Where Did Cain Get his Wife?

For more see this video: • Genesis 2: The Dust an...
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
inspiringphilosophy.locals.com/

[@damirdzelalija5852]

Genesis 3:20 "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." how do we explain this?

[@GEES44DC]

How do you explain Cain moving away and finding other people already living there?

[@CaptainBars]

@@GEES44DC Good question. The typical answer though is that a significant amount of time passed between Cain and Abel’s birth and the time Cain murdered him. Hence, Adam and Eve may have had a great number of other children in between those years. Hope that helps.

[@damirdzelalija5852]

@@GEES44DC It says that Adam died at the age of 930. My guess is that he had more than 3 children, plus the command was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth

[@GEES44DC]

@@damirdzelalija5852 Ahhh, you brought that up. There is good evidence to show that those ages aren't literal. Ancient people kept records different than we do today. IP and Michael Heiser talk about this in their different videos. Also, Abraham considered himself as an old man when he and Sarah were to have their child. Again, you cannot read the Bible in English and have no knowledge of the time it was written. Face-value readers have been misinterpreting the Bible and teaching things it doesn't say for a very long time.

[@hermanwooster8944]

@@GEES44DC Where does it say people were already living there?

[@dahliiii]

Even if Cain did marry his sister, it wouldn't be a big deal because they were literally the only humans at the time. It's different now, but back then they didn't really have an option. Y'all, don't forget, Abraham married his half sister. Laws about marrying your siblings wasn't talked about in the Bible until a long time afterwards, when the world was more populated. Back then there weren't as many people in the world.

[@lowther7046]

If all of humanity comes from Adam and Eve. Wouldn't all of us have died of inbreeding? Of course one could say God made us immune from the side effects for a few generations but why even have inbreeding be a problem in the first place then?

[@drew2fast489]

It had to happen at some point. Let's face it, there's no evidence for what he's saying in the Bible.

[@stevelenores5637]

You must be from Appalachia. LOL

[@ajjtheamazing5615]

Yeah. Abraham married his half sister. It was no biggie back then

[@jimchoy6764]

@@ajjtheamazing5615that didn’t mean that god approved of it

[@strangefire2024]

Genetically speaking, we ALL came from one man and one woman. So it's only logical that at one point in time, there was really no choice but to marry your sibling

[@davidprince8461]

Where does either science or the story say we all came from one man and one woman?

[@strangefire2024]

@@davidprince8461 Genesis Chapter 1 and 2 is quite clear. and in the so-called "scientific" (open and close quotes because they have been proven time and again to operate more on politics than on actual science on too many occasions) you can google "mitochondrial eve".

[@davidprince8461]

​@strangefire2024 then explain what the phrase "and it was so" really means if it really doesn't mean "and it was so". Genesis 1 28 And the Elohim blessed them, and the Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and *REPLENISH THE EARTH,* and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And the Elohim said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, we have given every green herb for meat: *AND IT WAS SO.* 31 And the Elohim saw every thing that they had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were *THE SIXTH DAY.*

[@strangefire2024]

@@davidprince8461 i see no issue with the phrase AND IT WAS SO. its rather self-explanatory. its an emphasis of what was previously stated.

[@davidprince8461]

@@strangefire2024 fair enough. I understand you. I guess at this point I will have to ask what the word "replenish" means. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and *replenish* the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Why can't the word "replenish" just mean that when used in the sentence where it says "to replenish the earth"? Do animals including humans and plant life in their natural state not replenish the earth's ecosystem that supports all forms of life? Do you not think all life created using the earth was not created in different stages of life? Plants and animals need nutrients from soils to replenish the earth to the point were it can sustain more life. I think trees and bushes were created with ripe fruit and and with fruit rotting on the branch and fruit waiting to bud fruit. The soil was created with dead and decomposing life before that so that things could progress to another day where life would be self sufficient. So yeah, why not humans as well when the Elohim said they were also to replenish "replenish" what we are made from? In that case then yes the phrase "and it was so" can also be used as emphasis. All life was made with the ability to replenish life. If "replenish" really means what the word means then mankind was created in Genesis one could have been created in several places in various stages of life just like all forms of life were in the story. So yeah, i have to ask. What do you think the word "replenish" really means and more importantly, why?

[@Ajzgut]

Doesnt this just go totally against the creation story. Eve was created from Adam right ? Nothing to do about priest of creation .

[@lescribe2477]

So first Eve was the half of Adam because Adam was androgyn. Also, there is two creation accounts not one, and Gen 2 clearly lacks a complete description of creation as a all and specifcally set up roles in creation. But also the Garden is showed as a temple so it made sens if Adam and Eve were Priests. But I just think that gen 2 is just not a création account at all and miroirs the story of Israël and Judah. So no.

[@GEES44DC]

Eve was created out of Adam's entire side if you take it literally.

[@anonman8661]

IP explains it in his explaining genesis series.

[@darbyochill]

@@lescribe2477your response is totally unbiblical. Jesus’s lineage in Luke goes all the way back to Adam and then Adam being a son of God. There was no predecessor of Adam. He was not birthed from something. Neither was eve. Eve is said to be in the Bible, the mother of all living. Period. You are doing eisegesis. Through adam the curse came upon all defendants. So he has to be the first man, there are no “others” outside of the garden. You are reading that into the text, not pulling it from the text. When I get to heaven, if I’m wrong, I think God will be able to forgive it because we are all just trying to rely on what his word specifically and literally says. You on the other hand if you are wrong have a steeper error because you cannot say you are solely relying on God’s word.

[@lescribe2477]

@@darbyochillA. I don't think that in luke this is a real lineage. How they would have know ?? It's not serious to say that the Bible is some kind of Magic Book. No it was written as all the others. Also Luke skip a lot of generation and other... So this is to relate to big figure and inscribe them in time and in genealogies. So I doupt even the first genealogie to David but they could have known by X or Y reason from an glorious ancestrors but to Adam it's not possible. And no I'm not only relying on "God's Word " to interpret the Bible, I relate to historian, schoolars and others

[@michaelbrickley2443]

One thing for sure, even if she was a cousin or sister, they wouldn’t have had the defective genes we have. They were still close to Gods image. Adam was made in Gods image. Seth was made in Adams image. How many generations have happened since then?😊

[@davidprince8461]

No where in the story does it say that Adam and Eve were created in the image of the Gods... you interpret that because others have told you to.

