• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Who Did Cain Marry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Who else but Abel's immediate relatives would want to kill Cain?

Ever hear of "vigilantes"? They often wanna play God and kill someone who they perceive as a sinner, even when they've done nothing against their killer(s).
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!
Cant. 4:10
 

Oldtimer

New Member
Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
Regardless of how you try to avoid directly saying that God created other humans along side Adam and Eve, that is exactly what you are saying. Someone other than Adam or Eve had to produce, at a minimum, a half-sister for Cain in order to avoid your premise about incest.

Reply: robycop3
I am saying that A&E's children didn't cohabit with each other. Just WHOM they mighta cohabited with isn't known. Your guess is with each other, but YOUR guess has no more bearing than anyone else's.

Scripture has already been quoted in this thread that removes the "guessing" aspect that you accuse me of doing. Do you have any evidence that God told a group of people (before Noah & his family) to populate the earth? If not, then anything other than telling this to Adam & Eve is pure speculation on your part. Your opinion. An opinion, that IMO, is contrary to the Bible.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
Have you ever studied genetics? (I am NOT talking about the theory of evolution!) It seems that you have mixed hybrids and mutations in trying to make your points. Have you ever studied mitochondrial DNA? Dominate & recessive genes? Heredity diseases predominate in ethnic groups?

Reply: robycop3
Yes, in corpsman A-school over 40 years ago. Lots more has been discovered since then. But like produces like; thus says the LORD.

Seems that your knowledge of biology and genetics is limited or you have been misinformed about where God placed limitations on what can be naturally fertilized by what to produce offspring. Or, maybe a better approach is for you to define EXACTLY what you mean by the term "like". Yes, dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Humans produce humans. Dogs of every size, shape, and color roam this earth. Other than a physical size problem (tiny breed female & large breed male) all dogs can successfully reproduce more puppies.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
From the Biblical standpoint, have you taken into consideration, that after the dispersion of people due to language barriers, genetic changes, whether inherited tendency for certain diseases or skin color, came about in more isolated (separated) populations? The gene for red hair is recessive. Yet, there is one population group that has a higher incidence of red hair.

Reply: robycop3
I don't agree with much of it. For example, most black people originally came from lands near the equator, with much more sun than northern or southern latitudes. Now, one would believe that people who'd lived in those lands for many generations woulda developed light, thick skin to reflect infrared rays and resist UV rays, insteada dark skin that absorbs both.

Counter point: The further north from the equator, the less daylight is available in a year to produce vitamin D in the body. Lighter skin can absorb more sunlight during time that light is available. People with dark skin, in the far north, would be more prone to problems resulting from lack of vitamin D. Thus, enhancing the livability, in that area, of those with genetically lighter skin.

In each area, each generation would have tended to weed out those, from a common origin (Noah/family) who did not have the genetic variation of skin color best suited for the region. To say that most black people "originally" came from lands near the equator denies that all existing people originally came from Noah & family.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
Next, God doesn't change. Yet, His directions (instructions) for human behaviour have changed.

Reply: robycop3
But not His basic laws.

Can you provide a listing of His basic laws of human behavior, as provided by Him, when Adam & Eve were cast from the garden? It seems that you have forgotten that God can and does change His mind in given sets of circumstances. Again, I'll use Noah, as the example. Noah & family were not destroyed because God decided to spare them to repopulate the earth.

IMO, you are trying to put God in a cage, when you presume to know EXACTLY what is/isn't His "basic law". Yet, you cannot give evidence that God considered incest to be against His "basic law" until such a point, in time, that He deemed it to be so.
Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
1st example: After the flood, He gave permission for people to eat meat.

Reply: robycop3
I believe they ALWAYS had that permission. Abel was a shepherd, and made animal sacrifices.

According to scriptures, this is when God told mankind they could eat animals.
Genesis 9: KJB
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Prior to that were these instructions:
Genesis: 1 KJB
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Mankind & animals were vegetarian. Here the word meat means food.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
2nd example: He lifted dietary restrictions previously in place. ie It isn't what a man puts into his mouth, it's what comes from his mouth that defiles him.

Reply: robycop3
Dietary restrictions were there largely for health reasons. For example, trichinosis was prevalent in swine, and the israelis were not known for overcooking their food.

