Where Did We Come From? I Need Your Help, Please ***VANITY***

I'd like to ask for your help and guidance with a philosophical religious question that has bothered me for years.

According to the Christian Bible, God created Adam. Then God created Eve from Adam. They had 2 children, Cain & Abel. Then Cain killed Abel.

Is there something missing from the Bible regarding the story of Humanity? Why would it be missing? After all, isn't the Bible the Holy Word of God? Who would be so mighty as to edit the Word of God?

So we are the ancestors of Adam and Eve and the product of the marriages between their off-spring. But you don't need to go as far back as Adam - you just need to go back to the 8 on the Ark: Noah and Mrs. Noah, Shem and Mrs. Shem, Japeth and Mrs. Japeth, and Ham and Mrs. Ham....

Why do global patterns of mtDNA distribution not show this?

There is a skeleton from southern Alaska, dated to just over 10,000 years old. The mtDNA pattern is identical to extant local tribes, not a Middle Eastern pattern.

This suggests no break at the date ascribed to the global flood (ca. 2350 BC) and no replacement of earlier mtDNA patterns with the mtDNA of survivors of a global flood. (There are other examples of mtDNA continuity from the western US as well.)

That's pretty much the way it was taught to me, but God didn't have to CREATE after He was finished creating. After Adam and Eve, the Earth was self sustaining. Remember, He rested on the 7th day, and that is important to tell the story of History. The picture God draws with the 6 days of creation draws a picture of the 6000 years of separation from God we are now in.( A day to the Lord is as a thousand years). The day of rest tells of the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth after Judgment Day.

Adam and Eve lived around 900 years, as most others did before the Flood. How many children could they have had from child bearing years on up, and how many children's children could have been born, and so on. If Cain killed Able after 100 years or so, there would have literally been thousands of people around for him to marry that were more than 2nd cousins twice removed. The Bible ONLY mentions the people that God wants you to know about and is important to the story of Jesus. There isn't enough paper and ink to tell all the stories, so you get the ones dictated by God to the prophet that wrote the particular book you are reading. If you read a history book, you may read about Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc, but mysteriously, they leave out uncle Bill and his horse thievin.

When you get to Matthew, you get the lineage of Jesus back to Abraham, and thus to Adam. They only mention the names you should be familiar with in the Bible. If they came up with "so and so" begat "what's his name", you would say "where did that come from?" The Bible is the story of the Revelation of Jesus to mankind. All of the "begat's" in the Bible are for nothing more than to prove the line of Jesus. If Jesus was just a "nobody from nowhere", The Bible wouldn't be a prophetic book( aka the promises made to Abraham).

All names mentioned in the Bible are significant. Just because someone isn't named doesn't mean they didn't exist. By using the names givin to us in Luke 1:5," course of Abia:"( or Abija),( count 6 months from the course of Abia. John the Baptist was concieved in Abia and Jesus was concieved 6 months later and born 9 months after that.), we can research when the courses were laid out and through careful calculation, figure that Jesus was probably born on The Feast of Tabernacles. Dec 25th has more to do with paganism than anything Jewish. The Themes of Tabernacles are "The light of the World, swaddling rags are soaked and lit on top of a pole and they say "Behold, the Light of the World!". They build a hut in the yard and stay there( same hut the groom builds for his bride to be. Jesus speaks of it when He says He must go and prepare a place for us Jhn 14:3) there is gift giving and it is the only Jewish Holiday that has to do with the WHOLE world. Every other Feast is Jewish only. All that from a name that people pass over every time they read it.

In the Bible, this happens right after Abel is killed by Cain, and Cain is exposed by God. Cain says to God:

Genesis 4:14 - to dai thou castist me out fro the face of the erthe; and Y schal be hid fro thi face, and Y schal be vnstable of dwellyng and fleynge aboute in erthe; therfore ech man that schal fynde me schal slee me.

Translation into more understandable English:

Genesis 4:14 - today thou castest me out from the face of the earth; and I shall be hid from thy face, and I shall be unstable of dwelling and flying about on earth; therefore each man that shall find me shall slay me.

You see, mention is made of other men. So, obviously Cain and Abel (and Adam) weren't the only men on the earth before Abel was killed. It's not a matter of editing. It's a matter of SO MANY children who were conceived by Adam and Eve. (They really were fruitful & multiplied.)

Three lines later we read:

Genesis 4:17 - Forsothe Cayn knewe his wiif, which conseyuede, and childide* Enoth; and Cayn bildide a citee, and clepide the name therof of the name of hise sone Enoth.

Translation:

Genesis 4:17 - Forsooth Cain knew his wife, who conceived, and begat Enoch; and Cain built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Enoch.

After Cain was cast out, he found a wife (if he didn't have one already). So Cain and Abel (before Abel was killed) weren't the only two children on the earth.