[@alejandrourbinaalva3740]

​@@davidprince8461God's... You misunderstood what he said because he forgot to put an apostrophe?

[@GreyBlackWolf]

​@@davidprince8461Yea, you really gonna act like a heathen just because someone forgot an apostrophe?

[@davidprince8461]

@alejandrourbinaalva3740 No, the original word in Hebrew was Elohim, which is a plural word.

[@davidprince8461]

@@GreyBlackWolf Elohim is a plural word.

[@specilegg]

Adam called his wife's name Eve Because she was the mother of all living. Eve was the mother of all humanity.

[@DrDoerk]

Yep, it's sad how this simple verse goes over this guy's head. He'd rather please the world than to believe in God

[@Jim-Mc]

Well if there were other people around he has to explain why no wife was found for Adam among the animals and Eve was created from his side. Maybe an 'animal' was good enough for Cain but not Adam?

[@Wakamolewonder]

@@DrDoerkChristians often ignore the obvious and select the ambiguous

[@lowlevelpro]

​@@Jim-Mclol yep scripture is scripture 😁

[@blackin4k395]

​@@Jim-Mcim guessing its because adam was placed seperatly from the other humans in his own land far from the rest of humans 😊

[@jdotoz]

I think it's simpler just to consider that incest may not necessarily be an absolute evil through all time; that it became one as humanity expanded. Eve herself was about as closely related to Adam as possible, being created from a part of Adam's body.

[@charles21137]

Yeah, I would say I’m eat doesn’t become a sin until it just for lust. Think about it, the sexual sins are born from pointless lust, like zoophilia and homosexuals are people who do sex because of their pointless lust(I say pointless because it accomplishes nothing and has no purpose like straight sex with your own species does) Incest at the time would only be for human survival, which is a good thing, but incest now I’m days would be bad, because theirs no point when theirs so many humans, and your only reason would be sinful lust.

[@GregCox1552]

DNA continued to break and they lost their strength. If they had not sinned then the serum of the tree would have continued the pure genes. But after many years God said no more, you will have problems and it is no longer needed to populate the world. I mean by the time of the flood there were enough males and females to repopulate.

[@gorequillnachovidal]

he met her on craigslist

[@KiLo9530]

Finally, a reasonable explanation to such a great mystery. Well done sir. 😅

[@leoe5411]

The question now is how did all human inherit original sin if there were other humans before them and only they both ate the fruit.... Just curious.

[@Jraethyme]

Good solid question

[@matthewnitz8367]

Solve one problem and two more crop up to take it's place...

[@browserboy1984]

The introduction of sin literally impacted the earth itself, so it is no obstacle to say it would affect the whole of humanity. You are also jumping to the conclusion that others existed "before" Adam and Eve, which is a direct contradiction to the text.

[@RunningAndPullUpsGuy]

i believe IP spoke of this in his genesis series which i highly recommend watching…but when the appointed priest and priestess fell (adam and eve who represented all of humanity before God)…all of humanity fell with them, leading to the state we see in the following chapter of genesis (genesis 4 and on)

[@matthewnitz8367]

@@browserboy1984 Seems you disagree with IPs interpretation of the text then, since he is saying Genesis says other humans were created first followed by Adam and Eve. Have a different way to solve the Cain problem?

[@davidreinker5600]

A good explanation, but remember that Abraham's wife Sarah was his half-sister.

[@metal42]

And Nahor married his Niece

[@vasanthkumars482]

Lut 😅

[@JoshuaEniola-fx9gc]

Nope Sarah wasn't his half sister. He lied to a king that Sarah was his half sister.

[@davidreinker5600]

@@JoshuaEniola-fx9gc Why do you say he lied?

[@BastiatC]

​@@davidreinker5600that he lied is an important part of the story

[@toonnaobi-okoye2949]

It isn't gross that Cain married his sister AT THAT TIME in history. Abraham and Sarah were also siblings. At a time in history, it was ok and necessary to marry your sibling.

[@GreyBlackWolf]

Exactly. How many people today curse God for condemning two same sex people for having relations with people? We dont get to decide whats right or wrong. Heck, before they ate from the tree, they roamed around naked. That would be weird today now wouldnt it?

[@Human-hs8sp]

Sinless vs Sinful. Naked vs Clothed. clothing has that mandate of covering shame. so yes being naked in public is very weird (except at nudist colonies/beaches)

[@cerebrummaximus3762]

Yeah, that irritated me too. Even if they are siblings, so what... they are the first humans!! It would have happened eventually, and the fact that guy couldn't take of his contemporary day lens for a few seconds proves that some people just don't deserve to speak.

[@jeusmarcomascarina4102]

They aren't

[@noncalvinistbydecree1672]

Just be careful, cause Muslims say the same thing to justify Muhammad marrying a 9 year old.

[@outof_obscurity]

"Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living"

[@airkami]

Which is a title not a literal function of her body. Remember, Adam was charged with the task of naming everything and he worked the land making sure mankind knew to use nature for out survival and advancement. At best this means Adam charged eve with the task of making sure mankind nurtured the rest of creation in order that it not be wasted in the name of using it.

[@outof_obscurity]

@@airkami are there any people alive today that don't belong "to the family of Adam"?

[@outof_obscurity]

@@airkami is there anyone today who doesn't trace back to mother Eve?

[@jacobhargiss9909]

this interpretation makes no sense. if there were other people outside the garden, then why is the fall of adam and eve of any consequence to the rest of humanity? the reason we have sin in our hearts is because it was put there when they ate the forbidden fruit and since then we all inherited it from our fathers. which is why jesus had to be born of virgin birth to not be contaminated by that sin. if there were other people not decended from adam and eve, then only some people would be contaminated with sin.

[@th3secretpro365]

Could it be possible that Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit is nothing more than a allegorical or metaphorical way to point out that human sinned and became imperfect? And therefore needed to be saved by God?

[@jacobhargiss9909]

@@th3secretpro365 then that alegory STILL wouldnt make any sense with this interpretation as 2 people sinning would not imply that everyone else also sinned.

[@prestonyannotti7661]

They were above everyone else being the priest and priestess of the guarden. They're sin while not necessarily the first it was by and far the worst considering their high ranking position

[@Islandboy-ue1gi]

[Acts 17:26] From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth . . . . . . . . . (I believe the "one man" is Adam, not " many men ")

[@jacobhargiss9909]

@@prestonyannotti7661 still, it wouldnt put humanity on the wrong path if there were already other humans out in the world.

