More, please. BioLogos would be improved by more articles like this.
I can never comprehend how anyone can claim to take the Bible literally when s/he is reading one of many translations that differ significantly. If you truly believe that following it literally is the difference between heaven and hell, there’s no way that learning Hebrew and Greek wouldn’t be at the top of your to do list.
What a sensible thing to do! I think that your approach works far better than redefining science itself.
Hello again, JohnZ, welcome back.
I’m assuming you’re referring to the discussion of meteors, volcanism, ice ages etc., —?
In regard to the Flood, the articles that I’ve read, they make it sound as if meteors played a huge role in the Flood … Some even saying it caused the Flood. I’m not expecting the Bible to talk about every single detail … But meteor causation seems rather odd, considering the Bible never says anything about it, don’t you think? The Bible isn’t shy about referring to phenomenon such as meteors falling from the sky … Revelations speaks of stars falling for instance. Sodom and Gomorrah says fire and brimstone falls from the sky. And Jonah (expects) fire and brimstone to fall on Ninevah.
I don’t expect the Bible to give intimate details about the goings on in China, for instance. Most of the action in the Bible takes place in the Middle East, Ethiopia, Egypt etc., — but since the claim is that the flood of Noah is taking place on the entire planet at large, don’t you find it odd that things like meteors hitting the earth wouldn’t be given a single mention? The only reason for the flood is, according to the text, is rain and fountains of the great deep.
It seems to stand out to me, that since most of the action takes place in regions like Mesopotamia, why it is that the flood of Noah is a planet-wide affair.
-Tim
I wrote a post about this called Cain’s Paranoia.
The text says, “Anyone that FINDS me shall kill me,” God confirms what Cain says, “And God put a mark on Cain lest anyone should FIND him should kill him.”
Both Cain and God are implying that the people that would find him would not recognize him. That’s what the purpose of the mark was … As a distinguish mark. Not that his descendants would get revenge on him.
If people would not recognize him it means they weren’t apart of Adam’s clan. Cain marrying his sister would also be a violation against the later levitical law of incesf (also the text implies that Cain got his wife after he was exiled to the Land of Nod).
-Tim
this is a strange type of reasoning, Mazrocon (by the way, not having followed this for awhile, I’m not sure you evolved from another character on this site?..your name is new to me so excuse me for not referencing previous encounters…) . (sorry, I now realize you signed yourself as Tim). I would advise not using the reasoning… “the Bible never says anything about it”, especially around evolutionists, since if you were to use that, then obviously, evolution would have to be disregarded on that fact alone. It is not whether the bible says anything about it, but rather whether the bible says something to contradict it.
There are a number of ways the flood is plausible, some of them natural means, and some of them what we would regard as supernatural. However, if there are plausible natural means, then it is more difficult to discount the flood accounts. Still, we might suppose it is speculation, much like the theory of evolution is speculation. (and not fact, contrary to the claims of so many). Whether the flood was caused by volcanoes, meteors, tectonic shift, or a combination of them directed and/or preplanned by the hand of God is interesting to examine. It is interesting to challenge the prevailing theories and assumptions of evolutionary theory as well, especially when we discover the shortcomings of the assumptions, and the necessary extrapolations to maintain such a theory.
So yes, the fountains of the great deep. But did they emerge supernaturally? or was there a concommitant natural cause, or an intermediate active agent, such as tectonic shift perhaps intitiated by meteor action resulting in volcanic activity. My point is only that as you say, you are not expecting the bible to talk about every single detail. Sodom and Gomorrah says fire and brimstone fell, but it also does not give an intermediate source of this brimstone.
You are reading this in, but it is invalid. The bible does not say they whether they would recognize him or not. Rather the warning was that he was protected by God. You might ask, why would Cain think they would kill him if they did not know him? And why would they “find” him if they were not looking for him?
Hey John.
So you’re saying that the “anyone” that should find him is referring to the only other people on earth, “Adam and Eve.” ? And why do you think Cain’s descendants would try to seek vengeance on him for something he did before they were born? Both Cain and God’s comments implies unfamiliarity … Not referring to intimate family.
I wrote a post about this awhile back … Here’s the bulk of it, if you’re interested:
"I wanted to write about a topic that doesn’t really get discussed a lot, but nonetheless still fascinates me.
Namely, what is the justification for Cain’s paranoia over being killed? Genesis 4:14 says “… and it shall come to pass that anyone who shall find me [Cain] shall slay me.” Up until this point of the narrative we are only informed of three other people living on earth: Adam, Eve and Abel (whom Cain just slew). The text doesn’t quite “gell” that Cain would be indicating “anyone” to meaning specifically his parents. If Cain’s paranoia is irrational, then why does God affirm his statement in the next verse: Genesis 4:15 “And the Lord said, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold. And the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest any that finding him should kill him.” The other question is where does Cain get his unnamed wife? To this last question, I will only get too later.
To study up on this question I’m going back to Eve’s comment that she made after bearing Cain: Genesis 4:1 “And Adam knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.” I’ve read many commentators on this verse, and the vast majority interpreted Eve’s comment to imply that this is her very first child.
“I have gotten a man…” this implies surprise, and joy, at her capability of producing life. Would this comment make sense if this was already her tenth child being born?
By the word “man” it implies that Eve didn’t have yet the need for verbiage to distinguish the difference between “man” and “child”, so she said “I have gotten a man”.
Commentators are also in general agreement that she is referring back to what happened in the Garden, when God promised Eve that her seed would “bruise the head of the serpent”… i.e., vanquishing evil. This is indicative of the last phrase, “from the Lord” or rather “with the help of the Lord”. If this is the case she will sorely be disappointed.
Next I will read Eve’s other comment, referring to the birth of Seth: Genesis 4:25 “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed, instead of Abel, whom Cain hath slew.” used in conjunction with Genesis 5:3 "And Adam lived 130 years and begot a son … and called his name Seth."
This knowledge tells us two important things:
Cain and Abel are both born prior to the birth of Seth, which took place in year 130 YAA (years after Adam)
Abel’s death took place prior to the birth of Seth, as well as Cain’s paranoia over being killed by other people.
Here we start to have a timeline for events. All these events took place sometime prior to year 130. Using the Genesis genealogies as our model we can infer that people were most often, bearing children in ages 65 - 500 years old (youngest breeders being Enoch and Mahalaleel, oldest breeder being Noah). The average time for begetting children would be 157, if you include Noah, or 119 if you don’t include him. If we are optimistic about Adam and Eve, then we can say Eve started bearing children, somewhere around the neighborhood of 65 years old — the youngest age recorded in Genesis 5.
