“THE MYSTERIOUS MRS. CAIN"
The question of who did Cain marry and where did she come from has bothered biblical scholars and layman alike for quite some time.
At long last, thanks to the folks at the Creation Museum we may have the answer.
According to the Creation Museum and their web site ANSWERS IN GENESIS (AIG) there is a simple answer to who she was and where she came from. Cain’s wife was his sister. You read that right --- Cain’s wife was his SISTER! We are not making this stuff up. That is what AiG says on their web site --- Cain’s wife was his SISTER! Or maybe his niece or cousin but probably his sister. However, according to AIG since Moses didn’t condemn incest and say it was forbidden until after the EXODUS in 1491 BCE, it was okay by Unohu that Cain and his little sister were having sexual intercourse and begatting generations of inbreeds. Apparently, at least according to AIG, all of Adam and Eve’s offspring were involved in incest in some shape or form. Yech!!! What is really bothering is that AIG sees nothing wrong with this fact because they claim Adam and Eve were genetically pure and so they had no bad genes.
According to AIG Adam and Eve were superior to modern humans in every way.
(Yeah, right. If Adam was so smart why did he eat the apple? I.M.P)
Tell you what, we'll let Ken Ham, the Director of the Creation Museum, explain it to you in simple terms.
At long last, thanks to the folks at the Creation Museum we may have the answer.
According to the Creation Museum and their web site ANSWERS IN GENESIS (AIG) there is a simple answer to who she was and where she came from. Cain’s wife was his sister. You read that right --- Cain’s wife was his SISTER! We are not making this stuff up. That is what AiG says on their web site --- Cain’s wife was his SISTER! Or maybe his niece or cousin but probably his sister. However, according to AIG since Moses didn’t condemn incest and say it was forbidden until after the EXODUS in 1491 BCE, it was okay by Unohu that Cain and his little sister were having sexual intercourse and begatting generations of inbreeds. Apparently, at least according to AIG, all of Adam and Eve’s offspring were involved in incest in some shape or form. Yech!!! What is really bothering is that AIG sees nothing wrong with this fact because they claim Adam and Eve were genetically pure and so they had no bad genes.
According to AIG Adam and Eve were superior to modern humans in every way.
(Yeah, right. If Adam was so smart why did he eat the apple? I.M.P)
Tell you what, we'll let Ken Ham, the Director of the Creation Museum, explain it to you in simple terms.
We hope you got all that Aussie double-speak.
Hey, it must be true because it appears Creation Museum got their information not from the Bible but from wiki.answers.com --- you don't believe us?
Check out: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_did_Cains'_wife_come_from
Can't argue with wiki-answers.com. But it just doesn't add up somehow. Let’s go back and look at the incest thing.
INCEST IS RELATIVE
Incest is incest folks and most moral people would agree that it is wrong. Does it make sense that Unohu would banish Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden for eating an apple and say nothing about the fact that their kids, brothers and sisters, were doing the dirty deed?
The Ewwwwww Factor
The world is a strange place.
People got very upset when Angelina Jolie kissed her brother but apparently Creationists have no problem that Adam and Eve’s kids were doing the exact same thing and most likely were in fact bonking each other. We say bonking because we don’t want to upset anyone. But you know what we’re talking about --- the dirty deed, the horizontal mambo.
All those generations of inbreeding must have had some impact on the human gene pool. Anyone remember the movie DELIVERANCE ? "You sure got a pretty mouth…"
But we digress.
We checked the Internet and talked to some experts.
It appears that some plants, such as sweet cherries; animals, like chimpanzees and lions; and even insects like fruit flies have natural taboos about incest and inbreeding.
People got very upset when Angelina Jolie kissed her brother but apparently Creationists have no problem that Adam and Eve’s kids were doing the exact same thing and most likely were in fact bonking each other. We say bonking because we don’t want to upset anyone. But you know what we’re talking about --- the dirty deed, the horizontal mambo.
All those generations of inbreeding must have had some impact on the human gene pool. Anyone remember the movie DELIVERANCE ? "You sure got a pretty mouth…"
But we digress.
We checked the Internet and talked to some experts.
It appears that some plants, such as sweet cherries; animals, like chimpanzees and lions; and even insects like fruit flies have natural taboos about incest and inbreeding.
CHERRY BLOSSUMS HAVE INCEST TABOO
|
CHIMPS KNOW BETTER
|
EVEN FRUIT FLIES SAY NO WAY
|
However, according to the Creation Museum, humans didn't have a problem with it for 3,000 years. Is that dumb or what?
According the nice folks that study this kind of thing, all sorts of weird stuff can happen as a result of inbreeding:
“As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
--- reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
--- increased genetic disorders
--- fluctuating facial asymmetry
--- lower birth weight
--- higher infant mortality
--- slower growth rate
--- smaller adult size
--- loss of immune system function.
"Natural selection works to remove individuals who acquire the above types of traits from the gene pool. Therefore, many more individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce.” ~ Heather E. Lorimer, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Genetics, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Youngstown State University, Youngstown OH 44555 (http://cc.ysu.edu/~helorime/inbred.html)
The above link is currently not functioning so we suggest you check the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
CREATION FOLKS KNOW BEST
FACT: Actual AIG signage
(Forget what the experts say, the people who run the Creation Museum know more. F.B.B.)
