Cain's Wife (Genesis 4)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Reptilians, of the Clinton Bloodline.



I'll post more this evening.

Well, it's evening somewhere... lol

Mankind was created on the sixth day, but Adam was created after the first Sabbath. The creation accounts in ch 1 and ch2 of Genesis are different, presenting a clearly different and contrary account in each chapter, and therefore cannot be reconciled as two descriptions of the same event, nor is either account clearly symbolic or mythological. Therefore, they each describe a different series of events.

Cain was worried about strangers killing him because he was a nomad. He married and had a son and built a city. Building a city implies other people. His mark implies other people. The two creation accounts imply other people. Therefore, I conclude there were other people.

The primary objection people have is either theological, or philosophical. The theological objection is based on the erroneous belief that sin is a substance inhering in physical human nature, inherited by natural procreation. To avoid the obvious conclusion that Jesus was a born sinner, either Immaculate Conception or Divine Flesh is invoked, both of which are errors. The objection claims that anyone not descended from Adam would be born free of sin and not needing salvation. The objection wholly disappears when the voluntary nature of sin is accepted, as per the Bible, and the gnostic-catholic doctrine of an inherited sin nature is rejected.

The philosophical argument is based on Enlightenment humanistic egalitarianism, and is thus of no concern to me.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, it's evening somewhere... lol

Mankind was created on the sixth day, but Adam was created after the first Sabbath. The creation accounts in ch 1 and ch2 of Genesis are different, presenting a clearly different and contrary account in each chapter, and therefore cannot be reconciled as two descriptions of the same event, nor is either account clearly symbolic or mythological. Therefore, they each describe a different series of events.

Cain was worried about strangers killing him because he was a nomad. He married and had a son and built a city. Building a city implies other people. His mark implies other people. The two creation accounts imply other people. Therefore, I conclude there were other people.

The primary objection people have is either theological, or philosophical. The theological objection is based on the erroneous belief that sin is a substance inhering in physical human nature, inherited by natural procreation. To avoid the obvious conclusion that Jesus was a born sinner, either Immaculate Conception or Divine Flesh is invoked, both of which are errors. The objection claims that anyone not descended from Adam would be born free of sin and not needing salvation. The objection wholly disappears when the voluntary nature of sin is accepted, as per the Bible, and the gnostic-catholic doctrine of an inherited sin nature is rejected.

The philosophical argument is based on Enlightenment humanistic egalitarianism, and is thus of no concern to me.

How do the following scriptures fit into your viewpoint?

Gen 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

This implies to me that there was no mankind before Adam.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This implies to me that ALL things (which would include Adam) were created before the sabbath.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

How do the following scriptures fit into your viewpoint?

Gen 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

This implies to me that there was no mankind before Adam.

There was no "man to till the ground" until Adam. Adam was the first gardener/farmer.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This implies to me that ALL things (which would include Adam) were created before the sabbath.

All that is in the heavens and the earth were created before the first Sabbath... so did that include you and me? Man was created on the sixth day, but that doesn't mean all men were around before the seventh day.

Besides, even if Adam was created on the sixth day, his creation is not described in ch 1, ergo the premise still remains: there were people other than Adam. Although I believe a straightforward reading of Genesis strongly supports a post sabbath formation of Adam, the individual placed in the Garden.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There was no "man to till the ground" until Adam. Adam was the first gardener/farmer.



All that is in the heavens and the earth were created before the first Sabbath... so did that include you and me? Man was created on the sixth day, but that doesn't mean all men were around before the seventh day.

Besides, even if Adam was created on the sixth day, his creation is not described in ch 1, ergo the premise still remains: there were people other than Adam. Although I believe a straightforward reading of Genesis strongly supports a post sabbath formation of Adam, the individual placed in the Garden.

How do these other "people" connect with Romans 5:12? Since what you are saying places them outside of Adam's lineage, and therefore logically place them outside of Jesus' redemption? Is Paul only writing Romans 5 for Adam's lineage? Which would be the human beings, and the "other people" being part of the beasts "Gentiles?"

Just pondering what the conclusion might be for the other created "people."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

How do these other "people" connect with Romans 5:12? Since what you are saying places them outside of Adam's lineage, and therefore logically place them outside of Jesus' redemption? Is Paul only writing Romans 5 for Adam's lineage? Which would be the human beings, and the "other people" being part of the beasts "Gentiles?"

Just pondering what the conclusion might be for the other created "people."

