Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:04 am**

So we know Cain killed his brother Able. Cain is cast out as a fugitive and worries that he will be killed if he is seen by anyone. God recognises the threat and puts the mark on Cain's forehead so to deter anyone from killing him. Cain goes to the land of nod and meets his wife. But hang on: How does he meet his wife? Why did Cain and God fear a reprisal? According to the Young Earthers and the literal interpretation of scripture, the only people on earth were Cain's Mother and Father. So how and where did Cain meet his wife?

Dan

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:53 am**

I'm not much of a fan of AiG, but since you mentioned YEC, and they are, for better or for worse, the de facto defenders of that position, I figured I'd let them answer your question themselves:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... cains-wife

Bottom line - Cain married his sister, which is the same position pretty much any Day-Ager who takes the story of Adam and Eve will tell you as well.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:07 am**

Jac3510 wrote:I'm not much of a fan of AiG, but since you mentioned YEC, and they are, for better or for worse, the de facto defenders of that position, I figured I'd let them answer your question themselves:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... cains-wife

Bottom line - Cain married his sister, which is the same position pretty much any Day-Ager who takes the story of Adam and Eve will tell you as well.

Jac3510,

Thanks for the heads up, but if if that's the case, then why wasn't Cain and his "sister" wife denounced as incestuous and reprehensive individuals who were then subject to death by stoning?

Without being too confrontational, the Young Earthers need to justify this as a matter of ergency.

Dan

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:20 am**

I take it you didn't read the article? They weren't denounced as incestuous and stoned because the Law, which forbid such practices, was not yet given. This isn't just an issue for YECs. This is an issue for OECs and anyone who takes Adam and Eve to be real people. Of course, you can write the entire account off as myth, but when you do that, you get into far more serious issues.

Anyway, as the article I linked to explains--and you can find this same defense on any OEC page--there would have been no problem for Cain to marry his sister at that time. God prohibited it in the Law for the same reason it is prohibited today; it is likely to produce genetically deficient children. That would have been the case for the first generations of humanity.

Against this, you have a serious problem if you propose that Cain's wife was not his sister. That would mean she came from someone other than Adam, which would mean that all men did not come from Adam, which would mean that Christ is not the Savior of all men as per the NT. It would mean that all men did not come from Adam, as per the NT.

Like I said, this is nothing new. It is a very old, very well argued, and long since refuted objection to Christianity in general--not to YECism specifically. I hope this has helped.

God bless

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:04 am**

Jac3510 wrote:I take it you didn't read the article? They weren't denounced as incestuous and stoned because the Law, which forbid such practices, was not yet given. This isn't just an issue for YECs. This is an issue for OECs and anyone who takes Adam and Eve to be real people. Of course, you can write the entire account off as myth, but when you do that, you get into far more serious issues.

Anyway, as the article I linked to explains--and you can find this same defense on any OEC page--there would have been no problem for Cain to marry his sister at that time. God prohibited it in the Law for the same reason it is prohibited today; it is likely to produce genetically deficient children. That would have been the case for the first generations of humanity.

Against this, you have a serious problem if you propose that Cain's wife was not his sister. That would mean she came from someone other than Adam, which would mean that all men did not come from Adam, which would mean that Christ is not the Savior of all men as per the NT. It would mean that all men did not come from Adam, as per the NT.

Like I said, this is nothing new. It is a very old, very well argued, and long since refuted objection to Christianity in general--not to YECism specifically. I hope this has helped.

God bless

I did read the article. I read genesis as it's meant to be read. We really need to stop espusing the need for a "sister" if we're going to move on from some stagnated past. Adam does not have to be the first man to tread foot on this earth. Read genesis 1 and 2. If there *was* a sister it would have been denounced in a further chapter by God. Fact! There was no sister. Cain met an already existent female. Genesis does not try to tell us that Adam was the the first man to tread the earth.

Godbless.

Dan

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:16 am**

Jac3510 wrote:I take it you didn't read the article? They weren't denounced as incestuous and stoned because the Law, which forbid such practices, was not yet given. This isn't just an issue for YECs. This is an issue for OECs and anyone who takes Adam and Eve to be real people. Of course, you can write the entire account off as myth, but when you do that, you get into far more serious issues.

Anyway, as the article I linked to explains--and you can find this same defense on any OEC page--there would have been no problem for Cain to marry his sister at that time. God prohibited it in the Law for the same reason it is prohibited today; it is likely to produce genetically deficient children. That would have been the case for the first generations of humanity.

Against this, you have a serious problem if you propose that Cain's wife was not his sister. That would mean she came from someone other than Adam, which would mean that all men did not come from Adam, which would mean that Christ is not the Savior of all men as per the NT. It would mean that all men did not come from Adam, as per the NT.