(They want us to believe that for 2,500 years incest and close intermarriage was "normal." Come on people, even the chimpanzees have incest taboos and they're not as smart as us. How come they could figure it out and us humans didn't figure it out for the first 2,500 years? Who is making this stuff up? I.M.P.)
(They want us to believe that for 2,500 years incest and close intermarriage was "normal." Come on people, even the chimpanzees have incest taboos and they're not as smart as us. How come they could figure it out and us humans didn't figure it out for the first 2,500 years? Who is making this stuff up? I.M.P.)
Where did Cain's Wife Come From?
Now we don't expect you to believe us on this one but the nice folks behind the CREATION MUSEUM even came up with a song to explain to kids why incest and inbreeding was okay back then.
Check out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cainswife_1.pdf
Check out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cainswife_1.pdf
A LOT TO LEARN
Painted in 1616 by artist Hendrik Goltzius
(Nobody is making this stuff up. It's in the Bible. Incest and inbreeding were common back then. Just look aT Lot and his daughters. B.F.F.)
Wikipedia tells us:
The oldest daughter had become concerned about preserving their family line and suggested to her younger sister that since there are no men around, they ought to take advantage of their father.[v.31,32]
Thus, the daughters got their father so drunk they were able to have intercourse with him on two consecutive nights, the oldest daughter having her way with him the first night, followed by the youngest daughter on the following night.[v.31-35] Interestingly, the text says that Lot was so drunk “he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.”[v.33,35] This text suggests a justification for an action that was not considered normal. (So, Bucky, did you catch that last part? ~ This text suggests a justification for an action that was not considered normal. I.M.P.)
The Rijksmuseum describes the painting in this way:"A seasoned but lusty old man is seated between two naked young women. In the background a city is burning. The man is Lot, seduced by his daughters following the destruction of the city of Sodom. "http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/aria/aria_assets/SK-A-4866?lang=en
Wikipedia tells us:
The oldest daughter had become concerned about preserving their family line and suggested to her younger sister that since there are no men around, they ought to take advantage of their father.[v.31,32]
Thus, the daughters got their father so drunk they were able to have intercourse with him on two consecutive nights, the oldest daughter having her way with him the first night, followed by the youngest daughter on the following night.[v.31-35] Interestingly, the text says that Lot was so drunk “he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.”[v.33,35] This text suggests a justification for an action that was not considered normal. (So, Bucky, did you catch that last part? ~ This text suggests a justification for an action that was not considered normal. I.M.P.)
The Rijksmuseum describes the painting in this way:"A seasoned but lusty old man is seated between two naked young women. In the background a city is burning. The man is Lot, seduced by his daughters following the destruction of the city of Sodom. "http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/aria/aria_assets/SK-A-4866?lang=en
AIG tells us:
"By the time of Moses (about 2,500 years later), degenerative mistakes would have accumulated to such an extent in the human race that it would have been necessary for God to bring in the laws forbidding brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18–20)."
(Great jumping Mother of Moses, AIG is trying to tell us that it took 2,500 years of accumulated degenerative mistakes --- or about 125 generations --- before there was a problem and Unohu did something about it. Since the time of Moses we have been incest free --- except for certain royal families and some folks in the South --- for 3000 years and yet scientists tell us that a single generation can cause the above mentioned defects. I.M.P.)
"By the time of Moses (about 2,500 years later), degenerative mistakes would have accumulated to such an extent in the human race that it would have been necessary for God to bring in the laws forbidding brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18–20)."
(Great jumping Mother of Moses, AIG is trying to tell us that it took 2,500 years of accumulated degenerative mistakes --- or about 125 generations --- before there was a problem and Unohu did something about it. Since the time of Moses we have been incest free --- except for certain royal families and some folks in the South --- for 3000 years and yet scientists tell us that a single generation can cause the above mentioned defects. I.M.P.)
AIG makes the point that Moses forbid incest because:
“In all, there appear to be three interrelated reasons for the introduction of laws forbidding close intermarriage:
--- As we have already discussed, there was the need to protect against the increasing potential to produce deformed offspring.
--- God’s laws were instrumental in keeping the Jewish nation strong, healthy, and within the purposes of God.
--- These laws were a means of protecting the individual, the family structure, and society at large. The psychological damage caused by incestuous relationships should not be minimized.”
Inbreeding and Asymmetrical Faces
AIG says that we have asymmetrical faces (that means both sides are not the same) because we are all inbreeds. To test this theory and illustrate the point we are going to do a little scientific experiment and use the face of AIG founder and Creation Museum Director, Ken Ham.
“In all, there appear to be three interrelated reasons for the introduction of laws forbidding close intermarriage:
--- As we have already discussed, there was the need to protect against the increasing potential to produce deformed offspring.
--- God’s laws were instrumental in keeping the Jewish nation strong, healthy, and within the purposes of God.
--- These laws were a means of protecting the individual, the family structure, and society at large. The psychological damage caused by incestuous relationships should not be minimized.”
