What came before us?

[MiserableSinner]

The implication is that Adam and Eve had children other than Cain and Abel prior to Abel's murder.

 

[Merlin]

The implication is that Adam and Eve had children other than Cain and Abel prior to Abel's murder.

howso?
what verses imply this to you?

 

[MiserableSinner]

Answer: All the verses which indicate that there were other people around. E.g.:

Gen 4:14 and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

who could that be? There's only 3 people on earth, right?

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife;

who could that be? There's only 3 people on earth, right?

and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

a whole city? for a family of 3?

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

finally a 4th person.
But no women yet.

Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

ah!
Now women

YMMV

 

[Assyrian]

I would think it is correct. So?

You would have a world populate with immortal sinless human beings descended from the children born in the garden, and the mortal sin natured humans born after. Makes for an interesting story line. You don't think the sinless Eden humans were the 'sons of God' who caught the eye of the 'daughters of Adam' in Gen 6? No that can't be right, you are proposing intermarriage back in Gen 4. They would make a good race of Elves though.

 

[parsa]

"I don't think this effects Jesus's message at all."

Well it doesn't make His message wrong or discredit it. But it's just strange, because I guess I have this notion that whatever is in the Bible is for "all" of us. But if some of us are not human then Jesus's message is not for them. There's nothing inherently wrong about this either, I guess, it's just weird.

 

[juvenissun]

You would have a world populate with immortal sinless human beings descended from the children born in the garden, and the mortal sin natured humans born after. Makes for an interesting story line. You don't think the sinless Eden humans were the 'sons of God' who caught the eye of the 'daughters of Adam' in Gen 6? No that can't be right, you are proposing intermarriage back in Gen 4. They would make a good race of Elves though.

No, no, no. When Adam and Eve sinned, their offsprings were counted as sinned all together. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden. All of their offsprings were out too. This is the way it worked before the Gospel.

 

[Merlin]

"I don't think this effects Jesus's message at all."

Well it doesn't make His message wrong or discredit it. But it's just strange, because I guess I have this notion that whatever is in the Bible is for "all" of us. But if some of us are not human then Jesus's message is not for them. There's nothing inherently wrong about this either, I guess, it's just weird.

We're talking pre-flood
things were very different then.
only 8 people survived

 

[Assyrian]

No, no, no. When Adam and Eve sinned, their offsprings were counted as sinned all together. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden. All of their offsprings were out too. This is the way it worked before the Gospel.

Why should they when they did not sin, there were not in Adam's loins when he sinned, when he ate the fruit, they fasted, and they could not have inherited his guilt or sin nature. You are not proposing some sort of federal headship are you?

 

[juvenissun]

Why should they when they did not sin, there were not in Adam's loins when he sinned, when he ate the fruit, they fasted, and they could not have inherited his guilt or sin nature. You are not proposing some sort of federal headship are you?

Yes, I am. God says that many times. The Exodus is an example and there are many more illustrated in the Book of Kings.

Ex 20: 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, I am. God says that many times. The Exodus is an example and there are many more illustrated in the Book of Kings.

If you see Adam as Federal Head, then you shouldn't have any problems with God using evolution to form Adam or there being other human beings alive at the same time, not descended from Adam like his Eden children, but still covered by his Federal Headship.

Ex 20: 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Ever notice how this verse contradicts the idea that human mortality, people sick and in pain today, people dying and losing loved ones, is a punishment for Adam's sin? After all it has been more than three or four generations. Why would God still be punishing us for a stolen fruit? He says he doesn't do that.

 

[champuru]

Thanks for the explanation.

I have a simpler version to solve your problems: Adam and Eve gave birth to many children in the Garden. (there was no pain to give birth before the sin !). When Adam was kicked out, everyone was kicked out at the same time. Cain, Abel, Seth etc. are children born after the sin.

Imagine, if you gave birth to 100 children and all of them gave births to their children etc. After a few generations, many of your offsprings would probably not recognize you as their grandma or great grandma. That could be the situation of Eve after been kicked out of the Garden. Since it would become painful to give birth after sin, their sons and daughters might also be not that many.

I see no reason to believe that they had children before the fall. It says that they had other sons and daughters after Seth.

 

[MiserableSinner]

The simplest explanation is that Adam had other sons and daughters after the Fall, but before Seth. Nothing in the text prevents this, and it explains where the other people came from with out any theological speculation. (What do you suppose Adam and Eve were doing for 130 years?)

