Featured Who Did Cain Marry?

I would go so far as to say the very purpose for woman being taken from the man made in the image of God was for the bringing forth of the lamb without blemish or spot, slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God of which man (born of woman taken from man made in the image of God), has to be born again in order to enter and or inherit, that is to press into see Luke 16:16

Is verse 18 of Luke 16 relative to this thread?

BTW I do not have the answer, I am only asking to get the thoughts of others.

Was there some sort of adultery relative to what transpired in the garden and is it relative to Jesus being born of a virgin?

 

MMRRPP! WRONG!
He condemned it from the gitgo.

NEWP! Aint no one proved diddly.

But you can't prove He DIDN'T.

The KJVO myth's MAN-MADE origin is plain as day. the origin oc Cain's wife is NOT so plain. I just suggested one possibility, while there's NO other possibility for the KJVO myth. There are still a few people living who remember the time before there was any widespread KJVO myth.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm stating the OBVIOUS.

SPEAX like a KJVO...
ACTS like a KJVO...
SYMPATHIZES with KJVOs...

You're quickly headed for BOTH, with your obsession.

What's being undermined is your obsession, since you realize KJVO has no Scriptural support, and you can't stand it.

You've tried and tried again to disprove what I've said, and you simply CANNOT DO IT. About time for you to give it up and move on to the next page.

 

Not REALLY.

A simple rule of God and man is that like produces like. And a simple rule of GOD'S is that INCEST WAS AND IS A SIN. remember, God didn't call sexual perverseions merely "sins"; He said they were ABOMINATIONS. And God didn't suddenly invent abominations before Himself! He told the Israelis that non-kosher animals were to be abominations to THEM from then on, but what was an abomination to GOD was ALWAYS so.

And scisnce has proven there are certain chromosomes carried by ALL people, no matter how mixed-up their pasts were. Doesn't disprove GOD created other people at all.

Not REALLY.

And to my knowledge there's nothing in Scripture that sez where Cain got a wife, or that GOD condoned incest between full siblings.

So?

There's nothing in Scripture that sez seeing one's father naked is a sin, but Noah laid a curse upon Ham's son Canaan because Ham saw Noah naked. (Gen. 9) And again, we go back to Cain's murdering Abel. Nothing in Scripture sez murder was a sin before that act, but Abel knew he'd done wrong, and , of course, so did GOD.

Not REALLY.

My own ancestry is quite scrambled after 5 or 6 generations. I know one great-grandfather was a Union soldier(not a general, or any other officer) in the Civil War, his dad was a plain ole farmer married to a Ute Indian, several hundred years ago the Robys were highwaymen operating outta a castle in Englsnd near Sherwood Forest, that they had wives and concubines, and who fathered whom is unknown to man. But I am who I am. And, back in the days when concubines were common and adoption was easy, no one's ancestry but that of JESUS is REALLY certain. And one of his human ancestors was RUTH, a MOABITESS, of the people produced by the incest of one of Lot's daughters. But, Ruth was RIGHTEOUS, and she couldn't choose her ancestry any more than we could. She was David's great-grandmother. And her line was nothing special, being begun by an act of incest. BUT RUTH HERSELF, FAR AS WE KNOW, WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF INCEST.

So, if you say Adam and Eve's kids married each other, you're saying JESUS entire human line came from incest!

So, you, also, are back to Square One, unable to prove me wrong at all.

 

I'm getting bored with this. As a KJVO, you don't care for my views; that's fine. I don't care....YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS!

I've acceeded to your wish, and made my view known. Now, have YOU or anyone else refuted one blip of them? NEWP!

You can run your yapper all U wish in this thread; I'm headed back to KJVO land to keep refuting their (and YOUR) hooey.

 

Book, chapter, and verse would be nice. If it's not in Scripture, you are adding to it. Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2.

Seems like it.

 

I beg to differ. You've often supported open KJVOs, while avoiding being open about it yourself. In fact, this whole thingie is isnsupport of open KJVOs. I often point out that there's no Scriptural support for the KJVO myth, so you've tried to equate that with there being no Scriptural support for where Cain's wife came from. And you know FULL WELL that I've only said God's creating other people to be spouses for Adam and Eve's children is a POSSIBILITY, not an absolute. I've said that over and over, so I'm not gonna say it again. It's here, in several posts.

No, I see no point in repeating the same things over & over to what few people are interested.

Again, since Eve was the first woman, she's still technically the mother of all living since she will always be the mother of her children, grandmother of her grandchildren, etc. thruout the generations, even if others had been added by GOD.

And you have NO satisfactory explanation for where the various races originated. Again, I have only suggested POSSIBILITIES. You CANNOT prove nor disprove any of them, and neither can I.

You'ew simply back to Square One.

As for the KJVO myth, its man-made origin is PROVEN, WITHOUT A DOUBT, whereas the actual source of Cain's wife and of the various races is not known We do NOT know how GOD made it happen; we only know that He DID. So, I have lotsa room to point out that KJVO has no Scriptural support, while you can only GUESS the origin of Cain's wife, and of the races.

No, I'm NOT running away; I'm simply tired of talking to a one-track tape.

 

So, God condoned murder until Cain killed Abel?

And it suddenly became sinful for a man to see his father stoned and naked?

Where's the Scripture against murder BEFORE Cain killed Abel?

Only to KJVOs , who have no real defense for their doctrine.

