Featured Who Did Cain Marry?

So, do YOU have any explanation for where cain's wife came from that doesn't involve INCEST? Still waiting for SOMEONE to provide such an explanation. Closest I've heard involves parthenogenesis.

 

B4L, I'll call a spade a spade. YOU said YOU were through with this subject, & I said, fine with me. But YOU brought it up-not I-totally outta the blue, in a KJVO discussion! Now, since YOU previously said YOU were done with it...

...and YOU brought it up again...

...What does that make...YOU ? ?

("Woman's Prerogative" is NO EXCUSE!)

You are EXPOSED for being less than truthful, same as you've shown yourself to be a closet KJVO.

 

You also said polygenesis supports your race views:

 

Well, you DID lie...no getting around it.

And guess what? I'm gonna go RIGHT ON berating the KJVO myth for lacka Scriptura support. As a closet KJVO, you're in a snit cuz I and others have mentioned that lacka support.

Now, I've said my peace about Cain's wife more than once, and that's THAT, except I'm still open for an explanation of her origin that doesn't involve INCEST. I don't believe GOD ever condoned incest between full siblings or parent-child any more than He ever condoned idol worship or murder.

 

The answer is perfectly clear in scripture. God never changes; He is immutable. However, his mandates and laws DO change. You can argue that certain laws were given only to the Jews, but even those laws were shown to be outdated and changed even for the Jews. "What I have called clean..."

He also changes his mind. Refer to the book of Jonah. Also refer to the total destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah, when Abraham talked him into sparing the cities if He found enough righteous.

So, His law changes, His mind changes, and thankfully His methods of dealing with humanity changes, or many more countries would have been destroyed since the OT.

You have even admitted that God changed his rules, when according to you He extended the rule to include half-siblings. Guess what? Extending the coverage of a rule is a CHANGE. You can't get around your own logic.

What doesn't change is His nature. He is perfect, and perfectly just on a level we can't comprehend.

The ONLY answer that doesn't totally render the Gospel a complete lie involves what we now would call an incestual relationship.

You have tried and failed to get around Eve being the "Mother of all living". If there were any other people created, she wouldn't be their mother. Period.

Simply put, you are adding to scripture by saying God condemned something.

Not only is your view unscriptural, but it is heresy, as it would render the Gospel a lie.

Now let's look at your "like begets like" argument. Even if God did create different races in the beginning, I think it's safe to assume that Noah and his sons were the same race. So, where did the different races come from, using your logic? Your logic falls apart at this point. Even if you argue that all three of Noah's sons married three different races of women, that only accounts for three races, and they'd all be half the same race. Unless you keep adding to scripture and say God had a second creation at that point.

Your position does not stand up to scripture or to intellect. I suggest you take a hard look at it and simply accept the only possible answer.

 

I believe you know as well as I do that incest is a "taboo" among people that've never heard of God, period, so it's much-deeper than simply being against Scripture and against the law in most places, same as stealing, etc. While many isolated tribes don't think twice about killing or stealing from outsiders, they wouldn't murder nor steal from each other.

Scripture is silent about where Cain's wife was, but I do NOT believe it was a sister. Incest was punishable by DEATH in God's law that He gave Israel. The excuse that there was no law until GOD gave it to israel doesn't hold water. God punished Cain for murder, and He destroyed all mankind except Noah & family for idol worship and other sins, with Scripture saying the earth was filled with violence. So, God had given His law to men somehow before He had Moses and the Levites write it.

Another possibility is that it was a niece by one of the "sons of God" who married the "daughters of men". One of them coulda come some time before the events of Genesis 6 when men had begun to multiply.

SPEAKING OF-Do y'all still consider Eve to be the "mother" of the giants of Gen.6? if so, you must consider to be the grandmother of her children's children no matter who their father was.

This is just another guess, but it is more-feasible than Mrs. Cain being his full sister!

Also, Sapper Woody, you stopped short of telling us your thoughts about how the 5 races originated. You accounted for three of them; that's all.

And B4L, you stand revealed as a prevaricator!

 

I believe you're blowing smoke. Show me a reference where it's been taboo. In fact, many used to try and keep a 'pure bloodline' by marrying within a family, oftentimes a sister or a cousin. Also, think of how natural it would have been for Cain to marry his sister. He saw his parents in love as a couple. He saw his Dad was a male and his Mom was a female. When his sister was marrying age, it would have been as natural as anything. He wouldn't have had a second thought about it.

It's not an "excuse". Is marrying a sister wrong? Only because God said so. Why did God say so? Because at that point the gene-pool was at the point where it could start causing abnormalities. You are ignoring the facts and evidence in front of your face.

This is a huge rabbit trail leading to no where, as it has nothing to do with the topic. But for your sake, I'll attempt an answer even though I am sure you won't be satisfied with simple truth. Firstly, the "Sons of God" referred to either two things: those that followed God and remained righteous, or angels. If the first, then it means absolutely nothing. If the second, then you are talking about Nephalim, or half angels. Some believe that these Nephalim were literal giants. Some take the word "giant" to mean a great man, or one who accomplished much. Either way, the wording in scripture never says that the giants were as a result of the union, although it's easy to see where one might infer that. I myself do not believe that spirits have the ability to impregnate a woman, outside of God himself. With this being said, it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.

No, I stopped short of telling everyone where YOU thought they came from. That's my entire point. The logic you use about "like begets like" falls apart when you consider Noah. YOU were supposed to fill in where the other two would have come from, because my point is that without defeating your own logic, you can't.

Now, think on this: would you rather hold to a viewpoint that says that God at one point allowed incest, or a viewpoint that totally degrades the Gospel story, thus making what you are basing your eternal destination on a lie?