[_ Old Earth _] How did Cain Find a Wife?

[John]

How did Cain Find a Wife?
The following is the paraphrased essence of one of the most critical junctures in the most famous trial of the twentieth century. The scene is the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, and defense attorney Clarence Darrow had goaded prosecuting attorney Williams Jennings Bryan to take the stand in defense of the Bible.
Mr. Bryan,“Where did Cain find a wife?â€Â
“I don’t know.â€Â
“Could you repeat your answer Mr. Bryan? The entire nation is listening via radio broadcast and this is a pretty basic and simple question. Let me rephrase it. If, as the Bible claims, Adam and Eve were the first man and women, and no other people existed, who did their son Cain find to marry?â€Â
“I don’t know.â€Â
Darrow made Bryan appear foolish because he did not know scripture well enough to defend the most basic of questions. This trial marked a turning point in American education because, for the first time, the Bible was openly ridiculed. Bryan’s inability to answer simple and logical questions was one factor that allowed the American educational establishment to accept evolution hook, line, and sinker, while rejecting the historical creation account of the Bible.
Even today, most Christians do not know the answer to questions as basic as “Where did Cain find a wife?†The problem with not having reasonable answers to logical questions is that it brings all Christianity into question. Why should people believe in a God that they cannot see; if believers in God cannot answer life’s questions about our origin?
The reason that the answer to this question is not immediately apparent is that we have been trained to think like evolutionists. Evolution was founded on a principle of modern geology called ‘uniformitarianism.’ This is the belief that small changes over vast periods of time caused the massive geological changes (Darwin added biological changes.) In essence, we are trained to believe that every thing has always operated as we see it today. This is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches that mankind was created perfect, without flaws. It was only after man’s disobedience that imperfection entered God’s creation. Thus mankind, as originally created, would not have had the myriad of genetic mistakes now present in our DNA. Mutations do not lead to better and improved humans. These mistakes cause hundreds of debilitating illnesses and birth defects. The reason all of us are not born with enormous numbers of medical problems is because our genes are a combination of the characteristics of both our parents. Only when both parents have the same DNA mistake, do their children manifest the resulting genetic problem.
Furthermore, these genetic mistakes accumulate and increase with time. In other words, the information in our DNA gets more garbled, it never increases in clarity. Since mistakes are accumulating in our DNA, it is logical to assume that as we go back in time, there would be fewer mistakes. The reason brothers and sisters cannot marry today is because they are likely to have similar DNA errors which only lead to children with birth defects. However, there were no moral laws against children intermarrying until after the time of Moses. This was approximately 4000 years ago and at least 2000 years after the creation of mankind. Before that time, sibling marriage was quite common. The Bible states that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Cain merely married his sister.
The reason we don’t realize this obvious answer is because we have been trained to believe things have always been the way they are today. The past and the present become far more understandable when we view it from a Biblical perspective. This viewpoint acknowledges that the past was very different from the present.

 

[BobRyan]

We know for example that Abraham married his half sister and that Isaac Maried his cousin so also did Jacob.

It is reasonable to conclude that Adam and Eve had no genetic deffects to pass on to their children.

Why this simple observation escaped Bryant at the time it beyond me. But the FACT that under cross-examination and without recourse to stop and thing -- bogus answers can be obtained, is demonstrated by the fact that AS SOON as it was time for the prosecution to cross examine DARROW's team -- Darrow immediately changed plea to GUILTY and stopped the trial.

It is also "instructive" that Darrow used a pig's tooth calling it "Nebraska man" to prop up his "stories" against the Bible account AS IF there was actual SCIENCE some place "discovering the Bible to be wrong".

Bob

 

[Orion]

So, it's okay with God at ONE point in history, but then an abomination in another point in history? Nice "rationalization" there.

This reads SOOOOOO much into the story that simply isn't there. You have to invent "daughters that Adam and Eve had that they didn't record" and this "pure genetic code", while "rationalizing" some sort of condition where incest was okay with God "because it was the only choice". Fact is, . . . .it WASN'T the only choice and it is just Christian Dogma that refuses to see it.

 

[lordkalvan]

I would be most interested in the biblical reference that supports the idea that Cain's wife was, in fact, his sister.

I would also be interested in hearing why arguments about the inevitably of deleterious genetic effects brought about by intermarriage between siblings (and thus now requiring action to prevent such marriages) do not apply to livestock breeding, where favorable traits are actively pursued by mating father with daughter, mother with son, and sister with brother.