[@Jim-Mc]

I generally agree but why then was Eve created from Adams side if there were other people he could have taken a wife in the same way?

[@raphaelmensah6278]

Even if that was Cain's sister I don't believe it would be sin because there was no such laws against incest such as Leviticus 18

[@RonaldTolar-pg8uh]

Their gene pool was filled with huge variants available, thus not dangerous at all. Over thousands of years our gene pool has narrowed with less variants availible, thus more dangerous to reproduce with close kin.

[@th3secretpro365]

So is something moral or immoral because God says so or is it always moral or immoral even if a God doesn't specifically point it out to us?

[@RonaldTolar-pg8uh]

@th3secretpro365 The gene pool was so large there was little to no danger. Not so today, therefore it is dangerous, therefore immoral to indanger the babies

[@RonaldTolar-pg8uh]

endanger

[@joesteele3159]

If there were other people outside of the garden then Adam's sin wouldn't have affected them. Which means not all of humanity would be born into sin. Adam and Eve were the first and only humans at the beginning. All of mankind came from them.

[@darbyochill]

Amen amen amen. IP is totally false on this. Jesus is a direct descendant of Adam as seen in Luke. And adam is directly from God. Adam was not birthed neither was Eve (the mother of ALL living). IP’s dangerously reading into the text rather than relying solely upon the word of God.

[@Jim-Mc]

Well if there were other people around he also has to explain why no wife was found for Adam among the animals and Eve was created from his side. Maybe an 'animal' was good enough for Cain but not Adam?

[@FozzyBBear]

We've all eaten the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. We all judge others as if we were God, based on our imperfect understanding of good and evil. Think beams and motes.

[@comenowletusreason6330]

Yes, it's ridiculous and blasphemous what is suggested. The woman wasn't even formed out of Adam's rib until after he was in the garden. If what is being suggested were true, the man could have gotten a helper from the females that were already on earth. The creation of man and woman in chapter 1 and chapter 2 aren't two different instances. All throughout scripture we see it give an account and then goes back and expounds upon it. That's what confuses people. And it allows for false teachers to confuse them even further with intentional lies designed to draw people away from the truth. Christ called them wolves in sheep's clothing. Paul called them servants of Satan disguising themselves as servants of righteousness. Paul also said the lies will spread like gangrene. The gangrene has had 2,000 years to spread and fester. It's everywhere you look. You don't have to look outside of the Bible to interpret it's words. All the answers are in there. You just have to put the time into studying it. If you take scripture in it's fullness it is not confusing and is in perfect harmony with itself. The wolves in the church cause the confusion with their lies, teaching doctrines in reverse of the truth. They know exactly what they are doing.

[@comenowletusreason6330]

As Paul said in 2 Timothy 4:3,4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. " For some reason man loves to follow men. Even the nation of Israel that had the honor to have God, the Creator of all things, as their King, instead wanted to have a man as king like all the other nations had. What a trade. Smh The church does the same thing.

[@hermanwooster8944]

Having a spawn of humanoid creatures roaming around outside the garden is much more bizarre than concluding God allowed the only two human beings on earth to populate the planet. This is also a great way to get racist ideas about inferiority of other peoples in the world rather than the biblical view that we all come from Adam made in God's image. Besides, as others point out, Eve is the mother of all living. She wasn't a priestess. She was literally the mother of all humanity. It's impossible to get around this.

[@darbyochill]

Amen!!!

[@sirblackrose5293]

Leaving my comment here to get notified on the replies

[@davidprince8461]

Then you can explain how the phrase *"and it was so"* in Genesis 1 does not really mean "and it was so"? Genesis 1 28 And the Elohim blessed them, and the Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and *replenish the earth,* and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And the Elohim said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, we have given every green herb for meat: *and it was so.* 31 And the Elohim saw every thing that they had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were *the sixth day.*

[@theperson4yearsago565]

Yep. Incest was bound to happen even in secular science studies show we all humans come from a common ancestor, incest was bound to happen either way. I believe God allowed it until mosaic law was put in place, when God condemned it

[@GregCox1552]

The Bible say's we are kings and priest not priestess'.

[@bulletdog1537]

Well, you also have to consider that the laws that ruled marriage didn’t exist yet. The only command God gave as far as reproduction went was to breed and fill the earth.

[@deanponemafua5830]

Eve was made of Adams rib which means that Adam was partnered with basically himself. Given DNAs perfection at the time I dont see any problems with Cain marrying one of his many sisters. As the DNA became tainted it became more risky to partner up with someone so close to your own.

[@ogfemto]

why would God use his rib and not create eve from the same way

[@viniciuslemos7924]

​@@ogfemtoGood question my old and detestable friend. One of the interpretations given is that Eve coming out of Adam is an image or figure of Christ, just as Eve came out of Adam, we also came out from Christ's side, when he shed water and blood on the Cross.

[@iknowyourerightbut4986]

This is seriously problematic from a theological perspective

[@vernonherb]

Very problematic

[@fuego2263]

Yeah it is and it clashes extremely hard it clearly says god made man made the garden then put him there never seems like there were others first then the other way around

[@danielboone8256]

Why?

[@GEES44DC]

​@fuego2263 It wouldn't read like that if you read it as an ancient person would have.

[@iknowyourerightbut4986]

@@danielboone8256 Primarily, because Christ commissioned a gospel that excluded any genesis of mankind apart from Adam. Without being overly dramatic, to believe this makes Christ a lier, his word untrue, and dramatically changes the identity of Christ as the second Adam (as seen in places like 1 Corinthians 15:22). Ultimately, it completely undermines the gospel to believe this about the origins of humanity.

[@devinkrike5968]

Gonna have to disagree with you on that one IP. Strongly disagree in fact. Genesis 3:20 states that eve became the mother of all living. Genesis 4:17 states that Cain KNEW his wife, meaning she was already there, he probably left Eden with her. Also, remember that prohibition on incest was instituted 2000 years or so after the day of creation. I mean, Sarah was Abraham's half sister, clearly genetic pool wasn't as weak back in the day so it was perfectly fine to marry close kin, and they did, there was no other choice.

[@metal42]

Usually when it says that a man knows a woman it's about intercourse

[@lescribe2477]

Gen 3 isn't related to gen 2 ans also is clearly a text that set up Adam and Eve in a human inhabited World.

[@GEES44DC]

Cain KNOWING his wife literally means he had sex with her.

[@devinkrike5968]

@@metal42 Well aware of that.

