Cain and Abraham, Sisters or Nieces?

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Not sure if this is the correct area, but it seems to be where similar topics were posted. I have not seen this particular scenario ever discussed anywhere and I am curious what more studied and resourceful minds then my own might find. Please understand I am simply submitting for analysis and review, as this needs someone with a similar understanding of scripture. Last year while doing some studying, I was trying to reconcile the Abraham/Sarah relationship and how it was permitted then but not now. I do not know of any place wherein Yah compromised his standards when it came to sin and I have found no evidence of permissive sin (the same argument used for anti-PM), and believe it is contrary to Yah's character Num 23:19, Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8. He may delay justice and punishment, he may show mercy, but I have never seen compromise. During research into the topic of Abraham and Sarah, I came across several things that led me to a hypothesis that I think reconciles Cain's wife, and Abraham and Sarah's relationship. I will try to prove this hypothesis by only using passages from the bible and logical reasoning, realizing that the idea itself is entirely dependent on interpretation and translation.

So first things first this is based off the belief that Torah has always existed and been applied since the beginning (John 1:1). I think there is plenty of evidence for this, consider Seventh Day (Gen. 2:3), Cain and Able (Offerings, Sin and Murder 4:3-12), Onan (Gen. 38:8-10), Clean and Unclean animals on the ark (Gen. 7:2-3), The Flood (Judgement on Sin) , Hams Curse (Gen. 9:20-24), Abimelech and Sarah (Gen. 20:3, this verse also shows that Abimelech was aware of the sin of adultery), Lot observes Pesach (Gen. 19-3) and Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), and that's just off the top of my head. Not considering how would any pre-sinai judgements be justified if the Torah was not yet in applied? What standard where these people held to? If the Torah did not apply pre-sinai, does Yahshua's blood not cover them, for there was no law to transgress (Romans)? Have they already been judged, dying without an intercessor? Will they get a pass because they didn't know any better? Considering they are all dead, what sin did they commit to receive death and why was Enoch taken and no one else? To many questions become raised when considering permissive sin, but that is for another post. If Yah's character does not change, then everything that is wrong post fall has to be considered as wrong prefall. Sin is Sin.

Secondly, Why would Yah make 1 man and 1 woman command them to multiply (Gen. 1:28), give their offspring the organs and drive to reproduce and then forbid all possible relations for them (Leviticus 18)? This would be an impossible commandment to keep without sin. Only Adam and Eve could ever hope to keep it, the rest of mankind would be setup for failure from their start. With all this considered lets begin with Abraham and Sarah. There is a belief that when Abraham referred to Sarah as his sister, it was a reference to his near kinsman and not literal sister, and that the genealogy may actually place her as his niece or cousin? (Sarah's genealogy is not clear in the bible, and considering the word sister could have been used multiple ways). If we review Leviticus there is no prohibition of relations with nieces or cousins, making this interpretation coincide better with Torah. Now if we review the list of forbidden relations in Leviticus there is no direct mention of a father and his direct daughter, there is however Lev. 18:17. The interpretation of this verse is sometimes interpreted generally or in specific to a woman's daughter who is not related to the father. Lev. 18 itself could also be analyzed based off the take, lie, and uncover usage, however I have not done this, and I am not sure if this might change anything.

If we continue under the non general, specific interpretation. This might explain the lack of punishment or sin attributed to Lot after his daughters seduction (Gen. 19:30-36), after having just saved Lot from destruction, surely knowing his wife would perish. Yah does not speak against this. Even though he was drunk and deceived, Yah still holds us accountable for our deeds. Sometimes even our house and all that is in it (Num. 16:22-33), considering how he handled Onan or Abimelech's wives during Sarah's stay (Gen. 20:18), why did he not do the same here? We never see this act attributed to lots daughters as sinful or punished, nor any curse directly spoken to him or his house. Lot is even referred to as righteous later by Peter (2 Peter 2:7). Now for Cain we know he was born of Adam and Eve (Gen. 4:1), and we know that Eve is the mother of all Living (Gen 3:20) and no other man was created before Adam (1 Cor 15:45). We do not know when Adam had daughters, but we can presume that Cain was the first Son of Adam by Eve's statement (Gen. 4:1). Bearing this in mind, Cain's wife would have to trace back to this union (as would any male who might have been born before Cain or after). Cain's wife then could not be of Lilith, or a Gollum nor made from Cain's own rib (this would create a new branch). He didn't create his own wife through Eve, as this would be forbidden (Lev. 18:7), so that rules out his wife being his own daughter. Being born of Eve rules out his wife as being his aunt or a grandmother, both of which are also forbidden in Leviticus.