Indeed, going by the ages listed in the genealogy, it seems certain that humanity was going on the third generation, at least, by the time Seth was born.

 

[Assyrian]

The grammar in the verse, the waw consecutive, tells us the other sons and daughters were born after Seth.

 

[MiserableSinner]

By considering chapter 5 in isolation, one could easily adopt the mistaken view that everyone in the line to Noah was a firstborn. Seth was born first, then Adam had other children. Enosh was born first, then Seth had other children. Kenan was born first, and then Enosh had other children. Et cetera.

Obviously this is incorrect; Seth was not born first. We also observe that certain persons in Noah's line were born when their fathers were 'relatively' young (e.g., 65), while others when their fathers were vastly older. (E.g., Adam was 130 when Seth was born.) It thus seems reasonable to infer that those in Noah's line were not necessarily born first. And that Adam and Eve had other children in between Cain and Seth besides Abel.

Thus, rather than argue based on a verse which would otherwise lead to the incorrect conclusion that Seth was the firstborn, it seems more sensible to conclude that none of Adam and Eve's other children prior to Seth did anything worthy of note (like commit the first murder). In fact, we are not even explicitly told that Abel was born second.

 

[juvenissun]

I see no reason to believe that they had children before the fall. It says that they had other sons and daughters after Seth.

The reason is that somebody raised a hard question which demands an answer.

 

[juvenissun]

Ever notice how this verse contradicts the idea that human mortality, people sick and in pain today, people dying and losing loved ones, is a punishment for Adam's sin? After all it has been more than three or four generations. Why would God still be punishing us for a stolen fruit? He says he doesn't do that.

Misunderstanding.
Human suffering before the Lord Jesus is called punishment.
Human suffering after the Lord Jesus is called testing.

Re 2:10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.

 

[champuru]

The reason is that somebody raised a hard question which demands an answer.

Okay I'll refraise that. I see no scriptural reason to believe that they had children before the fall.

After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. Genesis 5:4

 

[juvenissun]

Okay I'll refraise that. I see no scriptural reason to believe that they had children before the fall.

If I understand you (I believe so), I agree.

But, hey, God gives us the ability of reasoning. Even we do not ask the question, it doesn't mean the question does not exist. That is why many people (Christian or not) who do ask the question and expect some explanations.

 

[Assyrian]

Misunderstanding.
Human suffering before the Lord Jesus is called punishment.
Human suffering after the Lord Jesus is called testing.

Re 2:10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.

2Cor 10:6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
1Pet 2:14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
Sounds like there there is still punishment in the world after the cross. There is testing and persecution too, but I was talking about human mortality sickness and disease and pain. They are still around after Jesus came as they were around before, and according to most creationists they were punishment on Adam and his descendants and the whole of creation, for Adam's sin. But even if there was a change with Christ, and human mortality switched from being a punishment for the fall, to being a test, you still have the whole of the OT where the punishment on the human race for Adam's sin was death, disease and suffering, for generation after generation after generation, long after the three or four generations God says he punishes children for the sins of their fathers. The creationist idea that physical death and disease are the result of Adam's fall simply does not fit what God is saying here in Exodus 20:5.

 

[Assyrian]

By considering chapter 5 in isolation, one could easily adopt the mistaken view that everyone in the line to Noah was a firstborn. Seth was born first, then Adam had other children. Enosh was born first, then Seth had other children. Kenan was born first, and then Enosh had other children. Et cetera.

Obviously this is incorrect; Seth was not born first. We also observe that certain persons in Noah's line were born when their fathers were 'relatively' young (e.g., 65), while others when their fathers were vastly older. (E.g., Adam was 130 when Seth was born.) It thus seems reasonable to infer that those in Noah's line were not necessarily born first. And that Adam and Eve had other children in between Cain and Seth besides Abel.

Thus, rather than argue based on a verse which would otherwise lead to the incorrect conclusion that Seth was the firstborn, it seems more sensible to conclude that none of Adam and Eve's other children prior to Seth did anything worthy of note (like commit the first murder). In fact, we are not even explicitly told that Abel was born second.

Usually 'other' means other than the ones already mentioned. If you take Genesis 5 in isolation you might think other children are other than Seth, but Gen 5 is not in isolation. We already know Cain and Abel were born before Seth, so the other sons and daughters Gen 5 mentions who we are told were born after Seth do not include children we have already been told about. They are 'other' than Cain Abel and Seth. Men can have their first child at a wide range of ages, I don't see how a spread of ages in the genealogy contradicts the waw consecutive which tells us the other children were born later.