THE EXTRATERRESTRIALS ARE HERE

[Ross]

For those who don't follow this subject; congress has recently been occupied taking seriously and assessing claims from whistle blowers and experts in this field that there has been a government cover up of visitation by vehicles and pilots from other worlds, some of which have been brought down by electromagnetic pulse weapons, and hidden and stored from the public from the time of the first atomic bombs, and beginning with the first atomic storage site at Roswell. A black government controlling all that is top secret behind the democratic temporary and visible government with president and political parties. This is one issue.

The other is; if multiple extra terrestrial civilizations do exist, hundreds of thousands or millions of years in advancement of ours, and are and have been monitoring earth and its occupants, how does this throw the Bibles accounts of creation out of the window?

Could an eternal God have waited from eternity past, just to put man on this planet 6000 years ago? Or is all of the above true, and are we at an age when there is about to be some outrageous evidence presented of life all over the universe to shock conventional theological belief?

[JehovahsWitness]

... There were people before but they are the sixth day "beasts of the field". ...human-shaped things.

And yes Cain could have very well married his sister but that's a big stretch ...

I'm aware of the conspicuous absence of "don't marry your sister" in the Bible, indicating that this interpretation is at least possible.

OCCAM'S RAZOR:

• OPTION #1. A sub-human beast-like species was created outside of Eden and called "beasts of the field". Although the expression "beasts of the field" is frequently mentioned in the Jewish writings and always refers to literal wild animals, the Genesis account neglects to speak about the creation of literal wild animals and instead jumps to the creation of a species of beast like subhumans. Despite the text mentioning that the divine mandate was that each living group would reproduce according to their own kind and that everything created during all six days was {quote} "very good", this so-called group of humanoids, discovered by Cain after his travels, cross bred with him reproducing offspring.

• OPTION #2. He married his sister.

It's a stretch because his sister isn't mentioned at all until Nod. ....

• The wife is not mentioned until NOD = > she must have been a "beast of the field "

Does this reasoning REALLY seem logical to you ? Isn't it more logical that Cain's wife is first mentioned when her existence was necessary to the narrative?

None of these daughters did anything, so far as I know.

I'm not following your logic...how is what you have just said a logical counterargument to my point about when the mention of a wife is introduced into the narrative?

Since the text specifically states female offering existed , I suggested the mention of a wife is introduced at the stage in the narrative when that particular piece of information would have been relevant. How is the question of whether Adam and Eve's female children did anything of note a counterargument to my specific point?

Please explain, I'm confused as to how what I said and what you said are related.



JX

[Purple Knight]

I'm not following your logic...how is what you have just said a logical counterargument to my point about when the mention of a wife is introduced into the narrative?

Since the text specifically states female offering existed , I suggested the mention of a wife is introduced at the stage in the narrative when that particular piece of information would have been relevant. How is the question of whether Adam and Eve's female children did anything of note a counterargument to my specific point?

Please explain, I'm confused as to how what I said and what you said are related.

The Bible clearly says who begets who in some instances. Lineage is important. Cain and Abel are not mentioned only when they come into the story and have relevant parts to play; they're mentioned when they come out of Eve. Putting that together with the times it says "male and female offspring" even though they don't come into the story, I would say this establishes that it would have probably said something if Eve had female offspring alongside Cain and Abel.

[JehovahsWitness]

...

Please explain, I'm confused as to how what I said and what you said are related.

... Cain and Abel are not mentioned only when they come into the story and have relevant parts to play; they're mentioned when they come out of Eve.

Yes, because obviously the birth of the FIRST human baby was a significant point in the narrative (as supported by Eve's declaration at Genesis 4v1).And since the rivalry between that individual and his younger sibling, lead to the first murder ever committed, both their births and their subsequent actions were significant to the narrative.

Other children born are only significant in their existence and have absolutely no bearing on the story. In other words they do not say or do anything that changes the,direction of the narrative, save that their existence and procreation, resulted in the expansion of the human race

The birth of females are rarely mentioned let alone listed in Hebrew geneologies, except if they play a significant role in events, so it is entirely in keeping with the style and tradition of the Hebrew writers to neglect to mention the birth of Cain' s wife until the narrative indirectly raised the question of the potential for him having descendents namely at the point of his banishment.

The Bible clearly says who begets who in some instances.

Exactly in SOME instances ergo, not in all. The deciding factor being their sex (see above) and whether their birth and /or role has a bearing on the direction of the narrative.

