Cain and Abel Question?

[GADeacon]

Hello,

My wife and I are debating from the scriptures about Cain and Abel. I believe that Cain and Abel was Adam and Eve's first two children, my wife don't agree considering that when in Genesis 4: 13-17 Cain was driven out by the Lord, and in verses 16 & 17 Cain ended up in Nod where he knew his wife and bore Enoch. So, did Adam and Eve had other children before Cain and Abel or was they the first considering that Adam and Eve had children after Cain and Abel and the long years that they lived playing a factor. Thank you.

 

[HypnoToad]

considering that when in Genesis 4: 13-17 Cain was driven out by the Lord, and in verses 16 & 17 Cain ended up in Nod where he knew his wife and bore Enoch.

I don't get how that suggests Adam & Eve had children before Cain & Abel.

 

[BrotherDave]

In Genesis 4, we read about the story of Cain and Abel. These were the first two sons of Adam and Eve. We are then told how Cain killed his brother Abel. God then placed a mark upon Cain who then went away to the land of Nod where he married a wife and started a family. Some people have suggested that there were other people on the earth at this time and the Bible is just focusing on one family. But this is not what Scripture teaches. We read in Genesis 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." Any family that existed on earth came from Adam and Eve. They started the Human race. We know that when Adam was 130 years old he begat another son named Seth (Genesis 5:3). Another clue as to where Cain's wife came from is found in Genesis 5:4-5 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years (800): and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years (930): and he died." To live 930 years is very old by our standards, but it was common in that day. Cain most likely lived to be very old also. What happened is that one day he met one of Adam and Eve's daughters (his sister) and married her. Because of the long life they all shared, it’s possible that Cain married a niece instead, but there were no other families then, only the family of Adam and Eve.

Now, let’s say that about two hundred years have passed since Cain had received that mark from God in verse15. At some point he would have met the sons and daughters of Adam (who most likely knew about the death of Abel). And so surviving any problems, he would have eventually married one of his sisters. Cain goes on to build a city in the land of Nod (the city was called Enoch after his son). Here a group of people gather. At the same time you have Seth (who also marries one of his sisters) and a group of people gathers there. This is the development of the human race. So when we look at chapter 4 and 5 in Genesis, we see how the human race began. And so we understand who it is that Cain is concerned about.

Seth was also the immediate son of Adam (Gen. 4:25), Enos of Seth (Gen. 4:26), and Noah of his father, Lamech (Gen. 5:26-29). The human race originated from Adam and Eve. Cain killed his brother and was afraid one of his other brothers would do the same to him.

 

[drich0150]

Here is another unpopular thought. No where does the bible say that adam and eve were the only people god created..

It's fun to speculate, but when speculation is adopted as doctrine, then we have problems..
It's better to remain silent where the bible is silent than speak where the holy scriptures do not.. (outside of random speculation) Just be able to keep your mind open, and what ever you come up with don't lock it in as doctrine..

It's ok to not to know or say the bible doesn't speak on that..
Our religion allows for such gaps.. But the World religion of Science and history doesnot.. When we speak to people like this it's better to remember our religious beliefs and not participate in theirs.

now i know it's just you and your wife, so my commit really isn't meant as any kind of rebuke toward you. But more to the group of brothers who make such things mandatory for there members of the body.

 

[HypnoToad]

Here is another unpopular thought. No where does the bible say that adam and eve were the only people god created..

As the previous poster pointed out, the fact that Adam refers to Eve as the mother of all the living pretty much does say they were the only people created.

 

[GADeacon]

I must agree, the fact that Adam refers to Eve as the mother of ALL living says it all. She gave birth to the human race.

 

[drich0150]

What if I took that part out??
does the real message get thru? Even if eve was the mother of "all living" then we really are related to monkeys... And trees, goats ,bacteria, fish ect, ect.. And What nations exactly, is Sarah mother to? does that mean everyone in that nation past present and future has her as a literal mother?

Obviously there is truth in the translations, but unless you spoke that language in that exact dialect in which it was written then there is room for doubt. (things get lost in translation) example: Why does it say Mother to all living things? and not Mother to EVERYONE living? Obviously the words don't directly translate to Everyone living.. or that's what the bible translators would have put.. In there best estimation and thru direction of the spirit. They translated that phrase into All living things because that's as close as they could take "English" to the script they were working with.

