Adam & Eve Mythical - or "where did Cain get his wife"

[Swan]

If one argues that Adam and Eve were real (not mythical) - the first two people, and that they had 2 sons, Cain and Able, making 4 people, and that Cain killed able, reducing the number to 3 - where did Cain get his wife? Even if they had brothers and sisters not metioned in the OT, with only 1 set of original parents, incest would be a given for procreation. Yes? No?

 

[CGDouglas]

If one argues that Adam and Eve were real (not mythical) - the first two people, and that they had 2 sons, Cain and Able, making 4 people, and that Cain killed able, reducing the number to 3 - where did Cain get his wife? Even if they had brothers and sisters not metioned in the OT, with only 1 set of original parents, incest would be a given for procreation. Yes? No?

Incest, quoting from a pro-creationist site…

The Wife

If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to marry sisters or there wouldn’t have been any more generations!

We’re not told when Cain married or many of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that Cain’s wife was either his sister or a close relative.

A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.”

And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch (Genesis 4:17).

The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words ‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam.

And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23).

Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated.

This law forbidding close relatives marrying was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18–20). Provided marriage was one man for one woman for life (based on Genesis 1–2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally (before the time of Moses) when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/who-was-cains-wife

Seems like incest was allowed, then forbidden later.

 

[brockmac]

I tend to agree with CGD’s take. We have to all be descended from Adam or there are serious problems with the doctrine of original sin. Even modern genetic science seems to trace all of humanity back to what they call “mitochondrial Eve.” who is believed to be the mother of all humans. I don’t claim to be a genetics expert, but did read an interesting thing in National Geographic that discussed this particualar theory.

 

[brockmac]

I tend to agree with CGD’s take. We have to all be descended from Adam or there are serious problems with the doctrine of original sin. Even modern genetic science seems to trace all of humanity back to what they call “mitochondrial Eve.” who is believed to be the mother of all humans. I don’t claim to be a genetics expert, but did read an interesting thing in National Geographic that discussed this particualar theory.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, in the beginning incest was required. Remember, the genes were pure.

 

[joeybaggz]

A priest in Bible study made an observation regarding Scripture. His position is that Creation through Noah, Babel in Genesis, is 'pre-history. It is most likely a combination of allegory and legend, whose object lessons point to the truth. Scripture “accurately” begins with Abraham and his covenant with God.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, not necessarily a literal history book. (that isn’t going to make the fundamentalists happy, ) Pre history offers a framework for the ancient understanding of the events of early times. As to literally true, that’s problematic given advances in science, archaeology and the like.

I’m no means a scriture scholar (by a long, long shot), but it is my understanding that Exodus was the first book written by Moses in approx. 1300 B.C. and Genesis came later as questions arose as to the beginning of man and the Chosen People.

 

[buffalo]

A priest in Bible study made an observation regarding Scripture. His position is that Creation through Noah, Babel in Genesis, is 'pre-history. It is most likely a combination of allegory and legend, whose object lessons point to the truth. Scripture “accurately” begins with Abraham and his covenant with God.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, not necessarily a literal history book. (that isn’t going to make the fundamentalists happy, ) Pre history offers a framework for the ancient understanding of the events of early times. As to literally true, that’s problematic given advances in science, archaeology and the like.

I’m no means a scriture scholar (by a long, long shot), but it is my understanding that Exodus was the first book written by Moses in approx. 1300 B.C. and Genesis came later as questions arose as to the beginning of man and the Chosen People.

Toledoths of Genesis

 

[brockmac]

My understanding of Catholic teaching on the first 6 chapters of Genesis is that while it may not be a literal history, there are certain things that must be taken as true. These things include:

That God created everything ex nihlo (out of nothing)

That at some point He infused man with an immortal soul. This was a direct action by God, not the result of an evolutionary process.

That there was a first man and a first woman, and that from this original pair, all of humanity has descended. The chief reason for this is the Church’s understanding of original sin. The effects of original sin are passed on generation to generation. Therefore, we must all be descended from the same original parents.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In marriage, there are two types of blood relations, the direct line and the collateral line.

The direct line refers to parents, grandparents, etc. and to children, grandchildren, etc. Marrying someone in the direct line, such as a parent-child or grandparent-child relationship, is intrinsically evil and always wrong. But such a direct line relationship is not needed in the situation where Adam and Eve procreate the human race.

The collateral line refers to:
first degree - siblings
second degree - first cousins
etc.
Marrying someone in the collateral line is not always wrong, because we are all related to one another at least distantly. In the Catholic faith, marriage is invalid if the man and woman are related in the first or second degree of the collateral line; marriage is invalid in the third or fourth degree of the collateral line, unless they have a dispensation; marriage beyond the fourth degree is permitted.

For the children of Adam and Eve, since the only persons available with which to procreate the species were of the first, and soon after the second, degree of the collateral line, this was permitted by God as a Divine dispensation, even to the first and second degree. After a short time, this would no longer be necessary.

