Thanks chette777 for the heads up.

I believe ALL Scripture; and I agree, within the Context of 1Cor. 15:45, "The first man, Adam...".

I just don't believe that Genesis 1:26-28 addresses the same Adam of Genesis 2.
Reason #1 is, ". . .let them have dominion over the fish of the sea ..."; both the word, ". . .them..." and the phrase, ". . .have dominion over the fish of the sea...", when coupled with, ". . .God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.", just don't seem to explain what the Text (verses 26-28) states and what happens in Genesis 2, and what we have been traditionally led to believe.

So it seems that "Cains wife was one of his sisters women were not recorded in genealogies"; and yes, "we are told that Adam had sons and daughters", but only after the birth of Seth.

But, think about this: Cain murders his Father and Mother's youngest son; They have another son ("Seth") almost 130 years later; They then become the Parents of "daughters" (and other "sons"). But according to the Text of what I just described, "Seth" and these "[other] sons and daughters" don't come along until after we're told, "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch...". And, yes, I know about the so-called "disparities in the chronological order" of How Genesis was supposedly written.

Why would Adam and Eve give to their murderer son, their daughter to wed? Who was Cain afraid of? If there's only Adam, Eve, Cain (at least one daughter of Adam and Eve), why put ". . .a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."? And there are other questions that just don't add up, first and foremost, SCRIPTURAL. . .and then reasonably and logically, etc.!

Again, here is what I believe to be one of those myths that have become traditionally accepted, without any Scriptural foundation and/or backing whatsoever. . .and quite frankly, I believe it makes GOD look bad; and that's Sin.

The word "angel(s)", are even mentioned and/or alluded to until Genesis 16. Nowhere in all of Scripture do we find angels and humans engaging in any kind of Sexual activity (even in Sodom). Hebrews 1:5 clearly tells us, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"; and just in case we missed something like the word, even "the angel of GOD" and/or "the angel of THE LORD" are never referred to, anywhere in Scripture, as a "son" and/or a "Son" of GOD/THE LORD. We see GOD making men into HIS "sons"; We even see GOD making "HIS WORD" into HIS "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" (John 1:14); but nowhere do we ever see GOD making any angel into anything that remotely resembles a "son".

And it seems that when anyone uses Genesis 6: 1-7, to attempt to justify a position of "the sons of GOD" being [Fallen] angels and such, they always miss a very important word in verse 3, ". . .flesh...". . .not to mention the five times each, that both "man" and "men", is used.

Are we really suppose to believe that GOD, destroyed mankind (Save Noah's party), because "fallen angels" started procreating with human women? And yet, the so-called "embodied devils", were left by GOD, to do (and/or try) the same thing after the flood?

Seems more like "simple" speculations to me. And thank you for your Gracious and Kind "Welcome".

By "moot", are you using the word as adjective, verb, or a noun? And all we're told, in Genesis 6:4 is that, "There were giants in the earth in those days;" No mention is made of them being the off-springs of "angels". And it seems as though, according to the wording, "There were giants in the earth in those days;", were the result of what happened when, ". . .the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.". These "sons of GOD" procreated with "the daughters of men", and produced off-springs that were the sons of "the sons of GOD", yet at the same time, the sons of "the daughters of men".

In other words, by way of example ONLY, given the longevity that people lived, Adam (a "son of GOD") takes a wife from "the daughters of men" who's 4-5 generations removed from him. . .that would equal one messed up off-spring, huh?

I really appreciate the information, but I'm not focused on "Giants" right now.


All 6 questions.

Is your opinion, of what you "can tell. . .already" about me, any less "a dogmatic position" than what you "have already taken"?


But you just stated that "Our perception is moot."
His WIFE.