Where did the wives of Cain and Abel come from?

You seem to know what God thinks quite clearly. Are you a new Prophet or a False one?

 

That's an interesting analysis that I haven't seen before. Thanks for sharing.

 

Studying the symbols repeated in scripture helps somewhat.. although I always thought a body of water was symbolic of chaos not people.

 

So you discount such passages as Hebrews 11:4, Matthew 23:35, and Luke 11:51 which describe Abel in a positive light and not being empty of substance?

 

I see....so not so much a prophet as an opinionated zealot....that makes more sense.

 

Zealot? How does that fit?

First century history is pretty interesting... and it help explain Revelation.

 

I did not state any new ideas here. What I wrote about the first chapters of Genesis, I learned from the Church, from the Christians with whom I had a chance to communicate in my life.

 

zeal·ot
ˈzelət/
noun
noun: zealot; plural noun: zealots

1. a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
   synonyms: fanatic, enthusiast, extremist, radical, young Turk, diehard, true believer, activist, militant; More
   bigot, dogmatist, sectarian, partisan;
   informalfiend, maniac, ultra, nut;
   eager beaver
   "York was too much of a zealot for the party to endorse seriously"
   • historical

 

I still don't think zealot fits..

 

That may be an exaggeration based on limited data...it seemed fitting.

 

Only a zealot would think that the only history of the ME is Jewish history.

 

Or Christian, Assyrian, Egyptian...etc....all of which have been incorporated into the Bible(s) in one way or another.

 

Yes. I don't believe that 'Abel' ever existed. The Jews believed that he - and the Patriarchs had existed - because that's what they had been taught from childhood. And indoctrination is a powerful tool. Look at Christianity, Islam and other religions. In Matthew 23 Jesus attributes the murder of Abel (a prophet) to the Jews - who didn't even exist as a people then. It's like blaming the JW's for the murder of Julius Caesar. Mmm. Must ask them sometime.

What did the scribes writing the OT really try to do? Did they intend these myths as moral anecdotes? Were they really allegories? Were they really trying to tell us something? For all the words of wisdom written since about the Genesis chapters it's all speculation. The post by Aryeh B is an interesting post. One of many different interpretations. The stories in Genesis are adaptations from earlier stories. Would it not be just as well to ask what was meant by the writers of those original stories? What did Adam learn after taking a bite of a forbidden fruit that Enkidu didn't learn after 6 days and 7 seven nights with a prostitute?

If we think these stories were allegories and moral anecdotes we have to understand the moral issues of the time compared with ours today, those of the time of writing and those of the time of the original stories. There's little in the first 5 books of the OT that is original. Most of it is taken from earlier times or from contemporary cultures. As is most of Judaism, from which most of Christianity and Islam is adapted.

 

The biblical stories illustrate the Ten Commandments found in Exodus chapter 34.> Some of the stories show what happens when they are followed and other stories show what happens when they are ignored. All of the stories teach total obedience and loyalty to the Boss. So the stories themselves aren't that important. It's their message.

 

Good points. But remember, a committee wrote the Bible in the 680s-690s in Latin based upon oral stories and a few tattered scrolls. It's always a mistake to take it as original gospel.
u

 

LOLOL.. Matt 23: 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

 

The Bible was written before then. Particularly the Tanakh. These scrolls were available in the time of Jesus. The NT was put together by Constantine and his Bishops in the 4th century and verified by various counsels in the succeeding century. Revelation being the exception.
The Gospels were in place - verified by early church fathers. Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraneus and others all quote from, or refer to them. Many of the Pseudo Gospels (1st-2nd century) also quote from them or refer to them. Pauls Epistles are also used and quoted.

 

There was no person named <Jesus> until 1632 A.D. You couldn't produce an authentic original Bible written before the 680s-690s for anything. Sure, there might have been various scrolls floating around but they were not the Bible. And dredging up some unknown names is just an argument of authority without any basis.

 

From rocks.

Matthew 3:9 "...God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."
Why would they need biological parents if God is able to do such things?

 

IF

 

'
'The letter is one of a number believed to have been written by Polycarp, but is the only extant document.[4] The letter was composed in Greek, but the Greek text has not been preserved in its entirety; there is also a Latin translation of the letter.[5] Moreover, a few quotations of it are preserved in Syriac.[6]'

'Irenaeus' major extant writing is the Adversus Haereses (the full title of which is the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge falsely so-called). Its composition is dated ca. 180 from the succession lists in which the author names Eleutherus (ca. 174 - ca. 189) as current bishop of Rome (Haer. 3.3.3), although it seems from remarks Irenaeus makes in the prefaces to Haer. 3 and 4 that he followed the practice of sending on the separate books of the work as they were completed. The other complete extant work is the Demonstration [or Proof] of the Apostolic Preaching. It was written after at least the earlier books of Adversus Haereses, to which reference is made in chap. 99. An Armenian version of this long-lost work was discovered in 1904, and Smith (1952: 4-11) discusses its textual history. Eusebius (ca. 263-ca. 339) is the principal source for our knowledge of the lost works of Irenaeus. These include at least the treatises "On the Ogdoad" and "Concerning Knowledge" and letters "On Schism" and "On the Monarchy [of God]" (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 5.20.1), as well as the full text of the letter to Victor already mentioned [c. 188 to c. 198]'

'Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in Syria. Three recensions of his epistles, reckoned among the apostolic fathers, are extant. The long recension is generally rejected as including clearly spurious epistles (those to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, to Hero, a deacon in Antioch, to the Philippians, to Mary of Cassobola, to the virgin Mary, and to John, and those from Mary of Cassobola and from the virgin Mary). The short recension, in Syriac, is an abridgement of the middle recension, and includes the epistles to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. It is the middle recension that is most commonly accepted as genuinely Ignatian.'

'irst Letter of Clement, originally titled Letter To The Church Of Corinth; also called I Clement, a letter to the Christian Church in Corinth from the church of Rome, traditionally ascribed to and almost certainly written by St. Clement I of Rome, c. AD 96. It is extant in a 2nd-century Latin translation, which is possibly the oldest surviving Latin Christian work. Regarded as scripture by many 3rd- and 4th-century Christians, it was transmitted in manuscripts with a sermon known as the Second Letter of Clement, written c. 125–140 by an unknown author.

I fail to see the difference between the books of the Bible as 'scrolls' or as a 'book'. The fact that the letter J did not appear till the 17th cebtury doesn't mean that Yeshua is not translated Jesus. My parents used a Welsh name translated into English by the use of one different letter. I'm still the same person.