If you accept my arguments in point #1 and point #2, then odds are Cain is Eve’s first child, and he was born somewhere around the neighborhood of year 65. If we are being optimistic yet again for “the case of Cain’s paranoia”, let’s say that Abel’s murder took place when Cain was 65, in the year 130 (the oldest possible age Cain could be before Seth was born in year 130). If we assume that after the birth of Cain and Abel, Eve is pumping out babies as fast as humanly possible (i.e., 1 baby per 9 months) then at the very most amount of people we can expect living at this time , excluding Adam and Eve, are 86 (or (65 x 12) / 9), all of whom are younger than him.
However all of these are optimistic assumptions and are constructed in the favor of supporting Cain’s fear of being killed by other people. No one really imagines that the Cain & Abel Episode took place when they were in their sixties. A more realistic picture is them in their 20s or, at most, 30s. So that number drops down significantly to around 26 (or (20 x 12) / 9) other people out there in the world, all of whom are, again, younger than Cain, many of whom would be toddlers.
Reading Adam and Eve’s comment yet again, let’s analyze further: "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain hath slew."
Nothing in the language of this verse, or in Eve’s detailed description, would imply that Eve had any children between the time she bore Cain&Abel to the time she bore Seth. God hath appointed me “another seed” instead of Abel (i.e., to replace Abel), whom Cain slew. As it to say her seed were few and far between. One might say she could have had a few children in between that time. But does her comment make sense if she, say, had 10-20 children in between that time? Possibly… but that explanation seems forced to me.
The justification for Cain being fearful that his siblings would murder him are built off the premise that in Genesis 5 it says that Adam and Eve had other children. But the text does not, however, say that these children were born between the birth of Cain and the birth of Seth, nor before the birth of Cain. In fact, the text implies just the opposite… that Seth was, in all likelihood, Eve’s third child. Secondly, the text does not say “my siblings will kill me”, being something that he was familiar with, but it says “anyone that finds me”, implying a general fear of being killed for the crime of murder.
Next we will be discussing the idea of “where did Can get his wife?” and “who is Cain’s wife?”
To the first question I will present two possibilities.
Option #1) He got his wife before he went into exile.
Option #2) He got his wife after he went into exile (presumably the land of Nod).
To Option #1, I have some serious difficulties. To say Cain got his wife before he went into exile, means that Cain brought his wife INTO exile with him. But Cain says “Anyone that will FIND me shall slay me”. God then puts a mark on him saying, “Lest any that should FIND him shall slay him.” This doesn’t seem to make room for an exile of Cain (plus his wife), but rather indicates that Cain alone went into exile. Secondly, Cain’s unnamed wife is mentioned immediately after his exile into the Land of Nod — implying that that’s the place where he got his wife.
But this makes problems more difficult. Now we seem to have two separate civilizations, when I just demonstrated that we can only optimistically expect 86 other people in the world given the data of Eve’s comment concerning Seth, and the data from the Genesis 5 genealogy. Did society break off into two groups at the very early stages of 80 people? worse, yet, a more likely scenario of 20 people?
The other question was “who was Cain’s wife?”. The most frequent answer is that Cain married his sister. But this answer is not an obvious one, and is the only reasonable answer you can expect, given the presumption that Adam and Eve are the first two people, and Cain (and his wife) are both first-generation people, from that original pair.
My first objection to this explanation is based off of Option #2 “He got his wife after he went into exile (presumably the land of Nod)”. If Cain married his sister in the land of Nod, then how did his sister get there in the first place? My other objection is why doesn’t the text explicitly say he married his sister? In verse 2 of the same chapter, it bothers to mention the relationship between Cain and Abel (they were brothers), and just 5 verses after Cain “knowing his wife” the text bothers to says “… and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.” Naamah’s whole entire role is inside this one little verse. She’s arguably the least significant character in all of Chapter 4, but we still know what her name was, and the fact that she was a sister to Tubalcain. With Cain’s wife we get none of that.
So let’s recap:
The premise is that Adam and Eve are the biological parents of humanity. The problem’s with this is, first of all, incest (which is called wicked in Leviticus 20:17)… would God purposely bring about humanity in this fashion? (I’ve discussed this already in previous posts). Second, according to Cain’s statements, and God’s subsequent affirmation of Cain’s statements, they’re other people out there in the world, that would wish to kill Cain, but according to my collected analysis of the Genesis 5 numbers, and Eve’s comments, we can only (very optimistically) expect there to be 86 other people in the world, all of whom are younger and related to Cain. A more reasonable amount of people would be somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty; and much less then that, depending on how realistic you think Eve’s comments are concerning the birth of Seth. Third, we can see quite plainly that there are two different civilizations going on in the very early stages of humanity… but how can this be if there are only, optimistically speaking, about a hundred people in existence, and realistically speaking, probably more likely 20 people? Fourth, Cain’s wife does not imply familiarity on Cain’s part. Unless one wants to say that Cain’s sister left early on to join this “other civilization”, when Cain was too young to remember her, and thus the unfamiliarity is justified."
And if you’re further interested in the topic, you can read the dialogue / comments on the post called Cain’s Paranoia.
-Tim
your post is a bit too long for me. In general, since you are speculating, it is a speculation that simply misses the main evidence, that Cain was worried about people killing him, that these people were likely his relatives, since no others would have pre-conceived motive, and that it is very possible and probable that there were siblings besides those mentioned. Your speculation does bring out some of these possibilities, ie. the age at the murder of Abel, and the unlikelihood that no other children were born. So, it is entirely possible that a number of people besides Cain existed as descendants of Adam and Eve, and that even some of them might have had children as well. If one man can kill another as Cain did, then certainly one small group could seek to kill Cain, as he was afraid of. Cain’s fear is based solely on his own conviction of guilt of murder, which God had convicted him on. Yet God was merciful, and put the sign on his head, rather than simply leaving him to the murderous impulses of others. Why the mark on his head and not on Abel’s head, for example? or later on the head of seth? Cain realizes his guilt, and the potential consequence when others acted as he had.
