Kid, That’s a GOOD Question

Kid, That’s a GOOD Question

I came across this while stumbling through the Tubes — hey, I’m on vacation and reserve the right to kill time — and couldn’t pass it up. I don’t have anyone to credit for the image — it was hosted on one of those free image hosting sites — so if you happen to know its origin, do let me know.

The image poses this question: “If Adam and Eve have two boys where did Cain and Able’s [sic] wives come from?” The response to the question included on the image is “Kid, that’s a GOOD question.”

That’s what passes for a good question? That‽

How do I answer thee, let me count the ways:

  1. Abel is never said to have been married. Cain murdered his brother in cold blood before he would know the love of a woman, it would seem.

  2. Yes, Adam and Eve had two sons, but nowhere are we told they had just two sons. If you can manage to read to at least the end of the fourth chapter of the Bible, you will know they had at least one other son: Seth.

  3. Okay, so where did Cain and Seth get their wives? For that, you’ll have to read all the way into the fifth chapter — I know, research is hard work — where you’ll see that Adam and Eve had “other sons and daughters” (Genesis 5:4).

And so the question’s answered, and all it took was a little reading — a very little, actually. If, however, you’re interested in Cain and the circumstances surrounding his life, check out The Line of Cain.

Remember: Reading is fundamental! (And if you’re reading this, you should be able to spell Abel. ;-])

51 thoughts on “Kid, That’s a GOOD Question”

  1. Well it gets a little more tricky when you have to explain they were brother and sister who married. Love the pic it cracked me up this Friday morning.

  2. Oh, absolutely; if the question was just “Where did Cain get his wife?” then that is certainly a good question. She’s unnamed, but has caused more controversy than most known famous women could hope to in several lifetimes.

    Thankfully, the answer is relatively easy — there are far more challenging questions raised by the scriptures.

  3. Well put. It often angers me when people don’t research something (especially the Bible, or any religion for that matter) and then make outrageous claims against it. Lately there has been a lot of slander against Muslims and the Quran, if you don’t understand fundamentals there is no reason why you should be talking against them. Regards!

  4. Ummmmm … it’s a story to explain the fact that we human beings consistently choose to make our world without God? That this same dynamic reaches its culmination in our rejection and crucifixion of Jesus? That asking questions about where Cain got his wife is a bit like asking why no one ever sees Harry Potter et al boarding the Hogwarts Express at King’s Cross station?

    1. hmmmm interested , who is god / and who is Jesus ? We have to question everything , remember it was man who write the bible . I still want to know where did Cain fine wife .

  5. Actually, it’s fairly obvious Cain didn’t try to make his world without God; otherwise, how would you explain the offering he made? There were certainly sinful tendencies in Cain — as there are in everyone; however, Cain certainly didn’t reject everything his parents told him about God.

    If, however, your point is that the account is merely a divine (or not so divine) Aesop’s fable designed to teach us a lesson, then I have to disagree. There’s no indication that the events of Genesis are meant to be understand as anything other than history. Moses obviously believed it; various New Testament authors referenced a historical Cain; Jesus Christ Himself affirmed the truth of the Old Testament, and I’m inclined to believe Him.

  6. A Jewish Rabbi once said, ‘Let me tell you a true story. It may even have happened.’ Parables are true stories but they are stories – they didn’t happen but they illuminate the truth of human existence and God. The early stories of Genesis are like that. The OT was edited and re-edited and the last redaction took place during the Babylonian exile (587 BC). Look at the creation story: it affirms that Yahweh created the sun and the moon (the Babylonian gods) simply by the power of the spoken word – and not even on the first day! It’s a satire on the apparent impregnability of the Babylonian empire and its gods to encourage the exiles in their faith in Yahweh. If you look carefully, you’ll also notice that the story has been edited from an original (Babylonian) 8-day creation account into a ‘6-days-plus-Sabbath’ one. The pattern is ‘God created … here was evening and morning, the nth day’. In Genesis, that pattern is interrupted to include a double creation on 2 days to fit it into a 6th day. The earlier Babylonian story exists and textual analysis makes the ‘joins’ in the Genesis story clear.
    What I’m trying to say is that Genesis doesn’t have to be historical in order to be either divine or true. What is clear is that the world came into being through the will and agency of God, and is meant to reflect God’s purposes for Life. The biblical story is the affirmation that not even human rebellion – to the point of crucifying Jesus – will prevent God from bringing about God’s plans and purooses for the world. It is presently under other dominions: because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, it will become the Kingdom of God.
    As for Cain, quite why his sacrifice is unacceptable is unclear; what is clear reading the text is that there is some element of sinful desire to offer a sacrifice other than the one God decreed. Cain isn’t portrayed as an obedient worshipper of Yahweh but as someone who seems to be a symbol of the Ba’al (fertility gods of Canaan) worshippers. But that’s a guess; ultimately, we aren’t told. His sinfulness, though, is shown in his murder of Abel.