All that considered, what are we left with? The only options available to Cain are now his sister or his niece. If sibling relations were against Torah (Lev. 18:9), why do we assume Cain married his sister? With no other knowledge of any sins being attributed to Cain, removing permissive sin would eliminate this scenario leaving only his niece as an option. Everything considered would it be more plausible that Adam had relations with his own daughter bearing another daughter (Cain's niece) and this would have become Cain's wife? I will leave some sources below to consider.

Establishing Sarah/Iscah - https://www.bibleinsight.com/iscah.html
Abraham's Sister? - https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....e-with-sarah-if-she-was-his-sister-and-incest
Father/Daughter Leviticus - https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....18-forbid-a-man-from-incest-with-his-daughter

 

[The Revolting Man]

Or possibly the Torah wasn’t revealed in all it’s particulars yet and and where there is no Law no sin is imputed.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Everything considered would it be more plausible that Adam had relations with his own daughter bearing another daughter (Cain's niece) and this would have become Cain's wife?

Any daughter of Adam would still be Cain’s sister.

As for Abraham and Sarah...
Genesis 20:11-12 KJV
[11] And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. [12] And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

As for Torah pre Sinai...
Galatians 3:17 KJV
[17] And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Or possibly the Torah wasn’t revealed in all it’s particulars yet and and where there is no Law no sin is imputed.

This does not disprove the situation though, it just reaffirms the direct sister scenario which we have no evidence of. We see Yah tell Cain Sin is crouching at your door. There was sin otherwise why destroy Sodom and gohmorra, why the flood? What standard were these judgements held to? How would they be justified if the people did not know any better and no opportunity of repentance offered?

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Any daughter of Adam would still be Cain’s sister.

As for Abraham and Sarah...
Genesis 20:11-12 KJV
[11] And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. [12] And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

As for Torah pre Sinai...
Galatians 3:17 KJV
[17] And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Genesis 20:12 - And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. This same scenario would apply to Cain. She would be his half-sister, but his niece. I suppose that still falls under Lev. 18:7 though. I was really hoping to put an end to this scriptural conflict.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This does not disprove the situation though, it just reaffirms the direct sister scenario which we have no evidence of. We see Yah tell Cain Sin is crouching at your door. There was sin otherwise why destroy Sodom and gohmorra, why the flood? What standard were these judgements held to? How would they be justified if the people did not know any better and no opportunity of repentance offered?

What are you actually trying to figure out? It’s obvious that the earliest people married their sisters. It’s directly stated in the case of Abraham.

It does not seem possible that Cain and Abel were Adam’s first children. It is much more likely that there had been a steady exodus of their multiplication from Eden for quite some time before Adam actually fell.

It’s speculation of course, we’re not told so it’s mostly just brain candy.

 

[frederick]

It is much more likely that there had been a steady exodus of their multiplication from Eden for quite some time before Adam actually fell.

It would likely be the fall occurred very early after the completion of the creation. We are told in Rom. 5:12, Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. For all to inherit the consequences of the fall and ultimately die, no children could be born before Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It would likely be the fall occurred very early after the completion of the creation. We are told in Rom. 5:12, Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. For all to inherit the consequences of the fall and ultimately die, no children could be born before Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

Unless they all sinned individually before Adam did.

 

[frederick]

Unless they all sinned individually before Adam did.

Then sin would have entered the world through them. The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to sinners is proven by Paul through the imputation of sin through Adam to all people. Romans 5:14-15, 19; Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. ...For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.  Shalom

 

[The Revolting Man]

Then sin would have entered the world through them. The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to sinners is proven by Paul through the imputation of sin through Adam to all people. Romans 5:14-15, 19; Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. ...For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.  Shalom

No, it would not have because there was still Adam who was righteous and his other offspring who had not sinned who would have still been righteous. Some people would have been corrupted and hence expelled from Eden but not everyone. The blameless would not have been punished.

The other option of course is that these earlier children did not sin but simply left the garden on their own volition. This explains the existence of wives and civilizations for Cain and Abel to interact with. Of course, all of this is wild speculation. We're not told so it's not important. It's fun, fantasy type imagining, much like the Nephilim and sons of God laying with the daughters of man. It's not worth arguing about. Especially since you abandoned our last argument at a suspicious point. We have more important issues than this to discuss.

 

[FollowingHim]

@RemnantResilience, it is impossible to have mankind come solely from Adam and Eve without somebody somewhere marrying their sister. Even your best, convoluted proposal (Adam having children by his own daughter and then Cain marrying that child) still has Cain marrying his sister. This is just inescapable.

Also note that Moses' father married his own aunt (Exodus 6:20). This is also a prohibited relationship in Leviticus 18. So Moses himself was the product of a sinful marriage - unless Torah was not in effect until Sinai.

This aspect of Torah simply cannot have been in effect from the time of Creation.

