Who Was Cain's Wife in the Biblical Narrative?

[Saint]

10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."
13 Cain said to the LORD , "My punishment is more than I can bear.
14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [5] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [6] east of Eden.

Why he is afraid to meet people who may kill him? There were only Adam+Eve+Abel(died)+Cain, why he worried to meet people? Where came the people ?
And, Cain married who?

 

[Saint]

you guess what mark did God put on him ?

Can you see that Cain was not punished for the murder he did, didn't he is supposed to die for his crime?

 

[Laser Eyes]

Where came the people ?
And, Cain married who?

Cain married his sister:

"After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters." - Genesis 5:4

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Cain married his sister:

nice of him to do that...

Really off topic since you answered the question.
I'm married and I don't have a sister but theoretically speaking could I do that in a church. Would the reverend approve? What if I would marry my brother?

 

[Saint]

the major question is, just after the murder, there were only 3 persons in the world, why he worried meeting people who may kill him ?

 

[Laser Eyes]

I'm married and I don't have a sister but theoretically speaking could I do that in a church. Would the reverend approve? What if I would marry my brother?

Of course you can't marry your brother or sister (whatever sex you might be). Different rules applied to Cain.

the major question is, just after the murder, there were only 3 persons in the world, why he worried meeting people who may kill him ?

Cain knew that his parents would have other children and the world would become populated.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Saint
the major question is, just after the murder, there were only 3 persons in the world, why he worried meeting people who may kill him ?

Let me go ahead and rephrase...the Bible is a lie, ok? If you try to make a lie match reality, it won't work.

 

[Laser Eyes]

the Bible is a lie, ok?

I assume you can prove this?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Of course you can't marry your brother or sister (whatever sex you might be). Different rules applied to Cain.

Cain knew that his parents would have other children and the world would become populated.

I assume you can prove this?

 

[Laser Eyes]

As a matter of fact I can prove it. It's an established medical fact that the offspring of a marriage between siblings has a much higher risk of genetic deformity. So man's own laws (quite apart from God's law) prohibits this. As for Cain knowing that his parents would have more children are you trying to tell me that you are not aware that more people will be born in the future from the existing population on earth? I know it, you know it, and Cain knew it.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Cain married his sister:

"After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters." - Genesis 5:4

However, nowhere in Genesis 4 does it mention that Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel. Only after Seth is born does it mention other sons and daughters - and chronologically speaking, Cain had already lay with his wife before Seth was born. Also, he'd been banished to the land of Nod when he 'married'. How did an(unmentioned) sister get there? Did she go with him? It doesn't say so. Was she also banished to Nod as well, or was she already there!? How did she get there? This is another one of those many inconsistancies that fundamentalists and literalists say do not exist in the Bible.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Tsunami, the Bible is not written in chronological order. Just because it mentions that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters after it talks about Cain lying with his wife does not mean that Adam's daughters were born after Cain had a wife. There is no presumption of chronological order in the Bible. The statement in Genesis 5:4 that Adam had sons and daughters implies nothing about when they were born, it may have happened before something mentioned earlier in the Bible.

Looking at it from a different angle if Cain's wife was not one of Adam and Eve's daughters then who was she? There is only one logical explanation and that is that Cain's wife was his sister.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Tsunami, the Bible is not written in chronological order. Just because it mentions that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters after it talks about Cain lying with his wife does not mean that Adam's daughters were born after Cain had a wife. There is no presumption of chronological order in the Bible. The statement in Genesis 5:4 that Adam had sons and daughters implies nothing about when they were born, it may have happened before something mentioned earlier in the Bible.

Looking at it from a different angle if Cain's wife was not one of Adam and Eve's daughters then who was she? There is only one logical explanation and that is that Cain's wife was his sister.

