A good mystery...who did the sons of Adam marry?

[Anonymous]

For those of you that like a good mystery and love studying Scripture, here's something to chew on...

I ran into a web site a few weeks ago that presented an interesting question regarding Adam and Eve. The subject was regarding who Cain, Abel and Seth might have had available to marry. In the beginning, there were only Adam and Eve, so the issue was where these other women came from in order to continue the species.

Prior to gaining an understanding of polygyny, I believe the commonly accepted answer we would have been told was that Adam and Eve had many children (that much was obvious) and that brothers and sisters were married. The article on the web site suggested this possibility was unlikely, as God's morals would not have changed. If it was wrong for a brother and sister to marry under the Mosaic Law, the reasoning goes, it would have been wrong way back at Adam and Eve.

While I'm not sure this assumption is necessarily valid, I started thinking about the question in more detail. The solution presented on the web site was that other "people" must have existed on the earth in addition to Adam and Eve, and that the sons of Adam married them. To me, it seemed that this solution was even less likely. So I started examining the list of prohibited sexual relations in Lev. 18 and here's what it basically boils down to:

A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother (Leviticus 18:7).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father's wife (Leviticus 18:8).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his sister (Leviticus 18:9).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father's wife's daughter (Leviticus 18:9).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son's daughter (Leviticus 18:10).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his daughter's daughter (Leviticus 18:10).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father's sister (Leviticus 18:12).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother's sister (Leviticus 18:13).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father's brother's wife (Leviticus 18:14).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son's wife (Leviticus 18:15).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his brother's wife (Leviticus 18:16).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her son's daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter's daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her sister while the woman is still living (Leviticus 18:18).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman during her menses (Leviticus 18:19).
A man may not have sexual intercourse with another man's wife (Leviticus 18:20).
A man may not have anal sexual intercourse with another male (Leviticus 18:22).
A man may not have sexual intercourse with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).
A woman may not have sexual intercourse with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).

If we assume all of these relations were known to be prohibited to Adam and Eve as well as their offspring, can we find any solution that would not require other "people" to have existed along side Adam and Eve?

I believe I have worked out at least one solution but I'd like to throw this out and see if any other ideas are presented. Anyone up for a challenge? There's no way we can ever know for certain, but it's an opportunity to study and reason together. Let's see what we can come up with.

David

 

[^_^]

I've heard similar stories, and while I won't eliminate them saying it's impossible, I will say that it's not provable either from history or from Scripture, so it's all guessing. That seems fairly dangerous to me.

I wouldn't have a problem if Yahweh had made more than just them, but he didn't tell us, did he?
Even so, seems there would have had to been so close marriages after the flood also.

Now, here's another question about those verses you posted. It seems that sexual relations were prohibited with certain people, and it was forbidden to uncover the nakedness of some people. Now, what does uncover nakedness mean, it can't be literal, otherwise strip joints would be quite moral it seems.... what does this speak of?

 

[Anonymous]

^_^ (how do you pronounce that anyway?),

I believe the correct understanding of the Hebrew term "galah 'ervah" (#1540 #6172) refers to directly and deliberately exposing or looking on the genitals of the person in question. In other words, it would make no difference if you expose those individuals or they expose themselves. Staring at a woman in a strip joint would certainly qualify, and by definition, it would clearly prohibit direct contact of the same. However, unless the woman in the strip joint was one of the aforementioned relatives, then Lev. 18, in and of itself, would not prohibit such activity.

Regarding the "other people" theory, I agree that this seems unlikely. The text presented to us is that there was one Adam and his fall was directly responsible for sin entering the world and by extension, all his offspring. The existence of "another people" would seem to run counter to Scripture. And in any event, the eight survivors of the flood put us right back in the same "boat" (did I just make a funny?)...again presenting us with the same question, so more people being in existence at the time of Adam isn't the answer. Any ideas on how to solve this problem, assuming the Lev. 18 prohibitions were, in fact, eternal moral restrictions?

