I got into this study because of a question asked by an atheist on Face Book. To be honest, the question irked me because atheists consider themselves morally superior to God. They use the question of Cain’s wife in an attempt to debunk God’s morality, because they believe He mandated incest. The knowledge that God would seemingly contradict Himself makes them feel superior. Personally, I’d never worried about Cain’s wife because I’d always let God be God and since He’s the One running the universe I just assumed He had to make decisions I couldn’t begin to understand, and left it at that. Normally, I let the arrogance of the atheists go, but there was something about this topic at this time that just piqued my curiosity. This study is the result of my quest for God’s truth. I’ll say this; it is astounding what you find in the Bible when you look for yourself and stop taking the word of other people. I was already aware of this truth, but this lesson has driven it home like no other. So, let’s leave open the door to truth and see where God takes us. When studying my Bible, I strive for true objectivity. So, objectively, from a position of pure power, God could very well have created Cain a wife just like He created Eve for Adam. Scripture doesn't say He did, but it doesn't specify He didn't. I mean, God didn't tell us much about dinosaurs either, did He? Yet, we know there were dinosaurs. My study regarding the origin of Cain’s wife it’s based on scripture, and to the best of my knowledge, it’s presented without using scripture out of context and certainly without any agenda other than a hunger for God’s truth. When quoting scripture, I use Green’s Interlinear Bible which makes a word for word translation from the original language. The information contained within parentheses is the numerical index for the English word in Strong’s Concordance, which is followed by the definition of the word. I’ve underlined the actual scriptures, so they are easier to read. I’ve structured this so that everything needed is present. By all means, if you don’t trust me, do the leg work for yourself.
Genesis 1:26 says: “And God said, “Let Us make man (120 in Strong’s defined as ‘an individual or the species mankind’) in Our image (6754 defined as ‘a resemblance, a representative figure’), according to Our likeness (1823 defined as ‘resemblance’); and let THEM (plural pronoun) rule (7287 defined as ‘to tread down, have dominion’) over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over ALL (3605 defined as ‘the whole’ (entire)) the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.” Vs. 27And God created THE (article specifying a single man) man in His own image (6754 defined as ‘a resemblance, a representative figure’); in the image of God He created him. He created them (plural pronoun) male and female. Vs. 28. And God blessed (1288 defined as to ‘benefit man as an act of adoration’) them (plural pronoun); and God said to them, “Be fruitful (6509 defined as ‘to bear fruit, grow, increase’) and multiply (7235 defined as ‘to increase, bring in abundance’), and fill (4390 defined as ‘to fill, replenish, have wholly’) the earth, and subdue (3533 defined as ‘to conquer, bring into submission’) it, and rule (7287 defined as ‘to tread down, have dominion’) over the fish of the sea, and over birds of the heavens, and over all (3605 defined as ‘the whole’ (entire)) living things creeping on the earth.” Vs. 31. And God saw everything that He had made; and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.”
Now, let’s look at the interpretation of Genesis 1:26-28, 31:
First, in verse 26, while conversing with Christ, and His Spirit (John 1:1/Colossians 1:15/Genesis 1:1 tell us that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were present at creation), God said ‘let Us make man in Our image’. We know from this very passage itself that ‘man’ does not refer to an individual. It tells us that God created male and female (v. 27), so the context of this verse tells us the word ‘man’ refers to the species of ‘mankind.’
Second, in verse 26, God refers to those He creates with a plural pronoun, ‘them.’ Now, of course, ‘them’ can be just Adam and Eve, OR, objectively, ‘them’ could be a larger number of created people because we’ve already established that ‘mankind’ is the definition in play. We don’t yet know which is referenced.
Third, in verse 26, God discusses with Christ and His Spirit that mankind is to be made in such a way that he resembles the Triune God, and ‘them’ (plural man) is to ‘tread down/have dominion’ over the ENTIRE earth. This begs the question: How are two people supposed to subdue an ENTIRE planet? How are two people to make submissive everything in existence across the span of an enormous globe? Sure, the birth of children means there were other people on the way, but at this moment in time, Christian tradition holds with the existence of only two people. This makes God’s command a sizable one to say the least, and certainly not one which could happen quickly as the insistence implies.
Fourth, verse 27 is where God implements His plan. In this one verse, God says twice that He made man in His image, but there’s a slight difference between the two statements, other than being inverse to each other. None of five modern translations I have in my office (KJV, NLT, NIV, NASB, The Message) makes a specific distinction the original Hebrew does. The modern translations use the words ‘people,’ ‘man,’ or ‘human beings’ to reference man. But the original Hebrew alone makes an extremely important distinction. In the first part of Hebrew verse 27, God says He made ‘THE’ man in His image. In the inverted second part, it says ‘in the image of God He created him,’ him referencing ‘THE’ man. The use of the singular article ‘THE’ refers to a specific man. Now, curiosity begs the question; against whom is this specific man contrasted? Why is Adam ‘THE’ man, as opposed to any man? In verse 26, God says to Christ and His Spirit ‘let us make ‘man’ (defined as ‘species of mankind’) in our image, not ‘THE’ man (defined as ‘a singular of the species of mankind’) in our image. Why the difference between verse 26, the conversation, and verse 27, the implementation? All of this takes place prior to the arrival of Eve, so the contrast of ‘THE man’ isn’t made with regards to her.
Fifth, in verse 28, our Hebrew definitions tell us God benefited man as an act of adoration. In my opinion, this ‘benefit’ was the ability to reproduce because it comes immediately prior to God’s command to ‘increase abundantly and wholly fill’ the earth. Personally, I think this is another way in which man is made in God’s image (the longing to procreate). Here is another problem with the species of mankind being limited to Adam and Eve: How are only two people going to multiply to the point of filling the earth? I’m not saying it isn’t possible because God can do most anything, but I am saying it’s difficult for two people. I know, at this time, the protection of perfection was still in place, but by the end of day six God removes it (explanation forthcoming), and knew that He would, so why give such a daunting task to only two people? Scripture tells us Adam lived 930 years (5:5), but, for the sake of convenience, let’s round his age up to 1,000 years, or roughly 10 times longer than the average lifespan of current man, counting it as 100 years. Based on today’s reproductive rate, a woman can bear children until the age of forty, generously speaking, which in Adamic years is the age of 400. If Eve had a child every year for 400 years, allowing for a normal gestation rate of 9 months, which is reasonable because God is just about to remove the supernatural aspects of creation, Eve could have produced 400 children, best case scenario. This assumes one child per pregnancy which evidently was the norm because each of her three documented pregnancies consisted of single births. Now, I know that each of those children would have had multiple children themselves, and so on, so the numbers would have gone up, but only half of Eve’s children would have been girls, and only half of her granddaughters, and great granddaughters, and so on, would have been girls. It doesn’t matter how much sex is being had, either a woman is pregnant, or she isn’t, so this is slow going especially when you consider that siblings are killing off each other (4:8). Also, Eve’s two hundred daughters, granddaughters, and so on, would have been spread out over those 400 years, staggering their ability to contribute to the filling of the earth, and none of them could have reproduced until they’d physically matured at around age 14, best case scenario. Objectively, filling the earth would have been far easier and more logical if additional created people had been involved.
Sixth, in verse 28, God said, a second time, but to ‘them,’ not to Christ and Holy Spirit, that man is ‘to conquer and bring into submission’ the ENTIRE earth. God intends for man to rule the entire world, not just a portion of it, but ALL of it. Here again, how were two people going to subdue an entire planet? How were they to be at the ocean subduing fish and inland subduing cattle simultaneously? Yes, I know more people were on the way, but they hadn’t yet arrived. I know ruling the earth is another way man is made in God’s image, but Adam and Eve could only be one place at a time, so doesn’t emphasizing this command seem like overkill if only two people existed? It wasn’t possible for them to spread out over the entire earth and stay together so they could multiply and fill. With only two people it had to be one or the other. This was so important to God, however, that He spoke of it with Christ and His Spirit, then later told ‘them’ personally. Objectively, isn’t it far more sensible for God to have created countless other people who were also given the command to subdue the earth, to spread out over its surface and subdue it? Additional created people would certainly have called for the use of the plural pronoun ‘them.’
Seventh, verse 31 tells us that man was created on day six, and that everything God made during the six days of creation was very good. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 also state that all creative activity on the part of God took place in six days. Several other scriptures agree with six days as demonstrated by the commands God gives His people: Exodus 16:26, 20:9, 23:12, 31:15, 34:21, 35:2, Leviticus 23:3, Deuteronomy 5:13, Ezekiel 46:1, and Luke 13:14. Clearly, creation took place within only six days.
