Genesis 4:25-26 (The Living Bible)

[Falconer02]

I sometimes think about the original characters that spawned religions. The Adam and Eve mythology always perplexed me since here we have a god that can create the entire universe out of nothing and yet he needs a rib to create a woman. Then again we're talking about the same story where this god gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of right and wrong after they made the mistake...or that this god is omnipotent and perfect, yet easily gets mad and jealous. It would seem the author was an extremely poor writer to leave in such basic inconsistencies and therefore is furthest from understanding the basics of storytelling.

 I am truly surprised the followers don't sit and think about the problems without succumbing to weak delusional/creationist loopholes like they heavily have in this thread. Most believers think pointing out these inconsistencies is insulting because they have a strong identity built into their faith, so their brains instinctively dislike anything that challenges these foundational beliefs.

[falcon9]

What I'd like to know is where did the woman whom Cain married come from? I mean if Adam and eve were the first people and they had Cain and Able and any daughters after that would of been younger than Cain and Able. Well when Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife where did she and the other Nod people come from? Woman back then didn't just pack up and move out of mom and dad's house unless they were married or going to live with an another male relative.

Some biblical "scholars" like to speculate that the folks not mentioned in all that 'begetting' were either "also directly created by jahwey, like Adam & Eve" supposedly were but, were omitted by the semi-literates who scribbled "genesis", (and didn't know there were other people around who lived further away).  Such a limited and separated gene pools would have resulted in massive genetic abnormalities in the subsequent population, (despite biblical prohibitions against "laying with family members", it is only an unverifiable assumption that 'jahwey' had separately created a bunch of other people who were unmentioned as such).  Instead of consistancy, we get specious speculations of religious adherents.

In other words they have no clue, but instead of admitting they have no clue they just make *bleep* up.

You were given a very credible and detailed explanation.

No, given her reply, she correctly determined that she was given unsupported speculation from a biased religous adherent, rather than a credible explanation.

The fact that there is such a credible and detailed answer is what seems to have disappointed you.

The fact that such wasn't credible merely because you insist that it was, (instead of being manifestly some speculations without evidential basis), may be disappointing to religious adherents.  It's entirely possible that expectations of rationality stemming from irrational superstitious beliefs are so low that disappointment from the skeptic's end is unlikely.

[raven1114]

In other words they have no clue, but instead of admitting they have no clue they just make *bleep* up.

Even worse, the majority of their religious mythologies were lifted, (ripped-off and altered slightly), from much older previous religions.  The early hebrews seemed eager to swipe religious concepts from the Aeyptians and Hyksos, (Horus the Younger became "jesus", with modifications and Set became Satan - 'Set-hen', etc.).  If they tried pulling such cultural thefts today, it'd be out and out plagiarism, (which it was, because they apparently couldn't come up with their own mythology).

At least the Romans accepted that their were other Deities besides their own. Hell they'd pay homage to a foreign Deity if they thought it would be in their favor. Unlike major religions today that all think theirs is the only God and their way of interpreting things is the only right way. 

[raven1114]

What I'd like to know is where did the woman whom Cain married come from? I mean if Adam and eve were the first people and they had Cain and Able and any daughters after that would of been younger than Cain and Able. Well when Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife where did she and the other Nod people come from? Woman back then didn't just pack up and move out of mom and dad's house unless they were married or going to live with an another male relative.

Some biblical "scholars" like to speculate that the folks not mentioned in all that 'begetting' were either "also directly created by jahwey, like Adam & Eve" supposedly were but, were omitted by the semi-literates who scribbled "genesis", (and didn't know there were other people around who lived further away).  Such a limited and separated gene pools would have resulted in massive genetic abnormalities in the subsequent population, (despite biblical prohibitions against "laying with family members", it is only an unverifiable assumption that 'jahwey' had separately created a bunch of other people who were unmentioned as such).  Instead of consistancy, we get specious speculations of religious adherents.

In other words they have no clue, but instead of admitting they have no clue they just make *bleep* up.

You were given a very credible and detailed explanation.The fact that there is such a credible and detailed answer is what seems to have disappointed you.

Really? Please show me this 'credible and detailed' answer. Just because something is detailed does not make it fact. I'm all for people believing what they want to believe but they don't need to present it as a fact when they have no proof. If one questions a person about their belief and they do not know the answer the correct thing to say is "I don't know" not pull something out of your *bleep* and present it as a fact.

