Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Ephesians 5:25 ¶ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Ephesians 5:25 ¶ Husbands, love your wives [seek the highest good for her and surround her with a caring, unselfish love], just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, |
Subject: Did Cain marry one of his sisters? |
Bible Note: You said, “…the truth is, the Bible makes no mention of any humans being in the world except Adam, Eve, and their descendants”. Your statement here is not quite accurate in that there are people mentioned that are not called their descendents, one of whom is the topic of discussion here – Cain’s wife. You are assuming descendents because that is what has always been accepted, and what has always been taught. However, the Bible is The Truth, not traditional teachings. It will stand to scrutiny when tradition falls by the wayside. The bottom line here is that even calling Cain’s wife his sister is as much, if not more, speculation than what I am stating, because what I am stating is not only not contradictory to anything in the Word that any of us have yet found, as I will demonstrate below and in a response to WOS, but it is also supported by external sources, something the “sister” theory just doesn’t do. Archaeology has proven the events, people, and timeline of the Bible. Yet, for some reason, it can’t prove the traditional theory that Adam and Eve were actually the first two people. Rather, it proves the contrary; that there is no way Adam and Eve could have been literally the first two humans. Since the sciences are, quite simply, the study of the observation of God’s creation, those observations must be reconcilable with the Word! Why are we afraid to do that? Note, I am saying “reconcilable”, not supercede. “What Hebrew text or translation can you cite that actually and explicitly states there were no other children born to Adam and Eve prior to Seth?” You are correct in one thing – that there are times when events are reported according to their significance rather than their chronology. However, when that is done, words of relative chronology are not used; that is, it will not say, “Event A happened (most significant event), *then* Event B happened (less significant event) unless it is chronologically correct also. In Genesis 5:4, as I stated previously, it is written very clearly that *AFTER* Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and fathered additional children. This is where I cite that it specifically states there were no other children born to Adam and Eve prior to Seth. Can you provide anything that actually and explicitly states that my statement here is wrong? “…it goes against the idea that mankind was corrupted by one man's, Adam's, sin. How did Adam pass his sin to all men if there were others who were not his descendants?” How does this go against that idea? Romans 5 says sin entered the world through one man. It also says, “…for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” Adam sinned, and his sin is accountable because God gave him a command, the first law. God making other men before Adam and Eve does not change the other events in Genesis. It does not go against Adam’s accountability for the sin of all mankind, because no law had been given to man by God until He created Adam. Prior to the law being given, sin was apparently present, but it was not accountable because there was no law, according to Romans 5. As far as how he passed his sin down to us? Even if there were millions of other people prior to Adam, sin was passed to all people today and at the time Jesus because we all are descendents of Adam. How is that possible if there people prior to Adam? Because of Genesis 7:21-23. Which brings us to your last statement: “But I think Acts 17:26 is the most clear in saying that all of mankind came from a common physical source, from Adam.” Actually, Acts 17 does not mention Adam’s name at all. Verse 26 says, “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.” All men did come from a common physical source, and yes, the source was Adam, but through Noah, according to Genesis 7:23, which says, “…men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.” All of mankind that God made in Genesis 1:26-27 were killed in the flood; only Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives survived. Therefore, all those that existed prior that had not been given the law, those that were not accountable for Adam’s sin, they all perished, leaving behind only those God would hold accountable for sin, only those who were physically descended from Adam. In this way also, Jesus’ sacrifice could be for all men, no man would be exempt from needing His Grace. So how is all of this mere speculation again? Can you provide as much Biblical evidence for Adam and Eve having additional children? Can you provide any further evidence that Adam and Eve were actually the first two humans, rather than the first two of God’s Chosen people, those who would beget His Only Son, those who would need His Redemption? I'd love to hear it if you can. |