II. To get a better contextual understanding of verses Genesis 1: 26-31 here is a list of some things we positively know from scripture:
First,Genesis 4:14-15 tells us that Cain feared for his life from ‘all who see me.’ The original Hebrew says, ‘anyone (3605 defined as ‘the whole, any, every, all’) who finds me shall kill me.’ Who were ‘all’ these people? If they were all younger siblings of Cain’s, which the sister wife theory mandates since Cain was the firstborn, why would Cain have feared younger siblings who already knew him as a murderer? Wouldn’t they have steered clear of him? Why would Cain need an identifying mark so family members would know he wasn’t to be harmed? If only siblings were involved, why not keep Abel’s murder a secret and protect Cain from angry brothers and sisters? Why didn’t Adam, Eve and Cain bury the body out back somewhere and explain Abel’s sudden disappearance with some concocted story? After all, on the tail end of murder, lying would have been a step up on the ladder of sin, leaving far fewer consequences in its wake. Abel’s death happened while Cain and Abel were in close proximity to Adam and Eve because Cain didn’t leave ‘home’ until God banished him from His presence. So, as the sister wife orientation dictates, how is it that Cain’s younger siblings were already scattered into the land of Nod when Cain hadn’t yet left home? This becomes even more important when we come to understand how old Cain was when He killed Abel. At this moment in the story, however, Cain is worried about his safety at the time of his banishment which leads one to believe that he was going up against grown people like himself, as opposed to younger siblings. These two verses are presented in such a way that it makes one objectively consider that it was unknown people from whom Cain feared harm and needed protection.
Second, Genesis 4:17 is the first time Cain’s wife is mentioned. She simply appears from out of nowhere, is grown, and of childbearing age. In Genesis 5:3 we are told Adam had other sons and daughters, but Eve is not included in this accomplishment. The only children contributed to Eve, by name, are Cain, Abel and Seth. Without the assignment of other children to Eve by either a group designation (like with Adam), or by individual names, the contribution of other children by Eve is made by assumption. Is there a reason scripture does not state that Eve bore other children?
Third,Genesis 4:25 tells us that Eve took great consolation in the birth of her third son, saying as much when she gives God credit for replacing the beloved son she lost. She seems overtly grateful and relieved at the birth of her little boy.
Fourth, Genesis 4:25 tells us Seth was not conceived until after Cain was banished from God’s presence as punishment for killing his brother. A cursory reading of chapter 4 doesn’t tell us much about Cain’s age when he killed his brother, but a more determined read tells us much. There’s an obscure story about Cain’s offspring which occurs prior to Seth’s conception (Genesis 4:17-24). We can use this story, and Adam’s age of 130 years at the time of Seth’s birth (5:3), to get a rough timeline for the chain of events. In Genesis 4:17-24, there are six different generations of Cain’s descendants listed. Counting approximately 18 years per generation puts Cain at about age 18-20 when he killed Abel. This sits squarely with what Genesis 4:2-3 says about Cain and Abel being grown men with occupations of their own. This means the death of Abel took place when Creation was roughly 19-21 years of age. Genesis 4:1, the very next verse after Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden, tells us that Cain was conceived and born, so, with the command to be ‘fruitful and multiply,’ it’s unreasonable to think a lengthy period of time had passed. Technically, Adam would have been only a year or so older than his firstborn son! Isn’t that amazing!
Fifth, Genesis 5:3 says Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. Green’s Interlinear Bible states that Adam lived 800 years after the birth of Seth. Verse 4 tells us that Adam had other children. Adam’s additional years and his additional children are stated in two different sentences as if to say both events occurred as part of Adam’s life, just not that they necessarily occurred sequentially. If this is true, as the language indicates, then, objectively, this means some of the children sired by Adam could have been born prior to Seth’s birth, but born to women other than Eve. The Bible goes to great length to mention the three children produced by the union of Adam and Eve, but this verse does NOT specify that Eve delivered any of Adam’s other children. Do you think this is a mistake in a book which is known for being mistake free? I want to make mention here, that Answers in Genesis, (AiG), states “Genesis 5:4 reveals that Adam and Eve “had sons and daughters” (besides Cain, Abel, and Seth) https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/cain/who-was-cains-wife/.” We just learned that Genesis 5:4 does NOT say Adam and Eve had other children. This verse states very clearly that ONLY Adam had other sons and daughters. All five modern translations previously listed clearly state that ONLY Adam had additional children. So, why does AiG state something different than scripture? You’ll have to ask them to be certain, but I’m going to guess it’s got something to do with tradition. It blows my mind that people whose entire ministry is based on the trustworthiness of Genesis have either missed this or dismissed it (along with a couple other misapplications of scripture which are discussed later). I love AiG! I’ve learned so much from them. My husband and I support their ministry every month and will continue to do so. They have done incalculable good for the kingdom of God, but this misrepresentation of scripture is NOT COOL. It seems everyone assumes that Eve bore these other children because everyone assumes there are only two created people in the entire world. What if Eve isn’t the mother of any of these other children? Is it possible, prior to Seth’s birth, that Adam was siring children with other women whom God had created? Of course, it is. Stay with me, we’re going to get to the point where this all makes sense.
SixthGenesis 1:28 says to ‘be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.’
Seventh, Cain was so disrespectful of God that he didn’t offer a worthy sacrifice (4:3), was angry enough at God for His rebuke that he killed his brother (4:6, 4:8 respectively), smarted-off at God when confronted about his brother’s whereabouts (4:9), and whined and complained about his punishment (4:13-14).
III. Now, we need to include Genesis 2 in our study. Why? Because it also speaks of the creation of mankind, and we need all the information the Bible has in order to answer the question of where Cain got his wife.
One,Genesis 2:1-3 explain that God completed creation week with a day of rest, declaring the seventh day holy. Two,Genesis 2:4-7 describe in broad terms the creation of the heavens, the earth and mankind.
Three,Genesis 2:8-14 introduces the Garden of Eden and the Trees of Life and of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It also describes a vast river network which seems relevant to the Garden, as well as, three important minerals.
Four,Genesis 2:15-17 tell us that God placed ‘THE’ man in the Garden of Eden to take care of it. He commanded ‘THE’ man to eat of any tree except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil for to eat of it would cause him to die in that day.
Five,Genesis 2:18-19 teach that God made ‘THE’ man a helper and God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the heavens out of the ground. God brought all of these to ‘THE’ man to see what he would call them, and what ‘THE’ man called it became its name.
Six, Genesis 2:20-25 describe that ‘THE’ man went on to name the animals, but no helper suitable to ‘THE’ man was found. God caused ‘THE’ man to fall into a deep sleep and took ‘THE’ rib from ‘THE’ man, made it into a woman and brought her to ‘THE’ man. ‘THE’ man called her woman because she was taken out of man. Verse 24. ‘THE’ man said ‘A man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cling (1692 defined as to impinge, to catch by pursuit’) to his wife (6106 defined as ‘a bone, by extension, the body’) and they shall become (1961 defined as ‘exist’) one (259 defined as ‘united’) flesh (1320 defined as body or person’).’ Both were naked but were not ashamed.
Some things we learn from Genesis 2:
First, chapter two is largely an in-depth look at some aspects of chapter one. The main exception is that chapter two begins by ending the full week of creation with the holy day of rest. This is the only regard in which chapter two is a continuation of chapter one. We also know that chapter two is NOT a continuation of chapter one in the sense that it leads to an eighth day of creation as some Christians believe (yes, I’m serious when I say there are Christian people who believe God continued creating on the eighth day). Please remember, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 also state, in agreement with Genesis 1:31-2:3, that all creative activity on the part of God took place in six days. The very reason God rested was that His work of creating was finished. Several other places in scripture agree with six days as demonstrated by the commands God gives His people: Exodus 16:26, 20:9, 23:12, 31:15, 34:21, 35:2, Leviticus 23:3, Deuteronomy 5:13, Ezekiel 46:1, and Luke 13:14. Additionally, right after declaring the seventh day a day of rest, scripture returns to the creation of the heavens and the earth which is a look back at what God had already accomplished, not a creation of a second heavens/earth. We know this because 2:4 says, ‘when they WERE created.” The word ‘were’ is a past tense verb which means the event in question has already happened. It also states that this event took place ‘in the day’ during which Jehovah was making heavens and earth. At this time in scripture, there is ONLY one heavens and one earth.
Second, this is where the Garden of Eden and two very important trees are introduced to us.
Third, we learn that ‘THE,’ specifying a singular man, in 1:27 is NOT a misprint or an anomaly. God uses the same singular article numerous times in Genesis 2:18-25. God uses this word for a reason. It stands in stark contrast to ‘a’ woman which was brought to THE man, and ‘A’ man shall leave his father…. ‘A’ man can be any man. ‘THE’ man is a singular particular man contrasted against others.