[raven1114]

I sometimes think about the original characters that spawned religions. The Adam and Eve mythology always perplexed me since here we have a god that can create the entire universe out of nothing and yet he needs a rib to create a woman. Then again we're talking about the same story where this god gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of right and wrong after they made the mistake...or that this god is omnipotent and perfect, yet easily gets mad and jealous. It would seem the author was an extremely poor writer to leave in such basic inconsistencies and therefore is furthest from understanding the basics of storytelling.

 I am truly surprised the followers don't sit and think about the problems without succumbing to weak delusional/creationist loopholes like they heavily have in this thread. Most believers think pointing out these inconsistencies is insulting because they have a strong identity built into their faith, so their brains instinctively dislike anything that challenges these foundational beliefs.

Well here's one for you. If God is perfect and is all knowing and all seeing then he knew before he created Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit that they would eat from it. yet he put it there anyways, knowing they would eat from it. If he didn't know then he can't be perfect and can't be an all knowing and all seeing God. Either humans have free will, which means God can't know what their choice is before they make it or he does know and therefor we don't have free will. If we don't have free will and he knows how our life is going to pan out from the get go then God is a Sadist who purposely created people just so they could fail.

[falcon9]

In other words they have no clue, but instead of admitting they have no clue they just make *bleep* up.

Even worse, the majority of their religious mythologies were lifted, (ripped-off and altered slightly), from much older previous religions.  The early hebrews seemed eager to swipe religious concepts from the Aeyptians and Hyksos, (Horus the Younger became "jesus", with modifications and Set became Satan - 'Set-hen', etc.).  If they tried pulling such cultural thefts today, it'd be out and out plagiarism, (which it was, because they apparently couldn't come up with their own mythology).

At least the Romans accepted that their were other Deities besides their own. Hell they'd pay homage to a foreign Deity if they thought it would be in their favor. Unlike major religions today that all think theirs is the only God and their way of interpreting things is the only right way. 

Indeed, the Aegyptians would also accept deities/neteru foreign to them, (expanding existing pantheons without absorbing other 'deities' like the latter xtian cult proceded to do over time to the 'pagans').  To expand a bit upon a related aspect of having many gods; the reason that some Roman god/desses/Greek god/desses seemed 'similar' to previous Aegyptian neteru, (their word for "deities"), was that many of their defining characteristics were 'lifted/plagiarized' from the Aegyptians, (and probably others, in a massive example of a lack of creativity on the part of others).  This would explain the penchant many xtians have for claiming that their 'one god' encompasses all other 'gods', (especially when one considers that the Aegyptians also eventually came up with the one 'god' concept well before the hebrews - "Aten" - which was _not_ a combination of all the other neteru).  Nevertheless, there has been no evidence presented to support the existance of any 'gods/neteru' besides such unsupported attributions their believers assigned to them.

[raven1114]

In other words they have no clue, but instead of admitting they have no clue they just make *bleep* up.

Even worse, the majority of their religious mythologies were lifted, (ripped-off and altered slightly), from much older previous religions.  The early hebrews seemed eager to swipe religious concepts from the Aeyptians and Hyksos, (Horus the Younger became "jesus", with modifications and Set became Satan - 'Set-hen', etc.).  If they tried pulling such cultural thefts today, it'd be out and out plagiarism, (which it was, because they apparently couldn't come up with their own mythology).

At least the Romans accepted that their were other Deities besides their own. Hell they'd pay homage to a foreign Deity if they thought it would be in their favor. Unlike major religions today that all think theirs is the only God and their way of interpreting things is the only right way. 

Indeed, the Aegyptians would also accept deities/neteru foreign to them, (expanding existing pantheons without absorbing other 'deities' like the latter xtian cult proceded to do over time to the 'pagans').  To expand a bit upon a related aspect of having many gods; the reason that some Roman god/desses/Greek god/desses seemed 'similar' to previous Aegyptian neteru, (their word for "deities"), was that many of their defining characteristics were 'lifted/plagiarized' from the Aegyptians, (and probably others, in a massive example of a lack of creativity on the part of others).  This would explain the penchant many xtians have for claiming that their 'one god' encompasses all other 'gods', (especially when one considers that the Aegyptians also eventually came up with the one 'god' concept well before the hebrews - "Aten" - which was _not_ a combination of all the other neteru).  Nevertheless, there has been no evidence presented to support the existance of any 'gods/neteru' besides such unsupported attributions their believers assigned to them.

Exactly, I happen to practice Religio Romana so I believe in multiple Deities. I however don't assume I am 100% correct nor that my interpretations are either. Could I be? sure but I could also be dead *bleep* wrong. i simply believe what I believe through faith of my own and don't try to present it as fact nor do I try to tell others their beliefs are wrong, unless they try to present it as a fact. It's a common curtsey that a lot of people are lacking in.

