden' in the same place (i.e. The Ten Commandments)? What you >describe can be called by nothing short of total, complete anarchy. >What of blasphemy? Of idol worship? There were NO laws at the time, by >your own argument. Yet God holds people responsible for these future >laws. How do you explain this? Well, this *did* predate the 10 commandments. Can we agree that Cain was not a Jew? If so, let's look at Romans 2:14-15 (Paul is comparing the sins of the Jews who have the Law to the sins of the Gentiles who do not have the Law) 14 The Gentiles do not have the Law; but whenever they do by instinct what the Law commands, they are their own law, even though they do not have the Law. 15 Their consciences also show that this is true, since their thoughts sometimes accuse them and sometimes defend them. (TEV) Now let's look at Genesis 6:9 (Cain [the farmer] has sacrificed some of his harvest, Abel [the shepherd] has sacrificed a first-born lamb. The Lord regects Cain's offering, and Cain is upset.) 6 The the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why that scowl on your face? 7 If you had done the right thing, you would be smiling;* but because you have done evil, sin is crouching at your door. It wants to rule you, but you must overcome it." 8 Then Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out in the fields."** When they were out in the fields, Cain turned on his brother and killed him. 9 The Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He answered, "I don't know, Am I supposed to take care of my brother?" (TEV) * you would be smiling; or I would have accepted your offering. ** Some ancient translations Let's go out in the fields; Hebrew does not have these words. Okay, Cain and Abel predate the law, but it appears: 1: They can sin (Verse #7) 2: Cain's conscience is bothering him (Verse #9) it seems that this is consistant with Romans 2:14-15 As I've stated before, I do not believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. I also believe there are two creation stories provided in Genesis, personally I prefer the first one. I find it interesting that with the exception of the birds of the air, the creation of life seems to be in the same order as that suggested by many scientists. Genesis has God creating plants on the third day, the Fish of the Sea and the Birds of the Air on the fifth day. On the sixth day he creates land animals. After everything else has been created, God creates human beings. The Human beings are created in two sexes, and at least the way I read the verses it wasn't necessarily just a single couple. (Genesis 1:26-28) 26 The God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild,* large and small." 27 God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female, 28 blessed them, and said, "Have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their control, I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals. (TEV) * One ancient translation animals, domestic and wild; Hebrew domestic animals and all the earth. It has been suggested in this thread that there might not have been genetic problems from Cain mating with his sister. Personally, I feel a number of the injunctions listed in the OT are matters of good health practices. (I.E. Kosher laws among others.) Assuming that there would not have been a genetic problem, I don't see a need for a law against incest. (Remember that the 10 commandments aren't handed down for a long long time. The gene pool at that point would have been quite different.) Despite both our personal beliefs, I don't find any conflict in Cain not being allowed to murder his brother, but being allowed to have sex with his sister. Sorry, you're gonna have to work harder. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton