CAIN'S WIFE

[wiseguy]

ADAM AND EVE HAD CAIN AND ABEL. AFTER CAIN KILLED ABEL HE WHENT TO THE LAND OF NODD AND MARRIED A WIFE. IF ADAM AND EVE WERE THE ONLY HUMANS AND DID NOT HAVE A DAUGHTER ACCORNG TO THE BIBLE WHERE DID CAIN'S WIFE COME FROM? DID GOD CREATE SOMEONE WE DID NOT KNOW?

[RickD]

ADAM AND EVE HAD CAIN AND ABEL. AFTER CAIN KILLED ABEL HE WHENT TO THE LAND OF NODD AND MARRIED A WIFE. IF ADAM AND EVE WERE THE ONLY HUMANS AND DID NOT HAVE A DAUGHTER ACCORNG TO THE BIBLE WHERE DID CAIN'S WIFE COME FROM? DID GOD CREATE SOMEONE WE DID NOT KNOW?

Welcome to the board, wiseguy.
Your question has been asked many times here. If you do a search on the forums, you may find your question was already answered. It is a good question, and after searching, if you still aren't happy with what you found, someone here can help you.

[PaulSacramento]

There are a few views on this:
Adam and Eve did indeed have female children, which would make Cain's wife his sister ( ewww, but there you have it).
There is no reason to believe that after their exit from Eden that Adam and Ever were the ONLY people on Earth, even Genesis doesn't say they were the ONLY one, just the first created.
It may be that God created others after.
It may be that the Genesis story is not literal AND concrete and that while Adam and Eve may have ben real people that may also have been symbolic of the human race and as such, they may have been special as the first humans, hence given Eden, but that OTHER humans were around too.
And many more views actually ( Adam and Eve as Isreal the people as opposed to two people, etc...).
Your choice is that Cain's wife was his sister or another human in the area where A&E lived.

[Seraph]

Didn't God create mankind on the 6th day in Genesis 1:27 and form Adam out of dust in Genesis 2:6?

I think one could soundly read these as successive events and interpret it as though Adam was created long after mankind in general had already been created. Thus explaining why Cain didn't have to resort to incest.

Come to think of it, reading the first two chapters over I think one might be jumping the gun in assuming that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first to humans on the planet.

[PaulSacramento]

Didn't God create mankind on the 6th day in Genesis 1:27 and form Adam out of dust in Genesis 2:6?

I think one could soundly read these as successive events and interpret it as though Adam was created long after mankind in general had already been created. Thus explaining why Cain didn't have to resort to incest.

Come to think of it, reading the first two chapters over I think one might be jumping the gun in assuming that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first to humans on the planet.

Scholars attribute the Genesis story to TWO different "lineages": The Elohoist of Genesis 1 and the Yahwist of Genesis 2.
It seems that the writer of Genesis ( Moses?) combined the two oral traditions that the Hebrews had into one creative account:
1- The creation of the universe and Earth.
2- The creation of Eden and Adam and Eve.

[Katabole]

I think one could soundly read these as successive events and interpret it as though Adam was created long after mankind in general had already been created. Thus explaining why Cain didn't have to resort to incest.

Come to think of it, reading the first two chapters over I think one might be jumping the gun in assuming that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first to humans on the planet.

I agree Seraph. There are noticeable difference in Gen ch 1 & ch 2. I'll just highlight a few.

In Gen 1:24 God creates the cattle and beasts of the earth and the "creeping thing". I happen to believe these are wild animals. God claims he formed them from the earth. Then in Gen 1:26 God gives the order to create "man" which I believe is humanity.

However, in Gen 2:7 God "forms" man which I believe is 'the man Adam' but then in verse 19, Gen 2:19, God creates beasts and birds and brings them to Adam. I happen to believe the animals created in chapter 2 are domesticated animals, sheep chickens etc. Unlike those formed from the "earth", Hebrew erets, in chapter 1 these animals in ch 2 are formed from the "field", Hebrew 'sadeh', or country. Chapter 1 claims animals were created before man. Chapter 2 claims the opposite. The English word "formed" pronounced Yatsar in Hebrew, meaning to mould or form as a potter in Gen 2:7 is not the same as the English word created; create, pronounced Bara in the Hebrew in Gen 1:27.

In Gen 1:28 God tells humanity to replenish the earth, multiply and subdue it, but in Gen 2 he specifically takes this particular man and puts him in a garden. God doesn't tell him to go and replenish the earth. God doesn't bring the animals to humanity in ch 1 but certainly does to the man in ch 2. Conspicuously absent from this account is any mention of farming or tilling the ground.

In Gen ch 1 God gives "man" dominion over the fish, birds and beasts. In other words, they were hunters, gatherers and fishers. He does not give man dominion over the ground. That is, there were no farmers.

