Where Do All These Women Come From?! And other questions...

[xblack_x_rosesx]

I'm encountering some confusion about the "origin of man". Nobody can seem to give me a definite answer. Take this:

"Genesis 4
Cain and Abel
1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel."

Ok, so established here is:
Adam and Eve had two children, Cain and Abel. Abel was killed, blah blah blah, and Cain was banished or what not. Moving on.

Next we have this verse:

"17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch."

... If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman to live, and they had two children, Cain and Abel, where did this "wife" come from?
I assumed that Adam and Eve had more children, in which case Cain would have wived his sister.

But then this verse comes up:

" 25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, [i] saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. "


If Adam and Eve DID have more children, enough for Cain to wive with one, then how come only Seth is mentioned?


Not only am I confused about this, but I'm confused about:

- The primitive man, "Cavemen". Fossils have been found, they can't be denied, so what is the biblical explanation of them?
- How did language develop? Again, going back to the caveman, didn't language "grow", so to speak, from cave drawings, to sounds, to words? Or did God just... grant everyone the ability to communicate? Is there no evolution of speech here?
- Approx how many children DID the average "wedded" couple have? Since each person lived to be several hundred years old. (and how was there even a conception of "years" back in those days? Did God just tell Adam and Eve that there were X amount of days in a year, and to count them to figure out how long they lived? How is it solid that any of them lived to be, say 900 years old? Could that perhaps be a misconception and the equivalent of "900 years" is actually 80 years? Or what? How does that work?)

Anyway, I have... so many questions, but all I keep getting is "We're not supposed to question it". And that makes me feel less inclined to have faith in it, because it feels so... cultic. Like all of it is just some... story that nobody can logically explain, and everyone is expected to blindly follow.

Or something...

Anyway, if anyone could shed a little light on my confusion, I'd really really appreciate it. Thanks =]

-Bri

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

Ummm, my guess about the women, was that they just had more children before Seth was born, but it mentions Seth since he replaces Able as the next in the line of succession.

The guess on Cavemen was that they were social outcasts.

And about language, I'm my guess would be that while we always had the spoken word, the written word had evolution.

I don't know about the last one.

[Midori]

These are some difficult questions, that deserve to be asked. Some people believe that these stories are not exactly literal (not to discredit those that do believe they're literal), that years were counted differently, etc. Now it may be interesting to discuss this with people, but it seems like a topic that may cause more excitement (read: arguing) than is good for this forum. That said, I think that whether these stories are literally true or not isn't as important as the message God is trying to communicate through them. You know what I mean? I'd discuss further, because I think I have interesting ideas about this subject, but I don't think this is the place.

You can probably do a lot of profitable research for yourself, though. If you search, you can probably find lots of books or websites about this kind of subject. Just remember that different sources will have different ideas about how it goes. Even really good and faithful Christian people will disagree with each other, and that's all right. Our salvation doesn't come from what small things we believe about difficult passages of the Bible, but from faith in Christ Jesus, and from God's Spirit inhabiting and transforming our lives.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

This could get in to some very fun delicious theological debate. Which we don't do here unfortunately. Try that theology website the forum refers people to. There are a lot of cool theories on this very tricky topic.

[Cognitive Gear]

These are some great questions. First of all, I would like to note that not all Christians take Genesis (Or the entire Torah) literally. Saying so is probably the farthest that line of thinking can be taken on CAA, however.

... If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman to live, and they had two children, Cain and Abel, where did this "wife" come from?
I assumed that Adam and Eve had more children, in which case Cain would have wived his sister.

This is, generally speaking, the accepted answer. Genesis 5:4 says, "Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. " (NASB) So there were other children for them to marry.

- The primitive man, "Cavemen". Fossils have been found, they can't be denied, so what is the biblical explanation of them?

Do you have any specific examples? For the most part, there isn't anything that says that Adam and Eve couldn't be considered "cavemen" (in the sense of people who live in caves). If you are speaking of fossilized half-man half-ape, we generally don't talk about that on CAA, but I would encourage you to research them for yourself. A large portion of them have not stood up to the test of time.

- How did language develop? Again, going back to the caveman, didn't language "grow", so to speak, from cave drawings, to sounds, to words? Or did God just... grant everyone the ability to communicate? Is there no evolution of speech here?

As far as spoken word goes, there is no evidence as to how it developed. We do find Adam talking in Genesis 2:23 "Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh...." Written word would be an entirely different story, and as far as I know is not something approached in the Bible.

