Evidence for God from Science

Genesis 5:4:
"After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters."

My question: Could not be Cain's wife one of his sisters Adam had after Abel, Cain, and Seth?

Yes, I think it could. Don't know why that would be wrong to the original poster. There could have been hundreds of people to choose from even with conservative population estimates.

Kurieuo wrote:So ignore that verse Hana presented because of an extreme literal interpretation none would have attributed to the verse. Not sure why anyone would inject animals in there... is there any early Christan writing for this in either Western or Eastern church thinking?

Who were "all the living" at the time that Adam gave her that name?

1over137 wrote:Genesis 5:4:
"After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters."

My question: Could not be Cain's wife one of his sisters Adam had after Abel, Cain, and Seth?

Yes, it could be so.
The bible doesn't state that though.
Chronologically speaking, at the time Cain was banished, there is NO mention of any sisters or brothers besides Abel.

1over137 wrote:

Indurkar wrote:

1over137 wrote:
So, chapter 2 returns to creation of men.

I spotted further this:
Genesis 3:20: "Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. "

So we are back to the square-one.
Gen 3:20 Is the writer not giving an account of Adam &Eve ?

Can you reformulate?

Bible - KJV Gen. ch2:4 says these are the generations ......., in NIV version there are simplifications; but it may also lead to misinterpretations. This chapter clearly gives the geographical region where action is taking place by mention of rivers
and desert. So atleast I can not construe it to be a repeat of Gen. Ch 1:26,27 . Consequently Gen. ch3:20 is the genelogy of Adam and eve, which is that of the Jewish race.

Sorry for the delay - I was engrossed in article for comming Good-Friday.

I would like to respond to Dr. Indurkar’s article concerning where Cain got his wife. I think it would be good to present a counter-perspective to his proposal. I am a committed Christian who believes that I have no choice but to believe the literal view of Genesis. I have several reasons for that. First, Genesis was written in an historical narrative style- not allegory or poetic. This is confirmed by most main stream Hebrew scholars. Second, every other author of a book in the Bible, when referring back to Genesis, assumes that it occurred as written. Even Jesus referred to Genesis many times and when you put all his statements together, you have to conclude that he believed it to be literally true. And I will follow him as he was there!
Nothing in Dr Indurkar’s (I will shorten it to Dr. I) article addresses those points possibly because they would be counter productive to hi view. So I will take his article point by point and show the issue with it and then show why Cain married a relative, even a possible sister. But let me say that I have utmost respect fro Dr. I and those commenting on this article who are believers. I know there are different views on this but that does not stop our love for Jesus!
I shall write Dr. I’s comment in italics and then comment in plain script.

Ch. 2 . Gives genealogy of Adam. This is after the Seventh Day, however it leaves the question of Lapsed period after the seventh Day.
Nowhere we can perceive that the account of creation of Adam is immediately after the seventh day.
First, there is no geneology of Adam in CH.2. Adam has no genealogy prior to him. I am not sure about his next statement relating to the creation of Adam and how he relates it to after the seventh day. There is no support for that anywhere. The discussion of Adam and all the details in Ch. 2 refer back to the 6 day time frame of CH. 1. Dr. I is apparently trying to propose that Adam was not created on Day 6 but afterwards. There is no support in scripture for that. Dr. I wrongly assumes Ch. 2 is after day 7 and that is just wrong. CH. 2 gives the details of the time line in Ch. 1.

Ch.2,3&4; gives an account making of man out of dust of the ground , the Garden of Eden, The sin of Adam and Eve and of the start of a particular race, Sired by Adam & Eve.
The discontinuity at Ch. 2 verse 4 is noticeable.
What discontinuity? It is plainly the account details of Ch. 1 time line.

It is incorrect to state that description of Adam and Eve in Genesis Ch.2, is a repetition of Ch1:26-27, because of differences in these two accounts. In chapter 1, God created all kind of animals and living creatures first (Ver. 24&25). God then created man and women in his own image(Ch.1:27).He further told them (CH1. :28 ) to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it.
Dr. I wrongly claims there are difference between CH. 1 and 2. and this is the reason why they are not a repetition. Well, they are different because Ch. 1 is time and CH. 2 is action with the time. We can relate this to the 4 gospels in the New Testament. Those are different accounts but that does not mean Jesus was crucified 4 times (one for each account since they are different). So differences do not dictate different times and do offer a repetition in accounts to give us more information. God did create the animals and man on day 6. the first man was called Adam, the very first man.

Ch.2 : After the seventh Day God created Adam planted him in garden of Eden and then brought the all the animals, beast and fowls - which God Had created to Adam to search for a mate for Adam . Adam named them but not found a mate. God then made woman taking one of Adam’s rib and making it a Woman .
Thus the creation of Adam and Eve is secondary to creation of man as described in Chapter 1, Genesis.
Adam & Eve and their progenies are an account of the Jew - race. They were the first of this race but not the first man & women. Genesis. Ch 1: 26 & 27 clearly states that men were created before Adam & Eve.
The inference is clear that there were other people inhabiting earth when Adam & Eve were made by God..
Hence there was no difficulty for Cain to find enough people to help him build and populate a city.
Dr. I claims that Adam and Eve were created after man was created. His claim isbased on the 2 chapters being different times. So Adam was not the first man according to Dr. I. But when you let scripture define/explain scripture, his argument falls down. Look at
1 Cor 15:45: So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. This is plainly stated that Adam was the first man just as Genesis really says. Dr. I’s claim falls down when the rest of the Bible is read. Here is another point: 1 Cor. Also states that Adam’s sin brought death into the world. So if he was not the first and others were created prior to him, then they are not under the curse and did not sin and should not be under the death curse. Yet not one of them is alive today. So this disproves Dr. I’s proposal as he cannot account for their sin and death prior to Adam. Adam had to be the first man as all men have died because of Adam’s sin.

I will skip down to his last comment:
Gen. Ch. 2 onwards is just an account and Genealogy of The Jewish race.
The Book of Genesis is the collection of writings of Moses (OR Whosoever)compiled as Book of Genesis at a later date.
There is no evidence to support this statement. Yes the Bible records the Hebrews history but that does not mean that others came first. The assumption is invalid. He also makes a statement about when Genesis was written without any supporting evidence. Dr. I does not know when Genesis was written, so he cannot make declarations accordingly.

So the question is where did Cain get his wife? He did probably marry a relative, maybe even a sister. We have to understand that back then, the DNA was not as mutated as today. Today close relative cannot marry as their mutations are so similar that it cause deformed children and thus not legal. In fact, it was permissible to marry a relative until the day of Moses when God gave Moses the law. You may be interested to know that many Old Testament men married relatives, even Abraham. There is another hint as well.
A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.”
And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch (Genesis 4:17).
The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words ‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam.
And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23).
Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated. Lastly, look at the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3. Clearly, Adam was the first man. If not, there should have been more names before Adam but there are none. So Dr. I’s proposal falls under the knife of the New Testament.
So I have no good reason to not believe that Cain married a relative. His children did not suffer the problems of the modern world with our mutated DNA. So do not condemn Cain and many other Old Testament people fro marrying close relatives. It was ok back then. Dr. I makes some good comments but is off base on others. I look forward to more discussion with him.