Why does the Husband Not Need Permission from his Wife?

[NBTX11]

not divorced, or if she is, her husband has passed away (I don't want some other man's wife),

Hi Daniel, your standards are higher that God’s standards, because He says marrying a biblically divorced woman is OK. (Biblical divorce - Given a bill of divorcement, put in her hand, and sent out of his house).

If you don’t want another man’s wife/woman, than you had better stick to virgins only to be safe. Many people believe scripturally that the moment a man enters her, she married that man. I don’t hold this particular view, (I believe there needs to be a marriage commitment in addition to sex) but many people do.

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 KJV - When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

 

[Maia]

@Maia, thankyou for clarifying your own religious views so clearly. What I took from it is that you're from a culturally Catholic background, personally think God exists, see the value in Christian culture particularly when it comes to marriage, but have not made your own personal decision to follow God (in other words, aren't "born again" in a Protestant sense, or "confirmed" in a Catholic sense). Correct me if I'm wrong.

It is complex.

I do believe in one God as the Creator of the Universe. I do believe in a rational universe that can be described in equations.

The best Arguments for God are actually found outside of the bible. Frankly a burning bush does not really impress me. There are natural phenomenon to describe that, Occam's razor would lead to natural gas ignition. Turning water into wine? I have seen some amazing sleight of hand artists that can pull that off.

No, the best argument for a Universe that was artificially created to support life is the cosmological constant, the force that expands the
Universe. The value is almost zero, but not preciously zero and not a negative. Were it slightly higher then the the universe would have been forced apart so quickly that atoms would never have formed. Were it to have a negative value then the Universe would have instantly collapsed again after the Big Bang. The possibility does exist that this is simply chance, but the probability of that is negligible. So it does seem to be by design.

So why is the cosmological constant not mentioned in the bible? Because the people who wrote the bible were simple people, who had no understanding of quantum mechanics or astro physics. While it is likely that the were influenced by God and talked to God, they did not possess the intellectual capacity to understand. One needs to read the bible with that in mind, in terms of social constructs they likely also described life and society, including family structures, as they knew at, what they believed to be true. Plus there are the inconsistencies. Adam and Eve were the 1st humans, who had two sons. After Cain killed Abel he left and went to live with other humans. Where did they come from? The bible also tells us that the sun was created on the fourth day. How is that? A day is defined by dawn and twilight.

So I do believe in God, however the interpretation of scripture is up for debate.

This is logically sound. Having a Christian basis to a marriage should give it a foundation that is both morally sound and more likely to achieve success.

However, a Christian basis to a marriage implies that both parties to the marriage actually believe in and follow some form of Christianity. You have to have a degree of faith and conviction to actually follow through on this. Otherwise you're just play-acting, and don't actually have the foundation you are looking for. The foundation is Christian faith itself.

For instance, one of the most foundational pillars of a Christian marriage is the firm conviction that divorce is almost always sinful (let's not debate what lies behind the words "almost always", the detail is beside my point). That God wants you to remain married for life, and would be very disappointed if you failed. This conviction helps you to "burn the bridges" as it were - rule out divorce as an option, and then whatever happens, you WILL work through it and you will succeed. It is religious faith that is the foundation which gives someone enough stubbornness to have that attitude and push through every difficulty. It is the fact that it isn't just a religion, a tradition that society expects you to follow, but a personal conviction that you will not allow yourself not to follow.

A major problem I have observed in Catholic culture (we lived in Ireland for some time), is the fact that because priests are celibate, people don't take the church's teachings seriously any more when it comes to marriage. Which makes logical sense -

Hence I wrote:

It just occurred to me it all fits in beautifully. Paul. The Catholic Church. Whos Priests are celibate, and declared to be authorities on marriage and raising children.

This way of approaching Christianity does NOT give you a marriage on a "Christian basis". It gives you a secular marriage with Christian decorations.

I applaud your observation that Christianity is a solid basis for marriage, and your desire for a Christian marriage. In order to achieve this desire then, you need to first pursue Christianity, and gain a true personal faith in God. Whether you do that through becoming a real Catholic who actually believes it all, or leave that church and find God elsewhere, is secondary. Whatever is the most natural road to Him for you personally, start travelling it. That is the only road towards the goal you are trying to reach.

I do believe that -with some exceptions- that divorce is a sin, and marriage should be for life. Which is why much thought needs to be put into it. I am flabbergasted that there are quite a few people who marry after only knowing each other for a few months.

