We need answers. : insanepeoplefacebook

[–] [email protected] 75 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I mean, apart from the archaeologist part that seems pretty sane to me to ask if you're an atheist or at least a skeptic.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204&version=NIV

Adam and Eve have two kids, Cain and Abel.

Cain kills Abel (8). Cain gets cursed. (11) Cain is afraid he'll be killed by... ??? (14). God is all, nah fam karma mark lmao. (15) Cain goes and lives in the land of Nod. (16) Cain, one of three living humans at this point, makes love to his wife, who randomly now exists, and births a son, Enoch. Cain also builds a city... for the now five people who live on Earth. (17).

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago

It does actually say that Adam and eve had other sos and daughters. The assumption is from one of them.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Apparently the biblical explanation is that it's a sister of Cain. Maybe the daughters births didn't warrant an extra line in the Bible? It probably doesn't keep a record of when Adam and Eve acquire new property as that's mostly what women were considered.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 3 months ago (8 children)

From the Creation Museum. Directly from their website, so they're proud of this:

Number six is my favorite. "Because God said incest was okay back then and who are you to judge?"

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 months ago

They really said that genetic disease is an accumulation of sin. Like someone is born with Downs Syndrome because their grandmother cheats at rummy.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

"Why are you fucking your sister?!"

“Uh, God said I could. How dare you question Him."

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No one commented on “get his wife”? I assume a bride mail order catalog? They must have existed back then.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Around that time, in that region, it was more often a trade, gimme something and get my property (daughter).

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

6 sounds more like "if you want to allow gay marriage you better shut up about incest"

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

Oh my parts 3 and 4 they're so close to figuring out what the Darwin guy was talking about

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Not sure I would trust anything from the creation museum to be actually biblical.

I know there’s an ancient myth about Adam having a first wife before Eve — there’s probably also other myths that fill in the blanks. There’s also nothing stopping God from making more people during this period like he made Adam and Eve. They were probably just the “first batch” so to speak.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That would be Lilith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

TIL. Lilith sounds way more fun & attractive than boring compliant Eve

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

The story of Lilith has certainly been an inspiration to a lot of writers.

But I suppose so has Eve being tempted by the fruit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your wiki lead me to watching Hazbin Hotel. It's pretty funny so far.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

The serpent was actually Sir Pentious, believe it or not.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Adding a bit to that, it's very likely that the old judaic religion was polytheistic like every other in the nearby region (assyrians, babylonians, egyptians, hittites), but started to consolidate around a single deity (not clear when, the tradition was oral). That meant some stories were left out for whatever reason, others changed, as they did several times over the centuries before being written, and every other god of their pantheon became yaweh, which explains why he has such drastically different personalities in the bible

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Also, at some point any creation story is going to have to stop specifying literally every single thing that happened and start to hit broad strokes. Things like "we just didn't explicitly mention every single kid she had" is probably the easiest explanation.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

I loved their explanation regarding building the Ark authentically when Noah lived to be over 900 years old. It's simple really. He built it when he was like 300. You see it makes perfect sense. Next question.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

weirdly that might effectively be true, many other animals don't really suffer from inbreeding, and there's an hypothesis that humans are so vulnerable to it because a shiteload of us died all at once a long time ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngest_Toba_eruption#Toba_catastrophe_theory

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Is it really a biblical explanation if it isn't in the bible?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Touché.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago

What’s interesting is in Genesis 1 God created all the stuff, but in Genesis 2 it says none of the plants or animals or man had materialized yet, then God makes then an asks Adam to name them.

I definitely read Genesis as a story of tribal origins

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ive heard people say that Adam being the first human is metaphorical in the text, and means "first YHWH worshipper", not sure how widespread or accurate this view is.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago

Accurate, not at all.

Widespread, not much.

The general answers to this question is or that Cain married his sister (fundamentalist view) or that Adam and Cain are metaphors and didn't existed at all (mainline view).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

But where does tiberium come into play?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's Command and Conquer

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

*nods*

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It was made up thousands of years ago by desert nomads. That's the answer.

If you want an in-universe one, that's easy - god did it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

More specifically - the god of the desert did it. Adding the "desert" part keeps him within the complete pantheon, along with Zeus and Odin, Tlaloc and Kukulkán.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Some religious folks knocked on my door and asked me if I knew random Bible trivia, and why we as society wasn't thinking about why Bible Guy 1 did Random Thing here.

Just what? Bro the Bible doesn't live rent free in my head and your religious fanfiction doesn't help me pay rent.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If you ever get people at your house asking questions like that again, and you're are feeling spicy you can try my method.

I've had luck with asking "Jesus died so everyone's sins can be forgiven right?" then they usually say yes. Then I ask "then why weren't Eve's sins forgiven?"

They usually look confused and ask what I mean. I respond with "well, if pain in childbirth is punishment for Eve's sin of eating the apple... and Jesus died to have all our sins forgiven...why is childbirth still painful? Did God not forgive Eve?"

Sometimes they fall back on God is mysterious or whatever, of course he forgave Eve...blah blah blah... but they never come back to my house. And I always hope I made them think a little harder about the bible and it's inconsistent nature. Even if they never admit it outwardly.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Just reread Genesis 2 and 3. There's no mention of childbirth until then and she isn't even named Eve until then and partly because she would become a mother. I believe a fair interpretation is that childbirth is inherently painful and that the two didn't even know about concepts like sex before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There's no evidence to suggest that from a biblical perspective childbirth would've been painfree had there been no original sin, though there is evidence to suggest there would've been no childbirth at all without it.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago

The Bible is not fact Take all the time you need.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

That’s why it’s called “faith.” There’s nothing rational about it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

It was aliens?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well I mean if you interpret the text literally then it's only logical that he took over of his sisters as his wife. I mean it's not like there's were any other places she could have come from, right?

Right?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is another possibility, and Freud would be delighted about it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Adam: I have none to blame but myself for this.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don't care if the lore of any fantasy book is inconsistent.

And now tell me more about his sister.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

And now tell me more about his sister.

Her hips were wide enough to birth the entire population of a bronze age city

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I wish the bible described what Cain's sister/wife's feet smell like.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

A wizard did it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Probably crafted her from one of his ribs?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think many people are confusing the meaning of "rational". In the context of philosophy and other related fields, it has a very specific meaning and the thing that you are asking is actually empirical in nature when in the context of those fields. But the belief in those empirical evidence being rational stems from the lack of knowledge on the philosophical side of things so if you really are looking for an answer in good faith, then a discussion is possible as otherwise it is indeed an insanity trying to convince someone that will not accept others definition from a different field.

InsanePeopleFacebook