He was worried about people killing him. There was someone else around.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
By the time he was old enough to kill Abel he probably had a lot of younger brothers who were young adults or teenagers and quite capable of killing him if they caught up with him. And they had the motivation to also - he killed their brother after all. Other random people would have had no motive to kill him, so his fear doesn't suggest the existance of anyone other than family.
Ok, I'll chime in.
Regarding the theory of evolution.
My problem with evolution has always been the lack of evidence for it even to be considered a theory.
If we are to correctly apply the scientific method we will call it the "hypothesis of evolution"; it's been elevated to "theory" status way too quickly.
When I was a kid I just accepted evolution as "G-d's way of doing things" since in public school it was taught to us as fact.
Later in life as I studied science and engineering I realized there was a double standard with evolution.
There is one part of evolution which is partially true; and evolutionists exploit this to fool thinking people.
The concept of Natural Selection; the idea is that when you have something useful for procreation in species, there is an advantage that trait gives so it likely gets passed on. So the observable examples we see are moths that are brown and those of the same species that are white, and in winter the white ones succeed more due to camouflage and therefore evolution is true.
When I visited London I went to the natural history museum with an open mind thinking "OK now since this is Darwin's home maybe I'll find some convincing evidence or argument" .
They had examples of different kinds of dogs and the such. It all was about natural selection which is a real thing.
The problem is there wasn't a drop of evidence other than "artists renditions" of evolution.
Evolution comes in when you have a mutation, and that mutation gives you an advantage so then suddenly that dog has more puppies than other dogs due to his advantage and blamo! New species gradually is born.
Well it just doesn't happen. The white moth brown moth are all from existing genes. Same as breeds of dogs. We aren't creating a new species when we make a miniature dog with almost no legs, or cute munchkin cats. We are just reinforcing existing traits which were there from the beginning when G-d made them.
This HUGE misunderstanding helps the evolutionists win the hearts and minds of people because they don't make the full argument. They just say "see natural selection exists, look the white moths do better in winter and brown moths better in a forest with brown-barked evergreen trees"; and people nod in agreement unrealizing they've just been duped.
We are commanded to love the L-rd our G-d with all our hearts. Well in Biblical Hebrew this expression is something more like "with all your minds" as the heart expressed the dwelling of consciousness and the kidneys were the "heart" back then.
So loving Him with our minds we have to think through these things so we can be ready with an answer for the faith that is within us. The satan is crafty and I believe this is the whole purpose of the evolution nonsense; to dethrone G-d.
Evolution is absolute poppycock.
Darwin made the correct scientific observation that if he is correct the fossil record would show it, and if he was incorrect in his hypothesis the fossil record would also show it. Well there are hundreds of thousands of fossils cataloged worldwide and it has NOT born out his idea.
People mistakenly talk about "THE missing link" as if there is only one link missing. The problem is ALL THE LINKS in the chain are missing. Not only for man, but also for cats, dogs, whales, etc. Sometimes they find an unknown organism's fossil and immediately try to have an artist imagine where it could fit, adding flesh, cartilage, etc. to make it look like one of the links somewhere.
Classic pitfalls with evolution:
1) The eye. Evolution is supposed to be a gradual process occurring over millions of years so you don't suddenly get an eye. It gradually forms. The problem is natural selection is supposed to drive this process. Someone please tell me how 1 millionth of an unformed eye gives a creature any kind of sexual advantage to pass on this gene so after a million more mutations we eventually get complex eyes?
2) the sexes. Back when we were all hermaphrodites, why in the world would 1 millionth of a sexual organ be any kind of advantage? And how do you get 2 sexes, male and female independently developing over millions of years to one day suddently function together? It's 100% absolute nonsense.
3) Wing - how do we get fully functioning wings when you consider you don't even get 1 feather all at once, You get 1/1000th of a feather. Why does that make Roadrunner's ancestor live longer or have a sexual advantage than the lizard without 1/1000th of a single feather? Ridiculous nonsense.
4) where are all the fossils? Theoretically we should have MORE intermediary forms of species than actual current species and ancient species as everything is always changing.
