tharkun

Not necessarily. If we allow for humans outside the garden where A&E were specially created ex nihilo, Neanderthals become another in a long line of human ancestors that the line of A&E interbred with.

You see, even you make assumptions about the text. Who's to say that your assumptions are the correct ones? Some things in scripture we should hold with an open hand; creation and evolution is one of those things as spirit-minded Christians have fallen on both sides of the issue. Dogmatism in side issues is the absence of growth to maturity.

please quote the verse that says Cain's wife was his sister

The scriptures were written from within a cultural context and to a cultural context. Ignoring that is short-sighted and can lead to all kinds of wonky interpretations. It was written for us, not to us. Failing to understand the context it was written from and to is an error of the first magnitude.

No, I'm taking the word 'literally' as it would have been understood by the people who wrote it and when they wrote it.

Interpretation absent all cultural and literary context. There's no such thing as an interpretation with out context. You have to decide which contexts are relevant though to reach a conclusion. Ignoring some contexts leads to bad interpretations.

There is no problem - she is the mother of all living, that doesn't mean she was the mother of living at the time she was created. Again, genealogical descent is not the same as genetic descent. By the time the Genesis account (along with the rest of the OT) was finalized during the Babylonian captivity, she would be the mother of all living. There's no contradiction.

...based on some interpretations of Genesis.

I'm not advocating for or against evolution; I'm just pointing out that you can't just cherry-pick a verse and haphazardly apply it to evolution, or even creation in general, without some contextual reason to do so.

That scripture says absolutely nothing about evolution.

To the OP - it's important to note that scritpure follows genealogical descent, not genetic descent. There's no contradiction in supposing that other people were outside the garden and A&E were specially created and placed in the garden to be His image-bearers on earth. Genetically, there's no problem with the line of A&E intermixing with those outside the garden. It can be shown that by the time fo Christ, all would be descendents of A&E. Refer to S Joshua Swamidass' 'The Genealogical Adam and Eve' for more details.

The idea that there is no evidence for the Exodus in Egyptian literature is patently false and is based on outdated scholarship. See this paper here: https://files.cdn.thinkific.com/file_uploads/638244/attachments/a6c/2e9/7bc/10-Sparks_Egyptian-Texts-Relating-Exodus.pdf From the abstract: "Some 30 ancient Egyptian texts with Exodus “parallels” or Exodus-like content have been identified by 56 Egyptologists, archaeologists, and Semiticists from 1844 to date in the professional literature. Additional texts are identified in the present study for a total of more than 90 Egyptian texts containing Exodus parallels."

The 'allowance' of polygamy in the OT is an example of divine accomodation. God didn't try to change EVERYTHING about the Isrealite culture at once; He worked through the culture to move the society towards where He ultimately wanted to. We see the same thing with slavery in the NT. Paul acknowledges the reality of slavery and yet provides the tools to undermine the institution at the same time (e.g. Onesimus & Philemon).

Enoch was hotly debated in the early church (as was Revelation). Regardless, it does provide a wealth of supporting evidence from the intertestametal period of how the Jews interpreted the OT. In particular, the Sons of God/daughters of Man episode in Gen 6. Here's the opinon of an OT scholar on it: https://drmsh.com/book-enoch-bible/