Featured Who Did Cain Marry?

after reading through all the banter and getting this i had a good giggle.

 

This is an interesting concept. God told Adam and Eve to fill the earth. Thus the procreation process was in place before Adam sinned.

If you are designed to live forever, or for a very long time, there is no need to procreate. Angels do not marry.

Did the fall, and the physical corruption brought through the fall, result in flawed genetic reproduction? Or was it, the deterioration, God's plan from the get go? What does the Bible say?

 

Says who?....

 

Says God...

Rev...according to Matt.22:30 and Mark 12:23 it would seem that the resurrected dead will be AS the Angels in the resurrection and will neither marry nor be given in marriage. By that declaration of scripture I think it is safe to say that Angels (at least the non-fallen variety) don't marry....and we certainly won't either in eternity. I will concede that there is much we can't understand or know for certain about our future eternal existence. That excites me. There will be so much to discover. As a side note, neither do Angels know about or understand the redemption we have in and by the Blood of Christ.(1 Peter 1:12). I have always found that fascinating....that we could ever have something better than what they have! Not boasting...just saying. Praise God for our Wonderful Saviour!!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Angels, of course, could always come face-to-face with God, and believed by empirical evidence right in fronta them. However, a third of them believed Satan's hooey, and are now condemned to gehenna. They are without excuse.

However, God wants US to believe by faith, but He left enough evidence so that man is without excuse also for not believing in and obeying Him. Thus, JESUS made a greater sacrifice than any man could come close to making. No mere man coulda lived thru the physical abuse He took, and He remained fully conscious thru all of it. Being GOD, He did NOT hafta bear that abuse, plus all the hatred and reviling aimed at Him, but, He DID bear it all of His own free will, thus becoming more-than-worthy to be our Savior from the penalty for our sins and have the sole authority to provide salvation.

 

Remember the gene pool was much stronger then and without as many flaws as since then. These people lived (albeit under a vapor canopy which surrounded the earth in those pre flood days like 5 of the 9 planets have to this day) to be 900 years old. Our genes even with modern medicine play out around 50 years and it's all down hill from there.

Scientists will tell you that the thing that makes inbreeding so bad (aside from the moral implications) is the genetic codes repeat too closely meaning the flaws in the codes are that much greater.

Even if Cain waited till his kin folk was more than a second cousin, they would have come from parents or grandparents who mated with a sibling. There were only a few people at all on the earth.

The Bible pulls no punches.

It also said that after the time of the flood close relatives were taboo for sexual relations. This is probably why Noah cursed Canaan rather than Ham. "Seeing the nakedness" of someone was tantamount to "having sex with" and the old Hebrew taboos said "you shall not see the nakedness of your father's wife it is your father's nakedness." Leviticus 18:8.

Apparently Ham has sexual relations with his mother while his father was passed out drunk... and quite possibly she was as well. So Noah's curse was on the offspring from that shameful ordeal.

As I recall in one of Chuck Missler's studies, the gene pool of most on earth was terribly corrupted by the time of Noah... that only he and his family were free of this... "perfect in his generations." And this too made what Ham did worse. Ruth the Moabitess was descendent of Lot and one of his daughters from that drunken ordeal and the contamination of the daughters from living in Sodom and Gomorrah... Ruth was great grandmother to David and part of the messianic line.

This leads me to believe that the actual Holy Embryo in Mary's womb was a transplant gestation rather than an actual blood / genetic lineage. It's nothing I would harp on and if I am wrong that's fine. I just do not see the need for Jesus blood to actually be that of Mary's. She carried him and bore him and that was plenty legal enough to link him to the house of David through Mary and Nathan (David's son and sibling of Solomon).

There is some story going around (I say story since I cannot corroborate it) that an explorer found some of Jesus' blood on the ark of the covenant buried in Jeremiah's grotto and that the blood was put into a solution and came to life and had only 24 chromosomes (23 from his mother and one Y from his father). It's been some time since I heard this so I may have some of the numbers mixed up...

 

"With GOD, all things are possible."

I don't believe that "pure gene" stuff at all. DNA research on ancient remains prove otherwise.

Same with 'saw the nakedness'. Scripture sez that Shem and Japheth walked into Noah's tent backwards with a blanket to cover Noah. Apparently, Ham deliberately stared at Noah and made no effort to cover his 'private parts'. Scripture sez nothing of Noah's wife during this event.

B4L started this thread cuz she's in a snit because I and several others exposed her as a closet KJVO elsewhere. She seex to get back at me thru a statement I made elsewhere suggesting God mighta created other people for Adam & Eve's children to marry, because I do NOT believe God EVER condoned incest among full siblings, nor between parent and child.

