Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site burdvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!akgua!psuvax!burdvax!cng
From: cng@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: The offspring of Adam
Message-ID: <1310@burdvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Nov-83 09:55:07 EST
Article-I.D.: burdvax.1310
Posted: Tue Nov 15 09:55:07 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Nov-83 00:42:36 EST
Organization: Burroughs Corp. - SDG/Downingtown
Lines: 32

With reference to Kenneth Almquist's followup to my followup:

My original comment:
	The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters
	besides Cain and Abel.  Seth was one of the other childern.

Kenneth's comment:
	The Bible does *not* make reference to any daughters of Adam and Eve.
	It is true that the Bible states that Adam and Eve had three sons rather
	than two, but this hardly detracts from the point of the original 
	article.

	I don't understand why Tom is so eager to have the wives of Cain and
	Seth be born of Adam and Eve anyway since that would make the marriages
	incestuous.

My response:
	If you will look at Genesis 5:4, reference is made to other sons
	and daughters of Adam.  Although Eve is not explicitly mentioned, I 
	think we can conclude that they were a result of the union between
	Adam and Eve.

	It's not "eagerness" so much as wanting to remain faithful to God's
	word.  If people are going to go around telling us what's in the
	Bible, they better KNOW what's in the Bible.


	Tom Albrecht
-- 
	Burroughs Corp.		...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf|bpa}!burdvax!cng
	P.O. Box 235		(215) 269-1100
	Downingtown, PA  19335