 

[Maia]

"cosmological constant, the force that expands the Universe. The value is almost zero, but NOT preciously zero and not a negative." That should have read. When can one edit ones posts?

 

[NBTX11]

After Cain killed Abel he left and went to live with other humans. Where did they come from?

Easy. From his descendants. He took one of his relatives, probably a sister, married her and had a bunch of kids and grandkids. Also, possibly some of Adam’s children and grandchildren followed them. They had a lot of children. Population exploded quickly.

The bible also tells us that the sun was created on the fourth day. How is that? A day is defined by dawn and twilight.

Easy. If God can create the universe by speaking it into existence, then he certainly does not need a sun to create light. He can create light and darkness simply by speaking or thinking it to be. That’s the very definition of God. God doesn’t need what you think he needs such as a sun to produce days.

 

[FollowingHim2]

he bible also tells us that the sun was created on the fourth day. How is that? A day is defined by dawn and twilight.

[Gen 1:1-31 ESV] 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

There was light and darkness, evening and morning. But there was no sun. The sun wasn't needed for that, this was the light that God had created.

Rev 21:22-24 ESV 22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.

In this case there is light, but there is also no sun, the light comes from God.

Adam and Eve were the 1st humans, who had two sons. After Cain killed Abel he left and went to live with other humans. Where did they come from?

As @NBTX11 said, they were his siblings. Adam and Eve had many children, sons and daughters. We're only told specifically about the ones that have a story associated with them.

 

[Maia]

Easy. From his descendants. He took one of his relatives, probably a sister, married her and had a bunch of kids and grandkids. Also, possibly some of Adam’s children and grandchildren followed them. They had a lot of children. Population exploded quickly.

Not canon.

A strict canonical interpretation requires that you only use the information in the bible you cannot add (or subtract) information to get a desired result.

To do so would be to go from:

What the bible says.

To:

What the bible actually meant to say.

In more archaic times, to do so would be grounds to separate your head from your shoulders.

The bible does not state that Cain married his sister, so stating that he did is not canon. Same goes with the villagers.

Furthermore, it brings up the problem with incest, which is a forbidden. Obviously Genesis is not the only problem in this regard. Besides Noah, and Moses, the Adam & Eve family had the most direct interactions with God, one would assume he would communicate the.... problems that this causes.

So you understand that the story as stated does not work, so you are modding it, adding information, so that your mind can match it to your believes. I do not mind, but do not be a hypocrite.

Easy. If God can create the universe by speaking it into existence, then he certainly does not need a sun to create light. He can create light and darkness simply by speaking or thinking it to be. That’s the very definition of God. God doesn’t need what you think he needs such as a sun to produce days.

we can create light and darkness, but it would not be considered day and night as per a cosomolo........ well I guess night and day would be more a nautical definition.

 

[MemeFan]

Has nothing to do with government.

I was influenced yes, but by my family, not just my parents. They had many a meetings and even though no one in the extended family was a climatologist, or geologist, many have science degrees, and the determination was made that the opinion of the majority in the science community is that CO2 plays a role and that their assessment is correct. The business strategy of my family that gets communicated to employees, bankers and companies that we invest in that we do not care about the next 5 or 10 years, we care about getting the family into the next century. So a considerable amount of resources was activated to make us more "green" for lack of a better turn. That also included turning forestry land from mono-cultures to a more varied forest and things like that. Employees who get a car as part of their compensation package need to get an electric car (more an issue for Germany where 50% of the population has a company car, since the tax laws are structured so that only 1% of a car's MSRP price gets taxed as income) and it was decided to concentrate on the VW group since they had the most plausible mid term strategy to source battery cell raw materials from Canada and the European Union.

It's mostly government, you just don't see it's hand.

CO2 takes only 0.02% of atmosfere. In dinosaur time it was up 10X higher in part per million. So it shouldn't raise any problem.

Natural course of humanity is diversification and spreading out in different directions. Reason is because different people have different interests, therefore many ideas will be tried.

Yet, somehow number one issue for any energy sources is "it's green?". Just notice how much fight is nuclear power green. Any time people start pushing economy in same direction over period of time, practically always hand of state is behind. Why? Because state bribes, makes laws all pushing in same direction.

And regarding green energy, it's true. There are subsidies for green energy, caebon taxes to make you use green energy, there are laws forbidding usage of alternative, there is state education about green energy and climate change, there is state only paying scientists for politically correct conclusion, there is scaremorgering by national and supranational institutions.