In Him,
David

 

[^_^]

Nope, I've no answers. Adam did call Hawwah (Eve) the mother of all living.
So what's your theory?

 

[Anonymous]

Well, this is where values will run up against morals. One possibility I can see is that Adam had many sons and daughters with Eve. We know that Cain and his wife were married prior to Seth being born when Adam was 130 years old, so sometime within 130 years of leaving Eden (assuming Cain was born shortly thereafter), some marriageable women became available. Since there are technically no Biblical prohibitions against the father-daughter relationship (it may be gross, but not prohibited), he could have taken several of his own daughters as wives, thereby creating 2nd generation daughters through his daughters. This could not have been considered without first recognizing the possibility that Adam could have multiple wives. He *IS* prohibited from taking these granddaughters as wives per Lev. 18:10, but now his sons are suddenly able to take wives. These women would be nieces to Adam's sons, which is not prohibited either. The rate of multiplication in just three generations would be astronomical, certainly to the point where close relations are not even remotely necessary. This is one possibility I can see that would be consistent with the requirements of Lev. 18, if indeed those requirements were applicable to them. There may be others, but my brain is starting to cramp.

As I'm typing this, I can see one possible argument against this solution. One could raise the question of whether these women who are 2nd generation daughters (Adam's daughters' daughters) are to be considered "nieces" or "sisters" to Adam's 1st generation sons. We'd have to assume that since these daughters' daughters are treated as granddaughters to Adam (and therefore prohibited to Adam in vs. 10), then they would equally be treated as sisters' daughters to Adam's sons, rather than seen as 2nd generation sisters. Obviously, they would be "sisters" to any of Adam's 2nd generation sons (daughters' sons), but by their generation, the multiplication would have increased sufficiently that the problem no longer exists.

Comments?

David

 

[sweetlissa]

How can we assume that these relationships were "off limits" to Adam & Eve, when Leviticus was written 2500 years later?

What is the difference between God's character and God's morals? In the earliest post, it was brought up that God's morals did not change, however, Adam & Eve were vegetarian, and after the flood, the Noahic covenent allowed us to eat certain meats.

And all throughout the old testament, certain meats were considered morally unclean. Later, all foods were given to us as moral to eat?

Just something to think about.

Lissa

 

[Anonymous]

Lissa,

I wasn't meaning to suggest that these prohibitions were actually applicable to anyone prior to the Mosaic Law, but rather, just trying to determine how it might have been possible for Adam's sons to find wives if they had the same restrictions. I think we can reasonably conclude that there is no need to invent "other people" as a workaround either way.

As a side note, if I recall correctly, God told Noah that EVERY moving creature was food for him. Since we know Noah could differentiate between clean and unclean animals, we have a direct commandment from God permitting men between Noah and Moses to eat any animals without regards to them being clean or unclean. I don't think the Mosaic dietary laws had any moral aspect to them, other than God simply said "Thou shalt not..."

David

 

[sweetlissa]

Definition of Moral from ethicsscoreboard.com

Morals are modes of conduct that are taught and accepted as embodying principles of right or wrong.

And on a side note, if you even touched a food that was unclean, you were considered unclean for the entire day. Sounds like a moral issue rather than a health issue if you ask me. Lepers were ill and unclean basically forever. (Or until some priest called them clean anyway).

Just a thought.

 

[^_^]

Lissa,

I wasn't meaning to suggest that these prohibitions were actually applicable to anyone prior to the Mosaic Law, but rather, just trying to determine how it might have been possible for Adam's sons to find wives if they had the same restrictions. I think we can reasonably conclude that there is no need to invent "other people" as a workaround either way.

As a side note, if I recall correctly, God told Noah that EVERY moving creature was food for him. Since we know Noah could differentiate between clean and unclean animals, we have a direct commandment from God permitting men between Noah and Moses to eat any animals without regards to them being clean or unclean. I don't think the Mosaic dietary laws had any moral aspect to them, other than God simply said "Thou shalt not..."