As for your question regarding the average number of children: I have no idea and I wouldn't even know where to start.

Anyway, I have... so many questions, but all I keep getting is "We're not supposed to question it". And that makes me feel less inclined to have faith in it, because it feels so... cultic. Like all of it is just some... story that nobody can logically explain, and everyone is expected to blindly follow.

I certainly hope that no one is telling you not to ask questions about The Bible. It can certainly take anything you throw at it.

Lastly, since this could get ugly, I'm going to quote the rules to remind everyone.

Cosmology Debates - Unfortunately, after too many creation/evolution debates, this is no longer a topic allowed for discussion at CAA.

Theology Debates - These are strongly discouraged on these forums, due to their destructive effect on the community. If you want to discuss such things, we recommend that you check out TheologyWeb.

Remember the R's, everyone!

[Peanut]

A few things:

1). You have to remember that the point of Genesis wasn't to be a scientific text book. More likely it is meant to give a quick explanation as to the origin of the Jewish people. This is why the creation account, flood, etc...take up a rather small portion of the text even though they would have encompassed a larger portion of history.

2). You seem to be reading the text a little to literally. Just because the text focuses on the birth's of males doesn't mean that females weren't being born. You have to remember that in biblical times, females tended to get the shaft and that the birth of a male was given much more attention. Hence why only the birth's of males were really mentioned.

3). On the ages of individuals in Genesis...it is impossible for us to actually know. Could it have been a misconception? Maybe. Could they have literally lived 900 years? Maybe. It's impossible for us to know either for certain because, frankly, we weren't there. In this case I think what you believe depends on what you believe about the text itself. If you believe that Genesis is literally true, then you will believe that each person lived as long as it says they lived. If you believe Genesis was more myth, then you'll probably see them as misconceptions (or maybe not...). Either way, as I said we can't tell since we weren't there and don't have any evidence that these individuals even existed.

4). On the "Cavemen"...it again depends on what you believe about the text. Some claim "Cavemen" were decendents of Cain. Others, believing that the act of creation occured over ages, won't need to explain "Cavemen" since their belief system aligns with the current scientific consesus. Which one is it? Again, who knows and honestly who cares. This again is a rather minor issue and misses the point of the text entirely. If Genesis was trying to be a science text book then there would be a problem, but it isn't so we shouldn't worry about it. With that being said, this doesn't mean that the Genesis account doesn't have some truth to it...after all, we weren't there, so who knows what happened.

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

In the word's of Kevin, temporary pastor at Epic. Or, close enough anyways.

"People argue over whether or not God created the world in 7 days or over millions of years. Me, I don't really care, as it doesn't matter in the end."

[xblack_x_rosesx]

Okey dokey...

Thanks everyone ^_^

I really don't want this to turn into a debate, so I guess I'll leave it at that. I just wasn't sure if there was a... SOLID answer, I guess. Something I'd been missing, or something, yknow?

I'll certainly do some more research on the topic though =]

Thanks again!

[Kaligraphic]

It should be noted that the beginning of Genesis is not so much about the origin of mankind as it is about the origin of mankind's situation. While it must cover the former to a certain degree, it only does so to the extent that it increases understanding of the latter.

Most of the people who lived back then got no mention at all in the Bible. Cain's wife should count herself lucky she even was mentioned in passing. Why were most of these people not even mentioned? Because they weren't relevant to the story.. Mention of them didn't help make the point.

The Bible doesn't explain cave men. Again, not relevant to its point.

Language began the same way it's learned today. Sounds are given meaning and become words. Concepts are fixed in expression, becoming language.

As far as census data, nobody really has reliable figures before the flood. There was a bit of water damage to the records.

[LadyRushia]

I'm going to second everyone who said not to start a debate and make it official. Keep it civil as it has been so far.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I will second CG's suggestion that it's perfectly okay to question the Bible and Christianity.

[Lady Kenshin]

Incest.

[Whitefang]

Hmmm...

The following is pure conjecture, based on internet ramblings, personal encounters and discussions, and my own mind. I in no way claim any of the following to be true. (In fact, I don't even know what I personally believe)

First, let's examine the squicky nature of incest. It has been supposed and postulated that Adam and Eve's DNA was constructed perfectly, having been made by God directly. Generally, this mutation is detrimental in some way. This why today it is socially reprehensible to have incestuous relations, because any children that are born will be much more likely to receive two pairs of recessive alleles that are disadvantages to the individual. However, it is theorized that in the beginning after God created man this mutation would not have begun or would have been much more limited. As a result, Cain, Abel, Seth, and others would be able to marry and reproduce with their sisters with virtually 0 risk of birth defects.

