Who Was Cain’s Wife in Genesis?

The Book of Genesis in the Bible, says that Adam and Eve had two sons: Cain and Able. In the story, Cain kills Able and eventually moves away to a land east of Eden. The Bible mentions Cain had a wife, but it doesn’t say where she came from, or when they got married, or where they met. It simply says this:

Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son. -Genesis 4:16-17

So where did Cain get that wife? Surprisingly, despite all the attention given this question over the years, when one looks at the circumstances in the story itself, the answer isn’t hard at all.  The problem seems to be more that we don’t like the answer.

Of course, many people never look closely at this question, assuming from the outset that the Bible cannot be taken literally, but when we do look closely, we begin to realize there’s a lot the Bible doesn’t say.  There’s no mention, for instance, of what exactly Cain did on his 70th birthday.  It never says how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden before they sinned, and according to the story, they could have lived there indefinitely before that fateful moment. It says very little about how things went when Noah was building an ark.  We assume people scoffed, but no one really knows.  We are left with the realization that the Bible isn’t required to write about everything, anymore than you or I are required to include every single detail about our life when talking about ourselves.  The story-teller has every right to include what he or she wants, and leave out the rest.  To put it more bluntly, that’s just how it is.

So when we listen to what exactly the Bible says and doesn’t say in regards to Cain’s wife, an answer isn’t hard to come by.  Genesis says Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and settled in Nod which is east of Eden. Nod literally means “vagrancy” or “wandering,” which may indicate that this particular piece of  land was actually named after Cain.  Not only would Cain have been one of the first, if not the first person to live there, but he also calls himself a “restless wanderer” in verse 14, same as the area.  Of course, maybe he just thought a land named “vagrancy” or “wandering” was the perfect place for him?  You see, it doesn’t say, so it’s important to leave those things open as possibilities.  We can’t know for sure.

Second, the Bible says Cain “had relations with his wife and she conceived.” That’s it. It does not say he met her in Nod. It does not say how old Cain was when they met or began having children.

And that’s pretty significant since the people in this part of the Bible were living to very, VERY old ages.

The Bible goes on to say that Eve had another son after Cain killed Able, and probably after he moved out to Nod. “Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” -Genesis 4:25

It says that altogether, 130 years passed while Adam and Eve had their children Able, Cain and Seth. “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.” -Genesis 5:3-5

And again, that’s a long time to live. So for Cain, it appears he left for Nod just before Seth was born, which would have made Cain at the very most, 129 years old. That’s assuming Eve got pregnant almost immediately after being created (or immediately after getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden, depending on when the count started for their ages.)  Regardless, Cain was 129 at the oldest.  He may very well have been younger, and when you live to be 900+ years old, 127 is the equivalent of being 10 years old today.  During that time, the Bible says Adam was “having other sons and daughters.”  In other words, there were other children, plural… not just Cain.

Going by the circumstances of the story then, it appears Cain would have had plenty of time, and plenty of opportunity to marry a sister or a relative.  As mentioned earlier, the answer isn’t hard to come by, but we probably don’t like the answer.  Marry a sister?  Let’s all give a collective….Ewww.  Nevertheless, if Cain had left and settled in Nod, taking a sister with him, OR if he had settled in Nod but traveled back later to find a wife, either way the very short statement about Cain’s wife having a child would be true.  Take note, Genesis does NOT say he met his wife in Nod, but that she gave birth to a son while they lived in Nod. That’s it.

Another thing that often comes as a surprise is that in the Bible, marrying a close relative isn’t even a big deal. And in fact, marrying a sister was not forbidden by God in the Bible for the first few thousand years.   Abraham’s wife, you may be interested to know, was also his half-sister.

Today, of course, this would result in high rates of birth defects because of mutational errors that have built up in human DNA over time.  However, again appealing to the circumstances of the story, if God created man in the beginning with no DNA damage at all, then DNA mutations would have been almost non-existent in the first few generations.  Crazy as it sounds to us, marrying a close relative would not have had the problems we have today thanks to thousands of years of mutations in the DNA.

