Where did the people come from after Adam and Eve? Where did Cain find his wife?

Bible Difficulty #7

I know…I know, this is a common one and relatively old & simplistic contradiction, but none the less still a MAJOR GAPING HOLE.  But lets see if we can put this one to rest.

The reason I bring this one back up, is even though I have heard this question a lot from non-believers and just curious youth from church.  I have to be honest,nobody has ever really answered the question, and for those that do -the answer made absolutely no sense.  So I think this would be a great time to research the apologetic s on this common question.  (To see if I can find a reasonable answer/solution.)

Genesis 4:16-17

 16 So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain made love to 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.

So the obvious question, where in the world did Cain’s Wife come from?

From doing a little research, I have found two running theories.

Theory #1- This theory is more commonly held by apologist and biblical scholars.  That Cain married one of his sisters.  First, this theory answers the question of is Genesis 1:24-21 & Genesis 2:7-25 two different creation stories or two separate creation stories?  Well according the Christen Apologetic’s and Research Minstisry (C.A.R.M.) they are the same story.

“There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.  [And] Genesis two is [just] a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4.” (C.A.R.M.)

So according to the scritpures this is who was on earth and in order.

  1. Of course Adam- Genesis 2:7
  2. Eve- Genesis 2:22-24
  3. CainIn Genesis 4:1, Adam and Eve’s offspring
  4. AbelIn Genesis 4:2, Also Adam and Eve’s offspring
  5. Seth- In Genesis 4:25 .  Seth was born after Cain killed Abel.  (Talk about a dysfunctional family.)  And then in Genesis 5:5 “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.”  Who were never named in the bible.

So according to this theory, the wife of Cain was one of the daughters of Adam and Eve, his sisters.  Now there two main problems with this scenario.

The first is the biological implications of incest.  If this was true, than we would only have ONE blood line (which would be just Adam and Eve.)  There is no way that an entire planet of people could be populated off one just one couple and not have the mental and health instability of incest.   Now in the link Bible Questions Answered they say, “Considering the purity of the gene pool through the first dozen or so generations, it is not likely that this would cause the difficulties it would cause today.”  That is completely contradictory to biology and incest…the more pure the bloodline is the more drastic are the mental and health problems.  This is evident to anyone is familiar with the incest & inbreeding of royal families.

The second problem with this scenario is that Adam and Eve, didn’t have daughters until after Seth (Genesis  5:4) was born and after Cain murdered his brother and left to build the city of Nod. (Genesis 4).  So it is unlikely theory #1, is the answer to the post question, because it has two gaping holes that causes contradictions to biblical scripture and natural biological law.

Links that support the argument of Theory #1-

Christian Apologetic’s and Research

Bible Questions Answered 

Christian Answers

Theory #2- That God created other people besides than Adam and Eve.  And that the other created people is were Cain found is wife from.  Now this theory is not held by as many theologians and apologist, but in my opinion has no glaring contradictions.  Some consider this to be the Pre-Adamite Theory.

Genesis 1:26-31

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.   31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Now this one would support Biological Science and to a certain degree would explain the gaps of why it appears we have two creation stories.  This actually supports the Pre-Adamite Theory of a biological Eve or better know in science as Mitochondrial Eve.  There appears to be no glaring biblical contradictions, and no biological contradication so it appears to solve the incest issue.  

The Order of Creation

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

However two things do come to mind, when reading the scriptures and studying theory #2.  That when reading Genesis Chapter One & Two in context it appears to be just one story, not two separate creations of man and woman.  Secondly if this theory is true, what happened to this group of Men and Women spoken of in Genesis 1:24-28.  There is no other mention of this other group again in scripture.  No mention of leadership, society, culture, geographic or  family lineage.  (And we all know the bible always loves to mention family lineage and geography/location.)  To me the only contradiction to this theory is a logical contradiction.  If God created a separate society; I find it hard to believe he created them and never ever spoke of them again.