5) evolutionists love to mention DNA saying saying "gorillas have 96-98% common dna to humans" well using this method of comparison cats share 90% DNA commonality to humans. So what? If you consider DNA as G-d's programming language, and your going to say "let's make something with 2 legs, 2 arms, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 head, hair, male and female, 1 hear, 2 kidneys, 1 stomache, intestines, 1 brain, 1 spinal chord, etc....." then of course that programming language will express some commonality. The problem is people ASSUME evolution is true due to the arrogance and condescending present among those scientists who happen to not believe and if you ASSUME evolution is true then you will see things that are not there.
There is SOOOOOO much to write on this issue and so much great work has been done by believing scientists; many who lost their careers due to the intolerance of dissenting views on this issue which is really a faith issue for most scientists.
I attended a lecture one time where a scientist awarded 6 times by NASA for his research spoke against the theory of Evolution. He was not a creationist but was very outspoken against the close-eyed theory we are trapped into placing our scientific faith.
SO guys, I hope we can realize that evolution should be rejected based on scientific grounds.
If you have spiritual issues with it as well I think that's also appropriate but scientifically evolution is in trouble.
Sorry for the long post; I had to restrain myself or it'd be much longer. There is soooo much support for our side on this.
Regarding the theory of evolution.
My problem with evolution has always been the lack of evidence for it even to be considered a theory.
If we are to correctly apply the scientific method we will call it the "hypothesis of evolution"; it's been elevated to "theory" status way too quickly.
When I was a kid I just accepted evolution as "G-d's way of doing things" since in public school it was taught to us as fact.
Later in life as I studied science and engineering I realized there was a double standard with evolution.
There is one part of evolution which is partially true; and evolutionists exploit this to fool thinking people.
The concept of Natural Selection; the idea is that when you have something useful for procreation in species, there is an advantage that trait gives so it likely gets passed on. So the observable examples we see are moths that are brown and those of the same species that are white, and in winter the white ones succeed more due to camouflage and therefore evolution is true.
When I visited London I went to the natural history museum with an open mind thinking "OK now since this is Darwin's home maybe I'll find some convincing evidence or argument" .
They had examples of different kinds of dogs and the such. It all was about natural selection which is a real thing.
The problem is there wasn't a drop of evidence other than "artists renditions" of evolution.
Evolution comes in when you have a mutation, and that mutation gives you an advantage so then suddenly that dog has more puppies than other dogs due to his advantage and blamo! New species gradually is born.
Well it just doesn't happen. The white moth brown moth are all from existing genes. Same as breeds of dogs. We aren't creating a new species when we make a miniature dog with almost no legs, or cute munchkin cats. We are just reinforcing existing traits which were there from the beginning when G-d made them.
This HUGE misunderstanding helps the evolutionists win the hearts and minds of people because they don't make the full argument. They just say "see natural selection exists, look the white moths do better in winter and brown moths better in a forest with brown-barked evergreen trees"; and people nod in agreement unrealizing they've just been duped.
We are commanded to love the L-rd our G-d with all our hearts. Well in Biblical Hebrew this expression is something more like "with all your minds" as the heart expressed the dwelling of consciousness and the kidneys were the "heart" back then.
So loving Him with our minds we have to think through these things so we can be ready with an answer for the faith that is within us. The satan is crafty and I believe this is the whole purpose of the evolution nonsense; to dethrone G-d.
Evolution is absolute poppycock.
Darwin made the correct scientific observation that if he is correct the fossil record would show it, and if he was incorrect in his hypothesis the fossil record would also show it. Well there are hundreds of thousands of fossils cataloged worldwide and it has NOT born out his idea.
People mistakenly talk about "THE missing link" as if there is only one link missing. The problem is ALL THE LINKS in the chain are missing. Not only for man, but also for cats, dogs, whales, etc. Sometimes they find an unknown organism's fossil and immediately try to have an artist imagine where it could fit, adding flesh, cartilage, etc. to make it look like one of the links somewhere.
Classic pitfalls with evolution:
1) The eye. Evolution is supposed to be a gradual process occurring over millions of years so you don't suddenly get an eye. It gradually forms. The problem is natural selection is supposed to drive this process. Someone please tell me how 1 millionth of an unformed eye gives a creature any kind of sexual advantage to pass on this gene so after a million more mutations we eventually get complex eyes?
