Who Was the Wife of Cain?

A closer look at one of the most enigmatic women in Genesis

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published in 2013.—Ed.


Mary Joan Winn Leith explores the identity of the wife of Cain.

While there are many examples of strong and inspiring men and women in Genesis, the book is also packed with stories of dysfunctional families, which is evidenced from the very beginning with the first family—Adam, Eve and their two children, Cain and Abel. In no short amount of time—just 16 verses after announcing the birth of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4—Cain has murdered his younger brother and is consequently exiled from the land. In theory, this would have dropped the world’s population from four down to three. The narrative continues in Genesis 4 with Cain settling in the land of Nod and having children with his wife. Who did Cain marry? Where did she come from? Are there other people outside of Eden? In the November/December 2013 issue of BAR, Mary Joan Winn Leith addresses these questions and explores the identity of the wife of Cain in “Who Did Cain Marry?”

Given that the wife of Cain is only mentioned once in the Old Testament, she would not be counted among the famous women in Genesis. Nevertheless, her identity is still worth investigating. Who did Cain marry? Mary Joan Winn Leith first explores the traditional Jewish and Christian answers that contend that the wife of Cain was another daughter of Adam and Eve. According to this reasoning, Cain would have married his sister—one of Abel’s twin sisters no less, according to the Genesis Rabbah.

In the free eBook Exploring Genesis: The Bible’s Ancient Traditions in Context, discover the cultural contexts for many of Israel’s latest traditions. Explore Mesopotamian creation myths, Joseph’s relationship with Egyptian temple practices and three different takes on the location of Ur of the Chaldeans, the birthplace of Abraham.

A different answer emerges when Leith turns from the traditional responses about the wife of Cain and delves into modern scholarship. Looking at recent work done by sociologists and anthropologists, she notes that when forming a group identity, we tend to define ourselves by how we differ from other groups. In the ancient Near East, sometimes those outside of a particular group or society were considered less “human” by those inside of the group. An important factor that contributes to this mindset is geography. People in the ancient Near East typically stayed close to home, which affected their perception of the world. Surely they knew that other groups of people—potential enemies or allies—existed far away, but if they never came into contact with these groups, what did they matter?

Mary Joan Winn Leith suggests that while the Israelite storyteller knew that other men and women in Genesis existed outside of Eden, they did not matter to him or factor into his account. He was concerned with Adam and Eve and their progeny—not those outside of this group.

Who did Cain marry? There are many answers. For Leith’s explanation of the identity of the wife of Cain—one of the often-overlooked women in Genesis—see her full column.


BAS Library Members: Read the full column “Who Did Cain Marry?” by Mary Joan Winn Leith in the November/December 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library member yet? Sign up today.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on November 15, 2013.


Related reading in Bible History Daily:

What Happened to Cain in the Bible?

Cain and Abel in the Bible
Bible Review’s Supporting Roles by Elie Wiesel

The Adam and Eve Story: Eve Came From Where?


Posted in Hebrew Bible.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Add Your Comments

199 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. STEPHEN says


  2. Lilith says

    Big letters don’t lend credence to obsolete tenets. Daughters before Seth are phoney, just as the rest of the traditional exegesis.

  3. Lilith says

    PS: There have already been named countries even in Adams times (Gen. 2.10-14). Pretty much every name has a meaning, including country names.

  4. Ben says

    Consider the FACT that today’s genetic diversity DID NOT begin with only Two individuals.

    You MUST either accept the existence of other Humans outside of Eden or abandon your faith and reason.

    There is no other option.

  5. Lilith says

    Thats right, so forget about all the creationistic crap about “kosher” genes and sibling incest and make friends with “unholy” preadamites, coadamites and “wicked” evolution (Gen. 2:4)!

    Mwahahaha 😉

  6. Margaret says

    Cains wife was and ape…

  7. JustJim says

    I’m a follower of Christ and love God. I’m definitely an advocate in the “case for God.” In His wisdom, there are some things a bit difficult to reconcile. So, I’m not sure I completely follow your logic, in all due respect. Seth and the host of Adam & Eve’s children were subsequent to Cain’s marriage–as in it couldn’t be possible that Cain married a sister. But I must add, “The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man”–it would take us entering the raw presence of God to seek His counsel. Sounds too spiritual I know, but there is a greater reality in God we haven’t entered into yet.

  8. nice says

    Hello i want to know what language used by adam and eve? Im very curious about it.thank you.