 

[FollowingHim]

"cosmological constant, the force that expands the Universe. The value is almost zero, but NOT preciously zero and not a negative." That should have read. When can one edit ones posts?

You should now see an edit button below your posts.

Not canon.

A strict canonical interpretation requires that you only use the information in the bible you cannot add (or subtract) information to get a desired result.

After Cain killed Abel he left and went to live with other humans.

I agree we must stick to what the Bible says - but here you have added to scripture. Where does scripture actually say that Cain went to live with other humans? Read it again and you'll find that was an assumption you have made yourself. It just says that he moved away to Nod, and eventually founded a city. Remembering that we are not told how long it took before he built a city, or even how big a settlement classed as a "city" back then, this could have been entirely peopled by his own descendents. Where in Genesis 4, or anywhere else, does it actually say that Cain "went to live with other humans"?

If it doesn't actually say there were other humans, then to assume that is to add to scripture. To stick solely to what is in scripture, we have to assume that he married another descendent of Adam and Eve (being the only family line actually mentioned) - ie his own sister or niece.

What we would now call incestuous marriage was normal and accepted prior to Moses. Sarah was Abraham's sister or niece (depending how you read it). Even Moses' parents were incestuous - his mother was his father's aunt (Exodus 6:20). There was no law against this, and probably no social stigma either, until the Mosaic law was delivered. Don't read modern standards of incest into Genesis and assume they applied to Adam & Eve's family. Again, that is adding to the Bible.

No, the best argument for a Universe that was artificially created to support life is the cosmological constant, the force that expands the
Universe. The value is almost zero, but preciously zero and not a negative. Were it slightly higher then the the universe would have been forced apart so quickly that atoms would never have formed. Were it to have a negative value then the Universe would have instantly collapsed again after the Big Bang. The possibility does exist that this is simply chance, but the probability of that is negligible. So it does seem to be by design.

Also, the second law of thermodynamics clearly shows that the universe must have been created at a low-entropy beginning point, and be running down over time. There has to be a "prime cause" (God) to set the whole thing in motion.

Also, the complexity of life points towards the necessity of intelligent design - the deeper you look into evolution the less it works. My own population biology lecturer at university was an atheist who was skeptical about evolution because it didn't entirely make scientific sense when you really got down to the details. Complex structures cannot arise through chance, they require a designer - and although a superficial understanding of biology may make it seem there are ways around this, a deep understanding shows that no, a designer truly is required.

As Sir Francis Bacon said, "A little philosophy inclineth man's heart to atheism, but depth in philosophy inclineth man's heart to God".

 

[OttoM]

I am flabbergasted that there are quite a few people who marry after only knowing each other for a few months.

Exodus 22:16
If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

The un-righteous are getting married much sooner than a few months! Sometimes within a few minutes of knowing each other at a bathroom night club. Or after a few dates (or even one).

One flesh should mean marriage if done righteously.

 

[frederick]

Exodus 22:16
If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

The un-righteous are getting married much sooner than a few months! Sometimes within a few minutes of knowing each other at a bathroom night club. Or after a few dates (or even one).

One flesh should mean marriage if done righteously.

I dated my first wife for less than a week. She told me she wanted to marry me, got down on her knees, gave me a red rose and proposed. I accepted and we had a registry office "wedding" four days later. She was a virgin till that night, and this year we will celebrate 37 years of marriage.

Not all quick marriages are unrighteous. Isaac and Rebecca didn't have a long dating relationship before they were married and their marriage survived. Cheers

 

[OttoM]

I dated my first wife for less than a week. She told me she wanted to marry me, got down on her knees, gave me a red rose and proposed. I accepted and we had a registry office "wedding" four days later. She was a virgin till that night, and this year we will celebrate 37 years of marriage.

Not all quick marriages are unrighteous. Isaac and Rebecca didn't have a long dating relationship before they were married and their marriage survived. Cheers

Un-righteous is having sex with someone, and then moving on without marriage. There’s many girls losing their virginity with a guy they’ve just met, and if they were practicing righteousness - they would had proceeded with marriage. But the majority of the time that does not happen.

There’s nothing un-righteous about the length of time it takes for a man and woman to decide to proceed. Either if it’s the same day, a week, a few months, or perhaps several months. Length of time does not factor into righteousness.