Besides, she [Sarah, Abraham’s wife] really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. -Genesis 20:12

Again, ewww…. I know. I know.

updated 1-2-13

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Who Was Cain’s Wife in Genesis?

  1. While I admire your search to try and understand one of the more cryptic areas of Biblical history, have you by chance ever thought that other humans existed at this time? Of course, Adam and Eve were the first ones to be made in the likeness of God, but it is quite possible that Cain did not marry one of his sisters, but one of the neanderthal women who probably were around at that point in time. Of course, I mean neanderthal in the scientific way, not as a disparagement towards women. 😉

    Anyway, you probably won’t agree, but it was just a thought. If you are really interested in different theories of Genesis, give “The Lost World of Genesis One” by John H. Walton a try.

  2. Josh, that assumes that “other humans” were evolving at the same time as the Genesis account. I find it hard to fit any sense of the evolutionary model into biblical facts. I don’t accept that there were any other humans around at the time. If Cain didn’t marry a sister, it may have been a niece or grand neice. But it had to be a relative.

    And Brian, you said, ewwww… But Cain could have looked at our situation and said something likre “You married a complete stranger? Ewww…..”

  3. Hey Josh! Good save there on the Neanderthal/women suggestion. lol You know, Christians often suggest that Adam and Eve had more kids than simply Cain, Abel and Seth in those early years, too. But as soon as we suggest that, we are accused of reading into the story something that isn’t there. So I was purposefully staying within the confines of the story to show that there really isn’t a big problem regardless. Suggesting other humans existed at the time, like suggesting Adam and Eve had other kids, would be going outside those confines as well -not that you can’t do that, but that’s just the sort of thing I was purposefully avoiding. Having said that, you’re right, I don’t believe the evolutionary model is accurate anyway. But since scientists have lately been suggesting that human beings came from one female ancestor, an “Eve,” then ironically evolutionists and creationists BOTH may find themselves concluding the first human beings married close relatives!

  4. Ultimately none of us can really know what happened, it is mere speculation on our parts.

    And as you said Brian, if one is following a strictly Sola Scriptura guideline, then there really is no other possible way to read the text.

    It makes for interesting discussions when I (who am a believer in Biblical Evolution) encounter someone who believes a literal interpretation of Genesis, such as a Young Earth Creationist.

    Jeff – Well, I’ve come to the conclusion that either Adam and Eve were neanderthals, and we have evolved from that – or God had already created humans, and decided to set apart Adam and Eve, and make them in His likeness. The latter which I am more likely to believe. After all, in Genesis, there are actually two accounts of God creating man. 😉

  5. I think we CAN know what happened in as much as it has been revealed in the Bible. However, proving it to everyone else’s satisfaction is a bit more difficult. 🙂

    For instance, I don’t think there are two DIFFERENT accounts of creating man, but two accounts that taken together, provide a bigger, more detailed picture. There are some issues to resolve, but those aren’t any more difficult than the issues facing today’s evolutionary worldview when trying to explain what happened at the point of the Big Bang, or the point of the Cambrian explosion, or the point where bacteria make a jump to a highly complex one-celled organism. By contrast I think Genesis 1 and 2 are a piece of cake actually.

    But proving that to everyone else’s satisfaction… well, sometimes we have to disagree and still love each other!

  6. Two seperate accounts? Seriously? Nowhere in the Hebrew syntax is that even suggested. On the contrary, Genesis 2 begins the second tolodoth of Genesis, and give, not a seperate, but a more detailed look at Day 6 of the creation week.

    And as far as Adam and Eve being neanderthal, that’s simply not true. There is significant evidence pointing out that neanderthal was no different than homo sapien.

    I believe that there is no other way to view Genesis, other than literally. Any other attempts simply don’t answer enough questions for my satisfaction.