  9. Pier says

    Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, Golden Legend by Jacopo da Varazze, Historia Scholastica in Gen 4:1 (PL 198, 1076) by Peter Comestor, Seder ha-Dorot: Cain married his sister Calmana and Abel married another sister Delbora

  10. Mohamed says

    In the Islamic tradition that comes from prophet’s sons , Shia , there is another view regarding Cane’s wife . She is Nymph . And it is not only Cane who got married but also other sons of Adam ,peace be upon him , like Sheeth and Yafeth who also got to another nymphs .

  11. geovanni says

    Remenber thatgod cursed cain by putting a mark on his face ,no one could kill him ,no one else ,had more people edens surroundings

  12. dustin says

    Why does BAR continually post heretical articles? Suggesting there were other people groups implies the reason for the suffering and death is not mans sin. Jesus appears to believe Genesis literally since He quoted from the book nearly 30 times. Please be fearful of adding to the Bible, especially when your opinion arrogantly dismisses the Bible in error.

  13. RABBI says

    Why can we not accept and understand that our Jewish-Hebrew Creation Myths are no less sacred, nor more sacred, no less historical, nor more so, than the Creation Myths of Native American Indians or African Tribes.

  14. Ken says

    My Chinese friend, a civil engineer there who was raised atheist & became an ardent follower of Jesus & Bible student after her wakening experience with Him followed by a vivid dream of Him summoning her to faith, had no problem with this question. She looked rather nonchalant & answered, obviously Cain’s wife came from the people God created in His image in Genesis 1.

  15. kenny says

    I’ll want to respond to some comments. First, both Genesis one and two have one male and one female. In Gen. 1 man is told to subdue and rule over the earth and that he plants and that animals also ate plants. So, he was to take care of plant life for he and the animals. In Genesis 2 God puts Adam to work with plants. In Gen. 1 God tells man to rule over the animal life and in Gen. 2 God puts him in charge of naming animals (an act of dominion). Genesis 5:1-3 combines the name Adam (Gen. 2) with the creation language of Genesis 1. Lastly, Jesus in Mark 10:6-8 combines the language of Genesis 1 and 2. Thus, these are the same two humans in both chapters of Genesis.

  16. kenny says

    There is nothing in Genesis to indicate that Cain married some unknown female. The ending of Genesis 5:4 does not indicate the timing of the birth of sisters anymore than “and was evening and was morning” at the end of each creation day, means that they occurred after the events of the day. All Genesis 4:17 says is that after leaving the land of Eden, Cain and his wife had children. It says nothing about when or where they met. The best answer is he married a female relative.
    Cain is worried about someone finding and killing him, so God gives him a protective mark. Who would and why would someone look for Cain to do him harm? Who would know the meaning of the sign? The context indicates that someone who knew Cain and what what he had done would seek him out. To know the meaning of the mark indicates someone familiar with Cain and what God had done for him. This seems to foreshadow the blood avenger, who was usually a family member. So, there is no indication of people beyond his family.

  17. kenny says

    As far as population genetics ruling out just two original humans, there have been a number of studies on sheep, horses, etc. which started with a known population and then many generations later, their genetic diversity was evaluated. Consistently, the calculations overestimated the size of the founding population. Over the years the estimates of the founding human population has been falling, from millions to just hundreds. We also have no Biblical date for Adam. Moses skips 6-9 generations between Kohath and Amram. There are about 13 generations missing between Obed and Jesse, even though Obed begat Jesse. If we compare the description of the land of Eden with recent research of the middle east, during the last ice age, we find a match. The Persian Gulf did not exist, because of lower sea levels. This left the area as a lush oasis surrounded by dryer regions. There are radar images of two massive river systems that met in the gulf area along with the Tigris and Euphrates. One flowed out of the mountains of western Arabia where there is gold and trees which produce a myrrh like resin. This matches the descriptions of the land of Havilah. The other flowed from Oman and Yemen. This fits Cush, originally populated by dark skinned people. So, Adam and Eve date back about 100,000 years.

  18. Angeeikyaa says

    It’s so difficult to answer this question,but let’s be honest that the Bible was written by God’s own prophets whom were filled with the Holy Spirit to pass a short, brief but concise massage. By this I believe that God wanted us to know that for every innocent blood shed, you must not
    go unpunished. Cain really got married from the descendants of Adam and Eve but not Immediately he was sent on exile, although he knew that Adam must fulfill the rule to born and fill the world so he went wandering waiting for her soul mate who the spirit of God never cared about as He was not pleased with his devilish act. Note, marriage can go irrespective of age difference, a man can marry a girl young enough to be their daughter.

