Cain's wife / Incest

  • Thread starter Thread starter diesel1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John_oxios said:
Hello,
What ever happened to the Bible defining the Bible or Biblical precedence?
Adam is a son of God, Seth and heritage the line that
Thes are the sons of God, created in His own image
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

read Gen 5

Gen 5:1 ¶ This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

Genesis 6 there is no mention of angels!

Gen 6:4 **There were giants in the earth in those days; **and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

Gen 6:5 ¶ **And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great **in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

No angels, just men who took what they wanted when they wanted and feared God not.

There is no punishment of angels by God mentioned for their part? Is there? only godless MEN.

Genesis is a book of genealogies- it is a book of the families, the sons of God are the godly line who come down from Adam through Seth and the daughters of men belong to the line of Cain, what you have now is an intermingling and intermarriage of these two lines , until finally the entire line is corrupted with one exception Noah.

Commentary:
veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Genesis_6:2-4

The sons of God. The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called Sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion. Ch. — See S. Chrys. hom. 22, &c. Some copies of the Sept. having the angels of God, induced some of the ancients to suppose, that these spiritual beings (to whom, by another mistake, they attributed a sort of aerial bodies) had commerce with women, as the pagans derived their heroes from a mortal and a god. But this notion, which is borrowed from the book of Henoch, is quite exploded. C. — The distinction of the true Church from the synagogue of satan, here established, has been ever since retained, as heretics are still distinguished from Catholics. W. S. Aug.
God bless,
John
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with you. Did you mean that to be in response to the OP?
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Read what I said later on in this topic and you’ll see we agree.

And the use of 2pet 1:20 (funny, I use that all the time in my debates) here does not apply when the accounts of Gen are not dogmatically defined from ex cathedra and the church has** repeated itself in saying the accounts of Gen can be viewed on an individual basis**. So until Papa says from the Chair otherwise, people can take it however they like. I’ll repeat what I said on my previous post, we should use a duality approach to it, the directness of the text as literal and the events and what was not recorded as mythological.
Click to expand...
Hi, doesn’t count?It’s Open to ridicule, question? debacle there are teachings from where Catholicism stems Judaism, which Christ was born into, taught about, and did not refute its teachings only the traditions of men who abused their position to wiggle out of Gods commands.

Look to the Old testament to find what, how and why the catholic Church teaches it’s there. The background of the New Testament meaning lies in the Old Testament.

if you tearaway at the old. you can redefine the new, and discredit the Church.

The Torah states: "Gen ch 1 described creation in a very brief and sketchy way because, as noted above, the Torah did not mean for man to understand that entire process- that is beyond human capacity - but to know that God is our Creator.

However In the New Testament, God uses Christ Man and God, (the 2nd Adam), Mary the 2nd Eve, and the Cross Christ hung on Tree) to help in the Salvation which was lost lost in Genesis.

Yes we all know knowledge does not grow on tree’s, why a tree then? Man is in awe of it, trees i.e. take a northwestern redwood Its height and berth are breathtaking. It represents independence, it stands alone, even seems to be self sufficient ‘outside of God,’ so the tree of ‘good and bad’ Represents man and something he craved outside of God. Which they brought into themselves (the fruit) and made it part of their nature. (They don’t tarry around the Tree of life?)

in the torah, when Eve augments the Command of God, that she received through Adam, not to touch, that the serpent beguiles her by pushing her against the tree,and says, "just as you did not die from touching it, so you will not die from eating it. Thus, the serpent convinced her that God’s death threat was merely to intimidate them not to eat, but that they would not truly die.

The Tree may also refer to Man’s unwholesome capacity to choose what is superficially sweet {good] even though it is harmful to him, and to reject what is superficially bitter [bad] even when it is truly beneficial. kinda like the wider easier broad road Jesus warns us about described by the Greek letter upsilon.

God bless,
John
 
smichhertz said:
Yes, I agree with you. Did you mean that to be in response to the OP?
Click to expand...
No just a response to enhance this statement, (which is yours)
Code: 
It is true that angels are sometimes referred to as "sons of God" **but I don't think it really works in this context.**
Click to expand...
BTW I apologize I started writing and after posting I reread your statement which included,
“I think it’s safer to take it at face value.”
God bless,
john
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Agreed, I think we should take a duality approach to it. I take the directness of it a literal, such as the creation of Adam and Eve and the punishment, and events and what was not said as mythological, such as the fruit of the tree, the serpent, and the absent explaination of how long they were in the Garden or not speaking of the potentiality of other people. God gave them the commandment to procreate BEFORE they sinned, so it’s very possible they were in the Garden for hundreds or thousands of years and bore many.

I like how you showed Lev 18 was not law until that period, so we can deduct that this law was not retroactive to humanity. So if it wasn’t unlawful until God made the commandment not to do so anymore, was it (temporary) evil at all?
Click to expand...
It is true that Adam and Eve were blessed in the beginning. However, the choice Adam had to make would affect all his descendants. Therefore, the choice came first and then the consequences were transmitted by propagation. For more information, please read paragraphs 404 -409 in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
It was much purer back then. It was ok. Besides, in that time, who else would he marry?!
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Agreed, I think we should take a duality approach to it. I take the directness of it a literal, such as the creation of Adam and Eve and the punishment, and events and what was not said as mythological, such as the fruit of the tree, the serpent, and the absent explaination of how long they were in the Garden or not speaking of the potentiality of other people. God gave them the commandment to procreate BEFORE they sinned, so it’s very possible they were in the Garden for hundreds or thousands of years and bore many.

I like how you showed Lev 18 was not law until that period, so we can deduct that this law was not retroactive to humanity. So if it wasn’t unlawful until God made the commandment not to do so anymore, was it (temporary) evil at all?
Click to expand...
Actually God gave the commandments and the Law to point man to his sin, but gave him no power over it. Read Genesis and you’ll see the commandments broken before God wrote them on stone. Why stone? to show man the hardness of his heart, that’s why he promises to give us a new heart of flesh, in Christ Jesus.

Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh
Eze 36:26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Not mythological **but metaphorical, **God gave it so, we have problems with the metaphors imagine if God gave it to us straight??

Metaphorical:
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile ( def. 1 ) .
something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

Mythological: imaginary; fictitious.

Hundreds of years a go Myth meant ’ a truth,’ The story was the husk, the ‘myth’ was the truth revealed *

God bless,
John*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top