In Gen 2:5 however, it claims there was not a man to till the ground. If God had created Adam in Gen 1:26, 27 then there certainly would have been a man to till the ground. God didn't create the agriculturist or farmer in chapter 1 but does in chapter 2.

So how can they both be reconciled? You will find that in just about every commentary of the Bible about Gen 1 & 2, that the creation that follows Gen 1 in chapter 2 is a parenthetical insertion; simply a more detailed account of the creation of man we read of Gen 1:26. As long as people assume that, there will always be great difficulty in explaining how it is in chapter 1 that animals are created first, then man, yet in chapter two, man is created first then animals. The easiest way to reconcile it is, that both Gen 1 and Gen 2 are two complete seperate creations. Dr. Christian Ginsberg who compiled the Massoarah also claims that Genesis ch 1 is a continuation into Genesis ch 2 and that Gen ch 2 is not a parenthetical chapter.

So as for Cain, Cain's wife is mentioned after his dwelling in the land of Nod. Scipture claims it was his wife, not his mother or sister and that should not be overlooked it is so obvious. This woman could not have been a part of Adam's offspring, as she is not mentioned as one of Adam's daughters. Nor is her birth accounted for prior to Cain's exile. The fact is she was a part of the 6th day creation, separate from the Adamic seed line. That’s also why Cain was worried about others slaying him. What others? The others from the sixth day creation. I happen to believe that all the races ('ethnos' in the Greek), were created all at the same time on the sixth day; male and female (more than just two) He created them in Gen 1:27. So where did Cain's wife come from? From the descendents of the sixth day creation. There were lots of humans on the earth when Adam and Eve were created.

The Adamic seed line took place after the seventh day and was just God's way of showing that creation was completed on the seventh day. God didn't have to create the seed line through which Christ would come. Our Father did create that seed line or lineage because He knew that we all fall short and needed a savior whereby we may be blessed with forgiveness. That's why Jesus is described as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world in Rev 13:8. Christ knew beforehand we would fail and just as He made us all be born into the flesh, He was born into the flesh as well, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. (IMHO).

[RickD]

I think one could soundly read these as successive events and interpret it as though Adam was created long after mankind in general had already been created. Thus explaining why Cain didn't have to resort to incest.

Come to think of it, reading the first two chapters over I think one might be jumping the gun in assuming that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first to humans on the planet.

I agree Seraph. There are noticeable difference in Gen ch 1 & ch 2. I'll just highlight a few.

In Gen 1:24 God creates the cattle and beasts of the earth and the "creeping thing". I happen to believe these are wild animals. God claims he formed them from the earth. Then in Gen 1:26 God gives the order to create "man" which I believe is humanity.

However, in Gen 2:7 God "forms" man which I believe is 'the man Adam' but then in verse 19, Gen 2:19, God creates beasts and birds and brings them to Adam. I happen to believe the animals created in chapter 2 are domesticated animals, sheep chickens etc. Unlike those formed from the "earth", Hebrew erets, in chapter 1 these animals in ch 2 are formed from the "field", Hebrew 'sadeh', or country. Chapter 1 claims animals were created before man. Chapter 2 claims the opposite. The English word "formed" pronounced Yatsar in Hebrew, meaning to mould or form as a potter in Gen 2:7 is not the same as the English word created; create, pronounced Bara in the Hebrew in Gen 1:27.

In Gen 1:28 God tells humanity to replenish the earth, multiply and subdue it, but in Gen 2 he specifically takes this particular man and puts him in a garden. God doesn't tell him to go and replenish the earth. God doesn't bring the animals to humanity in ch 1 but certainly does to the man in ch 2. Conspicuously absent from this account is any mention of farming or tilling the ground.

In Gen ch 1 God gives "man" dominion over the fish, birds and beasts. In other words, they were hunters, gatherers and fishers. He does not give man dominion over the ground. That is, there were no farmers.

In Gen 2:5 however, it claims there was not a man to till the ground. If God had created Adam in Gen 1:26, 27 then there certainly would have been a man to till the ground. God didn't create the agriculturist or farmer in chapter 1 but does in chapter 2.

So how can they both be reconciled? You will find that in just about every commentary of the Bible about Gen 1 & 2, that the creation that follows Gen 1 in chapter 2 is a parenthetical insertion; simply a more detailed account of the creation of man we read of Gen 1:26. As long as people assume that, there will always be great difficulty in explaining how it is in chapter 1 that animals are created first, then man, yet in chapter two, man is created first then animals. The easiest way to reconcile it is, that both Gen 1 and Gen 2 are two complete seperate creations. Dr. Christian Ginsberg who compiled the Massoarah also claims that Genesis ch 1 is a continuation into Genesis ch 2 and that Gen ch 2 is not a parenthetical chapter.