Links that support the argument of Theory #2-

The Pre-Adamite Theory

Hubpages- Adam & Eve not the First

Rev. Jim Persinger

About these ads

About M. Rodriguez

When I first received Christ salvation, I made it a priority to read the whole bible and I did. But it was the Bible that made me question my faith. For I found it flawed and lacking. Due to this I launched a personal inquiry/investigation into my faith, and ultimately realized that the Christian God of the Bible was indeed man-made. Now I Blog about those findings and life after Christ.
This entry was posted in apologist, atheist vs christian, bible contradictions, confusion and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Where did the people come from after Adam and Eve? Where did Cain find his wife?

  1. BJ Swearer says:

    I hope the article in this link will help provide some answers :) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/who-was-cains-wife

  2. unklee says:

    BR, if one believes Genesis 1-11 is myth and not history, the problem disappears.

    But even if one takes it literally, I think your problems with incest are not correct.

    1. Inbreeding is a problem when some characteristics are reinforced over generations. This was one generation.

    2. I think most evolutionary biologists believe we all descended from one woman back in Africa, often dubbed “Eve” (see Wikipedia, so if inbreeding was a problem, it would be there too.

    I think this is the least of the problems.

  3. portal001 says:

    @thebiblereader

    in your earlier post titled Scriptural Difficulties you wrote:

    “Instead of taking these questionable scriptures as bible contradictions, I should stay neutral as much as possible. I should not automatically presume it is a biblical contradiction and calling them alleged bible contradictions maybe too forward in my presupposition.”

    Yet in this current post you still wrote: “I know…I know, this is a common one and relatively old & simplistic contradiction”.

    Just thought I’d point out this contradiction. Hope you have a great week.

    • I actually finished this over a month ago, all I change when I posted it was the first part. I changed it from bible contradiction #7 to bible difficultiy #7, I didn’t change non of the body.

    • I actually finish the majority of my post about three to four weeks before I post them, I have about 25 post finished post that I haven’t put up yet,

      I have post on What is inerrancy?, Christian doubt, a 9part series on faith, religion and atheims, a post on bart ehrman, bible study on atheism, hiddenness of god and a couple of youtube post. I start a write post, and put them up based on how I feel the direction of the blog is going.

  4. unklee says:

    “the majority of persons DNA can be traced back to a biological eve. (not every persons, but the majority)”
    Yes, I think you are correct there, which makes my point #2 less correct or useful. But I didn’t believe it should be interpreted literally anyway.

    “How do you decide what is myth and what isn’t when reading the Bible?”
    The same way a christian decides anything – by using the best information available plus commonsense, and asking God to guide us. I find as a christian that many of these questions don’t change anything for me – it is only non-believers who think they are a problem.

  5. Xander says:

    I like the Jewish view of Genesis 1 in how it is a basic overview of creation but the symbolism behind it shows how God is superior to gods that people worshipped at the time. Have to remember who the target audience was when it was given and it helps to keep it in context. Besides the Bible is not about providing the answers to how God did everything. It is a statement of who God is and the relationship that has developed with His creation.

    I have read that the genetic traits that are passed on to children changed as the couple ages. I cannot find the source for that right now, but would help to explain why most DNA can be traced back to one person.

  6. daniel bruno says:

    God says ,trust him ,and all things that are ment to be revieled ,will be ,its not for us ,to know why God does what he does ,When Jesus was on earth ,what did he say ,Our ways are not your ways and your ways are not Ours ,all we need to do is trust God to take care of what He created and He will take care of us , Yes its mind boggleing ,but why not consider who made us,i cant make a universe or even a tree ,but i know who can ,trust God and all will fall into place as planed

  7. Amy Brandlin says:

    I have recently left Catholicism. I was a convert in 93. I never have considered the Genesis Adam and Eve as anything other than a “creation story”. I envisioned the story as a symbolic way to explain humanity and its difficulties. I see it like I see the Iroquois Turtle Island story. Each tribe had its way to explain the presence of evil, etc. I have realized that there isn’t a place for Liberal Christians, like my self, in Christianity any more.And of course, If you don’t consider yourself an actual descendant of the Adam and Eve from the Garden, with a literal stain on your soul what is the point of salvation? I guess I thought Christ was about love and forgiveness to make a better world, but that is far from the truth.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      I think that for myself that if I was a liberal christian, I would have stuck with it, but because of the fundamentalist of Christianity. I could not see myself just simply just changing doctrine to be more liberal in my faith.