Like I said, this is nothing new. It is a very old, very well argued, and long since refuted objection to Christianity in general--not to YECism specifically. I hope this has helped.

God bless

Jac3510,

I've re-read the article, and in my opinion it is complete nonsense. It talks of genes more complicated with the induction of sin. It, for me, is a most desperate of articles. I hope true Christians see through this sort of thing.

Dan

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:25 am**

DannyM wrote:I've re-read the article, and in my opinion it is complete nonsense. It talks of genes more complicated with the induction of sin. It, for me, is a most desperate of articles. I hope true Christians see through this sort of thing.

So you're given a plausible answer, you disagree with it, and therefore it is nonsense? Why don't you go into a little more detail and tell us why you think it's nonsense and what you think the right answer is. Where do you think Cain's wife came from?

Posted: **Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:48 am**

Byblos wrote:
DannyM wrote:I've re-read the article, and in my opinion it is complete nonsense. It talks of genes more complicated with the induction of sin. It, for me, is a most desperate of articles. I hope true Christians see through this sort of thing.
So you're given a plausible answer, you disagree with it, and therefore it is nonsense? Why don't you go into a little more detail and tell us why you think it's nonsense and what you think the right answer is. Where do you think Cain's wife came from?

Hey Byblos, I think my post yesterday possibly appeared confrontational. Furthest from my mind. I'm among likeminded people here and am just looking for answers. So sincere apologies, brothers and sisters.

I think Cain's wife must've already existed. I think this is far more plausible than saying Cain married his sister and because the law wasn't made then it was okay. This is justifying incest. It is suggesting that Cain brought incest into the world. I cannot accept that Adam's son brought incest into this world. We know that The Hebrew for Adam is a common noun meaning 'man' or 'mankind'. I believe Adam was the first spiritual man to exist. I believe that his creation breathed a soul into an already existent mankind. But I'm happy to see a better explanation, as I'm not totally 100% comfy with this one, though I feel it trumps the one about Cain marrying his sister. Why would his sister be in another part of the earth where Cain had travelled, and not at home with mum and dad?

If there were no other people on earth at the time of Cain's abandonment, then why did both Cain and God fear reprisals for his slaughter of Abel? Who did they fear reprisals from?

Godbless. Dan

Posted: **Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:14 am**

DannyM wrote:Hey Byblos, I think my post yesterday possibly appeared confrontational. Furthest from my mind. I'm among likeminded people here and am just looking for answers. So sincere apologies, brothers and sisters.

Danny, you did not come across as confrontational, just dismissive. Even with that, it's not an issue.

DannyM wrote:I think Cain's wife must've already existed. I think this is far more plausible than saying Cain married his sister and because the law wasn't made then it was okay.

If you go with that then you have much bigger problems to contend with than the introduction of incest as you would be allegorizing (or myth-tisizing if there is such a word) the entire creation. It's fine if you want to go with that but just know it is not mainstream, orthodox Christianity. Our belief is that Adam and Eve were real and that we are all descendants of them. Even if you go with theistic evolution and believe that Adam and Eve were the first spritual humans, they would still have to be the parents of whomever Cain married because only their offspring are created in the image of God (and therefore, human).

DannyM wrote:This is justifying incest. It is suggesting that Cain brought incest into the world.

Danny, who do you think Adam and Eve were in relation to God, and more importantly, in relation to one another? Incest was an initial absolute necessity, then outlawed when it threatened continuity. There's nothing wrong with such a scenario.

DannyM wrote: I cannot accept that Adam's son brought incest into this world.

In light of what i said above, I think you need to reconsider.

DannyM wrote:We know that The Hebrew for Adam is a common noun meaning 'man' or 'mankind'. I believe Adam was the first spiritual man to exist. I believe that his creation breathed a soul into an already existent mankind.

You mean to say an already existing species, right? Mankind didn't start until God created it. Evidently you do subscribe to theistic evolution. I have no problem with that at all (although others here might). What I do have a problem with is thinking that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. There are certain truths revealed in scripture that one simply cannot take as anything but literal, otherwise many other things will not make sense (such as the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc).

DannyM wrote:But I'm happy to see a better explanation, as I'm not totally 100% comfy with this one, though I feel it trumps the one about Cain marrying his sister. Why would his sister be in another part of the earth where Cain had travelled, and not at home with mum and dad?

You see Danny, if you had really read the link you would have known Cain didn't meet his wife in another part of the earth. Scripture says he knew her then (after being banished). The term means that he had sex with her then; he had met her much earlier, considering she was his sister.

