Eve's Children

[Trekson]

In the hopes of starting a conversation and not an argument, I'd like to restart the Genesis issue. I'm going to voice an opinion for starters. I believe that Eve could have had hundreds or thousands of children before Cain. What say you?

 

[Mozzie]

I was just thinking the age of her death, was not long after Adam, granted the Bible gives us the names of the their children it is possible as Genesis in in Chronological order, that she could have had more, i am thinking that would not the Bible have given is their names as well rather than just a few.??

 

[Newman111107]

Interesting topic. Since we are, more or less speculating (which is kind of fun in and of itself sometimes), I'm just wondering the following. When Cain leaves Eden, he goes to a city and becomes a builder of some kind. City?? Where did all those people come from? Eve's previous children? Even Chronicles does not mention the names of Eve's children...except for Cain and Abel, but I believe Cain and Abel were put out there because there was a specific lesson to be learned about the sin of murder (not to mention his dad lying about eating of the Tree of Knowledge). It shows an example of God's reaction to that. Here's another thought that I actually read from a book (long time ago). It speculates that the span of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is well over a million years. "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Some versions say "void and without form". Speculation suggested that the Hebrew words actually meant "laid wasted" and "barren". Then you hear about the war with the angels and the world was destroyed. God started over again with Eden and Adam. Hmmmmmmm (scratching head, wondering)

 

[Trekson]

For more on this topic please see "A Different Look at Genesis" in the Christian Theology section.

 

[Stranger]

In the hopes of starting a conversation and not an argument, I'd like to restart the Genesis issue. I'm going to voice an opinion for starters. I believe that Eve could have had hundreds or thousands of children before Cain. What say you?

I would say no. When Eve had Abel and Seth the term 'again' was used. (Gen. 4:2) "And she again bare his brother Abel." (Gen. 4:25) "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth:" But when Cain was born the term 'again' was not used. (Gen.4:1) "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."

I would say after Cain and Abel were born that there were many children before Seth was born which was 130 years from Adams birth. (Gen. 5:3) " And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:" Thus (Gen.4:3) could be talking about a considerable amount of time and not just a few days when it says, "And in process of time it came to pass,..."

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

We interpret Genesis literally now, rather than as instructive mythology that we can apply to ourselves, and our walk with Christ, today. All of those names have meanings, that we can still access; and each of us has an Adam, male, spirit, and an Eve, female, soul. "Cain,"

Cain elder son of Adam and Eve, from Hebrew Qayin, literally "created one," also "smith," from Semitic stem q-y-n "to form, to fashion." To raise Cain is first recorded 1840. Surnames McCain, McCann, etc., are a contraction of Irish Mac Cathan "son of Cathan," from Celtic cathan, literally "warrior," from cath"battle."
Enoch masc. proper name, in Old Testament eldest son of Cain, father of Methuselah, from Latin Enoch, from Greek Enokh, from Hebrew Hanokh, literally "dedicated, consecrated," from hanakh "he dedicated," whence also Hanukkah. Related: Enochian.


is related as A&E's "first son" for a reason, so that the lessons of Cain--who we all create in ourselves, to "kill" our Abel--may be understood down the road. So, you can debate the facts if you like, but of course you cannot reach any valid conclusions that way, and you will just end up arguing over irrelevancy, and missing the point of the mythology, which is truth. With all due respect.

 

[Stranger]

bbyrd

Why wouldn't facts lead to a valid conclusion? And why would mythology lead to truth?

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

bbyrd

Why wouldn't facts lead to a valid conclusion?

wow, another good Q. Ok, my guess is because they come from the observed, the eyes and ears, the material, the seen. And also because the next situation might be materially different, in some small (or large) way, rendering some or all of the "facts" moot. The first example that comes to mind is, you need to eat vegetables/roughage to stay healthy, to have a healthy colon (which almost no American has now, but nevermind that for a minute). That is a fact. However, Eskimos never eat any veggies, and they do just fine. So somehow, the facts do not apply to them in this case.

In the case of the Creation, reading literally what is readily acknowledged to be mythology, written down by Moses, many, many generations after the "fact," leads one into pointless diversions, and makes the story effectively inaccessible for purposes of personal growth; Abel's "sacrifice of blood" is taken literally, (when reading with a broom), and it does not come out that Abel was a Shepherd, and no one has any idea what "Abel" even means now, the lesson ends at "sacrifice of the fat portions," which is of course now improperly related to Christ's sacrifice, when they are not even the same thing, and Cain becomes the "bad guy," the guy that we must not, at all costs, even think about associating ourselves with, nuh uh, no sirree. On and on. Nobody even notices that Abel had no progeny, and Cain--you and me--lived to a ripe old age, had lots of sons and daughters, in the "Land of Uz," which we don't know what that is even in there for, what is that, lol.