[@devinkrike5968]

@@lescribe2477 I don't think so. They seem pretty related to me. Chapter 3 continues the story of chapter 2.

[@cman101892]

The real question is-how did Noah and his wife and his 3 sons/their wives, repopulate the earth? Is 4 mothers and 4 fathers enough diversity to have their kids inter mingle without considerable genetic degradation?

[@MrSeedi76]

Good point. But do you actually know that research has shown that literally almost all of the population of Europe came from just 6 females? Look it up...

[@JonCrs10]

Simple, other survivors who listened to Noah's warning (building the ark was meant to be a spectacle the world witnessed to at least give them a chance to repent) and copied him. Just like how plenty of Egyptians marked their doors in lamb's blood because they weren't idiots and knew "oh no the Israelites are doing something really bad, I don't want to be on the recieving end of that!" and so they survived and joined the Mixed Multitude. Ancients weren't blind idiots.

[@risherkp]

Not many should try to be teachers because they’ll get judged more harshly

[@WoFDarkNewton]

Isn’t humanity often described as Adam’s race, though?

[@Sousabird]

He found her under the couch cushion, obviously.

[@MajorTomFisher]

I tried searching there but didn't find a wife :( anywhere else I could look?

[@thegrimharvest]

​@@MajorTomFisherhave you tried looking behind the milk in the fridge? You know, you'll probably find her in the last place you thought to look for her.

[@johnlee7699]

Ha ha, he would surely have found the TV Remote too right? 😅😂😂

[@mds-kv2rs]

​@@MajorTomFisherbut did you find the change. Once you find the wife all you will have left is the spare change. So technically it's a clue 😂(definitely sarcasm just wanted to clarify)

[@yahboycodi]

My brother, I understand your view but if there are other humans on Earth as described in Genesis 1 how than do we explain the doctrine of original sin?

[@MrSeedi76]

We can't.

[@Crimsonlupus]

Watch Michael Heisers commentary on original sin.

[@user-mt6gj2bf8r]

Even if they WERE siblings it's not the same as incest is now, it was a conpletely brand new gene. You HAVE to start somewhere either way.

[@DavidJJJ]

Exactly. The genetics were perfect so marrying the daughter of your mother wasn't an issue from a genetic perspective, neither was it immoral.

[@th3secretpro365]

​@@DavidJJJAlright, let's have a little bit of a hypothesis then, let's say that in this day and age human figure it out a way to revert our genetics to be as pure as you say it was in the beginning. If that were to happen does that mean incest is now okay again? By your own reasoning the answer would be yes. This line of reasoning also puts into question God's abilities why would God knowingly create a system in which he would knowingly and eventually condemn and call in abomination. Also what evidence do you have to back up this claim that human genetics were more pure?

[@DavidJJJ]

@@th3secretpro365 genetics suffer from something which all things in Creation, something called entropy. Things, including the genetic code of the human body, are degrading over time, for many reasons, radiation from the sun, disease, etc…our genetics cannot get more pure over time, that’s not how this works, you cannot create random changes in computer code and expect it to still work, it’s more likely not to work, this is the same with many things which have a Designer, and this includes your DNA.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

This is actually a very interesting interpretation

[@skwabo]

I agree, it's always seemed to me that there were other humans out there, just not in the garden

[@Crimsonlupus]

I’d recommend checking out Michael Heisers work on genesis. There’s five hour long videos on yt about him doing a lecture on genesis and the ancient near east.

[@DrDoerk]

Interesting, but simply false.

[@edwardwicks304]

This story begins to contradict what the Bible says. Eve's not the mother of all living. Other people besides Adam and Eve...

[@theperson4yearsago565]

Nope it falls apart when you read Eve was the mother of all creatures

[@Madlands69]

Wait till you hear about Lot 😂

[@theperson4yearsago565]

God allowed it for people to multiply the world but mosaic law condemned it so it was no longer allowed

[@OldManMontgomery]

Any way one argues the question, the written account of the Creation is correct, but not complete. For the record, I know God through Christ and believe in His Message to us.

[@beefsupreme4671]

This guy is so wrong about this it’s embarrassing.

[@MrSeedi76]

Unfortunately I tend to agree. I mostly like his videos but this short was ehm, not sure how to say it... Flawed. I think a mythological or allegorical interpretation of Genesis holds much more truth than the simple fundamentalist literal reading that was never really the only option through history. My interpretation of Genesis is that when humans became self aware they were no longer just driven by instinct so they were able to choose between good and bad. So they could sin. Animals act on instinct and are therefore innocent. Humans have the potential for good and bad. That's why myths contain truth but certainly not in a simplistic literal meaning. I know the fundies will have a problem with that but I'm no fundie. I also don't really care that Paul claims sin entered the world through Adam. Yes, it did, as Adam is the first self aware human. Or symbolizes him at least. That's how mythology works. Everyone thinking there is only a literal meaning is missing most of the relevant stuff in the Bible. People weren't thinking like that. It's a modern worldview forcefully applied to ancient texts.

[@beefsupreme4671]

@@MrSeedi76 the literal interpretation of Genesis is the only truth. Saying to God that we somehow know more than God does is the height of arrogance. There is no other way to interpret the book of Genesis. It is obviously not allegory or fictional. It’s written as history. The only question is weather you believe the creator or a bunch of scientist.

[@ichthus_eleison]

​@@MrSeedi76Take a look at “Mitochondrial Eve”

[@luis7961]

He tend to be wrong in many things this guy

[@beefsupreme4671]

@@luis7961 yep, denying the creation is an unforced error

[@williamrice3052]

Consider also when Cain was cast out his first concern was that other people would harm him. The Bible itself hints at other people groups and histories beyond A&E. The traditional narrow interpretation can be a stumbling block for those struggling to believe, so its important to be aware of these points.

[@GreyBlackWolf]

Yes an no. You need to remember that while we are not told how old they are, people lived a very very long time. Noah was many hundreds of years old. So many upon many offspring could have been had by adam and eve and there on. They could have populated many many villages all over in the amount of time they possibly had. Sorry for all the "many"s. Point being. The people cain wS worried about could have been even 9th generation reletives of adam and eve. Maybe even more

[@trocha419]

We are not told how many kids they had. This was close to the time of creation. Doing it like bunnies.

[@theylivewesleep.5139]

@@GreyBlackWolfunlikely. Adam and Eve would’ve had a sprawling estate with that many children. Eve also would’ve had a hell of a time birthing that many children.