Again belive my statement or not, the point was anything you or I may come up with is little more than foolish speculation, and we are commanded to leave such things by the wayside "do not devote yourself to endless genealogies..." Meaning we should not devote or hinge our religious beliefs on stuff like: who exactly cain's wife was, or where she came from.. the bible, simple put, doesnot say. It's good to have answers to every question. But again our belief system doesnot provide answers to everything, and we have to except it. I'm sure we have all the answers we Actually NEED.

 

[beamishboy]

I always thought Adam was only a representational story of mankind. That part of Genesis can't be read literally.

 

[HypnoToad]

What if I took that part out??

No thanks, my position will be based on what Scripture says, not on what it says with certain portions removed. Really, what's the point of that?? You really want to address a question by first removing relevant information? What sense does that make?

Even if eve was the mother of "all living" then we really are related to monkeys... And trees, goats ,bacteria, fish ect, ect.. And What nations exactly, is Sarah mother to? does that mean everyone in that nation past present and future has her as a literal mother?

Obviously there is truth in the translations, but unless you spoke that language in that exact dialect in which it was written then there is room for doubt. (things get lost in translation) example: Why does it say Mother to all living things? and not Mother to EVERYONE living? Obviously the words don't directly translate to Everyone living.. or that's what the bible translators would have put.. In there best estimation and thru direction of the spirit. They translated that phrase into All living things because that's as close as they could take "English" to the script they were working with.

Where are you getting "all living things"? There's no reason it suggests animals and trees or anything other than people.

Again belive my statement or not, the point was anything you or I may come up with is little more than foolish speculation, and we are commanded to leave such things by the wayside "do not devote yourself to endless genealogies..." Meaning we should not devote or hinge our religious beliefs on stuff like: who exactly cain's wife was, or where she came from.. the bible, simple put, doesnot say. It's good to have answers to every question. But again our belief system doesnot provide answers to everything, and we have to except it. I'm sure we have all the answers we Actually NEED.

No one is saying that this question is the end-all-be-all of Christianity. No one is trying to make this out to be any more important than it actually is. But the question has come up, so we're addressing it.

That part of Genesis can't be read literally.

Lol, of course it can.

 

[drich0150]

No thanks, my position will be based on what Scripture says, not on what it says with certain portions removed. Really, what's the point of that?? You really want to address a question by first removing relevant information? What sense does that make?

The part I was refering to was my original statement.. (god creating others) (What if I took my statement out) Take it easy, I'm not looking to rip pages out of your bible.

Where are you getting "all living things"? There's no reason it suggests animals and trees or anything other than people.

Ok do you really need me to hold your hand thru this? let me explain this for you.. (the point will remain the same..) The first time I quoted the scripture I cut and pasted from brother Daves Post, the second time I referenced my own memory and I accidently added things...
Even so, the idea of scripture being subject to inturpation should be more selfevident. Which should bring into question, ones ablity to take everything literally..

I touched on this alittle earlier but let me explain: If you speak a language other than english you know, certain things get lost in translation.. Even if you just speak english, you know that words aren't always used by their "formal" definations. ex. Cool, That's hot, bad, sick, Phat all signify a positive responces..

5000 years from now "lord willing" if someone were to stuble across some ancient text like a Album cover and takes it to one of the last surviving copies of Websters, I would gamble a guess that the songs lyrics, could be accuratly be translated but the meaning of the song maybe lost.

I think We should all know what scripture says, but to claim intimate knowlege here, is foolishness.. So again it's Ok not to know every detail. Two thousand years ago this was a fruitless effort, this is why paul wrote of it in 1timmy and titus

No one is saying that this question is the end-all-be-all of Christianity. No one is trying to make this out to be any more important than it actually is. But the question has come up, so we're addressing it.

When i first read this thread, I saw alot of biblical based speculation... All I was trying to convey was that such things while fun to try to explain, are fruitless and inspire quarrels among us. In my original example i wasn't trying to give a legitimate origin of cain's wife, but to show that because the scripture remains silent on this, Those who dedicate themselves to such endeavors, will have to suffer many fools to pursue their endless genealogies... (because the word is incomplete on this, and what is there, Will be subject to inturptation.)

Your response to beamishboy, and your willingness to pounce on me shows one your own "devotion" to Genesis.. Perhaps if you took a little more time to actually read the different posts as carefully as you do genesis, maybe you will be alittle more willing to suffer fools and the young.

 

[Recon3rd]

I must agree, the fact that Adam refers to Eve as the mother of ALL living says it all. She gave birth to the human race.

I think since God created both Adam & Eve He created the human race while Adam & Eve multiplied it.

Pat

 

[Chickapee]

I always thought Adam was only a representational story of mankind. That part of Genesis can't be read literally.

