Cain and Able

[OneLight]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was stating a fact. Gen 5 doesn't mention Cain OR Abel. Obviously Ch 4 tells us that they DID exist, but Ch 5 only deals with Seth onward. (I admit, I wonder why.)

If you are correct, then that opens up a whole new can of worms: If Cain didn't marry until after Abel's murder, WHERE DID THE WOMAN COME FROM? There would have only been Adam, Eve and Cain. Cain built an entire city by himself? Come on.

Also, Cain was afraid that someone would demand justice for Abel's death. Why be afraid of someone who wouldn't come along for years if there were no other persons in the world than Adam and Eve? It makes more sense that Cain would have been afraid of someone who was alive and able to exact vengeance for Abel. In other words: One or more of their brothers who might have been close to Abel, or perhaps one or more of Abel's children who were alive at the time. We don't know absolutely that Abel was married, but we don't know that he wasn't either.

I am only drawing conclusions, admittedly assumptions, based on what I read in Genesis. I don't believe that I've stretched anything beyond what is written. (i.e.: Cain's wife was not an alien or part of another group of people created)

The truth is that we can only assume that they came from Adam and Eve. Scripture does not state one way or another, just that Cain wandered and knew his wife and bore children. Scripture does not say for how long he wandered before he met his wife. The truth is, we have no idea what the truth is concerning the gaps in scripture.

If you want to talk about probabilities, that is one thing. If you want to talk about what scripture states, that is another. To combine the two, trying to build a doctrine, is wrong.

[nebula]

Understand that these people would have married fairly young. For a man to 14-15 and be a father would most likely not have been uncommon.

This is not what Scripture indicates:

Gen. 5

6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh. 7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died. 9 Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan. 10 Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters. 11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died. 12 Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel. 13 Then Kenan lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters. 14 So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died. 15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared. 16 Then Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years after he became the father of Jared, and he had other sons and daughters. 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died. 18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and became the father of Enoch. 19 Then Jared lived eight hundred years after he became the father of Enoch, and he had other sons and daughters. 20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died. 21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah. 22 Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 Enoch walked with God ; and he was not, for God took him. 25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech. 26 Then Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years after he became the father of Lamech, and he had other sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years, and he died. 28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son. 29 Now he called his name Noah, . . . .

No, it doesn't say at which age they married, but they were older than most of us live before they had their first child!

[nebula]

The truth is that we can only assume that they came from Adam and Eve. Scripture does not state one way or another, just that Cain wandered and knew his wife and bore children. Scripture does not say for how long he wandered before he met his wife. The truth is, we have no idea what the truth is concerning the gaps in scripture.

If you want to talk about probabilities, that is one thing. If you want to talk about what scripture states, that is another. To combine the two, trying to build a doctrine, is wrong.

Exactly.

The Lord has a purpose behind what is recorded in Scripture and how it is recorded in Scripture.

Sure, we have lots of scientifically-minded questions we would like answered, but these things were not important in the Lord's eyes for us to need to know.

And I too have no problem with probabilities so long as they are stated as probabilities. (Like I wish science would do more of that, too. )

[Guest LadyC]

it wasn't incest then, axxman. God had not declared it as sinful. you are speculating that God created other humans from the dust of the earth... and that's fine, as long as you recognize that not everyone is going to agree with you, and in fact, the majority do not. for the record, and i'd rather not turn this into a lengthy debate but just leave it as it is, leviticus says that to have relations with a close relative (parent/sibling/aunt) dishonors another person. (to have sex with your father's wife dishonors your father... to have sex with your descendant dishonors yourself... etc). only homosexual sex and beastiality sex are referred to as detestable and/or perverse. so does God "hate" it? scripture doesn't say that. so even scripturally, there's nothing that suggests to me that my supposition (which is in agreement with most theologians) is incorrect.

and in general, that whole 'other civilization' theory is the basis for the whole lilith thing.

You are implying that God tacitly approved of having incestuous relations for the first 1500 years of humanity...because the word hadn't been defined yet? Well, God didn't define murder before the whole Cain and Abel deal went down...and yet it still displeased God and Cain still got in trouble for it. Are we to believe that God tacitly approved of killing up to that point...or that it magically wasn't considered murder until God announced it. No...murder is murder, incest is incest...and God disapproves of both.

The bible also very clearly shows that God was willing to create another human. There is no speculation in that. Adam was flying solo for quite a while before God decided to create Eve. Heck, Adam had named ALL the created creatures by the time the Lord decided that He should create Eve. The bible plainly shows that God in His infinite wisdom would create a human for His purposes. God would no more approve of incest, than He would of murder.

