The Problem of Cain

hi ian,

I've been a christian all my life and i'm trying to pull down God and make stupid silly questions for you to answer.

But there has been this one thing which has been puzzling me.

When Kane killed his brother he decided (or god told him to) to leave. Then kane told god that he was afraid that someone might try to hurt him, then god put a mark on his head and told that whoever hurts him, god will revenge for him.

Since back then there was only Adam's family, who else was there for kane to be afraid of?

thank you

Comments

[ian]

It's a bit like the question, where did Cain's wife come from?

Answer to both is actually quite simple. If you look at Genesis chapter 5, you'll find that Adam and Eve lived for centuries and were fertile for centuries, having numerous children. I think Jewish writings record that they had something in the region of 60 sons and daughters, all of whom also lived for centuries and had dozens of children.

Because of the purity of the human genome at that stage of creation, issues like not marrying your cousin or sister for fear of inbreeding was not a problem. In fact, the command not to marry a sister or brother was not made by God until well after the Flood.

God's instruction to Adam and Eve in Gen 1:28 is "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth", so I think it highly likely that in those early days they did indeed multiply like rabbits.

Given their large number of immediate children, within 30 years those children could themselves have given birth to 1,980 grandchildren who would in turn give birth to at least 65,000 great grandchildren - not forgetting that because everyone was living for hundreds of years Adam or Cain could easily have stumbled across kin that they never knew.

Within Adam's lifetime the earth would have had up to 2.1 million people.

Hope this helps.

[anon]

Ian, a couple of questions. First, what is the scripture reference to God changing his mind re brother sister marriages? Second, why did he change his mind?

[ian]

Leviticus 20:17 spells out that incest is forbidden, and Abraham's reference to the Egyptians in Genesis 20:12 implies that incest was probably a no-no by then also.

The why of it can ultimately only be known by God, but it is significant that scientists working on the human genome project are convinced that all humans ultimately descended from ONE woman and ONE man.

So regardless of the Biblical passages, science is also suggesting that incest must have taken place otherwise none of us would be here.

[Neil]

Leviticus 20:17 states that man is forbidden to marry his half sister, which, when thinking of your Genesis 20:12 reference, wasn’t Abraham’s wife also his half sister? Actually, Genesis 20 is rather interesting. Abraham lied to Abimelech, tricking him into thinking that Sarah was his sister, because he feared for his life if it was known that she was his wife. Lucky for Abimelech, God warned him before he touched Sarah. The Pharaoh, of whom Abraham had also earlier played the same trick, was not so lucky. Despite his kindness to Abraham, the Pharaoh was punished by God with terrible diseases – all because, unknown to him, he had fallen innocent victim to Abraham’s deceit. I am unsure of what the moral lesson is here?

Your claim that the reason why God changed his mind regarding incest can only ultimately be known by God is the argument of last resort for the Christian when reason fails, and when we get to this stage there is little point for the atheist to take the debate any further. Ian, you must be disappointed when you are required to use to the ‘God only knows’ argument. As a secularist, who does not draw his moral code from the bible, I cannot condone incest. My reading of the bible shows me that not only at one point in history was incest encouraged by God, it was actually compulsory.

[ian]

Interesting points. You say:

"Actually, Genesis 20 is rather interesting. Abraham lied to Abimelech, tricking him into thinking that Sarah was his sister, because he feared for his life if it was known that she was his wife. Lucky for Abimelech, God warned him before he touched Sarah. The Pharaoh, of whom Abraham had also earlier played the same trick, was not so lucky. Despite his kindness to Abraham, the Pharaoh was punished by God with terrible diseases – all because, unknown to him, he had fallen innocent victim to Abraham’s deceit. I am unsure of what the moral lesson is here?"

OK...perhaps it should be understood this way: Abraham was showing he lacked faith in God's ability to protect him. He feared being killed by Pharaoh because of the Egyptian ruler's policy of taking the best looking women into his harem and, if necessary, killing their husbands so as to avoid the charge of adultery which was forbidden in Egypt.

God punished Pharaoh for effectively having such a policy in the first place, and Abraham suffered a number of difficulties in the years that followed that may have been a result of his own deceit in the affair, although this is not illuminated.

Pharaoh may have been decieved by Abraham, but his policy precluded him from being labelled innocent or unwitting.

You go on to say:

"Your claim that the reason why God changed his mind regarding incest can only ultimately be known by God is the argument of last resort for the Christian when reason fails, and when we get to this stage there is little point for the atheist to take the debate any further. Ian, you must be disappointed when you are required to use to the ‘God only knows’ argument."

OK. As finite, contingent beings who are not deities capable of creating the universe, and nor are we perfect in any moral sense, I have no difficulty in leaving some things in the God basket. We can ponder, we can debate, but it's a little like two blue whales speculating on what it must be like to walk down Queen St. As a transcendent being, God knows things we can never know. The fact that science has thousands of questions without answers proves the fallacy of your argument - there is no one alive who knows everything that can be known. You might call it "God as last resort". Others might call it "Evolution as last resort" or "Multiple universe theory as last resort".

You then conclude: "As a secularist, who does not draw his moral code from the bible, I cannot condone incest. My reading of the bible shows me that not only at one point in history was incest encouraged by God, it was actually compulsory."

