 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Cain and Abel |
c6thplayer1 |
Cain and Abel were the children of Adam and Eve.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Where did Cains wife come from? It appears that there were others on the earth after Adam and Eve but not recorded in the bible. Need help on this.
This was all I could find.
http://www.gospelway.com/topics/bible/cain-wife.php |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
9/29/15 9:17 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Cain and Abel |
Quiet Wyatt |
That is a good answer, and basically the one I would give. I always wonder why people think asking, "Where did Cain get his wife?" is such a "gotcha" question. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
9/29/15 9:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
John Jett |
I lean toward that one too, but there is another theory. Genesis 1:26 - 31 is the 6th day account, God made man and woman on that same day. Genesis 2 is a special creation apart from Genesis 1, that of the bloodline of Israel and Christ, or perhaps a second creation, note the order of creation here is man, foliage, then animals, all of which come before man in the first chapter. Then after the creation of the animals in the garden, God creates Eve presumably after he had been alone a while.
I'm not 100% sure of either, but either can explain the "Cain's wife" question. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
9/29/15 11:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| John Jett... |
Aaron Scott |
To say it MAY be a special creation is one thing. To say that it IS is another.
We don't know that. For all we know, it is something of a summary or retelling of the first story.
Make sense.
In any case, if Cain married a a kinswoman, then it might be that his great-nephew became his father-in-law. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
9/30/15 6:12 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Read this in OTCP "voice" |
Aaron Scott |
| He married his-a half-sister, what come of Eve by the serpent. Serpent seed! |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
9/30/15 6:17 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
revuriah |
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| revuriah wrote: | | I've always viewed Genesis 1 as a "bird's eye view", and chapter 2 as a more detailed account. |
That seems to me to be the obvious, straightforward, logical way to read it. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/30/15 7:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
revuriah |
|
|
| |
|
| |
John Jett |
| I lean toward the article, but there are some inconsistencies in the second chapter (order of creation for one), but that is probably due to language and interpretation. In the end, nothing changes since Adam's race is the one that survived the flood. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
9/30/15 8:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
c6thplayer1 |
| Another thought would be that , people in that time lived 500 to 800 years. so if adam and eve had cane and abel at an early age then it would be logical to think that they had many other children after Adam and Eve and those children and had children also after Adam and Eve. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
9/30/15 10:22 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
John Jett |
If you believe the first 2 chapters to be chronologically correct, then even if chapter two is a retelling of the 6th day, the chronology of chapter 4 puts Cain as offspring #1, and Abel as offspring #2, then the murder of Able, then the expulsion of Cain, then the marriage of Cain, and THEN the birth of Seth to replace Able (lends to the theory that the 2nd (and subsequent) chapter is to describe the uniqueness of the lineage of the Jews and then Christ), then after all of that, the birth of other sons and daughters to Adam and Eve in chapter 5.
Chapter 5 is interesting because it again goes back over the timeline of Adam, stating that Adam was 130 when Seth was born, Seth being the first son of birthright (remember a Jew is telling this story so that lineage is important, who is the first son..), then after Seth is the first mention of the seemingly subsequent sons and daughters.
Now, in my limited understanding of the early Hebrew culture, then the only possibility of children before Cain/Abel/Seth would have been girls. So that leaves room for Cain to have married a sister, but not multiple generations in my mind seeing as how Cain would be the first (albeit disinherited) son. So if there were only sisters born prior to the first-born sons, then who were those that Cain feared would kill him for his sin, prior to the birth of the sons and daughters?
I'm just throwing this out there for discussion, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right, I just like the discussion.  |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
9/30/15 11:24 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Some thoughts... |
Aaron Scott |
There are really only two reasons we don't do incest....
1) There is typically a natural aversion (there is a name for this, but I forget it) to being with one's sibling or parent. Something about the long time exposure to them already, I think.
2) Genetics.
We could easily make the case that Cain did not have any issues with either. For all we know, he married a grand-nephew's granddaughter (so there was no "I've known you too long already" factor. AND there would be no genetic issues to deal with. His mother and father were perfect, had not junk DNA from previous generations, etc. So that would not be an issue.
Basically, Cain might have married someone that was generations removed from him. Of course, that sort of begs the question: SOMEBODY had to marry a sibling, it seems. Maybe not Cain, but someone. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
9/30/15 12:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
I think the aversion is not "natural," just a cultural taboo. And of course the cultural taboo wouldn't have existed in Cain's time.
| Quote: | | 1) There is typically a natural aversion (there is a name for this, but I forget it) to being with one's sibling or parent. Something about the long time exposure to them already, I think. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/30/15 12:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
c6thplayer1 |
| John Jett wrote: | If you believe the first 2 chapters to be chronologically correct, then even if chapter two is a retelling of the 6th day, the chronology of chapter 4 puts Cain as offspring #1, and Abel as offspring #2, then the murder of Able, then the expulsion of Cain, then the marriage of Cain, and THEN the birth of Seth to replace Able (lends to the theory that the 2nd (and subsequent) chapter is to describe the uniqueness of the lineage of the Jews and then Christ), then after all of that, the birth of other sons and daughters to Adam and Eve in chapter 5.