As for cavemen, I don't see why Cain's descendants or other descendants of Adam and Eve couldn't have formed these societies. Cain is a prime candidate, since he would have been separated from God, the people in these tribes and family groups might have developed their own cultures and mysticism.

As for language: from Genesis 11:1-9

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar [b] and settled there.

3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

We are also given a new possibility into the origin of various peoples and histories. Language is an interesting phenomenon of humans. I don't know if God created Adam with this knowledge innate in his memories or in his learning. It is certainly possible. The other possibility is that language communicated specific emotions, desires, wants, and so forth, which would explain why God scattered this language and we received the inferior versions we have now. Language is still powerful today, but I imagine a potential to communicate with very little effort and to perfectly be understood and understand others with no ambiguity in pre-Babel times.

Finally, your question regarding children and age:
from Genesis 6

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

The strange thing about this passage is that it is indeed a genetic fact that humans can only live so long before cell division stops. However, there is also debate over the context of the passage. It is possible God is referring to when He will flood the earth. Then there is also the issue of the ages of men listed directly after the flood that contradicts this. What are the possibilities? Does God's spirit live among these men, allowing them to live well beyond their allotted years? Are the men mentioned not men, but city-states or tribal families?



In conclusion, who knows? Only God. And it will remain that way. It's fun to posit conjecture about it, though!

[Fish and Chips]

I've heard the limited gene pool theory posted by Whitefang, but not being an expert I don't know what to think of it entirely. Food for thought in lieu of a definitive answer though.

- The primitive man, "Cavemen". Fossils have been found, they can't be denied, so what is the biblical explanation of them?
- How did language develop? Again, going back to the caveman, didn't language "grow", so to speak, from cave drawings, to sounds, to words? Or did God just... grant everyone the ability to communicate? Is there no evolution of speech here?

If I remember things right, the majority of fossilized cavemen have been classified as creatures similar to humans, but not human themselves. Sort of like how monkeys and apes share human characteristics, such as facial structure, opposable thumbs, etc.

As for language, I imagine creation was simply gifted with the ability of speech, since Adam and Eve talk to God as early as Genesis 3. If you're talking about the diversification of speech, that's later in Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babel.

[MasterDias]

Yeah, a number of the ancient cavemen are classified as a different species entirely and not Homo Sapiens. I wouldn't worry about it. It's fairly interesting but pretty irrelevant in the long run.

[Nate]

Incest.

Is best?

Anyway I'll just post a quote from a sermon my pastor gave. "Genesis is not a book about the creation of the universe. It is not a book about the origin of life. It is not a book about the beginning of mankind. Genesis is a book about God. To make it anything else is missing the point."

The Bible simplifies things to make it easier to understand, and because details just aren't important in the long run. As Kali said, the Bible is less concerned with factual details of what happened in history and more concerned with spiritual details of why humanity is in such a mess. The two sometimes overlap, but not always.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Specifically, Genesis is a book concerning the relationship between Man and God first and foremost.

[rocklobster]

Actually here's my theory as to why Adam and Eve's daughters are never mentioned:
We have to remember that in the Jewish society, women weren't given a very high status. I think that may have to have something to do with it.
But that's my two bits.

[minakichan]

We have to remember that in the Jewish society, women weren't given a very high status. I think that may have to have something to do with it.
But that's my two bits.

Or perhaps the daughters of Eve didn't go around murdering their sisters. o_o

[Technomancer]

Not only am I confused about this, but I'm confused about:

- The primitive man, "Cavemen". Fossils have been found, they can't be denied, so what is the biblical explanation of them?

As far as biblical/theological discussions go, I would recommend Northrop Frye's "Creation and Re-Creation", as well as George Murphy's "The Cosmos in Light of the Cross". Both of these authors consider the problem of the interpretation of Genesis in light of modern scientific knowledge. Murphy in particular, spends some time discussing the meaning of the The Fall with respect to our pre-human ancestors, and approaches it in a way that I find quite interesting. Also, while I haven't read his particular books, Alister McGrath is a well-known evangelical scholar and trained biologist who has written about such science/religion issues.

- How did language develop? Again, going back to the caveman, didn't language "grow", so to speak, from cave drawings, to sounds, to words? Or did God just... grant everyone the ability to communicate? Is there no evolution of speech here?