And like I said before, science has indicated humanity did indeed begin this way, as did all species alive today.

As a secularist who doesn't draw his moral code from the Bible, and therefore recognises no divine compulsion, you are left drawing your moral code merely from the ideas of other men/women. Now I'm sure they're very nice people, but ultimately they're flesh and blood like me and their views carry no greater weight than mine, and if I want to torture children who has any authority to tell me I'm wrong, and where do they get that authority from?

From a majority vote by society? Fine, I'll go and live outside society and make babies and do my own thing. At which point the only way a secularist can make a moral code stick is by force.

Like you, I abhor incest, but without an external moral code there is no compunction on anyone to adhere to it except out of either self-interest or force. Of course, adherence to a Biblical code contains elements of self-interest as well, but not force.

However, as a secularist I'd love to hear your explanation for the existence of evil in the world.

[Chris H]

You say that scientists working on the human genome project say that humans decended from one man and one woman. Can I get a citation for that surprising claim? This isn't the same as Mitochondrial Eve, either. There were population bottlenecks in the distant past, but evolution doesn't require new species to be derived from a single breeding pair.

[Bruce Burn]

Interesting comments, but the presumption you make that God changed his mind has no foundation. From the beginning he made humanity unlike he animals and the proof is that in-breeding for excellence does not work with humankind as it does with animals. But the point that while the human genome was perfect inbreeding was viable and God instructed that should happen to populate his creation with his chosen creatures. When the genome became un-viable for such inbreeding he instructed that the practise should cease. All planned that way from the outset.

[Deane Pradzinski]

The Bible says that Adam lived 930 years (no mention of how old Eve lived). Imagine the number of children that he and Eve had! Thousands! The DNA stream was pretty pure at that time and "family" did not consist of 2.5 children. One would probably not know the sibling one was marrying personally. Not much different than in certain Royal circles where it would not be uncommon to wed one's 2nd or 3rd cousin. UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES "incest" would not be an issue. We have, after all, formed our laws based on Scripture, upon necessity. Incest comes into play because there is a familial relationship and there is danger of DNA related birth defects. God has not "changed his mind". His laws are for our PROTECTION. They are not arbitrary. When we "sin" we hurt ourselves. GOD is trying to protect us from ourselves.

A comment on ATHEISM: Atheism is a faith. You have no proof that God does not exist. We, as believers, do not have to offer up any empirical evidence of his existence because we believe it on FAITH. Christianity, is after, a faith. But you, Atheist, believe in empirical evidence. Yet you have none regarding the existence of God. And yet you say with certainty "He does not exist". The best any human can say is "I don't know if there is a God". So while agnosticism is reasonable, atheism is not and it is on FAITH that you say "there is no god", NOT BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE. Atheism has it's dogma just like Christianity (it's such a shame that atheist scientists practice their "faith" and produce results with pre-conceived bias). The difference between my faith and yours' is that believers live a victorious life with purpose; atheists just breathe until they stop.

[hank]

Does not make sense to me to initially allow Adam & Eve's children to interbreed if this would then immediately cause impurities in a human genome and later necessitates a law to deter the practice. Nor did God need to change his mind - incest has always been wrong. Such a practice in a fallen world outside of the Garden of Eden makes more sense, but how do we accept this along with a loving creative God who desired to create his to live with Him?

Perhaps there more than just a single Adam & Eve couple created in the Garden of Eden - its made clear either way.

As for the Genome pointing to a single man and woman - that's still possible, as we are created in His image, both man and woman. We are stem from one creator God, not necessarily one created Adam and Eve.

[Hank]

It does not make sense to me to initially allow Adam & Eve's children to interbreed if this would then immediately cause impurities in a human genome and later necessitates a law to deter the practice.

Nor did God need to change his mind - incest has always been wrong. Such a practice in a fallen world outside of the Garden of Eden makes more sense, but how do we accept this along with a loving creative God who desired to create us to live with Him?

Perhaps there was more than just a single Adam & Eve couple created in the Garden of Eden - it's not made clear either way.

As for the Genome pointing to a single man and woman - that's still possible, as we are all created in His image, both man and woman. We are stem from one creator God, not necessarily one created Adam and Eve.

[Hank]

It does not make sense to me to initially allow Adam & Eve's children to interbreed if this would then immediately cause impurities in a human genome and later necessitates a law to deter the practice.

Nor did God need to change his mind - incest has always been wrong. Such a practice in a fallen world outside of the Garden of Eden makes more sense, but how do we accept this along with a loving creative God who desired to create us to live with Him?

Perhaps there was more than just a single Adam & Eve couple created in the Garden of Eden - it's not made clear either way.

As for the Genome pointing to a single man and woman - that's still possible, as we are all created in His image, both man and woman. We are stem from one creator God, not necessarily one created Adam and Eve.

[robk]

Hank

You say: "It does not make sense to me to initially allow Adam & Eve's children to interbreed if this would then immediately cause impurities in a human genome "

You missed the above point: The idea is that Adam's children had near perfect genes. No impurities to pass on. These defects have accumulated over thousands of years and are increasingly common.

I can only think of two reasons brother - sister 'Incest' is wrong:
1) If God says so
2) If it endangers the children of the couple.

Neither condition was present for Adam's children.

BTW, we all descend from Noah & Mrs Noah :-)