Adam and Eve go forth and multiply.
81Adam and Eve go forth and multiply.
This explanation of the history of Adam and Eve and the early population of the world, comes from The Book of Genesis, although originally a book important to the Jewish faith it is the evangelical christian source for Creationism.
About 1/3 of the world claim to be christians with about 1/3 of these believing in all humankind originating in the Garden of Eden.
God created Adam to be a gardener tending The Garden of Eden. He was allowed to eat from the Tree of Life, this meant that Adam would be able to live for ever, he could also eat anything else in the garden, except the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
So that Adam would not be lonely, God created Adam a helper, she was constructed from one of Adams ribs.
The Snake made friends with the woman and explained that the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge would give her the ability to see the difference between good and evil and assured her it would not kill her to eat it.
The woman tried the fruit, found that it did not kill her and could now see the difference between good an evil.
She convinced Adam to do the same and he also ate the fruit.
God found them hiding in the garden. Adam explained that the woman gave him some fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and they were embarrassed to be naked.
God told Adam, that now he had knowledge of good and evil, he could no longer eat from the tree of life, so he would have to leave the Garden of Eden.
God gave Adam and Eve some clothes and kicked them out, he told the woman that childbirth would be painful and Adam that he would have to work hard to get ahead.
It was now that Adam gave his woman the name of Eve because she would become the mother of all the living.
The first child of Adam and Eve was the murderer Cain, he killed his younger brother Abel when God showed him more appreciation for his harvest offering.
Cain left to go wandering in the wilderness, and with his partners had children and built the first city.
The bible only ever gives the name of the oldest relevant son, as he will of course be family heir.
When Cain killed Abel and left, Adam and Eve did not yet have a suitable replacement for family heir. The unnamed children would have been daughters, not sons. It is from these daughters that some left with Cain and some remained with Adam.
The laws of today against incest did not yet exist. The big choice for the daughters of Adam and possibly Cain or Abel, were, stay with Adam, or leave with Cain.
The consequence of 'incest' before the daughters of Adam and Eve, would be children with their father, or their brother.
Although the story of Adam and Eve was set thousands of year earlier, it was written at the same time as the laws from another book by Moses, that would make nearly all of this incest unlawful. At the time however, that the creation story is set, mankind as created by God in the Garden of Eden, depended on incest to multiply.
(If it makes it any easier for modern christians, there were no christians or followers of islam yet, this story is attributed to Moses leading his band of homeless Jewish People, a journey some have compared to the years in the wilderness that the LDS experienced before finding their promised land in Utah.)
After Cain left, Adam and Eve had another Son who was named Seth, the new family heir.
Seth and Adam both fathered more children after this time living another 800 years.
Although it is mentioned that Adam had many more children it is not recorded that Eve was the mother of them all.
CommentsLoading...
Hi cindyvine, when you ask if there were other people on the planet for the children to marry, a literal reading of the bible says no.
For it to be possible that there were other people on the planet, you have to accept the bible is not a literal account of creation. Many Christians and nearly everyone else on the planet view the bible story of creation, as just another creation myth.
Some followers of islam,christianity and judaism have an unshakeable faith which is not open to negotiation. Any argument they make is based on faith and what may sound like logic to others will only be heard as heresy to them.
Most everyone else on the planet is prepared to accept scientific evidence and aknowledge the limitations of religious texts.
The bible is not a scientific document. It is a collection of stories written two to three thousand years ago, the story of creation is from a much older time when the story was handed down verbally.
Most Christians do not believe in the literal words of the old testament books. These books, originally written as part of the Jewish history, help us understand the world of Jesus.
His interpretation was often at odds with the 'religious wise men' of his day. Jesus focused on one message, love your fellow man. I have no idea what he thought about the whole Adam and Eve creation story.
If you want to know the biblical truth of creation, then with conviction you must commune with God, or accept the literal word of the bible. If you want to continue to figure out the world around you, just keep doing what you have so far cindyvine, ask questions, talk to people and keep an open mind.
Difficult though I find it to take the story of Adam and Eve seriously (I am an agnostic and a former lecturer in philosophy, including the philosophy of science!) I have to say that the whole 'Lucy' theory that Dawkins and Leakey and others of that ilk constantly propound seems to me nothing more than a secularised version of the same myth.
I find it impossible to believe that all humans derive from a single common ancestor called Adam, Eve, Lucy or any other name the monogeneticists care to come up with.
To my mind it is obvious that human beings descend from differing branches and though I of course accept the theory of evolution as a broad guide to the origins of life its actual details are still open to modification as is the case with ANY serious scientific hypothesis.
Creation science, being based on two dogmas - the inerrancy of the Bible and the notion of a 'young earth' - cannot adapt or modify its basic ideas in the light of new discoveries and is therefore a pseudo-science rather than a genuine if problematic one like evolutionary biology.
I no more believe in the notion of 'Lucy' than I do in the myth of Adam and Eve!
