# Who else was on earth at the time of Cain?



## HawgJawl (Jan 20, 2011)

When Cain killed his brother Abel, the only people on earth were Adam and Eve and all of Cain's siblings (and possibly nieces and nephews).  God's punishment for Cain was to banish Cain from his home-land (the place where all his family was).  Cain was afraid that everyone who saw him would try to kill him.  If his family was the only people on earth and he had to move to somewhere his family wasn't, then who was there to see him and try to kill him?  If Cain's siblings had already moved away on their own, and Cain was simply moving to where they were, then banishment would not really be a punishment.  God put a mark on Cain to warn anyone who saw him, not to kill him, instead of simply saying "hey yall, don't kill your brother".  Cain moved to a land east of Eden and found a wife.  Was this Cain's sister?  Was Cain's punishment for murder, (banishment), simply being forced to go move in with his sister?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 20, 2011)

I have asked this many times as well.  The only answer that can be given is yes, Cain's wife was his sister.  After all, they were the first family, right?

Let the interpretation begin.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 20, 2011)

I can't recall which of the noncanical books it was but it tells of Abel having a twin sister and Cain having a twin sister. Part of the conflict was that Cain was supposed to marry his brothers twin or something like that. I can't recall


----------



## one_shot_no_mor (Jan 20, 2011)

*Here's one opinion...*

If we read Genesis 1:27 as ONE EVENT and the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 as ANOTHER EVENT, the question is answered...
Could it be that Adam's lineage is spotlighted because his lineage introduced sin into the world?
Genesis 1:27 suggests there were OTHER (nameless) men and women created.Once he ventured from his "homeland" Cain could have encountered his bride from another line, not mentioned by name...
Food for thought...GREAT theologians have pondered and debated this question for hundreds of years...I seriously doubt if we can resolve it here on Woody's...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 20, 2011)

one_shot_no_mor said:


> If we read Genesis 1:27 as ONE EVENT and the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 as ANOTHER EVENT, the question is answered...
> Could it be that Adam's lineage is spotlighted because his lineage introduced sin into the world?
> Genesis 1:27 suggests there were OTHER (nameless) men and women created.Once he ventured from his "homeland" Cain could have encountered his bride from another line, not mentioned by name...
> Food for thought...GREAT theologians have pondered and debated this question for hundreds of years...I seriously doubt if we can resolve it here on Woody's...



All you have to say is: "It's a miracle."  No further explanation necessary.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 21, 2011)

"Banishment" is the reason it couldn't be Cain's sister.  Throughout the Old Testament, God's punishment for murder was death, except for someone he really liked such as David who he didn't really punish at all.  This leads that the punishent of "banishment" would be something severe that would be very undesirable.  If Cain's sister had already chosen to move east on her own, then what is so horrible about moving east?


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 21, 2011)

drippin' rock said:


> Let the interpretation begin.



It's not quite as difficult a question to answer as "with whom did the first man to evolve from ape mate?"


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 21, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> It's not quite as difficult a question to answer as "with whom did the first man to evolve from ape mate?"



That's only a difficult question because you don't understand how evolution works. Check out The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, sold at fine bookstores everywhere.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 21, 2011)

one_shot_no_mor said:


> If we read Genesis 1:27 as ONE EVENT and the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 as ANOTHER EVENT, the question is answered...
> Could it be that Adam's lineage is spotlighted because his lineage introduced sin into the world?
> Genesis 1:27 suggests there were OTHER (nameless) men and women created.Once he ventured from his "homeland" Cain could have encountered his bride from another line, not mentioned by name...
> Food for thought...GREAT theologians have pondered and debated this question for hundreds of years...I seriously doubt if we can resolve it here on Woody's...




That means multiple creations (only two of each creature but more than two of man), we aren't all descended from Adam and Eve, but we are all sentenced for their sins. Seems like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire to me.


----------



## brotherslick (Jan 23, 2011)

Spend more time on what the BIBLE does say instead of what it doesnt
Titus 3:9


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 23, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> All you have to say is: "It's a miracle."  No further explanation necessary.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 23, 2011)

one_shot_no_mor said:


> Food for thought...GREAT theologians have pondered and debated this question for hundreds of years...I seriously doubt if we can resolve it here on Woody's...



