Who was Cain's wife?

[FollowingHim]

The word is "aima" in the Textus Receptus, and translated "blood" in the KJV. Other Greek texts may use a different word and be translated man. But the meaning of either variant is essentially the same. The word "blood" refers to kindred in this context, "made from one blood" means we are all related. "Made from one man" would also mean we are all related. Genesis clearly describes HOW we were all created - the first humans, Adam and Eve, were created and we are all descended from them - so are all related. Both passages are in complete harmony regardless of the precise translation of Acts 17:26, if you just accept the plain reading of the scripture.

Yes, Genesis 6:2 states the "sons of God" were sleeping with the "daughters of man" and having giant offspring. Now check the Hebrew word for "man" = it is "adam". In the Hebrew, this actually says the "sons of God" slept with "daughters of Adam"! So this does not describe a separate race of non-humans that Cain could have got a wife from, rather the complete opposite - some non-human males (generally taken to be fallen angels, but not necessarily) who were sleeping with human women. No non-human wives to be had there, unless Cain wanted to marry a man. This is a difficult and fascinating passage, but it doesn't really give any scope to slip in any other non-Adamic race of people. Unless you're already convinced of that idea and are determined to squeeze it in somewhere.

You can find justification for any view, even monogamy, in scripture if you're already convinced of the idea. But we should rather read scripture with no presuppositions and accept what God says clearly through it, even if the conclusions are something we didn't expect (like polygamy).

God says what He says, man through the futility of his mind (Romans 1) observes what God made and tries to figure it out apart from and in contradiction to what God says expressly. Christians suppose that they can and should challenge the authority, historicity, and inspiration of God's Word in order to fit in the speculations of men. Look around, folks. This is why we are here in BF. We have gone back to what God's Word expressly says and stand firmly therein. We don't add to the Law those things that man has extrapolated, such as the illegality and sinfulness of polygyny. Rather we stand on what God expressly declares, including those difficult things, and let God be true even if every man (and his "evidence" which MUST be interpreted through his world view) be a liar. It is not adding to Scripture to declare that Cain married either his sister or niece as no other people existed in the historical biblical record. It is adding to God's Word to say that other people existed as such are never mentioned, alluded to, or otherwise supposed from the Biblical text.

Very well said.

 

[NeoPatriarch]

Translation is much more complicated then looking up words and considering every possibility. As I understand it Greek, especially biblical Greek is a very precise language. Perhaps we should consider what scholars have to say. Perhaps I can submit this issue to James White, and see if he thinks there is as much wriggle room as you suggest.

Meanwhile, if I thought the text was as shaky and fluid as you, it would lead me to question the sufficiency of scripture. According to scholars there just doesn't seem to be so much uncertainty.

 

[Oreslag]

The word is "aima" in the Textus Receptus, and translated "blood" in the KJV. Other Greek texts may use a different word and be translated man. But the meaning of either variant is essentially the same. The word "blood" refers to kindred in this context, "made from one blood" means we are all related. "Made from one man" would also mean we are all related. Genesis clearly describes HOW we were all created - the first humans, Adam and Eve, were created and we are all descended from them - so are all related. Both passages are in complete harmony regardless of the precise translation of Acts 17:26, if you just accept the plain reading of the scripture.

Interesting how I feel the same way as you do: just accept the plain reading of the scripture. The plain reading of Acts 17:26 is "and he made of one blood/bloodshed every nation of men to dwell upon all the face of the earth having confirmed beforehand times and the boundaries of their dwelling." Claiming that "one blood" = "one man" is not a plain reading, but rather is a reasonable interpretation. Nevertheless, it is still an interpretation and is therefore speculative to some degree. One other possibility is that "he made of one bloodshed every nation of men." That is to say that all those living today owe their existence to God having preserved Noah when He destroyed the "ancient world"; whatever that comprised (2 Peter 2:5). But again, this is a speculative interpretation. Thus, the plain reading of the scripture permits both. To constrain it otherwise is not to accept the plain reading of the scripture but to prefer a particular interpretation.

Regarding the topic of the OP though, the point is moot and it was not my purpose to argue one way or another regarding the interpretation of Acts 17:26. If there were "other people" we know they all perished because all those living today are the progeny of Noah, who proceeded from Adam through Seth. Rather, my purpose was to point out how very easy it is to offer as truth an interpretation that constrains the words of scripture more than the "plain reading" does.

 

[FollowingHim]

I didn't claim "one blood" = "one man", that would be nonsense. I rather stated that both phrases say we are all related, they just say it in slightly different ways. The general conclusion is the same.

Unless you pick the one possible translation that doesn't line up with this, and despite no scholar translating it as such decide that this means we were "made from one bloodshed" - a phrase that doesn't make any sense as we were not "made from" the flood or any other disaster, but rather survived despite them, and is thus a highly unlikely translation in the context.

