jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (134 posts)

Cain"s Wife

  1. Dave Mathews profile image60
    Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago

    We all know according to scripture the creation of Adam and Eve.

    We all know that Eve gives birth to Cain and Abel according to scripture.

    We all know that Cain kills Abel according to scripture.

    We are told according to scripture that when Cain is banished by God, Cain leaves taking with him his wife.

    Where does the wife come from since Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel are the only four living recorded inhabitants at this time?

    We are also told that after 100 years Eve gives birth to her third child a son.

    1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
      AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm more inclined to believe that the Adam/Eve story was representative not quite as literal as we understand it to be.

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you.

    2. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The bible is a bunch of allegories, it isn't meant to be taken literally.

      1. yolanda yvette profile image61
        yolanda yvetteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The Bible is indeed meant to be taken literally.  "...It is written , Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."  Matt. 4:4 KJV

        1. profile image61
          WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Amen!, Yolanda.

          1. yolanda yvette profile image61
            yolanda yvetteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              smile

            1. Paul Wingert profile image79
              Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The Bible is meant to be taken literally?LOL Okay. So the next time I see my neighbor mowing his lawn on Sunday, I'll be sure to stone him to death.

              1. profile image0
                practicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                First of all, you've got the wrong day. The Sabbath is Saturday.

                Secondly, you're applying a law that only pertains to a theocracy (a nation where God is the only king and lawgiver).

                So, yes, you can take the Bible literally, but it must be according to the meaning God intended when He inspired it, not according to your own understanding.

        2. Disappearinghead profile image87
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So you know for a fact that God only speaks literally then? Does God never speak figuratively or in an allegorical sense? Guess you've missed the point of parables then.

          1. emmaspeaks profile image90
            emmaspeaksposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I love how believers can so easily claim to know the mind of god, yet get all bent out of shape if a non-believer gives their input.

            1. lone77star profile image90
              lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Good point, @Emmaspeaks. It's called ego.

              Even most of the religious have it. And that's exactly what Jesus was sent to help us escape. But ego is a tough nut to crack. I've only seen a glimmer of light outside of it, and all kinds of miracles happened. Still working on it.

          2. yolanda yvette profile image61
            yolanda yvetteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Draw whatever conclusion you'd like, I stand by my preceding comment.

        3. DoubleScorpion profile image87
          DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So you believe in an actual creature like the 7 headed Dragon with ten horns.

          1. profile image0
            practicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            In prophecy, symbols are used. This is plainly stated, for example in many places in the book of Daniel.

            Jesus did not treat the story of Adam and Eve as a prophecy or allegory. I'm going with His interpretation.

            1. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Humans have been on the earth for millions of years. Perhaps this is where Cain found his wife, among other types of humans i.e. homo erectus.

        4. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, @yolanda, but the Bible was deliberately written not to be taken literally. You have to dig for truth. That takes humility.

          You're blinding yourself by taking it literally. You think you know it all, but you don't. And I don't either. Let's study the Bible like our lives depend upon it. For it does. The way is narrow and I don't think you or I are on that narrow path, yet.

          I've performed miracles and I'm still not close.

          Look up Genesis 2 and 3. God tells Adam that he will surely die on the day he eats of the tree of knowledge. Does he literally, physically die on that day?... Nope! Snap out of it. Please!

          Be humble and approach the Bible as a beggar. You don't know even half of it. And I dare say that probably goes for everyone on this planet.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I can agree with your last sentence but it's pretty self righteous, even though you attempt to humble yourself, to determine Yolanda's understanding of the Bible. Perhaps she is to the point where she can take it literally. Perhaps she sees beyond what you see. Perhaps...

        5. profile image61
          na cairridireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          pointing at the moon isn't the moon.

      2. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but no it isn't. I won't change your mind, but that's ok.

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If it is meant to be taken literally I doubt anyone is doing so, right down to the commands about when to stone people and to never where garments with more than one kind of fiber.

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            God enjoys purity, hence one type of fiber. To mix other fibres together yields, a blended religion - metaphorically and causes one to sweat. The type of material God expected allowed for air circulation, it breathed.

      3. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you.

      4. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Great point, @janesix, but I think you're a little over the top on the implication that it was "all" allegories. I wouldn't doubt that there is some literal and historical stuff in there, especially during the later parts.

        Adam and Eve did not literally, physically die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit, even though God said they would die. But looking at it non-literally, we see that they died spiritually.

        In fact, I suspect that the Garden was really and only a spiritual place. Non-physical! I've even heard some Jewish scholars call it the Garden of Heaven.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          IMO, spirit cannot die.