Where are the scriptures that specifiy dietary restrictions were specifically for health reasons? If that were the only reason, why were those restrictions lifted?

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
3rd example: When the temple veil was torn, individuals no longer had someone standing between themselves and Him.

Reply: robycop3
Actually, they then had JESUS filling that role.

Yes, because God caused a change to happen in their lives. He, Himself, changed what was expected for their behaviour. There was a rule in place that they could not go behind the veil. He changed the rule.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
In closing, either God created only one man and woman (Adam & Eve) or He created enough men and/or women to ensure that incest wouldn't happen. There is no middle ground.

Reply: robycop3
While Scripture is silent about that, it's NOT silent about INCEST. Bottom Line!

Prove it! So far you have not proved that God considered incest to be a sin, before the time He made that restriction on behaviour. How is that any different than putting rules in place regarding sacrifice. When He, Himself, decided that xyz activity was a sin, it was recorded as such. It seems that you are mixing "sin" with knowledge of good and evil. Today, we have many ways to "sin" that did not exist 5,000 years ago. IMO, God knew when Satan corrupted the act of reproduction. At that time, He placed additional restrictions on who could be partners.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
I believe the Scriptures. God created Adam and Eve. He told them to multiply. When appropriate the time came, in His viewpoint, He changed His instructions for human behaviour. Just as He did when He, Himself, made the final blood sacrifice.

Reply: robycop3
But He did NOT change His BASIC LAWS. Lamech apparently slew another man in self-defense, and we don't see GOD charging him with murder.(This was NOT the Lamech who was Noah's father.)

Again, where is this list of basic laws?

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldtimer
Skin color is a result of mutations in DNA, after the fall, when human bodies became subject to physical death. Whether it's skin color, hair color, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, dwarfism, and/or other heredity traits. The premise is the same as the cultural distinctions that came about after the separation of mankind. For example, those in Asia, separated from those in western Europe, developed both physical and cultural differences.

Reply: robycop3
Mutations do not tend to produce likenesses of themselves, but produce likenesses of their parents. (snipped example to shorten post.)
And the list goes on.

In closing, this last section further confirms previous comments on biology, genetics/heredity. When some genetic mutations happen, they are passed along to offspring. If the mutation is beneficial and/or is recessive, it will be replicated in future generations in widening circles of influence.
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
MMRRPP! WRONG!

(application of Scripture, that is.)

Eve was still the grandMOTHER of her grandchildren, no matter who they married. And she was still the great-grandMOTHER of her childrens' childrens' children, no matter who they married.

The Scripture is right; your 'take' of it is off.

None of them wed their sister or brother.

That's as oddball example of twisting Scripture as I've ever seen. As I said before, people on other forums have already listed roby as a "nut". Now you see why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arbo

Active Member
Site Supporter
We don't know for sure. However, it's very likely, as there was one against murder. The first people apparently didn't write(To WHOM would they write?) but they had directives from GOD besides the "forbidden fruit", which became inaccessible after E&A ate of it.

Other than expulsion from Eden and other punishments (sweat of the brow, pain in childbirth), where can these other directives be shown in Scripture to have been in effect immediately after the fall?


Almost certainly so, as there's little mention of it in secular history.

Or it could have as easily been the norm in some...

"Just the FACTS."

-Sgt. Friday, Dragnet

It seems like you are making facts up in order to fit the case you are making.

Stating that a God-given decree existed at a time when none can be shown in Scripture to be in effect seems like adding to the Bible.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Scripture has already been quoted in this thread that removes the "guessing" aspect that you accuse me of doing. Do you have any evidence that God told a group of people (before Noah & his family) to populate the earth? If not, then anything other than telling this to Adam & Eve is pure speculation on your part. Your opinion. An opinion, that IMO, is contrary to the Bible.

Well, IMO, it's NOT contrary to Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture do we see God doing a 180 on His commands. Yes, I know He told Moses He was gonna destroy Israel, but I believe He was testing Moses, since He had already prophesied what would become of each tribe, and that Shiloh was to come from JUDAH. (Moses was a Levite.) That incident was different from His basic laws of behavior. And I firmly believe that His basic law was in place from the gitgo, given orally to the first generations.