      • limey says:

        I think what you just described also accurately describes me. If I had been a more liberal Christian my Christianity would have had a greater chance of survival. The more fundamental the belief the less firm its foundation.

        Amy also makes a very good point when she says “If you don’t consider yourself an actual descendant of the Adam and Eve …. what is the point of salvation?”. I think if I had been a more liberal Christian (and I was liberal in some aspects, just not on creation) this issue would have come up a few times.

  8. unklee says:

    “I think that for myself that if I was a liberal christian, I would have stuck with it”

    I honestly find this difficult to understand, BR. If you would have stuck with it, I presume it would be because you thought it was true. So if it would have been true, surely it would still be true regardless of what viewpoint you were coming from?

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      because so of the more fundamental parts were a lil more essential and foundational to my faith. and in losing some the key points, it became difficult to reconcile my faith in other areas.

  9. unklee says:

    But it seems top me that there are 3 views under discussion here:

    1. Fundamentalist christianity
    2. A more liberal christianity
    3. Disbelief

    If you would have stuck with 2, why, when you could no longer believe in 1 didn’t you give 2 a try? Or, more importantly, now you have moved to 3, why not see if 2 is more logical than 3?

    • limey says:

      I can’t speak for the blog owner, but I can answer for me.

      I did seriously consider option 2 and tried to get my mind into that alternative thinking option but I found that it was the equivalent of luke-warm water. I found it satisfied nothing for me and so the step to 3 really was the only option left.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      Fundamentalist requires to a certain degree a level of blind faith in my opinion. You would have to believe in a Young Earth, Intelligent Design/Creation, An Inerrant or Infalliable bible. And those things i don’t think I could have held onto those things dogmaticly. I don’t think I could forgo rational thought for the sake of faith.

  10. unklee says:

    “I found that it was the equivalent of luke-warm water”

    I find it more like a bracing shower, an intellectual and spiritual challenge, a life that is never boring, a lot of wonderful people to meet and a lot of useful things to do. Different things to different people!! : )

  11. unklee says:

    “Christian requires and calls for everyone complete servitude and submission; and in that you can’t be luke-warm.”
    In christianity, submission is not abject, but cooperative. We submit to the truth and to God who is truth, but he is looking for us to be really free to be ourselves, not to be mindless subjects. What I called “more liberal christianity” is not lukewarm, but more thoughtful, more challenging and (I believe) more truthful and more involving than a mindless fundamentalism. I really think you don’t understand this option, and I think you have therefore not properly considered it.

    “I don’t think I could forgo rational thought for the sake of faith.”
    That is the point I am making. I don’t want to appear to be rude, but I think you have not used enough rational thought. You have rejected (understandably) the fundamentalist view of the Bible because the evidence is against it, but you have then (as far as I can understand you) rejected the historians’ view of the Bible. But rational thought requires (IMO) one to consider all options. And I think there is a strong case, which you haven’t properly considered, that the historical evidence justifies and points to faith in Jesus being true.

    I’m sorry if I sound like a cracked record, but I feel concerned that you have jumped from one unjustified belief to another.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      No offense taken by anything. I know where your heart. and your intentions are pure and good.

      For me, it was just too difficult for me to reconcile my faith, christianity, and belief, with still so many questions and holes. Even though I spent so much time studing, reading, and posting on inerrancy, there were other questions and topics that were also of concern. And when Evaluationg all of them objectively I could no longer wrap my ahead wrong that the christianity was a product of a divine deity and not a man-made religion.

    • arkenaten says:

      In christianity, submission is not abject, but cooperative. We submit to the truth and to God who is truth, but he is looking for us to be really free to be ourselves, not to be mindless subjects.””

