Cain's Wives

[MarvelousMarvin]

One of the most common questions asked by skeptics is, "Where did Cain get his wife?"

Of course, the correct answer is that he married his sister (from monogamist-only Bible believers) or sisters (from us true Bible believers.)

And the usual response is that incest is a sin. That issue was dealt with in another thread, and won't be repeated here.

But here is another good come-back to those who object to incest not being sin before Mosaic law was given:

Adam married himself. All of Eve's DNA came from Adam!

So why would Adam's sons think it wrong marry their own sisters? And for that matter, why would Adam think it wrong to take, as additional wives, his own daughters? (As long as he left enough unmarried daughters for all of his sons to have wives... :lol: )

 

[Anonymous]

Awww PolyDoc, you've done quit preachin' and gone to meddlin'. :lol:
Seriously, it is so hard for folks to think outside the box of tradition that your post seems ludicrous and just flat out wrong. However, when we look at the Word, clearly and simply, it makes so much sense and solves so many of our problems. I wish more people would read the Bible through the lens of the Holy Spirit and put away those glasses of tradition.

 

[Tlaloc]

I've always been of the same view as you concerning Cain's wives, and have come to a similar view of Adam's marridge in recent years as well. It's not stated very much though.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Tlaloc,

To the best of my knowledge, I am the first to say what I said about Adam's marriage to Eve. (That he married himself.) At least, I have never read it anywhere nor heard anyone say it, even as a joke.

But in light of what we know about DNA and genetics, and in light of how Eve was created (from Adam's rib) it is literally true, at least as far as genetics is concerned. God apparently did not create any new genetic material in the process of creating Eve, but used the DNA He had already created when He created Adam.

But one question - did Adam still have all the DNA he started out with, and God duplicated/multiplied that which He used to form Eve? Or did he completely remove certain genetic material from Adam?

IMHO, Adam still "had it all" when he woke up with a living, breathing "rib" next to him. But I might be wrong about that.

 

[Isabella]

Genetics...please don't use genetics. Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.
Debate incest is you will but with genetics, you are pretty much wrong from the start.

b

 

[Anonymous]

Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.
Debate incest is you will but with genetics, you are pretty much wrong from the start.

For a true Christian...any modern scientific analysis that dates the female line as being older than the male must be rejected. The Word Of God trumps any and all other sources....always.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Tlaloc]

No matter what philosophy of humanity you take humans have never reproduced asexually...

Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.

You must seriously not understand what this means...

It means that male lines are not as traceable as female ones, and that is for a number of reasons.

It does not mean females existed before males in any human or theoretical human-like creature. Even evolutionists place the evolution of sex many aeons before this. Even then, you're in theoretic genetics, not modern genetics.

Mendelian Genetics are an entirely Christian field, I would appreciate it if those who don't understand or believe in what he was working to show evidence of not misuse his work. Moreover, what you're saying doesn't really matter to the topic, so if you want to pursue a discussion of theoretic evolutionary genetics pertaining to women existing before men please start a thread about it. It doesn't really matter here.

Polydoc,

I would maintain that there is the one genetic change to make her woman. I have heard it pointed out at several places that they would be nearly identical genetically, though I haven't heard it phrased 'he married himself' before, I'll grant you that. Typically it's said Adam had 'full diversity' while Eve had 'half diversity'. That is, Adam had both male and female chromosomes, and full diversity of everything else, and Eve had only a double set of female chromosomes, she lost that one 'male' switch which cut her potential diversity of unique offspring by half.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Isabella said:

Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.

But as Fairlight pointed out, God's Word trumps anything man's "wisdom" might come up with. And the Bible says that Adam was created first, then Eve. In actuality, man's and woman's DNA is the same age, as is implied by my statement that Adam married himself.

Secular humanist geology says that the Earth was created over millions of years by natural forces. The Bible says that the entire universe was created in six literal days.

How does a scientist date a rock? Simple...he finds a fossil in the rock, and asks a paleontologist to date the fossil. So the rock is as old as the fossil.

How does the paleontologist date the fossil? Simple...he calls a geologist and asks how old the rock is that the fossil was found in. So the fossil is as old as the rock.

Kind of reminds me of what Paul said about who Christians should not compare themselves to (emphasis mine):

2 Corinthians 10:12 NKJV (12) For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

But what about radioactive dating? That requires a whole bunch of unwarranted assumptions:

• How much parent element was in the rock when it formed?
  How much daughter element was in the rock when it formed?
  Was the rate of decay (parent element -> daughter element, often with intermediate elements as well) constant over the supposed millions of years since the rock formed?
  Did any of the parent or daughter elements leach in or out over the supposed millions of years since the rock formed?