Note that the concordance you use only gives the root words, which have a wide range of potential meanings. The actual word used in the text is derived from the root word and is generally more specific, it is very dangerous to conclude that all possibilities are equally valid, particularly when the one possibility you are proposing is not used by any translator and you don't know the language yourself.

 

[Oreslag]

Yes, Genesis 6:2 states the "sons of God" were sleeping with the "daughters of man" and having giant offspring. Now check the Hebrew word for "man" = it is "adam". In the Hebrew, this actually says the "sons of God" slept with "daughters of Adam"! So this does not describe a separate race of non-humans that Cain could have got a wife from, rather the complete opposite - some non-human males (generally taken to be fallen angels, but not necessarily) who were sleeping with human women. No non-human wives to be had there, unless Cain wanted to marry a man. This is a difficult and fascinating passage, but it doesn't really give any scope to slip in any other non-Adamic race of people. Unless you're already convinced of that idea and are determined to squeeze it in somewhere.

I think you misunderstood my post here. I was using this example in replying to the concern regarding original sin expressed by 'ChrisM.' In particular, I was using this as an example to show that all the sinning beings on earth did not necessarily proceed from Adam, and also that Eve would still be the mother of all the living (i.e. spiritually alive) even though there was interbreeding going on between Adam's daughters and the (presumably spiritually dead) sons of God.

Now that you mention it though, why is it beyond the realm of possibility that the resulting progeny of the sons of God and daughters of men might include females as well? If so, then Cain may have taken a wife from among these daughters instead of one of his sisters.

 

[Oreslag]

Translation is much more complicated then looking up words and considering every possibility. As I understand it Greek, especially biblical Greek is a very precise language. Perhaps we should consider what scholars have to say. Perhaps I can submit this issue to James White, and see if he thinks there is as much wriggle room as you suggest.

Meanwhile, if I thought the text was as shaky and fluid as you, it would lead me to question the sufficiency of scripture. According to scholars there just doesn't seem to be so much uncertainty.

I'm not saying it is shaky or fluid fluid at all, and I fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I'm pointing out precisely what it says; which is different than what you claimed it said. You claimed it said something it does not say, and I corrected you. Bottom line is the Greek text uses the word "blood" and the English translations chose to render this as "man" instead. You don't need to be a scholar to know these two are different words.

Indeed, it kinda ticks me off that you characterize me as "making wiggle room" when it is you who is forcing the scripture to mean something it does not specifically say.

 

[Oreslag]

I didn't claim "one blood" = "one man", that would be nonsense. I rather stated that both phrases say we are all related, they just say it in slightly different ways. The general conclusion is the same.

Actually, you did make such a claim and it is not nonsense:

The word "blood" refers to kindred in this context, "made from one blood" means we are all related. "Made from one man" would also mean we are all related.

I've bolded the statements and the equivalence you argued above. However, it was clear to me that you were "stating that both phrases say we are all related." I was simply expressing this same idea using "one blood" = "one man." Perhaps you misunderstood my terse way of describing your statement.

 

[FollowingHim]

Written language is such a frustrating thing, I get the feeling that if we were discussing this in person we'd have a lot fewer misunderstandings and reach a mutual conclusion we both agreed on rather rapidly!

 

[ChrisM]

I just literally :lol: atthe bloodshed interpretation. Didn't most drown during the flood?

 

[FollowingHim]

Now that you mention it though, why is it beyond the realm of possibility that the resulting progeny of the sons of God and daughters of men might include females as well? If so, then Cain may have taken a wife from among these daughters instead of one of his sisters.

Certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. Unlikely given the timing (the "sons of God" only got involved once "men began to multiply on the earth"), but plausible. However, in this case Cain's wife would still have been his neice (or great-niece), so it doesn't affect the original question of whether Cain married a relative or not.

 

[NeoPatriarch]

I just literally :lol: atthe bloodshed interpretation. Didn't most drown during the flood?

Evolutionist do believe that death creates better generations, by excluding some from breeding through death.

 

[Oreslag]

Unless you pick the one possible translation that doesn't line up with this, and despite no scholar translating it as such decide that this means we were "made from one bloodshed" - a phrase that doesn't make any sense as we were not "made from" the flood or any other disaster, but rather survived despite them, and is thus a highly unlikely translation in the context.

Note that the concordance you use only gives the root words, which have a wide range of potential meanings. The actual word used in the text is derived from the root word and is generally more specific, it is very dangerous to conclude that all possibilities are equally valid, particularly when the one possibility you are proposing is not used by any translator and you don't know the language yourself.

Regarding the "made from one bloodshed", the word translated "make" can also mean "cause", "prepare", "produce", "establish", and a number of other English words; while the word translated "from" is listed as meaning "from out of" in my lexical concordance. Thus, this statement could be rendered "and he caused from out of one bloodshed every nation of men to dwell upon..." This phrase makes fine sense.