 

[bbyrd009]

And why would mythology lead to truth?

Stranger

ok, my guess here is, notice how we define "myth" today--"Lies." But, for most of human history, up until about the time, oh, that we got scribes, mythology was how essential truth was passed down. By Word. Of mouth. Or, to put it another way, someone's breath, around a campfire, repeating distilled knowledge, in a manner that transcended idiom, and generational drift in language. So, we have been carefully trained to discount mythology now; but the last 5 of the Decalogue came waaay before Moses, and are known to predate Hammurabi, to whom they are frequently attributed anyway, but he just incorporated them into a text, a written tablet, first, perhaps. they were very old, distilled knowledge, even then.

 

[Stranger]

wow, another good Q. Ok, my guess is because they come from the observed, the eyes and ears, the material, the seen. And also because the next situation might be materially different, in some small (or large) way, rendering some or all of the "facts" moot. The first example that comes to mind is, you need to eat vegetables/roughage to stay healthy, to have a healthy colon (which almost no American has now, but nevermind that for a minute). That is a fact. However, Eskimos never eat any veggies, and they do just fine. So somehow, the facts do not apply to them in this case.

In the case of the Creation, reading literally what is readily acknowledged to be mythology, written down by Moses, many, many generations after the "fact," leads one into pointless diversions, and makes the story effectively inaccessible for purposes of personal growth; Abel's "sacrifice of blood" is taken literally, (when reading with a broom), and it does not come out that Abel was a Shepherd, and no one has any idea what "Abel" even means now, the lesson ends at "sacrifice of the fat portions," which is of course now improperly related to Christ's sacrifice, when they are not even the same thing, and Cain becomes the "bad guy," the guy that we must not, at all costs, even think about associating ourselves with, nuh uh, no sirree. On and on. Nobody even notices that Abel had no progeny, and Cain--you and me--lived to a ripe old age, had lots of sons and daughters, in the "Land of Uz," which we don't know what that is even in there for, what is that, lol.

I'm looking at a fact as though it were a fact. How does Eskimos, who you say don't eat vegetables and are healthy, disprove that we don't need to eat vegetables to be healthy? If what you say about the Eskimos is true, then they are getting the nutrition somewhere else in their diet. It doesn't change the fact. Or, are you saying because of the Eskimos we don't need to eat vegetables to be healthy?

Who says what Moses wrote is mythology? Not me. Not anyone I know. You? How does the literalness of Genesis discourage personal growth?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

ok, my guess here is, notice how we define "myth" today--"Lies." But, for most of human history, up until about the time, oh, that we got scribes, mythology was how essential truth was passed down. By Word. Of mouth. Or, to put it another way, someone's breath, around a campfire, repeating distilled knowledge, in a manner that transcended idiom, and generational drift in language. So, we have been carefully trained to discount mythology now; but the last 5 of the Decalogue came waaay before Moses, and are known to predate Hammurabi, to whom they are frequently attributed anyway, but he just incorporated them into a text, a written tablet, first, perhaps. they were very old, distilled knowledge, even then.

No, mythology was not how truth was passed down. It was how mythology was passed down.

The Bible comes by way of the inspiration of God.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

No, mythology was not how truth was passed down. It was how mythology was passed down.


Stranger

then who am i to change your mind? i could produce reams of Biblical scholars, who allow that Genesis is 1) an amalgam of several editors, you know them, J, E, etc, and 2) that almost all of Genesis was mythology, and Moses is just credited with writing it down, and i might ask you how you believe they kept the lineage of Adam intact, if they had no writing, except by mythology, memorizing and reciting around a campfire, but really i don't think it matters that much, tbh.

The Bible comes by way of the inspiration of God.

well, i agree that the Book is God~Breathed, but i also see that Easter is in there. So, there ya go. Which Bible? My Bible would be virtually unreadable to you, right now. Well, maybe not you, the snips from "Elias index" that i have spread around are surely mostly readable to you, but would not be to a new christian, iow. Do i think that means that we should toss all English Bibles? Lol, heck no.