    1. You think its more likely that God ripped off pagan religions when inspiring the Scriptures rather than Satan being the counterfeiter? No matter how you hash it, that makes for a really small God.

      It’s a funny thing about parables in the Bible; they’re usually called out as being such. We know Jesus told parables, and we know that no one then referenced back to the events of the parable as historical facts. The creation account is different; it was reported without any indication of it being in any way false or untrue, and it was later referenced by numerous people (not the least of which being the author Moses and Christ) as historical event, as historical precedent for Law, for marriage, and so on.

  7. The image appears to be a bumper sticker.

    Furthermore, if you delved into the writings left out of the Bible (and the books left in the bible but for other Christian denominations), as well as reading the book of Genesis, you will realize that the story states other people living outside Eden.

    Genesis 4:13-15 states that Cain was afraid he would be killed by others while wandering (as his punishment). God marked him so that others would know not to kill him.

    So, Cain’s wife was obviously from these other people not mentioned in the Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, et al. Other texts point to Cain’s wife being Adam’s first wife, Lilith. These texts were removed because people didn’t like talking about them and hearing them. They wanted to hear and believe that all humanity started in one small place with two people, making us all the products of inbreeding.

    If you’re going to write an apologetic of the bible, why not dig up some of the old books that were removed before being satisfied with the tired idea that god created all humans to be inbred?

  8. All human beings are inbred — from two are we all descended, and by one (Adam) did sin infect all mankind (his descendants). That is what the true Scriptures teach; the “left out” books you mention have never mostly never been accepted as Scripture by the Jews or the church — and those which are left in as the Apocrypha contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

    “Inbreeding” wasn’t a sin until the giving of the Law of Moses. There was no reason why it needed to be; the human genome was pure and there was no risk involved to the offspring. Only after a few generations did sin start to take its toll on the genetic code.

    Likewise, we have no idea how many children Adam and Eve ultimately had, and we’re not even told that Cain and Abel were their first two. Cain feared retribution from his family, plain and simple. No need to go digging up uninspired, pseudopigraphical books to defend a position which fails to pass muster when tried against God’s Word.

  9. First, I would like to apologize for being so rude in my previous reply. It truly was uncalled-for.

    Now, I’m not one to put words into someone else’s mouth; I will give my own. In regards to your interpretation of Lawrence’s comment, I don’t believe he was saying that god ripped off any pagans. The Bible refers to The Elohim, which is an old Hebrew word for “God”. However, what people often overlook is that this term is plural. Hence, it is entirely possible (in conjunction with the first of the ten commandments) that Yahweh was there at the creation with other Gods. Apologists usually turn around and say that “Elohim” refers to the trinity. However, since it is a Hebrew word, in a Jewish text, we can infer from their disbelief in the trinity that it is intended to mean other gods. The bible doesn’t say everything about everything. It is far too short to be absolutely complete on every detail. Hence, it is also possible that these other gods were created by Yahweh. It is also possible that they were created separately. However, it is clear that the bible acknowledges the existence of other gods. Since the general idea is that god is omniscient, we can assume that he would have known about these other gods and could have inspired writings about them. It is pure speculation, but it is a logical conclusion.

    My response was assuming that you were an apologist who acknowledges the historical evidence showing that the bible was once much larger and that many sacred teachings were never put into writing. Evidence shows that, when the Jewish people compiled their texts, as when the Christians compiled theirs, they reviewed the books first. They put it into context of what was being preached most in the synagogues, cults, and churches. The anthology was then bound as a general guidebook of what to talk about. Meanwhile, the other texts (which often do a great deal of explaining holes people point out) existed in libraries, still part of the sacred writings, but not part of what people speak most often. While they used to be accepted heavily, most people never heard of them, and dismiss them out of hand without giving it a second-thought. This gives the illusion that they aren’t accepted. Yet, they are still technically valid.