Fourth, through the definitions of the original Hebrew words of Verse 24, we can see that ‘cling’ means to impinge (to advance on an area belonging to someone else/ oxford online dictionary) as the extension of his body so that they exist as a united person. This verse tells us that a married couple is to be united. This verse says nothing about monogamy. In fact, Chabad.org states that the Torah (the first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures) in no way prohibits polygamy. Many, many men of the Old Testament had more than one wife. Adultery is addressed in Exodus 20 in the Ten Commandments, but they didn’t come along until after the flood, and shouldn’t have been a consideration in a polygamous situation. A man married to several women could have sex with all of them and still remain faithful by not stepping outside his marriage vows. Monogamy does not become a mandate from God until the New Testament, in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Hebrews 13:4. This leads one to believe that, by New Testament times, God considered the earth sufficiently filled, so polygamy was no longer necessary.
IV. We must also include Genesis 3:16 in our study because it’s important to the origin of Cain’s wife. This is the single verse where God gives Eve her punishment for her part in the first sin. WARNING:the Hebrew is vastly different from what we read in our modern Bibles!
Genesis 3:16: “He said to THE (singular article) woman, “I will greatly increase your sorrow (6093 defined as ‘worrisomeness’) and your conception (2032 defined as ‘to conceive’); you shall bear sons (plural word 1121 defined as BOTH: bane OR a builder of a family name) in sorrow (6087 to carve (in a bad sense) grieve/6089 an earthen vessel, a pang (whether of body or mind), and your desire (8669 defined as ‘a longing for, to run after’) shall be toward your husband (376 defined as ‘to be extant, a man as an individual, or a male person’) and he shall rule (4427 defined as ‘reign’) over you.
Here’s what we learn from this single verse:
One: God uses ‘THE’ to refer to Eve, so this again begs the question of why? She is of singular importance, but against whom is she contrasted? ‘THE’ doesn’t contrast Eve from the others who received punishment because they weren’t women. Eve was the only female present. If God wasn’t singling her out wouldn’t He have referred to Eve as ‘her’ as in “He said to her?” Could this singular article mean that this punishment was for Eve, ‘THE’ only woman to whom it was applied? Absolutely, and I’m going to show you why.
Two: Surprisingly, this verse does not indicate, nor does it even hint, that God made childbearing physically painful as part of Eve’s punishment, as modern translations lead us to believe! It says God would greatly increase her sorrow, her worrisomeness. It says NOTHING about physical pain. So, Eve is going to be very worrisome or sorrowful about what?
Three: Within the same verse, God uses a second Hebrew word for sorrow. He’d just used the word ‘sorrow’ and defined it as ‘worrisomeness,’ but now chooses a different word while still speaking of sorrow. Why? Because it has a different meaning than the first word, and it’s important to understanding just what God said. The second word for sorrow used in this scripture employs two different Hebrew words which together mean ‘grieve as an earthen vessel.’ Well, grief is certainly different than worry, but why the distinction of an earthen vessel? Also, what does grief have to do with this situation?
Four: God says He will greatly increase her conception, her ability to conceive. What in the world does this mean? The KJV addresses sorrow and conception, but the other modern translations, NIV, NLT, NASB, and The Message do not address either sorrow or conception, and all five translate ‘sons’ as ‘children’. This is not a good thing because it greatly affects the way people understand the Bible.
Fifth: The words ‘worrisomeness’ and ‘to conceive’ are used in the same sentence with the coordinating conjunction ‘and’ which means they are connected. In other words, the word ‘worrisomeness’ describes Eve’s ability ‘to conceive.’ So, this scripture states that Eve’s sorrow, her worrisomeness, will come from her ability to conceive, not the labor of childbearing. Obviously, conception and childbearing are two different things. So, this begs the question; what is there about the traditional position of only Adam and Eve that made childbearing worrisome? After all, childbearing is the main reason God made Eve to be Adam’s helper, that she could assist him in multiplying and filling the earth.
Sixth: God tells Eve she will bear more than one son, He uses the word ‘sons’ which is plural, but the word ‘son’ has two different definitions. It, literally, has two definitions. This is of crucial importance. ‘Son’ can mean ‘bane’ a source of harm or ruin (merriam webster online dictionary) OR it can mean a builder of a family name. Do these two definitions sound like any sons involved in this story? Of course, they do. This verse describes Cain as the bane, a source of harm or ruin, of Eve’s existence because he killed her other son. Can you imagine the devastation? It also describes Seth as the builder of the family name because all mankind descended from him through Noah. Isn’t this absolutely remarkable?! Next, the verse tells us that Eve would grieve as an earthen vessel. This speaks to Eve’s grief at the loss of her second born because she was the earthen vessel who produced Abel. We know Eve grieved deeply because of what she says in 4:25. Everyone knows that grief is different than worrisomeness. This is a distinction made by none of the five modern translations (KJV, NLT, NIV, NASB, The Message), yet it is one clearly stated in the Hebrew. This single verse clearly describes each of the sons born and named to Eve. Interestingly, no daughters are mentioned, not only not by name, but in any manner. Make note here: the Hebrew does NOT say Eve will bear children, as modern translations state, it says she shall bear sons. Either the Hebrew language is accurate, or it isn’t.
Seventh: God told Eve she would have a longing for her husband (376 defined as ‘to be extant, a man as an individual, or a male person’) and because of this longing he would rule over her. The two definitions of husband, ‘to be extant’ and ‘man as an individual or a male person’ bear differently on the situation at hand. If 3:16 speaks of Eve’s husband as an ‘individual man or a male person’ there is no reason Eve should have been limited to just Adam for a husband. In the event of additional created people, Eve would have had the opportunity for other husbands just as Adam had for other wives. Eve’s longing for her husband, and his rule over her would not have been limited to just Adam. However, if 3:16 speaks of Eve’s husband as an ‘extant’ or survivor then it speaks specifically of Adam because he alone survived the removal of his rib so that God could fashion Eve. If this is the definition God intends it’s important because it brings to bear an even steeper aspect of Eve’s penalty. God told Eve her longing for Adam would allow him to rule over her, so if Adam is the ONLY husband Eve had, then Adam was the only one who could ease her sorrowful heart with regards to another child. In the event of additional created people this definition would seem to limit Eve to Adam, as in she would not have been permitted other husbands, just the ‘extant’ one. Why? Probably because they were linked together in the Garden unlike anyone else God created. It’s almost as if God was saying that Eve dragged Adam into sin, so now she had to make do with only Adam. So, while additional created women were having children with different husbands, Eve would have been limited to just the surviving husband, Adam. Since other husbands were off limits, it fell solely upon Adam to relieve Eve’s sorrow, her worrisomeness. This would have been especially difficult for Eve if she were competing with other women for Adam’s attention and seed. In my opinion, I feel the ‘extant’ definition is the one in play for reasons which will become obvious as section seven continues.
God said He would greatly increase Eve’s ability to conceive, NOT produce children. These are two very different things, and this distinction is so important. If God had meant that He’d increase Eve’s ability to produce children, why didn’t He say so instead of using the word ‘conception’? Why make the distinction between producing sons and conceiving? For that matter, why bring up the word ‘conception’ at all? So, how does a woman’s ability to conceive increase? There are two biological explanations readily available, one of which is brutal. Eve’s conception rate would have increased if she had conceived multiples, such as twins, triplets or quads. However, this seems unlikely because we know her three documented pregnancies were not multiples. Therefore, if Cain, Abel and Seth are any indication, there weren’t an increased number of conceptions resulting in multiple births. The other biological reason for increased conception is miscarriage. I told you was brutal. If Eve miscarried every child until Seth, she would have conceived many more children than women who carried children to term. Remember, the worrisomeness and conception are connected in Eve’s punishment. Wouldn’t successive miscarriages have increased Eve’s worrisomeness and made her long for Adam, allowing him to reign over her, especially if Adam were the only husband permitted to her by punishment? So, either Eve began to deliver multiple births, a possibility which seems to be eliminated by the terms of the punishment itself (it said she would bear sons), or Eve miscarried every child she conceived which increased her conception far above women who delivered full term. Given that God told Eve her conception rate would increase while handing her a punishment for disobedience, which seems most likely; the blessing of multiple babies, or the misery of miscarriage which led to a longing for her husband? As is always true with the Bible, context matters. Is this verse saying that Eve would bear only three sons, each of whom are described to the point of identity? Without the use of the word ‘children’ in the original Hebrew, within the context of the punishment itself, and without any documentation that Eve bore other children, this verse seems to say that no other children would be born to her. Like I said, the Hebrew is vastly different from modern translations, but this understanding absolutely agrees with Genesis 5:4 where Eve is not named as the mother of any of Adam’s other children. It also explains the absence of any documentation of other children born to Eve. Eve’s punishment was catastrophic. It decimated her on the physical, emotional and spiritual levels. I hate to say it, but I think it bears mentioning; God is serious about obedience, and disobedience comes with heavy, life-altering consequences. If this profound truth was only understood by people today. When one removes the preconception of only two created people, and looks at the Hebrew language objectively, an entirely different possibility presents itself, the possibility of additional created people.