  7. One other thing, Josh…

    Could you please define for me the term “biblical evolutionist”? In my mind, those two terms are contradictory, and I’d like to understand what you mean by that a little better. Thanks!

  8. Jeff – according to certain Jewish traditions, man was created in a unisex form first. The account in Genesis 2 is considered a separating of the sexes, basically creating human sexuality. I don’t pretend to understand the concepts further than that, however it is a viewpoint that I had never thought about before.

  9. What I mean by Biblical Evolutionist, is I believe that God set evolutionary force into motion to create the creatures and organisms we know today. I believe evolution is a continual force of God, and makes much more sense in light of God’s usual nature throughout the Bible as being patient.

    I am not however completely sure of whether he created mankind individually, or allowed us to evolve from other species. I think he may have allowed the first humans to evolve, yet set apart Adam and Eve to create His people.

    That being said, I do not believe in a literal six day creation period. I believe if God so wished, He could have done so. But I believe the creation story to have been much more of a metaphor than a literal account. Of how God creates the universe as His temple, a place where He might dwell among His creation.

    N.T. Wright has quite a bit to say on the Temple metaphor.

  10. Interesting…. But I’m pretty sure I disagree with that interpretation of Genesis 2.

    I do accept the creation week as six literal days, and the story as history, not metaphor. However, I can understand your position. I don’t believe that the model of evolution can, in any way, be compatible with the creation account.

    Do you have any particular reference for that stuff by Wright? I’ve read some stuff by him, but never come across that particular idea. I’d be interested to read it.

  11. Hello Brian, I hope you and family are well.

    It is known in the science community that men/women were scattered ALL over the earth by 12,000 BC. Also DNA tells us that there was never a time in the last 10,000 years (at least) when the human population was just 2 people.

    Neanderthals were similar to humans, but had some different qualities that made them almost-but-not-quite human. They had larger brains. They averaged about 6″ shorter than the average human. Their skull was very different than the “sapiens” skull, and their musculature was significantly stronger/more massive. Their DNA was very close to “sapiens”, but NOT the same. In spite of this difference it was close enough that Humans and Neanderthal were able to mate and give birth to viable, fertile offspring.

    Neanderthals roamed Europe, parts of Asia, and parts of the Fertile Crescent from about 300,000 +- years ago to approximately 25,000 years ago. Our ancestor Homo-sapiens-sapiens overlapped with Neanderthals for maybe 25,000 years. There have been Homo-sapien and Neanderthal skeletons found together in caves on Mt. Carmel in the Holy land.

    When Moses was reputedly writing about Genesis, he had no clue (neither did anyone else on earth) that there were “pre-humans” and early humans that lived many, many thousands of years before him. He didn’t realize that Jericho had already been in existence for five or six thousand years. All of this, of course, presupposes that Moses was real. Trouble with this however is that the scripture he supposedly wrote has some anachronisms that have no resolution.

    I wonder how the Sumerians felt about God “creating” the earth and universe and humans right in the middle of their couple of thousand year old ongoing civilization.

    Bottom line however is that Cain (if in fact he existed) could have married any of the many thousands of women living in that part of the world.

  12. I find myself asking questions such as:
    Were Adam and Eve the only humans God created?
    Did God possibly colonize the earth, but set Adam and Eve aside?

    But as my mind wanders and imagines the possibilities, I get this little inner voice asking me, “What difference does any of that make? Does it alter in any way the salvation story? If your obvious curiosity were finally quenched, would that glorify the message of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection?”

    Nah!

  13. the word of me :

    Hello Brian, I hope you and family are well.

    It is known in the science community that men/women were scattered ALL over the earth by 12,000 BC.

    That is the estimation that fits with the evolutionary model.

    the word of me : Also DNA tells us that there was never a time in the last 10,000 years (at least) when the human population was just 2 people.