However, the point I've been trying to make all along and that seems to fail to hit its mark over and over again on this thread is this: scholars bring their own preconceived notion to the scripture when they translate it in the first place just like we do. If a scholar is convinced beforehand that this passage was God intending to say that we all descended from Adam which would he choose: (1) "and he made of one man every nation", or (2) "and he caused from out of one bloodshed every nation"? Given another scholar convinced beforehand that God was intending to say that all who live today descended from Noah (i.e. no progeny of the giants, etc.), which would he choose? I hope you can see what I'm trying to caution against by this example.

Regarding the concordance I use and my lack of familiarity with the language, your points are well-taken and I agree. However, it is also dangerous to fail to consider that translators and their resulting translations may be incorrect due to their bias. Recall that back in 1634 "Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture" (quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei). The "scholars" of that day used "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" (Psalm 104:5), and "and the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" (Ecclesiastes 1:5), to conclude that Galileo a heretic and worthy of punishment.

However, the intervening years have demonstrated that the scholars of his day were mistaken. How many biblical scholars today would deny that the earth orbits the sun? As I've said repeatedly on this thread, God is sovereign over His creation. Thus, it is foolhardy to declare that the evidence we find in His creation (i.e. old bones, planetary orbits, etc.) is inconsistent with His Word. We display our ignorance of the truth the moment we do such a thing.

 

[Oreslag]

I just literally :lol: atthe bloodshed interpretation. Didn't most drown during the flood?

Lol. Yes.

 

[NeoPatriarch]

Indeed, it kinda ticks me off that you characterize me as "making wiggle room" when it is you who is forcing the scripture to mean something it does not specifically say.

Not me. According to you every major translation is wrong. Perhaps you think there is a conspiracy, I don't know. If there were an error here your problem is with these many translation committees. Men who actually study the language.

Do you have a list of corrections you would like us to adopt? Never mind, I trust God to preserve his word.

 

[Oreslag]

Indeed, it kinda ticks me off that you characterize me as "making wiggle room" when it is you who is forcing the scripture to mean something it does not specifically say.

Not me. According to you every major translation is wrong. Perhaps you think there is a conspiracy, I don't know. If there were an error here your problem is with these many translation committees. Men who actually study the language.

Do you have a list of corrections you would like us to adopt? Never mind, I trust God to preserve his word.

Most of the original Greek texts use the word "blood" in a place where every major English translation renders this word as "man." Pretty simple. According to me, they translated the word "blood" as the word "man." This is factual. God has preserved His word, and it is written in Greek. According to you (apparently), God said "blood" but meant "man" as the translators rendered it in English.

Your snide remark regarding a list of corrections was abusive and inappropriate.

 

[FollowingHim]

NeoPatriarch and Oreslag: Regarding the last two posts, please keep from getting upset at one another, we are having a serious scriptural discussion. If it sinks into mudslinging I'll have to lock the thread (it hasn't yet, just pointing this out pre-emptively).

I have just checked the Textus Receptus (the collection of Greek texts the KJV was translated from), and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (the United Bible Societies version similar to that used for many modern translations). The word "aimatos" (blood) appears in the Textus Receptus, but does NOT appear in the Nestle-Aland version. So:

Oreslag: There is not universal agreement on the content of the original Greek texts, this word may or may not be correct, it all depends which texts we believe God has preserved His word correctly in (and that is a separate massive debate, important but well off topic, please start a new thread for that if you want to discuss it). Nobody translates the word "blood" as "man", but many translators are reading a Greek version which just says "ex enos" (out of one) rather than "ex enos aimatos" (out of one blood).

NeoPatriarch: Oreslag is not saying every major translation is wrong (the KJV uses the word "blood"), or proposing his own list of arbitrary corrections. He is saying to look back at the Greek when there is a difference between translations, which is a very good practice. Unfortunately this is getting heated because you're each using translations taken from different versions of the Greek.

 

[Oreslag]

Oreslag: There is not universal agreement on the content of the original Greek texts, this word may or may not be correct, it all depends which texts we believe God has preserved His word correctly in (and that is a separate massive debate, important but well off topic, please start a new thread for that if you want to discuss it). Nobody translates the word "blood" as "man", but many translators are reading a Greek version which just says "ex enos" (out of one) rather than "ex enos aimatos" (out of one blood).

I posted quite clearly on this previously. In particular:

P.S. Upon further reflection, I considered that it might be a case of textual variants as well as translation. As it turns out, the word "aima" in my version of the Greek text does not appear in all versions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_va ... e_Apostles under Acts 17:26). Note therein that the word "aima" is more commonly included than not. Note also that instead of "aima" or its absence, it appears that another word meaning "mouth" (as nearly as I can tell) occurs in a few texts. It appears that most English translations may have preferred the less common Greek text; which reads "and he made of one every nation of men to dwell upon all the face of the earth having confirmed beforehand times and the boundaries of their dwelling." Thus, the translators either exchanged the word "man" for the word "blood", or added the word "man" where it did not exist. Regardless, English translations are not a completely faithful reproduction of the Greek from which they were made.