      And you would hang your ”soul on the word of a deity that would destroy humanity with a global flood, then be complicit in the murder of his only son by allowing him to be nailed to a piece of wood as a blood sacrfice?
      And this isnt being mindless? ‘Really RFLMAO

  12. johnny says:

    …”the historical evidence justifies and points to faith in Jesus being true”? Sorry, maybe my reading of history is a little rough but I never got that from it.. I don’t think you can get to a belief in Jesus from a reading of the bible – unless you suspend disbelief and rationality. It seems to me that “belief” is largely a product of the culture where you grew up. Individuals born in Iran or Iraq are largely Muslim; those born in India find Hinduism and Buddhism more believable, and those of us born in the U.S. are largely Christian. They can’t all be true!

    We may just have to live without knowing everything about creation…that doesn’t mean we should stop looking. We are curious creatures after all.

  13. unklee says:

    “Sorry, maybe my reading of history is a little rough but I never got that from it.. I don’t think you can get to a belief in Jesus from a reading of the bible – unless you suspend disbelief and rationality.”

    G’day Johnny. I wonder why you “never got that from it”? The secular historians are almost unanimous that the historical evidence for Jesus is excellent, for example:

    “Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died.”
    EP Sanders

    “We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.”
    Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

    “Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.”
    Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

    “The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good.” NT Wright

    “The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it [the New Testament] by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.” John A.T. Robinson

    “Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek… The only surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors.” Helmut Koester

    These aren’t christian stooges, but some of the most respected historians in the world (and I could quote more). They show that it is not the historical evidence that prevents people believing in Jesus, but our response to that evidence.

    “We may just have to live without knowing everything about creation”

    Why not simply accept the obvious conclusion?

    Best wishes.

  14. johnny says:

    Hi Unk,
    You’ve got to be kidding :”the secular historians are almost unanimous that the historical evidence for Jesus is excellent”.

    You know, I never get involved in blogs, I don’t know why I did this time. But the fact is the internet is absolutely loaded with scholars who don’t believe Jesus ever existed “What most historians and scholars think is that a human named Jesus was the seed for the Christian myths. But, it would be factually wrong to suggest that ‘most scholars think the Christ existed’ — a seed is not the same as the myth.”. ((http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#cite_note-70).

    I was going to reference every article that countered yours, but it became obvious that it would take all day and really I don’t believe anyone’s religious belief are changed by facts – one way or the other. I truly believe we are all brothers and one can lead a good life without being religious. In fact many atrocities are committed in the name of one religion or another. Nuff said, good luck to all, for that is all there really is…..
    johnny

  15. unklee says:

    G’day Johnny, sorry to extend your stay on a blog, but I must contest what you have said.

    Firstly, rationalwiki.org is unlikely to be a good source. If I quoted the official doctrine of the Catholic church or a christian apologist, you would be unlikely to accept what I said either! Let’s stick to the respected scholars. (Yes, I see it quotes some respected scholars, but its conclusions are not those of scholarship generally.)

    “the internet is absolutely loaded with scholars who don’t believe Jesus ever existed”

    As far as I can tell, this statement is simply untrue. The facts I think are:

    1. If we define a scholar as someone with (a) relevant qualifications, (b) working in this field of study and (c) publishing in peer-reviewed journals, then I have only ever heard of one scholar who doesn’t believe the Jesus of the gospels existed – Robert Price. Bart Ehrman, not a believer, has said: “I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus”.

    2. Many scholars doubt or disbelieve (i) that Jesus said or did certain things recorded about him, and (ii) that he was the son of God. But (i) doesn’t alter the general picture, and (ii) is a matter of interpretation of the historical evidence, not a question of the evidence itself. So the almost unanimous consensus is as in the quotes I gave before.

    3. The people all over the internet denying the evidence for Jesus are almost certainly not scholars according to the definition I gave above, but the equivalent of young earth creationists denying evolution. Can you reference some scholars who hold the view you are putting forwards?