However, both Scripture and secular history are silent about where Cain got a wife, so NONE of our guesses can be proven nor disproven, except I do NOT believe incest between full siblings was involved!

 

Actually, I believe it did. From the original Law:

Leviticus 18, NASB
8 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. [emphasis added] ​

As you can see, the mother's (or stepmother's) nudity is referred to as "your father's nakedness" so to say, only he has such a right. Verse 21 in Genesis 9 may confuse us in the English. It says "Noah uncovered himself." This English rendering ignores the fact the Hebrew writings (and probably everyday speech) intended to include both husband and wife when only the man's name is used. I believe there is ample evidence for this to refer to Noah and his wife engaging in sexual relations and falling asleep uncovered, followed by Ham walking in and staring at his naked mother, then going to tell (like an immature juvenile) his brothers what he saw.

Not that this has a thing to do with the OP. Perhaps we should get back to topic.

 

You believe that he is a hypocrite, simply because he is convinced that Cain did not marry a sibling?

 

OH, Ok my apologies, he should not do that, even if he is not in agreement with KJVO folks.

 

Huh???

B4L...just out of curiousity I clicked on the CARM link and it said there are NO posts in that forum. You might better check that out. Roby's anti-KJVO views are well known to me.

UPDATE....Nothing wrong with the LINK...I went back and checked and you have to REGISTER before you can view the posted comments...otherwise...all the forum sections show up as "private"....so I registered!.....OH BOY...another forum to look at and post on!!!! Thanks!!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

I have no reason not to accept your word that he is overly zealous toward KJVO people. It is of course his "right", but as a believer he should temper his criticism.

 

Thanks..

B4L...Thanks for the "heads up" on that. I probably won't spend much time over there anyway. I'm far more "committed" to the BB as a fellowship community and only have just so much time to devote to my on-line pursuits. If you have anymore specific examples or hints about that site send me a PM about it.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baptist4life
No, because he constantly mocks and berates KJVO people for having no Biblical support for what they believe, when he has no Biblical support for what he believes either. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Quantum Faith:

First, lemme address the 'hypocrite' stuff. The KJVOs need Scripture to verify their doctrine; I need none to reject it. I have posted its MAN-MADE ORIGIN on many boards, with NO credible counterpoints made by any KJVO. They CANNOT post any Scriptural support for it cuz there ISN'T ANY.

Now, on many boards, including THIS one, where I've been a member for over 13 years, I have posted my belief that GOD has NEVER condoned incest between full siblings, or parent/child. While B4L clamors there's no Scriptural support for that belief, there actually I Scriptural support for the fact that God gave the earliest people a "code of conduct"(besides the forbidden fruit to A&E) that wasn't written, largely because there was no writing at that time.

The PROOF? When Cain slew Abel, he knew he'd done wrong, as is evidenced by his evasiveness toward God when He asked Cain where his bro was. And if it wasn't ALREADY a sin, God would not have punished Cain for it. Lot's daughters had to get Lot drunk before they could become pregnant by him; he would never have done such a thing sober.

And Abraham told Abimelech and others who enquired about Sarah that she was his sister, which was a half-lie; she was his HALF-sister. He wanted them to believe she was his FULL sister, not his wife.

And Jacob demoted Reuben for his affair with Jacob's concubine Bilhah. Had such an affair not already been sinful by God's decree, Jacob would not have acted thusly.

So we see God's prohibitions against incest between full siblings, parent/child, and adultery was in place long before the Exodus, during which He extended the ban to include half/siblings and step-parents/stepchild, as well as other close relatives.

Thus, I am NOT being a bit hypocritical by suggesting it was possible that God made other people for Eve's children to wed. It cannot be proven nor disproven, of course. Another possibility is parthenogenesis, that is, a child being formed without fertilization. It occurs with certain animals, and is certainly NOT above GOD'S ability to cause! (In Greek, parthenos = 'virgin' ; genesis = 'origin or beginning') Again, whatever we suggest for the origin of Cain's wife is no more than speculation or guesswork, as both Scripture & secular history is silent about it.

Now, B4L has her sox in a wad cuz she's been exposed as a closet KJVO on several boards, and she was booted from CARM for repeated rule violations. There are many open KJVOs there who post regularly, and who are no more heavily moderated than we Freedom Readers, pretty well same as THIS board.

So much for the false 'hypocrite' accusation.

 

As an outside observer to this spat I do have a question which may illuminate differences in your respective positions regarding KJV and Cain's wife. Robycop3 freely admits his position on Cain's wife does not have direct Biblical support. Do you also admit your position on the KJV has no scriptural support?