OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 12:21:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Where did Cain get his wife?  (Read 3328 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« on: April 12, 2006, 06:49:57 AM »

A number of Protestants have told me that Cain married a sister, or a neice. Is there any Orthodox opinion on this matter?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2006, 08:49:37 AM »

www.aforeignaffair.com
Logged
falafel333
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2006, 08:58:09 AM »

I suppose this would depend on whether you subscribe to evolutionary theory or not...If you do then other people would already have existed on earth and Cain's marriage is not so problematic...If not then many believe that he was married to his sister which would not be too unusual considering that Abraham was married to his half-sister and Amram, Moses' father, was married to his aunt...
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2006, 09:02:22 AM »

And what's wrong with them?  Cheesy
« Last Edit: April 12, 2006, 09:03:52 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2006, 09:03:18 AM »

I suppose this would depend on whether you subscribe to evolutionary theory or not...If you do then other people would already have existed on earth and Cain's marriage is not so problematic...If not then many believe that he was married to his sister which would not be too unusual considering that Abraham was married to his half-sister and Amram, Moses' father, was married to his aunt...
I had hoped that someone might cite an Orthodox Father's opinion on this
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2006, 09:36:02 AM »

I'm aware that Lot had intercourse with his daughters, but they got him drunk. Incest is only specifically banned in the time of Moses (unless someone's aware of an earlier prohibition). And I do appreciate the fact that God allowed some behaviours to go on in the OT, even though these aren't ideal.

But still, I shiver at the idea of Cain's wife being his sister.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2006, 09:54:10 AM »

C'mon montalban, Genesis is an allegory! It's not factual history.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2006, 09:54:26 AM by TomS » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2006, 10:05:36 AM »

C'mon montalban, Genesis is an allegory! It's not factual history.

TomS,

You should know better than to bring either common knowledge or common sense into these absurd threads, clearly the entire bible must be taken as inerrant...SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Amdetsion
Worship God with all thy strength and all thy might
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Patriarchate; Addis Abebe Ethiopia
Posts: 931


HH Abuna Pawlos - Patriarch of Ethiopia


« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2006, 01:09:26 PM »

Montalban

Protestants can not even figure out what the Church is. Their is no need to consider a protestant opinion on anything especially if it is bible oriented.

Just a point I thought was important.
Logged

"ETHIOPIA shall soon stretch out her hands unto God".....Psalm 68:vs 31

"Are ye not as children of the ETHIOPIANS unto me, O children of Israel"?....Amos 9: vs 7
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2006, 02:14:03 PM »

C'mon montalban, Genesis is an allegory! It's not factual history.

I give you credit, TomS.  For all the BS you like to spew on this forum  Wink (just teasing), you may be right here.  Genesis was written from the oral traditions and mythology of the Jewish people (and probably even of the Semitic peoples who preceded the sons of Israel).  I'm not sure that strict historical accuracy was so important to this tradition as today's literalists would like us to believe.  Therefore, I don't think historical accuracy is as important here as is the spiritual truth communicated in the myths.  Fr. Thomas Hopko will even point to the conundrum of this thread as evidence that we should NOT adhere to such a literalist interpretation of Genesis--at least of the Genesis narrative prior to the calling of Abraham.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2006, 03:13:29 PM »

C'mon montalban, Genesis is an allegory! It's not factual history.

Is that the conensus of patristic tradition?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2006, 03:15:44 PM »

Is that the conensus of patristic tradition?

There is not consensus, but it is probably the dominate school of thought.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2006, 03:41:44 PM »

There is not consensus, but it is probably the dominate school of thought.

Then please provide patristic evidence to support this position.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2006, 04:25:56 PM »

An interesting conundrum in the interpretation of Genesis:


This story has God making man after He creates all other forms of life.

And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


(Genesis 1:25-27)


Now read this story.  It has God making man before He creates all other forms of life.

...when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground--then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

(Genesis 2:5-7)


Now how can the two contradictory narratives be reconciled by one who holds to a literal interpretation of the text?
Logged
Sarah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 111


« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2006, 04:49:46 PM »

I have heard (nothing official, mind you!) that the Bible, for the most part, focuses on Jesus and His ancestors.  If that's the case, where Cain got his wife is not hard to understand--other people were created after Adam and Eve in other parts of the world, we just didn't get an account of their lives.  However, I guess we're all descended from Noah and his family because everyone else was destroyed in The Flood!!!
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2006, 09:23:13 PM »

I have heard (nothing official, mind you!) that the Bible, for the most part, focuses on Jesus and His ancestors.  If that's the case, where Cain got his wife is not hard to understand--other people were created after Adam and Eve in other parts of the world, we just didn't get an account of their lives.  However, I guess we're all descended from Noah and his family because everyone else was destroyed in The Flood!!!