    If you expect christians to be rational and followed established learning in science or history, you need to apply the same yourself. I am amazed at how often non-believers criticise me for quoting christian scholars (when most I quote are not christians as far as I can tell), then use highly sceptical writers themselves. The only fair way to discuss is to start with the conclusions of the consensus of secular scholars.

    • limey says:

      There was a time when I would have agreed with you unklee, however, over the past few years I have seen and heard enough about the historical investigations of the person of Jesus that his existence can be justifiably questioned.

      On a personal level, I have not studied the subject enough for me to be able to say which way I swing. Certainly there are good arguments for the case that the Jesus of the bible is simply an amalgamation of various stories and myths and there was never a single person who did all that stuff. There is also a good case for the argument that there was a Jesus (and other similar people too) who was respected and was crucified but the supernatural stuff is all embellishment. Maybe the truth is a combination of the two. Either way, I doubt that I’ll ever be re-convinced of the truth of the biblical account.

      For now, I am happy for historians and scholars to argue about where the Jesus stories come from. Of one thing I am certain, the agreement on the historical Jesus that you claim, simply does not exist.

  16. unklee says:

    G’day Limey, you certainly seem to like putting yourself out way beyond those who have made a lifetime study of these things! Reminds of a work friend who was a champion chess player. I would play him sometimes at lunch time, think I was going well until I made what I thought was a bold move, and he would comment “A man who knows no fear!” – and then demolish me.

    I’ll just make two comments.

    “Certainly there are good arguments for the case that the Jesus of the bible is simply an amalgamation of various stories and myths”

    Actually, the consensus of scholars is that certainly there is not a good case to be made for that. Here are the summaries of five eminent scholars who have studied this question:

    TND Mettinger has been more sympathetic to the pagan parallels than most scholars. After he completed a major study, he concluded that the idea of dying ands rising gods contained some truth, and he felt there some matters were still not fully resolved. But nevertheless, he concluded: “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world.”

    Bart Ehrman: “We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandised versions.”

    JZ Smith: “That which was posited as most ‘primitive’ — a myth and ritual pattern of ‘dying and rising’ deities …. has turned out to be an exceedingly late third or fourth century [AD] development in the myths and rituals of these deities”

    Craig Keener: “When you make the comparisons, you end up with a whole lot more differences than you do similarities.”

    Ronald Nash sums up: “allegations of early Christianity’s dependence on its Hellenistic environment began to appear much less frequently in the publications of Bible scholars and classical scholars. Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue.”

    “Of one thing I am certain, the agreement on the historical Jesus that you claim, simply does not exist.”

    I have quoted (a few comments back) some of the world’s top scholars, saying that not only do they conclude differently to what you say, but that this is the general consensus. Virtually none of them believes Jesus didn’t exist, virtually no-one believes he was constructed from ancient myths and legends, and most accept that we can know enough about his life and teachings to place him clearly in history and in first century Judaism.

    Yes, of course there is disagreement about many details, and disagreement about whether he was divine and whether the miracles actually were miracles, but the main lines of the story are agreed upon. If you go with any other view, you are following non-scholars, the equivalent of young earth creationists. But why anyone would do that rather than simply say “I accept what the scholars say, but I still don’t believe he was divine” is beyond me. But that’s up to you.

    Best wishes.

    • arkenaten says:

      Yes it is Unklee and his ubiquitous Consensus Show.
      For those who may be confused by Unklee’s erudite approach.
      Consensus is NOT fact. It is simply what the majority of the current crop of éxperts’ believe at ths time, which may change , of course, when new info surfaces.
      Thus Bob Price and Richard Carrier, for example, decried as non-scholars, or not sufficiently scholarly, by Unklee and others ,might lean toward a fictional Jesus but for lack of (attestable) evidence, or an unacceptable interpretation of the current evidence, they are written off as loonies- or whatever is the scholarly equivalent.

      Yet Unklee and his Christian cohorts will champion the Virgin Birth and see nothing wrong in this, even though it is an erroneous interpetation of the Old Testament prophecy and also a complete suspension of normal human procreation.