    An example of the clean explanation given by some of these books may be seen in The Book of Enoch. It answers the question “Where did giants enter into the picture?” (Nephilim, if you prefer that translation). The fallen angels (still holy angels at the time–called “Sons of God” in Genesis 6) were led by the angel Azrael to rape the women of Earth. God cast them out of Heaven and to the Earth, as well as other punishments. Some became fallen angels. Some were known as demons. And, the women bore their children, making the giants. This is commonly accepted amongst many modern churches, since the discovery of the Book of Enoch. Yet, most people have never read it. It gets quite dry at points, I assure you.

    But, please. Do not accuse me of using dusty old tomes of fiction to back my point. You, sir, are the one appealing to an ancient book for the origin of humans. I am simply trying to make your apologetic make more sense and less of an appeal to incestuous offspring and broken covenants. It makes more sense that god would create many people in many lands and Cain would be banished to their lands than it does that the entirety of the 6 billion people on the planet were the products of many generations of extremely close incest, the kind that has destroyed small tribes in the past.

  10. Dave and Rick

    I’m approaching this from a different position from both of you. I didn’t say, Rick, that God ripped off pagan religions; I said that the Jewish writers absolutely and deliberately did when writing Genesis in order to make a polemical point about whose God rocks! You have to take literary history seriously; when you’ve got a piece of writing (Genesis 1) that refers so closely to an older text (the Babylonian creation story; when that older story has a 9 day creation and the biblical one follows the same literary formula (‘God said, “Let us make …” So God created … and God called … then there was evening and morning, the nth day …”) but compresses it into 7 days, then you surely have to conclude that something deliberate is happening here. What is that? It’s the affirmation that Yahweh is the author of creation, not the Babylonian gods! And furthermore, the 6 days + sabbath rest is Yahweh’s order of things for the whole of created reality.

    We need to take the Bible seriously as it is and not try and force it into some foregin mould – however well-intentioned. The Bible is the Word of God as it is, and not because it conforms to some 21st century theory of what any book claiming to be the Word of God has to exhibit. Taking Genesis literally is not being faithful to the Bible; it is imposing an anachronistic scheme on it. If we take it literally, we would have to conclude that the world was created 6,000 years ago, when we know it is, in fact millions of years old. We can’t ‘cherry pick’ with science ie make full use of computer technology and Thesis hooks etc when we want to, but write it off as ‘wrong’ or satanic when it doesn’t conform to a creation story that is told as a political and theological polemic against another religious/political power!

    Science (and in this case cosmology) doesn’t undermine the Bible because the creation story is a piece of literature, not a textbook on cosmology. I have discussed this with Stephen Hawking (whom I know from church); he says ‘I can tell you how the world was made through science; science cannot tell us who made it! The Bible does.’

    We need to recognise that the Old Testament spans some 4,000 years. Within those texts, we see an evolution in belief from the belief that each tribe had its own god, who was pitted against rival gods through earthly battles, to the realisation that there is only one God, Yahweh, and that all the other ‘gods’ are human creations. Interestingly, we see that the belief in the afterlife came very late in the Old Testament period; for most of the time covered there, people believed that this life was all there was.

    The problem with fundamentalism is that it tries to squeeze the Bible into an alien framework and make it say things very different from what it actually does.

    Here’s the test, Rick: if I’m right (and with me, generations of scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of the Bible as the Word of God), would that shatter your faith in either the authority of the Bible or in God? Would God be diminished? If so, it seems to me a sign that you’re on shaky ground, and that open, honest enquiry into the Bible would be very dangerous for faith. I prefer to think that that sort of faith is misplaced; it doesn’t, for my money, take the Bible seriously on its own terms, for all the heat and invective about ‘believing what the Bible says’.

    Hope that clarifies what I’ve been trying to say. Or does it relegate me to the ‘legions of the damned’?

  11. The same person God used to pen Genesis would later be told directly that the earth was created in “six days,” days with morning and evening patterns, no less.

    Science is wrong about evolution; it can be wrong about the age of the Earth. I find it far more likely that the supposed age of the earth is the result of the rapid degradation of creation due to the curse of sin — the same effects which cause us to die off at ~70 years when in the early days of Genesis lifespans were many times longer than that.

