Adam and eve were not alone?

TravelJunkie

I'm referring to Genesis, first read it carefully from the beginning and then come to Genesis 6: 1 & 2.

6:1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

6: 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


When I read the above in context with the previous chapters, I always think that it implies that Adam and eve weren't the only humans.

They may have been of a 'chosen' race, made by God, sent to live in Eden (a 'heaven' on earth?), then they are banished

Then, they join the rest of the humans. Why else would 'sons of God' marry 'daughters of men'. And following on from this;

6:8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

6:9These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

It says Noah found grace with God and one of the reasons stated is that he was perfect in his generations - ie. his ancestors must have not married 'daughters of men' throughout that time.

Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say? Unfortunately I don't have a bible group to ask this question to!

When reading it strictly chronocologically.
Also consider when reading the first chapter that God makes man (before the seventh day), then again after he rests on the seventh day, he makes man again

Gen 2: 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Then he places (Adam) in the garden of Eden which he creates.

This also supports the theory that Adam was special (he's made after the Seventh day and placed in Eden)

It's not a creationism thread either, I'm assuming whoever comments on this theory will believe God made man.

PDN

There are 2 common interpretations for what is meant here by 'the sons of God" and by the 'daughters of men'.

a) The most common interpretation is that the godly line of Seth began intermarrying with the line of Cain.

b) Some groups (including Jehovah's Witnesses) teach that this refers to angels interbreeding with humans.

There are also a number of weird and wonderful and even disgusting variations on each of these theories. For example, some white supremacist cults teach that Ham married one of these hybrids and that Noah didn't notice - therefore allowing black offspring to survive the flood who are consequently not fully human.

TravelJunkie

Thanks for the reply PDN.

It's interesting that the lines of thought don't include another breed of man (but not half angels).

I had imaginings of primitive man (like clan of the cave bear!) mixing with the offspring of Adam, who would have a Godly nature.

Ah well. The experts know best.

Sod'o swords

I have one question.

Who were Kane and ables wifes?

also puzzled me.

BrianCalgary

Sod'o swords wrote: »

I have one question.

Who were Kane and ables wifes?

also puzzled me.

I have always understood that they married their sisters.

Sod'o swords

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I have always understood that they married their sisters.

If that was the case wouldn't their children be greatly deformed and not survive into a second generation?

PDN

Sod'o swords wrote: »

If that was the case wouldn't their children be greatly deformed and not survive into a second generation?

No

Zombrex

Sod'o swords wrote: »

If that was the case wouldn't their children be greatly deformed and not survive into a second generation?

That isn't the case now, as anyone who has had a child with their sister will tell you ... ahem ... so it certainly wouldn't have been the case back then.

The risk of incest from a genetically point of view is that any genes that can produce damaging phenotypes are not diluted by having fresh DNA from a far far far human relation (all humans are in some way related) and have a higher risk of ending up in the child as they are found in both parents.

Literal Biblicialists (that a word?) interpret the creation story as having Adam and Eve produced with "perfect" DNA, and as such Cain and Abel marrying their sisters would not have this effect as there are no "bad" DNA in the first place.

Biologically there are a few issues with this, firstly there isn't really such a thing as "perfect" DNA, and secondly it should be possible to tell from modern genetic sampling if all humans are related back to a single pair of humans who lived a few thousand years ago. That isn't what we find at all, in fact quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Because of these reasons, and others, some liberal Christians (I'm an atheist by the way) do not interpret the Adam, Eve Cain Abel story literally, and as such it is a bit pointless in getting bogged down in the details. To some of them it is a metaphorically story to describe various moral issues such as humans come from God, we should follow God's wishes, murder is wrong etc.

In that context to worry about who Cain married is like asking how did Donkey and the Dragon actually have sex in the Shrek movies to produce the children found in the sequels (ie missing the point some what)

Others believe that Adam and Eve where the first humans with souls, not the first humans, and Cain could have married another human, producing children with souls.

Sod'o swords

Well you'd think it being a main stream religion it would have these "small" details filled in.

Zombrex

Sod'o swords wrote: »

Well you'd think it being a main stream religion it would have these "small" details filled in.

Not one that is 7 or 8 thousand years old and for a large amount of that time was simply oral stories.

Sod'o swords

Wicknight wrote: »

Not one that is 7 or 8 thousand years old and for a large amount of that time was simply oral stories.

Well if that's the case the rest could be missing details too then.

PDN

Sod'o swords wrote: »

Well you'd think it being a main stream religion it would have these "small" details filled in.

Why?

The point of the Bible is not to answer every point of possible curiosity, but rather to tell us what we need to know for salvation and living a life that pleases God and has meaning.

If you stop to think about it your objection can always to be stretched to an infinite degree:

If the Bible told you where Cain & Abel's wives came from, then you might ask for their names, saying, "You think a mainstream religion would have those small details filled in!"


If the Bible told you their names, then you might ask what colour their hair was, saying, "You think a mainstream religion would have those small details filled in!"

This could go on for ever. Then you would object, "If the Bible is God's Word then why does it have to be so complicated and long? Why does it consist of 6 million different books? Couldn't God have got his message across in a way that was shorter - maybe skipping all the non-essential details?"

Sod'o swords

Well i wasn't asking for their names more so did they have wifes, because as far as i know you were not told about any and it's that the case how did they reproduce.
If they didn't have wifes but female friends and reproduced wouldn't that be against current church laws?

I just need to know these things seeming how i was born into this religion and told to follow it yet with no detailed understanding of it so I'm starting from the start.

Maybe if these "small details" were not filled in then it's left to assumption, so that means it the religion could change from person to person.

Lets say someone takes the vanilla story, they have wifes they reproduce forming the world we know so well.

Let's say someone else assumes they don't, they die without reproducing, they could be right because there's no detailed account of what occurred but where does that leave us then?

santing

Sod'o swords wrote: »

Well i wasn't asking for their names more so did they have wifes, ...?

Well, open your Bible at Genesis 4 ...

Gen 4:17-26 ESV Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. (18) To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. (19) And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Gen 6:1-2 ESV When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, (2) the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

The names of the wives are very often not mentioned, but they are their, right at the start of Genesis.

philologos

I was curious about this also. Thanks for the clarification PDN.