Seems that your knowledge of biology and genetics is limited or you have been misinformed about where God placed limitations on what can be naturally fertilized by what to produce offspring. Or, maybe a better approach is for you to define EXACTLY what you mean by the term "like". Yes, dogs produce dogs. Cats produce cats. Humans produce humans. Dogs of every size, shape, and color roam this earth. Other than a physical size problem (tiny breed female & large breed male) all dogs can successfully reproduce more puppies.

But Chihuahuas cannot produce Yorkies; Great Danes can't produce St. Bernards. Yes, a Chihuahua can mate with a Yorkie and produce a Chikie. But, long as they mate with a like breed, they'll produce pups of that breed.



Counter point: The further north from the equator, the less daylight is available in a year to produce vitamin D in the body. Lighter skin can absorb more sunlight during time that light is available. People with dark skin, in the far north, would be more prone to problems resulting from lack of vitamin D. Thus, enhancing the livability, in that area, of those with genetically lighter skin.

Actually, the opposite is true. it's common sense that black absorbs much more light, infrared, or UV than white. Just place your hands on a white car and a black car that have both been sitting the sun for awhile.

In each area, each generation would have tended to weed out those, from a common origin (Noah/family) who did not have the genetic variation of skin color best suited for the region. To say that most black people "originally" came from lands near the equator denies that all existing people originally came from Noah & family.

Not really. We know where Mt. Ararat is, in Turkey. And we have "red" people living everywhere from Mongolia to Alaska or the Yukon, to Guatemala & other tropical lands, since ancient times.

Now, a case can be made for Noah's grandchildren marrying nieces and nephews, but NOT for Adam and Eve's kids marrying each other.

Can you provide a listing of His basic laws of human behavior, as provided by Him, when Adam & Eve were cast from the garden? It seems that you have forgotten that God can and does change His mind in given sets of circumstances. Again, I'll use Noah, as the example. Noah & family were not destroyed because God decided to spare them to repopulate the earth.

Yes...the Decalogue, among others, the sole exception being that there were no Israelis, nor nation of Egypt; God hadn't yet brought His peculiar people outta Egypt.

Cain was guilty of covetousness jealousy, and disrespect of God as well as murder. Had he been fully wanting to obey God, he woulda inquired of God what sacrifice he could make that woulda been acceptable to Him. Maybe God rejected Cain's sacrifice due to his ATTITUDE.

IMO, you are trying to put God in a cage, when you presume to know EXACTLY what is/isn't His "basic law". Yet, you cannot give evidence that God considered incest to be against His "basic law" until such a point, in time, that He deemed it to be so.

I believe it's self-evident. We know exactly what His basic laws for behavior were when He gave them to Moses, so why should we assume they weren't in effect until then? We see SIN first mentioned by GOD in Gen. 4:7, before Cain whacked Abel. And the forbidden fruit allowed man to know good from evil, so Satan had already fallen, as evil then existed. There HAD to have been rules that could be broken for sin to exist, and plainly sin already existed. And what is sin? BREAKING A RULE OF GOD'S.


According to scriptures, this is when God told mankind they could eat animals.
Genesis 9: KJB
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Prior to that were these instructions:
Genesis: 1 KJB
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

That was before A&E sinned. Afterward, GOD made clothes for them from ANIMAL SKINS. And don't forget Abel's animal sacrifices. I betcha man ate meat right after "the fall", as God made it harder for man to simply farm.

Mankind & animals were vegetarian. Here the word meat means food.

That's why I recommend that no one be limited to just the KJV.

Where are the scriptures that specifiy dietary restrictions were specifically for health reasons? If that were the only reason, why were those restrictions lifted?

Practical reasoning. Food prep had advanced somewhat in paul's day.

And GOD didn't always explain everything He did. For example, He listed BATS among the non-kosher BIRDS.

Yes, because God caused a change to happen in their lives. He, Himself, changed what was expected for their behaviour. There was a rule in place that they could not go behind the veil. He changed the rule.