Eighth: The events of Genesis 3 take place in the Garden of Eden on day six of creation. There is absolutely nothing in scripture which states otherwise, but we can confirm it by drawing out what the creation scriptures say. Here’s what I mean: Genesis 1:27-31 tell us God created male and female on day six. Genesis 2:7-8 tell us that God made Adam out of the dust and placed him in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:16 says, “And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, “You may eat freely of every tree in the garden, verse 17,but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day (3117 defined as ‘to be hot; a day (as the warm hours)) that you eat of it, you shall surely die (41941 defined as ‘to die, be dead’).”” Genesis 2:18-25, tell us God created all the animals and Eve, who He placed in the Garden with Adam. Genesis 3:1-7 explain how Adam and Eve were deceived. Genesis 3:8, tells us: “And they (Adam and Eve) heard the sound of Jehovah God walking up and down in the Garden at the breeze of the day (3117 defined as ‘to be hot; a day (as the warm hours). Genesis 3:9-21 tells of God confronting Adam and Eve about their sin, God handing down the punishments to Satan, Adam, and Eve and God making clothes for Adam and Eve. Genesis 3:22 God says to Christ and His Spirit, “Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and also take from the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever.” Verse 23, “And Jehovah God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground out of which he was taken. And He drove (1644 defined as ‘expatriate’ which is a person who lives outside their native country) the man out. And He caused to dwell the cherubs at the east of the Garden of Eden, and the flaming sword whirling around, to guard the way of the Tree of Life.”
We can clearly see that 2:7-25, takes place on day six because God made man, woman and the animals. We know from other scriptures there are only six days of creation (1:27-31/ Exodus 20:11/31:17). In 2:16, we know God speaks to Adam during the early part of the day because 3:8 tells us that by the ‘hot’ part of the day, God had already discovered Adam and Eve’s sin. So, it appears as if 2:17 foretells the exact time at which Adam would kill his intimate relationship with God. How? Because God confronted them at the ‘hot’ part of the day when He’d warned Adam that death would occur. So, literally, mere hours have passed between God’s warning of death to Adam and His face-off with Adam and Eve about their sin. Very quickly, God wraps up things by handing out punishments, making clothes for Adam and Eve, and driving them out of the Garden because, with the knowledge of good and evil, they’d have known what a ‘good thing’ eternal life would have been. For this reason, they had to immediately leave the Garden. God’s resolve was so earnest that He placed cherubs with flaming swords to block the entrance and prevent Adam and Eve from returning. Would the placement of such deadly guards have made sense if God had allowed them to hang out in the Garden for some indeterminate length of time during which they could have eaten of the Tree of Life? No, that isn’t the way punishment works. End of day six. In Genesis 1:31, we learn that God stated that everything He made was ‘very good.’ We also learn that there was evening and morning, the sixth day. It's reasonable to conclude that God made His statement right after He finished creating Eve and placed her in the garden with Adam. That’s what people do. If you spend half a day painting an old cupboard, when, after having completed the refurb, you step back and assess your efforts. You don’t wait some indeterminate amount of time to make an initial assessment. At the time God said everything was good, it was good, but that doesn't mean sin didn't happen on day six AFTER God made this statement. Everything would have been 'very good' up until they sinned, regardless of when it happened, so to say that it happened on day six isn't illogical or unscriptural. All that matters is that when God said it, it was absolutely true. People assume that God said this at the end of the day, but scripture doesn't say that. Genesis 1:31 is comprised of only two sentences and we don't know how much time passed between the two. God would not have made the statement if sin had already occurred, so it stands to reason His statement came before the sin of Adam and Eve. Most of Genesis 2 is a much closer look at day six from chapter one, so there's reason to believe that everything up to Gen 2:25 happened before God said it was all good, then everything in chapter three happened after God's assessment, but before the end of day six. If there's one thing I learned doing this study, it's that there have been many assumptions made by translators of the past. We know that the first sin didn't happen on day seven because day seven was a day of rest, so God did not do the work of removing Adam and Eve from the Garden and placing the guardian cherubs. God did not rest until His work was completed. This would have included the work of dealing with the first sin.
This is important because all creative activity took place in six days, so this means that additional created people were also made on day six. Did God pass the time between Adam’s warning and His confrontation of their sin by creating other people? OR, is it possible that God placed other created people on the earth after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden, but before the end of day six? And, is it possible that Genesis 1:27, where it says God made ‘them male and female’ was a reference to the others who were coming while placing THE man and THE woman in the Garden to the exclusion of all the others? This is certainly an explanation for the use of ‘THE’ singular article. I wish I knew because I’m curious as all get out, but I find no additional clues in scripture. I suppose this is one of those questions I’ll ask when I get to heaven, lol! In my opinion, God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden for four main reasons. First, God intended the perfection of the Garden to be the native home for mankind. We know this from the definition of the Hebrew phrase ‘And He drove out’ which means to ‘expatriate.’ An expatriate is a person who lives outside their native country. So, God intended the Garden to be the native home for all He created. Second, God wanted them to experience perfection which would serve as a contrast to life after sin. These were intelligent capable human beings, so they were fully aware of the mess they’d created, especially so after having gained the knowledge of good and evil. Wouldn’t the Garden experience have helped to keep them mindful of their place before God? But the contrast of their position also serves us because heaven will be perfection for those of us who go to live with Jesus. This is a huge incentive for belief in Jesus as Savior. Today, people who trust Jesus for their salvation can regain what Adam and Eve lost in the Garden! God is good! Third, God had to test the obedience of mankind. Pass or fail, Adam and Eve, and subsequently the rest of us, must understand what it means to obey God. Today, mankind is foolish indeed if it thinks that God takes any less seriously the offense of disobedience. I wish with all my heart that EVERY person could learn this eternity defining lesson. Sadly, most people just aren’t interested. Fourth, I think God placed them in the Garden, a relatively small area, so The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Tree of Life would be right in front of them, forcing their choice. They could have chosen to eat from the Tree of Life. To eat of it was not forbidden, and the Tree of Life was the choice God wanted for them. Of course, the choice in the Garden represents the choice in front of each of us, the choice of life or death. If God hadn’t placed them in the Garden, they would have wandered away and never come to terms with what it meant to trust and obey Him. Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the garden on day six. Scripture tells us that Cain and Abel were born soon after, and so began the punishment God handed to Adam and Eve for their part in the first sin (Genesis 3:16-19).
V.Summary of what we’ve learned:
When trying to determine the truth of something, one looks for evidence. This study is the body of evidence on which I place my newly formed belief that God created additional people after Adam and Eve but before the end of day six. Creating more people would have been an exceedingly easily task for God. I’ve laid before you compelling scriptural evidence for the creation of additional people. To hold the position that God created Cain’s wife is logical, and logic is part of life as God intends or He would have never given us the ability to think critically. After all, the evidence God has given us of His existence serves us only if we consider it critically and use it to come to faith in Him. For me, this study has been an opportunity to learn much about a subject largely unknown to me and I find that totally awesome!
Here are my conclusions:
One: we know that the word ‘man’ can be defined as a ‘species’ which is more impactful when considering the possibility of additional created people.
Two: God uses the plural pronoun ‘them’ when referencing the species. ‘Them’ can mean male/female (Adam and Eve) OR any number of both. Here again, I’ve found nothing in scripture which disqualifies additional created people (I get into the NT scriptures a little later). And this study serves as evidence for the existence of them.
Three: It seems illogical for God to insist that only two people should subdue an ENTIRE planet and take dominion over it while knowing that two people weren’t enough to rule over much of anything. It turned out that they were incapable of caring for one simple Garden. However, within three verses, God mentions it two different times. This objective is far more easily met when tackled by many created people who can scatter and subdue different parts of the planet simultaneously.
Four: God makes use of the singular article ‘THE’ numerous times when speaking of Adam and once when speaking of Eve. This is an overt differentiation of one among many. If Adam had been the ONLY man created, God would have used the pronoun ‘him’ for there would have been no one against whom to contrast Adam. Context tells us ‘THE’ doesn’t distinguish Adam from Eve because it’s used before she was created (1:27 and 2:20-21). Without the presence of other members of both genders, the designation ‘THE’ would not have been necessary. God would have simply referred to Adam as ‘him’ or as ‘man,’ the gender equivalent would have been true of Eve. Is it possible that God referred to Adam and Eve using ‘THE’ to show that they were THE people in the Garden of Eden versus other created people who weren’t? Sure, why not? We know the other created people weren’t in the garden because after naming all the animals it was found that there was no suitable helper for Adam which is the very reason God made Eve. Ultimately, it didn’t really matter which man and woman God placed in the garden, He just needed one of each to test mankind’s obedience. Using ‘THE’ to set them apart as the ones tested makes sense. Besides, God uses the singular article when referring to Adam and Eve for our benefit, not theirs. It wasn’t like they were going to pick up the Bible and read it themselves. ‘THE’ is used to help us understand what was taking place.