There is no question as to whether Adam and Eve had daughters in the account because the text explicitly states they did. The only question is when and where were they born and raised

Given the lack of birth control and the divine mandate to populate the earth it is very likely that it wouldnt have been many years after Cain's birth, before the first girl baby was born. And since the bible states that Eve became the mother of everyone living, it would have been some years before anyone was old enough to raise the other children born.

Lineage is important.

Indeed but Genesis (and the bible as a whole) is very selective about whose lineage is listed. By far the majority of bible characters appear without record of their birth or lineage and the lineage of women is rarely if ever seen as particularly significant.


CONCLUSION In view of the above, it seems clear why the female offspring born and raised alongside Cain and Abel were not mentioned earlier in the narrative.

[Purple Knight]

...

Please explain, I'm confused as to how what I said and what you said are related.

... Cain and Abel are not mentioned only when they come into the story and have relevant parts to play; they're mentioned when they come out of Eve.

Yes, because obviously the birth of the FIRST human baby was a significant point in the narrative (as supported by Eve's declaration at Genesis 4v1).And since the rivalry between that individual and his younger sibling, lead to the first murder ever committed, both their births and their subsequent actions were significant to the narrative.

As is the birth of the first female. For all we know until a female is born, Eve was a special creation and perhaps God intends to give one to every male he favours. Indeed some of these midrash narratives insist that Cain and Abel each got their own Eve, and Cain wanted Abel's. Females are mentioned when they add to the lineage; when this is important (and, also sometimes when it isn't). The first female born is far more important in this way than whether Enoch had any daughters who didn't add to the story. Awan should be mentioned under this idea if some nameless offspring of someone else's is. If what is important to the story has any weight, then style excuses no omissions which are more important than other things which were included.

[JehovahsWitness]

As is the birth of the first female.

I have presented several reasons supported by the text as to why the birth of the first female might not have been specifically mentioned . I fail to see how your post specifically counterargues or even addresses the points in my post. Perhaps you can quote me and explain more clearly how your points can be viewed as valid counter arguments .

...For all we know {snip}

I'm not really interested in unfounded speculation or an "analysis of gaps" (any more than I am in your personal view of the import of females). I can't debate your feeling, I'm just trying to present an analysis of the words in the text under consideration.

There are an abundance of things we do not know but if you are suggesting the text itself supports a reading that the wife of Cain was one of "the beasts of the field" I'd be interested what you have to say in response to the points raised in my post above, other than a list of "I feels" "some believe" and "for all we knows"...

It's a stretch because his sister isn't mentioned at all until Nod. ....

The style is the style, whether you LIKE the writers choices or not. If , as I have suggested for reasons outlined above, not recounting the birth of Eve's daughters was in keeping with the overall style of the narrative, this would explain the specific mention of Cain's wife only in relation to and at the time of, her husband's banishment.



JW

DISCLAIMER: I hereby state for the record the above comment contains an unsupported Bible reference, that is considered no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book in this forum.

The above is specifically used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says.

==================================

This post is NOT for the purpose if having a theological discussion but to propose a possible response to the OP. I am making no claim , nor is the bible reference for the purpose of proving that Christianity is true.

[Purple Knight]

As is the birth of the first female.

I have presented several reasons supported by the text as to why the birth of the first female might not have been specifically mentioned . I fail to see how your post specifically counterargues or even addresses the points in my post. Perhaps you can quote me and explain more clearly how your points can be viewed as valid counter arguments .

The birth of the first male is significant because it tells us people are born. This is important because up until then, they weren't born - they were created. The idea that females are also now born, is just as important. The idea that it doesn't matter how Awan came into existence is no different than the idea that it doesn't matter how Cain and Abel came into existence. It's not my personal view that females are important/unimportant, it's that we need to know how they are made. The story is a creation account. Eve's creation is mentioned. And Eve can be mitochondria Eve (mother to everyone) without being the only human line in existence, if other females existed but only their male issue found descendants in the future.

The style is the style, whether you LIKE the writers choices or not. If , as I have suggested for reasons outlined above, not recounting the birth of Eve's daughters was in keeping with the overall style of the narrative, this would explain the specific mention of Cain's wife only in relation to and at the time of, her husband's banishment.

It's not a matter of not liking it. You're the one stating the style puts weight on importance, and sometimes omits people until they come into the story. How Awan came into existence is much more important than how a daughter of Enoch came into existence. If the latter is mentioned, so too should be the former.

[JehovahsWitness]

The birth of the first male is significant because it tells us people are born.

The narrative (story) was not about the expansion of the human family* .

* To clarify when I speak of the "NARRATIVE " I am here speaking specifically about : The story of the murder of Abel. A story that starts at Genesis 4 verse 1 and ends at Genesis 4 verse 17.