Great post, but I interpret this last part of it as "Let's not discuss this anymore,LALALALALALALA!!!!!!!!"


----------



## 4HAND (Feb 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> "Banishment" is the reason it couldn't be Cain's sister.  Throughout the Old Testament, God's punishment for murder was death, except for someone he really liked such as David who he didn't really punish at all.  This leads that the punishent of "banishment" would be something severe that would be very undesirable.  If Cain's sister had already chosen to move east on her own, then what is so horrible about moving east?




Although God did favor David who according to the Bible was "a man after God's own heart", God did punish David. Remember, God told David that the sword would never leave his house......... Also, David suffered greatly by the betrayal & death of his son Absalom.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 16, 2011)

4HAND said:


> Although God did favor David who according to the Bible was "a man after God's own heart", God did punish David. Remember, God told David that the sword would never leave his house......... Also, David suffered greatly by the betrayal & death of his son Absalom.



So, if everyone including David was punished for murder, and the majority of them were punished with death, would it be reasonable to believe that "banishment" meant "You have to go move in with your sister"?


----------



## dawg2 (Feb 16, 2011)

I see Genesis as METAPHORICAL, not to be taken LITERALLY---> Same with REVELATIONS.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Feb 16, 2011)

Cain moved in with the Atheists, who evolved from apes


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 18, 2011)

Jeff Phillips said:


> Cain moved in with the Atheists, who evolved from apes



In contrast with the theists who have yet to evolve.


----------



## emtguy (Mar 2, 2011)

There is no mention of the age of cain, and every one ASSUMES he and able where the first born, they probally were not....adam MAY have been 200 years old at cains birth and cain MIGHT have been 60 when the murder occured...there coud have been plenty of people on earth when this happened...we have no time line that i can find, just that it happened. It might have been 500 years after adams passing...We dont know for sure. All we know is it happened if you believe scripture.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 3, 2011)

Like I said in post #14 and a few other times, no matter how many relatives Cain had on earth at the time, he was still judged with a great punishment of "banishment".  Moving in with your sister is not banishment.


----------



## emtguy (Mar 3, 2011)

youre wrong, you can be banished from Ga. and move in with your sister in kansas and your banished none the less.


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 4, 2011)

emtguy said:


> youre wrong, you can be banished from Ga. and move in with your sister in kansas and your banished none the less.



If you're insinuating that the "original" punishment from the very first murder recorded in the Old Testament, which was handed down directly by God, is the equivalent to having to move from Georgia to Kansas to live with your sister, then someone other than God must have authored all the other laws saying that the punishment for murder is death?  Or did god just change his mind about how bad murder actually is?

Genesis 9:5-6    And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.  Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


----------



## applejuice (Mar 4, 2011)

emtguy said:


> There is no mention of the age of cain, and every one ASSUMES he and able where the first born, they probally were not....adam MAY have been _*200 years old*_ at cains birth and cain MIGHT have been 60 when the murder occured...there coud have been plenty of people on earth when this happened...we have no time line that i can find, just that it happened. It might have been 500 years after adams passing...We dont know for sure. All we know is it happened if you believe scripture.



Exactly why the Bible should nto be taken literally at all.


----------



## emtguy (Mar 6, 2011)

i was wrong, according to the bible adam was 134 at time of cains birth, my preacher gave me the info and we were interupted before he could state verse, chapter and reasoning...i'll get it and post later.


----------



## jmar28 (Mar 8, 2011)

emtguy said:


> There is no mention of the age of cain, and every one ASSUMES he and able where the first born, they probally were not....adam MAY have been 200 years old at cains birth and cain MIGHT have been 60 when the murder occured...there coud have been plenty of people on earth when this happened...we have no time line that i can find, just that it happened. It might have been 500 years after adams passing...We dont know for sure. All we know is it happened if you believe scripture.





emtguy said:


> i was wrong, according to the bible adam was 134 at time of cains birth, my preacher gave me the info and we were interupted before he could state verse, chapter and reasoning...i'll get it and post later.





applejuice said:


> Exactly why the Bible should nto be taken literally at all.



I don't think they literally meant 134 years old. I do believe their calendar system was a little different from the one we use today, which we got from the Romans.