 

[IndianaLife]

As a Fundamentalist Mormon, according to Mormon scripture

Perhaps for your flavor of fundamentalist Mormonism, but there are dozens and dozens of groups and plenty of independent fundamentalist Mormons as well, with a wide range of what is believed/practiced.

 

[Maia]

It's mostly government, you just don't see it's hand.

CO2 takes only 0.02% of atmosfere. In dinosaur time it was up 10X higher in part per million. So it shouldn't raise any problem.

Natural course of humanity is diversification and spreading out in different directions. Reason is because different people have different interests, therefore many ideas will be tried.

Yet, somehow number one issue for any energy sources is "it's green?". Just notice how much fight is nuclear power green. Any time people start pushing economy in same direction over period of time, practically always hand of state is behind. Why? Because state bribes, makes laws all pushing in same direction.

And regarding green energy, it's true. There are subsidies for green energy, caebon taxes to make you use green energy, there are laws forbidding usage of alternative, there is state education about green energy and climate change, there is state only paying scientists for politically correct conclusion, there is scaremorgering by national and supranational institutions.

It was a different exosphere then. Furthermore, the issue is not CO2 globally as a total but over time. The increase we have seen recently is over 100 years, not 100 million years.

Here is an article discussing Exxon Mobil's calculations on CO2 and global warming.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

They were remarkable accurate in the 1970s, yet publicly they denied that it is happening.

You should now see an edit button below your posts.

Thanks!

I agree we must stick to what the Bible says - but here you have added to scripture. Where does scripture actually say that Cain went to live with other humans? Read it again and you'll find that was an assumption you have made yourself. It just says that he moved away to Nod, and eventually founded a city. Remembering that we are not told how long it took before he built a city, or even how big a settlement classed as a "city" back then, this could have been entirely peopled by his own descendents. Where in Genesis 4, or anywhere else, does it actually say that Cain "went to live with other humans"?

If it doesn't actually say there were other humans, then to assume that is to add to scripture. To stick solely to what is in scripture, we have to assume that he married another descendent of Adam and Eve (being the only family line actually mentioned) - ie his own sister or niece.

What we would now call incestuous marriage was normal and accepted prior to Moses. Sarah was Abraham's sister or niece (depending how you read it). Even Moses' parents were incestuous - his mother was his father's aunt (Exodus 6:20). There was no law against this, and probably no social stigma either, until the Mosaic law was delivered. Don't read modern standards of incest into Genesis and assume they applied to Adam & Eve's family. Again, that is adding to the Bible.

Cain was worried that he would be killed by others, so the question as to their origin remains. My memory was faulty in one regard. I had it memorized that he went to live in the village of Nod. It was the land of Nod. I initially wondered if it was a translation issue, but no, everyone uses land. I wonder if the other people could be homo neanderthalensis? That could be defined as "people" and A&E could still be the 1st homo sapiens. That is entirely speculative of course.

Regarding incest my point was not in comparison to today but that what it is stated the bible said elsewhere. Did God himself discover the issues with incest as he watched humanity, was he unaware of the consequences? Unlikely. Considering he had more interactions with A&E then almost anyone else one would think he would mention it. Perhaps he did but A&E thought well we are sinners anyways so what gives. Don't be part of the problem, be the entire problem!

 

[MeganC]

Frankly a burning bush does not really impress me.

Because you've never experienced it. Neither have I.

But now imagine if tomorrow you have this experience.

God Himself, the Maker of the Universe, decides to take time out of His day and out of the billions of people on this planet He decides to visit you.

Billions of people will live and die never having this experience yet for a reason known to God there will be you basking in His Presence.

And that won't impress you? What should God have to do that you would be impressed, since His Presence alone is not sufficient for you?

 

[MemeFan]

It was a different exosphere then. Furthermore, the issue is not CO2 globally as a total but over time. The increase we have seen recently is over 100 years, not 100 million years.

There wasn't increase over time. It was already way higher than today.

And by the way, these is minimum CO2 levels needed for life. I prefer being far away from minimum. And since maximum level needed for life isn't achievable, no worries.

 

[FollowingHim]

Cain was worried that he would be killed by others, so the question as to their origin remains.

Again, check what the scripture actually says - you are reading your own assumptions into the text. You are assuming there were other people, and assuming that's what he is talking about. Let's just look at the wording itself.

"And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me."

In an ancient society, when there was a murder, who would try to kill the murderer? The family of the victim. They would be out for vengeance. Other people have no problem with the murderer - he hasn't harmed them, they probably don't even know who he is. But the victim's family will kill him on sight.