HI Beamishboy ,
You see it the way i do ,
in the sense that , in Gen 3 its starts off with the serpent [could be a type of wisdom] that deceived Eve
and the ''tree of Knowledge '''of good and evil , knowing your nakedness [sin] and later on we have also learned we must be clothed with Christ
in chapter 4 of Gen seeing that this wisdom [Serpent]
was in [AWARE AWAKENEDin them ] Adam and Eve now ...
she conceived , at the same time ,

cain and able '' both'' but bore cain first[the man ]from and bare again Abel second ..[keeper of sheep]
seeing the literal and the Spiritual man in these two
it says cain was born of the wicked one , maybe the evil seed of that tree[wisdom]?

says Cain had a wife , and bore children
and Abel died at his brothers hand [power] never bearing , but blood cries out to God from the ground
and we know Seth was sent by GOD in place of abel

but as far as ''knowing '' whom the wife is of Cain IS
there is no clear WORD
the only clue we have is God made Adam ''both'' male and female in the begining and that Eve was taken out of Adams rib [side] ... spirit and soul and body
fashioned by God the 3 parts of mankind [each and every one of us as well ]

hope this helps some how someone spiritually speaking
God bless C

 

[beamishboy]

HI Beamishboy ,
You see it the way i do ,
in the sense that , in Gen 3 its starts off with the serpent [could be a type of wisdom] that deceived Eve
and the ''tree of Knowledge '''of good and evil , knowing your nakedness [sin] and later on we have also learned we must be clothed with Christ
in chapter 4 of Gen seeing that this wisdom [Serpent]
was in [AWARE AWAKENEDin them ] Adam and Eve now ...
she conceived , at the same time ,

cain and able '' both'' but bore cain first[the man ]from and bare again Abel second ..[keeper of sheep]
seeing the literal and the Spiritual man in these two
it says cain was born of the wicked one , maybe the evil seed of that tree[wisdom]?

says Cain had a wife , and bore children
and Abel died at his brothers hand [power] never bearing , but blood cries out to God from the ground
and we know Seth was sent by GOD in place of abel

but as far as ''knowing '' whom the wife is of Cain IS
there is no clear WORD
the only clue we have is God made Adam ''both'' male and female in the begining and that Eve was taken out of Adams rib [side] ... spirit and soul and body
fashioned by God the 3 parts of mankind [each and every one of us as well ]

hope this helps some how someone spiritually speaking
God bless C

Hi, Nice to see that you too do not read it literally. I was beginning to despair that nobody seems to agree with me. Hehe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Chickapee
HI Beamishboy ,
You see it the way i do ,
in the sense that , in Gen 3 its starts off with the serpent [could be a type of wisdom] that deceived Eve
and the ''tree of Knowledge '''of good and evil , knowing your nakedness [sin] and later on we have also learned we must be clothed with Christ
in chapter 4 of Gen seeing that this wisdom [Serpent]
was in [AWARE AWAKENEDin them ] Adam and Eve now ...
she conceived , at the same time ,

Nice post Chick!!!!!! and Reps coming your way.

In fact this is one reason I started a study on the 7 Out-Calleds mentioned in the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation of which I have that up here at this link if thou art interested.

http://christianforums.com/t7151096-7-churches-in-revelation-study.html

 

[HypnoToad]

maybe you will be alittle more willing to suffer fools and the young.

I might be more inclined to do so if "the fools and the young" weren't so rude and condescending when "they" asked.

 

[beamishboy]

I might be more inclined to do so if "the fools and the young" weren't so rude and condescending when "they" asked.

Hi, I didn't notice the exchange between you and Drich0150 until I saw your above post. I then re-read the earlier posts and I found that he expressed dissatisfaction with your treatment of me and him. Noting his age, I naturally would like to think that he categorised me more under "the young". hehe.

My post was very short and consisted only of these two sentences:

I always thought Adam was only a representational story of mankind. That part of Genesis can't be read literally.
​

Did you find me rude and condescending? Honestly, I didn't know you were upset with me when you gave your short reply:

Lol, of course it can.
​

I'm quite slow in extracting non-verbal cues from sentences. I just thought you were like my Mum who loves to contradict me without giving a reason. Now that I've read all the posts more carefully, I'm just puzzled how I could have been rude and condescending.

 

[Chrissie59]

Hi, I didn't notice the exchange between you and Drich0150 until I saw your above post. I then re-read the earlier posts and I found that he expressed dissatisfaction with your treatment of me and him. Noting his age, I naturally would like to think that he categorised me more under "the young". hehe.