[@TheIncredibleRooster]

@@theylivewesleep.5139Jewish tradition states they had 80+ children and the Bible does affirm “other sons and daughters” beyond Cain Abel and Seth

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@GreyBlackWolf Only if you presuppose the ages listed are literal.

[@Hambone3773]

Why would sister wives be a problem anyway. Never understood the aversion to the idea that the first generstion had to intermarry.

[@davidprince8461]

Because there were humans already present on the earth before Adam and Eve. Genesis 1 28 And the Elohim blessed them, and the Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and *REPLENISH THE EARTH,* and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And the Elohim said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, we have given every green herb for meat: *AND IT WAS SO.* 31 And the Elohim saw every thing that they had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were *THE SIXTH DAY*

[@Hambone3773]

@@davidprince8461 Doesn't answer the question why intermarriage would be unacceptable for a first generation.

[@kentracer4129]

​@@davidprince8461there were no humans before God created Adam. Literally for Christ sake that is not true. Not going to argue or debate you either. The Bible is crystal clear and you're not taking into account the passage of time. 🤦🏻🤷🏻

[@davidprince8461]

@kentracer4129 the old preach and run trick. Good one preacher! Assert something and run. That always makes someone right!

[@th3secretpro365]

It's simple The question needs to be whether or not incest is wrong regardless of the circumstance? And based on a literal interpretation of Genesis the answer is it's okay until God points it out that it isn't. So we should really be asking is something wrong because it's wrong or is it's only wrong because God pointed out to us?

[@JanekWeeb]

He got her from STORK!!!!

[@theperson4yearsago565]

☠️

[@heyman5525]

She was his sister. It's pretty simple. Essentially the same goes for Noah's post flood grandkids. Rebekah was Isaac's first cousin as well. Not until the Mosaic law did God end intermarrying.

[@nicholash.3104]

Have you forgotten that Abraham and Sarah were married siblings, and that union was blessed by God? I think things were just different back then. Perhaps the genetics were purer back then, and sibling marriage wouldn't result in genetic defects in offspring. It's not until God gives the Law to the Hebrews through Moses that the rule to not have relations with siblings is established.

[@avivastudios2311]

Why does it take that long to establish that rule? Moses is like, so many generations into the future. No, I think it's much more likely that God wanted to establish that from the start but waited until he had a prophet who could deliver his people out of Egypt and then give them the message. I think that most people didn't marry their siblings but that doesn't mean you don't have to lay down the law.

[@trocha419]

Doesn’t bother me if it was his sister. Times were different. There was less corruption of the human DNA.

[@marcellofunhouse1234]

kinky

[@Sahih_al-Bukhari_2658]

So it’s not disgusting that they were possibly related since their genes were perfect? Is this the only thing that makes inc*st wrong or is it also because they’re closely related family? So if close family could produce offspring without health concerns, that’d make it ok?

[@Crimsonlupus]

We have no proof of perfect genetics. God took away the possibility of them becoming immortal through the tree of life. Away take away something you already have?

[@Islandboy-ue1gi]

Abraham and Sarah are siblings. Sarah was the daughter of Abraham's father. This happens in the ancient world. Also, the bible tell us [Acts 17:26] "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth . . . . . . . . ."

[@ephemeralenhancement9445]

There wasn't a law against marrying siblings yet. It doesn't seem to be discouraged, since Abram married Sarai, his sibling.

[@gandalainsley6467]

Considering they were the first their genetics did not mix up together like for us because its not like Adam gave birth to Eve or they were related. Reason now you get problems when incest happens is because we have a very long line of DNA that is already connected with everyone and incest gives a child nothing. For a child to develop normally there is need for for both people to be different enough that something new can be created and develop. Incest children don't get that. Like my grandmother and grandfather for example has blood that did not mix up well together and all of us now have health problems because of it. That is all that was needed to create generational health problems for everyone. Incest children get everything the same so its worse. In Adam and Eve's time it was very different because Adam's and Eve's genetics would not be in any way similar.

[@theperson4yearsago565]

Yes I believe God allowed it to happen solely for the world to be filled with humans until the law of Moses condemned it

[@Islandboy-ue1gi]

The bible tell us [Acts 17:26] "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth . . . . . . . . ."

[@marthasluder5221]

This is one of those things I simply don't need to know. It has no bearing on my day to day living, and certainly not on my salvation. If we get to heaven, we can to ask the family.

[@thelifeofmaryd.2494]

But even if she was his sister, the thing that makes incest unacceptable is the genetic abnormalities that would form. Cains genes were so pure, there wouldnt necessarily be an issue.

[@omarvazquez3355]

If these other people existed how could Jesus redeem their offspring if He is to be the kinsmen redeemer? Those people don't share a bloodline with Christ.

[@thomasecker9405]

By that logic, Paul wouldn't have been able to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles...

[@scwienert]

@@thomasecker9405can you explain? I’m not seeing the connection.

[@omarvazquez3355]

@@thomasecker9405 Don't you understand? The gentiles go back to Adam too.

[@thomasecker9405]

@scwienert Well, the argument is presuming that since the human race, as a whole, is not sired from Adam, that Adam and Eve's sin in the garden does not cover them, and thus, are unable to be redeemed by Christ. But this is contradicted by both Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, and what is said by Paul about the first and last Adam, the first Adam being Adam himself, the last Adam being the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth Himself, in First Corinthians 15. It's also contradicted by Daniel's vision of the Son of Man and Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the statue, both of which describe Jesus's kingdom and redemption as covering the whole Earth, not just the Kingdom of Israel. Several times throughout his epistles, Paul states that Jesus appointed him to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles and Romans. If Adam's sin did not affect the human race, as a whole, but only the humans by which his line flourished, that would mean that the Gospel could only be given to the Jews, and not the world, as a whole. But given the numerous implications and outright statements that Christ's salvation is for all people who choose to follow Him as disciples, and not just the Jews, and given the implications in Genesis that humanity, as a whole was created first, then Adam and Eve specifically for the Garden of Eden, this means that even those who weren't sired from Adam were affected by Adam and Eve's sin, and thus, the Gospel needs to be delivered to them.

[@thomasecker9405]

@@omarvazquez3355 Read my comment to scwienert to see the problem with this idea.

[@austonhardy5172]

I like most of your content but I disagree with this and with the evolution stuff

[@vegeta2800]

I love how many people interpret the bible to fit their narrative.