And the list goes on...

There are undoubtedly many similar assumptions that a geneticist must make when dating DNA.

The bottom line: either the Bible is a pack of lies and we are on our own, or the Bible, where it speaks of history, is an accurate historical document inspired by an eyewitness to how things were created. That eyewitness, of course, is none other than the Creator Himself. He was there; no modern scientist was. And if the Bible is true, then we are accountable to that Creator.

If you believe that the Universe and all it contains is the result of natural processes acting over millions and billions of years, ask yourself these questions:

• Where did the space/time/matter that makes up the universe come from?
  Who or what "enacted" those "natural" laws that makes for an orderly universe?
  What happened to the "natural" law of entropy? Was it temporarily repealed while the universe as we know it was forming itself?
  How did life arise from non-life? I thought Pasteur proved that concept to be false.
  Has any scientist actually observed one kind of living organism evolve into another? or even to one of the so-called "missing links?" (There is not one missing link, there are untold millions.)
  Has any scientist ever found, in living organisms, any genetic mutation that was actually helpful rather than harmful to the organism that first showed that mutation? Remember, evolution requires millions of helpful mutations to get from one kind to another.

Only the Bible starts with an eternally self-existent God Who created space/time/matter by simply speaking it into existence. All other "theories" about how things came to be start with pre-existing space/time/matter and pre-existing "natural" law. That includes ALL religions, past and present, that depart from what the Bible teaches in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. (Evolution is religion, not science. It requires far more faith than I have!)

And if you believe in any form of so-called "theistic evolution," don't you think that the Bible would record that instead of special creation?

If you believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis, you have no problem believing the rest of the Bible. If you don't believe those first 11 chapters, none of the rest of the Bible makes any sense at all. (Thanks, Ken Ham, for stating that on your website! http://www.answersingenesis.org/)

For more about radioactive dating, see http://www.halos.com/ as well as Ken Ham's website. (I don't agree with everything Ken Ham teaches - he is apparently anti-poly, stressing "one man and one woman" as often as he can. Not sure, but that might be a slam against divorce more than against against poly. But he is right on about scientific matters and the Bible.)

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Isabella said:

Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.

One more question to ask yourself...who or what mated with the older line of females in order to propagate a race that had no males?

 

[Isabella]

Isabella said:

Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.

But as Fairlight pointed out, God's Word trumps anything man's "wisdom" might come up with. And the Bible says ....

Yes, that is fair enough. I can't talk about physical science, as I am not educated enough IN the physical science, but I think it is MORE than fair for you and Fairlight and any other person to reject science if you choose, I am just asking you not to use terms like DNA etc, if you refuse to accept what DNA tells you as scientific facts.

In other words, it is hypocritical to pick and choose what part of genetic science you choose to believe, I might not understand your stance but I defend your right to reject science in general.

regards,
B

 

[Isabella]

No matter what philosophy of humanity you take humans have never reproduced asexually...

Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.

You must seriously not understand what this means...

Don't patronise me. Either we CAN say this OR every male descendant of Adam died and do not walk the earth today. You can't have it both ways.

DNA is actually very simple and very linear (despite its structure) and its age can be measured, the Y chromosome has been and it is the MOST significant indication of 'Maleness' that we have, if you have a Y chromosome, you are male, no ifs, no buts. Like I said, you can choose to ignore things if you want, but don't try to bend science to your will, it does NOT bend.

B

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Isabella said:

Like I said, you can choose to ignore things if you want, but don't try to bend science to your will, it does NOT bend.

Science is often wrong. Science changes, sometimes from day-to-day. God's Word is the same now as when it was first written, and is reliable, true, infallible, and inerrant.

The question remains: if the female line is far older than the male line, who or what did the "far older" female line mate with while they were waiting for the male line to show up?

"Female" means there is bisexual reproduction. No bisexual reproduction = no female, no male, just some sexless something-or-other, like an amoeba, that reproduces asexually. It should be obvious, but I will state it anyway: bisexual reproduction = female + male. No male, no reproduction. No reproduction, the "far older" female line ceases to exist. So it is a logical impossibility for the female line to be older than the male line - and vice-versa. We who believe in the Bible have only one Virgin Birth to explain. Those who believe that the female line is "far older" than the male line have a few thousand generations of nothing but virgin births to explain.

