Who said there were only two sons? Obviously you have not read much of 'that book'.
Three sons are named and then the bible states that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. Didn't need any help from hell.
READ THE BOOK.
For God so loved you that He gave His only Son [Jesus] that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have eternal life.
Remember that God loves you and wants you to spend eternity with Him. Believe today.
2006-12-27 23:37:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by jemhasb 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
You are kidding?
Adam and Eve were Cain and Abel's parents after Abel was killed they had Seth exactly like your parents conceived you.
According to the Bible there were sons of God that also lived on the earth, some think that angels lived among men at that time. Or it could have been just another race of men that were not Jewish thus were not recorded in the Torah which became the Old Testament in the Bible.
2006-12-27 23:40:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tapestry6 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Genesis Chapter 5 mentions Adam and his son Seth all the way to Noah. Cain and Abel were left out here due to being inconsequential to the lineage leading to Noah, (which also lead to the lineage of Jesus).
After Adam and Seth and all the grandsons until Noah, the verse includes "and he begat sons and daughters" after each one. Now of all the people born at this time there were many men and women but only a select male of each generation is mentioned.
Adam lived 930 yrs. Adam and Eve were told to populate the earth and I believe they did. In 930 yrs two people can produce a very large amount of children not to mention the kids having kids, having kids,having kids, etc. in this amount of time.
Adam probably saw a significant population before his death.
It wouldn't take much of an imagination to conclude where Cain got a wife.
2006-12-27 23:58:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by PaulnBama 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The actual names are Qayin and Hevel...and later Shet (as a 'replacement for Abel'.... what a distinction... talk about having an inferiority complex for eternity..!!) Cain Abel and Seth in the Anglicized versions.
Cain moved away and married a woman from what the Bible called "The people of the land of Nod'. So in the Bible you can see that there WERE other people alive on the planet.
Abel never married and so produced no offspring
Seth remained the only one to populate the Hebrew nation, probably taking a wife from the 'Land of Nod' as well. It is from Seth that the 'line of Kings' ending of course in Jesus himself sprung forth.
Interestingly...God places a 'Mark' on Cain so that nobody could kill Cain until he had 'seven generations of children'. Exactly who was supposed to kill Cain is a very good question since according to the Bible there weren't any other people around. EXCEPT IN THE LAND OF NOD........
2006-12-27 23:38:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by wolf560 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
. That Bible stated that when God cursed and cast out Cain, He placed a "mark" on Cain, "lest any finding him should kill him." God said, "Whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold" (Gen. 4:14,15). The statements clearly indicate other people already existing at the time of Adam, Eve and Cain.
First, we know that Cain killed Abel when Adam was nearly one hundred and thirty years old. Support from this comes from the fact that Seth is born specifically to replace Abel, and that birth occurs when Adam was one hundred and thirty (Gen. 5:3).
We don't know exactly how old Adam was when Cain killed Abel. We only know that this event occurred before the birth of Seth. It could have been only a year or two, or 30 or 50 years. Mr. Jones continues:
Second, it appears that Abel and Cain were born soon after Adam's expulsion from the garden (Gen. 3:24; 4:1). So between the birth of the first two and the birth of Seth, we have over a hundred year time span. Surely that's plenty of time to party reproductively. After Cain and before Seth, Adam and Eve produced many children who had children and grandchildren, long before Abel was killed. Cain would have plenty of people to encounter.
This 100 year "time span" is speculation. This would mean that Cain was 100 years old when he killed Abel, when it is generally acknowledged he was a youth of no more than 20 at this time. How ever long this "time span" was between Cain's birth (C on the chart below), and the birth of Seth (E), there is no Biblical proof or indication that Adam and Eve had other children during this time span. There is no Biblical passage cited by Mr. Jones to support this. The Bible does say that Adam had other children, but this occurred after Seth:
After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died (Gen. 5:4,5).
2006-12-27 23:51:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lorene 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
You need to read the scriptures. Adam and Even had a lot more than two sons.
After Abel was killed; their son Seth was born, and I remember reading somehere in the book of Genesis that Adam and Eve had more than 20 children.
I do not have a bible or concordance handy; to quote chapter and verse; but read the first five or 6 chapters of Genesis carefuly.
2006-12-28 00:18:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rev. Two Bears 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
that cain married his sister is not biblical, however you should read the text of the JUBILEES. meanwhile, seth was number 3 of the sons: Genesis 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore him a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, for Cain slew him”
but why, then, did the bible say BEFORE this 3rd son was born that cain needed a mark from god, "lest anyone who came upon him shall kill him?" (Genesis 4:15) who are these others? (furthermore, if they're all family, wouldn't they recognize cain without the mark?)
also, incest is incest, no matter what. if god did not yet command against it then you're saying that god's commands are arbitrary and NOT rooted in our best interest, i.e. some sins are not damaging to us as people, god just doesn't want us to do them. we know that incest raises the probability of the offspring to be born deformed and handicapped, so we KNOW that incest is bad for us.
in all the stories in genesis are pure myth. to take them literally based on faith only strengthens the idea that faith is harmful to humans. remember, blind faith lead the faithful to drink the poisoned KoolAid.
EDIT: GENESIS 3:20 (KJV)
20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
"ALL" is a fundamental word here, there were no other races of people living. so incest was abundant, and inconsistancies apparant in the myth.
EDIT2:
IF, as some suggest, others DID exist (e.g. in NOD), then wouldn't they be completely unaffected by the sins of adam and eve? meaning that these Nodidians would go about like adam and eve in the garden, or, die and go straight to heaven! DEBASING A FUNDEMENTAL LAW IN THE BIBLE: that all men have fallen short of the glory of god. hm? again ALL is an easily understood word.
2006-12-27 23:59:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Shawn M 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Bible says two son's were born, Cain and Abel, these two are known because their actions affect us. Apparently they had daughters as well and when Cain was sent away from his family he took a sister with him as wife. Does this promote incest, NO, but at that time there was little choice of a mate since there was only one family existing on the earth. Their being so close to perfection would have spared them the health concerns.
2006-12-27 23:41:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Adam and Eve had sons and daughters, so they actually did marry eachother then. Incest was not even in existance then, it wasn't some forbidden sin. It was ok to marry eachother.
God has forbidden this later on of course. This is why people feel a natural inborn revulsion at the idea of any intimacy with their sibling. And that's how we're meant to feel....though there are some abborations out there.
Also, our genetics are not what they were either, if you believe the account in the bible, we are more-a-less deteriorating, which is another good reason to avoid close relative relationships.
2006-12-27 23:46:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Gus 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
There weren't two sons, Seth is also listed. But we know there must have been more children than that, they certainly had daughters or more sons. No where does the Bible say those were the "ONLY" people, it just says they were the first.
2006-12-27 23:38:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