Cain's Wife?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristRocket
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Natural_Numbers said:
Not all opinions are equal. Do you think, for example, in a court of law, the consensus opinion of 100 medical doctors should be considered equal to the opinion of an auto-mechanic when it comes to the workings of the human body?

I’m not talking about “Ancient Aliens” on the History Channel, I’m talking about scholarly consensus. If you think the whole of archaeology and paleontology are comparable to conspiracy theories on the History Channel, I would suggest your perception of the matter is very misinformed.
Click to expand...
I appeal to historians, who cite historians before them eg Josephus citing Moses (who are nearer the vehicle manufacturer). Linking to the past in my opinion is far more credible than the disassociated methodologies “scientific” opinion has chosen to undertake today. Unfortunately “history” is classified in the realm of “art” rather than that far grander pinnacle of “truth” which is the “sciences”.

Without boundaries, all things are possible, and that is the consensus.
 
Darryl_B said:
I appeal to historians, who cite historians before them eg Josephus citing Moses (who are nearer the vehicle manufacturer). Linking to the past in my opinion is far more credible than the disassociated methodologies “scientific” opinion has chosen to undertake today. Unfortunately “history” is classified in the realm of “art” rather than that far grander pinnacle of “truth” which is the “sciences”.

Without boundaries, all things are possible, and that is the consensus.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you know how history works.
 
Okay people, it is pretty obvious that Cains wife would have been his sister… that’s that, there’s nothing else to it… No reason to start getting all fancy
 
SammyV09 said:
There are some pseudepigraphcal books that say more about this matter:
Book of Jubilees
First Book of Adam and Eve (near the end?)
Second Book of Adam and Eve
All the texts can be found on link: sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm.

Please note, the above are “pseudepigraphical”. They are NOT consider as canonical books by the Roman Catholic Church (nor by any mainstream churches also, except maybe Ethiopian Orthodox Church).

So, I advise that if you are going to read them, please do so with a “pinch of salt”…
Click to expand...
Just a comment on that link; the website goes overboard to argue in favor things like same sex marriage, and seems to support abortion as well. I realize the poster made a caveat to take the books found there with a pinch of salt. But I would go further, take the whole link/website with a whole shaker full of salt.
The problem with texts gathered into a website like this is that you don’t know which texts or which parts of texts or which translations they chose not to include. Suggest you find another website not so ideologically driven, see what texts and which translations they include for the cited works.
 
commenter said:
Just a comment on that link; the website goes overboard to argue in favor things like same sex marriage, and seems to support abortion as well. I realize the poster made a caveat to take the books found there with a pinch of salt. But I would go further, take the whole link/website with a whole shaker full of salt.
The problem with texts gathered into a website like this is that you don’t know which texts or which parts of texts or which translations they chose not to include. Suggest you find another website not so ideologically driven, see what texts and which translations they include for the cited works.
Click to expand...
commenter, until I read your post, I had not noticed that. I always only used the Christianity and Judaism links, as I was not interested in anything else. The site always looked like just a big collection of every “religious” text they could find, but I did not even notice the LGBT link until now(I’m assuming this is where you found the same-sex marriage thing).

I guess I should have been more careful what I posted… And it appears that you cannot edit a post once posted in this forum.
And what you said about that translation citation is correct as well. They don’t really quote where they got the material from. I will be more mindful of this from now on. Thank you for pointing this out to me.
 
SammyV09 said:
commenter, until I read your post, I had not noticed that. I always only used the Christianity and Judaism links, as I was not interested in anything else. The site always looked like just a big collection of every “religious” text they could find, but I did not even notice the LGBT link until now(I’m assuming this is where you found the same-sex marriage thing).

I guess I should have been more careful what I posted… And it appears that you cannot edit a post once posted in this forum.
And what you said about that translation citation is correct as well. They don’t really quote where they got the material from. I will be more mindful of this from now on. Thank you for pointing this out to me.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to discourage you from checking out websites that also happen to support other causes you might disagree with.
One good thing about the Internet is that it makes available so much historical material.
People who are very much aware of potential bias when they look at new info at Fox News or CNN tend to be more trusting of sites that gather historic data. We take off our caveats. We unconsciously think that the 2015 biases and agendas don’t spin what we are reading here, because it’s ancient; forgetting a lot of editing, introductions, footnotes, and selection decisions have been made, that may or may not reflect 2015.

Be aware that many important documents have been translated a few times into English, sometimes people choose the translation that “fits” what they are promoting; or they may focus on one papal document (out of several related) to “prove” their point. Most readers don’t know about the others that address this issue. When someone publishes Part 1, and Part 3, of an ancient document, I immediately wonder what’s in Part 2; but usually omission is not that obvious.
That doesn’t mean you can’t learn something useful from a website or book you mostly disagree with, it just means you need to cross-check things with a more comprehensive or objective source. The biased source still might teach you something you didn’t know. But check it out.

(What is an “objective source”? It’s one that agrees with MY bias) 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top