    3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Look up the story of Lilith.  It gives one explanation.  Coincidentally, she is who my daughter was named after.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Adam's first wife. He should of stuck with her. Lilith was the type not of been gulable enough to be fooled by a talking snake.

      2. ElderYoungMan profile image78
        ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Lilith is not human.  She was never formed of the clay.  She is a DEMON, cursed for her rebellion.  FYI

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You mean the dust, right?

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It depends which version you believe.  If she was the first wife of Adam (as per Midrash) she was made the same what that Adam was.

            1. ElderYoungMan profile image78
              ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No argument there.  She was a female image, perfectly equal to Adam, but she rebelled, like satan.  I wrote a piece specifically on how "Lilith" influences the population today.

          2. ElderYoungMan profile image78
            ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm thinking more Daniel than Genesis on the clay.  Check the feet.

    4. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Intermarriage, the law against it ws not posed until the time of Moses.

      "none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him" (Leviticus 18:6).

      Before then, this makes sense as to how the world was populated.  smile

      1. Dave Mathews profile image60
        Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ediggity: Intermarriage, where did this come from? Shake your head and smell the coffee before you jump in with stuff like this.

        We have Adam. We have Eve. We have Cain. We have Abel. Cain kills Abel. So then we are left with Adam and Eve and Cain. God expells Cain and Cain leaves and does so with His wife.

        There is no mention of time passage. There is no mention of God creating other people.

        We are told that when Eve is 100 years old, she gives birth to her third son Seth, but there is no mention of daughters being born to her.

        Adam Eve and Cain are the only three people until Ged expels Cain.

        1. Millercl profile image88
          Millerclposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think it is reasonable to assume time has passed, since time passes...

          I don't think it is safe to assume God created other people, but I would say it is reasonable, considering the long life spans of these people, that several generations could have come about in this time. Abel and Cain are not mentioned as the first born children of Adam and Even, though they are the first recorded.

          1. Dave Mathews profile image60
            Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Since there are none other children mentioned prior to Abel and Cain in the Bible, though time passes and nothing more is recorded it is not safe to assume anything.

            1. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Humans have been on earth for millions of years, but not as homo sapeins. Perhaps these were the 'others'.

        2. ediggity profile image60
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

          5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.


          This doesn't say when he had more sons and daughters, only that he did.  He could have had sons and daughters before the birth of Seth.   In fact, the verse before tells us that it took him 830 years after a lot of trial and error to finally get a boy just like him:

          3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:  smile

          1. Dave Mathews profile image60
            Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What this says I believe is that SETH begat sons and daughters. The bible gives no mention of Adam having children with Eve in the hundred years before SETH, who came 100 years after Cain is expelled.

            1. profile image0
              practicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Eve was the "mother of all living". If Cain had a wife, and she was a "living" human, then she came from Eve.

              Not all the children of all the patriarchs are mentioned..only enough to mark out the line of the faithful, and the descendants of Cain. The rest is written in heaven, in the great library there, and we can all read it when/if we get there.

    5. profile image61
      WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Genesis; 15 But the LORD said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain 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,[f] east of Eden.

      17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

      It does not say he took his wife with him. And it does not say how long he had been gone before his wife came about. You can assume these were a matter of days or months... but I would think it would have been a course of years, decaddes, involved in the story line at this point.

      Also it does not say thet Seth was the third son of Adam... it says...

      25 Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth,[h] saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.

      You could assume that it was their third son... but that is not stated anywhere. Also the story of Cain and his wife and off-spring, set between the verses, alots for a time of years if not more, to have gone by.

      So to assume things not said in the Bible is not the way to fill in the story. God gives us the details we need to know and no extra side stories.

    6. Millercl profile image88
      Millerclposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      See if this makes sense:

      If we assume Adam and Eve were real, I might as well assume everything else written about them is true also. So that means Adam lived to be 930 and I will assume Eve lived a comparable time.

      Within that time frame, I think it would be safe to assume there were a lot of people born. If Adam and Eve had a kid every ten years, they would've had say 90 kids?

      Then if their kids had kids the number of people begin to grow exponentially.
      -----

      You know, it sounds silly, but these were men and women who were created before the curse and directly by the hand of God. It would be anachronistic to assume Adam and Eve looked like we look today, aged like we age today and even have the exact body structures.

      1. Millercl profile image88
        Millerclposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I see I didn't finish my point.

        I think it is also safe to assume that either Cain and Abel were not the first two children, or if they were, they could have lived long enough for a girl to have aged enough to have been a wife.