Five: The command to increase abundantly and fill the earth makes far more sense and is more readily obeyed with the creation of additional people. In this scenario, all kinds of people could have scattered far and wide. Some would have been fisherman, some farmers, some ranchers, some would have built cities, etc. You get the idea.
Six: Cain did not identify the people he feared as siblings. He never said, ‘My brothers and sisters will try to kill me!” I find that extremely odd and completely unnatural. He simply lumped together those he feared and referenced them as ‘anyone or all’ which indicates a lack of familiarity. When you speak of your brothers and sisters do you speak of them in such a nondescript way? Additional created people, scattered abroad, subduing the earth, means there would have been many people Cain did not know. With the command to subdue and rule, these people would have left the area long before Cain was old enough to know them. They would have had Cain’s formative 18-20 years to move into distant lands in obedience to God’s directive. This is something Cain’s younger siblings, the oldest of which would have been around eighteen, would not have likely done, certainly not ahead of their older brother. These people would have been slightly older than Cain and could have posed a threat to him. Knowing this would have given Cain reason to fear banishment. Word of his punishment, and the reason for it, would have quickly spread among people. Being a bully, Cain had no reason to fear younger siblings. Truth is, they would have feared him. After all, he’d already killed one of them. But grown men who’d heard of Cain’s murderous ways, men with their own families to protect, would have been a serious threat to Cain and he knew it. Also, does the fact that other created people would not have wanted Cain anywhere near their settlements give credence to Cain’s statement about being a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth (Genesis 4:4)? Absolutely. Had Cain been referencing his younger siblings, he’d have simply picked a place to settle and moved in. A vicious bully like Cain would not have permitted younger siblings to keep him on the run. Besides, there would have only been a handful of them. If Cain were banished at around age 18-20, the next oldest sibling, after Abel, would have been around 16-17 years of age. Based on the tradition of sister wives, most of these closely placed siblings would have been girls, the next of whom would have been 15 years old, the next 14 and so on until you get down to actual children. So, all in, there might have been four siblings old enough to pose a threat to Cain. How can this pitiful number of younger siblings, who could have all been girls, possibly be the ‘Anyone and ALL’ who turned a murderous bully into a crybaby?
Seven: Genesis 4:25-26 is placed chronologically in scripture. How do we know? First, because of the verses on either side. Without the story of Cain’s descendants, it’s impossible to calculate the age of Abel’s murder. Also, chapter five heads straight into Adam’s descendants through Seth, who is born in verse 25. Second, I can find no commentary which even addresses that these verses aren’t placed chronologically. Since chronology doesn’t appear to be a problem it must be a given. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born (5:3), and we already know that Cain killed Abel when he was around 20 years of age. 130-20 means 110 years have passed between Abel’s death and Seth’s birth. So, if Adam and Eve are conceiving child after child, greatly increasing Eve’s worrisomeness because she failed to deliver any of them, it means that Adam isn’t celibate, but neither is he being fruitful and multiplying so that the earth might be filled and subdued. Genesis 3:16 tells us that Eve is named as the mother of only sons as part of the punishment God gave, and only three sons are described with incredible accuracy. If this isn’t a mistake in a book which is known to be error free, this means Eve did not bear any daughters, so Cain’s wife could NOT have been his sister. However, in the event of additional created people, Adam could have taken other wives and fulfilled God’s command to multiply and subdue the earth. The command could not have been obeyed through Eve for a minimum of 110 years, until the birth of Seth, but according to 3:16, Seth was the third of three sons born to Eve when God described she’d have ONLY three sons. So, which scenario seems most likely; unnamed/unmentioned children when God’s punishment described that Eve wouldn’t bear any, or additional created adults? When we take the time to learn, the original Hebrew teaches us so much.
Eight: With additional created people in place it stands to reason there would have been women from whom Cain chose a wife as opposed to waiting for a sibling to mature to reproductive age. Scripture tells us that Abel was the second child born, so no female child is born immediately after Cain. Cain was selfish, immature, and violent, not the type of man who would have been kind to growing sisters. This fact alone certainly doesn’t mean the sister marriages didn’t happen, but alongside the scriptural evidence I’ve offered in this study, having additional created women makes far more sense. Like I said, regarding Adam, another created woman would have only been a year or two older than Cain, and already of childbearing age. This sets squarely with how Cain’s wife makes a sudden appearance and is of reproductive age (4:17). Ultimately, additional created people mean there is no overlap of the gene pool, but this only helps up until the flood when Noah’s descendants were charged with repopulating the earth. However, additional created people does away with the mandate for incest; fathers and sons impregnating daughters, sisters, and mothers. Incest was not prohibited by God until Leviticus 18, but the thought of it certainly leaves one unsettled. Also, Cain was not a respectful patient human being. Is it likely that he waited for younger siblings to mature reproductively without behavior which would have brought devastating results to the lives of his younger sisters? Did God place at the mercy of such a man, younger sisters who were even more defenseless than Abel? For me, this is a genuine concern. I know this sort of thing happens today, and, at that time murder had already been committed by this horrible man who had the audacity to complain to God about being mistreated. I’m just saying it bears consideration because this is a whole other level of ugly which is present ONLY when sister wives were part of the command to multiply and fill the earth. Fortunately, Genesis 3:16 does away with the possibility of sister wives which negates the necessity of incest and the brutality toward younger sisters by one such as Cain. When we travel forward to visit Noah’s family for just a second, we must wonder if incest was a part of their repopulating efforts? It very well could have been, but it wasn’t mandated by God as a necessity as when facing the lack of additional created people. Noah’s sons already had wives, so their presence should have gone a long way toward protecting growing girls. I’ll mention, just very briefly, the other kinds of sexual conduct possible if Eve had delivered several or many sons before producing any girls. Like I said, additional created people solve many problems and answer many questions.
Nine: Could watching other created women produce children with Adam have greatly increased the sorrow Eve carried? There’s no doubt that to bear children was the reason Eve longed for Adam the way God told her she would. It was, after all part of her punishment. It’s well documented that women of ancient times were evaluated by their ability to bear offspring, so the inability to have children would have been devastating to Eve. No wonder she was thrilled when Seth was born. It seemed the little boy comforted her grieving heart, like none of us could ever understand. If Eve spent 110 years in greatly increased sorrow, as 3:16 says, Seth’s birth was truly a joyous occasion for the final of God’s statements regarding her sons had come to pass. This was the little boy through which their family name would be preserved. If she’d already born other children, wouldn’t they have eased the loss of her son prior to this? If Seth came along after 110 unnamed children, would he have seemed so special and precious to her? Would scripture have documented her gratitude over the birth of just one more baby boy? Also, earlier sons would have already replaced Abel, so why would Eve have made the statement that Seth replaced Abel unless it were true (4:25)? Statistically, half of the 110 children born to Eve would have been sons, so with the passage of 110 years some 50+ would have been boys. Any of them could have carried the family name. Eve had no idea a global flood was coming, so why would her gratitude have been expressed at the birth of Seth when any son she’d produced could have carried the family name? I don’t believe, based on the scriptural evidence I’ve provided here, that Eve had other children, none of which are named in scripture, not when the other three are named and specific details of their lives are given. It just doesn’t follow. The obvious answer is that Adam had other wives with whom to procreate. This explains how Cain got his wife even though Eve could not bear children and it explains why Eve was so happy about the birth of her little boy. After nearly 110 years, God had mercy on Eve’s disobedient heart. This situation speaks so loudly to the sad truth that sin destroys everything. When we permit it, sin rips God’s best from us, leaving us with broken lives, which are shadow images of the fullness He has planned for us.
Ten: If Genesis is about documenting the origin of the species (pun intended), and every person who walked the earth was born of Adam and Eve, why aren’t their female children mentioned? Eve is named. Cain’s wife isn’t named, but she is mentioned, and the name of her firstborn son is recorded. Further down the line, Lamech, Cain’s fifth generation descendant, and two of his wives are named, as are their children. Cain’s line dead ended with the flood. So, with all this documentation, isn’t it inconsistent and illogical that additional children born to Adam and Eve go unnamed, that they aren’t even lumped together in some sort of group designation? I mean, men are great and all, but they can’t carry on the species by themselves. Does it seem reasonable that the first generation of girls would have been overlooked entirely? Or do they remain unnamed because Adam and Eve had literally three male children like 3:16 indicates? Were unnamed female children unnecessary because there were other created women involved in populating the earth? After God gave Eve her punishment of only three sons, other created people were necessary in order to meet His own mandate to multiply and subdue. Do additional created women remain unidentified and unnamed because God knew the flood was coming and preserved only the line from Adam to Noah? The same could be said about any unnamed daughters, BUT they fail to answer the other questions involved and they contradict 3:16. Additional created people satisfy all criteria. God knew in advance that Eve would convince Adam to sin against Him. It’s not like He was blindsided by it, so having other created people ready by the end of day six was not a problem for Almighty God. Finally, I CANNOT find a single place in scripture which explicitly states that God created ONLY Adam and Eve (NT references coming). It just doesn’t exist, and like I said earlier, man being defined as a species and the use of the plural pronoun ‘them,’ when combined with other scriptural evidence, not only allows for additional created people but calls for them.
