Adam and Eve and???

[agedman]

The Hebrew is pretty clear. "Eve" means "life" or "life-source" in this context (it is a substantive). The LXX even uses Ζωή to translate the word. This name (Eve, Ζωή, Life) was given by Adam to his wife, “because,” as the text explains “she became the mother of all living,” that is, because life of all of Adam's descendants was guaranteed to come through the woman.

I do not disagree.

However, I was wondering more specifically if such "life" was an indication of appointment that the redeemer would eventually give come through Eve, rather than all human life. For it is true that life is throughout creation in all living things, and therefore Eve was not the life giver of all living, but specific as the beginning heritage of who would come as redeemer.



But, that be as it may, the other question involved the use of past tense in NASB and KJV in contrast to future tense in the NIV and NLT.

 

[percho]

I do not disagree.

However, I was wondering more specifically if such "life" was an indication of appointment that the redeemer would eventually give come through Eve, rather than all human life. For it is true that life is throughout creation in all living things, and therefore Eve was not the life giver of all living, but specific as the beginning heritage of who would come as redeemer.



But, that be as it may, the other question involved the use of past tense in NASB and KJV in contrast to future tense in the NIV and NLT.

Life as in. "Ye must be born again," through the Life giving Spirit, Christ, born of woman? IE the mother of all living.

 

[percho]

The Hebrew is pretty clear. "Eve" means "life" or "life-source" in this context (it is a substantive). The LXX even uses Ζωή to translate the word. This name (Eve, Ζωή, Life) was given by Adam to his wife, “because,” as the text explains “she became the mother of all living,” that is, because life of all of Adam's descendants was guaranteed to come through the woman.

Was she also the mother of all, death?

 

[Yeshua1]

I'll start by giving the response I gave over there. The originator of that thread brought up the topic of Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, and incest, and said at one point:

The simple, even if inconvenient, truth is that "Eve...was the mother of all living." (Genesis 3:20) It seems that the "RVO" reads "Eve was the mother of all living, except for those women God specially created to marry her sons!"

If it is unacceptable that Cain and Seth married their sisters, then I suppose it is also unacceptable that those who belong to Christ are the seed of one who married his sister (Cf. Genesis 20:12).

Was Incest though considered sin/a crime before the Mosaic law was given?

 

[rlvaughn]

Was Incest though considered sin/a crime before the Mosaic law was given?

First, I would certainly not apply to the word "incest" to the marital relationships of the first generations of Adam and Eve's children, although some well meaning people do so. In my opinion that is an anachronism. Second, there seems to be an idea that relations between parent and child was unacceptable during the days of Abraham and Lot. See Genesis 19:30-38. In the same time period, though, it was not only acceptable in society but also acceptable to God for Abraham to marry his sister. See Genesis 20:12. If this was an abomination, would God have called Abram? Other close-relationship marriages were common as well. Isaac married Rebekah, who was the daughter of his father's brother Nahor and his father's niece Milcah (Genesis 11:28-29).* So they were first cousins, and a little more besides. Jacob married Leah and Rachel, who were daughters of his mother Rebekah's brother. So they were first cousins also (Genesis 24:29). Leah's and Rachel's children were first cousins on their mothers' sides, and half-siblings on their father's side! (At least I think that is all correct, if I have my genealogy straight.)

The book of Genesis gives the creation account, which only included Adam and Eve. God commanded Adam and Eve to procreate and fill the earth (Genesis 1:27-28). The Genesis account follows this with the lineage of Adam and Eve and no others. We cannot create historical facts and doctrine (extra people created for the sons of Adam to marry) from silence and thin air!

* If I am reading/understanding Genesis 11:28-29 correctly, Abram's brother Nahor married his niece -- another relationship that would be unlawful under the Law of Moses.

 

[Salty]

Eve was taken from Adams rib - thus she had the exact same DNA as Adam. And they had children.....

 

[Ziggy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if she had the *exact* DNA of Adam, wouldn't she also have to have been *male*?

Perhaps better would be some divinely "genetically-modified" DNA might be more accurate?

 

[rlvaughn]

Some have posited that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 could have been the source of producing women for Cain and Seth to marry. That is chronologically illogical (events happening some 1500 years after the births of Cain and Seth), but mainly in that it really solves nothing. Regardless of whom one thinks the "sons of God" were, where did all the people come from that they were marrying? Obviously, from Adam and Eve, which gets right back to the question of where Cain and Seth got their wives.

 

[Salty]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if she had the *exact* DNA of Adam, wouldn't she also have to have been *male*?

Perhaps better would be some divinely "genetically-modified" DNA might be more accurate?

Good point

 

[TCassidy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if she had the *exact* DNA of Adam, wouldn't she also have to have been *male*?

Perhaps better would be some divinely "genetically-modified" DNA might be more accurate?

God just added an extra leg to the XY chromosome of Adam to form the XX chromosome of Eve.

 

[robycop3]

You're in a deep hole, roby, yet you keep digging............

Not at all. You cannot prove me right or wrong.

In support of neither side, I think it important to remember sin came through Adam not Eve.

Eve is the mother of all living.

If I recall, the gods of the ancients were all male, and called many names. Yet there was only a single woman goddes always considered as bearing and nurturing (feeding) many.

Just a few random thoughts leaving any traveling to conclusions for others to journey.