I always thought that other people were created. I just don't have any knowledge of any Fathers that say this
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2006, 09:23:59 PM »

C'mon montalban, Genesis is an allegory! It's not factual history.

Well with that stunning retort, you've convinced me to your theories. Where do I sign up?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2006, 01:22:12 AM »

Now how can the two contradictory narratives be reconciled by one who holds to a literal interpretation of the text?

I'd read up on the church fathers on this, it's not like they were never confronted with this apparent contradiction. But Bible Difficulties will do for now:

"There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.  Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.  The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.  Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam.  Why?  Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam.  They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created."
http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen_1.htm

Peace.
     
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2006, 01:33:47 AM »

I'd read up on the church fathers on this, it's not like they were never confronted with this apparent contradiction. But Bible Difficulties will do for now:

"There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.  Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.  The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.  Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam.  Why?  Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam.  They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created."
http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen_1.htm

Peace.
 ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚Â
I always thought the same thing re: two Genesis chapters
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
czzham
...at work in the sonic Monastery...
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Posts: 65

...in pursuit of Divine Mystery...


« Reply #19 on: April 13, 2006, 02:59:48 AM »

It's always been kinda hard for me to reconcile the entire human race as "springing forth" from one fleshly source. I can't conceive of "incest" being outlawed by the Lord after the fact, as "God Is Unchanging". Also, all cultures of the world have their own Creation legend, as well as their own Flood legend. Who's to say that the Genesis account isn't simply the history of the Semitic race(s), and that there weren't other human races co-existent, or co-created, at the same time? I'm not trying to flog the dog, just wish there were more documented proof of the origins of the entire "human race" that didn't rely on carbon dating or whatever else gets used these days rather than the written word.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2006, 03:00:31 AM by czzham » Logged

Non-liturgical lyrics are wasted space between solos.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #20 on: April 13, 2006, 03:18:05 AM »

It's always been kinda hard for me to reconcile the entire human race as "springing forth" from one fleshly source. I can't conceive of "incest" being outlawed by the Lord after the fact, as "God Is Unchanging". Also, all cultures of the world have their own Creation legend, as well as their own Flood legend. Who's to say that the Genesis account isn't simply the history of the Semitic race(s), and that there weren't other human races co-existent, or co-created, at the same time? I'm not trying to flog the dog, just wish there were more documented proof of the origins of the entire "human race" that didn't rely on carbon dating or whatever else gets used these days rather than the written word.
God is unchanging but He allows us to change; hence there's laws against eating magical animals* but now we can


*
Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
czzham
...at work in the sonic Monastery...
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Posts: 65

...in pursuit of Divine Mystery...


« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2006, 05:03:41 AM »

Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal

Not quite the "animal" I'm referring to. Although most races of the world now eat pork and are not condemned for it, it is still very AntiChrist in spirit to even consider incest as a valid option, much less think of it as where we came from. Plus, isn't there "proof" of remains of ancestral peoples from many places in the world, not just one?  
Logged

Non-liturgical lyrics are wasted space between solos.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2006, 06:25:26 AM »

Not quite the "animal" I'm referring to. Although most races of the world now eat pork and are not condemned for it, it is still very AntiChrist in spirit to even consider incest as a valid option, much less think of it as where we came from. Plus, isn't there "proof" of remains of ancestral peoples from many places in the world, not just one? ÂÂ

I agree that there's a vast difference in degree between eating pork and incest. However we know from the OT that many things were allowed by God; as the slaughtering of men women and children of some tribes.

I also do believe that God created other people. I'm just pointing out I don't agree with your argument that incest would never have been allowed because God doesn't change. That is, I agree that God doesn't change, but He has allowed different things at different times.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Amdetsion
Worship God with all thy strength and all thy might
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Patriarchate; Addis Abebe Ethiopia
Posts: 931


HH Abuna Pawlos - Patriarch of Ethiopia


« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2006, 10:27:24 PM »

Czzham

I am not interested in posting on this subject; but I have read a few postings.