    You’ll have to take that up with the scientists who disagree. Here’s a quote from an evolutionary blog which explains it:

    “Using this information, together with the base rate of mitochondrial DNA mutation, and information about mitochondrial DNA types present in current human populations, it has been calculated that Mitochondrial Eve—the most recent matrilineal ancestor of every human currently alive on the planet—lived around 140,000 years ago, most likely in Kenya, Ethiopia, or Tanzania. All humans who are alive today have mitochondrial DNA which can be traced back to this one common ancestor.

    Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/6045.aspx#ixzz1DZUUCvSC

    Now if indeed evolutionists are saying that “all humans” can be “traced back to this one common ancestor” then even evolutionists will find themselves agreeing with the Biblical principle that at one time, the human race could be described as coming from one source. Even arguably one couple.

    So once again, what you assume has been proven, has now been suggested otherwise. That’s the thing about agreeing with the scientific community just because they say so. The problem you run into is, the scientific community won’t be saying the same thing 10 years from now. The history of science is replete with this.

    the word of me :

    Neanderthals were similar to humans, but had some different qualities that made them almost-but-not-quite human. They had larger brains. They averaged about 6″ shorter than the average human. Their skull was very different than the “sapiens” skull, and their musculature was significantly stronger/more massive. Their DNA was very close to “sapiens”, but NOT the same. In spite of this difference it was close enough that Humans and Neanderthal were able to mate and give birth to viable, fertile offspring.

    Why does any of that make them less human? Their brain cavity was larger by 20% but it was the same shape and structure as human beings. Pygmies in Africa and Orientals in Asia average several inches shorter than humans in different regions. DNA differences are explained by natural selection. And like you said, they could mate and give birth with other human beings which is why what, 4% of Europeans have Neanderthal genes?

    The only reason we try to say they “weren’t” human beings is because we still maintain we evolved from them.

    of course, the fact they had bigger brains is the exact opposite of what we thought evolution would produce.

    the word of me :

    When Moses was reputedly writing about Genesis, he had no clue (neither did anyone else on earth) that there were “pre-humans” and early humans that lived many, many thousands of years before him.

    That’s because there weren’t any pre-humans from which we evolved. Creationists argue (and Neanderthal’s brain size is a pretty good example of this) that instead of evolving, human DNA and genetics are decaying.

    the word of me :
    Trouble with this however is that the scripture he supposedly wrote has some anachronisms that have no resolution.

    Well, I can help with that. Give me a supposed anachronism.

    the word of me :

    I wonder how the Sumerians felt about God “creating” the earth and universe and humans right in the middle of their couple of thousand year old ongoing civilization.

    What do you base those ages on? Most base them on pottery or layers in the earth, all of which start with the assumption that there was no world-wide flood, and the assumption of uniformitarianism, which today is falling more and more out of favor.

    Of course, you could try Carbon 14 which begins with 7 different assumptions. I found it interesting in studying the age of trees, that Carbon 14 aged a group of trees at 30,000 years, and then they counted the rings and changed it to 4000.

    In other words, Carbon 14 has a track-record of being a little off sometimes and must be checked with other aging techniques. Like pottery -which assumes ages.

    Long way to say, I disagree with the age estimates of the Sumerians.

  14. Sup Nelson! I think the difficulty (at least for me in the past) with believing Genesis is literally true, is a lack of information and 150 years of being taught something else. And I do find it comforting when more information comes in to support Genesis, that I can also have even more reason to believe what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John say.

  15. Hey Josh, This is really strange, I came to this same conclusion about Neanderthals and I did a google search and found your response. I believe you are right, and it makes perfect sense. Adam and Eve were the perfected Humans fully developed and the Neanderthals were sub-human. And it has been proven by scientist that they did in Fact mix. And this is most likely the people.