Cain says that "every one" who finds him will kill him. If there were other people in the world who were NOT from his family, this would not be true! There would be other tribes who knew nothing about the murder, or didn't care, who he could take refuge with and who would NOT kill him.

The only reason for him to fear that "everyone" would kill him would be because everyone who could possibly find him was a member of Abel's family and would be out for vengeance.

So Cain does not say he is worried he will be killed by "others" not of his family. He just says he is worried everyone will kill him. And that only makes sense if there are no others.

I wonder if the other people could be homo neanderthalensis? That could be defined as "people" and A&E could still be the 1st homo sapiens. That is entirely speculative of course.

You're reading your own assumptions into the text because you have presuppositions like the above, and are trying to make the Bible fit what you already "know" is true. There is actually a lot of uncertainty in the scientific world regarding human evolution, which does not come through in what you are taught in school, where all the uncertainty is brushed over and you are told a "just-so" story, most of which is actually speculative on further examination. I would highly recommend you buy a copy of the book "Bones of Contention". When I was going through high school, we spent much of our final year of biology class studying human evolution. I took Bones of Contention as a companion textbook. It was far more detailed than the school textbook, and included far more information - most crucially, it shows you the actual scientific evidence that lies behind the hominids you are learning about. For instance, the school textbook would tell us all about some hominid, and Bones of Contention would clarify that they only actually found a tooth and a toebone, and show which of what we were taught was based on fact and which was speculation. It prompted many very useful discussions in our class also, and several years later one of my old classmates tracked me down to ask about it and I gave my copy to them. If you're interested in human evolution, this is essential reading.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

It is complex.

I do believe in one God as the Creator of the Universe. I do believe in a rational universe that can be described in equations.

The best Arguments for God are actually found outside of the bible. Frankly a burning bush does not really impress me. There are natural phenomenon to describe that, Occam's razor would lead to natural gas ignition. Turning water into wine? I have seen some amazing sleight of hand artists that can pull that off.

No, the best argument for a Universe that was artificially created to support life is the cosmological constant, the force that expands the
Universe. The value is almost zero, but not preciously zero and not a negative. Were it slightly higher then the the universe would have been forced apart so quickly that atoms would never have formed. Were it to have a negative value then the Universe would have instantly collapsed again after the Big Bang. The possibility does exist that this is simply chance, but the probability of that is negligible. So it does seem to be by design.

So why is the cosmological constant not mentioned in the bible? Because the people who wrote the bible were simple people, who had no understanding of quantum mechanics or astro physics. While it is likely that the were influenced by God and talked to God, they did not possess the intellectual capacity to understand. One needs to read the bible with that in mind, in terms of social constructs they likely also described life and society, including family structures, as they knew at, what they believed to be true. Plus there are the inconsistencies. Adam and Eve were the 1st humans, who had two sons. After Cain killed Abel he left and went to live with other humans. Where did they come from? The bible also tells us that the sun was created on the fourth day. How is that? A day is defined by dawn and twilight.

So I do believe in God, however the interpretation of scripture is up for debate.



Hence I wrote:




I do believe that -with some exceptions- that divorce is a sin, and marriage should be for life. Which is why much thought needs to be put into it. I am flabbergasted that there are quite a few people who marry after only knowing each other for a few months.

You have a lot to learn. This Sleight of hand trick to turn water into wine, is nothing close to what Jesus did. I have gone into depth on this in other threads, but suffice it to say, I do not hold Dr Ross in high regard. I met him and spoke with him briefly on one occassion. I am not impressed with his claims. I find Andy Stanley's claims to be extremely disconcerting.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Hi Daniel, your standards are higher that God’s standards, because He says marrying a biblically divorced woman is OK. (Biblical divorce - Given a bill of divorcement, put in her hand, and sent out of his house).

If you don’t want another man’s wife/woman, than you had better stick to virgins only to be safe. Many people believe scripturally that the moment a man enters her, she married that man. I don’t hold this particular view, (I believe there needs to be a marriage commitment in addition to sex) but many people do.

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 KJV - When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

Hey brother! We have already had this discussion in other threads. Let's just agree to disagree, and if you find this discussion elsewhere, you can post your thoughts there.

 

[Maia]

First of all, sorry for the late reply. I have been travelling with my dad regarding the Monterey car week since Tuesday, and am mostly on my phone.