 

[LilyM]

If one argues that Adam and Eve were real (not mythical) - the first two people, and that they had 2 sons, Cain and Able, making 4 people, and that Cain killed able, reducing the number to 3 - where did Cain get his wife? Even if they had brothers and sisters not metioned in the OT, with only 1 set of original parents, incest would be a given for procreation. Yes? No?

a) who says it was only Cain and Abel and that Adam and Eve didn’t have other children as well? Does scripture indicate this? Lots of children, especially daughters, weren’t named explicitly.

b) Yes incest was necessary. Do a google search on something called ‘mitochondrial Eve’. Scientists have speculated for some time that the human race is all descended from one woman, which necessarily means the second generation of homo sapiens committed incest, all being related.

Even if not descended from one single woman, any biologist/geneticist could probably tell you that the first generation of homo sapiens would’ve been so few that they necessarily would’ve all been related and inbreeding incestuously (look at last century’s European royalty, who were basically all descended from Queen Victoria on one side and King Christian XI of Denmark and kept intermarrying, for an example of what I mean).

c) Incest being, either way, absolutely necessary at the dawn of the human race, it was neither sinful nor socially taboo. Nor, according to the Bible, did it become so for quite some time - remember Abraham and Sarah really were half-brother and half-sister, and yet God didn’t frown upon their relationship, although in Leviticus a few hundred years later it became prohibited.

 

[mamelta]

Look up Genesis 5:3-5 and then do some thinking. Adam and Eve had many children. Adam lived 930 years. Let’s say he had an average of 20 kids every 100 years. That’s 180 children. I dought they all lived in the same house, or the same village as they got older. A male descendant at 30 years old probably lived much farther down the road and would not know very well his 20 year old sister whom lives with Adam and Eve. A 350 old male (and this is still young) would not know his 120 year old sister from a different village. So incest would not be discusting or uncomfortable. At that time it was not a sin; it was obedience to God’s commandment in Genesis 1:28. By the way, nobody is a descendant of Cain. Everybody was destroyed in the flood except the lineage of Seth, from his descendant Noah. His wife and his sons wives were most likely not mixed with Cain’s descendants because Cain had to wander far away when God exiled him. Mamelta

 

[OTavern]

My understanding of Catholic teaching on the first 6 chapters of Genesis is that while it may not be a literal history, there are certain things that must be taken as true. These things include:

That at some point He infused man with an immortal soul. This was a direct action by God, not the result of an evolutionary process.

That there was a first man and a first woman, and that from this original pair, all of humanity has descended. The chief reason for this is the Church’s understanding of original sin. The effects of original sin are passed on generation to generation. Therefore, we must all be descended from the same original parents.

What follows is by no means a “theory,” but simply a suggestion made to evoke thought into other possibilities that might have occurred rather than beating a forced retreat to admitting some sort of incestuous relationship between the first humans.

One possibility is the evolution and co-existence of other “humanoid” types of creatures, predating the Genesis story. These beings may have been biologically identical to human beings, with the capacity for but not the actuality of an “infused” immortal soul. Perhaps creating Adam “from dust” was a metaphorical way of saying “evolved over time from earth.”

If evolution was the process God used to create human beings, then Adam and Eve may have been a culmination of a biological process which was at some point in time deemed by God to be “ready” to be spiritually “retrofitted” to accept a human soul. With the “creation” of Adam, perhaps God took that step. From Adam on, his biological descendants - Adam’s progeny – mingled with other, biologically similar, humanoid beings and became infused with a soul through descendancy from Adam, the “rib” story notwithstanding.

These other humanoids, as the populations of “complete” humans grew, were eventually allowed to go extinct or subsumed into true humanity. This does fit with the scientific evidence of the existence of various humanoid creatures, such as Cro-Magnon, on Earth, predating Biblical “history.” It could also explain why Cain went on to found an entire city within less than one generation. A city of a mixed race of humanoid and Adam’s offspring – physically and biologically “identical,” but ontologically not.

 

[adstrinity]

Look up Genesis 5:3-5 and then do some thinking. Adam and Eve had many children. Adam lived 930 years. Let’s say he had an average of 20 kids every 100 years. That’s 180 children. I dought they all lived in the same house, or the same village as they got older. A male descendant at 30 years old probably lived much farther down the road and would not know very well his 20 year old sister whom lives with Adam and Eve. A 350 old male (and this is still young) would not know his 120 year old sister from a different village. So incest would not be discusting or uncomfortable. At that time it was not a sin; it was obedience to God’s commandment in Genesis 1:28. By the way, nobody is a descendant of Cain. Everybody was destroyed in the flood except the lineage of Seth, from his descendant Noah. His wife and his sons wives were most likely not mixed with Cain’s descendants because Cain had to wander far away when God exiled him. Mamelta

…Assuming that the years the person lived was really the ages of the person. I was told by either a priest or a nun (I believe a priest) that the, “ages,” of people in this account of the Old Testament were marks of how great a person they were. The more years one had, the better one was, thus, Methusela was the best man BC. …Don’t know how valid this is as I’m not an O.T. scholar…

 

[Ron_Conte]

One possibility is the evolution and co-existence of other “humanoid” types of creatures, predating the Genesis story. These beings may have been biologically identical to human beings, with the capacity for but not the actuality of an “infused” immortal soul. Perhaps creating Adam “from dust” was a metaphorical way of saying “evolved over time from earth.”