[@marthasluder5221]

Just my humble opinion 2 Timothy 2:23.... avoid foolish and unlearned questions knowing that they do gender strife.

[@ChristisKing229]

I think this is the thing that gets most people to not convert. Thanks for tackling it Micheal.

[@dominicadrean2160]

I think people forget that there was no sickness or disease back in those days and people live longer so any of the genetical stuff people think about didn't exist back then I mean it didn't exist in Abraham's time

[@knyghtkrawlr]

Really, this is it? Poor reasoning

[@scwienert]

Jesus says people don’t convert because they love darkness more than light. John 3:19-20 NKJV And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

[@bobbybatte417]

​@@scwienertAMEN!!

[@projectxunidentified9244]

convert in Christianity? that doesnt add up Besides lets say for example he's wrong what would it be its correlation for someone to convert because of it? So for example if a certain religious leader decided to say he will get off the cliff because he isnt receiving anymore visions like in the other religion, would you stop believing cause that certain religious leader stopped seeing visions and messages? O ye of you of little faith

[@anixprophet1966]

When you describe scripture as allegory, you undermine its authority

[@MrSeedi76]

Nope. That's absolute nonsense. Even the Bible itself gives allegorical or metaphorical meaning to texts. Thinking there is only a literal meaning is a modern invention that started with Martin Luther and ended with the simplistic idea of evangelicals in the 19th century. What actually undermines the Bible is this simplistic view of a holy text. Thinking that it only has one meaning and this meaning is supposed to align with some already existing worldview that people carry into the text, as evangelicals do all the time.

[@anixprophet1966]

@MrSeedi76 you're conflating allegory and metaphor. God has no reason to tell us the history of the world as an allegory. God decides what is true. Reality bends to His will. Even Christ said in Matthew 19:4, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." According to Jesus, Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of the creation. I don't take the Bible literally. I take it seriously.

[@el_killorcure]

What an idiot. The Bible is comprised of many different books written in different literary styles. Some are allegorical (Genesis, Revelations) others historical (Exodus, King David, Jesus).

[@PGBigRed]

My favorite part of the Bible is when Jesus is an actual lamb.

[@stefanmilicevic5322]

​@@PGBigRedThat is a pretty good part but I think I like the part of the Bible were Jesus is a door a bit more (John 10:9).

[@GreyBlackWolf]

If cain didnt marry his sister. Then what gives with inherent sin? Why were others cast out of the garden if they had done no wrong? And why would their dependents pay for adam and eves screw up? Also, why does it then also say *"it is not good for man to be alone"* and then God put adam to sleep and crafted from his rib a wife..... why not just bring one of the other peoples in to marry adam? Most the text points to adam and eve being the first 2

[@MrShadowy1]

Yeah this is what I was taught in the 90's as a teen. Youth pastor said that adam and eve were genetically perfect, being created by God, and thus carried no recessive genes. Only after the Fall, and further from the genetic perfection created by God, did incest become a problem.

[@harry3461]

Recently I’ve personally interpreted this as Adam and Eve being the first humans, in like how we as humans exist but not the first humanoid species as a whole y’know? Like Neanderthals or homo erectus or whatever else still existed before them but they’re the first humans who truly had the imago dei.

[@marystone1526]

That's a very interesting take!

[@harry3461]

@@marystone1526 thx bro

[@hallongview]

I think it shows that we have a common creator, that being the uncreated God

[@jacobhargiss9909]

now thats a good point, especially considering that a standing theory for what happened to Neanderthals is that we bred with them until their race just didn't exist anymore.

[@htebazileeilsel2293]

Thats a very unbiblical take.

[@Heisenberg-SayTheName]

Thanks, IP. theistic evolution definitely solves a lot of problems, but it does add a lot of weight to the problem of evil. billions of years of suffering, trying to survive harsh environments, and then god decides to elect 2 people.

[@TrivialCoincidence]

The non-identity theodicy works well with theistic evolution

[@AverageCommentor]

Also, the reason we all sin and need salvation is because we're all descendants of Adam, but that doesn't work with the evolution theory at all.

[@Heisenberg-SayTheName]

good point. there is literally no difference in the universe before or after the fall if we truly accept evolution. @@AverageCommentor

[@Human-hs8sp]

but evolution isn't a salvation dependent issue. one can believe in fae, vampires and a flat earth too without jeopardizing their salvation, though like everyone else their world(view) will unravel on judgment day.

[@Heisenberg-SayTheName]

but don't you see how this can lead to atheism? how on earth could we rationalize a world with evolution and the existence of god? we're talking about BILLIONS of years of suffering, think predators, horrible illnesses, natural disasters... just trying to survive. and then god came out of nowhere and decided to elect Adam as a priest.@@Human-hs8sp

[@randywise5241]

What was the land of Nod, east of Eden but a place with a name given by those that live there? Aren't the oldest ruins in that area in Turkey now?

[@kesslerchristina2737]

Thank you for that explanation. It’s always nice to hear your take on Biblical matters. I learn a lot from your videos

[@bobbybatte417]

Strange. Because, I do remember Adam calling his wife "Eve, because she was the mother of all living." Genesis:3:20 We cannot trace our lineage back to someone else. Had there been other people on the Earth, there would not have been a reason to take one of Adam's ribs. Read the Bible as it is, not for what you want it to be.

[@kentracer4129]

Pretty clear that this man does not teach the truth. Listen at your own peril.

[@Islandboy-ue1gi]

Also, after noah's flood, there was also NO other blood line. people have to choose from the same family.

[@jabodetabek1337]

Amazing Work! Keep Preaching Brother! Love from Indonesia!

[@reigenlucilfer6154]

Tuhan memberkati

[@jabodetabek1337]

@@reigenlucilfer6154 Amin 👍

[@brotherandrew3393]

Adams "headship"? Nowhere in Genesis it is said that Adam was the head of a group of people.

[@cherubin7th]

The first eukaryotes were siblings, clones in fact, that had sex.

[@theperson4yearsago565]

Yda

[@jackross5698]

Agreed! Too many people try wayyy too hard to literalize every aspect of the Old Testament narratives without looking deeper into their meaning.

[@papadalton1]

Thank you! That’s has always been a question for me.

[@HaleStorm49]

Swing and a miss. Cain likely had scores of distant nieces to choose from by the time he took a wife.

[@crankit633]

As I remember (correct me if I’m wrong) didn’t god allow for the marriage of siblings because it was the beginning? Or do I need to re-read Genesis 😅?

