Acts20.com

Cain and Abel were the children of Adam and Eve. Gen 4:17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.Where did Cains wife come from? It appears that there were others on the earth after Adam and Eve but not recorded in the bible. Need help on this.This was all I could find.http://www.gospelway.com/topics/bible/cain-wife.php

I lean toward that one too, but there is another theory. Genesis 1:26- 31 is the 6th day account, God made man and woman on that same day. Genesis 2is a special creation apart from Genesis 1, that of the bloodline of Israel and Christ, or perhaps a second creation, note the order of creation here is man, foliage, then animals, all of which come before man in the first chapter. Then after the creation of the animals in the garden, God creates Eve presumably after he had been alone a while.

To say it MAY be a special creation is one thing. To say that it IS is another.We don't know that. For all we know, it is something of a summary or retelling of the first story. Make sense.

I've always viewed Genesis 1as a bird's eye view, and chapter 2 as a more detailed account The World As I See Ithttp://worldjeffreysees.blogspot.com/Revuriah's Facebookhttp://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Richard/1226257444Jeffrey David Richard's Myspace Musicwww.myspace.com/547856946

Absolutely. And the article posted by Quiet Wyatt makes good sense. In fact, though he gets some flack here, Perry Stone also accounts for Cain's wife in this way The World As I See Ithttp://worldjeffreysees.blogspot.com/Revuriah's Facebookhttp://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Richard/1226257444Jeffrey David Richard's Myspace Musicwww.myspace.com/547856946

If you believe the first 2 chapters to be chronologically correct, then even if chapter two is a retelling of the 6th day, the chronology of chapter 4 puts Cain as offspring #1, and Abel as offspring #2, then the murder of Able, then the expulsion of Cain, then the marriage of Cain, and THEN the birth of Seth to replace Able (lends to the theory that the 2nd (and subsequent) chapter is to describe the uniqueness of the lineage of the Jews and then Christ), then after all of that, the birth of other sons and daughters to Adam and Eve in chapter 5. Chapter 5 is interesting because it again goes back over the timeline of Adam, stating that Adam was 130 when Seth was born, Seth being the first son of birthright (remember a Jew is telling this story so that lineage is important, who is the first son..), then after Seth is the first mention of the seemingly subsequent sons and daughters. Now, in my limited understanding of the early Hebrew culture, then the only possibility of children before Cain/Abel/Seth would have been girls. So that leaves room for Cain to have married a sister, but not multiple generations in my mind seeing as how Cain would be the first (albeit disinherited) son. So if there were only sisters born prior to the first-born sons, then who were those that Cain feared would kill him for his sin, prior to the birth of the sons and daughters? I'm just throwing this out there for discussion, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right, I just like the discussion.

There are really only two reasons we don't do incest....1) There is typically a natural aversion (there is a name for this, but I forget it) to being with one's sibling or parent. Something about the long time exposure to them already, I think.2) Genetics.We could easily make the case that Cain did not have any issues with either. For all we know, he married a grand-nephew's granddaughter (so there was no I've known you too long already factor. AND there would be no genetic issues to deal with. His mother and father were perfect, had not junk DNA from previous generations, etc. So that would not be an issue.

I think the aversion is not natural, just a cultural taboo. And of course the cultural taboo wouldn't have existed in Cain's time.

There is a very natural aversion to it. When people inbreed, they are much likelier to combine recessive genes, resulting in the presence of recessive diseases (since there is no dominant gene to overpower them).Some scholars suggest the possibility that genetic diseases were less likely in biblical times, owing to being closer to a perfect creation.

Okay, that's the genetics part, which I understand very well. But are you going beyond saying we are smart not to marry our siblings or cousins and saying that we are naturally not sexually attracted to them? I thought the reason we weren't sexually attracted to our relatives had only to do with cultural conditioning. (I remember being fairly flummoxed as a preschooler who was told she couldn't marry her best pal, her little brother. Then I branched out to the other boys my age that I knew. I was informed that I could not marry any of those 3 boys because they were my cousins. I decided I couldn't wait for first grade to pick out a boyfriend. I picked out 10 eligible bachelors the first day!)