“Eww, Did Cain Marry His Sister?”

Statements like this are often thrown at biblical creationists—not only from Bible skeptics but also from some professing Christians who object to the plain reading of not only Genesis 1 (which explains that we all ultimately originate from our original two parents, Adam and Eve) but of Genesis 6–9 as well. These chapters explain that the human population was reduced to only eight people at the time of Noah’s flood and that everyone since that time came from those four couples who exited the ark after the deluge (all of the males, Noah and his three sons, were from the same lineage). So the Bible clearly teaches that, at least twice in history, there was no choice but for people to marry very close relatives.

The point those skeptics of a literal Genesis are making, of course, is that children produced from unions between closely related people often have severe birth defects that can affect them both physically and mentally. The argument is that only eight people (four of whom, Noah and his sons, were very closely related) could not possibly have had enough genetic diversity to prevent such an outcome and that only two original people could certainly never overcome the massive challenge that such so-called inbreeding would result in today.

The Sad Story of the Whittaker Family

The Whittaker family is one of the most recent and popular examples of inbreeding. They are referred to as America’s most inbred family and are featured on a popular video playlist on the Soft White Underbelly YouTube channel (run by videographer, author, and photographer Mark Laita). Just the first featured video on them has over 44 million views.

Laita’s books, website, and YouTube channel are dedicated to showing some of the more vulnerable aspects of human conditions, and his exposé of the Whittakers certainly exemplifies that. An article from The Daily Record describes the family this way.

The Whittaker family, from West Virginia, have a long history of inbreeding, which has left them with a number of heartbreaking genetic defects. . . . Their offspring suffered severe physical and mental defects.1

Describing his first encounter with the Whittaker family, Laita relates the following.

And there's these people walking around and their eyes are going in different directions and they are barking at us. And then one guy, you would look him in the eye or say anything and he would just scream and go running away, . . . and he would go running off and go and kick a garbage can.2

Seeing the squalor these people were living in, Laita set up a GoFundMe page for the family, which received thousands of dollars from people impacted by his documentary and wishing to help. The funds have been put toward improving the Whittakers’ home and lifestyle, including repairing a roof, remodeling their kitchen, and purchasing a coal heater and a new truck.

Examples like the Whittakers are why the objection to a plain reading of the relevant Genesis passages can seem to be such a strong argument against accepting it as true history. And it is not only atheistic thinkers that bring up this objection, but even occult groups do as well.

A Diversity of Objectors

Below is a quote from one Silver Ravenwolf, a head “witch” of sorts and adherent of the Wiccan cult and an author of several books promoting Wicca and pagan practices, in which she encourages teen witches to use the following argument to persuade professing Christians that the Bible is inaccurate (and to therefore, presumably, join the Wiccan religion instead).

Here’s one that will really get them rolling; if you’re lucky, it will at least get them thinking. In the Bible, it says that Cain slew Abel, then left his parents, Adam and Eve, and went to the Land of Nod. There, he married a girl of another tribe. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, who or what did Cain marry? An antelope? A cheetah? He had children, so I guess he picked a woman. She couldn’t have been Adam and Eve’s daughter, stolen from the Garden of Eden Hospital, because we’d all be insane by now. Genetics have taught us a great deal in the last hundred years, particularly the fact that you can’t intermarry. After a few generations, the genes will break down and produce sickly or insane children.3

It is truly an incredible time in history when we can see witches arguing from the field of genetics to try to convince people that the Bible is false! Of course, our enemy, the devil, is very clever, and he and his minions often use arguments against Scripture that contain both truths and falsehoods, therefore obfuscating the clarity of the debate and often confusing believers into error. It is no different in this case, for the way Ravenwolf frames the argument is basically the proverbial skin of reason stuffed with a lie.

After all, is it true that you are not supposed to marry or produce offspring with a close relative today because of dangers to the well-being of the offspring? Yes. And is it true that God’s Word contains a clear command not to do so? Yes—several passages in the Old Testament state this. “How then can Christians hold fast to the Genesis account?” the skeptic asks.