  19. Lilith says

    To answer this question isn’t difficult at all. Holy Spirit or no Holy Spirit, Gen. 1 isn’t telling about ONE male and ONE female. Zakar & neqebah are generic terms. Numbers aren’t called until Gen. 2-3, which tells from one man (isch) and one woman (ischah). Please note that isch & ischah have different meanings as zakar & neqebah.

    100,000 years ago, there were only preadamites. With the help of the biblical Genealogie, Adam and Eve can be dated 5500 b. C., the middle of Neolithic period. The Persian Gulf were created by Noah’s flood, an aftermath of the last glacial period.

  20. kenny says

    In Genesis one both male and female are singular in Hebrew. That’s two people. Again, Genesis 5:1-3 shows us that Adam of Genesis two is the male of Genesis one. I also pointed out why you can not just add the numbers to get to a date for Adam. For example, Moses skips generations in his own genealogy. Only by comparing other Biblical genealogies from the same time period do we figure it out. Luke 3:36 tells us of a Cainan which Genesis 11 leaves out. There is no way to tell how much time is involved in Genesis 5 and 11. Humans have been around for about 100,000 years. You said preadamites, are you a gap-theorist? If so, you might want to check out Genesis 1:2 which uses a waw disjunctive. This means that verse two is further explaining what earth looked like at its creation. It rules out a gap between verses one and two. Lastly, there was no global flood. The flood of Genesis could not be global, because God said that on day three He set a boundary for the waters, so that the earth would not return to Genesis 1:2 (Job 38:8-11; Psalm 104:5-9; Proverbs 8:27-29). Each of these are talking about the creation week. They establish that earth was covered by water at its creation and that God set a boundary, the land masses, which the water could never again cover over. This is also referred to in Jeremiah 5:22. Not until after the Tower of Babel did humans migrate outside of the Arabian peninsula.

  21. Steve says

    WOW, I don’y know who is right or wrong on this stream, bit it is wonderful to read so many knowledgable people discussing this important issue. My hat’s off to all of you for this informative reading.

  22. Lilith says

    In Gen. 1.26-27, “ādām” is mentioned in singular AND plural. It’s an appellative name for the entire mankind, as already explained repeatedly. The preadamites have nothing to do with a “gap theory”. They’re just the human beings from the first chapter. The gap theory is unnecessary, because the creation “days” are already long periods, so it don’t need another one in Gen. 1.2.
    The genealogy numbers reveal a rough timeframe, but you can’t elongate that to 100,000 years. Especially since Adam and Eve don’t belong to the ultimative beginning of mankind.
    Of course, Noah’s flood was local. It restricted to the Near East, like almost everything from Gen. 2:5 on. So it couldn’t harm the rest of the World (population).

    It’s easy to verify, who’s right and who’s wrong. Every dictionary can be Testament to it

  23. kenny says

    Hi Lilith,
    I see we agree on a lot, but adam is singular in verses 26 and 27. It is understood as plural, because the verb “to rule,” in verse 26, is plural “let them rule.” Why would it be plural? Because, two people are more than one. Two people equals mankind. Like I said earlier, male and female are each singular as well.
    Genesis 5:1-3 links the male of chapter one with Adam of chapter two. So, yes, Adam and Eve are Biblically linked to the origin of humanity.
    As far as dating Adam, there is no way to limit gaps in the genealogies. We find genealogies where father and son are literal father and son. Others, including in Moses’ line, where they are 6-9, even 13 generations apart. Here we must rely on general revelation.

  24. kenny says

    I would also add that the descrptions of the land of Eden, its garden and the surrounding lands only make sense during the last ice age.

  25. Jae says

    According to Genesis 6, sons of God married to human girls. They have the same body. But their souls were different. Cain was the son of God. His wife was human. Afterall, Cain went to hell and appeared within the body of Anneliese Michel.

  26. Lilith says

    Adam and Eve arise in a completely different way than the humans of the 6. “day” of creation. The preadamites descend from the terrestrial animals, as the verb asah in Gen. 1.26 proves. Their creation in God’s image in Gen. 1.27 refers to the typical human Features like intelligence. The appellative Form is also used for the other creatures and plants, without any creationist ever demanded only two individuals at the beginning of each kind.
    Adam grew out of natural reproduction. The same verb in Gen. 2.7 is also used in Jer. 1:5, where it descripts the arising of Jeremia.
    Not only that zakar & neqebah have different meanings as isch & ischah, the preadamic way of life is also different from the adamic. The preadamic rulership over the earth isn’t agriculture like in Gen. 2.15 (arets ≠ adamah). The preadamites were transient hunters-gatherers.
    The gaps in the genealogies are already limited by elongating the life ages. A human can’t live over 900 years, that’s obviously impossible. The beginning of Gen. 5 is just a summary from the preadamites (Verse 1-2) to Adam (verse 3) and so on. Once again the Focus is on the naming of the entire mankind, in the first two verses. No woman got the male name Adam.
    The Garden of Eden was in South Mesopotamia, at the end of the last glacial period, that’s right.

