Story of Noah: Who believes it to be real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abbadon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve seen the following issue come up a few times in this thread, so I thought I should offer my thoughts on it to help clarify the position of those who take the early chapters of Genesis as conveying historical information. Firstly, those who understand the Bible to be giving a historical account to us in these first chapters of Genesis do not believe that the Bible is giving us a comprehensive historical account.

Gigantic SNIP

Hopefully I didn’t miss anything. I don’t want to enter into the debate. I don’t have all the answers. I just wanted to clarify these points for people on both sides of the issue. 🙂

May the LORD be with you all!

It’s not unlikely that this issue will cause a flurry of posts too - so would it not be a good idea to give it its own thead 🙂 ?​

 
We come to Genesis 5. What is the purpose of the genealogy? It is to give us the ancestry from Adam to Noah, even from God to Noah. The purpose of the genealogy is not to give us the names of firstborn sons. It is not picking up where the chronology ended in chapter 4, but is starting over from the beginning. It is not giving a chronology of birth order so that the repeated statement, “had other sons and daughters,” implies that all of these sons and daughters came after the name of the son just identified. What it means is that, yes, there were other children; but the only child that matters for the purpose of the genealogy is the ancestor of Noah each time. So the other sons and daughters gain a mention, but the fact that their mention is read after the son who is explicitly identified is not meant to imply that they were born after that son. The order on the page does not imply order of birth, but rather order of purpose. Chronology of birth order is not in view in Ch 5. The names of Noah’s ancestors are in view. That’s my take. 🙂
Jubilees states that Cain’s wife was Avan, his sister.
 
Show it to me.Not scriptural. You or someone else made that up. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve had no children until after Cain was exiled.
Genisis 5:4 (Adam had other sons and daughters.)

Where do you see that Adam and Eve had no children until Cain was exiled?
Or can we take that part of the scriptures as figurative?

Peace

Tim
I thought you told me earlier that you believe God’s word to be truth, didn’t you?
 
Not in scripture.

Peace

Tim
Correct - not on Scripture. The Trinity does not appear there either Catholics use Scripture and Tradition together with interpretation by the Magisterium. Protestants do not…
 
Genisis 5:4 (Adam had other sons and daughters.)

Where do you see that Adam and Eve had no children until Cain was exiled?
Genesis 4. Read it and tell me when Adam and Eve had children.

Of course, if you don’t take Genesis literally, you can come up with scenarios where Cain married his sister who was born before he was exiled but not mentioned anywhere in scriptures.
I thought you told me earlier that you believe God’s word to be truth, didn’t you?
Of course I do. Don’t you? You seem to want to add to it to fit a literal reading. Doesn’t make much sense.

Peace

Tim
 

We are given these events:​

  • Date unknown - birth of Cain
  • Date unknown - birth of Abel
  • Cain does Abel in
  • after Adam’s 130th birthday - birth of Seth
  • Later, before Adam dies aged 930 - Adam begets sons and daughters
  • Adam dies aged 930
    There is no evidence in the text that Cain had any sisters, or any other female relatives (apart from Eve) before some time after Seth was born. Unless there was a woman of child-bearing age for him to marry, he could not be the father of Enoch father of Irad. Enoch son of Cain (not to be confused with the prophet quoted by Jude: that Enoch was the father of Methuselah, descended from Seth) might be born without a father - but not without a mother: not even if the first patriarchs were outstandingly brilliant practitioners of sex-change surgery. Short of lying with his own mother, he would not have anything resembling a wife. If incest was tolerated then, why not include incest between parent & child ? Such bigamy would explain the bigamy of Lamech the descendant of Cain (not to be confused with the pious father of Noah, obviously) - it would be a precedent.
Let’s see where you find that Adam had no children until after Cains exile other then Abel.
 
Genesis 4. Read it and tell me when Adam and Eve had children.

Of course, if you don’t take Genesis literally, you can come up with scenarios where Cain married his sister who was born before he was exiled but not mentioned anywhere in scriptures.Of course I do. Don’t you? You seem to want to add to it to fit a literal reading. Doesn’t make much sense.

Peace

Tim
Now that you have that out of your system, can you show me where your finding your information that Cain was an only child after he killed Abel?
 
Now that you have that out of your system, can you show me where your finding your information that Cain was an only child after he killed Abel?
Genesis 4. Where in scripture do you find any children other than Cain alive until Genesis 4:25?