    7. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The assumption that Adam and his family were the first and only humans is based on interpretations that are centuries old. Only in the past few decades have we really figured out how it all came together. Re-reading with this modern understanding reveals Genesis never actually says they're the first and only ones. The description in Genesis 1 of God creating humans actually matches the development of homo sapiens over the course of tens of thousands of years. We only assume Gen 1 and 2 are both talking about Adam. But the Cain story both says he has a  wife and also eludes to 'others' that Cain fears will harm him. Gen 6 actually talks about sons of God having children with daughters of men, and then goes on to explain that humans are mortal and only live 120 years. If read that way, it all makes much more sense and actually matches up well historically.

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I apprciate your post.

    8. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Cain's wife was a big hairy monkey lady.smile

      1. profile image0
        practicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ha! lol
        Darwinian slip!

    9. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Bible is obviously a myth as there are many such contradictions contained within.

      Glad to see you're actually starting to question it, Dave. Good on ya. smile

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see the contradiction.  Cain could have married his sister, his niece, or any of their descendents.  The bible does not say that they were the ONLY two offspring of Adam and Eve, nor does it indicate just when Cain married. 

        Given that the compilers of the bible had it in for women in general, it seems quite likely that Cain and Able had sisters that are not reported.  Both, not just Abel, probably married their sister.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Excellent point. Sick and twisted, but excellent, nonetheless. smile

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, I don't know about that either.  The moral restrictions on family marriages came about from the observed results of such marriages.  While our ancestors did not know the "why" of the abnormalities of inbreeding they certainly knew it would happen.

            Until evolution changed the perfect genetic structure that God created (in his image, remember) there would be no problems with inbreeding of brother and sister and thus no moral restrictions, either.

            1. wilmiers77 profile image59
              wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Inbreeding was the natural thing during the cave men duration. What changed inbreeding was inherited diseases, and this was more during the beginning of modern man. It would have been quite natural for Cain to marry his sister.

              1. Dave Mathews profile image60
                Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wilmiers: what you state would make total sense if the Bible stated the birth of any daughters to Adam and Eve following the birth of Abel and Cain, but this information is lacking.

                1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                  couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So you agree with the fact that there were other humans about? Where did his wife come from?

              2. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "Cain get out! you murdered your brother in cold blood. The only and first murder ever! Get out now!!"
                "Okay mom but can i take one of my sisters to marry?"
                "Sure go ahead"

                I don't think adam or eve is going to allow cain to marry their daughter.
                I think Cain kidnapping a daughter is out of the scenario too.

                What do you think?

                1. profile image0
                  practicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You assume that there were no Cain-like sisters in the bunch?

                  1. profile image0
                    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You seem to downplay murder or the love of a parent. Cain is seen as nothing less than psychopathic. What he did was horrendous by any standard.
                    Abel was the good one, he, i assume was favored by all. He was very meek and of good judgment. This scenario is kinda like when John Lennon got shot... how many people do you think wanted to marry Mark Chapman?

              3. Dave Mathews profile image60
                Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                wilmiers: Since the Bible records that after the death of Abel, only Cain, Adam and Eve remain where and when did the inbreeding take place and with whom?

                1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                  couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Where did Cain's wife come from?

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Duh! the land of Nod. It doesn't really explain much does it?

      2. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        SAD to see you are not questioning those supposed contradictions which of course are not contradictions but I am sure you know that by now.

        Wanna give me your favorite to explain to you?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The contradictions in the Bible have already been critiqued by many others, there are also numerous posts and threads here on the subject. The only answers provided by believers are always based on magic.



          More magical explanations?

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But no contradictions ever hold up.
            Just give me the one and stop hidin up in that tree.

            and you are wrong many answers are NOT based on magic.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not in the face of religious fantasies, nothing ever hold up to magic.



              True, many of yours are based on pure hatred.

              1. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Pure hatred
                lol

                I don't blame you. I don't want to make you more adamant in your belief that you are right and people are stupid.

                It's to bad you won't step up to the plate.. you have so much to say

                I commend you for being so nice to people smile

    10. wilmiers77 profile image59
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am inclined to believe that men only created recorded history.

    11. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Adam and Eve were the first human being with whom the Creator God has a converse.

      Human beings evolved in millions of years live at that times in tribes and they belonged to them; marriage was not a problem.

    12. ElderYoungMan profile image78
      ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Both Cain and Abel were twins.  Each had a sister.  Cain's sister was named Luluwa, which means beautiful.  Adam and Eve planned to have Abel marry Luluwa, but Cain was deceived by Satan to believe that his parents intended to give Abel the more beautiful of the two sisters.  This is a part of the hatred that Cain had for his just brother Abel.  After killing Abel, he took his sister and went down to the valley and they had many children.  Abel's sister was married to Seth.  Source-The first and second books of Adam and Eve.  You can google it or go to amazon kindle and download it for free.  Elder.