Inbreeding and Asymmetrical Faces
AIG says that we have asymmetrical faces (that means both sides are not the same) because we are all inbreeds. To test this theory and illustrate the point we are going to do a little scientific experiment and use the face of AIG founder and Creation Museum Director, Ken Ham.
COMPARISON TEST #1
In the first picture, we see Mr. Ham. In the second picture we have digitally mirrored the right side of his face so both side are now identical --- one the mirror image of the other. In the third picture we have digitally mirrored the left side of his face so both side are identical --- one the mirror image of the other. Kinda creepy, huh?
Clearly the two sides of his face are not the same, proving that they are very different and thus asymmetrical. This would appear to confirm Mr. Ham’s theory that incest and inbreeding causes mutations and/or mistakes in one’s genes over time.
However, in order to be scientific we should do a comparision test with another individual.
COMPARISON TEST #2
Flawless beauty from every angle!
If The Creation Museum is correct then when you compared Mr. Ham's face to that of Supermodel Adriana Lima's face it is obvious whose face is more distorted; it is clear who is the more pure bred and who is not.
Still not convinced? Let's try the experiment with another Creationist - Joel Osteen. He is a Televangelist and Senior Pastor at Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. The picture on the left is the sample picture --- the center and right picture show the mirrored images of the right and left side of the faces. It is clear they do not match.
Still not convinced? Let's try the experiment with another Creationist - Joel Osteen. He is a Televangelist and Senior Pastor at Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. The picture on the left is the sample picture --- the center and right picture show the mirrored images of the right and left side of the faces. It is clear they do not match.
COMPARISON TEST #3
|
|
|
COMPARISON TEST #4
Is Atheist Richard Dawkins the result of incest and inbreeding?
One thing we have learned as Pseudo Scientists is to repeat an experiment numerous times
to make sure that the data isn't flawed or tainted in some way
Therefore, in order to show that we have no bias whatsoever, we found a picture of
former child star Kirk Cameron without any make-up on.
We believe that the original photograph (let's call it Test photo #1) is not retouched.
As far as we can tell it hasn't been air brushed or altered in any way to remove any possible defects or
blemishes (It's rare in Hollywood to find a unretouched photo of any actor or actress).
We repeated the same test on this photo as in the three previous tests;
that is, we used different sides of Kirk's face to check to see if it was asymmetrical or not.
The answer is obvious.
COMPARISON TEST #5
to make sure that the data isn't flawed or tainted in some way
Therefore, in order to show that we have no bias whatsoever, we found a picture of
former child star Kirk Cameron without any make-up on.
We believe that the original photograph (let's call it Test photo #1) is not retouched.
As far as we can tell it hasn't been air brushed or altered in any way to remove any possible defects or
blemishes (It's rare in Hollywood to find a unretouched photo of any actor or actress).
We repeated the same test on this photo as in the three previous tests;
that is, we used different sides of Kirk's face to check to see if it was asymmetrical or not.
The answer is obvious.
COMPARISON TEST #5
Test Photo #1
|
RIGHT SIDE MIRRORED
|
LEFT SIDE MIRRORED
|
CONCLUSION
Incest and inbreeding = Mental retardation, low sperm count and crooked faces?
Thanks to the folks at the Creation Museum and AIG we have a better understanding of inbreeding and incest. This information helps us to begin to understand the driving forces behind the folks involved in the Creation Museum and Creationists in general. We shouldn’t blame the folks for coming up with a stupid ideas like the Creation Museum and try to answer where Cain's wife came from. As they point out themselves “The psychological damage caused by incestuous relationships should not be minimized.” Obviously, 2,500 years of inbreeding has had a major impact on the lives of these folks and the way they think.
(Heck, they got rich people to put up $27 million to build their museum...
they may be inbreds, have crooked faces but they ain't totally stupid. F.B.B)
(All I'm saying is that they should just be honest and not try to make up some lame story that has no foundation in truth. I.M.P.)
Fact: The Bible doesn't say where Mrs. Cain came from.
Forget about Mrs.Cain for the time being. The CREATION MUSEUM has a bigger question to answer ---
DID ADAM AND EVE ADOPT?
Thanks to the folks at the Creation Museum and AIG we have a better understanding of inbreeding and incest. This information helps us to begin to understand the driving forces behind the folks involved in the Creation Museum and Creationists in general. We shouldn’t blame the folks for coming up with a stupid ideas like the Creation Museum and try to answer where Cain's wife came from. As they point out themselves “The psychological damage caused by incestuous relationships should not be minimized.” Obviously, 2,500 years of inbreeding has had a major impact on the lives of these folks and the way they think.
(Heck, they got rich people to put up $27 million to build their museum...
they may be inbreds, have crooked faces but they ain't totally stupid. F.B.B)
(All I'm saying is that they should just be honest and not try to make up some lame story that has no foundation in truth. I.M.P.)
Fact: The Bible doesn't say where Mrs. Cain came from.
Forget about Mrs.Cain for the time being. The CREATION MUSEUM has a bigger question to answer ---
DID ADAM AND EVE ADOPT?
|
|