Many times something has been said about your incest question. Incest (between brother and sister) is a biological problem, not a spiritual problem. Abraham also married his half sister, many years later. You can’t keep on arguing why didn’t scripture say this or that, as if it provides validity. It doesn’t. Scripture doesn’t say how most of the disciples died. It doesn’t say how most of the patriarchs died. It doesn’t explain every physical and geological detail; nor does it need to. Where it doesn’t speak, we must get information from elsewhere. Where it does speak, it should not be contradicted, since it is true. Sometimes the language may be hard to understand, and sometimes we have difficulty distinguishing between metaphor and simile and hyperbole and symbolism and realism, but that doesn’t extinguish the main principles of understanding.
Hello Mazrocon. You are always welcome to join in.
Earth has solid core. That has been established by measuring shock waves caused by earthquakes that traveled through the inside of Earth. There is something strange with that core. According to official science that central core has a temperature below the critical temperature of iron. Motivation: the mass of Earth consists for large percentage of iron, iron is one of the heavier elements, so the core has to consist mainly of iron, plus smaller quantities of heavier elements like lead and gold. The core is solid, so the temperature has to be below the critical temperature of iron or else iron would be in gas state. So far, so good. However, if you calculate the temperature in the crust downward to the center of the Earth, then you arrive at a temperature in the range of one million degrees Celsius. That implies that the central core has to be of an unknown material that remains solid notwithstanding the extremely high temperature. Venus has relatively larger central core and Mercury has a central core that is relatively larger than the core of Venus.
I don’t know how that has been established, but NASA has sent an explorer to Mercury to find out why the core is so large.
Read my 4 posts about the history of Humanity and Earth for more info.
You are welcome to comment, but only if you tell me where and why I am wrong or wright.
NASA has dropped a few probes on the crust of Venus to measure temperature and pressure. Maybe they measured also other things.
There have been lots of speculations about the Moon, but none of those scientists have ever thought to make a correct estimate of the temperature curve from surface to central core of the Earth. And a core of ice is pure nonsense. The Moon was formed as result of a collision between a rogue planet and Earth. When the remains of that planet plus the Earth material that was forced into space by that collision started to form the Moon, the water was evaporated by the collisions of the debris. And any liquid water was forced to the surface when the Moon grew and got a gravity field: water is lighter than stones and grit.
Greetings, Jan
Here is another genetic results that makes Noah story improbable. Blue eyes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151123202631.htm
Hey John.
Here’s what I think:
When the best attempts that have been made to fill in the gaps of any narrative, come off as sounding as either ad hoc explanations, or stretches the boundaries of credibility, then it is reasonable to assume a different approach to that narrative, or a tweak in your understanding.
Since we are assuming that a passage in Scripture must be considered historical in the modern eye-witness account sense of the word, it is only natural, is it not, to fill in these gaps? I gave Adam and Eve the best assumptions in their favor given the information of Genesis 5. I came up with about 80 children, assuming that Eve was pregnant pretty much the whole time. Given these assumptions I don’t know if it’s credible for a small group of 80 (many of whom would be toddlers) to split off into 2 completely different civilizations that early on. Most ancient civilizations tend to stick together so as to form a community of diverse skills … Farming, sewing clothes, carpentry, etc. I also don’t believe that 80 some children really fits with Eve’s comments that would imply that her children were few and far between.
It’s for this reason that I tend to adjust my understanding of the text.
I’m a bit confused about your remark of Abel and Seth, in regards to why they didn’t get a mark from God? I agree with you that the mark was a sign of protection, and mercy (in a similar fashion to that of the animals coats given to Adam) … In that sense I may has been mistaken about what it appears to mean. Anyone that “finds him” doesn’t necessarily equate that people will actively pursue him however. When one commits a crime you can say “anyone that finds me will arrest me” … Implying “find you out” or “discover what you’ve done”. I am willing to admit I’m mistaken in this sense, however.
But in order to understand the land of Nod as a separate civilization that Cain was exiled too and found a wife there, it’s reasonable for me to assume that there are other people besides Adam’s clan.
There’s probably a technical term that I’m not aware of that would accurately definite my reasoning regarding the Bible’s lack of information in places that one would think it important to include. If anyone is a historian I’d like to know the term! I do think it can be a valid argument however, depending of course, on the situation in question.
For instance you mention that most of the apostles’ deaths aren’t mentioned in Scripture. That is true, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to my original inquiry, of why it is there’s a separate civilization in the land of Nod, early on, where Cain got his wife, when we can at best assume about 80 people in existence, and more reasonably assume about 20-40. Your situation about the deaths of the apostles isn’t the same situation.
Here’s another sense in which you can apply my reasoning. I think that some of the Gospels where Jesus’ Prophecy is mentioned, about the destruction of the Temple, were written between 30 and 70 AD, despite what some higher critics might say. Why? Because the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and if the Gospel writers wrote much past 70 AD it stands to reason why the destruction of the Temple isn’t mentioned in their writings, but the prophecy is. It would seem like a great opportunity for the Jewish author to say, “See! Jesus predicted this would happen, and now it comes to past!” … The lack of information in the Biblical text works both ways.
Another interesting thing to note is the list of foreign King oppressors in the Bible. We have Shishak King of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Cyrus of Persia, King Herod etc., but curiously the Pharoah that oppressed the Hebrews for 400 years, is never mentioned once by name, but is simply, “Another Pharoah rose up that knew not Joseph.” … Is this a valid argument to mention? At the very least it’s something to think about.
Rather than wholesale dismissing my entire line of reasoning, it would be more accurate to say, “Does that line of reasoning APPLY in this particular case?” As a Christian I feel obliged to explore the Bible in a multitude of ways; study the history of Bible interpretation; and also examine outside sources as well.
In the same chapter that condemns incest as wickedness, homosexuality is called an abomination. I hope that doesn’t mean you will argue that homosexuality is just a biological problem and not a spiritual problem.
In the cases where people in the Bible practice polygamy and incest, that’s not really the issue I’m trying to get at. God’s intentions with certain people … Cultural practices … All those need to be rightfully evaluated. What bothers me about incest is that in today’s world it’s looked down upon … As well as results in genetic disorders. Evidently the Bible sees the same thing. If this is the case then why would God purposefully bring about humanity in this fashion? It doesn’t make sense to me why it should be considered okay (well actually inevitable) at the get-go … And later become wickedness and cause genetic disorders. And if you’re claiming it’s just a problem with biology, then what was to prevent similar things happening at the start? Has biology changed for some reason?