Very next line is:

Genesis 4:18 - 18 Forsothe Enoth gendride* Irad, and Irad gendride Manyael, and Manyael gendride Matusael, and Matusael gendride Lameth;

We've suddenly made a giant leap from Cain having a son named Enoch, to Enoch begetting his own children.

So, I wouldn't say it's been edited. It's just been written in a way to further along the genealogy and the story.

Here's the version I use, the Wycliffe Bible.

*I do like the term childed (and gendered), but for convention's sake, I've used begat.

....."How long are seven divine days?".......

They are 7- 24 hour periods, just as God tells you in His Book. The evening and the morning were the first day, and so on. He wanted us to KNOW just how long it was for a purpose. That is why Jews start their day in the evening and end it in the morning. Isn't it weird that humans try to do EVERYTHING different from God?

The reason for the 7 days is explained when He tells us " A day is as a thousand years." What he means is there will be 6000 years of separation from Him and the day of rest will come with the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth. Ergo, 7000 years of history on Earth. Then will come a new heaven and a new Earth. Not much is said about later than that, but if you didn't make the cut on Earth, it won't matter after that.

Jewish scholars figure that from Adam to the Flood was about 1800-1900 years. From the flood to Jesus was about 2000 years or so. There is disputes during the times of captivity, I believe. Then from Jesus to today is about 2003-2010 years. We don't know the exact year because of calendar changes and leap years in the Julian calendar. I think the Jews have a second repeated month every few years or so to fix the leap years. WE SHOULD BE VERY CLOSE TO THE RETURN OF JESUS!

The first and second Passovers have already happened. The first and second Unleavened Bread and First Fruits has already happened. The first and second Pentecost has already happened.The only Feasts days left to be repeated are, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Tabernacles.

Rosh Hashanah should be the Rapture of the Church. The people that were riding over the countryside during this Feast day heard the Shofar( or trumpet) blown for 2 days from every town they passed, ergo, the "day no one knows". Yom Kippur is the highest Holy day, Judgment Day( the end of things as we know it), and Tabernacles, the day Jesus (and the Church) comes back to rule and reign for 1000 years on Earth. Ergo 7 days to God is 7000 years for mankind.

Re <22>
Why do global patterns of mtDNA distribution not show this?
There is a skeleton from southern Alaska, dated to just over 10,000 years old. The mtDNA pattern is identical to extant local tribes, not a Middle Eastern pattern.
This suggests no break at the date ascribed to the global flood (ca. 2350 BC) and no replacement of earlier mtDNA patterns with the mtDNA of survivors of a global flood. (There are other examples of mtDNA continuity from the western US as well.)

Either the dating of the mtDNA from the Alaskan sample (10,000 years) is incorrect, or the dating of the Flood (~2350 BC, referenced by Ussher, Newton, Kepler, et al) is incorrect.
I'm not dogmatic about whether the Flood occurred in 2350 BC, or 5000 BC (a date derived if one takes the 'begats' in Genesis 11 to mean generational time periods, and not direct father/son relationships) or some time in between, but I have no problem rejecting the 10,000 year mtDNA date.

I'll stick with age old presupposition that the Word of God (the Bible) is Truth. Once you read it, with your eyes being opened, you'll understand.

Why do global patterns of mtDNA distribution not show this?
There is a skeleton from southern Alaska, dated to just over 10,000 years old. The mtDNA pattern is identical to extant local tribes, not a Middle Eastern pattern.

Either the dating of the mtDNA from the Alaskan sample (10,000 years) is incorrect, or the dating of the Flood (~2350 BC, referenced by Ussher, Newton, Kepler, et al) is incorrect.

I'm not dogmatic about whether the Flood occurred in 2350 BC, or 5000 BC (a date derived if one takes the 'begats' in Genesis 11 to mean generational time periods, and not direct father/son relationships) or some time in between, but I have no problem rejecting the 10,000 year mtDNA date.

Translation: My mind is made up. I will ignore any evidence that comes along.

Take a look at the following passage:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7; emphasis added].
St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.

Yes, I've read the Bible and I'm convinced it is Truth.
I've seen enough 'scientific' hypotheses presented in the past to understand that they are often based on shaky assumptions. Sometimes the experimental results support the hypothesis, sometimes they don't. There are quite a few unprovable assumptions that go into the various dating techniques - so no, I won't be using those as my standards of Truth.

I don't worship Augustine, nor consider his writings to be infallible, nonetheless its interesting that you reference one of his quotes. Augustine also believed in a 'young' (i.e., not millions of years old) earth. He objected to 6 days of creation because he 'felt' it besmirched God's power and ability.
Since you appear to be a follower of Augustine perhaps we could agree on the young age of the earth, and focus our debate on whether God created the earth in one day or six...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.