      1. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        psuedopigrapha
        Not viable for doctrine.
        Sorry

        1. ElderYoungMan profile image78
          ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          As determined by whom?  These books exist in the oldest bible canon on the earth, the Ethiopian.  It's a nice word though....but it doesn't mean anything except that a certain group of people didn't want it read.

          1. profile image0
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            its crap and obviously so.
            And they are not oldest - 2nd to 5th century.
            They cover the destruction of the temple in ad 70 so obviously written after that.

            the reason they didn't want them read is because they are crap.
            They read like a fairy tale, which, they are.

            1. ElderYoungMan profile image78
              ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Have you read them?  Or are you just talking?  The short version is that the canon of the bible was modified by the roman empire, various protestant denominations..all of whom had a specific political agenda.  There is more to be told by what is not in the current canon than what is there.  ;-)

              1. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I have read them and i am surprised that anybody gives them any credence.

                There is nothing wrong with the canon. As i have stated many times, the canon chose itself. The letters that circulated throughout the Early Church are included in the bible. The OT was never in question. The NT has letters from apostles, the E.C. did not question who wrote what. Political agenda does not affect the bibles canon. Indeed the catholic church had apocrypha, probably earlier than that the pseudepigrapha were considered. Clearly written by an unknown source as the name defines, and certainly not apostolic they could not be included.
                There is no problem with the canon of the bible.

    13. Sagittarius 2012 profile image61
      Sagittarius 2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Genesis 1:26 talks about creation of the first people on earth, over hundred thousand years ago. 
      Genesis 2:4 about creation of next generation of people, around 6000 years ago, and placing them in the Garden of Eden.

      So, Cain had a plenty of choices, just not of the best stock wink



      Genesis 1
      The Beginning


         26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
      27 So God created mankind in his own image,
         in the image of God he created them;
         male and female he created them.
      28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

      Genesis 2

      Adam and Eve
      4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
      5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, exactly!! Because we've been told for so long that the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 are different depictions of the same event, it's hard for many to see past that.

        But if you look at Genesis simply as literature, and strip away every pre-conceived idea you've ever been told, you find that there's no reason to think these events were the same. As people often point out, they don't even match.

        Only in the last century or so would anyone have any reason to think otherwise when reading Genesis. Now we actually do have reason and find that reading the rest of Genesis in this context actually makes a lot more sense.

        Genesis 4 is talking about Adam and Eve's first children, yet Cain clearly speaks of his concern of others harming him. A concern legitimized by God when He placed a mark on Cain to protect him. If the only other people in existence were other unnamed members of Cain's family, why would God need to mark him? They already know who he is.

        Genesis 6 also makes much more sense. The first few verses talk about the 'sons of God' having children with the 'daughters of humans'. It even goes on to explain that humans are mortal and only live 120 years, just one chapter after showing that Adam and his descendents lived for centuries.

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Genesis 1 is an overview of creation events.
          Genesis 2 gets into more detail
          Genesis 3 concerns itself with humans.

          The events between Gen 1 and Gen 2 may seem not the same but overviews are generally less specific than non-overviews. There is no trickery or insight needed to just respect that Gen 1 is more general in its account that Gen 2 but that both refer to the creation of everything.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But reading it the way you do does not match the way we now understand it happened. Genesis 2 is very specific. It actually describes the area and lists names of rivers. We know it occurred in Mesopotamia. Early humans originate in the Great Rift Valley in Eastern Africa.

            And Genesis 1 is a great deal more than simply an overview. The direct commands given to the humans created in Genesis 1 match exactly what early humans did from the first appearance of bipedal hominids through homo habilis and erectus through neanderthals and homo sapiens. They took on the 'image' and 'likeness' of modern humans, they were fruitful and multiplied, they subdued the earth, and they established their dominance in the animal kingdom. By the time the events of Genesis 2 were to have taken place, the planet was already populated by early humans who were already atop the food chain by roughly 10,000 BC.

            To simply dismiss it all as a general overview misses a lot of really interesting stuff.

  2. Disappearinghead profile image87
    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago

    I don't think Adam and Eve were two literal beings, but representatives of men and women at the time. Therefore Cain married one of the many other women within the social group.

    1. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you.

    2. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How is a murderer going to marry anyone.
      He murdered.
      A nice tranquil community, living a very peaceful life and all of a sudden wham! Cain murders his brother - his good brother, probably the brother that everyone liked.
      This is atrocity at a paramount level, not something that the bad girl in the third row is groovin on.

      Now recall they were already out of the garden, so if the other members dispersed, some north, south, east and west then seeing as they were not able to google cains action it may seem reasonable that the other tribes a distance away, somewhere else might not have heard about the killing and Cain by fleeing to another land was able to hide his actions.
      But either way i am far removed from Cain taking bad girl sally with him from mom and dad.