Because you've never experienced it. Neither have I.

But now imagine if tomorrow you have this experience.

God Himself, the Maker of the Universe, decides to take time out of His day and out of the billions of people on this planet He decides to visit you.

Billions of people will live and die never having this experience yet for a reason known to God there will be you basking in His Presence

And that won't impress you?

I thought it was clear that with impress I meant that a burning bush etc. would not be proof of a God. I apologize if my wording was not precise.

The question is how God could prove to me and others that he is God (one could expand that question to how someone who is not God could trick me into thinking that he is God, which is actually a fascinating question) Any technology that is sufficiently advanced from ones current vantage point is indistinguishable from magic. If one were to go back 2000 years with a drone tethered to a tablet, and show one of the people that you can track their movement from the "heavens," many would think that one is God. I would hope that the brighter minds of antiquity like Archimedes, or Heron of Alexandria would be able to deduce that they are looking at a contraption.

From today's vantage point, if someone demonstrated the ability to instantly teleport oneself from Berlin to Bam Washington, Bam Tokyo, Bam Sau Paulo, Bam Singapore, would one believe that the entity is God. Many would, but it is not really proof.

What should God have to do that you would be impressed, since His Presence alone is not sufficient for you?

That is a frustrating question since I literally answered that in the post you (partially) quoted. The cosmological constant.

I suppose it is possible that an advanced civilization could learn to manipulate that, but then it would not really matter, they would have gained the power of a God.

Again, check what the scripture actually says - you are reading your own assumptions into the text. You are assuming there were other people, and assuming that's what he is talking about. Let's just look at the wording itself.

"And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me."

In an ancient society, when there was a murder, who would try to kill the murderer? The family of the victim. They would be out for vengeance. Other people have no problem with the murderer - he hasn't harmed them, they probably don't even know who he is. But the victim's family will kill him on sight.

Cain says that "every one" who finds him will kill him. If there were other people in the world who were NOT from his family, this would not be true! There would be other tribes who knew nothing about the murder, or didn't care, who he could take refuge with and who would NOT kill him.

The only reason for him to fear that "everyone" would kill him would be because everyone who could possibly find him was a member of Abel's family and would be out for vengeance.

So Cain does not say he is worried he will be killed by "others" not of his family. He just says he is worried everyone will kill him. And that only makes sense if there are no others.

You're reading your own assumptions into the text because you have presuppositions like the above, and are trying to make the Bible fit what you already "know" is true. There is actually a lot of uncertainty in the scientific world regarding human evolution, which does not come through in what you are taught in school, where all the uncertainty is brushed over and you are told a "just-so" story, most of which is actually speculative on further examination. I would highly recommend you buy a copy of the book "Bones of Contention". When I was going through high school, we spent much of our final year of biology class studying human evolution. I took Bones of Contention as a companion textbook. It was far more detailed than the school textbook, and included far more information - most crucially, it shows you the actual scientific evidence that lies behind the hominids you are learning about. For instance, the school textbook would tell us all about some hominid, and Bones of Contention would clarify that they only actually found a tooth and a toebone, and show which of what we were taught was based on fact and which was speculation. It prompted many very useful discussions in our class also, and several years later one of my old classmates tracked me down to ask about it and I gave my copy to them. If you're interested in human evolution, this is essential reading.

One would think The Bible would have mentioned that the reaction of the family? In fact it is unusual that A&E's reaction is not dealt with. They certainly left out a lot.

If the did marry between siblings then one would need to provide a logical explanation why there are no genetic defects. Doing some googling, it seems various sources suggest that original humans DNA was "pure" and then after Noah was corrupted. I am not sure where the origin of this train of thought is, everyone is quoting in circles. In any case it is not supported by scripture.

You have a lot to learn. This Sleight of hand trick to turn water into wine, is nothing close to what Jesus did. I have gone into depth on this in other threads, but suffice it to say, I do not hold Dr Ross in high regard. I met him and spoke with him briefly on one occassion. I am not impressed with his claims. I find Andy Stanley's claims to be extremely disconcerting.

?
I was not referring to Ross or Stanley.

 

[Maia]

There wasn't increase over time. It was already way higher than today.

And by the way, these is minimum CO2 levels needed for life. I prefer being far away from minimum. And since maximum level needed for life isn't achievable, no worries.

I was referring to the Δ between X and Y in the last ~100 years, compared to well, any period in geological history.