And I would be just as interested in understanding why species in which no interbreeding restrictions apply at all seem to have survived and bred successfully for so many tens of thousands of generations if the tendency is towards increasingly deleterious mutations.

 

[Paidion]

The reason brothers and sisters cannot marry today is because they are likely to have similar DNA errors which only lead to children with birth defects.

The reason for the present laws against marriage of siblings must go beyond that. For the law also forbids marriage between a person and a sibling who has been adopted and who has no biological relationship to that person.

This sounds like a heavy topic, but I am going to bring a bit of levity into the discussion by relating a true story.

Years ago, I worked with a man in a chocolate distribution centre, a man who had previously been a street gang member, but had joined a Christian group. One day at work, he said to me, "Last night I met some of my old gang members, and do you know what they said to me, Paidion? They said, "So Bill Anson, you got religion, eh? Well, tell me one thing, where did Cain get his wife?"

"Now, Paidion, how was I supposed to answer a question like that? Well, I says to him, 'How should I know where Cain got his wife? Maybe she fell out of the clear, blue sky, for all I know. Anyway, I'm not concerned about where Cain got his wife. I'm concerned about where I'm going to get my wife.' "

 

[Deep Thought]

It amuses me how Creationists have to assert that all the rules of the Universe and humans were different in the OT, as it is the only way they can support the literal claims in the Bible. I think a lot of Christians would be horrified at the suggestion that God sanctioned incest.

 

[freeway]

Man there is so much that can be said on this topic.. just from the few post already here,, but just 2 for now.. where did Cain get his wife.... she didn't land in a space ship.. she was a off spring from Adam and Eve.. all of us are off spring of Adam and Eve.. anyway it doesn't say how old Cain was when he met her, he could have 800 years old or 100 but he did meet her and had children.. another question along this line.. Cain was also afraid someone would find him and kill him...who? 8-)

 

[lordkalvan]

Man there is so much that can be said on this topic.. just from the few post already here,, but just 2 for now.. where did Cain get his wife.... she didn't land in a space ship.. she was a off spring from Adam and Eve.. all of us are off spring of Adam and Eve.. anyway it doesn't say how old Cain was when he met her, he could have 800 years old or 100 but he did meet her and had children.. another question along this line.. Cain was also afraid someone would find him and kill him...who? 8-)

Insofar as all this is assertion unsupported by evidence and driven apparently solely by the need to establish the Bible as a literal and inerrant account of the history of creation and early mankind, you may as well claim that God created more than one set of humans. You have just as much biblical evidence for this as you or anyone else has for identifying the origins of the wives of Abel, Cain or Seth as the daughters of Adam and Eve - the Bible is entirely silent on the subject.

 

[lordkalvan]

.......The Bible states that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Cain merely married his sister.....

The Bible provides no obvious evidence for this statement. Indeed, to a reader unswayed by the need to find justification for a particular interpretation of the Bible, the sequence of events suggested by Genesis quite clearly indicates that Seth was born after Abel's murder and Cain's exile to the Land of Nod. It is also unequivocally implied that the birth of Adam's daughters was subsequent to the birth of Seth:

5:3 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:
5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

One feels justified in asking which of Adam's daughters would have been similarly exiled to the Land of Nod and why? Bryan's 'I don't know' seems a far more honest and sensible answer than that suggested here. That Bryan would have proposed an incestuous marriage during the Scopes' 'Trial' in order to defend creationism beggars belief.

 

[freeway]

Man there is so much that can be said on this topic.. just from the few post already here,, but just 2 for now.. where did Cain get his wife.... she didn't land in a space ship.. she was a off spring from Adam and Eve.. all of us are off spring of Adam and Eve.. anyway it doesn't say how old Cain was when he met her, he could have 800 years old or 100 but he did meet her and had children.. another question along this line.. Cain was also afraid someone would find him and kill him...who? 8-)

Insofar as all this is assertion unsupported by evidence and driven apparently solely by the need to establish the Bible as a literal and inerrant account of the history of creation and early mankind, you may as well claim that God created more than one set of humans. You have just as much biblical evidence for this as you or anyone else has for identifying the origins of the wives of Abel, Cain or Seth as the daughters of Adam and Eve - the Bible is entirely silent on the subject.