  3. brittanytodd profile image92
    brittanytoddposted 5 years ago

    In the original Hebrew version of the bible, Cain does not kill Abel. If you want to answer the other questions you posed, you can study the book in its original language.

    1. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Please quote it with the translation.

      1. brittanytodd profile image92
        brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        וַ יֹאמֶ ר קַ יִ ן אֶ ל הֶ בֶ ל ָחִ יו וַ יְ הִ י בִ הְ יוֹתָ ם בַ שָ דֶ ה וַ יָקָ ם קַ יִ ן אֶ
        הֶ בֶ ל ָחִ יו וַ יַהַ רְ גֵה

        The above passage is often translated as so:
        and “Qayin [Acquired]” said to
        “Hevel [Empty]” his brother, let us
        go out into the field, and it came to
        pass in their existing in the field
        and “Qayin [Acquired]” rose to
        “Hevel [Empty]” his brother and he
        killed him...

        However, the word for "kill" was added in later translations to teach a lesson about jealousy to readers when the book was translated into Greek.    It actually means, "he left him."  I cannot find a supporting link online, but philosopher and Hebrew scholar, Georgio Agamben, discusses this in his writings.  I would also suggest reading Baddiou.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image87
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What about God's alledged statement that Abel's blood was crying out to Him from the ground?

          1. brittanytodd profile image92
            brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Abel did die, but we do not know how he died.  For more info, I suggest you read Agamben.  He has a historical knowledge of language and explains it much better than me.  If you read a good translation of the Tanakh into English (NOT those translated centuries ago), you will learn a lot about what words were added to the Bible each time it was translated.

          2. profile image68
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for your response.

            One whom the incident was revealed and in which language?

            Any idea as to when the Greek translation was rendered.

            1. brittanytodd profile image92
              brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hmmm...some sources say around 354-430 AD.  They say Ptolemy II Philadelphus hired around 75 Jewish scholars to translate the Tanakh and Talmud into Greek. 

              Here's a timeline of the translations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

              1. brittanytodd profile image92
                brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I want to add that having 75 different translators can really get things mixed up.  Imagine writing a book with that many people.  Some words will not agree.  Greeks were very concerned with the language promoting epic stories much like that of their own myths and legends.

                Similarly, King James added parts to the text that completely changed the meaning--particularly the passages on hell (which had not been mentioned in the Bible prior to his translation).  I love studying the sections that were lost or altered in translation.

                1. profile image0
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  if the king james added parts to the text, this other world of different versions we have today seem only to vary in different words not whole paragraphs since original text was used by them also.

                  the other versions of translated bibles do not RE-write the King James, they change occasional words but certainly the king james - a word for word literal translation has not been RE-written at all. It is still quite viable.
                  75 different translators did not work on the whole bible, they were given segments to work on, 6 or 7 to a section, whatever. This was done to speed up the progress. In this fashion 75 or 200 would not get things mixed up - in fact the bible flows very much soberly along and with consistency over all its pages and this is not an indication of being mixed up it more alludes toward a conclusion of accuracy.

    2. Kyle Payne profile image60
      Kyle Payneposted 5 years ago

      Just curious, but where in the Bible does it say that Cain took with him his wife? I am not aware of that passage, and I have done extensive study in the book of Genesis.

      1. emmaspeaks profile image90
        emmaspeaksposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It doesn't. It says that he left FIRST and then met his wife. I guess "interpretation" can lend itself to lies as well.

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          leaving first and then taking/knowing a wife (in the land of Nod) is perfectly acceptable.

      2. Dave Mathews profile image60
        Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Take a look at GENESIS: 4: 17; I quote: "And Cain knew his wife;"

    3. profile image0
      Sunnie Dayposted 5 years ago

      "The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.” I found this...really interesting..He married his sister or neice..as they were the only human beings on earth.Genesis 5:4
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … cains-wife

      1. 50 Caliber profile image60
        50 Caliberposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        PLUS 1 BUMP BUMP BUMP,
        THEN Noah and his crew repeated what was necessary in the eye of Yahweh who with total control of results made all things possible.

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          7 families with wives from other families. Totally fine.

    4. Perspycacious profile image77
      Perspycaciousposted 5 years ago

      Look how far back our interest in genealogy goes!  I knew I came from one of those folks, but just settled on Adam and Eve, while not knowing when to celebrate their birthdays!  They did what they did, as was their responsibility.  We must do what we must do, for that is ours.

    5. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

      Did you happen to notice that when LORD God created Adam, he created them male and female, and called THEIR name Adam. There were male Adams AND female Adams. I call this "The Tribe of Adam."

