Cain's Wife (Genesis 4)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Non of Adam's sons' wives are given a geneology. Geneology wasn't as concerned with where a woman came from as it was concerned with where a man came from, since inheritance was patrilineal not matrilineal.

But as for Cain's wife, she may have been his sister, although I doubt it. There were other people besides Adam and his immediate family. We know this because when Cain was evicted from the Adamic homeland he was worried that whoever found him would kill him. God put a mark on him to warn others against doing that. These others are clearly not his immediate siblings.

Further, he moved and built a city. This implies he established himself as a ruler of some sort, which implies other people. A nomadic camp for one's immediate family does not constitute a "city".

Therefore I conclude there were others besides Adam's immediate progeny, and it is likely Cain took a wife from among them.

People who were not related to Adam?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

People who were not related to Adam?

Reptilians, of the Clinton Bloodline.



I'll post more this evening.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Reptilians, of the Clinton Bloodline.



I'll post more this evening.

Well, it's evening somewhere... lol

Mankind was created on the sixth day, but Adam was created after the first Sabbath. The creation accounts in ch 1 and ch2 of Genesis are different, presenting a clearly different and contrary account in each chapter, and therefore cannot be reconciled as two descriptions of the same event, nor is either account clearly symbolic or mythological. Therefore, they each describe a different series of events.

Cain was worried about strangers killing him because he was a nomad. He married and had a son and built a city. Building a city implies other people. His mark implies other people. The two creation accounts imply other people. Therefore, I conclude there were other people.

The primary objection people have is either theological, or philosophical. The theological objection is based on the erroneous belief that sin is a substance inhering in physical human nature, inherited by natural procreation. To avoid the obvious conclusion that Jesus was a born sinner, either Immaculate Conception or Divine Flesh is invoked, both of which are errors. The objection claims that anyone not descended from Adam would be born free of sin and not needing salvation. The objection wholly disappears when the voluntary nature of sin is accepted, as per the Bible, and the gnostic-catholic doctrine of an inherited sin nature is rejected.

The philosophical argument is based on Enlightenment humanistic egalitarianism, and is thus of no concern to me.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, it's evening somewhere... lol

Mankind was created on the sixth day, but Adam was created after the first Sabbath. The creation accounts in ch 1 and ch2 of Genesis are different, presenting a clearly different and contrary account in each chapter, and therefore cannot be reconciled as two descriptions of the same event, nor is either account clearly symbolic or mythological. Therefore, they each describe a different series of events.

Cain was worried about strangers killing him because he was a nomad. He married and had a son and built a city. Building a city implies other people. His mark implies other people. The two creation accounts imply other people. Therefore, I conclude there were other people.

The primary objection people have is either theological, or philosophical. The theological objection is based on the erroneous belief that sin is a substance inhering in physical human nature, inherited by natural procreation. To avoid the obvious conclusion that Jesus was a born sinner, either Immaculate Conception or Divine Flesh is invoked, both of which are errors. The objection claims that anyone not descended from Adam would be born free of sin and not needing salvation. The objection wholly disappears when the voluntary nature of sin is accepted, as per the Bible, and the gnostic-catholic doctrine of an inherited sin nature is rejected.

The philosophical argument is based on Enlightenment humanistic egalitarianism, and is thus of no concern to me.

How do the following scriptures fit into your viewpoint?

Gen 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

This implies to me that there was no mankind before Adam.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This implies to me that ALL things (which would include Adam) were created before the sabbath.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

How do the following scriptures fit into your viewpoint?

Gen 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

This implies to me that there was no mankind before Adam.

There was no "man to till the ground" until Adam. Adam was the first gardener/farmer.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This implies to me that ALL things (which would include Adam) were created before the sabbath.

All that is in the heavens and the earth were created before the first Sabbath... so did that include you and me? Man was created on the sixth day, but that doesn't mean all men were around before the seventh day.

Besides, even if Adam was created on the sixth day, his creation is not described in ch 1, ergo the premise still remains: there were people other than Adam. Although I believe a straightforward reading of Genesis strongly supports a post sabbath formation of Adam, the individual placed in the Garden.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There was no "man to till the ground" until Adam. Adam was the first gardener/farmer.



All that is in the heavens and the earth were created before the first Sabbath... so did that include you and me? Man was created on the sixth day, but that doesn't mean all men were around before the seventh day.

Besides, even if Adam was created on the sixth day, his creation is not described in ch 1, ergo the premise still remains: there were people other than Adam. Although I believe a straightforward reading of Genesis strongly supports a post sabbath formation of Adam, the individual placed in the Garden.