  27. Lilith says

    PS: The expulsion from Paradise refers to the Neolithic passage from hunters-gatherers to agriculturalists.

  28. kenny says

    First a couple of internal contradictions in what you wrote:
    “Adam and Eve arise in a completely different way than the humans of the 6. “day” of creation. The preadamites descend from the terrestrial animals…”
    “Adam grew out of natural reproduction.”
    In the first statement you propose evolution which, like the last statement uses natural reproduction. So, Adam would have come from the animals as well. So, where is the difference in your model?
    Later you say:
    “PS: The expulsion from Paradise refers to the Neolithic passage from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists.” But, earlier you said:
    “The preadamic rulership over the earth isn’t agriculture like in Gen. 2:15…”
    So, which is it? Did agriculture begin in Paradise (Gen. 2:15) or after the expulsion?
    I do not hold to an evolutionary model.

  29. kenny says

    What does an appellative form verses a proper name have to do with what I have said?

    I have written a longer response to what you said in your last post, but here I want to stick to the single pair discussion. In Genesis 1:26 we have man without the article which virtually everyone agrees, here, refers to mankind/humanity. But, in verse 27 we find “God created THE MAN” and then it says “He created HIM, male and female He created THEM.” In Genesis 1-5 “ha adam” always refers to either “the man” (the individual named Adam) or the proper name Adam, in other words a single individual. The “HIM” always refers to an individual. So, just like Genesis two, we have a single man created first, and then a single pair of individuals (one male and one female).

    Genesis 5:1-3 and Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-8 agree that Genesis one and two are referring to the same two individuals.

    Lastly, we find zakar and neqebah and ish and ishsha are used interchangeably for the individual mating pairs which entered the ark. Both refer to single pairs, not groups of male and female animals. Therefore, there is no reason to assume they the words refer to different humans in chapters one and two.

  30. Lilith says

    It’s easy to understand, after all. The preadamites descend from the terrestrial animal by being prepared from them (yes, we call this evolution nowadays) and via his parents Adam is connected with both the (non-human) animals and the preadamites. Natural reproduction is both a coefficient and a product of evolution.

    Isch & ischah are used for humans only, while zakar & neqebah are used for humans AND non-human animals. That’s another meaningful evidence for the animalistic origin of the first humans. In the Flood Report, it’s pointed out, that It’s about two individuals of each kind. In the creation Report, that is not the case. Him and them are both plural, him is just a formal singular. In many languages they talk about “the man”, the mankind understood, no special individual. In Hebrew, ādām is even more often understood as mankind than as a male name. Gen. 1:27 and 2:7 both content “ha”, but 2:7 uses it immediately, which implies that it isn’t the ultimate arising of an new kind.
    Jesus notabene never had insisted or confirmed, that Adam and Eve were the first two humans.

    Agriculture even began before Adam and Eve, 10,000 ago. The point isn’t that Adam and Eve are the ultimate first agriculturalists ever, but the first biblically recorded ones. They are examples, models, typical Exemplars of Their day.