      1. Millercl profile image88
        Millerclposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        wuh??

      2. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So adam and eve respectively were the leaders of the garden population
        therefore when they were all expelled from the garden, some went north, some south and others east and west and cain, wandering, found himself a wife.

      3. Bible Studies profile image81
        Bible Studiesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, no tribe of Adam. The first time creation of Adam and Eve is mentioned is during the entire creation time line. Which is what you allude to: he created them male and female.

        After the time line is done, the writer goes back and focuses in on the creation of Adam and Eve, since their creation was so important. These are the first two human beings created. Then the details of how Adam and Eve were created are given. This isn't done with anything else that was created.

        If God created multiple humans, it would have said so in the Bible. If there were a tribe of Adams, then only Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden. Only they ate of the tree, and no one else did. Therefore you would still run into the basic question being asked, where did Cain's wife come from.

        I believe that Adam and Eve had multiple children. Only Cain, Able, and Seth were focused in on, because those three played important roles. Just as the creation of Adam and Eve were focused on, and not the rest of creation.

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not necessarily. Leaders are always mentioned in the bible.. moses, joshua.. but the list of people under them is quite vague. Occasionally for an historic note we get the names of 'players' in the game. But there is no rule that states the members of the garden need be mentioned.
          Often information comes to us from incidental mentionings, like this one, and Cain knew his wife, begs to be answered.
          and this one:
          Genesis 10:25   And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
          this is when the flood happened.

          1. lone77star profile image90
            lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Very good point, @Brother. And Israel? That was Jacob's God-given name. And now the whole tribe became known by that same name.

            1. profile image0
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              kudos smile

        2. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          @Bible Study. Ah, but the Bible does say so, if not directly. Read Genesis 5:2. Here it says that Adam (all of humanity) was both male and female. Adam here is a "them," not a "him."

          In fact, because of the truths found by science (which does a very good job of studying the products of God's creation), the Genesis timeline is far too short. The already outrageous ages of those early patriarchs are far too short. And there is a code in Genesis for solving this little enigma. The Methuselah tribe lived many tens of thousands of years before the Flood.

    6. profile image0
      Muldaniaposted 5 years ago

      To me, it suggests that the writers of Genesis were writing about the history of their own tribe, and not of mankind in general.  The fact that Cain could leave for a foreign land, where he was to find a wife, would suggest that she was not of the tribe of Adam.  Just as the story of the flood is not possible on a worldwide scale, but is a memory of a terrible localised flooding.  The fact that other tribes within a short distance had completely different recorded histories, and that peoples all over the world do not share the same stories, as they should do, if mankind shared the same ancestors of Adam and Eve, suggests again that the story of one small tribe has over the centuries been adopted by much of the world.

      1. hawkdad73 profile image72
        hawkdad73posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Or the flood was borrowed from other myths (one of the most commonly borrowed myth between all religions).  Many stories and/or themes in the bible borrow from other religions before it.

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Since this common theme appears in all religions then it would be logical to assume there was a flood.
          It would be illogical to assume the bible borrowed this theme because God is that one that caused the flood and His book gives a much more detailed and believable account, indeed it goes into great detail, far more than other accounts.
          So what might be acceptable is to think other nations experienced this flood, which is have purported did not cover the whole world but was localized and being as those other religions were not the number one players in the flood scenario, as was Moses, they have the sloppier, a second hand account if you will of telling a tale that God specifically enlightened us about in His book, the bible.
          Gilgamesh boat does not float for example.

      2. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I appreciate your post.

    7. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago

      So you believe in an actual creature like the 7 headed Dragon with ten horns.
        ????????????????

      ====

         The 7 headed Dragon with ten horns was an object of a prophetic vision; not words from the Lords mouth.

        In previous visions which were interpreted by Gabriel; as the Lord directed him to do, the head of the goat represented a kingdom (Greece) and the great horn coming out of its head represented the first great king (Alexander the Great)
         In like fashion, the seven heads could represent seven distinct areas of land (like small kingdoms?) which had their own leader (Horn) which was under the authority of the beast itself. This beast had seven heads and ten horns.

         Ten Horns ? how can this be?

         When Constantine established the church; for the purpose of establishing a governmental type of chain of command, the Empire was divided into seven districts each having their own religious leader (Pope/horn).
         These seven districts were then divided into three regions, each region being given another Pope who had authority over all churches in his region.

         Thus ....  the beast had seven heads (territories or smaller kingdoms)
      And ten kings (Popes) 
      Just over 50 years pass before this religion is officially proclaimed by the Emperor to be THE Official religion of the Roman Empire.