Actually, Lasar Eyes, I fully agree with all you have said here, but you must admit, for the average bible reader (one who does not undertake the study of the bible as a great portion of their lives), it is quite ambiguous. The chronology that the writer has used leaves many, MANY questions to be asked. Especially for those just starting out in their quest for 'the truth'. I've been reading many of your posts as well as those from kat, AG, DW and others - you guys really know your stuff! Not all of us know the bible as you do, so there are many grey areas for us. This used to be one of mine and I was just playing 'devils advocate'for Saint to get someone to give an answer that was more concise and reasonable, and I'm not good enough at that yet to be of any help. (Do you feel 'used' now? I tried to be gentle...!) The atheists among us only help to confuse the issues for someone really trying to understand what is being said in the bible. I have many literalist friends who claim that there are NO inconsistancies in the bible, but I do not find this to be true for me.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Actually, Lasar Eyes, I fully agree with all you have said here, but you must admit, for the average bible reader (one who does not undertake the study of the bible as a great portion of their lives), it is quite ambiguous. The chronology that the writer has used leaves many, MANY questions to be asked. Especially for those just starting out in their quest for 'the truth'. I've been reading many of your posts as well as those from kat, AG, DW and others - you guys really know your stuff! Not all of us know the bible as you do, so there are many grey areas for us. This used to be one of mine and I was just playing 'devils advocate'for Saint to get someone to give an answer that was more concise and reasonable, and I'm not good enough at that yet to be of any help. (Do you feel 'used' now? I tried to be gentle...!) The atheists among us only help to confuse the issues for someone really trying to understand what is being said in the bible. I have many literalist friends who claim that there are NO inconsistancies in the bible, but I do not find this to be true for me.

Yes the Bible can sometimes be difficult to understand. When Philip heard an Ethiopian eunuch reading from the book of Isaiah on the road to Gaza he ran alongside the man's chariot and asked him: "Do you understand what you are reading?" The man responded: "How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:26-39) God intended that at least some things in the Bible would not be easily understood. There may be more than one reason for this. Perhaps some piece of Bible wisdom was reserved only for those who were prepared to search the Scriptures and undertake a deep study of them. Perhaps some prophecy was not meant to be revealed until a certain time. In Daniel 12:9 God says to Daniel: "Go your way Daniel for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end."

If you have any questions Tsunami post them here. I will do my best to answer them. Go ahead and play devil's advocate, I don't mind. I do it all the time. I find it's a good way to test out ideas.

There are many apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. But I have never found one that doesn't have a reasonable explanation.

 

[Saint]

Tsunami, the Bible is not written in chronological order

So, you meant the bible author preferred to write chronologically disordered?
God prefers chronological disordered?

I can only see this as Mental Disorder of bible authors.

 

[Beren]

Originally posted by Saint
So, you meant the bible author preferred to write chronologically disordered?
God prefers chronological disordered?

I can only see this as Mental Disorder of bible authors.

Or, more realistically, because it was written by multiple writers over multiple generations, all of which added elements as they went along to pump up the story.

 

[Saint]

many apologetics stress the importance of being biblical in interpreting bible;
the common defence about Cain's wife is Adam had had daughters born before the birth of Seth, so Cain could get his wife.

This is just an assumption, and non-biblical, because it is not written vividly in bible.

One more thing, who could know Cain had killed Abel unless his parents told it? Did Cain refer to his parents who might revenge for Abel?

Anyhow, the whole story does not make sense in many ways.
Probability of fallacy is high!

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
It's an established medical fact that the offspring of a marriage between siblings has a much higher risk of genetic deformity. So man's own laws (quite apart from God's law) prohibits this.

So genetics didn't work very well then. Let's see for a minute... First Adam with his set of genes (lets call that G0). Then comes Eve with the same set of genes (since she was made from the rib). Now they had sons and daughters. If I understand correctly the genes of the offsprings are a combination of their parent's genes. In this case the parent's genes comes entirely from the G0 set (both Adam and Eve had it).
Could you explain the different skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, blood groups of the actual human population, as coming from one set of genes?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
So genetics didn't work very well then. Let's see for a minute... First Adam with his set of genes (lets call that G0). Then comes Eve with the same set of genes (since she was made from the rib). Now they had sons and daughters. If I understand correctly the genes of the offsprings are a combination of their parent's genes. In this case the parent's genes comes entirely from the G0 set (both Adam and Eve had it).
Could you explain the different skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, blood groups of the actual human population, as coming from one set of genes?

Mutations? And what about a man's sperm? Is the information encoded in each sperm exactly the same as in the next sperm? Or else how do you account for the differences in siblings between the same parents?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Mutations? And what about a man's sperm? Is the information encoded in each sperm exactly the same as in the next sperm? Or else how do you account for the differences in siblings between the same parents?