[@a.t.ministries5376]

Dr. Gerald Shrouder also talks about people living before and alongside Adam and Eve, in his book the Science of God, and he cites a lot of ancient Jewish scholars in his work. His conclusion is a bit different though

[@bion-geek-le1109]

I have no evidence, but this is where i think it's possible where human evolution took it's place.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

No not really. Not in any time in history were humans made out of dirt.

[@drewidlifestyle7883]

@@celestialsatheist1535organic life was created from inorganic materials.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

@@drewidlifestyle7883 which is not dirt . And even those proto life weren't humans

[@bion-geek-le1109]

@@celestialsatheist1535 what's your goal? In proving us wrong? To look correct? If so then why do you need to act so childish about it and ruin something that has had historical significance and has brought many people joy. What is the goal to atheism other than to be a depressing, narcissistic dick And when has history proven that being an atheist is better than being religious, because history has shown that athirst societies change history, are arrogant to many forms of education, immorality, self gain and carnal pleasure take priority, basically everything atheists accuse religion of being. So again tell me, what is the point in being an atheist, aside from ruining a good day.

[@browserboy1984]

@@celestialsatheist1535 yes, my Lord lol

[@KingdomGuardian]

But aren’t you forgetting that it is written, Eve is the mother of ALL the living?

[@noway6633]

If other people existed and were punished for the actions of Adam and Eve exercising their free will then that is unjust collective punishment which has directly lead the suffering of billions.

[@lynnbenavidez8889]

But that’s a possibility and it specifically explains they are the first man and first woman. Not priests.

[@davidprince8461]

Where does the story explicitly say that Adam and Eve were the first humans?

[@scwienert]

⁠@@davidprince8461 Paul seems to indicate that: 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 NKJV And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [46] However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. [47] The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. And the Genesis 2 account seems to indicate it to me: Genesis 2:5-8 NKJV before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; [6] but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. [7] And 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 being. [8] The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. Notice: Vs 5 - no man Vs 7 - God formed man Vs 8 - He puts that man in the garden Then down later when the LORD says there is no suitable helper for him, it isn’t mentioned that other people were brought before him, just a bunch of animals. Why bring a bunch of animals to be his helper and not try some of the other humans that are supposed to be alive at this point?

[@GEES44DC]

Classic example of someone reading with a present-day mindset and not as they were the original readers.

[@shockthetoast]

​@@davidprince8461Genesis 3:20, for one, where it says Adam named his wife Eve because she was to be the "mother of all living". (Her Hebrew name sounded like the ancient Hebrew word for "to live")

[@davidprince8461]

@shockthetoast Genesis 3:20 does not say Eve was "to be" the mother of all living, you intepret the story that way is all. It says she was the mother of all living, that's it.

[@anonymouz88]

Lilith HAS ENTERED THE CHAT

[@MrSeedi76]

😊

[@ricofico]

According to medieval Jewish apocryphal tradition!

[@Madgamer660]

Acts 17:26 From one man, Adam, he made every man and woman and every race of humanity, and he spread us over all the earth. It's clear Adam was the first man.

[@israels4450]

Tbh, I think there's another way to explain it. The Bible never says Cain got married right away. It's actually very possible that he was alone for a long time until he met some descendants from Adam who by then were not longer related (it happens after a couple of generations) and got married to one of those. It makes sense in every way.

[@davidhamilton1981]

An interpretation I have not heard before. Very thought-provoking.

[@seekfind9531]

It wasn’t gross back then. If you think about it, Adam and Eve were brother and sister too. Eve actually came from Adam’s body on top of that. It is a unique situation because it’s the beginning. Laws were different back then and as humanity progressed, (or should I say, de-gressed) new laws had to be set up due to our degenerating genetics. The further down the line you went with our flawed natures, the more susceptible our race became to genetical flaws, until incest became a sin due to the dangers that came with it.

[@allancabanban191]

This might be a stretch. So how would you explain Noah's grandchildren being cousins?

[@mattTHEEgreat]

Is there a video that breaks this idea down more?

[@Crimsonlupus]

I’d recommend watching Michael Heisers work on genesis topics. There’s a five hour long video on yt about genesis and the near eastern context he did awhile back that helps explain a lot. But Heiser has lots of good insight and is a actual scholar and doesn’t rely and lackluster traditions that don’t speak very well for the biblical authors.

[@Mindmartyr]

Marrying your dead brothers wife is pretty gross too

[@twaho]

Early Christian texts say it was his sister, if you have a problem with that you won't like where eve came from. As for people pre-existing Adam and eve, take a closer look at the texts, one account describes the creation of the world, ch2 describes the garden. Go's created male and female, but in the image of God created He him (not them)

[@BornAgainRN]

This is the problem with unnecessarily viewing the first 11 chapters of Genesis as figurative or allegorical, as opposed to historical. This explanation just kicks the can down the road, because you still have to have a first man and a first woman, even if it’s not Adam and Eve, and still have to explain where THEIR sons’ wives came from to procreate. And there’s absolutely zero evidence in scripture that when Adam and Eve were created that there were other people around during that time who Cain could have married their children. And it also ignores the fact that scripture records explicitly that Sarah was Abraham’s half sister. And this is long after Creation and long after the Flood well into Genesis. It’s not until Moses comes on the scene where he gives explicit commands about not mirroring close relatives. Michael’s shorts are very good in the majority of areas, but when it comes to his view of the early chapters of Genesis, I have to strongly disagree with him. Even Jesus affirmed that Adam and Eve were the first two people who God created at the same time he created the universe and the Earth in a literal 6 day Creation. Jesus said “from the beginning, He created them male and female,” and “ A man will leave his father and mother and join to his wife.” Here, he is using the phrase “the beginning“ which he is referring back to Genesis 1:1, and then quotes Genesis 1 and 2 as being in the same time period. Sorry, but when it comes to these particular arguments where Michael is refuting young earth creationism, i’m sorry but Michael is way off here.

[@MrSeedi76]

I tend to agree. A simple literalist meaning makes more sense. Or even a purely metaphorical one, in which Genesis explains how sin entered the world when humans became self aware, having to choose between good and bad, unlike animals who act on instinct. If we believe evolution, of course. I have my doubts. But at least this explanation would be more consistent than to take some parts literally and others not, like a badly put together puzzle. I'd rather have a "hot or cold" take on this, either fully literal or fully metaphorical, not this lukewarm - "well this part is true, but this other part over here isn't". I mostly like his videos but this one was a dud.