 

I was looking forward to an answer to Arbo's question because I was going to ask it but he beat me to it. Care to take another run at it?

 

1. "Like produces like" - Agree, but at a higher level than your viewpoint. It means that there's a limitation as to what kind of living thing can reproduce with what kind of living thing. Dogs cannot reproduce with cats. Fish cannot reproduce with mammals. Trees cannot reproduce with tulips or turtles.

Cats can only reproduce cats. - "Like produces like"
Dogs can only reproduce dogs. - "Like produces like"
Humans can only reproduce humans - "Like produces like"

When "like produces like" there can and will be variation (because the original perfection of DNA was lost in Eden), based on the linage of the two parents. Additional factor is a mutation in a gene that can be passed along to someone in the next generation. If it is a dominate gene the change will definitely appear. If it is a recessive gene, the change will only appear if BOTH parents carry that particular trait.

In the beginning, according to His rules of genetics, God only needed to create 1 pair of dogs, cats, horses, buffalo, whales, geese, ants, and humans, in order for us to see the wide variety of same that exists today. For animals and plants, scripture does not tell us how many mating pairs that He created. Scripture does tell us exactly how many humans He created. Their names are given! Working on any other premise is outside of the Bible and is pure speculation. IMO, basing any aspect of God's will and power on pure speculation is wrong. Making assumptions based on speculation is wrong when that is used to try to sway other believers to accept a particular viewpoint. Especially when it casts doubt on God's word. God said He created Adam and Eve.

Your viewpoint goes way past wondering about Cain's wife. While you don't directly say so, bringing in "incest", puts you in the position of actually claiming God created at least one other human -- a wife for Cain. With your adament stand on incest, as you define it, there is no other option. Either you believe God created Adam & Eve to populate the earth or you don't. Your stance on incest seems to indicate that you don't.

(2) Once again, take time to study genetics & DNA. The Bible points to a single source of origin of human DNA. Evolutionists are desperately searching for the "missing link" -- single point of origin -- of human DNA. Scientific research is drawing ever closer towards pinpointing a single point of origin. African Americans, can - for example - now identify the region in Africa from where one or more of their ancestors lived at some point in the past.

(3) So, you speculate and then demand that others prove you wrong. Using what is considered sin today and imposing that upon God from the beginning. All that God created was good when He created the heavens and earth and all it contained. Satan entered the world and brought temptation to man. Since that point in time, man has found more and more ways to turn good into evil. Can you provide one single shred of evidence that God considered the act of reproduction to be evil when Adam & Eve were driven from the garden? Any shred of evidence that reproduction between siblings was a sin before Satan introduced ways to corrupt unions between men and women?

By way of parallel example: How many civil laws do we have on the books today that didn't exist 200 years ago? How many ways has man found to corrupt good and turn it into evil using what didn't exist that long ago? God created the ability to produce milk. Therefore milk is good. Man found ways to corrupt it. Adding chalk is an example. Laws were passed prohibiting adulterating milk. (1800's, if memory serves, in the US.) Man invented television, a good means of communication. Man figured out how to corrupt it. Laws were passed against that corruption. The list can go on for pages.

(4) Your ancestry is NOT scrambled. There are direct lines of descent from Noah and his family. Those humans created humans, generation after generation, until you were born. If you believe the Bible, then you believe that every human walking on this earth shares an ancestry that traces back Noah & kin. (Noah's ancestry traces back to Adam & Eve.) Whether you want to admit it or not, you and I are related. :flower:

While we cannot track, at this time, every member of every generation in our past, we ALL can be certain that our ancestry exists all the way back to the beginning. To deny that is to deny the Bible. The scriptures trace the linage of Jesus for us. Research in mitochondrial DNA is beginning to prove scientifically what the Bible has told us all along. Google Mitochondrial Eve to see the brewing controversy between those who believe the Bible and those who won't acknowledge God's role in the continuation of what God created.

In closing, so what if is there was incest, as you define it, somewhere in the linage of Jesus Christ. (A) God did not consider it to be sin when it happened. (B) The sin, if it was "sin" at the time, was committed by 1 or both partners and not by the offspring of that union. (C) Repenting and asking for forgiveness washes the stains of sin away.

You have no evidence that the "sin" of incest happened. You have no proof that if the sin did, indeed happen, that God didn't forgive the sinner(s), thus removing any taint of that particular sin from the sinner(s) and their decendents.

Finally, the only person who has walked this earth without sin, is our Saviour. There is sin of some kind in every human who has walked on this earth since Adam & Eve left Eden. What you are doing is singling out 1 particular sin on which to base your opinion that God created a minimum of 3 people in the beginning. A basis upon which to rest your emphasis on race. Brother, isn't it time to remove that burr from underneath your saddle?

 

I haven't seen him insinuate that God created other people and races, he hasn't really addressed that.

He doesn't seem to be the type of guy that runs from a fight. Also, he didn't seem angry, he seemed derisive.

 

I brought up the possibility that Cain married a hominid, not a fully human being. Some theistic evolutionists hold to that belief. Robycob3 hasn't said one way or the other as to the origin of Cain's wife or the other races.

 

I'm right here!

And I've plainly stated my views, and I'm not gonna state'em again. Rant-n-rave all ya wish, maybe some of your fellow KJVOs will hearken to your silliness and repetition, but I won't.

 

Baptist, who gets the privilege of determining heresy?