David

oy veh, what part of what Yahushua saying not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled goes missing in this statement? He also said heaven and earth would pass before the law and prophets would fail. I guess this maybe is the wrong thread for discussing this though.

 

[Anonymous]

Lissa,

Could you elaborate further on your understanding of "moral"? If we use it to mean taught and accepted standards as opposed to absolute right and wrong, then morals change over time. In my thinking, I would have said "values" rather than "morals". As I understand it, "morals" are absolute eternal truths reflected in God's character (honesty, integrity, compassion, justice, etc.) that do not change over time or for different people, whereas "values" are individual beliefs that often reflect cultural norms. For example, the law written in the hearts of the gentiles would have been "moral" in that they didn't need to be taught it -- it was something they simply knew without requiring divine revelation, because their own consciences would, for the most part, tell them right from wrong. They understood stealing from another was wrong for the same reason. Is that not in the sense that you are using the term "moral"? It may be we are in agreement here and I'm just using the wrong word to describe what I mean.

David

 

[Anonymous]

oy veh, what part of what Yahushua saying not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled goes missing in this statement? He also said heaven and earth would pass before the law and prophets would fail.

Matt. 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done."

I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're suggesting that not one jot or tittle of the Mosaic Law has passed away, if you are being consistent with your understanding of this passage. Yahushua was stating that He didn't come to abolish the Torah or Prophets but rather to fulfill them, to bring them to their intended conclusion. If your understanding of the phrase "heaven and earth" here is the physical cosmos, then by definition, the entire Mosaic Law still stands AS WRITTEN, in full force, complete with animal sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood, dietary laws, circumcision...all 613 laws would still be in effect and 9/10ths of the NT Scriptures would have to be invalid. Yahushua is quite clear here. None of it passes until ALL of it is done. So we either have an incorrect understanding of "heaven and earth" or we have an uninspired Scripture. I'll leave it for you to decide which you are more comfortable with.

David

P.S. The key here is to determine how His disciples would have understood the phrase "heaven and earth" when they heard it. Were they familiar with that term already? Where had they seen it used many times before, and what did they understand it to mean?

 

[^_^]

This thread has been rattling around in my head since djanakes said Adam possibly married his daughters, that those relationships weren't forbidden.
Yet previously in this thread, was it not posted "A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter (Leviticus 18:17)."
Would this not have been a prohibition of Adam taking his own daughter since it was also the daughter of Eve?

 

[Anonymous]

This thread has been rattling around in my head since djanakes said Adam possibly married his daughters, that those relationships weren't forbidden.
Yet previously in this thread, was it not posted "A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter (Leviticus 18:17)."
Would this not have been a prohibition of Adam taking his own daughter since it was also the daughter of Eve?

It is true that a man was not to uncover both a woman and her daughter, but this is specifically stating not to take a mother and daughter together, not an overall prohibition against a man marrying his own daughter. A man was not to marry a woman and her mother, nor was he to marry a woman and her daughter. His own daughter was already under his authority to take for himself or give away as he chose. There is no direct prohibition against a man uncovering his own daughter, as there is against a man uncovering his sister. This probably has to do with the patriarchal authority of the head over his wives and children more than anything else. Read 1 Cor. 7:36-38 word for word in the original Greek and see how it's phrased. I've seen different translations try switching back and forth between maiden and daughter, between marrying her and giving her in marriage, all because the plain sense reading of this passage seems unimaginable and they're doing their best to try to make sense of it. Yet Paul does seem to say in vs. 38 that the one who does NOT marry her does better than the one who does.

In the example with Lot back in Sodom, we tend to read the passage and think Lot was very cruel to his daughters for offering them to the men of Sodom to keep his male visitors from being forcibly taken. But if you look at it through the patriarchal view, Lot was choosing to give his daughter's virginity (which was his to decide what to do with) to these evil men rather than allow them to sodomize his guests. This again demonstrates that Lot had the overall authority over his virgins. Later, when those same daughters conspired to have offspring through their father, there is no hint of condemnation in the physical act, although in reality, the decision was not theirs to make.