Maybe you noticed that I said: "the genes of the offsprings are a combination of their parent's genes", I didn't say "the same combination"! It goes like this: one offspring - one combination, another offspring - another combination... but of the same genes.

ok, I'll go for that... Why don't we observe similar mutations today? Never heard of a white pair giving birth to a black child. Do you know such a case?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
Maybe you noticed that I said: "the genes of the offsprings are a combination of their parent's genes", I didn't say "the same combination"! It goes like this: one offspring - one combination, another offspring - another combination... but of the same genes.

Well then we're lucky we've got the same genes of the same species, Right? So at what point does the "deviation" occur?

ok, I'll go for that... Why don't we observe similar mutations today? Never heard of a white pair giving birth to a black child. Do you know such a case?

Look at all the manner of dogs that we've been able to breed from its original ancestor, the wolf. I would suggest were speaking of a time frame of 5,000 to 10,000 years here, which would give the human race ample time to "adapt" -- i.e., "evolutionary wise."

Have you seen my Spiritual Timeline thread yet? It might give you an idea about the 10,000 year time frame I'm talking about here. While it's funny how it's all based upon the number 23 -- which, is the number of chromosomes that each parent contributes to their offspring. Hmm ... Very strange.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I assume you can prove this?

Yeah...it has talking and magic tricks...it is fiction.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
As a matter of fact I can prove it. It's an established medical fact that the offspring of a marriage between siblings has a much higher risk of genetic deformity. So man's own laws (quite apart from God's law) prohibits this. As for Cain knowing that his parents would have more children are you trying to tell me that you are not aware that more people will be born in the future from the existing population on earth? I know it, you know it, and Cain knew it.

That's illogical...but then again, it IS fiction...how would Cain know anything? He had no basis of comparison to know anything about the future.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well then we're lucky we've got the same genes of the same species, Right?

I'm afraid you lost me here. What exactly do you mean[?]

Look at all the manner of dogs that we've been able to breed from its original ancestor, the wolf. I would suggest were speaking of a time frame of 5,000 to 10,000 years here, which would give the human race ample time to "adapt" -- i.e., "evolutionary wise."

yes, the keyword is "we've been able to breed". See humans made different breeds of dogs for specific purposes.
Can you show that human races were made by God in a similar way? If so what is the spefcific purpose for each race?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Beren
all of which added elements as they went along to pump up the story.

Nice supposition, not really supportable though.

 

[Zero]

You've got to read this stuff as fable, not history. If you try to be literal about it, you miss the point.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
You've got to read this stuff as fable, not history. If you try to be literal about it, you miss the point.

No, you've got to read it keeping in mind the exegetical methods of the period, including typology, you also must keep it in the correct frame of social and historical context. Whether you consider it fable or history, if you do not use appropriate textual criticisms you will most certainly miss the intended "point" of the story teller.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
No, you've got to read it keeping in mind the exegetical methods of the period, including typology, you also must keep it in the correct frame of social and historical context. Whether you consider it fable or history, if you do not use appropriate textual criticisms you will most certainly miss the intended "point" of the story teller.

Same difference...reading it as literal history is a mistake. Talking snakes, rampant incest, magical powers, rather incoherent story...myths can be powerful, and useful in understanding a culture, but that doesn't make them literally true.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by kat
No, you've got to read it keeping in mind the exegetical methods of the period, including typology, you also must keep it in the correct frame of social and historical context. Whether you consider it fable or history, if you do not use appropriate textual criticisms you will most certainly miss the intended "point" of the story teller.

Bravo, kat. You are such a breath of fresh (and highly educated) air in these threads. Keep up the great work!

 

[radagast]

Say what you want, I still think she was a mail order bride.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Same difference...reading it as literal history is a mistake. Talking snakes, rampant incest, magical powers, rather incoherent story...myths can be powerful, and useful in understanding a culture, but that doesn't make them literally true.

Not literally true? Perhaps. And yet far more valuable in the "intrinsic sense."

 

[Saint]

Some apologists do defend very well with Reasons for the inconsistencies of bible,
most of the time, you are asked to be humble in order to understand GOD's infallible WORDs.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Saint
Some apologists do defend very well with Reasons for the inconsistencies of bible,
most of the time, you are asked to be humble in order to understand GOD's infallible WORDs.

It's not the words I find fallible, but the phrases.