I did notice that you questioned the absolute truth of the bible. You mentioned that Genesis may be truth for Semitics and not the whole world.

Not surprising that you would say something as shocking as that.

Did you read this in one of your "bibles"; or are you just expressing how 'you' see truth like you seem to do so often.

The Bible deals with this subject directly.

To all others:
WE are to view scripture for its truth in Gods plan for salvation of ALL mankind...To dilly dally with subjects like this is fruitless talk. I mean look; we could 'question' everything if that is the point.
Logged

"ETHIOPIA shall soon stretch out her hands unto God".....Psalm 68:vs 31

"Are ye not as children of the ETHIOPIANS unto me, O children of Israel"?....Amos 9: vs 7
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2006, 11:58:00 PM »

I'd read up on the church fathers on this, it's not like they were never confronted with this apparent contradiction. But Bible Difficulties will do for now:

"There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.  Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.  The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2.  Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam.  Why?  Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam.  They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created."
http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen_1.htm

Peace.

I think this is a bit silly becauses it doesn't address, and really never seems to notice, an important distinction. Plants and herbs were already growing. It was rather plants and herbs of the field that were not. This is because Adam and Eve had not fallen. In Genesis 3:18 the distnction can be seen again: "It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field."
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
annaspencer
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 102


« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2006, 09:35:42 AM »

An interesting conundrum in the interpretation of Genesis:


This story has God making man after He creates all other forms of life.

And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.


(Genesis 1:25-27)


Now read this story.  It has God making man before He creates all other forms of life.

...when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground--then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

(Genesis 2:5-7)


Now how can the two contradictory narratives be reconciled by one who holds to a literal interpretation of the text?

Where is the contradiction?
The first bit says God created man after the animals etc, the second bit invites to imagine a time before the land could be used for harvest, there were no plants in the FIELD, because there was no man to TILL the field.
Logged
humblyinChrist
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4


« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2011, 10:51:35 AM »

p.232 of Fr. Seraphim Rose's great book reveals that Church Fathers believed Cain's wife to be a distant relative. Historical narrative of Jewish writers reveal that Adam had 33 sons and 23 daughters over his 930 year life span. Obviously easy for a relative to be around by the time Cain got a wife.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2011, 03:41:30 AM »

How could Cain's wife be a distant relative, no matter how many children Adam and Eve had.  I mean, if I have one brother, is he a closer relative than if I have six brothers and three sisters?  The fact that Adam had lots of children wouldn't change that Cain's wife (assuming that Adam and Eve were the only people created by God directly) would have either had to be his sister, his niece, his great-niece, etc.  If she was someone other than his sister, that would mean that (at least) one of his sisters and brothers were married and produced children.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2011, 03:58:13 AM »

How could Cain's wife be a distant relative, no matter how many children Adam and Eve had.  I mean, if I have one brother, is he a closer relative than if I have six brothers and three sisters?  The fact that Adam had lots of children wouldn't change that Cain's wife (assuming that Adam and Eve were the only people created by God directly) would have either had to be his sister, his niece, his great-niece, etc.  If she was someone other than his sister, that would mean that (at least) one of his sisters and brothers were married and produced children.

Using words like "distant" makes the concept slightly more palatable. Wink Who wants to think that (whether by special creation or an evolutionary route) the entire human race came out of close relatives bumping beauties?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2011, 04:01:28 AM »

How could Cain's wife be a distant relative, no matter how many children Adam and Eve had.  I mean, if I have one brother, is he a closer relative than if I have six brothers and three sisters?  The fact that Adam had lots of children wouldn't change that Cain's wife (assuming that Adam and Eve were the only people created by God directly) would have either had to be his sister, his niece, his great-niece, etc.  If she was someone other than his sister, that would mean that (at least) one of his sisters and brothers were married and produced children.

Using words like "distant" makes the concept slightly more palatable. Wink Who wants to think that (whether by special creation or an evolutionary route) the entire human race came out of close relatives bumping beauties?

Beauties, eh? I've always heard them referred to as uglies...  laugh
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2011, 08:14:59 AM »

Beauties, eh? I've always heard them referred to as uglies...  laugh

Hey, the issues that other people have with sexuality isn't my concern Wink  angel
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.107 seconds with 59 queries.