You know I could just say... oh well.. but I was once a non christian.. a good atheist.. I heard all this stuff about the bible before and could and did argue with the best of them... but once I became a christian.."praise Jesus" things of this nature I began to view in a different light.. faith is what we hold on too.. just as you have faith there is no God.. as far as the bible is just an bad attempt of history lesson.... sorry prove it wrong if thats how you feel... bet you can't... 8-) 8-)

 

[lordkalvan]

You know I could just say... oh well.. but I was once a non christian.. a good atheist.. I heard all this stuff about the bible before and could and did argue with the best of them... but once I became a christian.."praise Jesus" things of this nature I began to view in a different light.. faith is what we hold on too.. just as you have faith there is no God.. as far as the bible is just an bad attempt of history lesson.... sorry prove it wrong if thats how you feel... bet you can't... 8-) 8-)

If you want to establish the Bible on an equal footing with science, it is incumbent upon you to defend your position. I can point to parts of the Old Testament that fly in the face of science and that contain clear errors of fact and contradictions. Hardly convincing as the inerrant word of God rather than the imperfect understanding of pre-scientfic human beings. 'God did it' and 'faith trumps all' are not arguments for putting creationist dogma in the classroom and laboratory.

You also have no grounds for your accusation that I 'have faith there is no God', unless you believe that anyone who does not follow the same narrow interpretation of Christianity that you do is a priori an atheist.

 

[KenEOTE]

I am guessing, and this is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps he put out a personal ad on a cave wall or on the bark of some tree. I have no evidence of this. I can however rule out craigslist, and e-harmony. We know for a fact that those were not around. I did some carbon dating of both sites and they are definitely not old enough to fit into the time period we are talking about. After the test they came in at under 1000 years of age with a + or - of 2000 years which still is not old enough.

 

[freeway]

You know I could just say... oh well.. but I was once a non christian.. a good atheist.. I heard all this stuff about the bible before and could and did argue with the best of them... but once I became a christian.."praise Jesus" things of this nature I began to view in a different light.. faith is what we hold on too.. just as you have faith there is no God.. as far as the bible is just an bad attempt of history lesson.... sorry prove it wrong if thats how you feel... bet you can't... 8-) 8-)

If you want to establish the Bible on an equal footing with science, it is incumbent upon you to defend your position. I can point to parts of the Old Testament that fly in the face of science and that contain clear errors of fact and contradictions. Hardly convincing as the inerrant word of God rather than the imperfect understanding of pre-scientfic human beings. 'God did it' and 'faith trumps all' are not arguments for putting creationist dogma in the classroom and laboratory.
"
You also have no grounds for your accusation that I 'have faith there is no God', unless you believe that anyone who does not follow the same narrow interpretation of Christianity that you do is a priori an atheist.

"establish the bible equal to science books"..... atheist, evolutionist scientist is trying its hardest to prove the bible wrong.. well news flash they have been trying since it made the book stands :wink: which one do you align yourself with. I'll guest both.. 8-) oh and I really like how atheist always say the burden of proof is on the Christian... again Christian site, Christian views, prove away.. point out all those errors in the bible........................I don't have the problem you do.....

"You also have no grounds for your accusation that I 'have faith there is no God' well lets look at the proof on this.... ok, you say the bible is wrong.. no proof for its evidence, faith sound like something first graders rely on...creationist dogma in classroom, my narrow Christian view. should I go on but you exhibited yourself clearly... atheist..agnostic, evolutionist this group I will guess you belong in.. agnostic you know what happen to fence riders, well they usually fall on the wrong side.

"follow the same narrow interpretation of Christianity" here again is proof against you believing in God, Jesus and the bible, all go together.. sorry if that upsets you. as far as my narrow thinking.. Just this.. Jesus said " I am the way, the truth and the life.. NO ONE comes to the Father but by Me" the NO ONE means NO ONE.. ever born or ever will be born, any other religion that teaches eternal life by ANY other means other than Jesus is a lie... plain and simple for me.. Who do you worship, because we all worship something or someone.... and any other than Jesus.. you fail.......................big time 8-)

and back to topic.... you answer, where did Cain's wife come from?... and who are these people Cain is afraid will find him?....think

 

[freeway]

I am guessing, and this is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps he put out a personal ad on a cave wall or on the bark of some tree. I have no evidence of this. I can however rule out craigslist, and e-harmony. We know for a fact that those were not around. I did some carbon dating of both sites and they are definitely not old enough to fit into the time period we are talking about. After the test they came in at under 1000 years of age with a + or - of 2000 years which still is not old enough.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D oh if I may add one... blind date maybe :wink: she could'nt see the mark on his forehead... :wink:

 

[KenEOTE]

Or she did see the mark and was into bad boys.