Now, unfortunately, most Christians don’t have an answer to this apparent conundrum, usually summed up more simplistically as “Where did Cain get his wife?,” as the Wiccan’s book alluded to. This is why these teen witches are encouraged to ask it to more vulnerable teens from Christian homes that have little training in biblical apologetics. Can you see how the following scenario might play out in a conversation at your local high school?

Wiccan: “Oh, so you are a Christian? You believe the Bible?”

Christian: “Yes, I have my Bible right here.”

Wiccan: “Well, doesn’t the Bible say that we all come from Adam and Eve? Where would their children have chosen spouses from if you aren’t allowed to marry your brother or sister? Doesn’t the Bible forbid that?”

Christian: “Uh, I never thought of that . . .”

Wiccan: “Well, why not ask your mom and dad and see if they have an answer?”

(The following day)

Wiccan: “Hey, did you ask your mom and dad yesterday if they have an answer to my question?”

Christian: “Well yeah, but they couldn’t answer it and said I just need to have faith . . .”

Wiccan: “Oh, well, let me talk to you about a new faith.”

The fact is, if Bible skeptics are so comfortable knowing most Christians won’t have an answer to this question regarding close intermarriage that they purposefully include it in books as a segue to dismantle a believer’s faith, Christians should obviously have a reasoned response. And there are cogent answers to these objections.

Two Objections

So—to keep us focused—let’s break down what the objections put forth in these cases actually are (whether against the idea of Adam and Eve’s immediate offspring procreating or Noah’s family having too limited genetic diversity to repopulate the earth). The objector’s Achilles’ heel always comes down to a lack of understanding of biblical history and/or perhaps tenth-grade science. The objections really boil down to the two so-called problems below.

1. The scientific or medical objection (children produced by people who closely intermarry often have birth defects).
2. The moral and theological objection (God’s law says you aren’t allowed to marry a close relative).

Breaking Laws That Don’t Exist

Let’s deal with the second objection first, since it’s the easier one to answer and we’ll have more time in Part 2 to deal with the first. It’s true that God instituted a command in his law prohibiting such close unions. However, we should note that the Genesis passages being protested by Bible skeptics took place a long time before God commissioned this law. In fact, the command in Leviticus comes approximately 2,500 years after creation.

Before this, no law prohibited such marriages, and we can also note that prior to its prohibition being codified, close intermarriage was common in the Bible without any hint of God’s disapproval. A good example of this would be Abraham’s marriage to Sarah, who was his half sister (Genesis 20:12).

It’s actually God’s Word—the Bible’s historical record—that is the key to the past, not evolutionary storytelling.

Not only does their relationship demonstrate that close intermarriage was not a problem at this time, but it is also a huge clue that many things back then were not the same as they are today—despite the common uniformitarian concept touted by evolutionary thinking that “the present is the key to the past.” It’s actually God’s Word—the Bible’s historical record—that is the key to the past, not evolutionary storytelling.

Many things back during those first 2,000 years of history were different, including the incredible longevity of many people both before and after the flood, some of whom outlived their offspring who died so-called natural deaths. Another example is the recorded account in Genesis 20 when the king of Gerar asks for Sarah to be brought into his harem. Around this time, she is recorded as being 90 years of age (Genesis 17:17), which means she obviously did not appear similar to someone of that age today.

So just how did people live so long, and why would Sarah (and presumably others) have been able to look so different in older (by today’s standards) years? And why would God have taken so long to institute such a law against close intermarriage if the potential to harm people’s offspring is so great?

Genetics and Mutation

To answer these questions and overcome the first objection listed above (the medical objection vs. the possibility of close intermarriage in early biblical history), we need to ask this: Exactly why are birth defects common among those who intermarry today? What we’ll discover is that the answer comes down to the fact that human DNA is becoming increasingly more corrupted as time goes on and that corruption comes primarily in the form of genetic mutations.

So join us for Part 2, where we will dive deeper into biblical history combined with a diagnosis of our DNA to demonstrate why belief in Genesis as literal history is both theologically and scientifically sound, and we’ll continue showing why the objections often brought against believing it can be easily answered and overcome.