How do these other "people" connect with Romans 5:12? Since what you are saying places them outside of Adam's lineage, and therefore logically place them outside of Jesus' redemption? Is Paul only writing Romans 5 for Adam's lineage? Which would be the human beings, and the "other people" being part of the beasts "Gentiles?"

Just pondering what the conclusion might be for the other created "people."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

How do these other "people" connect with Romans 5:12? Since what you are saying places them outside of Adam's lineage, and therefore logically place them outside of Jesus' redemption? Is Paul only writing Romans 5 for Adam's lineage? Which would be the human beings, and the "other people" being part of the beasts "Gentiles?"

Just pondering what the conclusion might be for the other created "people."

That would basically be the theological argument I mentioned. Biological descendancy from Adam is not needed in order to be a sinner, nor to be redeemed. All have sinned, and all creation is subject to reclamation by Christ.

Adam is (or was) the "federal head" of mankind, as some term it, and Christ is the new federal head. That headship is not based solely on biological descent.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Mankind was created on the sixth day, but Adam was created after the first Sabbath. The creation accounts in ch 1 and ch2 of Genesis are different, presenting a clearly different and contrary account in each chapter, and therefore cannot be reconciled as two descriptions of the same event, nor is either account clearly symbolic or mythological. Therefore, they each describe a different series of events.

Chapter One is the synopsis of creation. Each day, poetic in structure.
Chapter Two are the details of man and the garden.

Both are about the same event.

There wasn't a first creation of man, and then came Adam in chapter two. There was only one creation of man with two different stories of origin.

Consider the first two chapters like this: you could journal a week-long vacation, detailing each day's events; and then after doing so, write again in detail about one of the events. It doesn't mean there were two separate events, just that the first entry was a synopsis of the whole week and the second entry detailed one event which happened during that week.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Chapter One is the synopsis of creation. Each day, poetic in structure.
Chapter Two are the details of man and the garden.

Both are about the same event.

There wasn't a first creation of man, and then came Adam in chapter two. There was only one creation of man with two different stories of origin.

Consider the first two chapters like this: you could journal a week-long vacation, detailing each day's events; and then after doing so, write again in detail about one of the events. It doesn't mean there were two separate events, just that the first entry was a synopsis of the whole week and the second entry detailed one event which happened during that week.

Chapter 1:

Animals created first, then mankind (male and female). Mankind is told to fill the earth and subdue it.

Chapter 2:

Man (male only) is created first, then animals, then woman. Man (male only) is put in a Garden to tend it, woman created as a helper for him in the garden.

There is no way these are two descriptions of the same sequence of events. If they are, then one of them is false. Since they are both correct and accurate, they must necessarily be describing two distinct events. Both accounts differ materially as to the sequence of activities.

Were the animals made before man and woman? Or after man and before woman? Was mankind told to spread out and populate the earth? Or put in a garden to tend it?

That these are two different events explains who Cain was worried about being found by and for whom he built his city. It explans who his wife was most likely to be as well as possibly who Seth's wife was, and so forth, without resorting to "sanctified incest" which creates other difficulties.

The idea that these are two accounts of the same event not only creates all those difficulties, but also the difficulty of the integrity of the text itself, since the two accounts are clearly fundamentally different. Not to mention it creates a discrepency with known history and archaeology (humans have been around longer than a mere 6,000 years).

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Chapter 1:

Animals created first, then mankind (male and female). Mankind is told to fill the earth and subdue it.

Chapter 2:

Man (male only) is created first, then animals, then woman. Man (male only) is put in a Garden to tend it, woman created as a helper for him in the garden.

There is no way these are two descriptions of the same sequence of events. If they are, then one of them is false. Since they are both correct and accurate, they must necessarily be describing two distinct events. Both accounts differ materially as to the sequence of activities.

Were the animals made before man and woman? Or after man and before woman? Was mankind told to spread out and populate the earth? Or put in a garden to tend it?

That these are two different events explains who Cain was worried about being found by and for whom he built his city. It explans who his wife was most likely to be as well as possibly who Seth's wife was, and so forth, without resorting to "sanctified incest" which creates other difficulties.

The idea that these are two accounts of the same event not only creates all those difficulties, but also the difficulty of the integrity of the text itself, since the two accounts are clearly fundamentally different. Not to mention it creates a discrepency with known history and archaeology (humans have been around longer than a mere 6,000 years).

Man being around longer than 6,000 years is another debate.
I know this is going to sound like a dumb question, but were males and females (of the other people) created before Adam? Then why was Eve, taken from Adam’s side? Since males were created separately from females amongst the other people?