Actually, NOT. The priests repaired or replaced that veil; the rule was still in place for the Jews. However Hebrews 9 shows us that JESUS fulfilled all the laws of animal sacrifice and blood with Himself. The rule wasn't changed; it was FULFILLED. However, the Orthodox Jews went right on following it.

Prove it! So far you have not proved that God considered incest to be a sin, before the time He made that restriction on behaviour. How is that any different than putting rules in place regarding sacrifice. When He, Himself, decided that xyz activity was a sin, it was recorded as such. It seems that you are mixing "sin" with knowledge of good and evil. Today, we have many ways to "sin" that did not exist 5,000 years ago. IMO, God knew when Satan corrupted the act of reproduction. At that time, He placed additional restrictions on who could be partners.

The prohibition against incest is a basic law of God's, same as no worship of anyone/anything else, or against murder, theft, covetousness, adultery, etc. that were in place from the gitgo. God made SMALL adjustments as time passed, as he'd already planned, but He did NOT make any profound changes in the laws of behavior/conduct.

The whole Old Testament points to JESUS. Everyone who wprshipped God looked for the Messiah. When He came, few recognized Him, but He left His Gospel to spread the fact of His coming, death, and resurrection to the whole world. And Jesus Himself said He was NOT come to CHANGE any of God's laws, but to FULFILL certain ones of them.

Again, where is this list of basic laws?

Again, you can start with the Decalogue and add the laws against incest and other sexual perversions, lying, and any dishonesty toward one's fellow men.



In closing, this last section further confirms previous comments on biology, genetics/heredity. When some genetic mutations happen, they are passed along to offspring. If the mutation is beneficial and/or is recessive, it will be replicated in future generations in widening circles of influence.

Maybe, maybe NOT. Woolly mammoths are better-suited for survival in today's world than elephants. They could live in a variety of climates, and had much-harder teeth than elephants, enabling them to habe a more-varied diet. But they're not here any more.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Other than expulsion from Eden and other punishments (sweat of the brow, pain in childbirth), where can these other directives be shown in Scripture to have been in effect immediately after the fall?

God's punishing Cain for murder.




Or it could have as easily been the norm in some...
Possible. We just don't know.



It seems like you are making facts up in order to fit the case you are making.

Stating that a God-given decree existed at a time when none can be shown in Scripture to be in effect seems like adding to the Bible.
Not really, when GOD HIMSELF says He doesn't change. And again, we go back to Cain's murder. God even mentioned sin to Cain BEFORE he whacked Abel.

And then there's Genesis 6, when God said the whole earth was corrupt. There HAD to have been something to have been corrupted-common sense.
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Adam and Eve were the first, and ONLY two people on the earth, God even said "It is not good for man to be alone....", why would he say that if there were other people around? Therefore ALL other people had to come from those two, and since God told you that Eve is the mother of all living, Cain HAD to have married a sister, niece, or some other relative------COMMON SENSE.



Yet YOU don't believe that.

So..................since you've repeatedly stated that you do not believe Cain married a relative, one can only conclude that YOU believe God created "other people" apart from Adam and Eve---------the only conclusion we can come to.


You also don't believe that the different "races" (caucasian, black, oriental, etc.) could all have come from Adam and Eve, so one can only conclude that YOU believe God created the races separately--------------again, the only conclusion we can come to.


God creating separate races, "other people", and all the rest of the garbage you're trying to spew is seriously un-Biblical, and borders on craziness!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
" Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord." Job 2:1

Are you saying Satan could have pro created with a woman?
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How many children did Adam and Eve have? We know about Cain, Abel and Seth. But Adam lived about 800 years after Seth was born. If you consider half that lifespan he and Eve were fertile and a baby takes about a year, then Adam and Eve could have had perhaps 400 kids, half girls. Then lets say after another 100 years, these 400 start producing kids perhaps 200 or so a year. Thus when Cain was alive, he would have had several sisters, and nieces to take as his wife.

All this is speculation, but there is no problem with where Cain got his wife. She was family.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So, you still believe GOD condoned incest between full siblings, B4L?

And A&E were of the same race. Like produces like. So, YOU tell me where the various races came from.

"Oops-Bleached another one" won't do.