You claim that I speculate a lot… Would you say John Woodmorappe was speculating when he said in his book, that not only was Noah an excellent ship builder but also an excellent animal trainer, who trained all the diverse animal kinds to poop on command into a bucket?
Were that explanation given for a narrative that was in any other book beside the Bible it would not be given serious attention. But those that are predisposed to it find the possibility intriguing. If we are to further the Kingdom of God, it makes more sees to me to come up with explanations that wouldn’t just convince people that grew up in a religious environment … But to convince those that have been unbelieving their whole life. “There Is more joy in heaven over one lost sheep that repententh, than ninety-nine righteous sheep.”
I suggest that we broaden our scopes in biblical interpretation and biblical understanding. That we don’t hastily make an open and shut case with certain passages, but approach it with humility. Augustine in the 4th century wrote, arguing from Scripture, that “It is impossible for there to be other human beings on the opposite side of the globe (called the Antipodeans), because that would make Scripture wrong. For it says, “He shall come through the cloud and every eye shall see him.” This would not be possible if humanity was dispersed all across the globe.” <<< later it turns out there were other people groups, such as the Aborigines, who lived almost exactly on the opposite side of the globe. Evidently, we had to tweak our understanding of Scripture, and didn’t just dismiss the whole Bible. I’m not sure how it is possible that every eye will see Jesus coming through the clouds — but I don’t dismiss it as untrue, but rather I don’t understand it.
Along with broadening our scopes, we should put our main focus on what’s important.
What does it mean to be made in the Image of God?
What is sin and how does I overcome it?
Can I believe in Jesus?
Can I answer Cain’s inquiry with a “Yes! I am my brothers keeper!”…?
Their are other ways to look at Scripture by the way, other than the Modern Historical Approach, that doesn’t resort to pure allegory. There’s the Proto-History Model. The History-With-Mythic-Clothes Mod. And there’s the Worldview Approach … Which is one I really like.
Cheer and have a good rest of your day.
-Tim
Tim,
Take a look at the new paper on the genetic flow of people in Europe over the past 8500 years. You’ll enjoy it.
That’s interesting about probes landing on Venus. I was under the impression that the only probes we’ve sent out to actually land anywhere was on Mars, while the other planets, only photos were taken. What really intrigued me actually is Jupiter, which appears to be just one massive turbulent storm ball (I think they call it a gas giant). I saw a timelapse and it appeared to me that certain layers of the storm was going in the opposite direction! That kinda baffles me really.
I’m not sure where I heard about the moon’s ice core — it sounded odd to me (sort of like an updated moon is made of cheese story!). It’s fascinating what you say about the core of the earth being a million+ degrees … But I’m wondering what you are trying to get? If I’m not mistaken, I recall you saying that the earths core might actually be steam or is hollow … Apologize if I misunderstood you though!
That’s interesting about the genomes. I’m curious how it is they track where people migrated too, like Sherlock with a magnifying glass? Is it a combination of radio-carbon dating, archaeology, and examination of the genome through the DNA of the fossils?
-Tim
I think your word civilizations is out of place. Too large and too strong. Different communities is a better term, more likely at the early time of Cain, although different civilizations certainly by the time of his descendant Lamech. I have no problem with any numbers you come up with, since you recognize that there were others, both sons and daughters, as Genesis clearly indicates later on. Only, you should not impute your sense of credibility to what happened then; what happened, happened, not based on anyone’s sense of credulity.
Think about why Cain was given a mark. Was it not because he had murdered his brother? That’s why Abel and Seth did not get such a mark of protection, since they did not need one… they had not murdered someone. The issue about finding Cain is not primarily one of pursuit, although it could include pursuit. But, just like the lethal feuds of various neighbors in parts of the south a couple hundred years ago, if a member of a family with whom a feud was going on was “found” in the wrong place, he might be shot, or at the very least chased and injured severely, even though not being actively pursued at the time. Another very significant point is that there is no indication of time or how soon Cain thought he might be killed by someone; there is no necessary requirement of urgency, just a recognition that since he was cursed, sometime in the future, perhaps distant future, someone might kill him.
This is somewhat reasonable, but mistaken. If the story is being told years after the actual events, then the land of Nod could as easily refer to a place where Nod later was built. Genesis 4:17 does not say that he found his wife in the land of Nod. He very well could have had a wife before leaving for another land, or he could have taken her along as he was leaving. Nor does the genesis account demonstrate that a civilization actually existed in this land of Nod. If there was already a city there, why would Cain find the need to build a city, which he called Enoch? So it is likely there were no people there until Cain arrived there. In any case, there would not likely have been enough time for people to develop a community there before Cain arrived, due to the general low population since Adam, as you have pointed out.
Well, I;m not sure what it would be valid for. Are you suggesting that since this Pharaoh was not specifically named other than his title, that he did not exist? None of them have names other than their title, but I don’t get your point.
I wouldn’t dismiss your entire line of reasoning. But I think I explained how much credibility you can give to it, relative to what is actually said in scripture. It is very important to distinguish between speculation and definitive conclusions. The best kind of speculation is that which provides an explanation for what scripture says , not the speculation that tries to turn scripture into a mere story, or into meaninglessness human imagination. Sometimes, as you suggest, absence of information can be significant. So for example, it would be significant that scripture did not mention that Jesus had a wife. From this we can clearly and reasonably deduce that he had no wife at all. However, we have many examples where no daughters are mentioned from the patriarchs, and this lack of mention does not mean there were no daughters. As you say, the principle needs to be applied specifically in each case… in fact, there is no general principle for this, only specific applications.
> 6 ‘None of you shall approach any blood relative [d]of his to uncover nakedness; I am the Lord.
What I mean by a biological problem is that incest was forbidden for biological, and perhaps sociological reasons. The spiritual problem comes from not obeying this command, but obviously this command was not present earlier. Like many of the ceremonial laws, it was given as a way of distinguishing from the nations around them.
24 ‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. 25 For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its [n]punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
I would have thought that by now you were familiar with the fact that genetic problems are caused by genetic disorders (mutations). At the time of Adam and Eve, there were no harmful mutations, and these increased slowly at first, and apparently much more rapidly after the flood, as evidenced by the great shortening of lifespans after the flood, compared to before the flood. So marrying relatives before the flood was not a problem.