  16. I think it was like this:
    Homo Erectus was here first , I believe they were one of the beast in the creation story. It is not that far fetched to think that they would look at Homo Erectus as beast. They would have been different from us, lighter skin no language and etc.. I think its possible that the bible doesn’t mention these other humans because they were not considered to be human. Back when the Bible was written we did not have the distinction between homonid species, you were human or not human. At one point, In modern times, American Indians were considered non-human. I think its quite possible that Homo – Erectus was considered a creature.It was Adam who named the beast, its is completely possible that Adam considered Homo Erectus as non-human. When in fact they were just non-Homo-Sapien

    God created Homo Saphiens, they were Dark Skins out of Africa
    Home Erectus were of light skin and they were wanderers. Cain, a Homo Sapien, left out of Eden to the land of Nod (or to the Wanderers)
    Being alone he found himself searching for company and eventually met a Homo Erectus female and mated.

    As for time lines and how long this or that took… I think it is safe to say that we can not rely on times stated in the Bible to be completely accurate. While I do believe the Bible is of God it was written by man and with no doubt it was influenced by mans beliefs and their limitations in understanding. It is quite possible that the concept of millions and millions of years was more then they could grasp. So in my opinion all time lines are skewed.

    NOw I start to speculate more loosely and this second part I fully expect to be challenged.And further down this page the idea will get more and more absurd based on nothing buy pure speculation.

    The account in Genisis is about a species that God created and is soley about that species. The “other humans” on the earth were not considered human and were not recorded as such.

    HAd Homo-Erectus not be wiped out by Homo-Sapien they may have eventually became like Homo-Sapien and had a Bible and it would have been about when God created them.But that wasn’t the plan:

    What if the other Flocks of sheep mentioned in the Bible were other Species?

    And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

    Isn’t that what happened? We all basically merged to become one species “Modern Humans”

  17. Seems that you’ve put some thought into it that is interesting. There are items in there to debate of course. The assumption of an evolutionary worldview, the theory of what would or would not be called human by the writer of Genesis, the existence various species of humans in the story, the idea that the dates or years listed in Genesis could not be accurate, etc… I might have to consider each of those in an article in fact. But without getting too deep just yet, if we simply took the story of Genesis at face value, the issue of Cain’s wife is not a contradiction. Cain would still have a wife from the lineage of his parents.

  18. How do you account for the DNA evidence? How can one account for the blood evidence that we ALL came out of Africa…probably as black people about 50,000 plus years ago? Do you just deny the physical, testable evidence? IBM and National Geographic did a humongous study (2010 or 2011) that tested the DNA of over 300,000 people from all over the earth…Everyone could be traced back to Africa to about 50,000 plus years ago.
    https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

    All women alive today have the mtDNA marker of one woman who lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago. That was not the only woman alive 150,000 years ago, it’s just that her offspring were the genetic winners and made it through. All men alive today carry the Y-chromosomal DNA marker of one man who lived in Africa about 50,000 (maybe as long as 140,000 plus years ago) years ago…again not the only one alive at the time, but the genetic winner.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

    There is no genetic/DNA evidence, at all, that suggests that mankind is descended from 2 (or 6 people…don’t forget Noah’s sons…although there is NO evidence of a world-wide flood…ever) people anytime in the last 200,000 years

    Homo-erectus (1.8 Mya to 400,000 years ago) died out before the time Modern Homo-sapiens-sapiens got started–about 200,000 plus/minus years ago.

    Homo heidelbergensis (600,000 years ago) was probably the common ancestor of Homo-Neanderthals and Homo-sapiens. Neanderthals and Homo-sapiens could breed together and did produce viable and fertile offspring.
    http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.html

    Just sayin…

  19. Has it all been solved and proven so there’s no need for any more study or research?

    Oh, real scientists can comment on this better than me and I would direct you to Answers in Genesis or Reasons to Believe or Creation Truth which is linked on this website. No one ignores the actual evidence. Everyone argues over it in fact.

    Dr. Todd Charles Wood, biochemist with over 20 technical articles published in such fields as biochemistry and genomics wrote:

    …..If the world’s original human settlers all came from Babel, why do modern geneticists claim that the first population came out of East Africa? “Out of Africa” is an interpretation based on certain starting assumptions. Basically, geneticists interpret geographic origin as the place where we find the group with the most genetic diversity. Where they live today is assumed to be the geographic origin of that diversity. This assumption is not necessarily correct. Given how often people move around, where a group lives now is not necessarily where the diversity originated.