As a myth, it's simply a "how did we all get here and why are things so hard?" story...it's value is in it's history and it's revelation of the roots of judeo-christian thought...the seeds of western civlzation and all that, yadda yadda...
so could their can be a possibility that different races were created later on throughout the bible? o r all by adam and eve family?
Mya, this is the story of the bible and the bible has absolutely no room for manouver on this issue. We can not go back in the past and alter the words of the prophets. If you want the baby you just have to keep the dirty bathwater.
I think that it is good you are asking this question, you just now must realise that if you do not like the literal word of the bible then fortunately because you live in a free and fair society you are allowed to hold a differing opinion.
Your opinion is no better or worse than any other opinion, no living person can offer you anything other than the word of the bible or their own opinion.
Does that mean that incest is condoned by the Bible?
Ralph, the christian bible is a collection of many books, written at different times and filled with many stories. Just like the world we live in today, they are not all good or bad.
Incest, is the word we use today, to describe the sexual act by couples with a close blood connection. We also have many examples of customs and practices of other cultures, or in the past that are not practiced today.
Genesis, the book with the Adam and Eve creation story has many examples of incest, this is also the first book contained within the bible. By the time you get down to Leviticus (3rd book) and Deuteronomy (5th book), the laws against incest are in the bible, with the glaring exception of father daughter incest. That slip is put down to it either, being so obvious it does not need to be written down, or to the poor transcription of a scribe.
So I guess the answer is no, the bible does not condone incest, but yes, the bible does record stories where incest has occured.
Very interesting vantage point and if one believes in biblical creation then it would be incest today but not back then because the concept of incest was not an issue. No one around to make an arrest, no jail, no penal code, no judges, get the point.
you say from the third book thats where you'll find laws against incest but i believe the laws are of no use because if we all come from the same people, Adam and Eve, then the whole human race is related by blood hence continuation of the practice of incest even today
Pepsy, the continuation of the practice of incest occurs today, but that is not because the participants have any relationship to Adam and Eve.
Incest is a creation of human law, it is designed to prevent the sexual union of two people who may not legally marry.
As with any other human law, it depends on jurisdiction, as to who may legaly marry to determine when incest takes place. So yes, Pepsy, you can be 'blood related' for example up to a second cousin anywhere in the United States and still marry, or a first cousin in some states.
It can be very confusing if you apply the laws and social mores of one jurisdiction to another and particularely to a creation story.
You can argue that you do not see any use in incest laws but most societies for the last five thousand years have been able to agree on this, so your opinion is definitely up hill and against the grain on this one.
If you would like some further thought on future implications however, Adam and Eve still have a significant part to play. The successful future attempt by mankind to manipulate the genetic material of a mans rib to create a woman, will be a clone of sorts - the ultimate in 'blood relationship'. Laws to cover the marriage or sexual union of such a couple are not yet written, so this will only be incest if they are.
Genesis clearly states that Cain's wife was not a daughter of Adam and Eve. Cain left home, and traveled to a very far away land, which the Bible cites as "the Land of Nod," which the Bible states was located east of Eden.
Cain was Adam's son, but his wife was not Adam's daughter. In fact, the Bible is abundantly clear in stating that she was not only unrelated, but that she was from a foreign land.
Only those who are very ignorant of what the Bible actually says would ever take the position that Adam's sons committed incest.
Which version and publication of Genesis is it I am ignorant of Purusha. Cain went to the land of Nod, Yes, and Nod is the Hebrew root of the verb to wander, so that means that Cain has to wander the earth and it is not until he builds a city in this land that one exists. So, were these wandering lands populated from the offspring of Adam and Eve or by Women and Men not created by God. I have not read any version of Genesis that describes who else was creating Mankind and I am not trying to make up an alternative. I am not about to rewrite Genesis, so if it contains some things that may be uncomfortable for you to deal with then don't read it, but don't pretend that all the people described in the bible were always good people, doing Gods work.
Seriously, I would like to know which version of Genesis you have, that clearly states that Cains wife was unrelated and from a foreign land, I am clearly ignorant of the source of your conviction. If I had the opportunity, I would like to ask who did the translation and why they felt compelled to create this revision to the good book.
Good hub Trajundo,
When you replied to Pepsy you brought up an interesting moral dillemma with the future of cloning. I know that human cloning is a banned science, but to put this genie back in the bottle when it does finally occur, would require state sanctioned euthenasia and that sounds unlikely.
Without legal provision, no birth certificate would be possible. As an illegal alien, the cloned human might be able to get a passport from the U.N. and seek refuge status. If no legal framework exists, then no law could be breached by a clone/genetic-material-donor union. Children from such a union are another can of worms.
Thanks,
I am not sure I can add to this one Agantum. It sounds like a question for the hub community.
cindyvine Level 2 Commenter 3 years ago
Thanks for answering my request. Is it not possible, that there were other people on the planet who their children could have married, who were not a part of Adam's clan. Maybe the bible only looks at one clan, the chosen clan? because, how would that account for all the cae dwellers all around the world at the time? The very religious orthodox Jews believe that the world is only 6000 years old! But evidence of cave dwellers goes beyond that. Interesting hub and definitely thought-provoking.