The early roman calender had 10 months, that is why the last month is December DEC DEK means 10

Druidism and Paganism and Asian used the luner "13" month cycle.


So there is no telling what their calendar system was like or how long for a year


----------



## applejuice (Mar 9, 2011)

Exactly my point. 
If "we" don't know for sure what was actually meant by the text, then how can you have faith in the text in general?

There are 3 or 4 books on Amazon , claiming that they all have Elvis Presley's fav fried chicken recipe. That wasn't that long ago and people can't agree on that. So for me seeing these contradicting verses in the bible, takes away from the entire book.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 9, 2011)

applejuice said:


> Exactly my point.
> If "we" don't know for sure what was actually meant by the text, then how can you have faith in the text in general?
> 
> There are 3 or 4 books on Amazon , claiming that they all have Elvis Presley's fav fried chicken recipe. That wasn't that long ago and people can't agree on that. So for me seeing these contradicting verses in the bible, takes away from the entire book.



The age of people in the bible dont have much bearing on whether it is true or not for me. I do not see it as a contradiction at all, because we dont know how old certain people were in no way makes the story untrue.


----------



## applejuice (Mar 9, 2011)

Well when I hear a story about a 300 yr old guy building a ship and putting every animal on it. Well, that reminds me a lot of the Santa Claus story you tell kids to get them to behave. It's just too far fetched of a story believe that


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 9, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The age of people in the bible dont have much bearing on whether it is true or not for me. I do not see it as a contradiction at all, because we dont know how old certain people were in no way makes the story untrue.



Then what makes it true then?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 9, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Then what makes it true then?



what makes the Bible as a whole true, or the age of people in the Bible true?


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 9, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> what makes the Bible as a whole true, or the age of people in the Bible true?



If you can look over contradictory points, what specifically makes any of it true? Since there are so many things in the bible that seem unrealistic, why would you claim it as truth?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 9, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> If you can look over contradictory points, what specifically makes any of it true? Since there are so many things in the bible that seem unrealistic, why would you claim it as truth?



I dont put God in the unrealistic catagory, which helps in the seemingly "unrealistic" stories.


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 9, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I dont put God in the unrealistic catagory, which helps in the seemingly "unrealistic" stories.



Ok. But we are talking about god, we are talking about the bible. Cant you believe in a god without having to believe in the unrealistic stories of the christian bible? Again, what specifically makes you believe the bible is truth?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 10, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> Ok. But we are talking about god, we are talking about the bible.


right, that is why I said not putting God in the unrealistic catagory* helps with the seemingly unrealistic stories*"




> Cant you believe in a god without having to believe in the unrealistic stories of the christian bible?


I dont believe in 'a' god, I believe in the God, and no, I dont belive one can pick and choose what to believe and it be true. The bible claims to be absolute truth, truth by definition is exclusive, I believe there is only one truth and it is found in the Bible.




> Again, what specifically makes you believe the bible is truth?


See the two videos I posted in my other thread, it has alot of information on why I believe the Bible to be the truth. I have also seen it come alive and be very relevant in todays time and society even though, as some would say on here, it was written by a bunch of goat herders.


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 10, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> right, that is why I said not putting God in the unrealistic catagory* helps with the seemingly unrealistic stories*"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess I'm looking for what you have seen come alive and be relevant and an explanation of why those things can't be explained by logic, even though I don't know what they are. The videos were not much help.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 10, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> I guess I'm looking for what you have seen come alive and be relevant


The human condition(a big one), the correct ways to solve problems, the way to live a life, none of the information I have obtained from the Bible on these subjects has ever failed me. 





> and an explanation of why those things can't be explained by logic


Who says the Bible is devoid of logic?




> The videos were not much help.



In what ways were they not much help? Its an explanation, of which there are probably many more, by one of the greastest apologist in the world on basically "why the Bible?"