    The real geographic origin of all modern humans is Babel, according to Scripture. The high variation in African DNA probably means that the majority of human families coming out of Babel went south and settled in Africa. To be sure, other families settled in other locations, as the Table of Nations indicates (Genesis 10), but the majority of DNA diversity in that Babel population went south….

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/four-women-boat-kids

    None of the evidence anywhere rules out human descent from 2 people (or 8 counting Noah’s family), and the blanket statement that there is no evidence anywhere for humanity beginning from 2 people is hyperbole. The evidence is simply being fit into an already existing evolutionary storyline. For instance, there is DNA evidence from recovered DNA in Neanderthal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils that contradicts the ages assigned to them. Do you ignore the DNA evidence? I don’t think you do. But it’s an ongoing argument, not a completely solved one.

  20. Brian,
    Your argument about an ancestral Eve is entirely wrong. Scientists merely use the metaphor of an “Eve” to demonstrate the first grouping of a population of human females in Kenya. Not one single person… Because while that may make sense to you, there is no reasonable scientist that would believe such a ludicrous premise. No scientist believes there was EVER just one, and its singular counterpart, of any form of species who from their singular DNA proceeded to spawn the rest of the species. By definition, one would merely be a mutation, and having only one is basically a evolutionary mistake which would quickly die off having no function in its mutation, as well as being markedly different from the normal portion of the species, making it unsuitable to mate with. It takes a small isolated population to create the conditions of adaptational evolution. There might be a hundred or so, but there is always a reason for multiples to form the same adaptive physiology for their surroundings. Therefore there were conditions which caused a small band, or tribe if you will, of one type of humanoid to evolve into the more highly functioning type of modern human we are today.

    I stumbled onto this site with the presumption that it would be discussing the possibility of reconciling the Cain and Abel story with the insight I had of Neanderthal and other humanoid species marrying with Cain, even though I am only a former Nazerene Christian myself. As a former Christian, but current Atheist, I still find intrigue in stories of the Bible. And I also find “The Neanderthal solution” as I refer to it, as a very plausible theory. Genesis has specifically used wording that allows this without the possibility of sacrilege in the process. The reason I originally came to this conclusion is as a result of the metaphor that Cain and Abel represent: namely, the Hunter/Gatherer-Agriculturalist struggle. The agricultural revolution was circa 10k years ago. As with any change, clearly most at the time, globally, would have still been hunters, and had their own spiritual beliefs. Seeing the disease and vice created by cities, created by agriculture, would have been seen as a type of sin and punishment. The metaphorical “murder” of Abel (hunter/gatherer) by Cain (agriculturalist) is symbolic of the time period. Therefore, the timeline given makes perfect sense for Cain’s marrying of a separate humanoid species still roaming the Earth. This also solves the mysterious “assassins” question, as to who Cain refers to will kill him without god’s mark of protection. The people of Eden were merely a metaphor for the first of homo sapien sapien, hence, god’s “chosen one’s.” And also the reason for there BEING a garden of Eden. It is god’s designation of his highest creation, as god himself admits to many creations before Man, without an encompassing description of all of these creations. And this is the wording I spoke of- Man. Neanderthal would not have been considered Man, especially by homo sapien sapien. Hence, the account is not contradictory. This is also why it requires no explanation. We know that Genesis is at least 4k years old, if not more. We simply cannot be sure. So, taking that into account and assuming the book is much older (as I believe it is, maybe as much as 7-10k years old) at the time of its original authorship (either by written word, or by oral tradition), most would have understood its context and required no explanation.

  21. That wasn’t the point Viscount nor really my position. I was merely responding to the shock atheists like to have toward Cain marrying his sister, when at some point in evolutionary story-lines, that sort of thing must happen to a degree in my view. But I really don’t care what evolution believes today or next week about a “mitochondrial Eve.” There will be a new idea later.