    You “do not hold to an evolutionary model”?
    Ok, that explains everything…

  31. Lilith says

    Edit: contain, not content

  32. kenny says

    Your claim that ish and ishshah are only used for humans is wrong. I told you that in the flood account it is also used for animals (Genesis 7:2).
    You try to reinterpret Genesis 2:7 by using Jeremiah 1:5. Sure they both use yatsar (form), but one is from the dust and one is in the womb. Adam was formed from and therefore made up of dust (elements of the earth), and we are likewise made up of dust (Gen. 2:7, 3:19; Job 10:9, 34:15; Psalm 103:14; Eccl. 3:19-20, 12:7). The Bible reminds us that we return to dust when we die. They clearly saw this in tombs. We do not return to the womb.
    There is also the fact God had to breathe life into the newly produced body of Adam (Gen. 2:7). This was not breath after birth, for the Bible refers to humans as alive in the womb (Genesis 25:26; Hosea 12:3). Likewise, Exodus 21:22-23 makes no distinction between death coming to the woman or the prematurely born child. The breath of life, in the nostrils, is found in both man and animals (Genesis 2:7 and 7:22). See also (Genesis 6:17, 7:15, etc.). It refers to physical life (Job 27:3; Ezekiel 37:4-9; Revelation 11:9-11). I say this, because some try to claim it was God giving man a spirit. There are many more verses dealing with the divine breath.
    “Him” and “them” in Genesis 1:27 are translations of et. The first is singular form (him) and the second is plural form (them). Him refers to one person, unless you have other Biblical passages which use the singular of et to refer to more than one person. By the way the Greek translation (LXX) agrees and uses a singular personal pronoun for “him” and a plural personal pronoun for “them.”
    As far as ha adam (the man or Adam), it is used throughout the first three chapters to refer to a particular individual (Gen. 1:27; 2:7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19,…; 3:8, 9, 12, 20, 22, 24). Combined with the singular form of et, you have one individual.
    To say, as you did earlier, that erets and adamah cannot or do not equate is ridiculous (see Genesis 7:21-23, 8:7-8, 13 and 9:2, etc.).
    Did you read the quotes from Jesus (God in the flesh)? He is quoting the two texts as a single unit meaning that He saw no distinction.
    The majority understanding for the last 2,000+ years has been that Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman, and that God started with just two people (Genesis 1:27, 2:7, 22-24, 3:20; Book of Tobit 8:6; Book of Jubilees 2:14, 23; Antiquities Bk. 1, Ch. 1.2; Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45-47; Against Heresies Bk III, Ch. 23.1).
    There is no Biblical, exegetical, case for separating the male and female in Genesis one from Adam and Eve in Genesis two.
    Evolution is the reason you try to reinterpret the scriptures. You can hold to old-earth creationism without evolution. Evolution has not presented anything which cannot be explained by old-earth creation. Maybe you would like to check out Reasons to Believe (Hugh Ross’ organization).
    P.S. Of course Adam was the first Biblically recorded agriculturalist, he’s the first man. You originally claimed that the expulsion from Paradise referred to the transition from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists, not that this was its first recording of agriculture in the Bible. Agriculture has been going on for at least 20,000 years.
    What exactly do you see as different between your “preadamites” and “Adamites?” Homo sapiens sapiens (we humans) have been around for about 100,000 years. We have DNA for humans (not referring to Neanderthals, homo erectus, etc.) going back over 30,000 years and they are us. Direct evidence for agriculture is over 20,000 years old, domestication of animals over 40,000 years, art (statues, musical instruments, paintings) around 40,000 years and stitched clothing and needles for making it are over 30,000 years, metallurgy is at least 12,000 years and large stone structures were being built at least 10,000 years ago. Modern humans prior to 5,000 years ago are no different from those afterwards.

  33. Lilith says

    It isn’t a criterium how long a false doctrine is believed in. It doesn’t become truer thereby. As well the earth doesn’t become flat when it’s believed for thousands of years. Even a venerable delusion stays a delusion.
    Of course, Gen. 2.7 is in the womb too. There’s no ceramist manner when God forms a human. Jeremiah is “from the dust” as well (Eccl. 3.19) . It’s the same process of conception, precnancy and birth. The idea of directly forming a human out of dust or mud would raise much laughter among old Hebrews. Adam also got “spirit of knowledge” (neschamah), not just “life breath”.
    There already has been an exegetical separarion between the preadamites and Adam long before someone mentioned the word “evolution” at all. Isaac del Peyrere many centuries ago.
    Yes, the paradise story is about the transition from hunters-gatherers to agriculturalists AND Adam and Eve are the first biblically recorded ones. There is no contradiction. Neolithic Revolution was a long process, extending over centuries. Almost every day some People experienced the events of this story. Adam and Eve were right in the middle of it. All that holds good. It’s the Interface between the 6. and the 7. “day” of creation. The latter began right before Adam’s birth. Your numbers are far beyond Scientific Data (“old-earth-creationistic” Stuff? ). There, as exemple, agriculture began 10,000-12,000 years ago.
    None of your many bible verses equals arets and adamah. Arets is i. a. the whole planet earth (on which the preadamites spreaded via reproduction), respectively a country/certain area. Adamah is the ground with the fitting consistency to Farm.

  34. kenny says

    Who specifically taught a flat earth?
    The view of the early church was that the earth was a sphere. Only one church father taught it was flat. The Bible does not teach a flat earth either. There was no Hebrew word for ball/sphere, not even dur. In Isaiah 22:18 dur refers to a bundle, not a ball. You bundled your belongings before being exiled. That is the context. You did not grab a ball on the way.

