Cain marrying his sister?

Vance · #1 8th September 2003, 03:11 PM

Here are the gymnastics you have to engage in order to reach that conclusion that Cain married his sister. Now, I am not saying this could *not* be the case, but simply to point out that such a conclusion is NOT based on a plain and simple reading of the text.

1. the evidence from the text is very strong that Seth was the third born child. Look at 4:25. Just after it tells of Cain’s banishment and fate (then takes the time to set out Cain’s line while on that subject), it goes on to say that Adam lay with his wife again, and they had Seth. Eve named him Seth ("granted") because God had granted him to Adam and Eve "in place of Abel". In 5:3, it says that when Adam as 130 years old, he had Seth. In 5:4, it says that "After Seth was born", Adam had other sons and daughters. So, it is absolute that Seth was born *after* Abel’s death and the evidence is very strong from the text itself that the order of birth was Cain, Abel and then Seth, and *then* the "other sons and daughters".

2. Cain was worried about being killed by others immediately after he kills Abel. In 4:14, Cain is distressed at his banishment, saying that if wanders the earth, whoever finds him will kill him. The only plain reading of this is that, at the time of the murder, there *were* other humans around besides Adam and Eve. If Seth was not born yet, and all the other children were born *after* Seth, according to the plainest reading of 5:4, then the others that Cain was worried about could *not* have been Adam and Eve’s children.

3. These others were not in the immediate area, as in a family grouping, but were distant enough that Cain would be fearful of them when he was wandering in his banishment from the land, off in Nod, east of Eden.

4. There were enough other people during Cain’s lifetime to fill his created "city", which he named Enoch after his first born son. Even though this was more likely a small settlement of some kind, it still implies something more than a small family grouping.

So, in order to get a "Cain married his sister" scenario, you have to find come to some very "non-plain" conclusions.

1. You would have to say that, despite the plain reading of 5:4, there were actually children born to Adam and Eve before Seth.

2. You would have to say that the murder of Abel by Cain occurred *after* all these other children were born and spread out far enough for Cain to be afraid of them killing him while he was banished from the land, out of the Lord’s Presence. In short, people living also in these more distant areas. This multiplying and spreading out, moreover, would have to take place before Seth was born, which we know was when Adam was 130.

3. If you believed that other *sons* were born before Seth, this would make for a VERY strained reading of Eve’s statement that Seth was a replacement for Abel. If you believed that only daughters were born, it would be difficult to understand how the family could have multiplied with Adam being the only non-banished male left to impregnate all these girls (which would again raise the incest issue).

So, you can see that whatever scenario you create results in VERY strained readings of the Scripture, much less following the plain reading. My point is *not* that I insist this reading is not the correct reading. It might be. My point is that the "Cain married his sister" reading is not based on the plainest, simplest reading of the text. If you are willing to read *this* text in anything other than the plainest, simplest meaning, but refuse to consider it elsewhere, then who is "picking and choosing"? I see all of this as not "picking and choosing" but consideration and analysis.

As for the alternatives, I really don’t have a dogmatic choice. If there were others around at the time of the murder, there are a couple of choices.

1. At some point after creating Adam and Eve (possibly after the Fall), God made additional special creations of other humans (souls and all). This would make us reconsider the meaning of 3:20 in which it says that Adam named his wife Eve ("living") because "she would become the mother of all the living". The plain reading of this is, indeed, that she was the physical mother of every human on the Earth. The alternative readings would be that she was the "spiritual" mother of all the living or the symbolic mother. Or, it could actually mean that she would, indeed, *become* the mother of all the living (NIV translation). We know now that, even when there are many females in a group, eventually every person in that group will end up descending from a single female. I don’t pretend to know the mathematics of this, but it is the basis behind the "Eve" theory of human evolution (all humans today descending from a single female alive in Africa about 150,000 years ago). Even if you don’t buy the evolution concept at all, but believe that God created Eve as a special creation, this scientific principle of genetics could apply to make Eve the actual physical mother of all humans even if she was not the only female living at the time of the murder. I think it is interesting that the NIV used the phrase "would become" the mother of all the living rather than "was the mother" of all the living. I would have to find out why they translated it that way and whether it is a better translation.