 

[Stranger]

then who am i to change your mind? i could produce reams of Biblical scholars, who allow that Genesis is 1) an amalgam of several editors, you know them, J, E, etc, and 2) that almost all of Genesis was mythology, and Moses is just credited with writing it down, and i might ask you how you believe they kept the lineage of Adam intact, if they had no writing, except by mythology, memorizing and reciting around a campfire, but really i don't think it matters that much, tbh.

well, i agree that the Book is God~Breathed, but i also see that Easter is in there. So, there ya go. Which Bible? My Bible would be virtually unreadable to you, right now. Well, maybe not you, the snips from "Elias index" that i have spread around are surely mostly readable to you, but would not be to a new christian, iow. Do i think that means that we should toss all English Bibles? Lol, heck no.

You're mistaken. It does matter that much. The writing was kept in tact because God revealed to Moses and other prophets that which was to be written. It was miraculous.

No you don't. You don't believe the Bible is God-breathed. Because if you did you wouldn't use the term of 'mythology' to describe it.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Interesting topic. Since we are, more or less speculating (which is kind of fun in and of itself sometimes), I'm just wondering the following. When Cain leaves Eden, he goes to a city and becomes a builder of some kind. City?? Where did all those people come from? Eve's previous children? Even Chronicles does not mention the names of Eve's children...except for Cain and Abel, but I believe Cain and Abel were put out there because there was a specific lesson to be learned about the sin of murder (not to mention his dad lying about eating of the Tree of Knowledge). It shows an example of God's reaction to that. Here's another thought that I actually read from a book (long time ago). It speculates that the span of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is well over a million years. "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Some versions say "void and without form". Speculation suggested that the Hebrew words actually meant "laid wasted" and "barren". Then you hear about the war with the angels and the world was destroyed. God started over again with Eden and Adam. Hmmmmmmm (scratching head, wondering)

1In Principle, Elohim created heavens (shamayim, masculine, only plural) and earth (eretz, feminine, but "seldom, masculine" (hmm), plural אֲרָצוֺת is almost wholly late, Jeremiah 16:15)
2Eretz became emptiness (void, formlessness, confusion, unreality!), and darkness was above (about) the faces of the sea.

so, i guess i'm agreeing, ya.

 

[bbyrd009]

I'm looking at a fact as though it were a fact. How does Eskimos, who you say don't eat vegetables and are healthy, disprove that we don't need to eat vegetables to be healthy? If what you say about the Eskimos is true, then they are getting the nutrition somewhere else in their diet. It doesn't change the fact. Or, are you saying because of the Eskimos we don't need to eat vegetables to be healthy?

Who says what Moses wrote is mythology? Not me. Not anyone I know. You? How does the literalness of Genesis discourage personal growth?

Stranger

um, i guess "discourage personal growth" is not really the best characterization there. The literal story serves a purpose, and as long as it serves you, then what do i have to say about that? Not a thing. But you can read water or wine. And then there is distilled wine. Which of course you are thinking maybe 20%, but this stuff was detergent-strength, 180 proof or whatever. You will be accused of being drunk at the third hour, ok. Meaning that when you come to understand that every line of the Bible is a personal address to you, you are now understanding on a different level than when you are seeking facts and knowing and assurance and proof. And the occasion is going to be remarked upon. So, all i can tell you is that right now all those verses about women are about you, see, and so look at all of the Scripture that opens up right there. Oh and you won't sleep much for like 3-5 days, that always seems to happen too. you get pretty loopy for a minute, when you find the wine.

you go through "4."
4 seasons, 4 faces, 4 states of soil for seed, 4 generations, all the fours are about whatever season you're in. and they're freakily interchangeable

 

[bbyrd009]

1In Principle, Elohim created heavens (shamayim, masculine, only plural) and earth (eretz, feminine, but "seldom, masculine" (hmm), plural אֲרָצוֺת is almost wholly late, Jeremiah 16:15)
2Eretz became emptiness (void, formlessness, confusion, unreality!), and darkness was above (about) the faces of the sea.

so, i guess i'm agreeing, ya.

IN THE REGENERATION Elohim cuts down the Shamayim and the Erets: and the Erets is without form, and a vacuous void, and Darkness is upon the face of the abyss, and Ruach Elohim broods like a Dove upon the face of the waters. And Elohim says, Let there be Light, and there is Light. And Elohim beholds the Light, that it is good, and Elohim divides the Light from the Darkness. And Elohim calls the Light, Yom, and the Darkness he calls Laylah. And the sevenfold voice of reverberation rumbles, I am Light having entered into the world so that all who are faithfully trusting into me will not abide in the Darkness. Are there not twelve yamim of the Yom? If anyone walks in the Yom, he stumbles not, for the Light of the world he beholds. But if anyone walks in the Laylah, he stumbles, for there is no Light in him.

sites.google.com/site/elaiasindex/

 