      And where is the scholarly consensus surrounding this particular biological incident I wonder?

      All Christians are in one form or another, hypocrites..

    • cj says:

      At one time there was a ‘scholarly consensus’ that the earth was flat, that the universe rotated around the earth, that washing hands did nothing to help patients in hospitals, that women are not as smart as men……the list is endless. Look up Mithras, Osiris & Isis and don’t Google them, do some real scholarly research. Bottom line, everyone’s spiritual path is their own to walk and we should not judge others because their beliefs are different from ours. Self introspection and a constant effort to hold love as our highest guiding principle would go a long way towards making this a better world.

  17. M. Rodriguez says:

    how things have heated up over here? This is actually my most search post…so I am not surpised the conversation has heated back up

  18. Pingback: A Milestone Post | The BitterSweet End

  19. arkenaten says:

    @ ignorantianescia
    That’s a very rude comment.”

    Oh, I am so dreadfully sorry. I did not realise respect was due to a follower of a religion that, as one of its central tenets, believes human sacrfice was necessary for Salvation and who likes to spend a lot of time inferring that any non-believer of this philosophy is “not correct”.

    Please forgive. I shall take myself off to the corner, say five Hail May’s, flagellate myself for my impious remark then go and have a Jack Danials.
    Religion: A delusion to die for…and if not, someone might kill you for it anyway.

    As Jimi Hendrix once sang…And so Castles made of Sand, drift into the sea….

    • Mike says:

      Nice post. I’d add another observation here. Assume that we agree that God created mankind not only from Adam and Eve as those were not two physical people rather than a placeholder names for Man and Woman (there must have been many men and women to reproduce and clear the deficiency of the first argument)… anyhow this complicates the story even more…

      If Adam and Eve then committed the horrible mistake of eating from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong then why on earth God punished the whole humanity? So it was either a single man Adam and a single woman Eve who made this mistake and God punished all of us, which is cruel, or it was Adam (placeholder name for men) and Eve (placeholder name for women) which is completely counterintuitive as it is almost impossible for all humans to make the same mistake that finally got us out of paradise. And even if this is true, then why didn’t God punish those who committee the sin only? Why their children and all their descendents?
      Also, if really all humans made the same mistake then this is OBVIOUSLY A BUG IN GOD’S CREATION CODE! And guess what? We are paying for his own mistake!

  20. Susan says:

    If all came from Adam and Eve, how did we get blacks, Koreans and all other groups? I think God created more after Adam and Eve.I guess we will never know for sure until we die and go to heaven and ask God.,

  21. Jose says:

    I hold to Theory#1 and disagree with the incest being an issue at that time or the one blood line issue. In addition, scripture teachings tell us ‘let every word be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. Here’s one witness as written by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:24-26
    God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
    Here’s the 2nd witness as again written by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 15:45 (KJV)
    The first man Adam was made a living soul;

    The third Witness is the Law of Truth that every seed produces after it’s own kind! There we have it.

  22. The glaring contradiction with theory 2 is that if God were going to create other people other than Adam and Eve, why on earth didn’t he just destroy Adam and Eve after they sinned? It’s not that it would be impossible for God to have created more people, it would have been anything but impossible, but considering that God was prepared to wipe out all of mankind at the time of Noah anyways, if God were genuinely prepared to create more people than Adam and Eve to produce the human race, why didn’t he just do that, and destroy the first couple?

    The genetic difficulties that arise with incest happen because of existing imperfections in our genes… when two people who are closely related have a child, those imperfections will tend to accumulate, potentially resulting in a dominant gene that is flawed, whereas it not is entirely unreasonable to speculate that when God created Adam and Eve, such flaws did not yet exist in human DNA, so procreation through incest would not magnify any genetic abnormalities that we associate with incest today. because that close to the beginning of the human race, there would not have been any flaws yet. Such abnormalities that exist today can be seen more readily as a result of sin, not necessarily part of God’s original creation… but they still would reasonably have taken time, possibly many generations, to have surfaced.