If evolution was the process God used to create human beings, then Adam and Eve may have been a culmination of a biological process which was at some point in time deemed by God to be “ready” to be spiritually “retrofitted” to accept a human soul. With the “creation” of Adam, perhaps God took that step. From Adam on, his biological descendants - Adam’s progeny – mingled with other, biologically similar, humanoid beings and became infused with a soul through descendancy from Adam, the “rib” story notwithstanding.

These other humanoids, as the populations of “complete” humans grew, were eventually allowed to go extinct or subsumed into true humanity. This does fit with the scientific evidence of the existence of various humanoid creatures, such as Cro-Magnon, on Earth, predating Biblical “history.” It could also explain why Cain went on to found an entire city within less than one generation. A city of a mixed race of humanoid and Adam’s offspring – physically and biologically “identical,” but ontologically not.

This idea introduces many more theological problems than it purports to solve.

 

[LilyM]

…Assuming that the years the person lived was really the ages of the person. I was told by either a priest or a nun (I believe a priest) that the, “ages,” of people in this account of the Old Testament were marks of how great a person they were. The more years one had, the better one was, thus, Methusela was the best man BC. …Don’t know how valid this is as I’m not an O.T. scholar…

No way, if anything it’s the opposite - remember Enoch was the one who was good enough to be assumed into heaven? His lifespan is recorded as only half to one-third of the average.

 

[adstrinity]

No way, if anything it’s the opposite - remember Enoch was the one who was good enough to be assumed into heaven? His lifespan is recorded as only half to one-third of the average.

I’m just throwing out there what I have heard. I can give or take it, but, when I heard it, I turned to the other 20-something in the class and said, “And Jesus only lived to be 33, so where does that place Him?” I have no sources other than what I remember.

 

[jcrichton]

If one argues that Adam and Eve were real (not mythical) - the first two people, and that they had 2 sons, Cain and Able, making 4 people, and that Cain killed able, reducing the number to 3 - where did Cain get his wife? Even if they had brothers and sisters not metioned in the OT, with only 1 set of original parents, incest would be a given for procreation. Yes? No?

Hi, Swan!

Here’s how you can view it:

Adam and Eve were only two people; their children, as many as they could have been wee only a few tens or hundreds–interbreeding was necessary for the propagation of the human race…

Today the earth has upwards of billions of human beings–regardless of how similar our gene pools might be we are far enough from other human beings that interbreeding is absolutely unnecessary to maintain the human race.

There came a time, from Yahweh God’s perspective, when there were enough people to continue the human race… it was then that He instructed His people to change their behavior, under penalty of sin.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Linda_Marie]

In answer to ‘where did Cain get his wife’, we have some information from the Pseudopigrapha:

Parts of this version are found in the Jewish Talmud

First Book of Adam and Eve

Most of the info is here in the second book.
Second Book of Adam and Eve

 

[SFH]

If one argues that Adam and Eve were real (not mythical) - the first two people, and that they had 2 sons, Cain and Able, making 4 people, and that Cain killed able, reducing the number to 3 - where did Cain get his wife? Even if they had brothers and sisters not metioned in the OT, with only 1 set of original parents, incest would be a given for procreation. Yes? No?

Ah, you have to keep reading. The Bible says that Adam “begat other sons and daughters” before he died. Cain’s wife would have been one of his sisters.

 

[Sue_Burton]

A priest in Bible study made an observation regarding Scripture. His position is that Creation through Noah, Babel in Genesis, is 'pre-history. It is most likely a combination of allegory and legend, whose object lessons point to the truth. Scripture “accurately” begins with Abraham and his covenant with God.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, not necessarily a literal history book. (that isn’t going to make the fundamentalists happy, ) Pre history offers a framework for the ancient understanding of the events of early times. As to literally true, that’s problematic given advances in science, archaeology and the like.

I’m no means a scriture scholar (by a long, long shot), but it is my understanding that Exodus was the first book written by Moses in approx. 1300 B.C. and Genesis came later as questions arose as to the beginning of man and the Chosen People.

The Bible is the inspired word of God and was never meant to be a history book. However where Jesus says people existed and were I think we are called to believe as we are called to believe in the Gospels. Lord Jesus mentions Adam, and Noah and Jonah whom He called a great profit. Many Christians refute the flood happened yet Jesus makes reference to it.

It is believed that Moses wrote the first five books. However that is not to say that there were no writings from which he could draw from that existed before this time. It seems to me that a lot of Scripture has been taken former writings. For instance, the Book of Kings makes many references drawing us to look in the Book of Chronicles. The Book of Daniel seems to go from the third person to the first person, as if someone has taken the first person writings and written around it. One of the books of Moses does the same thing.

We also have to watch out for dates given by scholars as new findings show different things. Ie the Jesus Papyrus ( a part of Matthew) which dates to AD49. Scholars also made so much noise that David did not exist and then years later find proof he did exist.

Overall it is the spiritual teaching we are given in Scripture. But I truly believe that God arranges historical events to teach spiritual lessons.

God Bless
Sue