    You use Eccl. 3:19 as evidence that “from the dust” equals the womb. It is 3:20, but hayah (to be) is in the perfect form. In English this is usually translated with the pluperfect “all CAME from the dust.” This is a past action pointing to their origination (Genesis 2:7, 19). Besides, that verse ends with “and all return to the dust.” We don’t return to the womb.

    Neshamah does not mean “spirit of knowledge.” The “breath of life” refers to living and breathing. We are discussing the phrase, not just a single word. I have only seen one verse which uses even the word by itself in the context of knowledge.

    You mentioned that “old Hebrews” would laugh at the idea of a human actually coming from dust. This seems a strange thing to say given that the Old and New Testaments, as well as ancient Hebrew and Christian commentaries taught that our bodies will rise again from the dust. So, why would they not accept that Adam was originally created from dust? Who specifically denied that Adam came from dust? One guy from the 1500s does not count.

    I’m only using Jewish sources. I could go all day with Christian sources.
    The Babylonian Talmud teaches that Adam was the man of Genesis one “the first man.” I do not see where it gives a direct teaching on Adam coming out of the dust, but it does say that we will rise from the dust in the resurrection. It is likely easier to use the word search to locate these references.
    Volume I, TRACT SABBATH, Ch. VII, GEMARA, pg, 130

    Midrash Rabbah, Bereshith, Ch. VIII, pg. 54
    It teaches that Adam came from actual dust and that “breath of life” is breathing – Ch. XIV, 1, 7-9

    In Rabbi Rashi’s commentary on Genesis, Bk, 1, he says that Adam and Eve are the same people as those in Genesis one. He also says man was made from actual dust.

    Rabbi Rashbam’s commentary agrees that Adam was the man of Genesis one.

    I will also add that on day six, God created animals which are domesticated, wild animals and creeping animals. So, domestication is right there, in Genesis one, with the first man (Adam).

  35. kenny says

    Hello Lilith,

    On the science side:
    The male Y-chromosome traces back to a single ancestral sequence, which could be interpreted as Adam or Noah. Likewise, the mtDNA can be traced back to a single ancestral sequence, which can be interpreted as either Eve or the last common ancestor of the wives of Noah’s sons.

    Metal Working 10,500 Yrs.

    Ancient Religious Monuments 12,000 Yrs.

    Agriculture 23,000+ Yrs. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131422

    Domestic Dogs 33,000 and 36,000 Yrs.

    Clothes 30,000+ Yrs

    Carving 30,000+ Yrs

    Painting 30,000 Yrs

    Flute 40,000 And 30,000 Yrs

    Modern Culture Over 40,000 Yrs.

    Bovid Domestication? 49,000 Yrs.

    Disruptions from the ice age and low population size make evidence harder to find meaning that the above data are just the oldest that we have found so far.

  36. Lilith says

    It isn’t the point who tought a flat earth. A lie doesn’t become truer by believing in, that’s it. And the majority doesn’t count, as well.
    In Gen. 2:7, it isn’t even written that Adam was formed FROM the dust. In Hebrew, it means: “YHWH Elohim formed Adam, (he was) dust from the ground”; in the meaning of “Adam WAS dust from the ground” (Gen. 3.19). “From the dust” refers to Adams material texture, while the verb jatzar refers to the emerging from the womb. Adam wasn’t “created” at all, yatsar ≠ bara. That’s why the traditional exegesis of Adam’s arising is ridiculous. Of course, I meant Eccl. 3:20. 3:19 says that humans ARE animals as well, which fit the formulations in the creation Report. The terrestrial animals weren’t created, too, but emerged (another yatsar) from the sea (where “living souls” were located recently) and were prepared (asah). Domestication arose in the end of the 6. “day” of creation at best. And at that early date, it wasn’t as systematic as since 12,000 years ago. The majority of this period was filled with hunting. That’s the actual meaning of “ruling” over the animals. Analog to this, there were no circumscribed fields, but the humans gathered fruits, cabbage, seed and whathaveyou (Gen. 1.28).

    Of course, neschamah means “spirit of knowledge”, but in the meaning of “to realize”, not “to know”. Jewish sources are not the “Word of God”. You should consult preferably neutral sources. The Talmud has no exegetical authority as well.
    The “Adam of the y-chromosome” isn’t an individual, but a group of humans and has nothing to do with the biblical Person Adam.
    I know plenty of Scientific sources which argue “young” agriculture and even younger advanced civilisations, but they’re mostly in German language, because I’m German.

