"I forgive you but SOMEONE has to pay!"

[Elijah John]

If someone says "I forgive you, but someone has to pay, how about my innocent Son?" Would that really be forgiveness?

Does true mercy require "payment"? If so, how is it still mercy?

If a loan is forgiven, does the creditor require payment from someone else?

Isn't God capable of forgiving the contrite, without "payment"?

[JehovahsWitness]

Where did Cain's wife come from?

The bible doesn't say but it does say that Eve became mother to everyone living and that Adam and Eve had many other children (not just two sons) see Genesis 5:4. Given the above Cain must have married one of his own sisters or a niece.


NOTE Although the Genesis account does imply that sex with one's mother or father would be an infraction of biblical principle, there was, at the time, no law that prohibited marrying such a close family member.

JW

FURTHE RREADING Who Was Cain’s Wife?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... ains-wife/






RELATED POSTS

Did Cain meet his wife in the land of NOD?
viewtopic.php?p=1098897#p1098897

Did Adam "leave his parents"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 89#p904389

Was sexual intercourse the "original sin"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 88#p954188

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 49 by myth-one.com]

No believer has eternal life until born again of the Spirit.

Quote:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

"But have eternal life," is undeniably future tense.

No. "have" is in the present tense. It is the present subjunctive active. Only those who are born again can enter into the kingdom, and Christ was quite clear in pointing out to those who thought the kingdom was to come in the future that people were making their way into the kingdom right then and there (Luke 16:16).

Eternal life is something those who believe in Jesus Christ will have in the future!

Specifically, at the Second Coming Jesus is bring our reward:

Quote:
Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him... (Isaiah 62:11)

And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me... (Revelation 22:12)

Note that he doesn't say, "I will come quickly". It is something God does in the present tense. Each in order according to God's purposes.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 47 by 2timothy316]

There is exegesis and eisegesis. To believe the story as it is written is exegesis and to interpret it as a myth is eisegesis.

Not really. You're simply begging the question. You're assuming the author intended it to be taken literally when this is simply your own assumption.

The Bible has given me no reason to think otherwise. It's simple reading comprehension. Exegesis is what one gets from the text they read. If the account was to be a myth then somewhere in the Bible it would be called that plainly.

Eisegesis meaning that something outside of the Bible is being forced onto the Bible to give it a different meaning. I choose to embrace what was written and changed my agenda to fit it. Not have what was written to fit mine.

That's a pretty bold claim. When Christ says, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees", do you take that literally? Do you honestly believe he was talking about literal leaven? When Jesus points out that Lazarus "sleeps", do you take that literally as well? How about when he refers to Herod as "that fox"? Was Herod actually a fox?

I'm glad you brought this up because it allows me to show the biggest point you're missing. The Bible said that Jesus would speak in parables. Psalm 78:2, Matthew 13:13, 35

If there was something saying that the A&E account was a parable in the Bible then that would be worth looking into. But it must plainly say that just like it does about how Jesus would speak. Where is the Biblical evidence that the story is a myth?

When the author of Revelation refers to "that old serpent, the devil and Satan", do you still believe he is referring to a literal snake, or a celestial being?

A spiritual being.

The Hebrew word "naXash" means "burning one, shining one", and only refers to snakes because of the burn of their bite. Why should we take the Genesis account to be presenting Eve holding a conversation with a snake when the rest of the bible presents people holding conversations with celestial beings? e.g. Abraham, Moses, Jacob, etc.

Again, you're missing the Bible's explanation of Satan's ties of the snake used in Genesis 3 and the snake in Revelation 12:9, 20:2. It wasn't just Eve and a snake having a conversation. There was another being there, the angel we know as Satan the Devil who's very title means slanderer and a slanderer is a liar. 1 Tim. 2:13, 14 says that Eve was 'thoroughly deceived' by this wicked angel and that would include the deception that it was a snake that was speaking to her when in fact it was this wicked angel. John 8:44 says that Satan is the 'father of the lie'. According to the Bible, who told the first lie?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 52 by 2timothy316]

You\'re simply begging the question. You\'re assuming the author intended it to be taken literally when this is simply your own assumption.[/quote:ffef906a3d]
The Bible has given me no reason to think otherwise. It\'s simple reading comprehension. Exegesis is what one gets from the text they read. If the account was to be a myth then somewhere in the Bible it would be called that plainly.