    We also don’t see an “evolution” of belief in the Old Testament; it is mistake and folly to expect the earliest Jews to have had a full understanding of Yahweh — as full as can be expected, anyway. If they already knew everything, there would have been no point in continued revelation, now would there?

    And I find it telling that you’re willing to interpret Scripture based upon false religions. That sort of twisting and misinterpreting of God’s Word has been present ever since the Garden of Eden, so I’d be careful with it.

    It is interesting that Satan attacks the literalness of God’s Word; it’s almost as if he wants us to not take God at face value. That’s quite a contrast to Jesus’ steadfast adherence to the literalness of Scripture without any hint of it being anything less. Why let scientists — even Mr. Hawking, who I greatly admire — or (worse) liberal theologians tell us what God really meant when the Scriptures and the church down through the ages have given no other indication other than God’s Word being true as is?

  12. Lawrence:

    I apologize for assuming incorrectly (though partially correctly) in statements regarding your first post. Thank you for your very well-written merger of science and religion, admitting that science works and may be used to describe how biblical creation works.

    Now, for your account of Stephen Hawking…I find it difficult to believe. This is one area where I am a skeptic. Although it is possible you did meet him in church and that he does have theistic ideas, he has previously stated himself to be a deist. Here is a concise article showcasing the opinions of which I was aware:

    Are you sure it is the same Stephen Hawking? I don’t mean to sound condescending or rude. It is possible that he is a man with a similar device (and appearance), claiming to be Hawking.

    As for if you are in the Legions of the Damned, I’m fairly certain most would consider me to be in their numbers also. Perhaps we can have coffee and discuss our wrongdoings after the rapture (a la the “Left Behind” series of books).

  13. Rick, if the reference to ‘liberal theologians’ is to me, you clearly haven’t read my material on my website. The creationism you’re advocating is both bad science (of the kind that denies global warming) and very bad theology: I want to insist that we must let the Bible interpret the Bible, not some late 19th/early 20th century theory of ‘the Word of God’. Ultimately, Genesis 1 is true, not because it ‘happened’ that way, but because it truly explains why we humanbeings crucified the Lordof Glory – ie because of sin, which is a determination to reject God and God’s ways and intentions for creation.

    Dave, Stephen Hawking briefly attended St Andrews Street Baptist Church in Cambridge during the late 80s where I was a deacon and went to a housegroup. The sons of his then-new wife, Elaine,were at school with my son. Ther’s only one Stephen Hawking in Cambridge …

  14. Lawrence:

    That’s so cool you met Stephen Hawking. He is a truly brilliant man. I can’t help but wonder why he would have changed his mind during the past 25ish years.


    Science is wrong about evolution? Since when? It has been demonstrated correct thousands of times. And, while we’re at it, abiogenesis has also been demonstrated as possible.

    Is it a sin to believe that Jesus was just a wise man, not even a prophet? Is it also a sin to believe that all religions (Christianity included this time) are wrong and evil? Is it also a sin to enslave people, putting them on ships to work for years, until they die? How about outright killing people who join your religion then leave? If so, being a Scientologist would be a sin. In fact, it would invoke the only unforgivable sin (Mark 3:28-29). So, using the bible, we have determined that Scientology is a sin. By a similar token, so would almost every other religion on the planet, including Islam. Yet, despite the fact that all these religions are growing and Christianity is waning, the world’s population is seeing an increase in the overall average life expectancy. This is especially true in Europe, where the BBC reports Islam to be its fastest growing religion and Christianity to be in a state of definite decline. We must then pose the question:

    If sin is accountable for a “short” lifespan, why are we seeing an increased life expectancy throughout the world, directly proportional to an increase in the numbers of sinners and heathens?

    Now, to make one more point, I’d like to show that you state the bible is to be taken literally. I’d also like to show you a couple of bible verses:

    Matthew 5:17
    Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    I chose to give a general search that displays multiple translations because I want you to have your preference in version as reference. Feel free to look these verses up in your own hard-copy, if you like. If the tool I used isn’t working properly, please do look it up in your preferred method.