Leviticus 19:29: "Do not profane your daughter by making her a whore (zanah), so that the land does not whore, and the land becomes filled with wickedness."

I can see only two possibilities here.

1. The father sends his virgin daughter out on the street to become a whore, undoubtedly for financial gain.
2. The father "uncovers the nakedness" of his daughter outside of a marriage covenant, thereby making her a whore.

From what I understand of ancient Hebrew society, prostitutes were essentially self-employed, not "pimped out" like in our culture. The first possibility seems highly unlikely in context. But even if the second possibility is being referred to here, it is clear that there was no specific prohibition in the law that prevented the father from laying with his daughter in the first place, otherwise this statement would be pointless. It seems clear that the directive here was to not turn her into a whore, as the result would be increased whoring and wickedness in the land. It does not speak to the issue of marriage, simply because all prohibited relations were already listed in the previous chapter.

 

[^_^]

I rather hear what you are saying, and I'm not going to say you are wrong, because intent in everything.
If Yahweh intended for the mother daughter thing to prevent a man from taking his daughter, there would have been no need to say more, it would have been redundant. Am I right in saying that?
Now, again, if his intent was to allow it, then again he would not have said anything. I do know there is no record of Lot or his daughters being rebuked for that, so who am I to rebuke.
On the other hand, I would not dare take a daughter of my own because of the mother/daughter prohibition. I understand that as intent to prohibit any mother daughter thing.

Now, all this said, seeing Yahweh is only recorded as creating 2 humans to parent the rest of humanity, would it be out of line for him to see that in the beginning it would be OK for brother and sister to marry? Would that violate his standards, or are his standards more an if/then statement than a black vs white that we so often see it as. For instance, many christians tend to see Torah as a harsh document against mankind, I agree with the Psalmist that Torah is perfect, keeping the soul. I find beauty, mercy, and grace in Torah. So if I agree with Torah, then it is not a burden, but if I hate the precepts of and almighty God, then it would indeed be a burden. Similarly, if Yahweh planned for 2 people to populate the earth, and in the first generations the rules would be different, then as poplulation increased and mankind degenerated (oh dear, did I say devolved?) his plan was to prohibit too close of marriage, I have no problem with that. It's his world, he does best.

Some day we'll know, but I suggest we not promote any theory as fact, especially in light of the fact that we simply aren't told one way or another, so it's pretty much irreleavant

 

[Anonymous]

Oh absolutely, all of this is just speculation and there's no way we can know if or what restrictions were placed on Adam and Eve. One thing is certain. There are no examples of a father-daughter marriage anywhere in Scripture as a basis for anything. The plain sense reading of Genesis leads one to believe the requirement for marriage was simply a man and a woman. Lacking further information, we can assume both father-daughter and brother-sister marriages would have been acceptable. Adam and Eve's DNA would have been as close to 100% pure as original sin would allow, and by the time of Noah, the point was moot because we have four families whereby their offspring could reproduce with one another. I believe everything God puts in His Word is deliberate, and had it been important, God would have told us. I just love the opportunity to take an idea and run with it by examining what God's Word says. I personally do not think the Mosaic fornication restrictions were in effect during the time of Adam, but even if they were, there was no need for "another people" on Earth in order to avoid said restrictions in Lev. 18.

David

 

[Chaplain]

I finally get a chance to post. Been real busy with work and such. First.....HAPPY Mothers Day to all our ladies.