2. The other possibility is that the evidence presented to us by science regarding the development of the human race is basically correct and that there were, indeed, a population of H. sapiens at the all important time of God’s creative effort. This would mean that he either selected an single individual from the group, named him Adam and placed him in a specially created garden, etc. He then either selected an Eve, or actually created her from a part of Adam.

3. Adam and Eve are symbolic for Man and Woman and Adam, in particular, is symbolic for Mankind (which is, after all, what his name means). This would require an entirely allegorical reading of the text, which I am not inclined to do.

lucaspa · #2 8th September 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

3. Adam and Eve are symbolic for Man and Woman and Adam, in particular, is symbolic for Mankind (which is, after all, what his name means). This would require an entirely allegorical reading of the text, which I am not inclined to do.

Why not?

Do you think Eve would have had painles childbirth if not for the disobedience? Is a general human dislike of snakes due to punishment of the serpent?

You have made a convincing argument that there were other people around. Now, if God created Adam and created Eve from the rib, He had to do so with DNA that was indistinguishable from the other humans out there. Both for the ability to interbreed and the lack of a recent infusion of DNA in particular populations. Now we are back to God as deceiver. As part of that, did Eve have a navel?

Also, you raise the question: if there were all these other people that arose thru evolution, why does God have to create Adam at all? Why does He have to put Adam in a Garden? Just to give Adam the chance to disobey Him?

Vance · #3 8th September 2003, 04:13 PM

Yes, I understand that there are still "issues" with any special creation, but just as with all miraculous (or supernatural, if you prefer the term), there is necessarily going to be an over-riding of a natural system God put in place. The question is whether the evidence of His creation provides sufficient evidence balanced against the possible legitimate readings of the text to justify an allegorical reading.

Here, there is very strong evidence in the Creation for a developing hominid race leading up to H. Sapiens. But there is also some interesting evidence which could indicate a special creative event of some kind (whether infusion or selection or creation itself is impossible to say). The evidence of the very sudden rise of the evidence of a modern mind and what we would call a "soul" is very interesting. While I know there is the "God of the gaps" danger, it does keep me from automatically jumping into the allegorical reading camp. As I have said often, I start with a plain reading and move away from that only as the evidence *requires* (although this is too absolute a term) rather than just "suggests".

The bottom line point is that there are a lot of possibilities about exactly how God brought Man into the relationship with Him that we see today. I do not preclude the allegorical reading as a possibility, but simply don't see any reason to be dogmatic about any of them. Really, that is more my point than anything else: there is no justification for dogmatically asserting a position when it is not a salvation issue and there are a number of possibilities to consider.

Vance · #4 8th September 2003, 04:26 PM

BTW, another interesting point. 2:7 states that God created a man. 2:8 then says that God planted a garden. Then 2:8 goes on to say:

"and there He placed the man whom He had formed."

Again, 2:15 states that

"God took the Man and placed him into the garden."

So, Man was created *outside* the garden, then later placed *into* it.

Where, exactly, was Man before he was placed in the garden?

And, what was Man doing between the time that he was created and the time that he was placed in the garden?

How much time passed between the creation of "Man" and the placement of "Man" in the garden?

lucaspa · #5 8th September 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

Here, there is very strong evidence in the Creation for a developing hominid race leading up to H. Sapiens. But there is also some interesting evidence which could indicate a special creative event of some kind (whether infusion or selection or creation itself is impossible to say). The evidence of the very sudden rise of the evidence of a modern mind and what we would call a "soul" is very interesting.

Care to summarize that evidence? Also, since science has no way to detect a soul, what evidence do you have for the sudden rise of a soul?