    In the first verse, Jesus states that he is not there to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. So, the old Jewish laws, according to Jesus, still hold solid (except for the one where he is the final–and ultimate–sacrifice). I then pointed to one of those old laws. It states that unruly children who disobey their parents should be taken to the edges of town and stoned to death by the community. Therefore, this is still an acceptable practice. Here’s another fun one:

    Gen. 24:34-35
    Leviticus 25:44-46
    Exodus 21:1-32
    1 Tim. 6:1-2
    Eph. 6:5-9
    Luke 12:41-48

    So, we can plainly see that it is alright, perhaps even encouraged, to own other people, especially people from other lands. Furthermore, there are numerous occasions where slaves should be beaten, killed, tortured, branded, or sold (at a decent price, I might add). We’re talking about owning another human being, beating another human being, branding another human being, and killing another human being. Are you proposing that this is still good behaviour that we should admire and long for? I propose, from logical deduction, that Jesus thinks it was wrong to abolish slavery in the US (and many other countries that abolished slavery). I also propose that taking the bible literally 100% of the time, without ever bending one’s own will about the book, is a terrible practice with even more horrid consequences.

  15. first of all, the three of you have very good points made about the question “who was Cain’s first wife”? My question is: who and where did all these other people come from? Obviously Cain went out into the world and came upon the city of Nod. A city. to my knowledge a city can contain between 100 to 10,000 people. back in that day it could be ore like 600 to 1000. How many kids can a couple have in 800 years? Well… if Adam and Eve “got busy” right away and did’nt stop till they died… maybe 500. but that would not explain how Cain (being one of the first kids) came across another civilization. It could be theorized that God “snapped his fingers” and “snap” there was another civilization for him to come across. But that is not mentioned. If we are to just accept the fact that “oh well Cain went out and there it was” then why would there be questions regarding this whole concept. As man is so inclined we tend to seek out answers that we have questions about. But some of us get riddiculed because of it. And primarily by those who follow God so adamently. I am in no way slandering the three of you or your knowledge. The most simple answer to this question is “I don’t know”. Why? because we have no proof. Stick to the biblical scriptures and do a little reading. I’m christian. I’ve read the bible. and still I have questions about this. So my question to the three of you is: How much of it (the story) is true and accurate? Where did that civilization come from? because I for one cannot just “blindly” accept the fact that it was just there. help me become “unconfused”.

  16. Confused: … Cain went out to the “land of Nod.” This was a region, not a city. In that region, he would found his family would form a city named Lamech.

    I hope that helps you become unconfused. :)

  17. so… he found his family, then formed a city… where eventually people from anywhere would come and keep building up the city?

  18. so all the kids from Adam and Eve, their kids kids, and their kids, kids kids? You understand all that? is that how all this was supposedly supposed to happen? Then we are all incestant people. then how do you rationalize the differences in the races of the world?

  19. Easy: if Adam & Eve were medium to dark skinned people (as they most likely were), then they had the genetic potential within them for people of all colors. These differences would become focused once various people groups were separated from one another at the judgment of Babylon. has some studies on the topic.

    But yes, all humans are traced back to Adam & Eve. Incest wasn’t forbidden until the giving of the Law to Moses, presumably because by that point, the genetic degradation introduced into humanity at the Fall had grown to the point that breeding between close relatives would more likely result in birth defects or other complications.

    Prior to that point, the human genome was perfect (Adam & Eve) or near-perfect (several generations after them) so there was no real reason to prohibit relations between close relatives. Technically, Adam & Eve had the same genetic information, so we may as well think of them as twins, in a sense.


  21. Genesis clearly states that Cain’s wife was not a daughter of Adam and Eve. Cain left home, and traveled to a very far away land, which the Bible cites as “the Land of Nod,” which the Bible states was located east of Eden.

    Cain was Adam’s son, but his wife was not Adam’s daughter. In fact, the Bible is abundantly clear in stating that she was not only unrelated, but that she was from a foreign land.

    Only those who are very ignorant of what the Bible actually says would ever take the position that Adam’s sons committed incest.

    1. Cain knew his wife because she was from a different planet. He knew his wife from a different dimension where they had a level of consciousness where they were able to realize truth and their eyes were open after eve ate the fruit, Cain was cast out after he killed his brother to a distance planet to the east. Read the tablets of Thoth he was an Atlantean and Jesus Christ was.ordained in thoth school after thoth made the pyramid of Giza as a school and under it was his records which was found from a mixture of elements that’s indestructible beyond science.