Now, for what it's worth, my take on this subject. I am of the opinion that man kind, from Adam until the Mosaic Law was set, did things that seemed " right " in his own eyes and how he felt led by Yahweh, if they even knew him or even served the Lord. Adam had sex with Eve, his daughters, granddaughters and most likely his ggranddaughters. There was no " law " that we know of that Yahweh had set or spoken to Adam that prevented him from doing so. Same goes with Noah. NOW.....jump forward a few thousand yrs, and Yahweh sees that man has multiplied and subdued the earth. Now is the time to step in and set down rules and laws that HE wishes man to follow. HE has finally chosen a people to be His example of how HE wishes man to live and now has set down His laws and rules and gives them to His people, to show everybody else how they should live.

Now just to play devils advocate here....lets look at this way ......God created all of the animals, trees, birds fish, etc....None of these creations have a soul.....what was there to prevent Yahweh from creating a "man" that did not have a soul, just like the animals. He saw that what HE created was good.....BUT......there was still something lacking and that was something that HE could commune with.....Thus....HE created something in His image....in other words a man that HE " breathed " life ( a soul ) into so that HE would have someone to commune with.....just another thought.....

 

[Mark C]

I tend to agree that since we are not given Scriptural specifics as to Adam's alternatives, such speculation often amounts to an "argument from silence".

However, a couple of things in the above comments did catch my attention. For example, while God clearly "changes not", as He says, man clearly did, and so has His creation. Adam died in the same thousand-year "day" of his sin; later descendants had significantly reduced post-flood lifetimes, which seems to clearly indicate that genetic changes occurred. (Noah was "perfect in his generations", which reflected yet another difference, associated with the Nephalim.)

All of this would constitute a lengthy study. I have outlined only the broad strokes in an attempt to illustrate that while His <i>Torah</i>, literally better translated as "teaching and understanding" more than merely "Law", has not passed, it is not necessarily true that our bodies have all of the same physical characteristics, or are as robust, as Adam's, or even Noah's.

Finally, a brief comment about food and "meat" may help illustrate some of this distinction as well. Note that Noah clearly knew what "clean" as opposed to "unclean" animals were! (Most people ignore that he wasn't directed to pick TWO of EVERY animal - only of the unclean ones - but seven of the clean. Genesis 7:2)

And all throughout the old testament, certain meats were considered morally unclean. Later, all foods were given to us as moral to eat?

The word "moral" isn't in there. "Unclean" animals were simply not considered "food" or "meat", and those who understood the blessings and the curses would have no more wanted to eat pork than dog droppings. Neither did Yeshua change "one yod or tittle" of those instructions. (I note that His Word concerning both food and marriage has been subject to considerable distortion over time in order to conform to "man's traditions"! :roll: )

I often note in some discussions that food and marriage (in particular, of course, polygyny) were two of the three things which helped me to see that what I had been told the Bible said was not what He Wrote!. I still remember reading an article in a scientific publication which proclaimed, Pig DNA Closest to Human, and noted that almost all flu-type diseases came into man from pigs, because -- unlike cattle -- the "species barrier" was easily jumped between pork and mankind. The clincher was the recognition that both pigs and shellfish (also 'unclean') were scavengers and bottom feeders that God put in place to clean up dead things. The fact that pork flesh contains enzymes with names like "cadaverene" and "putrescene" helped underscore the translation issue - they just really "aren't food". My "joke line" is that eating unclean stuff won't affect where we go when we die - but might influence how long it takes!

In other words, it's not a "salvation issue", but a health issue. In the context of this discussion, not a "moral" one, but a practical one. (Again, much like marriage as well. The fact that, in general, one may have multiple wives does not mean it is the best choice for all. As Paul noted, celibacy may work better for some, but His design for us still applies regardless.)

People tend to confuse the "curse of the law" with Torah itself. His sacrifice has redeemed us from the CURSE of death, but not the need for obedience. We are still physically designed the way He made us. What changed with His perfect sacrifice for us wasn't our bodies, or that of swine or shellfish; it was our "heart", and the fact that he had paid the price for our sins, giving us the choice to follow Him.