I agree that John Woodmorappe was speculating, perhaps tongue in cheek, when he said that Noah trained all the animals to poop into a bucket. I would disagree with that speculation, and even with the speculation that Noah was an excellent shipbuilder. Such a designation seems rather spurious since it is unlikely Noah built any other ships of any size. However, what could be said is that Noah built a very seaworthy vessel, not an excellent ship, a vessel which has no indication of being easy to steer or to get speed of travel.
I agree that Augustine was human and fallible and made a mistake with regard to people on the other side of the globe. Speculation that every eye will Jesus coming on the clouds could include that Jesus could move like a satellite, or faster, or be seen at a greater distance. But primarily we can trust that no one will be unaware, when he does come.
John, I have a problem with this line of reasoning, because you’re in essence saying that we shouldn’t critically think about the text. What if an Egyptian used the same logic? “Yes our ancestors ruled as kings for 24,000 years … But what happened happened, and it wasn’t based on any of your credulity.” — or what if a Mormon said, “Yes Jesus visited North America and yes he cursed the people with dark skin. But what happened, happened, and it wasn’t based on any of your credulity.”
If that’s you’re line of reasoning, then there’s virtually no reason in even me arguing about it, because the other person can simply say, That’s what happened, I believe it, that settles it.
What would be gained?
You wrote, “I have no problem with any numbers you come up with, since you recognize that there were others, both sons and daughters, as Genesis clearly indicates later on.”
I gave Eve the possibility of pumping out children as fast as she could, given the information in Genesis 5. But because of her comments, it doesn’t seem likely that she had had any kids between Abel and Seth. A more straightforward reading wouldn’t imply that. Genesis 5 says she had other kids ,… But it doesn’t say when. For all we know it could have been after she had Seth.
You wrote, “Genesis 4:17 does not say that he found his wife in the land of Nod. He very well could have had a wife before leaving for another land, or he could have taken her along as he was leaving”
That’s reading into the text, in my opinion. There’s nothing in the text that would indicate that Cain brought anyone INTO exile with him. God did not say, “You & your wife shall be a vagabond in the earth” but he said, “You”. The terms “fugitive” and “vagabond” does not indicate that you’re bringing anyone with you.
You wrote, “So it is likely there were no people there until Cain arrived there. In any case, there would not likely have been enough time for people to develop a community there before Cain arrived, due to the general low population since Adam, as you have pointed out.”
Hard to say. This is the only place that Scripture mentions a place called “Nod” and it’s even more ironic because it correlates so well with Cain who was cursed to be “vagabond” which in Hebrew is “Nud” — which means wandering — a word that comes from the same Hebrew root, and thus Cain gets cursed to be a wanderer in the Land of Wandering. It’s interesting to me also how Eden also is mentioned in chapter 2, yet gives no explanation for how it got it’s name or who named it.
You wrote, “Well, I;m not sure what it would be valid for. Are you suggesting that since this Pharaoh was not specifically named other than his title, that he did not exist? None of them have names other than their title, but I don’t get your point.”
I was not aware that Pharoahs didn’t have names. Was King Tutentakaum never addressed by his name? Shishak King of Egypt was mentioned by name … But he played a significantly smaller role.
I’m not saying he didn’t exist … But does it seem strange to you for Moses to have a lengthy discourse with Pharaoh, who played a major role in the oppression of the Hebrews, and we aren’t even made known his name? There could be a tradition or cultural norm that I’m missing, but it just struck me as strange.
You wrote, “The best kind of speculation is that which provides an explanation for what scripture says , not the speculation that tries to turn scripture into a mere story, or into meaninglessness human imagination.”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. What we have is inspired text written by human authors — we can always misinterpret or misunderstand, especially since we are living far away from the original audience. Whence do you get from “Me trying to understand the message and the purpose of the text.”, too, “meaningless human imagination.”… Is anything that’s a “non-historical story” just human imagination?
I’m not arguing that it is “history”, “non-history”, or “Proto-history” … But I heavily disagree with how it is you seem to define what God would inspire someone (or group) to write. I read it for it’s message and teaching, based on what the author is trying to communicate. Then it’s theology. Then how it fits into history. John Walton puts it’s in a ladder format. First literarily, then theologically, last historically. All of these three things are important, but the first two take precedence over the third.
“If there was already a city there, why would Cain find the need to build a city, which he called Enoch?”
Perhaps not a city, but a community. As I stated earlier it doesn’t seem likely that Cain brought a wife into exile, but that he obtained a wife afterward. That’s the main reason why the Land of Nod is at least a place that already had some form of community. But that seems beside the point. When we read about people building cities, men making weapons, people playing music etc., in Genesis 4, it’s communicating “Progress Without God” and how it only ends in death. Jabal, Jubal, Tubalcain and Naamah — all being fathers of “cattle herders / livelihood” “harp and organ / entertainment” “iron and brass / warfare” — and Naamah whose name means beauty. They all represent humanity, and what it looks like — but without God there’s no point, and no order. And if Cain and his progeny are presumed to had settled down I the “Land of Wandering”, and Adam & Eve and the “appointed son, Seth” are still in Eden “the Land of Delight”, then the message is only stronger and more powerful.
This is the major takeaway I would get from Genesis 4. And if I never got anything more out of the text I would still be content with it’s wisdom and it’s teaching. But luckily, as it so happens, Scripture is often like an onion with layers of meaning — some of which you never noticed before, and get that, “A-ha moment!”
You wrote, “I would have thought that by now you were familiar with the fact that genetic problems are caused by genetic disorders (mutations).”
Yes, but these genetic disorders would compound on one another over constant generations of repeated incest. This happened in a tribe in Africa, where most of their children ended up having “ostrich feet” (not literally ostrich of course … But malformed), because of incest … As well as other instances too.
You wrote, “At the time of Adam and Eve, there were no harmful mutations,”
This is something you project onto the text, but there’s no reason to think that at the time of Adam and Eve there was no harmful mutations, or that Adam and Eve were made perfect.
You wrote, "and these increased slowly at first, and apparently much more rapidly after the flood, as evidenced by the great shortening of lifespans after the flood, compared to before the flood. "
You already know how I feel about the Genesis age-numbers, but you don’t agree with my conclusions, so we are not gonna get anywhere there.
You wrote, “So marrying relatives before the flood was not a problem.”
After Adam and Eve join together it says “For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
It’s a wonderful message. But it’s also odd for a couple reasons. 1) it mentions father and mother even though no father and mother were in existence yet … Did Adam and Eve leave their parents? 2) the descendent shall cleave leave their parents and cleave to the wife … This can hardly be expected to happen if the wife in question is your own sister, whom you most likely still live with.