 

[Orion]

Insofar as all this is assertion unsupported by evidence and driven apparently solely by the need to establish the Bible as a literal and inerrant account of the history of creation and early mankind, you may as well claim that God created more than one set of humans. You have just as much biblical evidence for this as you or anyone else has for identifying the origins of the wives of Abel, Cain or Seth as the daughters of Adam and Eve - the Bible is entirely silent on the subject.

And this assertion can be made, even biblically.

Since I am free of biblical dogma and the need for a perfect "inerrant" scripture, I have no problems resolving the "who did Cain marry" connundrum.

 

[KenEOTE]

More important was it a happy marriage. That is really all that matters.

 

[lordkalvan]

"establish the bible equal to science books"

I didn't say that, sorry; please read more carefully. There are good, bad and indifferent science books.

.... atheist, evolutionist scientist is trying its hardest to prove the bible wrong.. well news flash they have been trying since it made the book stands...

As far as I am aware very few scientists are trying to 'prove' the Bible wrong. Not all scientists are engaged in the study of evolution. Not all scientists are atheists. Not all scientists who study evolution are atheists.

which one do you align yourself with. I'll guest both..

Are you concluding I am an atheist evolutionist? Is this solely on the grounds that I question a literal, inerrant Old Testament? The difference between us, I suspect, is that I regard the Bible as humanity's imperfect attempt to come to terms with divine revelation. The Old Testament is part of that attempt, but it contains much more than the litera;l word of God. I have said this before and I will say it again, if God exists God gave us intelligence and the ability to reason for a purpose. Part of that purpose must be to understand God's creation as best we can. If the evidence we uncover in pursuit of that understanding demonstrates that parts of the Old Testament do not withstand scrutiny then this shows clearly that the understanding of a pre-scientific people was faulty and that stories were told and morals illustrated in terms that made sense to them at the time.

oh and I really like how atheist always say the burden of proof is on the Christian

Again, if you want to place the Bible on an equal footing with scientific understanding, YOU have to provide support for that argument.

... again Christian site, Christian views, prove away.. point out all those errors in the bible........................I don't have the problem you do.....

Biblical errors?

Light was created before the stars and the sun, day and night before the sun, stars and moon (Genesis 1). I would call this an error.

The moon is identified as a lesser light to rule the night (Genesis 1). The moon is not a light; it shines by reflected sunlight. I would call this an error.

God creates cattle and fowl (Genesis 1), but Genesis fails to mention other animals far more striking to humans such as dinosaurs and mammoths. I would call this an error of omission, but admittedly not an error as such, just rather remarkable.

Adam and his descendants for many generations live for hundreds and hundreds of years (several books of the Old Testament). No evidence uncovered by palaeopathology indicates lifespans approaching anything like this in ancient humanity. The weight of evidence therefore suggests this is an error.

'There were giants in the earth in those days' (Genesis 6). Metaphorical giants or real giants? If real, evidence has yet to show these giants existed. Again the weight of evidence suggests this is an error.

How much more would you like me to go on?

"You also have no grounds for your accusation that I 'have faith there is no God' well lets look at the proof on this.... ok, you say the bible is wrong.. no proof for its evidence, faith sound like something first graders rely on...creationist dogma in classroom, my narrow Christian view. should I go on but you exhibited yourself clearly... atheist..agnostic, evolutionist this group I will guess you belong in.. agnostic you know what happen to fence riders, well they usually fall on the wrong side.

So the answer to my question is yes, you do think that anyone who doesn't agree with the interpretation of Christianity that you favour is an atheist.

"follow the same narrow interpretation of Christianity" here again is proof against you believing in God, Jesus and the bible, all go together.. sorry if that upsets you. as far as my narrow thinking.. Just this.. Jesus said " I am the way, the truth and the life.. NO ONE comes to the Father but by Me" the NO ONE means NO ONE.. ever born or ever will be born, any other religion that teaches eternal life by ANY other means other than Jesus is a lie... plain and simple for me.. Who do you worship, because we all worship something or someone.... and any other than Jesus.. you fail.......................big time

Again you answer my question in the affirmative; anyone who disagrees with your view of what constitutes Christianity is apparently an atheist - or perhaps even something worse.

Do you think Roman Catholics are servants of the antichrist?

Do you consider the Orthodox Church an atheistic establishment?

How do you feel about Methodism?

Where do you draw the line between 'true' Christians and atheists?

...and back to topic.... you answer, where did Cain's wife come from?... and who are these people Cain is afraid will find him?....think

As it is my opinion that Genesis is at best religious allegory and at worst a politico-religious fiction designed to serve a particular purpose of MEN, then I do not believe that Cain, Cain's wife or the people Cain was afraid of ever existed in the way described in Genesis and so there is no meaningful answer I can give to your question. Cain, Cain's wife and the people Cain was afraid of existed as reality only in the imaginations of whoever came up with the story, those who repeated it and those who, eventually, wrote it down.