    It’s worth noting that God did not prohibit incest at all until the time of Moses… although it may not have been a problem previously, God, who knew what the future would bring, including the genetic imperfections that would ultimately surface, he could reasonably know that it would ultimately be of paramount importance to the survival of mankind that such relationships should be prohibited.

    Of course, if one does not susbscribe to the theory that sin itself is what causes death, I suppose theory #2 is probably the more rational one.

  23. Abdulrahman Abdallah yousif says:

    God made Adam from the earth, and make eva from Adam rib,
    if youread the quran you will find out that its true from God

  24. Joe Schmoe says:

    God said, let “US” go down and make man in “OUR” image and after our “Likeness”. These peoples had power ober animals & fish they were hunters and fishermen. And they were in Gods “Likeness”, God said, Adam has become “Like” one of “US” to know good and “EVIL”. So Adam was in God’s image but was not in God’s “likeness” knowing both good and “evil” before the fall. The fishermen and hunters (Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground) created on day six were in God’s “likeness”. It says that, but Adam was not “Like” God knowing both good and evil until he fell. Note that God was talking to others buy his use of the words US & OUR. After he rested the 7th day and all the ones with power over the fish birds and animals (fishermen & hunters) he suddenly notices there is not a man to “Till the Ground”. God needs a farmer to tend his Garden which was in Eden. This farmer to work God’s Garden was not told to spread all over the earth and have control over the fish, birds & animals. So this gardener would not be alone he made him a help mate Eve. God did not want this farmer to have knowledge of both good and evil and even said to the others with him, “Look the man has become (like) US knowing good and evil now let US remove him from the garden and block the way of the tree of life least he take of it and live forever. So we see God did not want Adam living forever knowing Evil so he kicked him out of the garden and put a cherub with a sword that went in every direction to protect tree and prevent Adam from taking of it should he try.
    Over 100 Hebrew scholars worked on the Strong’s Hebrew Concordance. In Strong’s #119 we read,
    Strong’s #119: ‘adam (pronounced aw-dam’). to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy.
    So if Adam was Caucasian and Eve was Caucasian than any white man would have to be asking serious question if his white wife bore his an Indian, Asian or African child. He would have to think something is not right about this. So the only thing that makes sense to me is two creations, The first creation where God said let US go down and make man in OUR image after OUR “Likeness” knowing good and evil were all the non-white races who could handle the knowledge of evil without it getting out of hand and Adam he foreknew if had the same knowledge would poison the minds of the rest and cause chaos in the world. Every race on earth in these last days has chemical and nuclear warheads all invented by those who show blood in the face, to turn rosy or red and have learned from the media invented by those who blush all about porn and every other form of immorality. These Caucasian inventors have about poisoned all the tribes of the world with their knowledge and have them all acting like us or wanting to be like us with the POWER trip weapons we showed them how to make and provided them with to the lust of the flesh from the porn we spread to the government and news we blast all over the world which says evil is good and good is evil. This is along the lines of how I read it. I could be wrong but I have heard that God is not the author of confusion. The more I study the Bible the more confused I get. Jesus had children around him and said to the elders, these are the likes of the kingdom of heaven as tho heaven was full of children and children who die must go there because they have not reached an aged of accountability. But God in the old testament say, take your unruly children to the edge of town and stone them to death. How many people today would take their unruly children outside of the city and stone them to death? Some Satan worshipers say Satan is the good guy freeing Adam from being God’s slave in the garden and causing him to be “like” God. Satan did not lie when he told Eve, “God knows the day you eat of this tree you will be “Like” God knowing both good and evil. God confirms Satans truth by saying, “The man has become “like” US knowing both good and evil. Then for more confusion you have “Beast of the Field” who take care of a king for seven years while he was bed riden. Beast as we know them would have made a tasty meal of the king. So we are to believe cows, lions, camels feed the king, washed his clothes, brought him water and cared for him seven years? And then there is Jonah 3:8 were these same Beast of the field put on sackcloth, pray to God and turn from violence and it say these beast of the field have HANDS also. So the church says that men of God put sackcloth on cows and oxen etc and these animals prayed to God and turned from violence? And then we read again the Beast of the Field will be mixed with the seed of man. What God is going to mix the seed of man with the seed of beast? Man has never bore children in bestiality but there seems to be some kind of Beast with “Hands” that can be mixed with the offspring of man. And again we read in Revelation, Behold a Green horse who is given power over one fourth of the earth to kill with sword, famine and “The Beast of the Earth”. We know this green horse is the color of Islam and they are a forth of the earths population just as the bible states but who are the Beast of the Earth that help them kill? The cows? I say Green not pale horse because the Greek word that was translated ‘pale’ in Revelation 6:8 was chloros. The definition of chloros is green; the root word for chlorophyll, the pigment in plants that makes them green. The same word is used in Mark to describe green grass. The four horses mentioned in the Apocalypse are white (for Catholism), red (communism) black (capitalism) and green (Islam). “And I looked, and behold a pale (green) horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And the power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the Beasts of the Earth.” Islam has become synonymous with death. The prophecy says that hell followed the rider of Death. Islam teaches their suicide bombers that paradise follows their act of martyrdom.
    The spirit of the green horse is described as having power over a fourth part of the earth. Followers of Islam represent 1.48 billion people, one-fourth of the world’s population. The death horse rider was to kill with the sword, hunger and death. Each of these forces thrives where Islam reigns. Islamic countries are known for the proliferation of violence, poverty and disease. The passage in Zechariah 6 tells us that the pale (green) horse went into the south country. 96.5% of the world’s Muslims live in Africa, and southern Asia. Islam’s capital, Mecca, is south of Israel. There is much the bible says that the church does not preach either because they don’t understand it or in fear of being called haters or told it’s not politically correct for you to preach this stuff. I won’t go in to all the scriptures of confusion the bible has caused me from my study, but who ever said, God is not the author of confusion must be talking about the educated, not the dummies like me.