I agree that Sarah may have been Abraham's niece, the word translated "sister" does mean "near kinswoman" and could mean his niece.
But I also have often noted the lack of condemnation for Lot's incest with his daughters, and see this as consistent with Torah not being in effect until it was delivered at Sinai.

All this complication comes from your presupposition that the entirety of Torah has been in effect from the moment of creation. Where is this stated in scripture?

Let scripture interpret scripture. Is not the simplest explanation just that your presupposition was wrong?

 

[FollowingHim]

No, it would not have because there was still Adam who was righteous and his other offspring who had not sinned who would have still been righteous. Some people would have been corrupted and hence expelled from Eden but not everyone. The blameless would not have been punished.

The other option of course is that these earlier children did not sin but simply left the garden on their own volition. This explains the existence of wives and civilizations for Cain and Abel to interact with. Of course, all of this is wild speculation. We're not told so it's not important. It's fun, fantasy type imagining, much like the Nephilim and sons of God laying with the daughters of man. It's not worth arguing about. Especially since you abandoned our last argument at a suspicious point. We have more important issues than this to discuss.

You're now overcomplicating this @The Revolting Man, so have fallen into the exact same error as @RemnantResilience, just on a different issue. There is a simple explanation that is consistent with all the evidence (Adam had no children until after the fall), and there's a complex proposal that answers no scriptural problems and simply opens a whole raft of new ones to try and explain away (Adam had children before the fall). Let's just stick with the simple explanation that works.

 

[frederick]

No, it would not have because there was still Adam who was righteous and his other offspring who had not sinned who would have still been righteous.

Your presuppositions create more confusion rather than just sticking with the text. Since death came through Adam's sin then those who were born, and left Eden before Adam sinned would not fall under the curse.

@FollowingHim has said much of what needs to be said so I'll leave the final comment with him:

You're now overcomplicating this @The Revolting Man, so have fallen into the exact same error as @RemnantResilience, just on a different issue. There is a simple explanation that is consistent with all the evidence (Adam had no children until after the fall), and there's a complex proposal that answers no scriptural problems and simply opens a whole raft of new ones to try and explain away (Adam had children before the fall). Let's just stick with the simple explanation that works.

Cheers

 

[frederick]

Especially since you abandoned our last argument at a suspicious point.

Let me clear the suspicion for you. The point reached was that there is no point in my repeating yet again what you refuse to accept. You wouldn't take the time to look at an analytical lexicon or accept the historical context so there is nothing to be gained by continuing. Shalom

 

[The Revolting Man]

You're now overcomplicating this @The Revolting Man, so have fallen into the exact same error as @RemnantResilience, just on a different issue. There is a simple explanation that is consistent with all the evidence (Adam had no children until after the fall), and there's a complex proposal that answers no scriptural problems and simply opens a whole raft of new ones to try and explain away (Adam had children before the fall). Let's just stick with the simple explanation that works.

I specifically said that this was unknowable brain candy with no significance and impossible to prove.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Your presuppositions create more confusion rather than just sticking with the text. Since death came through Adam's sin then those who were born, and left Eden before Adam sinned would not fall under the curse.

@FollowingHim has said much of what needs to be said so I'll leave the final comment with him:

Cheers

This whole conversation is a counter-factual what if. It literally can’t be about the text. Lighten up.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Let me clear the suspicion for you. The point reached was that there is no point in my repeating yet again what you refuse to accept. You wouldn't take the time to look at an analytical lexicon or accept the historical context so there is nothing to be gained by continuing. Shalom

The historical context made an appearance! We haven’t seen that in a while. It’s always fun when the traditions of men make null the Word of God. Man you really were losing that conversation if you were having to retreat to historical context.

 

[frederick]

The historical context made an appearance! We haven’t seen that in a while. It’s always fun when the traditions of men make null the Word of God. Man you really were losing that conversation if you were having to retreat to historical context.

Did you look at an analytical lexicon before you replied? No!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Did you look at an analytical lexicon before you replied? No!

Oh no! I didn’t reference the analgesic lily pad thing! Because who wouldn’t trust the arcane works of most likely unbelieving men over their own lying eyes?

I referenced a lexicon. It did not define the sex of the servants. If that’s not good enough then you’re just throwing up obstacles so you can beat a retreat. And over a verse that is not even tertiary to the main point.

 

[frederick]

Oh no! I didn’t reference the analgesic lily pad thing! Because who wouldn’t trust the arcane works of most likely unbelieving men over their own lying eyes?

I referenced a lexicon. It did not define the sex of the servants. If that’s not good enough then you’re just throwing up obstacles so you can beat a retreat. And over a verse that is not even tertiary to the main point.

From what you write it appears you don't know what an analytical lexicon is or how to use one(?) If that is indeed the case and the level of your abilities to address even the most fundamental aspects of a text there is little point in discussing anything further. Good night.