  22. Well, the answer is easy. Adam and Eve have twin for every birth. Cain was first followed by his twin sister. After that, Eve gave birth again to twin couple Abel and his twin sister. And so on, every birth they got a boy and a girl.

    When they, Cain and Abel, reached the age of marriage, G-d commanded Adam to wed Cain with Abel’s sister, and Abel with Cain’s sister. The thing is, Cain’s sister much more beautiful than Abel’s. Not saying that Abel’s sister was ugly, she’s beauty too, but Cain’s sister much, much more beauty than Abel’s. So Cain objected to the proposal, he wanted to marry his own twin sister, which was prohibited by the law of G-d. So G-d told them to make a sacrifice. Whoever sacrifice G-d accepted, he could marry Cain’s sister. G-d accepted Abel’s sacrifice, obviously, and that made Cain even more jealous to his bro and eventually he killed Abel.

  23. Midrash, a Jewish scripture. I know that for you maybe its not a ‘real’ scripture. But I only offering you another point of view from another religion.

    1. From another point of view, perhaps, but it still makes no sense within Judaism. If sibling marriage is prohibited, then the marriage of one twin with another (from a different twin set) would still be forbidden. They are just as much siblings as if there were no twins involved at all.

  24. Actually sibling marriage are ok in time before Moses. The rules about incest only introduced after Moses come. A lot of OT patriarch are marrying their close relatives.

  25. I have read all these answers! but Im still failing to understand this, so Cain leaves, then finds a wife? so one assumes there are other people at this point in time?

  26. As stated before…that means incest my dear. Frankly..there are too many contradictions in the bible for me to believe its contents to be true. much of your bible was taken out by ancient Romans? And how much was lost or mistranslated in translations through the years…

    1. I didn’t say it wasn’t incest; what i said was that at the time, incest wasn’t a sin or even a problem genetically. Of course, that’s assuming God’s Law was not retroactive; it also assumed that Adam & Eve began with a perfect genetic makeup that would take generations to degrade to the point that incest would pose a problem for offspring.

      I’m an atheist (as the site tagline suggest), and i agree that the Bible is full of contradictions. However, it has been remarkably well-preserved through the years, a testament not to a supernatural being but to the tenacity of the Jews & churches. As earlier fragments are discovered, they tend to agree with what we already knew. I can only hope that over the course of thousands of years, our scientific knowledge is as well preserved, and that we are done with religious Dark Ages.

  27. Where does it say in the Bible that they didn’t have daughters???? “After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.” Genesis 5:4, See it’s different if I read the Bible with a blind mind, but when I study it and go over it…it makes sense. Man will never know the answers to everything. The questions of man are infinite…God gave us enough to be saved and know. And to finish that He also created us in His image. In other words we are intelligent…creators…unfortunately we are not God…therefore we make mistakes. It’s like I tell people who go on and on about the age of the earth, where oh were does it say in the Bible the world is 6000 years old and where oh where does it say it’s 60000000000 years old. It doesn’t. We’ll never know. However I do know one thing…”For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” Matthew 7:8

  28. im with Dave

    I’m sorry rick but I’m with Dave… I know this post is old but I have been doing research lately to find truth and your posting popped up threw google. I have been doing a lot of research and The truth is not revealed in the bible because there are to many authors, too many generations, and different cultures, too many languages, and then A roman empire who chose to revise what was kept and thrown out. There is no way for this to have complete truth. Only things we can take from the bible that is truthful is the presence of good and evil. We know that to Be facts because it still exists this day and time but I feel over time there very evil man is trying not to be is the same evil they are becoming. Want to add this… we keep getting cusumed with adam and eve but the world was suposedly destroyed and restarted with noah and his family… if this is so then clearly it is proved that we are the products of incest but science has proven that society exsited before and after the flood. So again like dave said we can’t give credit to science when we want to and the dicredit science. If we are to believe the bible to be actual facts then we should be able to talk to snakes and animals because cleary eve and adam did, so did noah in ored to get all those species on board… also how is man in space now? Didn’t god confused the languge of man for trying to build a city to heaven? But we now have men walking on the moon… so where is heaven if

  29. im with Dave

    That’s the case… I’m just saying can’t just look at the bible and say its the word of God. Says who? What was fed to you? Not what was crossed examed and researched? If me questioning those facts make me evil then killing innocent makes you holy? Oh wait that’s actually being taught as holy.