Scientifically, there was indeed an evolution of speech. Of course, it's an area that is unfortunately incomplete, since one of the main parts (the brain) doesn't fossilize. Instead, scientists rely on the earliest appearance of the correct anatomy to set the earliest limit, and then draw somewhat shakier inferences based on the appearance of more complex social patterns (which occur rather later). It should be said though that the early evolution of language is very definately an open problem today, so you will be unlikely to find any "definate" answers regarding the how's and why's of this particular topic.

Anyway, I have... so many questions, but all I keep getting is "We're not supposed to question it". And that makes me feel less inclined to have faith in it, because it feels so... cultic.

That will always be a poor answer for just the reason you state.

[Peanut]

As far as biblical/theological discussions go, I would recommend Northrop Frye's "Creation and Re-Creation", as well as George Murphy's "The Cosmos in Light of the Cross". Both of these authors consider the problem of the interpretation of Genesis in light of modern scientific knowledge. Murphy in particular, spends some time discussing the meaning of the The Fall with respect to our pre-human ancestors, and approaches it in a way that I find quite interesting. Also, while I haven't read his particular books, Alister McGrath is a well-known evangelical scholar and trained biologist who has written about such science/religion issues.

I second the recomendation of McGarth, though I know him more for being the writter of one of my Theology textbooks then any of his specific writtings on the subject. He even manages to take time in my textbook to mention that he has written about such science/religion issues...in the third person. Personally I found it hilarious when I read it. But in all seriousness, he's a good scholar and he knows what he's talking about both theologically and I'm pretty sure scientifically as well.

[Maokun]

Here are some of my personal thoughts:

1. As others have mentioned, the Bible is not an extensive record, it just tells the things relevant to the rest of the context. Meaning that as far as we know, Seth may not have even been Adam's third male child. I'd dare speculate that Seth was born much, much later than the famous first pair. However, he was someone that carried the spiritual leaning, first seen in Abel, so he gets mentioned as the carrier of his spirituality into the next generation.

2. Cavemen. What most people know about "cavemen" is mostly an overabstraction and stereotyping of archaelogical findings such as paintings, domestic items and fossils. It's commonly thought to have been the typical primitive lifestlye of the first men. However this is only true in the extent of the people who lived near caves. Everywhere else, peopel surely had some other kinds of settlements such as huts, tents, etc. that obviously caould not resist the pass of time and the elements as well as caves did, so only those remain today as proofs, not of the lifestyle of the humanity back then, but of the lifestyle of the people who lived in caves back then. Were there less "civilized" than the people who had to develop the first architectonic notions? Maybe more "civilized" because being able to spend the time that otherwise would be used fighting the climate, in developing the arts and philosophy? We cannot know, but we cannot presume they represent all humanity.

3. Language. This is very similar to the last point. The oldest accounts of writing we have are those left in ancient structures such as the hieroglyphs inside egyptian buildings. They were writings meant to stand the pass of time due their religious, political, or legal character. That does not mean that writing was not practiced in the common day in much more perishable substracts that obviously could leave not trace until our days. I'd say that the different writings systems were developed shortly after the fall of Babel Tower.

4. I'd believe longevity in the patriarchs was allegorical if not for the fact that God does state a new longevity limit after the Great Flood. it seems to hint that whatever was responsible for the increased longevity in humans was broke with the cataclysmic changes to the earth.

However this all is just my educated opinion and I caim not to hold the absolute truth. As others have said, in the end is not that relevant

[rocklobster]

That will always be a poor answer for just the reason you state.

Quoted for truth. I believe there is no question that can't be asked. However, there will always be mysteries we cannot understand.

[ShiroiHikari]

2. Cavemen. What most people know about "cavemen" is mostly an overabstraction and stereotyping of archaelogical findings such as paintings, domestic items and fossils. It's commonly thought to have been the typical primitive lifestlye of the first men. However this is only true in the extent of the people who lived near caves. Everywhere else, peopel surely had some other kinds of settlements such as huts, tents, etc. that obviously caould not resist the pass of time and the elements as well as caves did, so only those remain today as proofs, not of the lifestyle of the humanity back then, but of the lifestyle of the people who lived in caves back then. Were there less "civilized" than the people who had to develop the first architectonic notions? Maybe more "civilized" because being able to spend the time that otherwise would be used fighting the climate, in developing the arts and philosophy? We cannot know, but we cannot presume they represent all humanity.

This makes sense to me.

[Galant]

Maybe the answer to the general question here can be found in asking what problems one has with the possible answers?