Poll of the Day > So did Cain and Abel bang, or was it Cain and Eve... or what?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't know, I ain't bibliographist
---

Eve had more children that the bible doesn't talk about. Some of them were girls. They banged their sisters.


---

But if they're not in the bible... they don't exist to biblical literalists.
---

When youre talking about The Old Testament, they all banged.

---

Lokarin posted...

But if they're not in the bible... they don't exist to biblical literalists.

It's not in the modern bible, it is in the old text the bible was drawn from, much like how there's a lot more than 10 commandments.
---

Lokarin posted...

But if they're not in the bible... they don't exist to biblical literalists.

Even Bible literalists tend to acknowledge that things could happen contemporaneously that weren't necessarily in the Bible. They just don't view anything that happens that isn't in the Bible as being all that important.

It's similar to the story (which I absolutely can't remember the details of now, which is annoying the hell out of me) where a Muslim general basically conquered a city and had all of the books thrown into the river, to the point where they say the river ran black with ink for weeks (it might be the Siege of Badhdad and the destruction of the House of Wisdom, but I'm not 100% sure).

When asked why, he said "All of these books either agree with and support the Qur'an, in which case they are unnecessary. Or they contradict it, and are lies. Either way, they serve no purpose." (or something like that, again, I'm having a hard time pinning the precise details down in my brain - getting older sucks).
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Even Bible literalists tend to acknowledge that things could happen contemporaneously that weren't necessarily in the Bible.

They don't have much choice except to take that position. Otherwise, there'd be some very awkward attempts to explain where the hell Cain's wife came from after he was exiled into the wilderness.
---

All the first babies were made like Jesus.
---

Firewerx posted...

They don't have much choice except to take that position. Otherwise, there'd be some very awkward attempts to explain where the hell Cain's wife came from after he was exiled into the wilderness.

aka the question teen atheists always bring up thinking they've somehow defeated the entire concept of religion entirely, in spite of the fact that people had an answer for that thousands of years ago.

Ironically, it's actually a very modern concept that people in the past were too stupid to understand metaphors and thus had to interpret the Bible purely literally. Even prior to the era of Jesus, Jews were fully aware that the message was more important than the explicit words, and didn't take every single aspect of it literally. Like the whole "world created in six days" thing.
---

yea I heard that in the Koran (muslim bible) that it mentions a sister. and that the reason for Caine and Able fighting was cause they both wanted to fuck her. and then Caine won, killed his bro, banged his sis and made kids

Abel boinks Est. Cain supposedly hooks up with Catria.
---

Zikten posted...

yea I heard that in the Koran (muslim bible) that it mentions a sister. and that the reason for Caine and Able fighting was cause they both wanted to fuck her. and then Caine won, killed his bro, banged his sis and made kids

Seth is also a thing.
---

It's like a Bronze Age soap.
---

Bugmeat posted...

Eve had more children that the bible doesn't talk about. Some of them were girls. They banged their sisters.

This. The concept of Incest wasn't a concern until later.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Lokarin posted...

But if they're not in the bible... they don't exist to biblical literalists.

Even Bible literalists tend to acknowledge that things could happen contemporaneously that weren't necessarily in the Bible. They just don't view anything that happens that isn't in the Bible as being all that important.

Also this.
---

8

Ironically, it's actually a very modern concept that people in the past were too stupid to understand metaphors and thus had to interpret the Bible purely literally. Even prior to the era of Jesus, Jews were fully aware that the message was more important than the explicit words, and didn't take every single aspect of it literally. Like the whole "world created in six days" thing.

@ParanoidObsessive, what are you trying to say, here? That Jews don't believe the world was created in 6 days?
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Lokarin posted...

But if they're not in the bible... they don't exist to biblical literalists.

Even Bible literalists tend to acknowledge that things could happen contemporaneously that weren't necessarily in the Bible. They just don't view anything that happens that isn't in the Bible as being all that important.

It's similar to the story (which I absolutely can't remember the details of now, which is annoying the hell out of me) where a Muslim general basically conquered a city and had all of the books thrown into the river, to the point where they say the river ran black with ink for weeks (it might be the Siege of Badhdad and the destruction of the House of Wisdom, but I'm not 100% sure).

When asked why, he said "All of these books either agree with and support the Qur'an, in which case they are unnecessary. Or they contradict it, and are lies. Either way, they serve no purpose." (or something like that, again, I'm having a hard time pinning the precise details down in my brain - getting older sucks).

Siege of Baghdad (1258), also Hulagu Khan wasn't a Muslim.
---

JCvgluvr posted...

@ParanoidObsessive, what are you trying to say, here? That Jews don't believe the world was created in 6 days?

Just for reference, I never see @ mentions. I have them deliberately turned off, and I refused to respond to them or ATTN topics even when those were a thing.

But as for your actual question, many don't. They're fully capable of understanding that phrasing can be used to refer to things figuratively. Some would argue that "days" in that context are just metaphorical stand-ins for unmeasured periods of time, others would argue that they refer to days from the perception of God, who can count a day lasting however the hell long he wants one to. Keeping in mind those stories evolved during a time when everything was oral and there was no writing, so precise reckoning was never going to be much of a concern. Especially when they lacked the technology to measure the exact age of the universe or the world anyway.