[Stranger]

um, i guess "discourage personal growth" is not really the best characterization there. The literal story serves a purpose, and as long as it serves you, then what do i have to say about that? Not a thing. But you can read water or wine. And then there is distilled wine. Which of course you are thinking maybe 20%, but this stuff was detergent-strength, 180 proof or whatever. You will be accused of being drunk at the third hour, ok. Meaning that when you come to understand that every line of the Bible is a personal address to you, you are now understanding on a different level than when you are seeking facts and knowing and assurance and proof. And the occasion is going to be remarked upon. So, all i can tell you is that right now all those verses about women are about you, see, and so look at all of the Scripture that opens up right there. Oh and you won't sleep much for like 3-5 days, that always seems to happen too. you get pretty loopy for a minute, when you find the wine.

you go through "4."
4 seasons, 4 faces, 4 states of soil for seed, 4 generations, all the fours are about whatever season you're in. and they're freakily interchangeable

Adam and Eve really existed. All of mankind comes from Adam and Eve. Just as the Bible says. If that is not true, if it is just a story, then there is no value in it. It would all be a lie.

I believe you're on your 5th.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

You're mistaken. It does matter that much. The writing was kept in tact because God revealed to Moses and other prophets that which was to be written. It was miraculous.

Stranger

it is also scribed to death, and we are even told about this in the Book, and there is even a purpose for this, so that people may see, and not see. You can read the Book with a broom, or a shovel. You can read water, or wine. And you are revealed, joints separated from marrow, for all to see, or not see, in your interpretations.

"The writing was kept intact" is, wadr, a joke, right? What does it matter if one has the original available to them, if they do not read the original, and avail themselves of it? I talk to pastors every day who barely know what a Lex even is, lol.

 

[bbyrd009]

No you don't. You don't believe the Bible is God-breathed. Because if you did you wouldn't use the term of 'mythology' to describe it.

Stranger

c'mon Stranger, what do you think, i made that up? that's my idea? Or something? It is settled, among scholars; there is not even an argument to be made, wadr

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=is+genesis+mythology%3F&start=0

which page 1 is pretty much all useless now, goes right away from "mythology" and steers one right into "myth" (lie) arguments, all pointless. But about page 3 you start getting some decent perspectives. Or just answer for yourself the question i put to you; how did Moses know the generations back to Adam, in order to write them down. We know how. It isn't a puzzle. Just like ancients didn't bother writing down fiction, mythology did not bother with pointless entertainment, like we seek today. You have just been programmed to relate "mythology" to "lies" now, JRR Tolkein, the Hobbit, that is what "mythology" symbolizes to you. But those are just lies, they are not mythology. No Ancients were telling hobbit stories around campfires, they were too involved with survival. Mythology is intimately connected with truth, which no one can shoot an arrow right to, anyway. We all dance around the tree of truth.

 

[bbyrd009]

Adam and Eve really existed. All of mankind comes from Adam and Eve. Just as the Bible says. If that is not true, if it is just a story, then there is no value in it. It would all be a lie.

well, see that i am not disagreeing with you, In Principle... ok, Moses had the generations back to Adam memorized, like all of his contemporaries did, so i am not suggesting that A&E were never alive, or that all of mankind does not come from A&E. That is true. It was just first recorded as "mythology," distilled wisdom related to peers around campfires, at night, by Breath, very specific, a specific story, that served a purpose, that Shepherded truth, down to the next generation. So the irrelevant, "Mom slept with a Denisovan, which people just don't do, that taboo thing, sleep with other species; that God has put in our hearts not to do" perhaps, is discarded for "Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, which God commanded not to do," a much better story to keep truth intact, and at the same time relate to your kids around a fire.

And look, can i prove my version? Am i trying to insist that it is true? Well, yes, as it happens, our scientists can prove it, now, but it really doesn't matter; the Tree of Knowledge story works fine. We are discussing beliefs here, which are irrelevant. No one is ever going to believe exactly like you do, anyway. Faith is the goal, not beliefs. I am rambling on about A&E to show that vast swathes of Scripture, that we are trained to disregard because they are talking about the opposite sex, perhaps, or weirdly keep repeating stories about homosexuals, "two men in a bed," are passages that are imparting valuable, crucial information, even to each "woman," even as Paul's admonition to "the church at" Corinth discussing "women" is talking about you, a male, discussing a part of you, in your "church," the one you are building, as a Priest.

Just as Eve had other children, surely, but the important part is, we have been given a "genealogy" that contains a number, and names, that impart information--only not to us, pretty much--to those who understand the definitions of the names. If they ever do. And until they do, they will get into heated debates about...whatever, that bear no fruit.