  37. Lilith says

    Edit: …the humans gathered fruits, cabbage, seed and whathaveyou from the open expanse (Gen. 1:29).

  38. kenny says

    I misunderstood your reference to the idea of a flat earth. I usually run into those who try to claim that the Bible teaches and the ancient Jews believed in a flat earth.

    Yes, you are right that Genesis 2:7 does not technically say “formed FROM the dust,” but that is the overall implied meaning. The most likely translation would include an implied “of,” as found in many English translations (see below). For example “breath of life” is literally “breath life.” OF is implied. If it were to mean “he was dust,” I would expect to see hayah (the verb to be, was).

    We can tell what the verse means by comparing these verses:
    Gen. 2:7 – “…formed the man OF dust (aphar) from (min) the ground (adamah).”
    Gen. 3:19 – “…until you return (shub) to (‘el) the ground (adamah), because from (min) it you were taken (laqach), because dust (aphar) you are and to (‘el) dust (aphar) you will return (shub).
    Gen. 3:23 – “So the Lord God sent him from (min) the garden of Eden, to work the ground (adamah) that he had been taken (laqach) from (min).
    These verses are quite clear. Adam was formed out of the literal dust from the ground and when he died he would return to that dust/ground, not to a womb. So, God built a body out of dust and had to breathe life into it. You can twist the scriptures all you want, to try to fit in evolution, but it doesn’t work.

    By the way, I looked at the “Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,” “Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon” and “Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT.” These are highly respected sources. They agree with the word definitions which I have been using. What Hebrew lexicon did you find your word meanings in? Also, which Biblical texts clearly indicate that “breath in nostrils” is a reference to “realizing something?”

    “To rule” does not mean “to hunt.” It means to have dominion. This is backed up by other passages describing man’s authority over the animal kingdom (Genesis 2:19-20, 4:2; Psalm 8:5-8). Besides, God did not give man the right to eat animals until after the flood (Genesis 9:2-4).

    That is the evolutionary interpretation of the “Adam of the Y Chromosome.” It could very well refer to the Biblical Adam. Earlier (comment 17) I referred to attempts to infer the original population size and how they overestimate the original size. This has been directly tested for sheep, horses, etc. Interestingly, even evolutionists have been reducing the original population numbers, very significantly, over the last decade or so. Check out “Who Was Adam?” by Dr. Rana.

    Yes, at the end of the last ice age it became much easier to maintain long term agriculture and domestication. Likewise, human population numbers increased, leaving behind more evidence. That is why we find so much evidence after about 12,000 years ago, but that is not when it all started, nor do we know how widespread it was. I listed two research papers which pointed these things out.

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say that animals were formed, created or made from the sea. The Bible doesn’t say how God made the sea creatures. It does say that land creatures and flying creatures were formed from the ground (Gen. 2:19).
    Bara – refers to bringing something new into existence. It does not on its own mean out of nothing.
    Asa and banah – refer to the action of building an object, by definition, out of existing material.
    Yatsar – refers to the molding and shaping of an object.

    God created (bara), made (asa, banah) and formed (yatsar) mankind (Adam and Eve). He built brand new creatures (being both physical and spiritual) of the dust from the earth and a rib, and shaped them into the human form. By the way, this means Eve didn’t come from a womb either.

    I know Jewish sources are not the Word of God, but you said that “old Hebrews” would laugh at the idea of humans being made out of dust or mud. I was just answering your challenge.

  39. dean says

    It is evident in the book of Genesis that Adam and Eve is not the father or the mother of all humanity.There is no where made mentioning of Adam and Eve having any daughters in the generations of Adam’s,In Genesis 5:1-4, Seth is the one being made mentioning of as having sons and daughters in Verse 4, Not Adam.

  40. kenny says

    That does not fit the context or the wording. The focus is on the life and actions of Adam in 5:1-5, then on Seth in 5:6-8, etc. The personal pronouns (he, him) point to the main subject. We have the same formula for each. If we follow your interpretaion through, then Noah should have had daughters (Gen. 5:30). Yet, no daughters of Noah were mentioned or saved. Likewise, your sentence structure “There is no where made mentioning of Adam and Eve having any daughters in the generations of Adam,In Genesis 5:1-4, Seth is the one being made mentioning of as having sons and daughters in Verse 4, Not Adam,” shows that you are basing the idea of no daughters, on verses 1-4. From just these verses you could argue that Adam and Eve only had one son, but we know that is not true.