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 11, 2011)

It's not unrealistic only because of the supernatural claims for which there is no evidence. But also because it makes claims on the natural world which we now know to be false. Even if you make the leap of assuming God that in no way helps to substantiate the bible. Maybe there is a god or gods and the bible is still false. If you're willing to assume so much on lack of evidence and ignore the physical evidence we do have then you're in no better position of credibility than someone else assuming any other man made myth is reality.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's not unrealistic only because of the supernatural claims for which there is no evidence. But also because it makes claims on the natural world which we now know to be false. Even if you make the leap of assuming God that in no way helps to substantiate the bible. Maybe there is a god or gods and the bible is still false. *If you're willing to assume so much on lack of evidence and ignore the physical evidence we do have* then you're in no better position of credibility than someone else assuming any other man made myth is reality.



Can you give me some contradictions that goes against what the Bible claims with evidence? Not saying there are not any, but are there any that are completely described in the Bible that go against what we now know?


----------



## HawgJawl (Mar 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Can you give me some contradictions that goes against what the Bible claims with evidence? Not saying there are not any, but are there any that are completely described in the Bible that go against what we now know?



It depends on what particular book you are referring to as the Bible.  If you're referring to the Authorized King James Version of the Bible that was commissioned in 1604 and printed in 1611, then it should be noted that there have been 14 books removed from the 1611 Bible, and over 300 corrections made to the scripture since then.  It leads that the former and latter version could not BOTH be inerrant.

If you're referring only to the current King James Version, there are still some contradictions in scripture yet to be corrected.

Some examples:

Genesis 11:12     The father of Salah was Arphaxad
Luke 3:35-36      The father of Salah was Cainan

2 Samuel 8:4            David took 700 horsemen
1 Chronicles 18:4    David took 7000 horsemen

2 Samuel 24:13            Seven years of famine for David's sin
1 Chronicles 21:11-12     Three years of famine for David's sin

Matthew 1:2-6     Thirteen generations from Abraham to David
Matthew 1:17       Fourteen generations from Abraham to David
Matthew 1:12-16    Thirteen generations from Babylonian captivity to Jesus Christ
Matthew 1:17      Fourteen generations from Babylonian captivity to Jesus Christ

Genesis 23          Abraham bought the family burial plot
Joshua 24:32     Jacob bought the family burial plot
Acts 7:16            Abraham bought the family burial plot

Genesis 20     Abraham deceived King Abimelech over Sarah
Genesis 26     Isaac deceived King Abimelech over Rebekah


I'm not inferring that this invalidates anything.  I'm addressing the premise that the Bible is inerrant.


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 11, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The human condition(a big one), the correct ways to solve problems, the way to live a life, none of the information I have obtained from the Bible on these subjects has ever failed me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The information from the bible is not designed to fail you, its designed to make you believe you have to live by what it says. I say, live without it and not much will change. And I will refrain from saying things like " talking snakes" to battle logic. We dont even need to go through the logic thing, you already know.
String, I like reading your post and can tell that your not a normal sunday show fella. You believe and are educated on the subject which I respect because you dont find many that are, even though I disagree. Your opinions and suggestions are always considered well when I read them.
However, I must say that you are a master of analyzing others words and breaking them down into questions. Also it seems that you are good at getting away from questions that you are directly asked. This is not an insult, believe me. So Im going to ask again, what have you personally seen that makes you believe? What personal experience did you have where the only explanation could be god?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 13, 2011)

One thing that people who take the Bible as the literal, infallible  word of God overlook when the question is asked about whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve is, WHO repopulated the Earth after the flood in the Noah's Ark story?
The Adam/Eve populated the earth, Cain found someone else that was not talked about blah blah blah theories are all a moot point because after the flood NOBODY or no land creature survived the flood except a few people and two of every animal( there is another twist for another time, but...). The Bible would have us believe that in a short few years a handful of people(some that were a couple hundred years old mind you) were able to have enough children to not only repopulate the Earth but the children were able to change into their different ethnic races, cross wide oceans and populate all the corners of the earth too.
I'd like to know why everyone's family tree does not trace back to the 8 people on the ark?
I know, I know, some will say well you can't take that story as literal, but they will then point out a hundred other things in the Bible that is the absolute, no question about it, literal & infallible  word of God.
I understand faith. I understand religion. I understand the human need to want something more after death. I understand the need to think it all has to have a theatrical beginning. But there is no way any ONE religion has got it right and there is certainly no way it just so happens to be the way the Bible says it is so. There is a reason is it called the greatest story ever told.