2) the sexes. Back when we were all hermaphrodites, why in the world would 1 millionth of a sexual organ be any kind of advantage? And how do you get 2 sexes, male and female independently developing over millions of years to one day suddently function together? It's 100% absolute nonsense.
3) Wing - how do we get fully functioning wings when you consider you don't even get 1 feather all at once, You get 1/1000th of a feather. Why does that make Roadrunner's ancestor live longer or have a sexual advantage than the lizard without 1/1000th of a single feather? Ridiculous nonsense.
4) where are all the fossils? Theoretically we should have MORE intermediary forms of species than actual current species and ancient species as everything is always changing.
5) evolutionists love to mention DNA saying saying "gorillas have 96-98% common dna to humans" well using this method of comparison cats share 90% DNA commonality to humans. So what? If you consider DNA as G-d's programming language, and your going to say "let's make something with 2 legs, 2 arms, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 head, hair, male and female, 1 hear, 2 kidneys, 1 stomache, intestines, 1 brain, 1 spinal chord, etc....." then of course that programming language will express some commonality. The problem is people ASSUME evolution is true due to the arrogance and condescending present among those scientists who happen to not believe and if you ASSUME evolution is true then you will see things that are not there.
There is SOOOOOO much to write on this issue and so much great work has been done by believing scientists; many who lost their careers due to the intolerance of dissenting views on this issue which is really a faith issue for most scientists.
I attended a lecture one time where a scientist awarded 6 times by NASA for his research spoke against the theory of Evolution. He was not a creationist but was very outspoken against the close-eyed theory we are trapped into placing our scientific faith.
SO guys, I hope we can realize that evolution should be rejected based on scientific grounds.
If you have spiritual issues with it as well I think that's also appropriate but scientifically evolution is in trouble.
Sorry for the long post; I had to restrain myself or it'd be much longer. There is soooo much support for our side on this.
Age of the Earth has problems.
To avoid sending another long rant, haha, for now let me just say that all of our aging in science starts with an assumption that when the earth started to form, there was no lead. All those dust particles that came together by gravity to eventually form our rock we call home, had no lead in them. Lead is the final form of radioactive decay.
All Uranium will one day be lead. So the formulas we use to calculate age consider 2 things:
1) rate of radioactive decay
2) assumption that nothing was decayed at the point of creation
The problem with 1 is we have absolutely no idea at all if the rate of radioactive decay changes ever. Perhaps it accelerates when everything is molten hot and there is plasma around? Perhaps if there is the spirit of G-d hovering around it speeds up decay?
2) is inconsistent even with the scientific notion that a bunch of dust came together. Surely that dust had age and therefore you had to have some things that were not 100% new from radioactive standpoint.
So a lot of it boils down to guessing. We guess that we think the earth is this magnitude of age and then we plug it into our models and voila!
We assume there was no lead in the beginning so any lead we find means the Earth MUST BE x age because that's how long it takes for element Y to fully decay and become lead.
You see the huge problems with these modern dating methods?
For me the jury is still out on the actual age of the Earth. I tend to favor young Earth but I'm open.
I agree with Samuel's yom explanation also the notion that we measure years in terms of revolutions around the sun and who knows when G-d started the Earth to revolve around the sun. Also if He wanted to work on some mountains for a few thousand years and let the earth be molten hot he just didn't need to rotate the Earth. That "yom" is now muuuuuuch longer. Also not rotating it to night is convenient in that it actually makes things get as hot as you need... There are some factors there that we just don't know so there is some wiggle room.
Ok... must .... stop .... typing .... must .... click .... <post> ....
To avoid sending another long rant, haha, for now let me just say that all of our aging in science starts with an assumption that when the earth started to form, there was no lead. All those dust particles that came together by gravity to eventually form our rock we call home, had no lead in them. Lead is the final form of radioactive decay.
All Uranium will one day be lead. So the formulas we use to calculate age consider 2 things:
1) rate of radioactive decay
2) assumption that nothing was decayed at the point of creation
The problem with 1 is we have absolutely no idea at all if the rate of radioactive decay changes ever. Perhaps it accelerates when everything is molten hot and there is plasma around? Perhaps if there is the spirit of G-d hovering around it speeds up decay?
2) is inconsistent even with the scientific notion that a bunch of dust came together. Surely that dust had age and therefore you had to have some things that were not 100% new from radioactive standpoint.