DannyM wrote:If there were no other people on earth at the time of Cain's abandonment, then why did both Cain and God fear reprisals for his slaughter of Abel? Who did they fear reprisals from?

As the link states, fear of reprisals was from his own siblings for killing their brother.

DannyM wrote:Godbless. Dan

I hope this clears it up a little.

Blessings.

Posted: **Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:46 am**

Sorry to butt in here... But this was taken from another article on the subject.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=7&t=3158

Posted: **Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:15 am**

Unrelated to the discussion, I had a thought that might prove interesting for some biologist to pursue. Given a perfect human genome, how many generations would it take for a sufficient number of mutations to develop that it would prove dangerous for relatives to marry? Could present some interesting data . . . is there anything we could expect it to show?

Posted: **Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:33 am**

O course,we can't really do this with a "perfect" genome (not really even sure what this means with regard to pre-fall versus post-fall conditions). Certainyl, without any deleterious genes, it wuld have aken some time before the effects of incest would accumulate.

However, there are studies with regard to inbreeding with animals.

Inbreeding itself is not necessarily a problem, of course, plenty of dog breeders do it. The issue, as yo stated, is whether the genes within that gene pool contain any deleterious traits.

Good human populations to study inbreeding? Amish communities and some Indian/mid-east communities where arranged familial marriages or a very limited gene pool. I will look for some

Posted: **Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:47 pm**

DannyM wrote:
Byblos wrote:
DannyM wrote:I've re-read the article, and in my opinion it is complete nonsense. It talks of genes more complicated with the induction of sin. It, for me, is a most desperate of articles. I hope true Christians see through this sort of thing.
So you're given a plausible answer, you disagree with it, and therefore it is nonsense? Why don't you go into a little more detail and tell us why you think it's nonsense and what you think the right answer is. Where do you think Cain's wife came from?
Hey Byblos, I think my post yesterday possibly appeared confrontational. Furthest from my mind. I'm among likeminded people here and am just looking for answers. So sincere apologies, brothers and sisters.

I think Cain's wife must've already existed. I think this is far more plausible than saying Cain married his sister and because the law wasn't made then it was okay. This is justifying incest. It is suggesting that Cain brought incest into the world. I cannot accept that Adam's son brought incest into this world. We know that The Hebrew for Adam is a common noun meaning 'man' or 'mankind'. I believe Adam was the first spiritual man to exist. I believe that his creation breathed a soul into an already existent mankind. But I'm happy to see a better explanation, as I'm not totally 100% comfy with this one, though I feel it trumps the one about Cain marrying his sister. Why would his sister be in another part of the earth where Cain had travelled, and not at home with mum and dad?

If there were no other people on earth at the time of Cain's abandonment, then why did both Cain and God fear reprisals for his slaughter of Abel? Who did they fear reprisals from?

Godbless. Dan

Sorry Dan, not to beat up or gang up on you, but I would like to offer some thoughts based upon this comment.

It is suggesting that Cain brought incest into the world. I cannot accept that Adam's son brought incest into this world.

Cain brought murder into the world, why not incest as well? And, again no disrepect intended, what you can or cannot accept is irrelevant to the discussion with regards to what actually happened.

I believe that his creation breathed a soul into an already existent mankind.

That is not what Genesis 2:7 states.

But I'm happy to see a better explanation, as I'm not totally 100% comfy with this one, though I feel it trumps the one about Cain marrying his sister.

On what grounds does a female of an unknown or unspecified race marrying Cain "trump" a reasonable extrapolation based upon what is actually written, that of Cain and his wife being related?

For the sake of discussion, if your theory is accurate, who or where is that race (descendants of Cain and the woman of the unspecified race) today?

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:13 am**

Byblos wrote:
DannyM wrote:Hey Byblos, I think my post yesterday possibly appeared confrontational. Furthest from my mind. I'm among likeminded people here and am just looking for answers. So sincere apologies, brothers and sisters.
Danny, you did not come across as confrontational, just dismissive. Even with that, it's not an issue.

DannyM wrote:I think Cain's wife must've already existed. I think this is far more plausible than saying Cain married his sister and because the law wasn't made then it was okay.
If you go with that then you have much bigger problems to contend with than the introduction of incest as you would be allegorizing (or myth-tisizing if there is such a word) the entire creation. It's fine if you want to go with that but just know it is not mainstream, orthodox Christianity. Our belief is that Adam and Eve were real and that we are all descendants of them. Even if you go with theistic evolution and believe that Adam and Eve were the first spritual humans, they would still have to be the parents of whomever Cain married because only their offspring are created in the image of God (and therefore, human).