 

[^_^]

That pretty well sums that up.
The change in man you spoke of would be best described as devolution vs what science says happend and calls evolution. :roll:
And many in christianity would say that polygyny was a form of devolution. In some ways, it can be, but I've seen more harm done by should-be monogamy than I've ever heard of from polygyny, so I guess I'll draw my own independant conclusion.

 

[3for1]

Wow, so many questions without answers. I've got a couple more, and by visiting them, maybe I can circle around and make some connections. I'm far from a scholar, but here goes!

If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, how would their off-spring have arrived? I know that the curse was more specifically for the woman to suffer pain in child-bearing, and for man to need to labor for the ground to be fruitful, but I wonder if there was more to it than just that. I also wonder if before the fall, sex and child-bearing would have been necessary to bring life onto the Earth? From spending half of my life studying Creation issues, my guess is that Adam and Eve could have multiplied and had a family just based on their God-given ability (before sin) to "reproduce", much as the Holy Spirit somehow impregnated Mary with Jesus. I think that sex was the result of a need in their relationship after sin occurred (notice that scripture does not mention it until after the fall). Not to say that sex was in any way wrong, but just unnecessary.
Stay with me.....

Also notice that after sin, God killed an animal to cover their sin (the first blood sacrifice provided by God for man's sin). It is quite likely that blood sacrifices (possibly later offered by Adam) were necessary after the fall due to Adam and Eve's continued sinful state. The eating of the forbidden fruit was the first sin, but likely not the last. These things lead me to the conclusion that Adam and Eve were sinners and all their off-spring were sinners. It also makes sense that Able offered an animal sacrifice (likely for his sins) and that Cain's vegetarian sacrifice was unacceptable. God's covering for the very first sin was not a banana leaf, but a killed animal's skin. Why am I asking these questions in regards to wives for Adam's sons?

It seems Adam and his sons were sinners, and at least one of them a murderer. Why should we not assume that they also broke other ordinances (laws, rules, etc.)? I think that Adam, Eve, Cain, Able, Seth, and others born and not mentioned in the scriptures were sinners needing a Savior but depending on temporary animal sacrifices until the Messiah would arrive. It seems only realistic that at least some of them had relationships and sex outside of "permitted" marriage and that just like today, babies were the natural result. Once a few babies were born from different fathers and mothers, their later union and sex would not have been improper with respect to the known (or unknown) ordinances.

And about Noah. The same could be true, but it wouldn't need to be as complicated since Noah's sons had wives and cousins could marry. Not long after the flood waters settled, sexual sin had already returned to the Earth. Careful study of the event mentioned in Genesis 9 about the Noah's drunkeness and the conduct of Ham, reveals there was a little more than just some nudity: see 9:24-25. Again, probably some kind of need for sacrificial meat (death) for remittance of sins.

If we look at all this from a medical standpoint, genetics tells us that nearly all of the health issues known are genetically related, even the flu. Many are not caused by a genetic factor, but our predisposed inability to resist their harmful effect is genetically related in the simplest of ways. We gain our genetic predispositions through breeding, and more profoundly by inbreeding. It's not hard to imagine that as Adam's off-spring were inbreeding that life expectancy was already being affected. Notice that generations after Adam generally lived shorter and shorter lives. These are elementary principles in genetics, but it also makes sense in sorting through some of this stuff. Science supports and reveals God, it doesn't contrast Him. Just some thoughts to throw in the soup. Sorry it got so long.

Tom

 

[^_^]

lots of info there, Tom
but where does the notion that Abel's sacrifice was accepted over Cain's because it lacked blood come from?
There is nothing in the text to even say it was to be a sin offering of any kind, looks more like a tithe to me, and those could be grain or flock. Cain's problem wasn't lack of blood, his problem was lack of heart. The text reads he brought 'some' of his crops, but Able brought of the best. Therein is the key to understanding.
For more on this, read "The Beast that Crouches at the Door" by David Fohrman

As far as the sexual/procreation thing, there is no record of any changes, so I'd not focus too much on that....