So a lot of it boils down to guessing. We guess that we think the earth is this magnitude of age and then we plug it into our models and voila!
We assume there was no lead in the beginning so any lead we find means the Earth MUST BE x age because that's how long it takes for element Y to fully decay and become lead.
You see the huge problems with these modern dating methods?
For me the jury is still out on the actual age of the Earth. I tend to favor young Earth but I'm open.
I agree with Samuel's yom explanation also the notion that we measure years in terms of revolutions around the sun and who knows when G-d started the Earth to revolve around the sun. Also if He wanted to work on some mountains for a few thousand years and let the earth be molten hot he just didn't need to rotate the Earth. That "yom" is now muuuuuuch longer. Also not rotating it to night is convenient in that it actually makes things get as hot as you need... There are some factors there that we just don't know so there is some wiggle room.
Ok... must .... stop .... typing .... must .... click .... <post> ....
Enjoying your posts Mr. Chayil. Glad to have you aboard.
The thing about evolution is, it doesn't matter to its believers that it's nonsense. Man's heart is sinful, and desperate to deny and flee God. Evolution is extremely important to secular culture because they have to have a basis for their philosophies. (Also, the evolutionists have put so much stock into their myth that they know they would look ridiculous if they gave in now.) It isn't about science, It's about the lusts of the flesh and the pride of life. They can't find the gaping holes because they don't want to see them, in the same way a their would never seem to find a policeman.
As stated before, the only reason to try to shoehorn an old earth into the Bible is to make it subject to the religion of evolutionism. It's a philosophical coup. Once we Christians begin to make consessions to false religions like evolutiom, we lose the solid foundation of God's perfect Word, and that is exactly what the devil wants.
As stated before, the only reason to try to shoehorn an old earth into the Bible is to make it subject to the religion of evolutionism. It's a philosophical coup. Once we Christians begin to make consessions to false religions like evolutiom, we lose the solid foundation of God's perfect Word, and that is exactly what the devil wants.
For anyone who enjoys evolution debunks, I'd advise to check out creationliberty.com It's a great resource for properly cited research articles supporting creationism and the Bible, as well as teaching good Biblical doctrine outside of the anti-evolution sphere. [As far as I can tell, he's not pro-PM, but no one is perfect 
]
]
Thanks Mr. Veritas, I'm glad to be here!
Still can't believe you guys have been here all along and I didn't know it
Just a thought regarding the literal days of the Genesis creation week. The Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) rests on the days being literal regular days of evening and morning; i.e. 24 hour days. To read anything else into the creation account in Genesis makes foolishness of the Commandment. If people would believe Moses, they would believe Jesus (John 5:46), but they don't want to. Shalom
Yes, because by the time the 4th commandment was given, the Earth's days were regular, near 24 hour days and had been for many years already.
So it all depends how we view יום yom -day. If the definition of a day is the time it takes the Earth to complete 1 rotation around its axis, then today yes a day is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. So even our count of 24 hours is slightly inaccurate.
In math we can do fun things when we imagine things being just a little off, then a little more, then slightly more, continue to something extreme like infinity or zero (this concept is called a limit). So if we can accept that a day is not really 24 hours but really 23 and some minutes then what if it were 22 hours? or 21...? or 25?
So in the beginning (which by the way actually says "In A beginning" in Hebrew, or just "In beginning", b'reishit if it were in THE beginning it would say bAreishit), when G-d just created the Earth did He make it spinning immediately?
So for example He brought all the matter together that formed the Earth and it was spinning as it came together?
Or did He form the orb and then started it spinning?
How long did He wait before He started it spinning? For us this may be important since a "day" is 1 rotation around the axis and this is consistent with scripture as we are told "and it was evening and it was morning, a united day".
Also, since the evening came first, that means that the very first day had an element to it including time before G-d made light.
So how long was it before He created light? How long was that part of that first day?
Copernicus and Galileo both suffered because of the then church's view of an Earth-centric reality. Earth is the center not the sun, not some other galaxy, etc... but what is it from G-d's perspective?
Since He established in Genesis the sun and the moon to mark time then certainly the passage of a day is included in that definition, not a futuristic counting system known to us as a clock or CPU. The sun marks time. So if the Earth does not yet rotate or not yet at the current rate or the Earth does not yet exist, then yom-day is either defined differently, or it is undefined.