You're in a tizzy cuz you've been exposed as a closet KJVO in various dialogues, and you have no Scriptural support for it. And again, anything WE say about where Cain got a wife is speculation, as both Scripture and secular history are silent about it. So, you might as well get over it. You cannot prove me wrong, and I can't prove myself right on this'n. It's just one of those mysteries that GOD will reveal to us some day, if He chooses to. Nothing we can change about it; whatever effects it had are still the same-it changes nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

saturneptune

New Member
According to the extra Biblical book of Enoch, the name of the person Cain married was Candy. Since she did not have a last name, she took Cain's name for her last name. Her name was Candy Cain, and here is a picture of her from the CNN archives.

k0128598.jpg


And here is their family

k2752581.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You've been shown that God did not condemn incest until much later. And you've been refuted by many others on here about what you believe. You've insinuated that God created other people besides Adam and Eve without any Biblical support, so where are YOU any different than the KJVO people you attack for the same thing? I believe "hypocrite" is the word that applies here.

I'm not 'in a tizzy" about anything. If you want to pretend I'm some "closet KJVO" that's fine with me. I'd rather be called that, than be considered a "nut". What you're insinuating would undermine the entire book of Genesis! THAT would worry me, if I were you. You seem to be the one who is upset. You've exposed yourself to those on here to what you actually believe. If you are that "out there" on this topic, heaven knows, your credibility just went out the window! Thank you.
 

Oldtimer

New Member
Well, IMO, it's NOT contrary to Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture do we see God doing a 180 on His commands. Yes, I know He told Moses He was gonna destroy Israel, but I believe He was testing Moses, since He had already prophesied what would become of each tribe, and that Shiloh was to come from JUDAH. (Moses was a Levite.) That incident was different from His basic laws of behavior. And I firmly believe that His basic law was in place from the gitgo, given orally to the first generations.
---
But Chihuahuas cannot produce Yorkies; Great Danes can't produce St. Bernards. Yes, a Chihuahua can mate with a Yorkie and produce a Chikie. But, long as they mate with a like breed, they'll produce pups of that breed.
--
Actually, the opposite is true. it's common sense that black absorbs much more light, infrared, or UV than white. Just place your hands on a white car and a black car that have both been sitting the sun for awhile.
---
Not really. We know where Mt. Ararat is, in Turkey. And we have "red" people living everywhere from Mongolia to Alaska or the Yukon, to Guatemala & other tropical lands, since ancient times.

Now, a case can be made for Noah's grandchildren marrying nieces and nephews, but NOT for Adam and Eve's kids marrying each other.
----
Yes...the Decalogue, among others, the sole exception being that there were no Israelis, nor nation of Egypt; God hadn't yet brought His peculiar people outta Egypt.

Cain was guilty of covetousness jealousy, and disrespect of God as well as murder. Had he been fully wanting to obey God, he woulda inquired of God what sacrifice he could make that woulda been acceptable to Him. Maybe God rejected Cain's sacrifice due to his ATTITUDE.
---
I believe it's self-evident. We know exactly what His basic laws for behavior were when He gave them to Moses, so why should we assume they weren't in effect until then? We see SIN first mentioned by GOD in Gen. 4:7, before Cain whacked Abel. And the forbidden fruit allowed man to know good from evil, so Satan had already fallen, as evil then existed. There HAD to have been rules that could be broken for sin to exist, and plainly sin already existed. And what is sin? BREAKING A RULE OF GOD'S.
----
That was before A&E sinned. Afterward, GOD made clothes for them from ANIMAL SKINS. And don't forget Abel's animal sacrifices. I betcha man ate meat right after "the fall", as God made it harder for man to simply farm.
-----
That's why I recommend that no one be limited to just the KJV.
---
Practical reasoning. Food prep had advanced somewhat in paul's day.

And GOD didn't always explain everything He did. For example, He listed BATS among the non-kosher BIRDS.
---
Actually, NOT. The priests repaired or replaced that veil; the rule was still in place for the Jews. However Hebrews 9 shows us that JESUS fulfilled all the laws of animal sacrifice and blood with Himself. The rule wasn't changed; it was FULFILLED. However, the Orthodox Jews went right on following it.
-----
The prohibition against incest is a basic law of God's, same as no worship of anyone/anything else, or against murder, theft, covetousness, adultery, etc. that were in place from the gitgo. God made SMALL adjustments as time passed, as he'd already planned, but He did NOT make any profound changes in the laws of behavior/conduct.