Something is wrong with the methods used by science to determine the ages of the male and female lines. That is not "bending science," it is questioning the results of scientific methods.

Romans 1:25 NKJV who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

[Isabella]

Nothing is wrong with it, it just doesn't fit into the way you see the world.

The air I breathe isn't made up of glitter either but that doesn't mean that the science is wrong.

Just because many people think as you do, it doesn't mean it is any less a 'belief' rather than a fact. Though I appreciate beliefs are facts as you see them, not everyone and certainly not the scientific community will agree.

'Bisexual reproduction'? Just your terminology proves you are not scientifically educated, I am just making you aware that you can't go on about DNA when you don't know anything about it, it is not an intelligent way to converse, stick to what you know.

B

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Isabella said:

Just your terminology proves you are not scientifically educated, I am just making you aware that you can't go on about DNA when you don't know anything about it, it is not an intelligent way to converse, stick to what you know.

Disparaging someone's education and intelligence does not answer the question: how can the female line be "far older" than the male? It doesn't take a "scientific education" to know that "it takes two to tango." (Unless you're an amoeba.) If the female line was reproducing long before the male line evolved, how did they do it? It was either bisexual reproduction, or they weren't female. If it was bisexual reproduction, then there were both females and males, meaning the male line is just as old as the female line regardless of what your precious science might tell you by extrapolating what they observe in the present back into the unknowable past.

Maybe another way to ask the question is this: how did bisexual reproduction evolve? Males and females of the same species had to appear at the same time, both with fully developed sex organs, capable of functioning sexually and reproducing.

And it all happened by chance. Sure wish my faith in God was as strong as an evolutionist's faith in chance random processes causing intelligent life to appear and question how it got here!

 

[Isabella]

*bangs head on the wall*

I have already answered all your DNA questions on the last thread. I am not going through it again. I am not disparaging your intelligence in general, but your (obvious) lack of scientific knowledge. I have no idea about your education levels or your IQ but I certainly don't think it SOUNDS clever to discuss DNA when you don't really know anything about DNA. I know, without a doubt, that your knowledge about the Bible and the history of Christianity, far surpasses mine, I would not try to take you to task about that because I am aware of this fact. Trust me when I say that your reasoning is wrong. If you want to disbelieve it, go right ahead....but don't tell me that I don't know what I am talking about.

Now can we let this matter drop please?

Regards,
B

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Well, since you obviously don't have an answer about how it is possible for the female line to be far older than the male line, guess it will have to drop. I was hoping you could explain it.

All that science can examine is evidence that is available in the present. Where specimens are not available from the past, scientists must extrapolate present data into the past. There is no DNA available in the present that can be dated to more than a few thousand years old, so anything about DNA before that must, of necessity, be extrapolated. That is an inexact discipline, unlike looking at a specimen from a still-warm cadaver.

Anything that contradicts the Bible is false. That includes so-called "science."

1 Timothy 6:20 KJV O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Science has been changing since it was "discovered." (Or would "invented" or "recognized" or some other word be more accurate?) But God and His Word remain the same.

Creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists all have the same data and specimens available to them. They just look at it with different presuppositions.

Einstein's equations can be made to "prove" that the universe is several billion years old - if the person solving those equations starts with a certain set of presuppositions which can not be proven. Those same equations can also be made to "prove" that the universe is only a few thousand years old - if the person solving those equations starts with a different, equally valid but still unprovable set of presuppositions.

Your blind faith is amazing. I still marvel that anyone can have so much faith in something that changes from day-to-day!

Proverbs 1:7 NKJV The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

There is no where in the Bible to say that Adam did not marry his daughters at least as far as I know but there is no where that says he did at least as far as I know.

To start making up wild statements that Adam did or did not marry his daughters without reason, for either one over the other is in my opinion very dangerous.

By the way before you start speculating about how many wives Noah had and when remember that there were only eight souls....

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1 Peter 3:20 KJV

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

No matter what philosophy of humanity you take humans have never reproduced asexually...

Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.

You must seriously not understand what this means...

Don't patronise me. Either we CAN say this OR every male descendant of Adam died and do not walk the earth today. You can't have it both ways.