You wrote, “I would disagree with that speculation, and even with the speculation that Noah was an excellent shipbuilder. Such a designation seems rather spurious since it is unlikely Noah built any other ships of any size. However, what could be said is that Noah built a very seaworthy vessel, not an excellent ship, a vessel which has no indication of being easy to steer or to get speed of travel.”
Perhaps ship builder is the wrong word … But in any case he built an impressive structure unlike anything else during the time period, or even afterwards for that matter.
You wrote, “I agree that Augustine was human and fallible and made a mistake with regard to people on the other side of the globe. Speculation that every eye will Jesus coming on the clouds could include that Jesus could move like a satellite, or faster, or be seen at a greater distance. But primarily we can trust that no one will be unaware, when he does come.”
I agree that it’s hard to know for sure how exactly it will go down. The more important take away is, as you say, that in some shape or form we will know that He is here (whatever methodology it takes). The reason I mentioned the situation with Augustine was in regards to Church History, and how certain situations back then, when heard in today’s world, can sound silly. But it wasn’t silly in their day … I think it’s a good idea to not get overly attached to a particular bible interpretation, lest one confuses an interpretation for the Word itself. All understanding (whether biblical, scientific, historical, theological etc.,) can be subject to either mishandling or fallibility. We must read it with an open heart to it’s teachings, as well as with humility.
-Tim
By sequencing the genome of living people in their “home” locations, they have a solid fix on time and location. In these studies, it is customary to sample people who’s all four grandparents are from the same location. That is pretty easy as most people of the world don’t move far from home.
It is certainly confirmed by radio-isotope dating and archaeological dating, but the main method used is just sequencing the changes in the genome over time. Mutations happen randomly but then get locked into the population as time progresses. For example, a SNP that randomly occurred in your grandmother will be present in you and your brothers and sisters and your first cousins.
Can you see from this paper, there is no time and place for a flood to have wiped out a significant portion of the human race, even a local one. We are not all descendant from an Mideastern man named Noah and his sons and wives from 4350 years ago.
Hello Tim and Patrick
About the Venus probes:NASA dropped at least one probe in the atmosphere of Venus. I understood that it stayed in good condition on the way down, sending data about temperature and pressure while it fell. Once it landed it still sent some photo’s and then the system gave up due to being overheated.
About Jupiter. You are right, it is called a gas giant. I presume that given its distance to the Sun, it was the first planet that built up a substantial gravity field, scooped up progressively more material and as result collected large quantities of hydrogen. As result it had a large atmosphere around a solid core with radioactive material. The radioactive material produced heat. Add to that the heat produced by incoming material. The formula is E = ½ M * V². A mass of M = 1 kilogram, coming in at say the speed V = 30 km/sec, produces E = ½ * 1 * 30,000 * 30,000 = 450,000,000 Joule. More than enough to evaporate the material and to heat up the atmosphere. ( 1 J. = 1 watt.seconde)
Then there exists the gas law: P * V = R * T . In words: Pressure times Volume = gas constant R times absolute temperature T. If the temperature in degrees Kelvin goes up, then the pressure and/or volume has to go up. Given the large quantity of hydrogen, the temperature must be well above the critical temperature of any known material at 1,000 km downward into the atmosphere of Jupiter and therefor it has to be gas all the way down to the solid central core. Jupiter radiates more heat into space than it receives from the Sun. I’m convinced that there is an additional, still unknown type of radiation from the Sun that passes through normal material but is partially captured by the still unknown material X of the solid central core and there converted into material X and heat, while material X is radioactive and converts into elements of our periodical system and heat. And that heat causes permanent storms beyond our imagination. On Earth the decay of material X causes expansion of the Earth. My estimate is that the diameter of the Earth increases each year some 10 cm. As result the Earth has burst out of his crust, the original Pangea, made of granite. Genesis 1.2 speaks of a world completely covered with water. As the Earth continued to expand, the seams were filled with lava. Once sea life started the granite was covered with an increasing layer of limestone, while sea bottom remained of lava and basalt.When the ongoing evolution produced animals, that evolution was limited to sea life. it lasted several million years before land life started because the seams had to become so large that dry land emerged.
Please, try to solve the following riddle: granite consists of small polished stones, glued together by lava. Polished stones are normally formed by the flow of water in riverbeds. But those stones are not so uniformly small as the stones in granite, also the quantity is beyond imagination and there were no rivers when the granite was formed. So please put your brain in movement until it grinds and creaks and dream up a process that could produce such an immense quantity of granite. I did it, why should you be unable to do it? A hint: it happened during the formation of the Moon.
About the migrations in prehistory and DNA-research: do read the book “The Seven Daughters of Eve.” by Bryan Sykes. It is an eye-opener. And relate it with the talk by James Balog on www.TED.com about the loss of ice on Greenland. Stop the display at 7.30 minutes and admire te carbon dioxide footprints of previous space-traveling human civilizations.
Each of these civilizations was swept away by a previous Flood. And the few survivors had to reinvent Stone Age, had to cope with massive inbreeding and their descendants had to reinvent everything again, including the wheel.
Greetings, Jan.
You have a point, Tim. Credulity is an issue. My point was that what actually happens does not depend on peoples credulity. Our credulity changes when unexpected things actually happen, and that is something we have to keep in mind. This includes Cain or Seth marrying a sister, which at first may seem incredible.
There is nothing that indicates that he didn’t. So the sensible thing is to realize that he most likely had done, unless this sister had gone to Nod before he had, which would be possible, but unlikely. If you argue that he could not have brought his wife with him, then you are reading something into the text which the text does not provide.
Some of what you are thinking here makes sense. But not all of it. It would be incorrect to think that Adam and Eve and Seth are still in Eden, from which they were cast out before they had any children. There is a comparison of sorts between the things of the world, and the promise of the messiah through Seth. But there is also an indication that all people had access to the things that were developed in Cain’s line, simply because of the common knowledge of these things, when we can safely assume that these stories were passed on through Seth’s line, which was the line that eventually led to Noah and his passage through the flood, while Cain’s descendants would have ceased.
This would imply no actual settlements or even perhaps people in this land. That it was a land of wandering because Cain wandered in this land, which is where it got its name.
It would seem odd at first, but it is not. It signifies that men and women do not live alone, not even with their parents as mere individuals, because the first union was that of a man and wife, not a mother and child. Of course, both man and woman should leave their parents in that sense, and place their primary relationship with each other not with a parent. That was the point of the teaching. And in the case of a man marrying his sister, they would both leave their parents in order to prioritize each other.