Peace

Tim
 
Correct - not on Scripture. The Trinity does not appear there either Catholics use Scripture and Tradition together with interpretation by the Magisterium. Protestants do not…
Hmmm…

Jubilees actually is Scripture in the Ethiopian Catholic Church. I’ve never read Jubilees. I’ll have to take a look. Thanks!
 
Genesis 4. Where in scripture do you find any children other than Cain alive until Genesis 4:25?

Peace

Tim
Do you think this portion of scripture is in cronological order? I assure you, it is not written like that. Adam had other sons and daughters. One of the jobs God gave them was to populate the earth. In 130 years, I would think they already had several grandchildren, great grand children and so on. This is not written in scripture, but I can see nothing to say they waited 130 years before having a 3rd child.
 
Do you think this portion of scripture is in cronological order? I assure you, it is not written like that.
Really? Where in scripture do you get that?
Adam had other sons and daughters.
Certainly, once Cain killed Abel and was exiled, raised a family and started a city.
One of the jobs God gave them was to populate the earth. In 130 years, I would think they already had several grandchildren, great grand children and so on. This is not written in scripture, but I can see nothing to say they waited 130 years before having a 3rd child.
I see. So you take scripture literally except, um, the parts that you don’t take literally.

At least I am consistent.

Peace

Tim
 
Really? Where in scripture do you get that?Certainly, once Cain killed Abel and was exiled, raised a family and started a city.I see. So you take scripture literally except, um, the parts that you don’t take literally.

At least I am consistent.

Peace

Tim
I can only tell you that you are wrong in this assumption. The bible is not written in cronological order. I suggest that you call a bible preaching and bible believing church, and ask to speak with an elder or the pastor. They will probably be excited to sit down with you and discuss biblical truths. I would hope they could help you gain some clairity. Keep reading your bible by yourself, but I believe you could use some guidance.
 
I can only tell you that you are wrong in this assumption. The bible is not written in cronological order. I suggest that you call a bible preaching and bible believing church, and ask to speak with an elder or the pastor. They will probably be excited to sit down with you and discuss biblical truths. I would hope they could help you gain some clairity. Keep reading your bible by yourself, but I believe you could use some guidance.
Sure. You see, that is the problem with your literal reading of scriptures. You have to interpret (not read literally) scriptures so that your literal reading makes sense. You don’t really believe that scriptures must be read literally. You just insist that others read it like you want it read.

I don’t need some other person to tell me how to interpret scriptures. I have the Church that Christ established to do that.

Peace

Tim
 
Sure. You see, that is the problem with your literal reading of scriptures. You have to interpret (not read literally) scriptures so that your literal reading makes sense. You don’t really believe that scriptures must be read literally. You just insist that others read it like you want it read.

I don’t need some other person to tell me how to interpret scriptures. I have the Church that Christ established to do that.

Peace

Tim
This is not a logical arguement.

I am not saying someone else should interpret the bible for you, that is for the Holy Spirit to help you with. I am suggesting you go to a Christian for some guidance and help with passages that seem to give you trouble.
 
This is not a logical arguement.
What’s not? Adding a personal interpretation to scriptures so that you can claim to read them literally? I agree.
I am not saying someone else should interpret the bible for you, that is for the Holy Spirit to help you with. I am suggesting you go to a Christian for some guidance and help with passages that seem to give you trouble.
Those posts are giving you trouble, not me. Remember, I believe those chapters are not literal history. You claim that they are literal. YOU have to add stuff to your “literal” reading for the passages to be literal.

I am a Christian and those that I rely on are Christians. We happen to belong to Christ’s Church. Why would I go to someone outside of that Church for help?

Peace

Tim
 
What’s not? Adding a personal interpretation to scriptures so that you can claim to read them literally? I agree.Those posts are giving you trouble, not me. Remember, I believe those chapters are not literal history. You claim that they are literal. YOU have to add stuff to your “literal” reading for the passages to be literal.

I am a Christian and those that I rely on are Christians. We happen to belong to Christ’s Church. Why would I go to someone outside of that Church for help?

Peace

Tim
You are flatly disagreeing with the bible an what Christ church teaches.
 
You are flatly disagreeing with the bible an what Christ church teaches.
No, I’m not. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to add to scripture. Tell me, where in scriptures does it allow you to do that?

Peace

Tim
 
Are you catholic?
Absolutely. As I said, I belong to Christ’s Church. I don’t need someone outside of that Church telling me how to add stuff to scripture so that I can read it literally.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top