Wasn’t this topic a part of the interrogation at the “Scopes” trial?
Scopes Trial - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Not to derail the thread, but, according to Scripture, who sinned first, Adam or Eve? Sneaky Snake successfully tempted EVE first.

 

[robycop3]

It's not anything I'm gonna lose sleep over.

All any of us can do is theorize about where those wives came from. None can be proven.

Same for saying God once approved incest. That's only a guess. But I know for sure, by God's word, that HE HATES INCEST. While that doesn't disprove the theory that he once approved it, it certainly doesn't sustain it, either!

I'm just about through with the subject, unless someone can post any **PROOF** that sustains one theory or another. This has mostly come about from some KJVOs whom I proved wrong & are in a snit over it.

 

[Baptist4life]

The only thing you've "proved" is, as Barney Fife would put it......"you're a nut!"

 

[agedman]

Not at all. You cannot prove me right or wrong.


Not to derail the thread, but, according to Scripture, who sinned first, Adam or Eve? Sneaky Snake successfully tempted EVE first.

doesn't the Scriptures indicate that Eve was tricked, deceived, but that Adam knowingly rebelled and hence the sin came through Adam to all rather than Eve?

 

[OnlyaSinner]

This discussion incited me to write a little more about in on my blog, Who was Cain’s wife? Here is an excerpt.

Defining Cain’s or Seth’s marriages to their sisters as incest is an anachronism, reading back into the record as unlawful something that was not unlawful at the time it occurred. Moses gave the law restricting close intermarriage (Leviticus 18:6, 9-11). Moses’s law came some 2500 years after the time of Cain and Seth. Even Abraham, whose calling came about 430 before Moses’s exodus from Egypt (Genesis 15:13), married his half-sister. “[Sarah] is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife” (Genesis 20:12). This would have been illegal under the Law of Moses – “The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother…thou shalt not uncover.” Yet God called Abraham – (this incestuous brute according to some!) – to be the father of the faithful! See Galatians 3:9 and Galatians 3:29.

Something is amiss with a charge that indicts God as well as his people.

Well put. In addition, one can infer from the decreasing longevity (human lifespans as shown in Gen. 5 down thru Moses' 120 years) that the full effects of sin and the curse apparently were not applied all at once, save for the spiritual death/separation form God, which was instantaneous. Thus the potential for genetic problems from inbreeding were less or absent in the early years following the Fall. When the curse effects were becoming problematic on this subject, God supplied Moses with those words from Leviticus.

doesn't the Scriptures indicate that Eve was tricked, deceived, but that Adam knowingly rebelled and hence the sin came through Adam to all rather than Eve?

God spoke the prohibition directly to Adam. Scripture is silent on how Eve learned of it; IMO, she heard it from Adam, which could make Adam's sin the more grievous. In any case, Romans and elsewhere make it clear that it was Adam's sin, not Eve's, that doomed humankind to eternity without God, unless they believed unto salvation.

 

[Logos1560]

You cannot prove me right or wrong.

To me, that sounds like a claim that a KJV-only advocate would make. You seem to suggest that you have no responsibility to back up what you claim. You avoid dealing with other scriptural truths that would be a problem for your speculations.

The scriptures do support the view that God created only Adam and Eve and that all human beings descended from them. How would Eve be the mother of other claimed created people (Gen. 3:20)? Would a claim of additional creating of more people after the Scriptures teach that "God had ended his work of making or creating" after six days (Gen. 2:2, Exod. 20:11) be in agreement with scriptural truth? All that was in the earth was created in the six days (Exod. 20:11). Genesis 2:20 indicated that there could have been no other created people besides Adam until God made Eve. After Cain, Abel, and Seth, Adam and Eve begat a number more "sons and daughters" in the eight hundred years after the birth of Seth (Gen. 5:4). Would your reasoning suggest that God had to create mates for all them after He had already ended his work of creating in six days?

The unproven speculation of other created people would conflict with scriptural teaching about the fall of man-kind and its consequences. "In Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22), "by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men" (Rom. 5:12), "by one man's offence death reigned by one" (Rom. 5:17), "by the offence of one judgment came upon all men" (Rom. 5:18). Other claimed created people would not have been in Adam so how did death and judgment come upon them for Adam's sin?

The scriptural teaching about how all man-kind became sinners and die then ties in to how Christ, the second Adam, could provide redemption. How would Christ be the second Adam for other claimed created people who were not in Adam?

 

[Baptist4life]

roby apparently has no rebuttal. I hope he's had his eyes opened to the truth of God's Word.

 

[robycop3]

I can't prove I am right & you can't prove you're right, either. The only thing I can prove, by Scripture, is GOD HATES INCEST. So I'm not gonna waste time over it.

 

[Salty]

I can't prove I am right & you can't prove you're right, either. The only thing I can prove, by Scripture, is GOD HATES INCEST. So I'm not gonna waste time over it.

so was Abraham sinning when he married his sister? (simple yes or no will do)

 

[atpollard]

The only thing I can prove, by Scripture, is GOD HATES INCEST.

Even the LAW forbidding incest was not absolute:

[Lev 18:16 NASB] 16 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness.​

[Deu 25:5-10 NASB] 5 "When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be [married] outside [the family] to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 6 "It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 "But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.' 8 "Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And [if] he persists and says, 'I do not desire to take her,' 9 then his brother's wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, 'Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.' 10 "In Israel his name shall be called, 'The house of him whose sandal is removed.'​

What is FORBIDDEN in one situation, is COMMANDED in another.