  25. calvin sullivan says:

    God created three races of people. African, Asians, Caucasians. Each creation body was built and design to live withend its climate. Reasons for different skin complexions. Adam and Eve of the Bible where not the first humanoids. But were the first humans of gods choosing people. Who are now referred to as Jews or isrealites. The humanoids outside the garden were barbaric people. Not much advanced the a modern monkey. But breedible

  26. Charlotte shankar says:

    Adam and eve were the first humans on earth with form. God almighty made other men and women but formless in another different dimension on earth in God’s image in his likeness because God is formless. God told adam and eve do not eat from the fruit of the tree of life because you will die, the tree of life was knowledge from the other men and women who were formless and were at a higher level of consciousness. The serpent is a formless being who said to adam and eve the truth, it will open the eyes and they won’t surely die but live forever, which is true. There’s so much that we won’t comprehend in the bible and the emerald tablets of Thoth. The emerald tablets goes well before the bible existed. After I read the tablets, everything in the bible made sense completely and with the science to back it up. Everything that God did, the Fibonacci sequences Pythagorean theorem is all tied to life and God. It’s amazing!!! The tablet of Thoth should be read over and over at each consciousness and we owl begin to understand more and more until we reach like Christ, like Y’oshua. THOTH built a school and Jesus, Solomon, Mary Joseph, John went to that s school where thoth taught them how to ascend to heaven without dying and living forever and gaining knowledge through God and be like God at his right hand. All in all God lives in all of us, we are God but a small piece, until we all make a whole as one that includes all the races in the universe. Everyone has light and darkness, but even darkness has light it’s just dim. Well when eve gained knowledge and Adam, they reached a higher consciousness like the serpent and the other races of life from the tree. I encourage people to read the emerald tablets for when unread it will give you knowledge and power. Once you read it, you will be more aware of the dimensions around you. According to thoth who was an atlantean, he made the pyramid of Giza, I have so much I want I do not have time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s