Remembering the Sabbath day at a later date when these periods have settled down and standardized, and was commanded doesn't conflict with this idea of an early, less static definition of day. Sun not visible, sun visible ... day. Not 23 hours 56 minutes and change.
---------------
If you really want to get wacky, let's talk relativity.
preview: good Jewish boy Einstein discovered "moving clocks run slowly". So the faster we move the more time is stretched in our reality.
So the Earth is moving, and our solar system is also moving, and the galaxy is also moving, and perhaps the universe is also moving and who knows how these speeds have changed throughout history. Time is not static... it is fully elastic but unnoticed by the observer.
The universe is expanding so we are accelerating so our local speed of time is changing as well!
Since Adam lived through the remainder of day six of the Creation Week and all of day seven and then died being 930 years old (Genesis 5:5), it would seem that the length of days and years are regarded at settled in Genesis 5. Or have I missed something with the language used for days and years?
I don't think you missed anything. It's really just a concept issue. We don't know if the years were consistent in Adam's life or not (time to make 1 circuit around the sun). We assume it was and I sure like to think so but there is no record.
It's actually my opinion that the Earth is quite young; just trying to shake it up a bit
Last edited:
another thought. If G-d really did take billions of years to create mankind through evolution; and the bible recorded that as a fact, you can be sure that the position today in science would be opposite of that. We'd be grilled with all the evidence that the Earth is young and people came into existence quickly.
So the concensus then is that Cain and Abel were definitely the first children of Adam and Eve and there was no "fruitfulness" in the garden? They got booted early on?
If we take the biblical account in a straightforward manner; No children before Adam's sin otherwise any children born before Adam sinned would not have been conceived as sinners who then sinned. The biblical record is one of children being born after Adam's sin and this is why I believe the temptation occurred shortly after Day Seven of the Creation Week. Eve would have been perfectly fertile and Adam had no reason not to obey the command to be fruitful and multiply sooooo.... with no distractions (like concussion and forums to post on 
) and lots of energy, the first attempts at multiplying and filling the earth would most likely have occurred quite soon in human history.
) and lots of energy, the first attempts at multiplying and filling the earth would most likely have occurred quite soon in human history.
Regarding the time taken for one rotation, I can see that it would be plausible for days 1 and 2 to be a different length, but day 3 could not be substantially different to our current days. If plants were created on a very long day, followed by a very long night, they would all die from the scorching day with any survivors dying from lack of sunlight and freezing temperature overnight. So at least by day 3 the length had to be roughly what it is now. And I can see no reason to think the earlier days were any different.
If we take the biblical account in a straightforward manner; No children before Adam's sin otherwise any children born before Adam sinned would not have been conceived as sinners who then sinned. The biblical record is one of children being born after Adam's sin and this is why I believe the temptation occurred shortly after Day Seven of the Creation Week. Eve would have been perfectly fertile and Adam had no reason not to obey the command to be fruitful and multiply sooooo.... with no distractions (like concussion and forums to post on
What? So the sins of the father are only passed on to the children if they're born before the sin? More sins are passed on the more children you have? Vaginas absorb sin and pass it on to the children as they pass through? Come on man. Spiritual mechanisms are not bound by physical existence. How did sin affect the plants and animals? Did they pass through Eve's vagina after Adam tainted it? Did we all pass back through Eve's vagina after Christ purified it? Is it possible that there might be anothe way to pass sin than the birth canal?
And there is a lot about this time period that is not clear. Cain had a wife, undoubtedly a sister but her birth is not recorded. God threatened to kill seven people if anyone killed Cain so there were at least that many people around and their births were not recorded. There's a lot of too in there for additional children to not get mentioned at birth. I'm not saying there were in there for millions of years bUy I can see no reason why they MIGHT not have been there for a thousand or so or any reason why that would be inconsistent with the Biblical record. In fact Adam appears to name Eve before the Fall because she was already a mother. My way might line up more with scripture.
Scripture records the birth of very few individuals generally. Of Adam and Eve's children, only Cain (the first murderer), Abel (the first murdered man) and Seth (the descendent of Noah and therefore essential for all genealogies) are recorded. The first two because of a significant event, the last for genealogical purposes.