         And this beast persecuted all who would not worship it.  This beast according to Revelation is given 43 prophetic months in which it will blaspheme the Lord.
      How long is a Prophetic month ?  And how can we reach a determination?

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, God only wrote the ten commandments. Everything leading up to that are stories passed down by word of mouth as history within the twelve tribes. Abraham, Noah, Adam, and Eve, who were of the tribe of Adam. Eve came out of Adam.

        1. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And when a child would say "What part of Adam was Eve? The stock answer became "Rib"

        2. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think that the generations of Adam were just that, ...  like a family tree today.  I wonder if there were other family trees being built other that the tribe of Adam?

            It is hard to not add our own words to the scripture,to assume things which were not even emplied.

      2. profile image0
        practicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Which translation are you using?

        The standard one that most Bibles have is 42 months. This time period is repeated seven times in the Bible in a few different forms.

        1260 days,

        "time, times and dividing of time" (3 1/2 years), or

        42 months (3 1/2 years, assuming 12-month years).

        In most time prophecies, a day is equal to a year.

        It represents the time of the rule of the Catholic church-state power, or papal Rome. From 538AD, when the last of the "3 horns" were uprooted (the three pagan nations of Europe that were Arian), to 1798AD, when Napoleon's general took the Pope captive and banished him to an island.

        So the prophecy was fulfilled, "he that leads into captivity, must go into captivity."

    8. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 5 years ago

      It seems there is quite a diverse view on this.
      But, aside of all the differences, did God then, make ONE man (Adam) and then "separate" Eve from him (IE. rib),
      OR did He make multiple human beings simultaneously? It would surely have to be one, or the other.

      As much as I understand the allegory argument, it still comes down to this, Here we are! We all trace our origins back to A starting point, and person.

      To support this, I also recall that they (A & E) disobeyed God, by partaking of the fruit. This also does not fit the multiple human scenario. What, did all humanity in existence disobey on masse? Hardly.

      As was pointed out by several posters, inbreeding or incest was not a concern.
      We cannot apply todays principles to them.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He made one man with free will. The humans created in Genesis 1 were the homo sapiens. They did everything they were told to do. They populated and subdued the earth, and they established themselves as the dominant species. They obeyed to the letter, thus they did not have wills of their own.

        With Adam it was different. He wasn't told what to do. He was only told what not to do. And neither Adam nor Eve disobeyed until they found out what they could gain from doing so. So they made a self-serving choice to have what they wanted, in spite of God's will.

        This I think is why there are still tribes to this day in remote parts of the world that continue to live just as early humans did. The dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia seven thousand years ago was the result of the introduction of free will into the world. Genesis 6 says the 'sons of God' (Adam's family) had children with the 'daughters of humans'.

        After a flood through the Mesopotamian valley wiped out all but one family of these humans with free will (except Anak's descendants (Gen6/Num13)), a few generations later they were dispersed in all directions into an already populated world from Babel. Each of them carrying their own language, knowledge of building and agriculture, and a really compelling flood story.

        The spread of civilization throughout the millennia is the spread of descendants of Adam and Eve.

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry to say, but this is a mish-mash of ideas I have not heard before.

          I suggest you elaborate, or write a hub on it, to clarify.

          What you wrote opens a horde of  questions in my mind.
          I'm happy to pursue this further, if you wish to elaborate. smile

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I have. The only hub I've written so far covers this. I've done much more on the topic over on my site, but what's in the hub is a good introduction.

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, guess I could have provided a link ... http://headlyvonnoggin.hubpages.com/hub … Really-Say

            When I first joined HubPages I was so anxious to get started I just posted an article I had already published on my site. I quickly found out that's frowned upon. My Hubscore tanked as a result, so this article has been buried in Hub-scurity.

            1. profile image0
              SusieQ42posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I believe that  Adam and Eves children married one another.  They populated the world this way.

              1. profile image0
                Muldaniaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                This might explain why there are so many diseases, if we are all the product of incest.

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I understand that's what the majority of the faithful believe, and from a spiritual or moral guidance perspective there's no harm one way or the other. I also think that was the original intent. But just like the fruit enticed Eve, these 'daughters of men' that the 'sons of God' found beautiful in Gen 6 enticed them to take what they wanted. This is explained in the same verses that serve as God's reason for the flood.

                All humanity coming from Adam and Eve conflicts with our scientific understanding. Science is the study of God's creation and I believe should not be discounted or ignored. To borrow from St. Augustine, God reveals His nature to us through the book of scripture and the book of nature. If at any time the two seem to conflict, it's human interpretation that's flawed.

                1. profile image0
                  practicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  ...err...human interpretation of Scripture or human interpretation of nature...?