----------



## speechless33759 (Mar 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> One thing that people who take the Bible as the literal, infallible  word of God overlook when the question is asked about whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve is, WHO repopulated the Earth after the flood in the Noah's Ark story?
> The Adam/Eve populated the earth, Cain found someone else that was not talked about blah blah blah theories are all a moot point because after the flood NOBODY or no land creature survived the flood except a few people and two of every animal( there is another twist for another time, but...). The Bible would have us believe that in a short few years a handful of people(some that were a couple hundred years old mind you) were able to have enough children to not only repopulate the Earth but the children were able to change into their different ethnic races, cross wide oceans and populate all the corners of the earth too.
> I'd like to know why everyone's family tree does not trace back to the 8 people on the ark?
> I know, I know, some will say well you can't take that story as literal, but they will then point out a hundred other things in the Bible that is the absolute, no question about it, literal & infallible  word of God.
> I understand faith. I understand religion. I understand the human need to want something more after death. I understand the need to think it all has to have a theatrical beginning. But there is no way any ONE religion has got it right and there is certainly no way it just so happens to be the way the Bible says it is so. There is a reason is it called the greatest story ever told.



Go research Mitochondrial Eve and you'll be surprised at how close the human genome is regardless of race. And even evolutionary theory will allude to her. Doesn't rule out the possibility either way.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2011)

I have read up on it and I agree we are all not far off from one another. The difference between the two is roughly 197,000 years. 200,000 years of having children and children having children etc, etc, etc is PLENTY of time for Mitochondrial Eve to get a population going worldwide where as 3000 years for 3 or 4 women off the Ark would hardly make a dent in a small country, let alone the area the size of the Middle East, let alone Worldwide.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> The information from the bible is not designed to fail you, its designed to make you believe you have to live by what it says. I say, live without it and not much will change. And I will refrain from saying things like " talking snakes" to battle logic. We dont even need to go through the logic thing, you already know.
> String, I like reading your post and can tell that your not a normal sunday show fella. You believe and are educated on the subject which I respect because you dont find many that are, even though I disagree. Your opinions and suggestions are always considered well when I read them.
> However, I must say that you are a master of analyzing others words and breaking them down into questions. Also it seems that you are good at getting away from questions that you are directly asked. This is not an insult, believe me. So Im going to ask again,* what have you personally seen that makes you believe? What personal experience did you have where the only explanation could be god?*



One big instance has to do with my Dad and cancer, its not one of the "the preacher man came and healed my pappy" stories, it has more to do with hearing God with the most clearity I have ever heard. I am not speaking of a loud thunder voice in the sky, and I am not even going to get into it on this forum, it is hard to explain in words in person, must less on the computer screen. Other than that I really dont have a story of any lightning stikes, or time portals in the sky, or an angel talking to me a night, to me, I just know(or I have faith that I know), and I understand that may not be acceptable for you or anyone else, but it doesnt have to be, it is for me.


Oh, I didnt take it as an insult.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 14, 2011)

Speaking of mitochondrial eve the same could be applied to other animals to determine their most recent common matrilineal ancestor. You would think that the christians would be jumping on this like white on rice to show that all of the unclean animals have matrilineal MRCA that date to the time of the ark. That is what you should see if the story is true. Wonder why Ken Ham and other creationists aren't on this one? It's a real mystery isn't it?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2011)

I often think that once the Ark came to rest and the animals were on their way back to their places of origin, IF one hungry Lion ate ONE antelope or deer or monkey or(well you get it) THAT species is done. Times that by all the predators on the Ark and it is a wonder there was/is a prey species left on earth.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I often think that once the Ark came to rest and the animals were on their way back to their places of origin, IF one hungry Lion ate ONE antelope or deer or monkey or(well you get it) THAT species is done. Times that by all the predators on the Ark and it is a wonder there was/is a prey species left on earth.



That same thought crossed my mind the other day. Turn all those animals loose and what do all the predators eat without causing a mass extinction?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2011)

It is an awesome story right up until the point where questions are asked, lol.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That same thought crossed my mind the other day. Turn all those animals loose and what do all the predators eat without causing a mass extinction?



Who said God didnt create 2,233,245 animals a week later?


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Who said God didnt create 2,233,245 animals a week later?