The appearance and expansion if humans in covered at Genesis Chat 4:1-4. (NOTE The events in Genesis are not presented in strict chronological order) . At that point the existence of both males and female children are mention together and given equal weight for both males and females are equally necessary for the continuation of the human family.

GENESIS 5:1-4

This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God.+ 2 Male and female he created them. On the day they were created,+ he blessed them and named them Man. 3 Adam lived for 130 years and then became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and he named him Seth.+ 4 After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam’s life amounted to 930 years, and then he died.

Notice however that the geneology of humans is traced through male progeny, the women (even Eve) are not named. What does that prove about the writer's focus and priorities? That for the writer (not you or 21st century readers ... ) for the writer, the specifics if the birth of females is not considered significant enough to be mentioned.

It's a stretch because his sister isn't mentioned at all until Nod. ....

Your point is that it is more likely that Cain married a "beast of the field" than one of his sisters. Your only textual support for this position is that the writer makes no mention of sisters existing until after the events of the Genesis 4. My response was that the reason for this could well have been that ...

1. Genesis does not appear to be written in strict chronological order.=> what is your counterargument from the text to this point #1?

2. The circumstances surrounding the birth of females were not considered by the writer as significant. Support (Gen 4 verse 1 compare Genesis 5:1-5) => what is your counterargument from the text to this point #2?

3. The mention of a wife was only introduced when her existence became relevant to the narrative. In this story or narrative the birth of Eve's daughters (which logically happened within the timeframe of the events being narrated) are considered irrelevant to the writer , since no daughter intervened and stopped the murder nor are any of the protagonists recorded as refering to them. => what is your counterargument from the text to this point #3?

4. As in keeping with the overall focus and evident editorial choices of the writer, Cain s wife gets a mention only in relation to her husband and only when her implied role is relevant to the narrative of the murder of Abel. => what is your counterargument from the text to this point #4?

CONCLUSION Perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes. You have shifted from talking about Cain marrying a animal hybrid subhuman "beast of the field" to attempting to discuss the import of women as a whole. I am just addressing the story of the murder of Abel and challenging your case that it is unlikely that Cain married a sister because, there is no mention of her prior to his banishment nor any mention of the circumstances of her birth .



JW

DISCLAIMER: I hereby state for the record the above comment contains an unsupported Bible reference, that is considered no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book in this forum.

The above is specifically used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says.

==================================

This post is NOT for the purpose if having a theological discussion but to propose a possible response to the OP. I am making no claim , nor is the bible reference for the purpose of proving that Christianity is true.

[William]

[Purple Knight]

GENESIS 5:1-4

This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God.+ 2 Male and female he created them. On the day they were created,+ he blessed them and named them Man. 3 Adam lived for 130 years and then became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and he named him Seth.+ 4 After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam’s life amounted to 930 years, and then he died.

Notice however that the geneology of humans is traced through male progeny, the women (even Eve) are not named. What does that prove about the writer's focus and priorities? That for the writer (not you or 21st century readers ... ) for the writer, the specifics if the birth of females is not considered significant enough to be mentioned.

Not every time, no. You're right that males are given higher priority but that doesn't mean females have zero priority. Eve's creation is mentioned. After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And (to me this and indicates this is a continuation of the previous sentence, meaning this bit is in chronological order because the after from the previous sentence applies to it) he became father to sons and daughters.

Do you notice how the quote supports my position? On the day they were created, he blessed them and named them Man. What were they just before they were blessed? What would they have been if they hadn't been blessed? Beasts of the field, probably.

It's a stretch because his sister isn't mentioned at all until Nod. ....

1. Genesis does not appear to be written in strict chronological order.=> what is your counterargument from the text to this point #1?

That this does not excuse no mention of the creation of Awan. Besides, what appears not to be in chronological order is when you have two or more retellings of the same event, not events within one retelling. If Cain and Abel were quadruplets or the females came soon after it probably would have said sons and daughters at or near that point, as it does when it mentions the genealogy of everyone else.

Now I don't know how literate or critical-thinking people that far in the past were. It could be that they're intentionally glossing it over that everyone is incest babies because they have every reason to think that if they don't mention it, the readers just won't think about it.

2. The circumstances surrounding the birth of females were not considered by the writer as significant. Support (Gen 4 verse 1 compare Genesis 5:1-5) => what is your counterargument from the text to this point #2?