Byblos, I hope I'm using the quote system the right way. We'll see! Frankly, I don't know if I'm OEC, Theistic Evolutionist or what. Adam the individual doesn't appear to be mentioned until the fourth chapter. Up until that point we seem to be dealing purely with mankind. Now it scares the wotsits out of me to think I'm not orthodox. I live my life and believe in the truth of Christ in an utterly orthodox manner. I always though I leaned towards an old earth, and if pinned down would have labelled myself OEC. But I'm under no pressure here to take any such leap just yet. I've always been Christian and believed wholeheartedly in Christ, but my transformation to a serious thinking being about Christianity, theology and philosophy has only been in the last couple of years.

DannyM wrote:This is justifying incest. It is suggesting that Cain brought incest into the world.
Danny, who do you think Adam and Eve were in relation to God, and more importantly, in relation to one another? Incest was an initial absolute necessity, then outlawed when it threatened continuity. There's nothing wrong with such a scenario.

Not necessarily, Byblos. Not in the sense that they are from God's "DNA". Cain and his sister would be directly, biologically from Adam and Eve's DNA. So I do not believe that incest was an absolute necessity.

DannyM wrote: I cannot accept that Adam's son brought incest into this world.

In light of what i said above, I think you need to reconsider.

Always ready to be turned. I'm always open to different interpretations of scripture.

DannyM wrote:We know that The Hebrew for Adam is a common noun meaning 'man' or 'mankind'. I believe Adam was the first spiritual man to exist. I believe that his creation breathed a soul into an already existent mankind.
You mean to say an already existing species, right? Mankind didn't start until God created it. Evidently you do subscribe to theistic evolution. I have no problem with that at all (although others here might). What I do have a problem with is thinking that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. There are certain truths revealed in scripture that one simply cannot take as anything but literal, otherwise many other things will not make sense (such as the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc).

Adam and Eve may have come at the exact same time as many humans. Genesis 1 would seem to back this up. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the fact that Adam the individual was special, set apart, from all other humans. Along with Eve, of course.

DannyM wrote:But I'm happy to see a better explanation, as I'm not totally 100% comfy with this one, though I feel it trumps the one about Cain marrying his sister. Why would his sister be in another part of the earth where Cain had travelled, and not at home with mum and dad?
You see Danny, if you had really read the link you would have known Cain didn't meet his wife in another part of the earth. Scripture says he knew her then (after being banished). The term means that he had sex with her then; he had met her much earlier, considering she was his sister.

Still disagree with the link, for now.

DannyM wrote:If there were no other people on earth at the time of Cain's abandonment, then why did both Cain and God fear reprisals for his slaughter of Abel? Who did they fear reprisals from?
As the link states, fear of reprisals was from his own siblings for killing their brother.

But Seth came along way after the death of Abel. This does not add up in my mind.

DannyM wrote:Godbless. Dan
I hope this clears it up a little.

I'm beginning to understand the premise a little clearer, but for now continue to respectfully disagree.

Blessings.

Dan

Posted: **Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:42 am**

warhoop wrote:Sorry Dan, not to beat up or gang up on you, but I would like to offer some thoughts based upon this comment.

That's okay, Warhoop, I've taken enough beatings in the past

warhoop wrote:Cain brought murder into the world, why not incest as well? And, again no disrepect intended, what you can or cannot accept is irrelevant to the discussion with regards to what actually happened.

Good point. I'd thought this myself. I guess when you put it like that, there 'aint much of a difference. Both are sinful acts. How can I say murder is preferable to incest? Is it really the lesser of two evils? But I don't believe we *have* to accept that this "lawful" incestuous act actually occured. Genesis 1 tells me that mankind was made. Genesis 2 tells me that again that mankind was made from the ground (or adamah). Adam the individual man I have no doubt was the first "special" man.

warhoop wrote:That is not what Genesis 2:7 states.

Genesis 2 actually appears to back this up further. "And the man became the living being". I take this to mean man has been given a soul.

warhoop wrote:On what grounds does a female of an unknown or unspecified race marrying Cain "trump" a reasonable extrapolation based upon what is actually written, that of Cain and his wife being related?.

On the logic I'm using. It may be faulty logic, but it is my logic and it - to me - trumps the alternate view.

warhoop wrote:For the sake of discussion, if your theory is accurate, who or where is that race (descendants of Cain and the woman of the unspecified race) today?

I have no idea. I don't even know if it really matters. Mankind was created. Was the dust in the ground from which mankind was made actually the starting point of evolution? Or is that another discussion? I am searching, searching hard, and if I don't find the answers, you know what? It doesn't lessen one jot the glory of Christ.

Godbless.

Dan

Evidence for God from Science

Cain's journey

Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey

Re: Cain's journey