And I would say this is particularly true for an attachment to evolutionary theory, an interpretation of the facts that might be quite far from reality.
This seems like another case of, “What-To-Do-When-The-Bible-Lacks-Specifics”. In dealing with these sticky issues it’s hard to grasp hold of it. I’ve pointed to other passages in the past (Genesis 26:1 says, There was a famine in the land besides the first one in the days of Abraham. And 1st Samuel 18:10 says, And the evil spirit fell upon Saul, and David played his harp as at other times.) — the phrases like “besides the first one” and “as other times” are useful phrases because the author identifies potential confusion on the reader and thus endorses clarification. With Cain or Seth marrying a sister it’s not so much that incest seems incredible to me (other people in history have committed incest … It’s just typically not a very natural thing). Rather my credulity is based in the fact that the existence of Cain’s wife has to be explained away in an awkward round about way. The author introduces a character, out of the blue, with no qualms. Now in say, the Gospels for instance, saying something along the lines of “And Peter went home to his wife.” Isn’t going to elicit any confusion. But that’s smack down in the middle of history. Genesis (or Bereshit) is a book of Beginnings … So an author that says, “And Cain knew his wife” right after Cain is exiled from Eden, to be a wanderer and vagabond, and furthermore never explaining her existence prior to the affair, is just bizarre. We have to identify her by looking at the information in a non-related chapter, chapter 5, infer incest, and that Cain took her with him into Exile. And as I mentioned in my post the same chapter says that Cain and Abel are brothers … And in the same genealogy it mentions that Naamah is the sister of Tubalcain (perhaps one of the least significant persons in the Bible, tucked away in this tiny verse.) Yet despite this she still has a name, and we are informed that she is the is the sister of Tubalcain. With Cain’s wife we don’t get any of that.
In case you haven’t noticed I pay a lot of attention to how things are worded.
I still don’t see how it is that God would purposefully bring about humanity through incest, when in today’s world we seem to have a natural aversion towards incest, as well as have been shown to cause damaging effects due to inbreeding. Look up the Westermarck Effect.
You wrote, “Some of what you are thinking here makes sense. But not all of it. It would be incorrect to think that Adam and Eve and Seth are still in Eden, from which they were cast out before they had any children.”
This is a technicality, but actually Adam and Eve got kicked out from the GARDEN that was within Eden… But not Eden itself. Cain was kicked out of Eden into the land of Nod. It’s tempting to use “garden” and “Eden” interchangeably, but they are not actually the same thing.
You wrote, “But there is also an indication that all people had access to the things that were developed in Cain’s line, simply because of the common knowledge of these things,”
I don’t disagree with you … Much like the land of Israel, I don’t think that they were in a box. However, I think that’s beside the point of what the author is trying to do with this passage … Which is to demonstrate a progress of technology with a group of people that don’t appear to be very godly. I think there’s something to be said that all these technological advances: cities, music, brass and iron, outward stability, all seem to take place in the Land of Wandering. There is wisdom in this paradox that one builds a city in such a place.
You wrote, “This would imply no actual settlements or even perhaps people in this land. That it was a land of wandering because Cain wandered in this land, which is where it got its name.”
I still enjoy what Origen commented on this passage: “The departure of Cain from the presence of The Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what the presence of God is, and how anyone could go out from it.”
In essence there are two main possibilities. The land of Nod was some sort of civilization that Cain stumbled into. Or it’s to be understood in a much more figuritive / spiritual sense … A state of being that reflected the condition of Cain’s relationship with God. Since it is stated that he went out from the presence of The Lord AND dwelt in the land of Nod, then, as Origen suggests, we ask, “What is the presence of The Lord”. While I while I will not go into detail here, their are too many passages that exemplify God’s omnipresence (the Heavens themselves cannot contain Him)… Ergo, unless God temporarily suspended His omnipresence, then it is very difficult to understand the land of Nod as a real and literal place. And to suggest so is to imply that God dwelt in a physical location, of which Cain escaped from.
This interpretation has far-reaching implications, on how one is to understand the rest of the narrative in the purely historical sense.
You wrote, “It would seem odd at first, but it is not. It signifies that men and women do not live alone, not even with their parents as mere individuals, because the first union was that of a man and wife, not a mother and child. Of course, both man and woman should leave their parents in that sense, and place their primary relationship with each other not with a parent. That was the point of the teaching. And in the case of a man marrying his sister, they would both leave their parents in order to prioritize each other.”
It is a beautiful teaching and a beautiful message. But it is a most unnatural thing for Adam to have literally said right after receiving a woman, when no mother or father are yet in existence, and neither son nor daughter. It hard for me to ignore what the author appears to be doing with the text… Of which I will explain in a moment trough example.
In the story of Perseus, the King of Argos has a beautiful daughter. But the king is foretold that his grandson will kill him one day. Fearful of this prophecy the King does everything in his power to prevent this from happening: from locking her daughter in a prison, and when that doesn’t work, he sends the daughter and her infant son, Perseus, in a crate to be floated off to sea. Later in the story the king’s daughter and Perseus return to the kingdom, which further troubles the King — and so he still avoids him at all costs. Later, in an unrelated event, Perseus accidentally kills his grandfather by hitting him in the head with a ring of iron (used in a sport). And the text comes to a close with, “He had fled from his kingdom to save his life, and in doing so had only met his death.”
It seems to me that the author of this story had a message he wanted to convey, that appeared in the form of a question, “I want to express the idea that you shouldn’t be afraid of death, and that an exceeding fear of death, tarnishes the quality of living.” — the author conveyed this message through the use of a King that tries and fails to put off fate, an in doing so caused him great stress, that he forgot to live … And death met him in any case.
I can also imagine a mother reading to her child Hansel and Gretel getting lost in the woods, and almost getting eaten by a witch, and at the end of the book she says, “And that’s why you always stick with momma and don’t wander far from your parents!”
These of course, are just analogies. My point is that it seems a similar thing is happening in Adam and Eve. The author wanted to express the truth, of the beauty of the bond between Man and Woman, and the order of branching off from your parents and “cleaving” to your wife. The image of the woman being made out of Adam’s rib (or side) is a tool expression that completes that train of thought. One flesh is one mind towards the same goal (Paul uses this creatively to refer to the union of the Church and God). One flesh is the union (heart, mind as well as intimacy) of a man and a woman. “We were made for each other.” “You complete me” are other such images, and expressions, that are so beautifully depicted in this passage.