So as for Cain, Cain's wife is mentioned after his dwelling in the land of Nod. Scipture claims it was his wife, not his mother or sister and that should not be overlooked it is so obvious. This woman could not have been a part of Adam's offspring, as she is not mentioned as one of Adam's daughters. Nor is her birth accounted for prior to Cain's exile. The fact is she was a part of the 6th day creation, separate from the Adamic seed line. That’s also why Cain was worried about others slaying him. What others? The others from the sixth day creation. I happen to believe that all the races ('ethnos' in the Greek), were created all at the same time on the sixth day; male and female (more than just two) He created them in Gen 1:27. So where did Cain's wife come from? From the descendents of the sixth day creation. There were lots of humans on the earth when Adam and Eve were created.

The Adamic seed line took place after the seventh day and was just God's way of showing that creation was completed on the seventh day. God didn't have to create the seed line through which Christ would come. Our Father did create that seed line or lineage because He knew that we all fall short and needed a savior whereby we may be blessed with forgiveness. That's why Jesus is described as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world in Rev 13:8. Christ knew beforehand we would fail and just as He made us all be born into the flesh, He was born into the flesh as well, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. (IMHO).

Katabole,
That's a very interesting theory you have there. After reading, it seems plausible, and possibly biblical. I just have some questions that came to mind while reading your post.

1)If, as you suggest, God created all races first, and then the Adamic race later, how do you explain the Noahic flood story?
Was it a local flood with only the Adamic race being destroyed, as the other races were already dispersed throughout the globe? Or, was it a local flood, that destroyed all races, that lived in a local area? Or, was it a global flood that destroyed all races, including the Adamic race?

2) What do you mean by this?:

The Adamic seed line took place after the seventh day and was just God's way of showing that creation was completed on the seventh day.

Are you saying the Adamic line was created on or after the 7th day? Genesis 2:2-3 says that God's work was complete by the 7th day, and He rested on the 7th day.

3) What is the Adamic race you refer to?

[Byblos]

In addition to Rick's questions above, how do you explain Adam's fall propagating to all if they are not from his lineage?

[Seraph]

Does sin work hereditarily, infecting only the descendants of the one who commited it? Or can anyone who comes into contact with the sinner be influenced by the sin?

[Byblos]

Does sin work hereditarily, infecting only the descendants of the one who commited it?

That's my understanding yes, physical death is as a result of sin and we inherited sin from Adam. If there were a lineage not belonging to Adam they could not have inherited sin.

[PaulSacramento]

Does sin work hereditarily, infecting only the descendants of the one who commited it?

That's my understanding yes, physical death is as a result of sin and we inherited sin from Adam. If there were a lineage not belonging to Adam they could not have inherited sin.

Quite unjust for BILLIONS to be condemed via a genetic 'cancer" passed on by the original "patient 0", especially since it was put there but His Creator.
Why does some poor native indian at peace with his environment and the Big Spirit in the sky have to die because some hebrew in a garden was an ungrateful bastard?

[Byblos]

Does sin work hereditarily, infecting only the descendants of the one who commited it?

That's my understanding yes, physical death is as a result of sin and we inherited sin from Adam. If there were a lineage not belonging to Adam they could not have inherited sin.

Quite unjust for BILLIONS to be condemed via a genetic 'cancer" passed on by the original "patient 0", especially since it was put there but His Creator.
Why does some poor native indian at peace with his environment and the Big Spirit in the sky have to die because some hebrew in a garden was an ungrateful bastard?

Er, because that's what scripture says? (Romans 5:12).

And we're not condemned, are we?

[RickD]

Does sin work hereditarily, infecting only the descendants of the one who commited it? Or can anyone who comes into contact with the sinner be influenced by the sin?

Death entered the world(mankind)through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned- Romans 5:12

This seems to me to be saying that death of humans entered when Adam sinned. We die because of our own sin, not because of some "ungrateful bastard" in the Garden.

[PaulSacramento]

Does sin work hereditarily, infecting only the descendants of the one who commited it?

That's my understanding yes, physical death is as a result of sin and we inherited sin from Adam. If there were a lineage not belonging to Adam they could not have inherited sin.

Quite unjust for BILLIONS to be condemed via a genetic 'cancer" passed on by the original "patient 0", especially since it was put there but His Creator.
Why does some poor native indian at peace with his environment and the Big Spirit in the sky have to die because some hebrew in a garden was an ungrateful bastard?

Er, because that's what scripture says? (Romans 5:12).

And quoting that scripture:
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

Adam sinned and death came into the world, supposedly there was NO DEATH before it seems ( this is debated), and all die because all have sinned.
But I ask, who are these "all" and what sin have they all commited to warrant death?

[RickD]

In addition to Rick's questions above, how do you explain Adam's fall propagating to all if they are not from his lineage?

I think that's actually the most important question, Byblos. How'd I miss that one?