“In fact, the Bible is VERY explicit in that Adam and Eve do NOT have another child until Genesis 4:25, after Enoch is born.”
Exactly which one of Cain's female relatives became his wife isn't stated or how old he was when he took a wife and fled east. but since he did take a wife there were females, his relatives, alive at the time.
In the book of Romans Paul discusses Adam as a historical individual, not mankind generically, and case as he does Abraham and Sarah. In fact Paul calls Adam the first man in 1 Cor. chapter 15 so there would be no men before Adam to become aware of God and Adam himself was aware of God from his creation.
“Yes, yes it does. Evolution is a scientific theory of how man evolved from primates; Romans 5:12 is theology which tells us that once man became aware of God, that first man sinned and caused separation for all men from God.”
This sort of double-think is described at 1 Kings 18:21.
Please point to the verse that states this; in fact, Genesis 5:4 states (KJV):
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters
Clearly the Bible lays out the chronology of the other sons and daughters as AFTER Adam had Seth, which happens AFTER Cain is married.
The Bible is unequivocal on this matter; there were NO other people on the earth at the time Cain slew Abel other than Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel.
Exactly which one of Cain's female relatives became his wife isn't stated or how old he was when he took a wife and fled east. but since he did take a wife there were females, his relatives, alive at the time.
No, there weren't if you go by a strict reading of the Bible! See, you're allowing your own inferences to override the literal texts and words of the Bible. Biblically, the other relatives WERE NOT BORN until after Cain fathered Enoch. Period. Point to ANY other births prior to that, or to any verse stating that Adam had other children before (not after) Seth was born. You can't.
So you make a conclusion that it must have been true and this is an irrelevant detail to concern yourself with since it's the only thing that could have worked. Never mind the Bible doesn't mention it.
Yet you denigrate those who do the same for the Creation story. That maybe the importance of the Creation story is not in the methodology of the Creation as written but in the meaning of the Creation? That the Bible - just like with Cain's wife - does not record every event historically, but contains them for the fundamental philosophical and theological truths that God loves us!