Eleven: In light of the scriptural evidence I’ve provided, the Bible also clearly states in Genesis 5:4 that Adam had other sons and daughters. Eve is NOT included in this verse as having delivered any of them. Isn’t it odd that, after having just documented the birth of Seth, it isn’t stated that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters, but only that Adam did? For this reason, and 3:16, I think it’s very possible that Adam was siring children with other created women, and since none of them are named, none of their offspring are named. It’s a very consistent presentation from a documentation standpoint. They were put here to multiply and subdue the earth, NOT to serve as a bloodline for Jesus Christ, like Seth was, or to play any part in the fall of man. Additional created people make complete sense.
Twelve: While I’m sure Adam felt bad for Eve regarding the loss of their son, and, no doubt, grieved himself for a time, he’d been given the command to be fruitful and multiply. Find me a man anywhere who wouldn’t glory in this directive especially if additional created women were involved and the ‘bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh’ wasn’t capable of producing children. Did Eve’s desire, the longing to run after her husband include that she was vying for his attention with other women? Sure, why not? Jealously is very worrisome. The only answer I have regarding the timing of Seth’s birth is that God still had to produce a family name through which the Messiah would come, and at this time, He evidently thought Eve had suffered enough for her sin. Not only does 3:16 describe Seth as the third child born to Adam and Eve, but literally defines Eve as the mother through whom the Messiah would eventually come. This makes Eve the mother of all the living both physically and spiritually. God’s Word always unfolds as He says it will.
VI.Other Considerations for Additional Created People:
Adam. What I present in this study does nothing to dilute the truth that Adam was literally the first created man (Genesis 1:27/1 Corinthians 15:45/1 Timothy 2:13). Nothing changes that. Here’s more evidence for my position regarding additional created people. I issue another WARNING because the original Greek is very different from what we read in modern translations:
Acts 17:25b-27 states that “He is giving (1325 defined as ‘to give, bring forth’) life and breath and all (3956 defined as ‘all, any, every, the whole, the same definition applies to ‘all’ each time in this scripture) things to all. And He made (4160 defined as ‘to make or do in a very wide application; abide, appoint’) every nation (nation 1484 defined as ‘a race (as of the same habit) ie, a tribe specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication ‘pagan’’) of men (444 defined as ‘man faced, a human being’) of one (1520 defined as ‘one, a (-n, any, certain) blood(129 defined as ‘blood, (specifically the atoning blood of Christ, by implication; bloodshed, also kindred’) to live (2730 defined as ‘to house permanently, to reside’) on all the face (4383 defined as ‘the visage, front, surface’) of the earth, ordaining (3724 defined as ‘to mark out or bound, to appoint) fore-appointed seasons and boundaries of their dwelling, to seek (2212 defined as ‘to see, to worship God’) the Lord, if perhaps they might feel (5584 defined as ‘to manipulate, ie; to verify by contact’) after Him, though indeed He not being far (3112 defined as ‘at a distance’) from each (1538 defined as ‘each or every, each (one), every (man, one, woman) one of us.” Because this passage is lengthy, I will restate it plugging in the definitions of the Greek words: And God is bringing forth life and breath and everything to the whole of mankind. God appointed every race or pagan tribe of human being to the one atoning blood of Christ to reside on the surface of the earth, appointing seasons and boundaries of their dwelling, to worship the Lord, if perhaps they might verify Him by contact because He is at no distance from each and every one of us. Innumerable people pull Acts 17:26 out of context and use it as proof that Adam and Eve were the only created people because modern translations state “from one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth.” This one sentence is used to substantiate that all men descend from one bloodline, that of Adam. The original Greek clearly shows that the one man is Jesus Christ, and the one blood is His atoning blood which was shed on our behalf. The rest of this passage, all the way through verse 31, goes on to explain about the need for repentance, the coming judgment of the world by the one whom God raised from the dead. Acts 17:26 has NOTHING to do with Adam as the single bloodline of all people. It has everything to do with the fact that salvation comes to all pagans through the atoning blood of the one man, Jesus Christ! So, why is Acts 17:26 interpreted to mean that through Adam every nation was made? Because it’s ASSUMED that only two people existed! That’s why. If you don’t believe me, read the next paragraph. Even Answers in Genesis (AiG), the leading experts on the book of Genesis, states, “all made of one blood (Acts 17:26) and “If He had made others, these people would not have been able to be saved from their sins, since only descendants of Adam can be saved-that’s why it was so important for Jesus to be Adam’s descendant.” https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/cain/who-was-cains-wife/).
Of course, Jesus is Adam’s descendant. There’s no question about that. Nothing that I’ve presented in this study alters that truth in any way. Jesus, as a human, had to have his journey and purpose as Messiah documented, so a blood line was paramount. His bloodline establishes his earthly, human, presence and serves as an avenue to His fulfillment of OT prophecies. No argument here. But I find nothing in scripture which supports the statement that only descendants of Adam could be saved. AiG failed to give a scripture reference for their statement which probably indicates they don’t have one. And we’ve already proven that Acts 17:26 does not mean what they assume it does. If AiG is alluding to the concept of a kinsman redeemer, that Jesus could only save people because He was a blood relative, then yes, I agree. Jesus is a blood relative to every person who has ever walked this earth, not because He’s a descendant of Adam, but because He came to earth as a human with blood coursing through his body. Please reference the definition of ‘blood’ from the scripture above. I’ve reprinted it here, with relevant emphasis, for your convenience: “blood (129 defined as ‘blood, (specifically the atoning blood of Christ, by implication; bloodshed, also KINDRED’). Kindred, as in Kinsman Redeemer. Jesus is our Kinsman Redeemer because He was a human, not because He was from the bloodline of Adam. This is so important, please keep reading. Countless scriptures tell us that Jesus came to save ‘all’ people (1 John 4:1-9, Titus 2;11, Romans 1:18-20/3:20-22; Matthew 28:19; 1 Timothy 2:4 to name a few) and John 3:16, among others, teaches that anyone who believes in the name of Jesus is saved. Nowhere, in scripture, do I find the statement that a person must be the descendant of Adam to be saved and anyone who isn’t is out of luck. I can’t find a single verse which states this, much less, corroborating verses from both testaments. So, why does AiG make this statement? Because it’s ASSUMED everyone is from Adam’s bloodline! Now that we’ve dealt with Acts 17:26 and AiG’s claim that only descendants of Adam can be saved, we must address the salvation of additional created people and their offspring. Though some who died in the flood were Adam’s descendants, many of them would not have been blood relatives of Adam. Did God create an unknown number of people and doom them, and their children, to damnation because they died in Noah’s flood? Were they beyond the reach of a Savior? The answer is ‘No’ and God’s Word tells us how their salvation was made possible. Genesis 5:6-31 picks up after the death of Adam and gives the lineage to Noah through the line of Seth. This period of time covered roughly 1,650 years, and everyone born during this time, whether of Adam or not, are those who perished in the flood. Genesis 6:5-13 tells us the people of the world were evil, corrupt, and filled with violence, so God sent the flood to destroy everyone but Noah and his family. Over in 1 Peter 3:18-20, we read, “Because even Christ once suffered concerning sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; indeed being put to death in the flesh, made alive in the Spirit; in which also (3739 defined as who, which, what/1722 defined as fixed position in time/1519 defined as to or into a place, time or purpose/ 1537 defined as from, out of place, time, purpose; completion), going in to the spirits (4151 defined as ‘a (human) the rational soul’) in prison, He proclaimed (2784 defined as ‘to herald divine truth )the gospel’)) to disobeying ones (544 defined as ‘disbelieve (willfully and perversely), when once the long-suffering of God waited ( 1544 defined as ‘to eject’) in the days of Noah, an ark having been prepared in which a few, that is eight souls , were saved through water.” See also, 1 Peter 4:6. This verse tells us that Jesus, the just, suffered one time for the sins of the unjust, that He would bring us to God. Jesus died in the flesh (as a human) and was made alive in God’s Spirit. The rational human souls of those who willfully disbelieved were held in prison. Because God ejected His patience during the days of Noah, Jesus went into the prison, at a fixed position in time, for the purpose of heralding the divine truth of the gospel message and He went out from there having completed His purpose. Nowhere does this verse say that a redeemed person had to be a descendant of Adam's. It only states that the person be unjust! Does that description miss anyone? Those who perished in the flood, created or birthed, of Adam’s bloodline or not, had the same opportunity to accept Jesus as Savior that we have. God overlooks no one!