Kind of defeats the whole point of the ark then doesn't it?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Kind of defeats the whole point of the ark then doesn't it?



No.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> No.



 What was the point of the ark if not to preserve the different kinds of animals from being permanently wiped off the face of the earth by the flood? No point in going through all of that if you're going to repopulate the earth with a second creation. Come on string. You're smarter than this.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2011)

God didn't have to create any animals a week later because the earth was full of them, men were hunting them and except for maybe a teeny tiny area in the middle east, there was no flood.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Mar 14, 2011)

There were tribal disputes back when Cain found his wife..


----------



## JFS (Mar 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That same thought crossed my mind the other day. Turn all those animals loose and what do all the predators eat without causing a mass extinction?



Why would god have to resort to a natural disaster to kill people anyway? Why not a wave of the hand or whatever...

Other questions:

16) Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of “every thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 7:8).  Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy.  How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him?  How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home?  How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart?  How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals?  How did he find the space on the ark?  How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species or the hundreds of thousands of plant species?  (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn’t last long if the plants died in the flood.)  No, wait, don’t tell me, a miracle happened, millions of them.

17) All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14).  Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second.  How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently?  I wish the airline companies could do as well!

18) The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20).  Where did all the water come from?  Where did it all go?  Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?

19) When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten?  There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year.  What would the carnivores have eaten?  Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct.  And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after the flood subsided?

20) Noah kills the “clean beasts” and burns their dead bodies for God (Genesis 8:20).  According to Genesis 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all “clean” animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark.  So why is it that we still have “clean” animals?

21) God is filled with remorse for having drowned his creatures in the flood.  He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever the animals see it they will remember God’s promise not to do it again (Genesis 9:13).  But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops.  There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What was the point of the ark if not to preserve the different kinds of animals from being permanently wiped off the face of the earth by the flood? No point in going through all of that if you're going to repopulate the earth with a second creation. Come on string. You're smarter than this.



I see the ark as more about the wickedness of man of the earth rather than the animals.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I see the ark as more about the wickedness of man of the earth rather than the animals.



That is the motive given for the flood. The ark was to preserve a handful of people and enough animals to repopulate the earth. No point in going through all that trouble if you're going to have creation part 2 anyways.

By the way, since you brought up the topic of wickedness aren't men still wicked today? You create men that you're unhappy with because they turned out wicked (you knew they would from before you created them) so you drown all of them and their children except for one family that will repopulate the earth with wicked men all over again. You really believe this is the work of a perfect being? Seriously?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 14, 2011)

Selective seeing, selective hearing and selective beliefs are the core of all religions.  It is easier to not think too deep into anything and accept it rather than put some thought into it and question the things that don't make sense. As soon as some thought goes into it and it shakes their core beliefs or it just doesn't sound right or believable, they stop thinking and just accept what they have read or been told. With no other subject have I ever seen such otherwise intelligent people turn a blind eye to such nonsense. They would not and don't put up with it in any other aspect of their life except religion.


----------



## vowell462 (Mar 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> One big instance has to do with my Dad and cancer, its not one of the "the preacher man came and healed my pappy" stories, it has more to do with hearing God with the most clearity I have ever heard. I am not speaking of a loud thunder voice in the sky, and I am not even going to get into it on this forum, it is hard to explain in words in person, must less on the computer screen. Other than that I really dont have a story of any lightning stikes, or time portals in the sky, or an angel talking to me a night, to me, I just know(or I have faith that I know), and I understand that may not be acceptable for you or anyone else, but it doesnt have to be, it is for me.
> 
> 
> Oh, I didnt take it as an insult.



Good deal. Im glad it makes you feel better and if you believe, thats great too. But in this post you just admitted that it may not be aceptable for some, and that it doesnt have to be because its for you. So why do you spend the time trying to convince people of it? If its for you, then wouldnt it be good to keep it to yourself? Seems like you would spend alot less time arguing with Agnostics and Atheist to prove something they probably wont believe anyway.

I try not to go around talking about my beliefs. In fact, the only time I do is when a Christian wants to try and save me. I understand that you are supposed to spread the word to others, but this day in age ( especially in the south) most in this country already know the story. Wouldnt it make sense to try and save someone that has never heard Jesus' name? You might have alot better luck!


----------