 

[freeway]

Quotes from lordkalvan:
I didn't say that, sorry; please read more carefully. There are good, bad and indifferent science books
the only word you left out was books, but where do we learn and get our information from.. books, so in turn you did said that.... sorry..

As far as I am aware very few scientists are trying to 'prove' the Bible wrong..
are you kidding me... wow.. that is the agenda, to prove evolution so as to disprove God.....Yes, not every scientist, but alot, how many..... who knows, but look at our schools ... evolution as fact..the perfect starting place..

Are you concluding I am an atheist evolutionist? Is this solely on the grounds that I question a literal, inerrant Old Testament?
thank you.. you answered your own question...that was easy

Again, if you want to place the Bible on an equal footing with scientific understanding, YOU have to provide support for that argument.
on equal footing.... again you answered your own question... but yes science has only proven the bible right again and again...does that upset you?

you think that anyone who doesn't agree with the interpretation of Christianity that you favour is an atheist.
Well let me say this again.. read carefully this time.... Jesus said " I am the way, the truth and the life.. NO ONE comes to the Father but by Me" the NO ONE means NO ONE.. ever born or ever will be born, any other religion that teaches eternal life by ANY other means other than Jesus is a lie.

Where do you draw the line between 'true' Christians and atheists?
believers in Jesus the Christ, not some super cool jesus dude that says everything in life is ok as long as it makes you feel good... and as far as atheist.. they don't believe in Jesus.. and their fate is hell... like it or not,, thats my belief..

Ok now that I've answered your questions.. answer mine... what do you believe or don't...

and as far as the errors theres non that you listed and will answer those...soon... but it dinner time.. I need my strength

 

[freeway]

Biblical errors? by....lordkalvan

"Light was created before the stars and the sun, day and night before the sun, stars and moon (Genesis 1). I would call this an error." why because God has done something that you can't understand.. thats really atheist of you.. but there has been much debate among even christians as to what and why this is in this order, first, I can not say I have the answer, but I do have a view, agreed on by some and some not.. the light is the beginning of time as we know it, and the Glory of God was upon and in the universe. the Glory of God moved upon the face of the earth..day 1 God started His creation and called light day and dark night...When you set out to build something do you not have a plan.... His creation His plan His words..

"The moon is identified as a lesser light to rule the night (Genesis 1). The moon is not a light; it shines by reflected sunlight. I would call this an error." yea.. I really don't see the problem here.. when you go out on a moonlit night with your girlfriend or wife.. do you say man look at the moon being use as reflective source to bounce light from a sun that is shinning on the other side of the world.. or just say wow what a beautiful moonlit night... did you ever drive your car by moonlight only.. on and on I could go... but you won't get the point.. and the moon does rule the night a lesser light.. and the sun for day...

"God creates cattle and fowl (Genesis 1), but Genesis fails to mention other animals far more striking to humans such as dinosaurs and mammoths. I would call this an error of omission, but admittedly not an error as such, just rather remarkable." He also created little sea horse's and red and yellow flowers, ants, flies, horses, cougars, lions, tigers, dinosaurs.. all that are not pointed out in the creation steps... so

"Adam and his descendants for many generations live for hundreds and hundreds of years (several books of the Old Testament). No evidence uncovered by palaeopathology indicates lifespans approaching anything like this in ancient humanity. The weight of evidence therefore suggests this is an error" this coming from someone who I bet puts their faith in evolution, The only proof I have that they lived that long is the bible... but in the same token, you can't disprove it... can you prove to me that under the clouds of Jupiter there is rivers right now and if there is what color is the water. someday we may know for sure on both questions..

'"There were giants in the earth in those days' (Genesis 6). Metaphorical giants or real giants? If real, evidence has yet to show these giants existed. Again the weight of evidence suggests this is an error." This one is a little different because there are cases of giant human remains found, now you can wish not to believe it or whatever.. as for me yes Goliath was said to be the last of his kind.. a giant
http://www.s8int.com/giants1.html lots of stuff on this site do I believe it all no.. but it has pictures of giant remains. just to show you that you can find things that make you think....

"How much more would you like me to go on?"well honestly.. no more because this has all been gone over by Christians that know a lot more than me..but if you feel the need go ahead... God has done many many things that we will never know..

let me ask you a question.. why do they find human artifacts in 300 million year old coal?? should I go on...