Featured Who Did Cain Marry?

GT, if you are half as intelligent as I think you are, you will go silent.

 

He married his wife? Weren't they already married by that point? :laugh:

I don't totally agree. There are other events we focus on, such as the resurrection and it is still a theological study, thus history and theology both have their place in this study. Now concerning Cains wife, we don't know, not to be known. That said, some still study different angles on differing subjects and biblical topics/events to come up with some differing conclusions. I believe the Cain's wife issue not of grave importance, nor is it to be obsessed over.

 

That would be extra-biblical revelation. I don't know any Baptists in 'real-time' who believe that nonsense.

 

No, I've read it.

 

Roby,


I will go to church with you.

 

I believe God created the heavens and the earth, Adam and Eve.

Yes, I do not "necessarily" have a problem with the concept of evolution. Although, I do have a problem with naturalism, be sure you understand the difference.

And yes, I am Old Earth (as many would say). I do accept that the Universe is approximately 13-15 billion years old, and our earth and solar system is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

And I like grits and boiled peanuts.

 

See, there is at least one thing (though I suspect there are others) we can agree on. Grits.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Gen 2:23

Were they married, husband and wife, at this moment? Or were they espoused for marriage?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Matt 19:4,5

Because they were male and female were they espoused, not yet married?

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Gen 2:24

At this point are they espoused or married?

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Gen 2:25

Gen 3:6 They eat the fruit, and; And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; Gen 3:7

and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' Gen 2:17 YLT

And you who were dead in trespasses and sins; Eph 2:1

When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matt 1:18,25

 

Me? Silent? NEVER!!!

B4L, just b/c I value the narrative over the event does not mean I don't care about... whatever that term was you used. I just find that it is not an important issue. If you get sidetracked on this, you will miss the huge point of Gen. 3-11.

 

But I am saying you are asking and answering a question that is moot. Roby aside. It doesn't matter who he married (even if there was even an historical Cain). The Bible is not history but theology. That is not to say it is not historical, only that its purpose is not history. Therefore, the events are not inspired, the text and the meaning within the text is. What does the story of Cain and the surrounding stories between Gen. 3-11 teach? That is the question.

 

Why??? B/c the Bible is a history book to you? I'm not trying to gain your approval. I am just trying to get you to think past the simplistic way of thinking about the OT. Like I said, the Bible (and that includes the OT) is primarily a theological book, not history. That doesn't make it fiction. That doesn't mean it is not historical. That just means it has a thrust that you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

PS... if you are going to represent my views, please do so in a respectful manner trying to present them accurately. I neither believe that the OT is a bunch of stories (I believe in a metanarrative) nor that it is to be interpreted moralistically (as you most likely do). I have a missional/messianic hermeneutic and apply that to the OT. If you want to know more, then have the common courtesy to ask. Otherwise, I can lob the same slime at you and say that "nothing else you post has any credibility with me" (as if my opinion of you or you of me is relevant to truth).