Chapter 5 is interesting because it again goes back over the timeline of Adam, stating that Adam was 130 when Seth was born, Seth being the first son of birthright (remember a Jew is telling this story so that lineage is important, who is the first son..), then after Seth is the first mention of the seemingly subsequent sons and daughters.
Now, in my limited understanding of the early Hebrew culture, then the only possibility of children before Cain/Abel/Seth would have been girls. So that leaves room for Cain to have married a sister, but not multiple generations in my mind seeing as how Cain would be the first (albeit disinherited) son. So if there were only sisters born prior to the first-born sons, then who were those that Cain feared would kill him for his sin, prior to the birth of the sons and daughters?
I'm just throwing this out there for discussion, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right, I just like the discussion. |
Thanks john. Makes sense. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
9/30/15 1:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | I think the aversion is not "natural," just a cultural taboo. And of course the cultural taboo wouldn't have existed in Cain's time. |
There is a very natural aversion to it. When people inbreed, they are much likelier to combine recessive genes, resulting in the presence of recessive diseases (since there is no dominant gene to overpower them).
Some scholars suggest the possibility that genetic diseases were less likely in biblical times, owing to being closer to a perfect creation.
Nowadays, however, inbreeding is very, very naturally dangerous. This can be seen particularly clearly in very insular groups and societies like the Ashkenazi Jews. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
9/30/15 2:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Eddie Robbins |
Something to think about when you are talking to skeptics. If you were writing the Bible with the intention of it making total sense, wouldn't you write in the answer to that and many other mysteries? It's funny that a skeptic is questioning because that assumes they believe the Adam and Eve story to begin with.
Last edited by Eddie Robbins on 9/30/15 2:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
9/30/15 2:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Eddie Robbins wrote: | | Something to think about when you are talking to skeptics. If you're up were writing the Bible with the intention of it making total sense, wouldn't you write in the answer to that and many other mysteries? It's funny that a skeptic is questioning because that assumes they believe the Adam and Eve story to begin with. |
Very astute observation, IMO. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
9/30/15 2:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Okay, that's the genetics part, which I understand very well. But are you going beyond saying we are smart not to marry our siblings or cousins and saying that we are naturally not sexually attracted to them? I thought the reason we weren't sexually attracted to our relatives had only to do with cultural conditioning. (I remember being fairly flummoxed as a preschooler who was told she couldn't marry her best pal, her little brother. Then I branched out to the other boys my age that I knew. I was informed that I could not marry any of those 3 boys because they were my cousins. I decided I couldn't wait for first grade to pick out a boyfriend. I picked out 10 eligible bachelors the first day!)
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | I think the aversion is not "natural," just a cultural taboo. And of course the cultural taboo wouldn't have existed in Cain's time. |
There is a very natural aversion to it. When people inbreed, they are much likelier to combine recessive genes, resulting in the presence of recessive diseases (since there is no dominant gene to overpower them).
Some scholars suggest the possibility that genetic diseases were less likely in biblical times, owing to being closer to a perfect creation.
Nowadays, however, inbreeding is very, very naturally dangerous. This can be seen particularly clearly in very insular groups and societies like the Ashkenazi Jews. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/30/15 3:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Eddie Robbins |
| I edited it. When I use my iPad, it can do funny things and I failed to proof it. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
9/30/15 3:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Okay, that's the genetics part, which I understand very well. But are you going beyond saying we are smart not to marry our siblings or cousins and saying that we are naturally not sexually attracted to them? I thought the reason we weren't sexually attracted to our relatives had only to do with cultural conditioning. (I remember being fairly flummoxed as a preschooler who was told she couldn't marry her best pal, her little brother. Then I branched out to the other boys my age that I knew. I was informed that I could not marry any of those 3 boys because they were my cousins. I decided I couldn't wait for first grade to pick out a boyfriend. I picked out 10 eligible bachelors the first day!)
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | I think the aversion is not "natural," just a cultural taboo. And of course the cultural taboo wouldn't have existed in Cain's time. |
There is a very natural aversion to it. When people inbreed, they are much likelier to combine recessive genes, resulting in the presence of recessive diseases (since there is no dominant gene to overpower them).
Some scholars suggest the possibility that genetic diseases were less likely in biblical times, owing to being closer to a perfect creation.
Nowadays, however, inbreeding is very, very naturally dangerous. This can be seen particularly clearly in very insular groups and societies like the Ashkenazi Jews. |
|
yeah - if Cindy Crawford was my cousin - I probably wouldn't have had an aversion to her. 
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
9/30/15 3:14 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