[JediJohnnie]

What I'd like to know is where did the woman whom Cain married come from? I mean if Adam and eve were the first people and they had Cain and Able and any daughters after that would of been younger than Cain and Able. Well when Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife where did she and the other Nod people come from? Woman back then didn't just pack up and move out of mom and dad's house unless they were married or going to live with an another male relative.

Some biblical "scholars" like to speculate that the folks not mentioned in all that 'begetting' were either "also directly created by jahwey, like Adam & Eve" supposedly were but, were omitted by the semi-literates who scribbled "genesis", (and didn't know there were other people around who lived further away).  Such a limited and separated gene pools would have resulted in massive genetic abnormalities in the subsequent population, (despite biblical prohibitions against "laying with family members", it is only an unverifiable assumption that 'jahwey' had separately created a bunch of other people who were unmentioned as such).  Instead of consistancy, we get specious speculations of religious adherents.

In other words they have no clue, but instead of admitting they have no clue they just make *bleep* up.

You were given a very credible and detailed explanation.The fact that there is such a credible and detailed answer is what seems to have disappointed you.

Really? Please show me this 'credible and detailed' answer. Just because something is detailed does not make it fact. I'm all for people believing what they want to believe but they don't need to present it as a fact when they have no proof. If one questions a person about their belief and they do not know the answer the correct thing to say is "I don't know" not pull something out of your *bleep* and present it as a fact.

The Bible does not state "At the time when only three people existed,Cain found a wife."Someone with even a limited amount of understanding can read between the lines.Since Adam lived 930 years and the Bible did not give a certain date when the murder took place,it's not too difficult to make the logical deduction that there must have been several generations born by the time of the murder.

I mean I know it's disappointing to some of you,but this is among the simplest things to understand in the Bible.

[falcon9]

The Bible does not state "At the time when only three people existed,Cain found a wife."Someone with even a limited amount of understanding can read between the lines.

If you mean make wild guesses, unsupported by factual evidence then, they sure they can, (especially to fill in the irrational gaps, huh?)

Since Adam lived 930 years ...

Such an outrageous claim lack any evidence to support it, (quoting a dubious religious document which makes that claim is not evidence of the veracity of that same claim - that'd be circular and illogical).

... and the Bible did not give a certain date when the murder took place,it's not too difficult to make the logical deduction that there must have been several generations born by the time of the murder.

It is illogical for irrational religious adherents, ("johnnie"), to misuse logical deduction in such a manner.  Unsupported assumptions are not equivalent to logical deductions; there is no rationality behind assuming people lived 'hundreds of years back then' nor, to make the derivitive presumption that "... there must have been several generations born ...".  The logical deduction in this instance would be that average lifespans were less than 100 years and include no more than two or three generations within that span.

[raven1114]

What I'd like to know is where did the woman whom Cain married come from? I mean if Adam and eve were the first people and they had Cain and Able and any daughters after that would of been younger than Cain and Able. Well when Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife where did she and the other Nod people come from? Woman back then didn't just pack up and move out of mom and dad's house unless they were married or going to live with an another male relative.

Some biblical "scholars" like to speculate that the folks not mentioned in all that 'begetting' were either "also directly created by jahwey, like Adam & Eve" supposedly were but, were omitted by the semi-literates who scribbled "genesis", (and didn't know there were other people around who lived further away).  Such a limited and separated gene pools would have resulted in massive genetic abnormalities in the subsequent population, (despite biblical prohibitions against "laying with family members", it is only an unverifiable assumption that 'jahwey' had separately created a bunch of other people who were unmentioned as such).  Instead of consistancy, we get specious speculations of religious adherents.

In other words they have no clue, but instead of admitting they have no clue they just make *bleep* up.

You were given a very credible and detailed explanation.The fact that there is such a credible and detailed answer is what seems to have disappointed you.

Really? Please show me this 'credible and detailed' answer. Just because something is detailed does not make it fact. I'm all for people believing what they want to believe but they don't need to present it as a fact when they have no proof. If one questions a person about their belief and they do not know the answer the correct thing to say is "I don't know" not pull something out of your *bleep* and present it as a fact.

The Bible does not state "At the time when only three people existed,Cain found a wife."Someone with even a limited amount of understanding can read between the lines.Since Adam lived 930 years and the Bible did not give a certain date when the murder took place,it's not too difficult to make the logical deduction that there must have been several generations born by the time of the murder.

I mean I know it's disappointing to some of you,but this is among the simplest things to understand in the Bible.