There is no place where any of the figures of speech are called figures of speech. Again, you're simply ignoring the facts. The story of Hagar and Sarah is used by Paul as an allegory, and yet he never calls it an allegory. So according to your logic, the story of Hagar and Sarah isn't literal at all, it is only the story of the old covenant personified by Hagar, and the new covenant personified by Sarah, but then that doesn't work either. Your argument is caught between a rock and a hard place. You can't escape. It can't be both a literal story about Sarah and Hagar, and a literal story about the two covenants. Allegories, by definition are figurative.

Here's another one: Jesus says, "This is my body". Guess what? That has to be literal because nowhere in the texts does it state that it isn't literal. See how that works? Do you now see that your claims are false? Do you see that if you're going to make these rules up as you go along, you're going to have to adhere to them everywhere?


[quote:ffef906a3d][quote:ffef906a3d]Eisegesis meaning that something outside of the Bible is being forced onto the Bible to give it a different meaning. I choose to embrace what was written and changed my agenda to fit it. Not have what was written to fit mine.[/quote:ffef906a3d]

When Christ says, \"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees\", do you take that literally? Do you honestly believe he was talking about literal leaven? When Jesus points out that Lazarus \"sleeps\", do you take that literally as well? How about when he refers to Herod as \"that fox\"? Was Herod actually a fox? [/quote:ffef906a3d]
I\'m glad you said this because is the biggest point you\'re missing. The Bible said that Jesus would speak in parables. Psalm 78:2, Matthew 13:13, 35

Strawman argument. None of my examples were parables. You're also making my points for me again. Paul also points out that the scriptures are "examples" for our instruction.

If there was something saying that the A&E account was a parable in the Bible then that would be worth looking into. But it must plainly say that just like it does about how Jesus would speak.

Sorry, but your assertions are baseless. I never claimed your straw man argument that the A and E account was a parable. Jesus didn't just speak in parables. He used numerous figures of speech, none of which are articulated or named. Pretending that the authors of scripture have to follow your fabricated rules is nonsense.

[quote:ffef906a3d]When the author of Revelation refers to \"that old serpent, the devil and Satan\", do you still believe he is referring to a literal snake, or a celestial being?[/quote:ffef906a3d]
A spiritual being.

Then you must necessarily admit your own statements are contradictory as we can plainly agree that this literal celestial being is being figuratively referred to as a serpent. It is literally the exact same word in the Hebrew!

[quote:ffef906a3d]The Hebrew word \"naXash\" means \"burning one, shining one\", and only refers to snakes because of the burn of their bite. Why should we take the Genesis account to be presenting Eve holding a conversation with a snake when the rest of the bible presents people holding conversations with celestial beings? e.g. Abraham, Moses, Jacob, etc.[/quote:ffef906a3d]
Again, you\'re missing the Bible\'s explanation of Satan\'s ties of the snake used in Genesis 3 and the snake in Revelation 12:9, 20:2. It wasn\'t just Eve and a snake having a conversation.

There was no talking snake. There is no explanation other than the one you're making up. You're missing what the author of Revelation is plainly stating. Again, it is no different than the examples already provided for your edification. You are being inconsistent in your logic. Again, was Herod a fox???

There was another being there, the angel we know as Satan the Devil who\'s very title means slanderer and liar. 1 Tim. 2:13, 14 says that Eve was \'thoroughly deceived\' by this wicked angel and that would include the deception that it was a snake that was speaking to her when in fact it was this wicked angel.

She wasn't decieved into believing that a snake was talking. That's your private interpretation. There is nothing in any of the texts to support this claim that there were two beings there. The texts only provide one; the "naXash". That old serpent, the devil and Satan is one single solitary celestial being. The devil is named Satan, and he's the same lying serpent described in Genesis. Calling someone a snake doesn't make them a literal snake. Again, the Hebrew term "naXash" means " a burning one, or a shining one". This is the origin of the word. Believe it or don't, makes no difference to me because you are free to ignore the facts as you please, but that doesn't negate the truth.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 53 by shnarkle]

Do you have any Biblical evidence you'd like to provide? It's the only means you have to support yourself in my view. You're not defending yourself with any authority. By what authority can you say the A&E account is a myth? Jesus spoke in parable and the Bible said that he would. Please provide your scriptural evidence that plain states that the A&E account is a myth or parable. If you can't then you have nothing I wish to read.