That would basically be the theological argument I mentioned. Biological descendancy from Adam is not needed in order to be a sinner, nor to be redeemed. All have sinned, and all creation is subject to reclamation by Christ.

Adam is (or was) the "federal head" of mankind, as some term it, and Christ is the new federal head. That headship is not based solely on biological descent.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That would basically be the theological argument I mentioned. Biological descendancy from Adam is not needed in order to be a sinner, nor to be redeemed. All have sinned, and all creation is subject to reclamation by Christ.

Adam is (or was) the "federal head" of mankind, as some term it, and Christ is the new federal head. That headship is not based solely on biological descent.

Who was created first? Adam or the other people?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Who was created first? Adam or the other people?

It looks to me like mankind was created first (Day 6) and then a specific man was made afterwards. Although I accept the possibility that both creation accounts may have taken place on Day 6. However, as I mentioned earlier, a straightforward reading implies the Garden episode took place after the seventh day. At least, that's how it looks to me.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That would basically be the theological argument I mentioned. Biological descendancy from Adam is not needed in order to be a sinner, nor to be redeemed. All have sinned, and all creation is subject to reclamation by Christ.

Adam is (or was) the "federal head" of mankind, as some term it, and Christ is the new federal head. That headship is not based solely on biological descent.

Also, speaking of redemption: technically speaking, only Israel could be redeemed (which means to buy back) because only Israel was sold for their sins. However, all who join themselves to the Lord participate in that redemption. Moreover, all creation is in a sense redeemed by Christ, since all creation was placed under a curse because of Adam's sin.

But as to biological descendancy, Adam had no sin nature and yet sinned. Thus, a sin nature is not at all necessary to explain the existence of sin. And therefore, direct biological descent from Adam is not necessary to explain the existence of sin in anyone, because an inherited sin nature is not necessary as just shown.

The Bible is not a geneology of all mankind. Rather it is a geneology of Christ, along with some mentions of close related side branches of His ancestry. This is one reason Scripture doesn't keep detailed geneologies after Christ: they aren't relevant to all mankind. Some person's geneology may be relevant to themselves, but not to all mankind in general.

Likewise, prior to Christ, the only geneologies of importance to the Word are those respecting Christ and the immediate side branches of that lineage.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Also, speaking of redemption: technically speaking, only Israel could be redeemed (which means to buy back) because only Israel was sold for their sins. However, all who join themselves to the Lord participate in that redemption. Moreover, all creation is in a sense redeemed by Christ, since all creation was placed under a curse because of Adam's sin.

But as to biological descendancy, Adam had no sin nature and yet sinned. Thus, a sin nature is not at all necessary to explain the existence of sin. And therefore, direct biological descent from Adam is not necessary to explain the existence of sin in anyone, because an inherited sin nature is not necessary as just shown.

The Bible is not a geneology of all mankind. Rather it is a geneology of Christ, along with some mentions of close related side branches of His ancestry. This is one reason Scripture doesn't keep detailed genealogies after Christ: they aren't relevant to all mankind. Some person's genealogy may be relevant to themselves, but not to all mankind in general.

Likewise, prior to Christ, the only genealogies of importance to the Word are those respecting Christ and the immediate side branches of that lineage.

Correct, but Adam is still in the genealogy of all Children of Israel. Who are these other people? Where are they ever referred to? Where can we trace them down through the Bible. I have a thought which I was discussing with a brother tonight, just want to see if it is worth going deeper. Or just a black hole.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Correct, but Adam is still in the genealogy of all Children of Israel. Who are these other people? Where are they ever referred to? Where can we trace them down through the Bible. I have a thought which I was discussing with a brother tonight, just want to see if it is worth going deeper. Or just a black hole.

These other people are mentioned in Genesis ch 1. They may be the among the "daughters of men" mentioned in Genesis 6. Although there is a possibility the daughters of men are in fact Adam's progeny, and the "sons of Elohim" were 6th Day progeny, which would mean the "giants" and "mighty men of renown" were 6th Day pre-Adamites and their (possibly hybrid?) offspring.

In any event, they aren't really addressed, just like Adam's other sons and daughters aren't addressed, because they aren't germane to the history of Israel and of Christ.

We can't trace them down through the Bible just like we can't trace much of the descendants of Put down through the Bible, or many other peoples not mentioned in Scripture. Again, the reason being their stories aren't really necessary to the story of Christ.

I'd like to know what that thought was you were discussing...