My post was very short and consisted only of these two sentences:

I always thought Adam was only a representational story of mankind. That part of Genesis can't be read literally.
​

Did you find me rude and condescending? Honestly, I didn't know you were upset with me when you gave your short reply:

Lol, of course it can.
​

I'm quite slow in extracting non-verbal cues from sentences. I just thought you were like my Mum who loves to contradict me without giving a reason. Now that I've read all the posts more carefully, I'm just puzzled how I could have been rude and condescending.

beamishboy, I thought what you said was very well said and I did not think it was rude at all . You merely stated what many people are taught nowadays - that parts of the old testament are more metaphors rather than being based on actual events...

 

[beamishboy]

beamishboy, I thought what you said was very well said and I did not think it was rude at all . You merely stated what many people are taught nowadays - that parts of the old testament are more metaphors rather than being based on actual events...

Hi and thanks.

I just wanted to be clear. My greatest problem with forums is that I am very slow in picking up things that are not direct and clear. I have misunderstood sarcasms many times to the outrage of the others.

I post a lot in GA where there are more atheists than Christians. In one thread I was debating with atheists and one of the atheists said that he admitted that atheists were all wrong and of course there was God. When I took it to be a statement of his real position, he got mad and said I didn't understand sarcasm. Everyone agreed with him and I'm sure I was wrong but how was I to know?

The other thing I fail to notice is anger or displeasure. If someone replies and puts in "LOL", I take it that the person is really laughing and can't be angry. Which is what I took HypnoToad's statement to be. It was only when he spelt out his obvious displeasure that I took his meaning.

I still do not know why he thinks I'm rude and condescending.

 

[Chickapee]

Hi beam !
I thought your post was right on ..
short ,sweet and to the point
so never worry about what anyone else says ,please dont take it personally
you are ''exercising your ''faith '' in Christ ,
I believe many like Paul are a true example of endurance .. he was a pharisee before His conversion to Christ .. and fought on ''both '' sides of the camp for what he believed in ...
and many of the religious order were offended in Christ Jesus [remember how saul/paul was before Jesus come to him personally and called him out of the old ways of law keeping into the New path of Christ Jesus righteousness , he found out he had none of his own righteousness to ''brag '' about
Pharisees ''set apart''Blue Letter Bible

REmember what Jesus said , Blessed is he who is not offended in Me ! [in JESUS NAME ]


Luk 7:23 And blessed is [he], whosoever shall not be offended in me.

keep on keepin on in the Lord as we all are seeking His Face and Grace .. C

NOW we are way off topic and'' I apologize'' for that ...

who was Cains wife ?
I dont know the names of the 7 angels in Jesus Christ right hand , these things may be the doubtful disputations that Paul warns of as well ....? eating and drinking Christ Body metaphorically speaking as all of romans 14 , great chapter , there is more about that arguing on who is disruptive causing divisions in Timothy i think? not sure though

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.

 

[drich0150]

I'm sorry if I ruined this thread.. I saw alot of speculation about the "origins" that wasn't actually in the bible, and I just wanted to leave a marker Buoy of sorts.. to help ground the discussion in the reality of our shared faith..

But i think for some, the pursuit of unanswered Questions has become a form of religious expression.. And just like if you tried to have the music program cut from most churches there will be an out cry..

I belive Brother Toad, to be passionate and Quick to defend.. and well, i belive i was alittle too harsh in my attempt to "Ground the discussion in scripture"

(I got my feelings hurt when my first response was die-SECT-ed and cast aside...) So like any proud Fool I put on my smartest hat and tried again..
Well this time i was accused of cutting passages from my bible and verbally shoved to the side... So i went from Proud fool to selfrightous fool ("What kinda of "supermoderator" does he think he is??? can he see that he's in the scriptural red?) and before i could post. i saw what Brother toad said to you, and by then my good intentions were all but gone.

I don't suffer bullies well, and i like "putting" it to them as wrong as that is.. His response to young brother Beamish was the final nail!!! So I decided to become the bully, and well, read my post if you like.. but I belive i behaved shamefully. right ,wrong, or indifferent.. I'm sorry to GaDeacon, for ruining his thread. Toad for being a selfrightous jerk, young brother beamish for dragging him into this..

I do want to revisit the good intention that started this mess for me..
What ever you "belive" about genesis, If somehow you find out the opposite is true, don't let it ruin your faith..

and the second point..

Don't force what you belive on others.. there's simply not enough there to be definitive about all the questions that can arise from what simply put, is not there...