      2. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        communities are only as strong as their leader. We notice this in countries and their leadership, corporations and their CEO's etc.
        Once the big kahuna fell, the rest were destined to follow suit.

    9. profile image0
      The Writers Dogposted 5 years ago

      Cain's wife? How many is the Senator up to now? lol
      Oh, sorry... that's MC Cain lol

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol !

    10. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

      Is it your contention that we all ended up here based on incest? Dangerous thinking. Vice is nice, but incest is best!? Even a dog can't be inbred, it destroys the breed. Read up on German Shepherds.

    11. profile image0
      Ronnie1066posted 5 years ago

      For one thing, we can't apply modern standards to ancient writings. Ancient writers were not quite as precise as we are today. For instance, if an ancient writer says that there was 5000 people at a particular place and another says there were 5500 or 6000, by ancient standards it was close enough. Also, ancient narratives were not always in srict linear progression, i.e. it wasn't always A then B then C. Sometimes a writer would introduce an event and then go into more detail about it later on. Some ancient writers would compress their narrative, leaving out details that we might consider important. (Keep in mind that the pre-flood accounts only cover the first five books of Genesis.)

      Also, the Bible does not say that Cain met his wife in the land of Nod. It says that he left and settled in the land of Nod and then it says that "Cain knew his wife" ("knew" being a ancient euphemism for "had sex with")

      Furthermore, according to my uncle, you can inbreed cattle for several generations before any defects start cropping up. If we assume that Adam and Eve were created prefect, then it would be so many generations before birth defects would show, at which point God forbade incest.

      It may help to remember that while the Bible is God-inspired, it was still man that actually put pen to paper. These writers wrote these things in the context of their culture and their own experiences and not taking into account cultures and standards thousands of years later.

    12. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 5 years ago

      @Dave, glad I found your forum, here. You certainly stirred up a controversy. Great question.

      So much in the Bible was meant to be taken "non-literally." We were meant to be humble, so you can feel assured that a great deal of wisdom was hidden in the Bible in order to elicit that prized humility.

      1) God created man in His own image and likeness.
      2) Later, God creates man from the dust of the ground.

      Is God dust? No! I don't think His image or likeness is, either. Could it be that man was created twice? Could it be that "man" is immortal spirit (image of God) wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh (dust)? Dust could merely be a code word for physical matter--chemistry!

      Look at Genesis 6:3. It says that man is "also" flesh. Implication? That man is something else, first and foremost -- immortal spirit.

      Why would God be interested in Homo sapiens? I don't think He is. He's interested in the sleeping passenger within. After all, when a bird has children they look like the parent. When Adam had Seth in his own image and likeness, Seth looked like his father. And so we look like our Father in heaven.

      Genesis 5:2 describes Adam (a word in Hebrew that can be taken as an individual man or as all of humanity) as both male and female. It says, "male and female created he them." So, Adam is a "them," not a "him."

      So, how many were in the Adam tribe? Thousands? Millions? It doesn't say.

      So Cain's wife likely was not his sister or even a close cousin.

      1. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Adam was lonely, so how did Adam know he was lonely? He had animals galore to play with. He was busy with a garden which takes a lot of work even if there are no weeds, lol.
        I think God made eve from Adam symbolizes that she was his. I think the other members of the garden were paired, similarly. This is how Adam knew he was alone.
        Sometimes leaders do their best job, leading, without a mate. It took much persuasion to get God to create a female for Adam. God did not do it quickly - go name the animals first.
        When they were expelled from the garden a pair or two may well have journeyed to Nod.

        Now i wouldn't go to the grave saying this is completely accurate but its good to exercise our discernment muscles. Its neither a salvation dependent question and nor does it affect how we love the Lord. Its an interesting tid bit that spices things up. Nothing wrong with that.
        But to me, this sums up the question nicely. Removes the incest problem. And explains the other people in Nod and how cain built a city.. translation: protected fort.

    13. Hypersapien profile image42
      Hypersapienposted 5 years ago

      According to some legends, Cain and Abel were each born with a twin sister.  The plan was for each brother to marry the other's twin.  Supposedly Cain's twin sister - who was slated to marry Abel - was the more beautiful of the two women, which was another reason for him to hate his brother.

    14. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

      Adam and Eve had other children. Says so. I think the confusion begins earlier, when LORD God created Adam. Created Man Male and Female and called their name Adam. I believe that Adam was a tribe or dynasty, and that the story of the rib is better understood as Eve came out of Adam. (That phrase is also in the book. Eve was of the tribe of Adam. How many tribal members were there? Unknown, but at least there isn't rampant incest, which we KNOW would have weakened the species and led to extinction. Instead of smarter, we would have gotten dumber...then again! Hmmm.smile

     
    working