DNA is actually very simple and very linear (despite its structure) and its age can be measured, the Y chromosome has been and it is the MOST significant indication of 'Maleness' that we have, if you have a Y chromosome, you are male, no ifs, no buts. Like I said, you can choose to ignore things if you want, but don't try to bend science to your will, it does NOT bend.

B

If the female line is older than the male line, who got the females pregnant?

There might be three male lines after the flood and each of those male lines traced to Eve, but they would also trace to Adam.

Anyway the idea that the female line would be older than the male line does not make any sense to me, those women did not have fathers?

Either life existed eternally, it was created and or life came from non-life, is there any fourth option other than a combination of those three or the non-existence of life (in which life is an illusion, etc.?)

By the way there are serious serious serious limitations of experimental science to determining history, I am not saying that it should be ignored altogether but knowing the properties of gravity is not the same as knowing if Abraham Lincoln was or was not executed by falling rocks, for that the field of history should be used. That being said, in order to use the historical manuscripts certain laws of physics are assumed like a tendency for manuscripts talking about Abraham Lincoln's execution not appearing out of thin air by random chance processes 5 minutes ago, along with everyone's memory being changed by random chance processes 6 minutes ago, not tending to happen according to the believed laws of physics, etc. Now if someone assumes all the experiments in the past about gravity must be ignored because they do not believe in history they would essentially make experimental science useless. So there is an appropriate overlap and an appropriate division between history and experimental science.

 

[jsw]

This may be a child like question...

But why would incest be a sin? Or at least during the time of Cain. Who else was he going to marry? Maybe I miss-read the topic, but that is what I have to say about it.

As far as now is concerned, I absolutely believe incest is a sin. Just like I think there is a time and a place for plural marriage. There was a need for it; to procreate to make new families for the Lord. Just as I believe that each woman should have her cover and if she can not find a single man to cover her under the Lord, then I believe that a man who is already married should step in and cover her as well as the wife he is already married to.

Also, the term incest means impure. Now, this may also be completely off topic, but didn't Kings and Queens marry the same blood to keep the keep the bloodlines "pure"?

I don't know, maybe I'm just talking out of my foot. I definitely do not speak like the rest of you, but that's my two cents.

 

[Tlaloc]

Isabella,

Honestly, I used the correct term, asexual reproduction, and you still ducked the question. Do you believe humans or human like species reproduced asexually? If not, the data you're referring too doesn't mean what you think it means. Even in you're ideology sexual reproduction emerged far before humanity. Dogmatic assertions without explaining implications like that are what your cult uses to grab headlines and keep peons. You're unbendable evolutionary science necessarily gets a new face every few decades to keep patching the holes. Sound science does bend, because short of being omniscient you can't calculate every contingency into a theory so the theory of the day has to change as circumstances and knowledge base changes. The assertion that science (gnosis, knowledge) is unbendable is the surest sign one treats science as a religion or cult and not a means too ends or anything like objective. Knowledge which is not fluid or questionable is called dogma, and thats exactly what science is to you.

Now, if we're talking about evolutionary biology a male is any creature that produces a male gamete (such as spermatozoa) it is not defined by any particular chromosome in any particular animal, barring extreme fringes of the evo cult there is no time where anything in human family did not have a male line. It bugs me to no end when someone not only fails to understand the beliefs of who their talking to but also massively fails to understand their own belief system.

it is hypocritical to pick and choose what part of genetic science you choose to believe,

Mendelian Genetics are an entirely Christian field, I would appreciate it if those who don't understand or believe in what he was working to show evidence of not misuse his work.

Showing God's power is the very cornerstone of genetic science, by your standards hypocritical of you to use it at all without beleiving the God part.


Thankfully I understand that genetic science is not an organized cannon of dogma but rather a whole heap of information and theory, not nearly all of it harmonized you cannot just believe all of 'genetic science' unless you've failed non-contradiction 101. The diversity of theory and existence of debate shows that that field of science is healthy and growing. Both the sciences of Theology and evolutionary theory run the same risks, the people leading them can be censorious and that kills the field. Evolutionary theory right now is frequently quite the stagnant cesspool of refusing to hear objections to its premise, Roman Catholic Theology is often the same. Here on this site you can see the vitality of differing opinions and debate on many topics, thus its a good place for Theology to develop. Of course as you say you're not educated enough in either physical science or theology to engage in this kind of developmental science, and probably won't get there since you view view you view the work of you're prelates as unbendable...



Polydoc

It's just called sexual reproduction, asexual means without sex, and sexual means with sex (I.E. separate gametes).