Now one must keep in mind the by me simply observing what appears to be a story element, to teach a theological truth, in a grand narrative, does not equate that I mean there was no such person as Adam and Eve — I am simply trying to take the text for what it is the best way that I can.
You wrote, “And I would say this is particularly true for an attachment to evolutionary theory, an interpretation of the facts that might be quite far from reality.”
God wrote Two Books: the Book of Scripture and the Book of Creation. Since they are by the same author, the one cannot contradict the other, and if they are found in contradiction, then we are either interpreting Creation incorrectly or we are interpreting Scripture incorrectly. I agree that it works both ways, and that we should have the humility ton understand that both spheres are subject to a correction in understanding, or a tweaking of perspective.
I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving — I’m assuming that it’s still a holiday in Canada. As well as had a great time with family — you apparently have a large one!
-Tim
This is a good point Tim. As long as we realize they are out of the garden, then we are on the same page. (Interesting also, that Eden also became a name of a son of Joah, a Levite (II Chronicles 29:12).
Although that is a valid conclusion we can make, we cannot really assume the author’s point on this, only make a cautious inference. But most of this “technological progress” would be after Cain had left Eden country, after he had established the city of Enoch.
The third possibility is that this is an identifiable area, later understood to be the area that Cain wandered in. But, since Nod or Nud means wander or wandering, it could also imply that Cain left Eden, and just wandered around. So the land of Nod was just the area that Cain wandered in… it was a metaphorical way of saying that Cain wandered around, but later became a specific area, somewhat delineated by an understanding of the area that Cain actually wandered around in. A fairly large area for a nomadic existence.
It seems that Adam did not really make the statement, “for this reason a man will leave father and mother…”, it is merely part of the narrative by the narrator. So in that sense, it makes more sense.
Happy thanksgiving to you to, or was that yesterday? Our thanksgiving was more than a month ago (second monday in October), and we enjoyed it. My second youngest sister and her husband had her 25th wedding anniversary two days before, and then we had to travel 6 hours home to prepare for thanksgiving at my son’s place… a good time.
It seems that we read the Bible in a different fashion. But that’s okay. I think multiple angles, perspectives, should be enouraged as it will only serve to gain a richer and more vibrant understanding of Scripture.
I will tweak what I originally wrote:
It seems to me, based on my inference, that there is something worthy of note to compare the two genealogies, to whoever was the editor/compiler, since there were placed rigt next to each other. My “progress without God” viewpoint is understood based on the fact that A) there is no such technological, professions listed in Seth’s lineage, and B) it seems a similar thing takes place with the construction of the Tower of Babel: an attempt at progress, where God is not involved.
Note that I am certainly not saying that Seth’s lineage didn’t have access to Cain’s technology. I am saying that there are reasons why they are written the way they are… For our spiritual benefit.
One major difference right off the bat, between both genealogies: Seth’s lineage puts an emphasis on years lived, but no mention is made concerning professions … This is the exact opposite information we get from Cain’s lineage. Naturally I come to the conclusion that there is some level of importance in this.
Next, I notice that both lineages share two people that bear the same name: two Enochs and two Lamechs.
Both of the Enochs have something to do with consecration or dedication. Enoch in Seth’s line “walked with God” and is the first mentioned person to have avoided death. Enoch in Cain’s line has the first mentioned city named after him. If I were to make a connection between the two, Enoch of Cain is a worldly accomplishment that makes a home in a place that’s doomed to destruction. Enoch of Seth on the other hand, looks heavenward, and gets “translated” to heaven, where God dwells … Heavenly home and earthly home in other words.
In both Lamechs, it is interesting to note, are the only people to have their words recorded within the genealogy. Lamech of Seth, says, “This same shall comfort us for the ground The Lord God hath cursed.” Lamech of Cain says to his wives, “I have slain a man to my wounding and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold then surely Lamech seventy and sevenfold.” They also appear, both of them, at the second-to-last of their genealogy. Lamech of Cain is representative of the violence and blood feuds that have escalated … While Lamech of Seth sees hope and renewal in the birth of his son. Remember that there’s emphasis on the spilling of blood that taints the ground… One Lamech brings about despair … The other brings about hope.
You wrote, “The third possibility is that this is an identifiable area, later understood to be the area that Cain wandered in. But, since Nod or Nud means wander or wandering, it could also imply that Cain left Eden, and just wandered around. So the land of Nod was just the area that Cain wandered in… it was a metaphorical way of saying that Cain wandered around, but later became a specific area, somewhat delineated by an understanding of the area that Cain actually wandered around in. A fairly large area for a nomadic existence.”
Your explanation is interesting and possible. But here I will make a couple comments.
The reason why Origen made that statement was primarily because of what it says before, “And Cain went OUT from the presence of The Lord.” … If we are to understand the Land of Nod as a literal place, then it would further imply that God dwelt in a physical place too. He left God AND went to the land of Nod, which suggests that whatever Nod is, God’s presence isn’t there. And if his presence was something Cain literally walked away from, then what does that mean? Did God no longer fill the whole heavens and the earth? How is it possible to walk away from Him? Unless it is to mean the he left God’s favor since he committed the crime of murder … But that would follow that the land of Nod (of which God didn’t dwell) wasn’t a real place, but an expression of his spiritual state. I suggest that it is similar in the sense of Enoch “walking with God” didn’t literally suggest that Enoch went on walks with God, but rather they were in agreement and had a relationship with one another.
My other comment is how one is to understand the Land of Nod as being specifically named as such, because of his wandering, when it’s the location of which the first mentioned city is built, which implies the opposite of wandering: stability. It’s this paradox, placed right next to each other in the biblical text, that makes me do some deep thinking. If the “wandering” is more to be understood in the spiritual sense, then it has something profound to say: Cain, outwardly builds a city, but his heart and mind are in other places, since he is far from God. The very next thing in the Bible that refers to building is Noah, who builds an ark in preparation for safety, based on what God told him. In an odd way it reminds me the parable Jesus taught about the man who built his house on sand, and the man who built his house on a rock. Outwardly they may seem to be doing similar things to the casual observer … But their motives and foundations are what sets them apart.
That’s all for now, John. Glad you had a joyous (and apparently early) Thanksgiving.
-Tim
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.