EVE. It’s easy to see that God took THE specific rib from THE specific man and formed Eve (Genesis 2:22), making her THE specific woman, THE one in the garden. Eve was THE first woman who gave birth to the first child to draw breath, making her the first mother. I know this because the birth of the first child is documented in 4:1. Since Genesis is the documentation of the origin of the species it logically follows that if a different child had been born first, then that birth would have been the one documented. Because of the flood, Eve literally remains the mother of people because Seth is the child through whom Noah, and the rest of the world, descends. My position does nothing to diminish Eve as the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20; 3605 ‘all’ as defined as ‘the whole, all, any, every/2416 in Strong’s defined as life or living, literally or figuratively). This verse does not say Eve is the mother of only all living people. It states Eve is the mother of all living. This manifests one figurative application of the Hebrew definition of living in that Eve was the mother of all animals, sea creatures and birds in addition to people. An additional figurative application is Eve as the mother of all who accept Jesus as Savior for Jesus’ bloodline goes back to Seth as well. God’s word is REMARKABLE!! Anyone created after Adam and Eve do nothing to change the scriptural truths specific to them. Additional created people do not affect the Garden of Eden in any way. Adam and Eve were first, they were in the Garden and everything transpired just as Genesis tells us. Adam and Eve were responsible for the first sin and once God handed down the punishment of death it spread globally, affecting all of creation.
Punishment. As I stated earlier, I do not, personally, believe that the punishment for THE woman, Eve, was assigned to all women throughout time. The Hebrew language just does not support this application. The loss of perfection is responsible for the pain involved in childbirth, just as it’s responsible for all pain. Eve’s longing for her husband, and that he would rule over her, is directly connected to her childbearing as 3:16 clearly states. Her longing or desire for her husband was rooted in her inability to carry a child. That is not true of every woman! Adam’s rule over Eve was that it was his job to get her pregnant. Adam’s ‘rule’ or ‘reign’ over Eve was not intended as an application for all husbands lording kingship over all wives. The Bible does not teach this. Yes, 1 Corinthians 11:1-3 states that “Christ is the head of every man, and man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” However, this verse is placed in the larger context of imitating Christ. It is not placed within a context for the punishment of sin and should not be applied to the punishments handed down in the Garden. To do so is the misapplication of scripture. The following scriptures also speak of imitating Christ but have nothing to with punishment: Ephesians 5:21-33, 1 Timothy 3:4-12, 1 Peter 3:7, Colossians 3:18-19, and Galatians 3:28-29. When we look at the punishment handed to Adam the same holds true. Going back to the Hebrew for the words God spoke to Adam during his reprimand, we learn that life would no longer be the same for Adam either. Genesis 2:15 tells us that God initially placed Adam in the Garden to work and keep it. This was before the fall! God’s intent from the very beginning was for Adam, therefore mankind, to work. After all, God worked for six days during creation, man was made in His image, so it’s logical that work was in place for man. So Adam’s punishment wasn’t that God forced him to work, but that he would have to spread out over the span of fields, and till the ground to produce the food he’d eat while combating thorns, thistles and the sweat of his brow. God was telling Adam that nothing else would be handed to him like it was in the perfection of the Garden, where no thorns or thistles existed, where no tilling was necessary. How many people do you know who spread out over the fields and literally grow everything they eat? I mean, no trips to the grocery or farmer’s market, they personally produce through the sweat of their brow all the fruits, vegetables, and meats they consume? Remember that Genesis 4 tells us that Abel, prior to his death, was a shepherd. After Abel’s death, Cain became a vagabond and fugitive, so it doesn’t sound like he spread out over the fields and grew his own food. He didn’t even have a place to call home! Cain’s descendants included a city builder, a cattle rancher, a musician, and a metal worker, so none of these men were farmers like Adam. God’s punishment of spreading out across fields and producing his own food was specific to Adam. I’ve gone to the trouble to explain all of this because, here again, it differs from what I was taught as a child. I was taught that because of Adam and Eve’s sin man must now work for a living and that women must suffer in childbirth because those were the punishments handed to Adam and Eve by God. This is NOT what scripture teaches! To learn the truth of the original language just amazes me. What gets me, and here I speak with only my opinion, is that modern translations seem to take their cues from the King James Version of the Bible as opposed to going back to the original Hebrew. I am in no way a credentialed Bible scholar. I am not an expert in Hebrew by any means, but I can sit in my office and plug in the original definitions of the Hebrew words. Now, I’m willing to admit that I won’t get it right every time, but can you honestly hold the position that what modern translations say and what I've written here is merely a difference in verb tenses or the use of Hebraic idioms? Am I being unfair when I say that Bible translators could do a far better job? All of this causes me to wonder if some agenda was in play when ‘modern translations’ were written. This includes the KJV (1611 A.D.) for it’s modern when compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls (150 B.C -70 A.D.), I know the KJV wasn’t the first English translation of the Hebrew, but it’s the oldest translation I have available to me, and, today, it’s the one most die-hard Believers hold to as being the ‘true’ word of God. I did concede that KJV is the only one of the five in question which addressed ‘increased sorrow and conception,’ but it also switched out the word ‘sons’ for children. Why? Because it was assumed that only two people were created and in order to ‘multiply and fill the earth’ translators had to leave room for offspring of both genders, so they ‘fixed’ it. I find this very upsetting. Countless people would have been studying the holes in the origin of man if translators had only translated what was written as opposed to squeaking out a translation that isn’t supported by the original Hebrew! I can’t imagine calculating the number of men, both Believers and non-Believers, throughout time, who have taken this verse about Adam ‘ruling’ over Eve and used it to justify the abuse and oppression of the women in their lives. Some of these men would never set foot inside a church, or pick up a Bible, to learn everything God’s word has to say about how to treat wives, but they know this verse and that’s all that matters, so they run with it. This fact makes me ill. The devastation and pain caused by this egregious misunderstanding of this verse, the toll it’s taken on the hearts, minds and bodies of women down through history breaks my heart. This is an overt example of why truth is so very important. Anyone who reads this will either be upset with me or will be inspired like I was to learn what God actually says in scripture. I hope it’s the latter. If not, so be it. If the punishment handed down to Eve is removed from my argument for the creation of additional people, there is still ample evidence to doubt the creation of only Adam and Eve: The “Anyone, All” Cain feared, the numerous uses of “THE” singular article, the lack of names and/or mention of other children attributed to Eve, the sudden appearance of Cain’s wife who is of childbearing age, the difference in language between 1:26 and 1:27 (from ‘man’ (mankind) to THE man which corroborates the singular article), Eve’s overt and documented gratitude concerning the birth of a boy child after she’d supposedly had many others, God’s preoccupation with man’s obedience to subduing and ruling over the earth, that incest would have been mandated by a God who abhors sexual immorality because it’s a sin against oneself (1 Corinthians 6:18), and the documentation that Adam sired other sons and daughters without the mention of Eve. So, this begs the question of why Genesis 3:16 is translated as if only two people were created. This verse, when translated objectively, is the cherry on the top of the evidence I’ve listed here. For the life of me, the only reason I can find for scholars having missed what is right in front of us for hundreds of years, is that they wanted to. NOT COOL. Since Moses did such a remarkable job of writing the Torah, doesn’t he deserve a better effort from the rest of us? For that matter, doesn't anyone searching for God deserve better? I’m just a simple arm-chair Bible scholar, one who doesn’t believe she’s the first person to have arrived at this conclusion. Now, I may be the first to publish it online and put my name to it, and that’s just fine. However, a cursory Google search, while showing many crazy and unsubstantiated things about Genesis, and the origin of man in particular, does not show that this specific topic has been addressed, other than to say Adam and Eve were the ONLY created people. For the life of me, I don’t understand why. This is far too straightforward to have been missed accidentally. Has no one ever seriously questioned the origin of Cain’s wife? Have none of the world class apologists ever taken seriously the question so beloved by atheists? I find this absolutely remarkable. If, perhaps someone reading this knows of some other person or site teaching the same thing, one not located by my search efforts, please tell me! I would appreciate it so very much. So, what happened in the Garden, the punishment of Adam and Eve is not the legacy handed to the rest of us. Yes, perfection ended, bringing suffering to all mankind, but these verses state clearly that each person is accountable for themselves: Ezekiel 18:20, Romans 14:12, Matthew 12:36-37, Hebrews 4:13, and Revelation 20:12. When sin came to call, perfection ended and suffering began its universal reign. But these verses mean we do not answer for the sins of others, not even Adam and Eve. The difficulty of life is the result of sin, not of Adam and Eve’s respective punishments.