It's similar to how, in many modern languages, phrases like "ten thousand" don't literally mean 10,000, but just "lots and lots". Or how I can say "I'll be there in a minute" or "I need a couple things", and not literally mean I'll be there in exactly 60 seconds or that I need precisely two things.

There's also an implication that when the Old Testament said that "So-and-so lived for 900 years", that most Jews didn't take that literally either, and interpreted it as a deliberate poetic way of saying "Things used to be better in the old days, when Man was still closer to God before we faded." It wasn't really until the Christians came along, started taking things super-literally, and used that stuff to calculate that the world was created in 4004 BC that the literalist view sort of became the accepted one. And even then, the Jews themselves were still a bit like "lol silly Christians".

But yes, I'm sure there were Jews who took everything literally as well back in the day. But ancient people and cultures were way more capable of understanding subtlety and metaphor than we usually give them credit for, because we like to ethnocentrically think we're way better than them.



Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

Siege of Baghdad (1258), also Hulagu Khan wasn't a Muslim.

Yeah, like I said, I was having trouble remembering the exact context. I knew it happened, and I remembered the quote (more or less), but I forgot exactly who said it, where, and when. I just threw the Siege of Baghdad out as a possibility because it came to mind as a famous book destruction.

It MIGHT have been the library of Alexandria instead.

...actually, checking Wikipedia now that I thought of it, it definitely was:

"If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them." --- Caliph Omar
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Ironically, it's actually a very modern concept that people in the past were too stupid to understand metaphors and thus had to interpret the Bible purely literally. Even prior to the era of Jesus, Jews were fully aware that the message was more important than the explicit words, and didn't take every single aspect of it literally. Like the whole "world created in six days" thing.

This is actually incorrect. Many Jews do believe it in a literal sense in that the sun and moon were created on the 4th day. So the first 3 "days" could've been a thousand, million, or billion years since there were no revolutions to determine our concept of time passing. Others just believe the Earth was created ~5700 years ago and was simply created to be billions of years old with dinosaur fossils implanted in the ground to test us? I don't know, I think it's all a bit ridiculous but to each their own.

Either way, orthodox Jews do believe the old testament happened since it was provided by god itself.

ListerineStrips posted...

the first 3 "days" could've been a thousand, million, or billion years since there were no revolutions to determine our concept of time passing.

The hebrew word used apparently could be interpreted as "era" so it could just be interpreted as a 6 stage project then vacation.
---

Yeah I'm with ListerineStrips. That's why I asked.

I'm curious as to how ParanoidObsessive came to that conclusion. There is no clear indication in the Bible itself that leads to anything but a literal translation of the 6 days of creation.

We can speculate on whether those days were literal or not, if we reference how to God a "day" can seem no different than a thousand years. But those passages are in completely different books of the Bible, separated by a world of context and most likely written by completely different authors over the course of hundreds of years.

In other words, we really have no good reason to speculate that it isn't literal, according to God's Word itself. This is why it is most commonly translated as a literal event to this day.
---

JCvgluvr posted...

There is no clear indication in the Bible itself that leads to anything but a literal translation of the 6 days of creation.

Idk. I mean, even when I use to go to church everyday, and a private that has bible classes, I dont think I ever read it as the whole world being created in a week. Especially when you have people living to be hundreds of years old. I just figured that the days werent really days and the years werent the same type of years we had... I can see how some many take it literally. But its also very easy to understand how some wouldnt...
---

The short explanation of people living that long in the literal sense is that before the great flood, the condition of Earth's atmosphere was different than it is now, due to differences in pressure, moisture, and a host of other factors. This lead to people living much longer lives.
---

JCvgluvr posted...

The short explanation of people living that long in the literal sense is that before the great flood, the condition of Earth's atmosphere was different than it is now, due to differences in pressure, moisture, and a host of other factors. This lead to people living much longer lives.

Ya, I've heard that apologetic... but that doesn't mean Cain and Abel could produce butt babies
---

Ye Olde Testy was rough times.
---

JCvgluvr posted...

We can speculate on whether those days were literal or not, if we reference how to God a "day" can seem no different than a thousand years. But those passages are in completely different books of the Bible, separated by a world of context and most likely written by completely different authors over the course of hundreds of years.

In other words

The bible is a completely dubious source?
---

Genisis 5:4. The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.

Cain and all of Adam's sons likely married their own sisters or something close to it. There is also the mention of divine beings also mating with man pre-flood era but this is not likely what you were referring to. It is important to note that, even from an entirely atheistic viewpoint, all humans have a 'most recent common ancestor that isn't too long ago species-wise. Simply put, the number of ancestors needed for even one person to not be related to one other person is simply staggering and it doubles with each generation. I forget the exact year but your ancestory tree would have more humans than ever existed sometime around 1,000 A.D. (or was it B.C.?) and that's just one person. So all humans are at least slightly inbred or else there'd be no way to have enough ancestors for you to exist.
---

Awan was the sister and wife of Cain.
In the Book of Jubilees she is called Awan; however, in other Abrahamic texts she is called Jumelia. Similarly, her sister Azura was the wife of Cain's two brothers: Abel and after Abel's murder, Seth. In one Hebrew chronological work, she is called Balbira.
---