While I know there is the "God of the gaps" danger,

No kidding!

The bottom line point is that there are a lot of possibilities about exactly how God brought Man into the relationship with Him that we see today. ... there is no justification for dogmatically asserting a position when it is not a salvation issue and there are a number of possibilities to consider.

I know. I implicitly agreed with the main point when I ignored it and questioned the minor one. I should have been more explicit about agreeing to the main point. Sorry.

lucaspa · #6 8th September 2003, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

BTW, another interesting point. 2:7 states that God created a man. 2:8 then says that God planted a garden. Then 2:8 goes on to say:

"and there He placed the man whom He had formed."

Again, 2:15 states that

"God took the Man and placed him into the garden."

So, Man was created *outside* the garden, then later placed *into* it.

Where, exactly, was Man before he was placed in the garden?

And, what was Man doing between the time that he was created and the time that he was placed in the garden?

How much time passed between the creation of "Man" and the placement of "Man" in the garden?

The problem is with the creation of a man. It's not "Man" as in mankind with two sexes and lots of people. It's a man. Unless he's hermaphroditic or reproduces by budding, there's not much chance of getting a lot of people out there for Cain to be afraid of.

Alessandro · #7 8th September 2003, 06:01 PM

All we know form the Bible is that Adam and Eve had many children, Cain and his family went on to build the city in which they stettled later. The other children of Adam and Eve is whom Cain feard for his life from.

Vance · #8 8th September 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Alessandro

All we know form the Bible is that Adam and Eve had many children, Cain and his family went on to build the city in which they stettled later. The other children of Adam and Eve is whom Cain feard for his life from.

But, Allesandro, that is the entire point of the original post: it is not clear at all that the "other children of Adam and Eve is whom Cain feared for his life from". If you want to assert this as part of "all we know from the Bible", then I would like you to address the issues raised in the OP.

And, if you are willing to so dramatically fill in the gaps and engage in the very convoluted readings which the "Cain married his sister" theory requires (which *may* be true, after all), then I would assume that you do not insist on a literal "plain reading" of every Scripture. And that would be fine with me.

And Lucaspa, if you check out the thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t54885&page=2

where I quote some of the text from a recent issue of Scientific American, and there is an article in the recent Discover Magazine making the same point. Yes, there are still God of the Gaps implications at this point, which means I would not assert it dogmatically, but this added with the Scriptures assigning a very special relationship between God and Man, etc, makes for some very interesting theorizing.

lucaspa · #9 8th September 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

And Lucaspa, if you check out the thread here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t54885&page=2

where I quote some of the text from a recent issue of Scientific American, and there is an article in the recent Discover Magazine making the same point. Yes, there are still God of the Gaps implications at this point, which means I would not assert it dogmatically, but this added with the Scriptures assigning a very special relationship between God and Man, etc, makes for some very interesting theorizing.

I have that article. It was published in 2000. Notice that Tattersall says the link is to language. Well, the more recent article on the FOXP2 gene gives that mutation for language that Tattersall was talking about:

31. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002)

Tracing the timeline for this gene back gives 100,000 years. That's not long before adopting modern behaviors. Also, more recent digs in Africa are putting the origins of art (a major "modern" development) back to about 60,000 years ago.
1. http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/im...evolution).htm

As Tattersall notes, you can be skeletally "anatomically modern" without the soft tissue adaptations. This correlates with the mtDNA of Mungo man in Australia. 60,000 years old, skeletally modern, but with mtDNA as different from us as neandertal.

As you say, god-of-the-gaps is dangerous. Data found since Tattersall wrote the article is closing that gap. I'm glad you didn't assert the position dogmatically, because the ground the position stands on is rapidly closing down. I prefer to look for positions that don't depend on gaps.

Alessandro · #10 8th September 2003, 10:30 PM

It can only be that and nothing else.