The whole Old Testament points to JESUS. Everyone who wprshipped God looked for the Messiah. When He came, few recognized Him, but He left His Gospel to spread the fact of His coming, death, and resurrection to the whole world. And Jesus Himself said He was NOT come to CHANGE any of God's laws, but to FULFILL certain ones of them.
-----
Again, you can start with the Decalogue and add the laws against incest and other sexual perversions, lying, and any dishonesty toward one's fellow men.
----
Maybe, maybe NOT. Woolly mammoths are better-suited for survival in today's world than elephants. They could live in a variety of climates, and had much-harder teeth than elephants, enabling them to habe a more-varied diet. But they're not here any more.

There is so much wrong within this post that I cannot begin to address all the issues within the time I have to spend here and the physical limitations of this conversation medium. Much is pure speculation without any scriptural support. Or, speculation (opinion) contrary to what's stated in the scriptures.

Further, it is clear that you don't have a good grasp of how both man and God used/uses genetics. Either that or you have a specific motive for ignoring important points because they don't meet the criterior that you've set. That is using "incest", as you define it, to justify your apparent belief that God created multiple peoples -- races -- classes -- different physical attributes -- in the beginning.

Scriptures tell us that God created Adam in His own image, which would have included perfection in DNA. He then took a rib from Adam (identical DNA) and "modified" it to create a woman named Eve. Modification included X & Y chromosomes, establishing the gender/genetic difference between a man and a woman. Establishing mitochondrial DNA, whereby the linage of Christ could/would be carried by women back to Eve, born of Adam's flesh.

To suggest that Cain married a woman, created by some means other than resulting from a union of Adam and Eve, implies several things. One of which is that either Adam or Eve committed adultry. ie Cain married a half sister, at the minimum. In order to trace the linage of Christ back to Adam, through Eve, it would have been Adam who sinned in this manner.

To my knowlege, there is nothing in scripture that indicates Adam committed this sin. In fact, lack of this sin is indicated in that Adam was so faithful to Eve that he followed her, instead of God's instruction.

Again, to my knowledge there is nothing in scripture about incest being a sin until God declared it to be so. In order for your premise about incest to stand, you have to claim that Adam committed a particular sin without scriptural proof that he did so. The sin of adultry. Especially in view of when Adam became aware of "good & evil" and the birth of their children. In essence you are saying that Adam willfully sinned with another woman in defiance of God, yet again. Can you show me where the scriptures record that he committed this sin?

If this sin happened, then, the linage of Christ back to Adam is broken. See mitochondrial DNA. Christ's linage would be traced back to the other woman that God would have had to create. One not born of Adam. Or, are you saying that God took more than one rib from Adam?
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
According to the extra Biblical book of Enoch, the name of the person Cain married was Candy. Since she did not have a last name, she took Cain's name for her last name. Her name was Candy Cain, and here is a picture of her from the CNN archives.

k0128598.jpg


And here is their family

k2752581.jpg

It is not often we get to LOL on hear. Thanks!
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You've been shown that God did not condemn incest until much later. And you've been refuted by many others on here about what you believe. You've insinuated that God created other people besides Adam and Eve without any Biblical support, so where are YOU any different than the KJVO people you attack for the same thing? I believe "hypocrite" is the word that applies here.

I'm not 'in a tizzy" about anything. If you want to pretend I'm some "closet KJVO" that's fine with me. I'd rather be called that, than be considered a "nut". What you're insinuating would undermine the entire book of Genesis! THAT would worry me, if I were you. You seem to be the one who is upset. You've exposed yourself to those on here to what you actually believe. If you are that "out there" on this topic, heaven knows, your credibility just went out the window! Thank you.


If there is an, "Age of Accountability;" What did this little innocent baby boy do? And he said, Cursed Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Gen. 9:25

Why does this verse end as it does? And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan. Gen. 9:18

What is so significant concerning this innocent baby boy, one of the sons of Ham, born after the flood?

Could his birth have been relative to incest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top