Follow the link and you'll see a list of the Greek texts of Acts. Count the ones that include the word "blood"; you'll see that this is the most common variant. Look at the other variants; you'll see that none of them are rendered "and he made of one man every nation of mankind" in the Greek. Yet, this is how many English translations have chosen to render it (i.e. adding the emboldened "man" in their English translation).

Perhaps you are correct in that no one translates the word "blood" as the word "man", but I find this very unlikely because it is highly doubtful that the scholars on various translation committees are unaware that all these texts exist. Thus, whereas they include the word "man" in an English translation where the Greek renders it either "and from one" or "and from one blood", they must have assumed "one" meant "one man" or that "blood" meant "man". Either way, they are no longer translating at that point, but rather are interpreting; which is my point.

 

[Isabella]

I just literally :lol: atthe bloodshed interpretation. Didn't most drown during the flood?

Evolutionist do believe that death creates better generations, by excluding some from breeding through death.

Nonsense, evolution has no such stake, since the biological imperative is to breed, death is destructive unless one has reached that aim. Good genes can die just as easily as bad genes, therefore biological imperative means to live to breed. Early death hinders that so your post makes very little sense from an evolutionary viewpoint.

B

 

[Oreslag]

NeoPatriarch and Oreslag: Regarding the last two posts, please keep from getting upset at one another, we are having a serious scriptural discussion. If it sinks into mudslinging I'll have to lock the thread (it hasn't yet, just pointing this out pre-emptively).

I don't believe I'm driving this discussion in the direction of slinging mud. Initially my credibility and integrity were attacked:

Translation is much more complicated then looking up words and considering every possibility. As I understand it Greek, especially biblical Greek is a very precise language. Perhaps we should consider what scholars have to say. Perhaps I can submit this issue to James White, and see if he thinks there is as much wriggle room as you suggest.

Meanwhile, if I thought the text was as shaky and fluid as you, it would lead me to question the sufficiency of scripture. According to scholars there just doesn't seem to be so much uncertainty.

To which I replied that it upset me he was making such an accusation, to which he continued the attack:

Not me. According to you every major translation is wrong. Perhaps you think there is a conspiracy, I don't know. If there were an error here your problem is with these many translation committees. Men who actually study the language.

Do you have a list of corrections you would like us to adopt? Never mind, I trust God to preserve his word.

To which I replied that the snide comment regarding a list of corrections was abusive and inappropriate. I'm attacking no one, nor am I questioning anyone's integrity. It seems pretty blatant to me that Neo called into question the motivation of my heart in his responses to the simple facts that I posted. Whereas he is commanded not to judge (Matthew 7:1-5), I believe I'm justified in reproving such an attack and correcting the record to shed light upon the truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Even more importantly, others reading this thread should understand that I'm not playing fast and loose with the Word as Neo suggests. Rather the opposite is true, I'm questioning the legitimacy of a scholar interpreting the Word, calling it a translation, and failing to mention such details in marginal- or foot-notes (e.g. both the ESV and NIV add "man" where it does not exist in the Greek, and provide no clarification whatsoever).

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I'm not sure what the point is, when it comes to discussions of the Greek and who Cain's wife was. There are limited possibilities unless we toss out scripture as reliable.

Refering to the ESV translation of Genesis passage:

The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.*

*Eve sounds like the Hebrew for life-giver and resembles the word for living."

The literal possibilities for Cain are unattractive by our sensibilities, but they are:

• One or more of his sisters, from among the daughters of Eve and Adam.
  
  His Niece, the daughter of his brother (which would almost have to be Abel's daughter, unlikely though, as Cain almost certainly married and procreated prior to Abel, if Abel did at all, something all the texts suggest he didn't do).
  
  Another wife (or incestuous consort) of Adam, which would have to had been taken from Adam's own daughters or granddaughters. Extremely unlikely, but possible.
  
  His own daughter/sister and later wife, a result of a union between himself and his mother Eve. Again, possible, but very unlikely.

Of all the choices his immediate biological sister (a product of the Marriage of Adam and Eve), is the least objectionable and most likely. In all cases the wife must trace her origins back to Eve's womb, according to scripture. There were no "other peoples."

Reasons for later changes in eligible mates are speculative. We seem to think we understand the ban but I've never understood how this verse, stated by a righteous daughter of David, fits with our understandings of incest. My current opinion is that she was overwrought and poorly informed, but nevertheless, here it is:

But (Tamar) said to (Amnon), 'No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.' But he would not listen to her."