  30. The question still remains Cains wife”where dit she come from”? I have a theory. Keep in mind that one day for man is like a thousand years for God. God created heaven and earth, night and day and night day (full moon). What I am trying to say is one day was like a month meaning 30 000 years to a day. God had enough time to create dinasaurs and saw that it was no good (for example). So Adam and Eve where pure humans, God created more people that were more like cave dwellers. Keep in mind one day equals 1000 years. So Cain took her and tought her to be more sivilized and hens the children also more sivilized and so forth. They reached ages of up 800 years so they had enough time to learn to be sivilized. That’s my theory, God created all and can not be questioned. The Bible doesn’t explain where we come from but prepares us for what’s to come and how to get there, isn’t that our main goal? Heaven!! I thought Ill give you my insight.

    1. According to your hypothesis, plants existed for thousands of years prior to the sun, which doesn’t make a lick of sense. Granted, most of the Bible doesn’t make a lot of sense nowadays, but the Day-Age Theory of Genesis (in which the days are assumed to be long periods of time) doesn’t make any real sense and is simply a vain attempt at reconciling the Bible’s stories with the physical evidence that Earth is incredibly older than assumed by many creationists.

      1. What I am trying to say is that creation didn’t happen in six or nine days. I belive it took thousands of years. Genesis is a short summery of how things got started. I don’t believe the human race to be that old, the earth itself maybe. Why is it that the human race could evolve so slow mentally. We had great arcutecture and brilliant designs 4000 years ago. Take a look at the last 320 years, amazing. We did more in these couple of years than in the past. What I mean in short is that the human race are getting smarter hens the evelution of humans are still going. So isn’t it possable that the human race are as old as the Bible makes us to be, only a couple of thousand years in existance?

        1. A large part of the rapid progress of the past few hundred years has been due to the ending of the Dark Ages — religion lost its hold over science, and mankind was free to progress once again. Inventions such as improved printing presses, the microchip, the Internet, and others have allowed progress to happen much more quickly than in years past. Ancient man achieved some amazing things, using the technology available to them. Great strides were being made throughout the ancient world.

          And then the Dark Ages happened and set progress nearly a millennium behind.

          And again, if Genesis was but a summary, how can it be trusted? It very plainly states that plants were around before the sun, and if those days were many thousands of years, by the time there was a sun, all plant life would have been long dead & decayed. There’s no biblical reason to assume Genesis speaks of long periods of time, unless you assume Genesis is wrong & science is right (which is true) and then go altering the meanings of the words to fit science’s lessons.

          Using the verse that says a day is like a thousand years just doesn’t work. It would mean that for a very long time, the Jews would have had no clue what Genesis meant — assuming (wrongly) that the days were just days.

          Further, how do we know that the years that Adam and his family lived were real, solar years? If a day is a thousand years, then a year would be, what, three hundred sixty-five thousand years? Perhaps Adam & his family were millions of years old when they died?

          1. I believe God created the earth as his garden and Adam his gardener. The 1 day to a 1000 years theory I have only applies to the creation of earth as indicated in Genesis. Nobody can speculate how long Adam and Eve lived in paradice before leaving. So isn’t it poaable that God created more humans outside of the garden but not as sifilized as *dam and Eve. Anyway it is a mistery and yes Genesis is basicly restricted us from knowing more. When looking at the whole concept of any religion its a story to unite a army of believers of each religion to fight each other for world domination and land. Religion is the spark that gets the wars started. Religion makes people poor by taking their money and making the heads of religious organizations rich. Sorry lost track of where I was. If creation of heaven and earth happend according to Genesis, where did the dinesaurs fit in?

  31. According to creationists & Christian apologists, the dinosaurs were just another animal that lived alongside man, prior to the Flood, at which point the climate of earth was too radically altered, causing the dinosaurs to all die out.

    However, the fact of the matter is that the dinosaurs lived many millions of years ago, long before the advent of mankind.

    1. So earth and life on earth will always be a mystery. What came first the egg or the chicken (mystery). Nice talking to you bud keep well.

  32. The better question to someone who reads the Bible literally is–why did Cain fear being assaulted by someone in his exile if nobody other than his parents and siblings existed?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

the Rick Beckman archive
Scroll to Top