That Eve is considered significant enough to be mentioned. I don't see any reason for Awan to be less significant than Eve. Either she was created special like Eve, in which case her creation is exactly as worthy of mention, or she is the first female to be created by coming out of another female which is more worthy of mention. You only start being able to write them off as unimportant and decide to only go through the males, when we know how breeding came to be. You have to admit that if Eve was barely mentioned, or even not mentioned at all, and we were just supposed to assume she was sort of there all along, that would be really weird, even assuming hard chauvinism.

I won't say this is very strong (I think no mention before Nod is a lot stronger) but the story of the first murder very much has a feel of Cain stewing after the favouritism, having been very much alone. Did Awan calm him down? Did she try? Did Cain just turn his back on her and not tell her what had happened? It doesn't sound like any of these things occurred, and not merely because they were omitted. It sounds like he was alone, because stewing like that until you work yourself up into such a horrid emotional state that you've convinced yourself to do real evil, is so easily broken by an iota of sympathetic human contact. There's a reason mass shooters are isolated.

3. The mention of a wife was only introduced when her existence became relevant to the narrative. In this story or narrative the birth of Eve's daughters (which logically happened within the timeframe of the events being narrated) are considered irrelevant to the writer , since no daughter intervened and stopped the murder nor are any of the protagonists recorded as refering to them. => what is your counterargument from the text to this point #3?

4. As in keeping with the overall focus and evident editorial choices of the writer, Cain s wife gets a mention only in relation to her husband and only when her implied role is relevant to the narrative of the murder of Abel. => what is your counterargument from the text to this point #4? [/color]

My counterargument to these is then, why would Cain's wife be mentioned at all? She still doesn't do anything significant. When for example Enos is mentioned, it doesn't say who he married, it just says he beget Cainan as well as some sons and daughters. If she wasn't mentioned before Nod because she didn't do anything, she still shouldn't have been mentioned then because she still didn't do anything.

This is not an objection that can be overcome by "it's just style" when you add that importance to the narrative is foremost. Either the creation of Awan should have been included because it is important (even just saying "and daughters" as they do) or she shouldn't have been mentioned at all. What makes the most sense is that the tale doesn't have the information about how Awan was created because she was born outside the purview of anyone in the story until then. Because either it's true and that information did not exist to be passed down, or it's not true and the writers were concerned with plausibility.

CONCLUSION Perhaps we have been talking at cross purposes. You have shifted from talking about Cain marrying a animal hybrid subhuman "beast of the field" to attempting to discuss the import of women as a whole. I am just addressing the story of the murder of Abel and challenging your case that it is unlikely that Cain married a sister because, there is no mention of her prior to his banishment nor any mention of the circumstances of her birth.

You're the one who brought up importance as a contributing factor that might explain the lack of mention of Cain's wife. And I was actually wrong about it not saying don't marry your sister in the Bible. It says don't uncover her nakedness in Leviticus. (I admit that on first readthrough I was hesitant to say this definitely meant not to marry her, especially since this particular euphemism reads like it's speaking against horny adolescents sneaking into their sisters' bedrooms, not against real marriage, but I admit it would be a stretch to say you can marry your sister as long as you don't uncover her nakedness.) And if the people reading Genesis already have Leviticus, that is a decent reason for the omission because admitting everyone is incest babies might confuse them. They might say to themselves, well, if Cain and Abel and Seth were allowed to marry their sisters, what's so wrong if I do it? Though this is not airtight as it is essentially admitted that Seth must have married a sister.

[JehovahsWitness]

GENESIS 5:1-4

This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God.+ 2 Male and female he created them. On the day they were created,+ he blessed them and named them Man. 3 Adam lived for 130 years and then became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and he named him Seth.+ 4 After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam’s life amounted to 930 years, and then he died.

Notice however that the geneology of humans is traced through male progeny, the women (even Eve) are not named. What does that prove about the writer's focus and priorities? That for the writer (not you or 21st century readers ... ) for the writer, the specifics if the birth of females is not considered significant enough to be mentioned.

Not every time, no. You're right that males are given higher priority but that doesn't mean females have zero priority. Eve's creation is mentioned. After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And (to me this and indicates this is a continuation of the previous sentence, meaning this bit is in chronological order because the after from the previous sentence applies to it) he became father to sons and daughters.

Do you notice how the quote supports my position? On the day they were created, he blessed them and named them Man. What were they just before they were blessed? What would they have been if they hadn't been blessed? Beasts of the field, probably.

It's a stretch because his sister isn't mentioned at all until Nod. ....

1. Genesis does not appear to be written in strict chronological order.=> what is your counterargument from the text to this point #1?

That this does not excuse no mention of the creation of Awan.

How'is this a textual based counterargument. You do not even mention anything from the text? Please clarify how what you have said here is a valid response.



JW