    My point is, and still remains, nothing needs to be taken away from the story of Cain to explain his wife, since the story itself leaves ample room for it to be understood as is, and the Bible itself shows later that marrying a sister… was not a sin, or uncommon, in the beginning.

    Human beings created by God in perfect condition would have no DNA damage to begin with, and for many generations, marrying a close relative would not be problematic.

    It’s logical God would allow it in the beginning. And in the Bible He did. Abraham’s wife WAS his half-sister.

    Today, DNA damage is increasing to the point that evolutionists are openly worrying about the extinction of our species. Instead of mutations causing us to evolve, mutations are killing us. Interesting. And of course, exactly the conclusion you would come to if you believed a God created life in the beginning.

  22. I think after a year or so of contemplation about all the evidence that is coming out…neanderthal and humans mating has now been confirmed by another university science group, on another continent, and by a different method.

    Humans have been around for about 200,000 years.

    Neanderthals died out about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

    Humans and Neanderthals interacted in the Middle East and Europe and probably Asia for at least 10,000 to 25,000 years.

    Humans all over the world (except sub-Saharan Africa) have been found to have up to 4% Neanderthals genes.
    This pretty much means that there is a VERY HIGH probability that we are actually descended from apes because the Neanderthal was descended from earlier Homo species such as Homo-erectus, Homo-Heidelbergensis, etc.

    The DNA evidence says humanity was never down to just 2 people. So can the Adam and Eve story as presented in the Bible fit into these facts as we know them?? I don’t see how.

    I feel it’s likely that the Adam and Eve story is mythical/allegorical, just like the flood and Exodus and other Old Testament stories.

    I have never heard about scientists worrying that the human race is dying out because of mutations. I have heard that medical science is slowly closing in on all the old diseases that have plagued mankind since the beginning of time…Small Pox is gone, Polio is near gone, Leprosy is near gone…except in India maybe. other ones are pretty much under control–at least in western and more modern countries. So where are the mutations coming from and what kind are they??

  23. It’s always interesting to hear you guys bring up DNA evidence as if that helps you. If I want to fight evolution, I’d start with DNA. But please dig. Dig deep and don’t just brush over details with generalized statements. Please read Dr. John Sanford, inventor of gene gun therapy and a scientist who has been peer reviewed and published. Genetic Entropy and the Human Genome… easy read. It my opinion, after DNA, there’s no more argument left since the evolutionary mechanism simply cannot work in real life with real DNA. I mean, BECAUSE of DNA there’s a whole new movement in evolution to come up with a new theory on the mechanism. You’ll hear about it eventually and you can decide for yourself. Some Christians believe God invented evolution. Ultimately the idea of God’s existence is more important than the how-God-did-it question. Anyway, to be fair, DNA evidence is also consistent with a Biblical model of history. It’s a valid, alternative explanation to the known facts. A story like the one in the Bible, which began with Adam & Eve, and later constricted the gene pool substantially by isolating just 8 of those humans and bringing them through the flood,has no problem with Neanderthals. Given that story, Neanderthals would simply have been another species of human -actual descendants of Adam and Eve. Genetic differences became pronounced as people separated and genes were isolated. Some were then lost permanently either through circumstances or through the flood which took the gene pool to 8 people. From a Bible model, it would be expected that humans and neanderthals should mate. Just shows both are human “kind”, even though they have different genetic characteristics like many groups have today.

  24. It is a difficult question to answer, the question of either God might have created other people would be answered by Amplified Bible Genesis 1:26 ” God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth”. some1 will say that Other people where created as the word let us “Plural” vs 27. Male and Female he Created them!! Going to Chapter 2 vs 7 ” Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life, and man became a living being.. chapter 2 vs 7 we see another controversy, literally created him (Man). we need more of meditation and prayers for God revelation.

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