I try to avoid speculation, when there are old sources that don't disagree with scripture and are plausible I assume they are more likely to be correct than anything I come up with.According to Josephus, they already had daughters by the time of Abel's murder, Cain was already married at this time and took his wife when he left, they had more sons and daughters afterwards, and he cites an old Jewish tradition that in total they had 33 sons and 23 daughters (see footnote 8 in the link above) - ie far more than seven allowing us to interpret God's statement to Cain as meaning vengence on seven individuals. That all makes perfect sense with scripture, so I just assume it's probably about right.
Regarding the speed of reproduction, although they were perfectly fertile that doesn't necessarily mean a baby every single year. Firstly, Eve may have been created prior to puberty and only reached puberty later (and puberty may have been at an older age given the total lifespan was longer), which could explain a delay prior to Cain if such a delay did exist (which we don't know anyway). A fertile woman today will produce one child every 3-4 years if she exhibits lactational anoestrus (ie does not ovulate while producing milk) and breastfeeds for >2 years, or every 12-18 months if she does not exhibit lactational anoestrus. Lactational anoestrus is the "normal" condition for most mammals, for instance wild cattle exhibit lactational anoestrus and reproduce slowly, while farmers have bred this trait out of domestic cattle to allow them to get pregnant during lactation to have a calf every year. If we assume that a strong lactational anoestrus is the intended "perfect" condition, because it makes sense for a woman's body, and that this trait has been diluted in the current population as women who do not exhibit it produce more offspring and are therefore selected for, and that Eve would have breastfed for long periods due to the unavailability of processed food to wean children on to, Eve would have produced offspring at a much slower rate to that experienced in our own lives when we do not use birth control. This makes the number of 56 offspring sound about right (one every 8 years or so over a pre-menopausal window of 500 years or so). Now obviously I'm speculating a bit with these numbers, but not in order to invent my own ideas, simply to show that the numbers presented by Josephus are plausible biologically and we have no reason to think they are erroneous.
I sound like a cattle breeder, sorry ladies, when it comes to reproduction I start thinking in terms of cows and sheep...
I try to avoid speculation, when there are old sources that don't disagree with scripture and are plausible I assume they are more likely to be correct than anything I come up with.According to Josephus, they already had daughters by the time of Abel's murder, Cain was already married at this time and took his wife when he left, they had more sons and daughters afterwards, and he cites an old Jewish tradition that in total they had 33 sons and 23 daughters (see footnote 8 in the link above) - ie far more than seven allowing us to interpret God's statement to Cain as meaning vengence on seven individuals. That all makes perfect sense with scripture, so I just assume it's probably about right.
Regarding the speed of reproduction, although they were perfectly fertile that doesn't necessarily mean a baby every single year. Firstly, Eve may have been created prior to puberty and only reached puberty later (and puberty may have been at an older age given the total lifespan was longer), which could explain a delay prior to Cain if such a delay did exist (which we don't know anyway). A fertile woman today will produce one child every 3-4 years if she exhibits lactational anoestrus (ie does not ovulate while producing milk) and breastfeeds for >2 years, or every 12-18 months if she does not exhibit lactational anoestrus. Lactational anoestrus is the "normal" condition for most mammals, for instance wild cattle exhibit lactational anoestrus and reproduce slowly, while farmers have bred this trait out of domestic cattle to allow them to get pregnant during lactation to have a calf every year. If we assume that a strong lactational anoestrus is the intended "perfect" condition, because it makes sense for a woman's body, and that this trait has been diluted in the current population as women who do not exhibit it produce more offspring and are therefore selected for, and that Eve would have breastfed for long periods due to the unavailability of processed food to wean children on to, Eve would have produced offspring at a much slower rate to that experienced in our own lives when we do not use birth control. This makes the number of 56 offspring sound about right (one every 8 years or so over a pre-menopausal window of 500 years or so). Now obviously I'm speculating a bit with these numbers, but not in order to invent my own ideas, simply to show that the numbers presented by Josephus are plausible biologically and we have no reason to think they are erroneous.
I sound like a cattle breeder, sorry ladies, when it comes to reproduction I start thinking in terms of cows and sheep...
Last edited:
True