So by your assumption Cain would of been a few hundred years old when he first left home and got married? That seems pretty illogical to me. You wouldn't of had several younger siblings marrying and have children, grandchildren, back then and the oldest remaining unmarried. Marriages were arranged back then so if anything Cain would of been married to one of his sisters long before the others had children and grandchildren. 

[falcon9]

I happen to practice Religio Romana so I believe in multiple Deities.

Interesting, as I'd noted in an old comparative religions college course; there are definite links between Aegyptian-Greek-Roman 'pagan' practices and religious beliefs which pre-dated xtianity considerably.  While my comments related to some 'synergistic' similarities between them, I had noticed, (back in the day), that there was mention of a somehat indigenous belief in "numina" whose aspects reflected those of some 'god/desses' of other culturals.  No doubt at least some correlation between trade contacts and 'swapping' beliefs happened, given those similarties.

I however don't assume I am 100% correct nor that my interpretations are either. Could I be? sure but I could also be dead *bleep* wrong. i simply believe what I believe through faith of my own and don't try to present it as fact nor do I try to tell others their beliefs are wrong, unless they try to present it as a fact. It's a common curtsey that a lot of people are lacking in.

Although a few religious adherents hereabouts have expressed the opinion that questioning the "faith" of others is somehow 'discourteous' itself, I disagree.  The reason I disagree is twofold; one being that there is no inherent discourtesy in questioning any assumption, (even if the one assuming something doesn't like their assumptions questioned).  Secondly, it seems oddly one-sided for those who do characterize the questioning of assumptions as being 'discourteous' so often "happen" to be the same ones who treat those with dissenting views with such overtly apparent discourtesy, (in lieu of responding to the _questions_ posed).

[Falconer02]

I happen to practice Religio Romana so I believe in multiple Deities. I however don't assume I am 100% correct nor that my interpretations are either. Could I be? sure but I could also be dead *bleep* wrong. i simply believe what I believe through faith of my own and don't try to present it as fact nor do I try to tell others their beliefs are wrong, unless they try to present it as a fact. It's a common curtsey that a lot of people are lacking in.

A tactful forum member who religiously believes differently than 90% of the users on this forum? Wow, I like you already!

[falcon9]

[Quote from: raven1114 on Today at 17:21:49]I happen to practice Religio Romana so I believe in multiple Deities. I however don't assume I am 100% correct nor that my interpretations are either. Could I be? sure but I could also be dead *bleep* wrong. i simply believe what I believe through faith of my own and don't try to present it as fact nor do I try to tell others their beliefs are wrong, unless they try to present it as a fact. It's a common curtsey that a lot of people are lacking in.
[/quote]


[quote author=Falconer02 link=topic=38976.msg504991#msg504991 date=1331703563
A tactful forum member who religiously believes differently than 90% of the users on this forum? Wow, I like you already!
[/quote]

Yes, I noticed the specific caveat of "nor do I try to tell others their beliefs are wrong, unless they try to present it as a fact" too.  I'm pretty sure "raven" is making the distinction between religious beliefs and non-religious dissent there.

[raven1114]

[Quote from: raven1114 on Today at 17:21:49]I happen to practice Religio Romana so I believe in multiple Deities. I however don't assume I am 100% correct nor that my interpretations are either. Could I be? sure but I could also be dead *bleep* wrong. i simply believe what I believe through faith of my own and don't try to present it as fact nor do I try to tell others their beliefs are wrong, unless they try to present it as a fact. It's a common curtsey that a lot of people are lacking in.

[quote author=Falconer02 link=topic=38976.msg504991#msg504991 date=1331703563
A tactful forum member who religiously believes differently than 90% of the users on this forum? Wow, I like you already!
[/quote]

Yes, I noticed the specific caveat of "nor do I try to tell others their beliefs are wrong, unless they try to present it as a fact" too.  I'm pretty sure "raven" is making the distinction between religious beliefs and non-religious dissent there.
[/quote]

Yes I am. If you told me you believed that the giant spaghetti monster created the world out of pixie dust while twirling his baton. I'd say cool. If however you told me it was a fact that this is how the world was created and that there is no other possible explanation. Well then I'm going to tell you to prove it.

[falcon9]

If you told me you believed that the giant spaghetti monster created the world out of pixie dust while twirling his baton. I'd say cool. If however you told me it was a fact that this is how the world was created and that there is no other possible explanation. Well then I'm going to tell you to prove it.

Fair enough and speaking of fairness, I suppose I'd run the risk of alienating you were I to pose the same type of questions which were posed to a few xtians, (who've assumed I was specifically 'targeting' xtianity with such logic as you've demonstrated)?