For the record...I don't believe in the "other civilization" theory any more than I believe that God allowed incest. I merely believe that God would not have allowed incest any more than He allowed murder...before it was defined.

i'm not implying that God tacitly approved of anything. i'm telling you that ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, we can not conclude that God created a whole different set of people. it just ain't there. no matter how hard you try to make it so, God doesn't give us any indication that he formed another man from the dirt or another woman from that other man's rib, or in any other way created additional humans.

what we know FROM SCRIPTURE is that God created one man, adam. and that God created one woman, Eve, to be a companion, a helpmeet, and a wife for adam.

we see from the moment abel was murdered that God disapproved, and yet there was no "incest rule" given until hundreds, probably thousands of years later. furthermore, we do not see God saying that incest is a sin against HIM, we see that God says that it brings dishonor to other people. why is that?

by then, the earth was quite populated. there was no need for a man to marry his sister. but society had evolved by that time and girls were given in marriage to men who were not so closely related... but they were pretty much unmarriageable if they weren't virgins at the time. so to have sexual relations with one's brother would have taken the girl out of the marriage market and placed her into deep shame. she would have been dishonored.

if a man were to have sex with his mother, God says it dishonored the father. and of course it would! with all the women out there to choose from and you have to choose the one your father has married? it's like a slap in the face to your daddy. it's totally disrespectful.

nowhere does God say that it is a sin against Him. so in no way can we conclude, without a lot of far-reaching speculation, that God forbade marital relations with siblings from the very beginning, because in the beginning, it would NOT have brought dishonour to the sister... because there were no others that she could have married. it is likely that as the family evolved into more distant relations, cousins and so forth, that marriages among distant relatives became far more common than not... by that time, can you imagine being a man and marrying someone 200 years younger than you instead of marrying a cousin or 2nd cousin closer to your own age? talk about robbing the cradle LOL. marriage among siblings would have devolved naturally in most cases. new families would have had siblings near the same age, but something "new" is far more appealing to most than something "familiar" that you've been squabbling with your entire life.

as for these other people in the land of nod, i can only conclude from what sketchy details are given in scripture that they were children of adam and eve who had journeyed elsewhere. cain himself may not have married a sister, he may have married a cousin or something... but unless some of his siblings had married amongst themselves, there would have been no cousins to marry.

anyway, i'm not offended by your refusal to agree with me. but your position has no biblical foundation, and so all it can ever be is conjecture. indeed, all EITHER of us can do is speculate, based on what IS provided in scripture. i've laid out my case pretty well for why my speculations make sense to me, and in no way do my speculations imply that "God changed His mind". He implemented what He chose according to what became necessary.

one last thing i'd like to mention. the genealogical accounts of families are of critical importance in scripture... why? because they validate (that's not actually the word i'm looking for but it will do) the legitimacy of Christ. the only two women besides mary that God mentions in Jesus' genealogy are rahab and ruth, both outsiders. you can argue that the genealogical accounts of Christ's lineage only go back so far, but really it goes back all the way to adam because the accounts of each family, all the way to noah, to david, to Christ, are all given.

now, because of the importance of that, it would seem awfully amiss if God had failed to mention some other people who married into adam and eve's family, but who were not descended from adam and eve.

[Guest LadyC]

And I too have no problem with probabilities so long as they are stated as probabilities. (Like I wish science would do more of that, too. wink.gif )

amen to that!

and on that note, i'd better start getting ready for work. i'll try to pop back in before i leave.

[Guest shiloh357]

i'm not implying that God tacitly approved of anything. i'm telling you that ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, we can not conclude that God created a whole different set of people.

Yes, that is true. In fact, to say that God created a different set of people creates a whole slew of problems.

[Ovedya]

i'm not implying that God tacitly approved of anything. i'm telling you that ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, we can not conclude that God created a whole different set of people.

Yes, that is true. In fact, to say that God created a different set of people creates a whole slew of problems.

Right. Like maybe those other people were the "children of Cain."

How wonderful it is to be restricted by the Scriptures!

[Guest LadyC]

i'm not implying that God tacitly approved of anything. i'm telling you that ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, we can not conclude that God created a whole different set of people.

Yes, that is true. In fact, to say that God created a different set of people creates a whole slew of problems.

Right. Like maybe those other people were the "children of Cain."

How wonderful it is to be restricted by the Scriptures!

gives all new meaning to the phrase "raising cain" doesn't it?

or maybe it doesn't... LOL maybe i just never 'got it' til now!

[Rick-Parker]

Adam and Eve has kids over a period of 800 years. Those first children may have married the brothers/sisters separated by 50 years. That made cousins. Then later children of Adam and Eve married nieces and nephews. The family tree can get pretty complicated. The most important thing is to remember is that we are ALL related because of Noah and his sons after the flood. We came from one of the three, of which only one carried the seed convenient of God. The other 2 lines became Arabs and gentiles.

[Guest LadyC]

Adam and Eve has kids over a period of 800 years. Those first children may have married the brothers/sisters separated by 50 years. That made cousins. Then later children of Adam and Eve married nieces and nephews. The family tree can get pretty complicated. The most important thing is to remember is that we are ALL related because of Noah and his sons after the flood. We came from one of the three, of which only one carried the seed convenient of God. The other 2 lines became Arabs and gentiles.

i read stats somewhere once when i was studying consanguinity that indicated historically, 80% of all marriages in the history of mankind have been between 1st cousins or closer, and that every person on earth is no more distantly related than 13th cousins. even now, i believe worldwide the stats are 20% of current marriages are between first cousins or closer.