Atheists. As I stated earlier, my position of additional created people does away with the distasteful need for incest, even if, in the Garden, incest wasn’t what it is today because of the lack of cellular deterioration. While what I’ve presented here does require polygamy, something not forbidden in any manner by the Torah, the traditional position of only Adam and Eve includes polygamy, as well as, incest. I hate to admit it, but the atheists have a point. God’s word makes it very clear that sexual immorality is wrong. Why? The Bible tells us it’s a sin against one’s own body (1 Corinthians 6:18). One must wonder; does the lack of compromised genetic material intrinsically change incest? I just don’t see it. Sex is about much more than just the act itself. It involves the mind and soul of someone in addition to the body. After all, rape is different than consensual sex, isn’t it? This difference is the reason rape is a crime and consensual sex isn’t. So, as the atheists ask; why is incest wrong now but acceptable then? If God’s character is unchanging, how is it that something deemed sexually immoral today was acceptable then? How do we trust a God who flip flops regarding something as basic as His hatred of sin? Does an uncontaminated gene pool, the usual answer as to why incest was acceptable, do away with the emotional and spiritual aspects of incest, the damage it does? This position makes no sense. Is the ugliness of incest found only within the fear of producing genetically diminished offspring, or is it found within the violation of trust inherently placed among family members? It isn’t possible God protected young sisters supernaturally from such damage because He’d already removed the protective status of perfection. The atheists are right on this one. Christians can’t it both ways. Initially, I wanted to state that one’s belief regarding the origin of Cain’s wife does not bear on one’s salvation, but upon further reflection I can no longer honestly say such a thing. Here’s why: unless someone can point me to something I’ve overlooked, I’ve shown that believing in additional created people harms no aspect of scripture, but I do believe it’s quite possible for some to have turned from faith based on the traditional position of only Adam and Eve simply because of the incest argument. Isn’t it ironic that attempts to persuade people to faith through skewed translations failed for the same reason? How sad is that? How damaging has it been to atheists who might have believed if the definitions of the original languages had been respected? Now, I want to state here that keeping the atheists happy is of absolutely no concern to me. Had my study found no evidence of anything but sister wives, then sister wives it would have been. I’d have posted my findings just the same and worshiped God as God. It is a wonderful collateral blessing, though, to learn that the ugliness of incest and the damage it would have brought to the lives of countless young girls, was not mandated by God. He found a way to protect them even after perfection had ended and sin began its ugly reign. Praise God Almighty, for making a way even through the blackness of sin! God is good!
Conclusion. I’ve always been taught that Adam and Eve were the only two people God created on day six. Like I said, I never doubted it, but when it was shoved into my face that day by the atheist, I decided I wanted to know the truth. I never expected to find such glaring discrepancies in what I was taught and what the Bible says about the origin of mankind. No teacher I had in Sunday School, nor my parents, ever walked me through the missing parts of mankind’s creation. This isn’t intended as a criticism, it’s just a fact. I didn’t do it for my own kids. Until now, I wasn’t aware it was needed. Someone with a bigger brain than mine could convince me I’m wrong IF they use scripture to do it, but I think I’ve got a preponderance of the evidence that Christendom is skating on this subject. I say this because of how modern translations interpret the Hebrew language for Genesis 3:16 to say that Eve would have children with intense pain and suffering. What this lack of literal application says to me is that it’s assumed, and always has been, that Adam and Eve were the ONLY two people created, so the interpretation of the Hebrew language was skewed to that end. To accommodate this objective, anyone who reads the account of mankind’s creation is to overlook the glaring holes in the narrative and take it on faith. NOT COOL. Like I said in my opening paragraph, it is remarkable what you learn when you study the Bible for yourself and stop taking the word of other people. This is the very reason God gave us His Word and all the incredible reference materials which make possible the mining of the Bible! The missing parts don’t make me doubt my faith, not in the least, but they do make me doubt what I was taught as a kid, what kids are still taught in Sunday School. I’m one of those odd people who believe in the literal translation of the creation of everything, so it stands to reason I feel the same about this aspect of scripture. My new position on the subject is the product of some four weeks of mostly 8 hour days. Can I prove what I now believe to be true? This study is the only ‘proof’ I have, and many will reject it simply because it flies in the face of tradition and makes them uncomfortable. I admit, it’s a massive break with Christian tradition. What do I care? Tradition regarding the origin of Cain’s wife can’t save me from anything. It can’t save anyone else either. Jesus told us that truth is what frees us (John 8:32). I say, “Bring on truth!” Isn’t it absolutely remarkable how many questions are answered when we let God’s word speak as He intended all along? So, no, I can’t ‘prove’ my position with 100% certainty, but I’m now well enough informed to know that anyone who holds to the traditional belief can’t prove theirs either. I’ve just shown I can shoot holes clean through it. I can honestly say that my position answers far more questions than the traditional one and it sits in perfect alignment with the rest of the Bible. My position on this topic does NOTHING to embrace theistic evolution, nor does it allegorize Genesis 2. I’ve also demonstrated, using the original Greek for the linchpin New Testament verse, that it isn’t the linchpin everyone believes it to be. It can’t be used to support the traditional position because it doesn’t speak of Adam’s blood but of Christ’s! It’s fair to say that it takes faith to believe either way. It takes faith to believe anything God tells us because His story is simply so remarkable. God tells us we’re to have ready a reason for the hope that lives within us (1 Peter 3:15). The reason for this is the non-believers who want their questions answered. So, when the morally smug atheists cry ‘foul’ because a ‘moral’ God would never make incest necessary, there IS a plausible alternative. I’ll go so far to say a probable alternative. This study sure convinced me, and that’s the last thing I expected. This truth of scripture, the origin of Cain’s wife, is radically important to know. It’s probably not enough to ever convince an atheist, but it’s a start, and that’s reason enough to try.
The Bible is full of such mysteries and vast knowledge that no human will ever consume it all. We aren’t smart enough, nor do we live long enough. Yet we must be about God’s work. We can never explain everything to the satisfaction of someone who’s determined not to believe, but we are UNaware of the good our knowledge can do, how it might help someone turn the corner toward faith, so we must try. We must love our neighbor, and, let’s face it, the internet makes everyone our neighbor. God doesn’t give us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love and self-control. There’s nothing to fear when accepting the challenge of scripture’s truth. When we embrace the truth of scripture our faith is grown because we see, one more time, the remarkable cohesion of God’s Word and we get another glimpse of His holiness, purity and goodness. We must never compromise the truth of scripture to persuade someone, but show ourselves approved to God, workers who need not be ashamed, who rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). That’s my goal for every study I undertake, and this one is no exception. I’ve stated my case without misusing scripture, and I’ve shown how my position agrees with other scriptures in the Bible, of both testaments. If anyone disagrees with me, you can email me at email@example.com but come prepared with scriptural support for your position.
Why doesn’t the Bible just tell us God created other people? We already know He wants us mining the truth of His word (Proverbs 2:1-11). Beyond that, I can’t say for certain, but is it really so difficult to think that God would keep something like this from us? I mean, how well has mankind handled what He has told us? God is so much bigger than we understand. I think it’s safe to say that what we do know is dwarfed by what we don’t. After all, Deuteronomy 29: 29 tells us that God has secrets which belong to only Him. Jesus said that the parables He told could be understood by only those people with the willingness to understand (Luke 8:9-10, the disciples understood because they asked Jesus questions). You have to want to hear truth, or it will blow right past you. Learning truth takes humility, work, and time. Thousands of people who listened to Jesus preach missed salvation because they couldn’t be bothered to seek Him as if He were buried treasure (Proverbs 2:1-11). People today miss Him for the same reason. I can’t say for certain why God does many of the things He does; only that His thoughts and ways are higher than anything human shortcomings can truly understand. Why did He leave the holes in the story as I’ve explained them? I think the reason is three-fold; One, God left room for us to mine the truth regarding the first week of creation. Of course, this means there’s mining to be done with regards to any topic the Bible teaches. We really must learn what the Bible says instead of blindly trusting modern translations to tell us. Two, any genetic material contributed by other created people is ultimately irrelevant. Because of the flood, Adam and Eve are the literal first parents back to whom every person can trace their ancestry. Three, God consistently calls Adam THE man because he was set apart from everyone else as the first human in history, he is in the garden when the other men aren’t, and because his contribution is the one which matters most, not only for the fact that through him sin entered the world, but also, that through him redemption came in the person of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:19).
Thanks to J. Plenio for the beautiful artwork! Your pictures are amazing!