[@th3secretpro365]

Actually that verse you quoted says nothing about Adam and Eve just that when God first created Humans that it was done with male and females. That could very well mean that God created many people all at once just that they were confined by either male or female. Also just because that Abraham married his half sister that doesn't mean he was okay the same way it wasn't okay for Lot to lay down with his daughters. In order to fall under this idea that Genesis is literal you essentially have to agree that incest is okay until it isn't. There are a number of problems with a literal interpretation of Genesis but what evidence do you have to say that it is literal?

[@childofgrace1234]

If you find it so hard to believe what the Bible actually says with regards to creation and how God says He did it, why would you believe Him when He says He will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh? Why believe that God actually condescended into His creation and put on flesh and walked among us? Why believe that Him hanging on a cross actually does what the Bible says it does, that is, satisfies God’s wrath for those who would believe? You and I were not there when all these things happened. We accept God’s testimony because He was there and He cannot lie. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭NASB1995

[@jasminebrown8651]

Does this mean that we all did not come from Adam and Eve? Or could have not come from Adam and Eve?

[@metaouroboros6324]

I think whether you see Adam and eve as the first humans or not impacts how you view the pasage. However, it never said they were the only humans God created, just that they were in the garden. There was established town where Cain got his wife, she wasnt the daughter of adam and eve.

[@shockthetoast]

The Bible doesn't say where Cain got his wife. It says he went to the land of Nod and that he (Cain) built a city after he already had a family. We don't know if his wife went to Nod with him, or if he met her there. And Genesis 3:20 says that Adam named his wife Eve because she was "the mother of all living".

[@Human-hs8sp]

literally though, she was his sister and the others who would harm him were his realtives. How many murderers have you or I walked passed without knowing of thier crime? In the beginning it would've only been Adam, Eve and their descendants. it's not likely that at the time of the first murder there were 6 generations out and down. Why else would God put the protection on Cain instead of telling him to move in with the Homo Neanderthal who wouldn't know of his crime or have anything against him for it. so yeah, it definitely changes the impact.

[@metaouroboros6324]

@shockthetoast you are correct about the city not being established. The main point I'm making is that Cain's wife isn't his sister.

[@kira7035]

The word for wanderer in Hebrew is Nud and is related to Nod. Nod is referring to Cain, amazing yes another thing he had a son named Enoch and named a city after him. Another thing the land Cain went to was on the East of Eden. Mind again Adam and Eve was kicked out of Gan Eden(Garden of Eden). So they were still in Eden just not in the garden.

[@shariceornah]

If there is other people outside of the garden then the couldn't be ascended from Adam and Eve which means they can't have original sin.

[@searchingforredemption1984]

So by that logic some of humanity was not under the curse caused by Adam's sin

[@daniellevy2272]

Interesting. I understand this theory suggests Adam and Eve were not the first humans? Personally, I highly doubt it, given the original Hebrew text refers to the first humans as "האדם" which is the same word for "Adam" and "human" only with a "the" before, meaning this could either be "The human" or "The Adam". This could be "The human" but again the use of the same exact name of Adam instead of other Hebrew words we have for "human" could mean Adam was in fact the first human. I feel like this is very much up for interpetation

[@EricMcLuen]

Ken Ham disagrees but has just a convoluted answer that incest at that time was not a sin.

[@NicBob89]

I thought the story of Adam and Eve is to explain that man and woman are compatible and that human beings are free to choose but often choose the wrong thing, which bears consequences… I mean… there’s a talking snake here people…. clearly it is allegory. A theory I have is that this part of the Bible is much more simply written and with allegory because it can be used to teach your children to read and add numbers… because this is what education used to be… which is why they include all these people’s ages that don’t make sense… but it’s just a theory 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@BasiliscBaz]

When my mom read me bible story about first brothers i ask her "How Cain get his wife" She respond " they werent only people, Adam and Eve were only first, God create others after them" and i belived IT

[@cherubin7th]

Creation were just 2 visions Moses had. Like revelation. Just symbols. But this is the problem when you put a book on a pedal against Gods will.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

Asuming they were geneticslly perfect, inbreeding likely would not have caused problems like it does nowadays. Less possible genetic mutations.

[@thomassmith6232]

Adam and Eve were physically perfect and hence genetically pure. There was no danger in their children or grand children having children together. You did know that Sarah was Abraham's sister, didn't you?

[@ghouldoves8377]

That removes the authority that mankind has over animals because it was Adam who names them and also Adam meaning first man.

[@iantolerton995]

I think the fact that the biblical writers (note writers) didnt feel the need to explain why incest would be fine in this one exception, lends some credence to it not being one of his sisters.

[@agnieszkaboczek39]

Hi IP! I love you work and how do you explain stuff it helped me many times. I have question though: do you think in the future you can do some video explaining unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit?

[@airkami]

This also makes sense why Jesus would talk of the first Adam and the last Adam. This also makes sense that Adam had responsibility in the garden. Naming everything so that everyone knew what to call things so we could all communicate in the first language.

[@bigguy2128]

the psuedepigraphal writings suggest it was his sister. I mean if you think they have validity. I have mixed opinions on those writings

[@samrouter965]

This explains when it says in Genesis "no suitable helper was found" wife for Adam.

[@samkelongcebo5637]

If we accept this argument then it means that Adams sin carries no weight as we think. We are told that through him we are all sinners. How do you explain that biblically?

[@Islandboy-ue1gi]

The bible told us [Acts 17:26] "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth . . . . . . . . ." (From one man, Not from many men) [1 Corinthians 15:45] also said "So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit." (so Adam was the first man)

[@theylivewesleep.5139]

I had a home-baked theory like this for a while.

[@Crimsonlupus]

The scholarship is on your side,lucky you lol

[@davidprince8461]

Why is it not valid?

[@user-jt6rm7xc8v]

To anyone that points out that the first generation must have married their siblings: So what? Incest is gross now because we live in a diversified gene pool but they didn't back then.

[@wareaglejf]

This of course runs into the problem of how other humans outside of the garden would have been dying for years and years before Adam and Eve's trespass.

[@AozenDreyar]

There is no problem with that the main reason incest is banned is that it is a purely lustful relationship and breaks familial love, but the children of adam and eve would not marry out of lust but there is simply no one else to marry. Also incest being gross or wrong is not. Justifiable unless God exists and sets that it is a sin and is bad.

[@nelsondelvalle1955]

So how does this work with sin?