    Eve is called the mother of all living 3:20, so there could be no other humans, other than Adam and Eve’s children. If they had no daughters, then humanity would have gone extinct. Cain’s wife was a descendent of Adam and Eve. Like I said, read my earlier comments.

    Earlier I showed that the male and female of Genesis 1 were the Adam and Eve of Genesis 2-5. See above for these points.

  41. Lilith says

    @ dean,
    of course you’re absolutely right. There were no “sons and daughters” of Adam before Seth (Gen. 5.4), as I already said some time ago. When Seth was born, Cain already was the (grand-)father of severel generations. This very example sufficiently shows, how much the proponents of the traditional exegesis have to bend the biblical texts to continue harping on their string. But I’m optimistic that their doctrine will fizzle out gradually.

  42. kenny says

    You have simply read that into the text. Genesis 5:4 says nothing about the timing of the daughters, and the sons may simply have been refering to Cain, Abel and Seth. It gives the age at which Adam fathered Seth, how long he lived afterwards and the fact that he had sons and daughters. This is the same for each individual in the genealogy. Your interpretation leads to the absurd idea that each male gave birth to only males first.

    Likewise, there are no time indicators in Genesis 4, but you can compare the names and characteristics from each genealogy. When we do this, we find four names from Cain to Mehujael (meaning “smitten by God”) and four names from Seth to Mahalalel (meaning “praise of God”). This can be done for a number of names and personal characteristics. The genealogies in Genesis 4 and 5 were set in opposition to each other in fulfilment of Genesis 3:15 (godly and ungodly seeds). These two seeds are brought out in many verses (Matthew 13:38; 1 John 3:10, etc).

    Besides, Dean’s argument seems to be that Adam and Eve had NO daughters. He said that Genesis 5:4 referred to Seth’s daughters.

  43. kenny says

    Edit – Genesis 5:4 says nothing about the timing of daughters, and “sons” would include Cain, Abel and Seth. So again, there is nothing in this verse about the timing of the children.

  44. Depensa says

    http://www.scriptural-truth.com/PDF_Apocrypha/Second%20Book%20of%20Adam%20and%20Eve.pdf So Adam said to his son Seth, “I wish, 0 my son, that thou wed thy sister
    Aklia, Abel’s sister, that she may bear thee children, who shall replenish the
    earth, according to God’s promise to us.
    3 “Be not afraid, 0 my son; there is no disgrace in it. I wish thee to marry, from
    fear lest the enemy overcome thee.’
    4 Seth, however, did not wish to marry; but in obedience to his father and
    mother, he said not a word.
    5 So Adam married him to Aklia. And he was fifteen years old.
    6 But when he was twenty years of age, he begat a son, whom he called Enos;
    and then begat other children than him,
    7 Then Enos grew up, married, and begat Cainan.
    8 Cainan also grew up, married, and begat Mahalaleel.
    9 Those fathers were born during Adam’s lifetime, and dwelt by the Cave of
    10 Then were the days of Adam nine hundred and thirty years, and those of
    Mahalaleel one hundred. But Mahalaleel, when he was grown up, loved
    fasting, praying, and with hard labours, until the end of our father Adam’s
    days drew near.
    Chapter VIII.
    Adam’s remarkable last words. He predicts the Flood. He exhorts his offspring
    to good.
    He reveals certain mysteries of life.
    Page | 11
    WHEN our father Adam saw that his end was near, he called his son Seth, who
    came to him in the Cave of Treasures,
    and he said unto him: –
    2 “0 Seth, my son bring me thy children and thy children’s children, that I may
    shed my blessing on them ere I die.”
    3 When Seth heard these words from his father Adam, he went from him, shed
    a flood of tears over his face, and gathered together his children and his
    children’s children, and brought them to his father Adam.
    4 But when our father Adam saw them around him, he wept at having to be
    separated from them.

  45. kenny says

    Could you elaborate on you intentions for this quote.

  46. BENJAMIN says

    Cain marries Luluwa his own sister . read the second book of Adam and Eve chapter 1

  47. Patric says

    Did Adam and eve acceptted, to give their daughter to Cain?

  48. Patric says

    Mr. Benjamin
    read the second book of Adam and Eve chapter 1

  49. Patric says

    Mr. Benjamincan u tell me whats the name of the second book

1 2 3 4

Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.

Send this to friend

Hello! You friend thought you might be interested in reading this post from http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org:
Who Was the Wife of Cain?!
Here is the link: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/who-was-the-wife-of-cain/
Enter Your Log In Credentials

Change Password