[ttruscott]

It can't be both a literal story about Sarah and Hagar, and a literal story about the two covenants. Allegories, by definition are figurative.

Typology in Christian theology and Biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament. For example, Jonah may be seen as the type of Christ in that he emerged from the fish's belly and thus appeared to rise from death.

In the system of type (prefigure) and antitype (fulfillment) the story is about real people in real events, no metaphor, no allegory but indeed a pre-figuring of a fulfillment story with new real people acting in real events. A prophecy in historical events one might say.

But Hagar was never a symbol for anyone's covenant with GOD...was she?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 53 by shnarkle]

Do you have any Biblical evidence you'd like to provide? It's the only means you have to support yourself in my view. You're not defending yourself with any authority. By what authority can you say the A&E account is a myth? Jesus spoke in parable and the Bible said that he would. Please provide your scriptural evidence that plain states that the A&E account is a myth or parable. If you can't then you have nothing I wish to read.

I have never claimed that the Adam and Eve narrative was a myth or a parable. I am pointing out that the author is using figurative speech, and when an author uses a figure, it is incorrect to assume that he is using these words literally. I have already given you examples which you have ignored. e.g. "that old fox Herod" Evidently, you believe that Jesus was telling people to give a message to a literal fox, right? That's what your claim is, right? Did he, or did he not refer to Herod as a fox? Then we have "the lion of Judah" so by your logic, Judah was an actual lion.

If you think my examples are ridiculous, then you might have an idea of what most people think of literal snakes speaking to people. You have yet to defend your claims as well.

There isn't much to defend for my position. When God tells Moses to place a Seraph on a pole, he complies by fabricating " a naXash of brass", so that author is using these terms interchangeably. A Seraph is a naXash. In the Hebrew they are referred to as seraphim naXashim. It is most commonly translated as "burning serpents", but it could just as easily be translated as shining seraphim, or burning seraphim.

The context makes more sense when seen as a type for Christ as well. Then everyone is looking at a perfect being on a pole rather than a serpent.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 49 by myth-one.com]

No believer has eternal life until born again of the Spirit.

Quote:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

"But have eternal life," is undeniably future tense.

No. "have" is in the present tense. It is the present subjunctive active. Only those who are born again can enter into the kingdom, and Christ was quite clear in pointing out to those who thought the kingdom was to come in the future that people were making their way into the kingdom right then and there (Luke 16:16).

Eternal life is something those who believe in Jesus Christ will have in the future!

Specifically, at the Second Coming Jesus is bring our reward:

Quote:
Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him... (Isaiah 62:11)

And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me... (Revelation 22:12)

Note that he doesn't say, "I will come quickly". It is something God does in the present tense. Each in order according to God's purposes.

So you believe a person gains salvation upon accepting Jesus as their Savior -- in that present sense?

Or sometime after that in an order which God determines?

From that point on they have everlasting life?

Who has been again of the Spirit?

[shnarkle]

It can't be both a literal story about Sarah and Hagar, and a literal story about the two covenants. Allegories, by definition are figurative.

Typology in Christian theology and Biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament. For example, Jonah may be seen as the type of Christ in that he emerged from the fish's belly and thus appeared to rise from death.

In the system of type (prefigure) and antitype (fulfillment) the story is about real people in real events, no metaphor, no allegory but indeed a pre-figuring of a fulfillment story with new real people acting in real events. A prophecy in historical events one might say.

But Hagar was never a symbol for anyone's covenant with GOD...was she?

That's what Paul was claiming, wasn't he?{Gal.4) Hagar was a type for the old covenant with Israel who was cast off due to their failure to keep the law, while Sarah was a type for the new covenant which is by promise. She was promised a son, and her son was who God's promises would be fulfilled. The covenant is by promise, not by works.

The old covenant could never work due to the fact that it was dependent upon one's choice to keep God's law, and one's own efforts to insure it was kept. The result was failure. The new covenant is by God's promise. God regenerates the new creature, and the new creature is not created with the ability to sin. Therefore Paul points out that there is now no need for sacrifice to cover sin due to the fact that those who "walk after the Spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh". No sin=no need for sacrifice.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 57 by myth-one.com]

So you believe a person gains salvation upon accepting Jesus as their Savior -- in that present sense?

Paul says,

And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. 6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Or sometime after that in an order which God determines?

It is all determined by God.

Who has been again of the Spirit?

Could you restate this as a complete sentence? I don't know what you're asking here.