Was Cain the first person to be born?

[George Antonios]

It's probably because I show that Adam was made the 3rd Day from the dust of the ground before the plants herbs and rain. Most people think that Adam and Eve were made on the 6th Day but in order for our first parents to be in Heaven, they MUST have been born again Spiritually. Do you think A&E will be in Heaven?

Well, I have a number of objections, and the 3rd creation of Adam is not the main one.
According to the apostle Peter, there could be no new birth before the resurrection of Christ:

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The implication is that no one could be born again before the resurrection of Christ. John confirms:

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Evidently, that doesn't mean that no one had the Spirit in the Old Testament. Many men did. But they had not been born again, spiritually circumcised, and sealed [all different operations] thereby. Those operations could only be made possible by the resurrection of Christ.

Certainly the New Birth was foretold by the O.T. (Jer.31, Eze.36) even as Christ hinted to Nicodemus, but it wasn't available yet.

 

[BenWest]

Well, I have a number of objections, and the 3rd creation of Adam is not the main one.
According to the apostle Peter, there could be no new birth before the resurrection of Christ:

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The implication is that no one could be born again before the resurrection of Christ. John confirms:

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Evidently, that doesn't mean that no one had the Spirit in the Old Testament. Many men did. But they had not been born again, spiritually circumcised, and sealed [all different operations] thereby. Those operations could only be made possible by the resurrection of Christ.

Certainly the New Birth was foretold by the O.T. (Jer.31, Eze.36) even as Christ hinted to Nicodemus, but it wasn't available yet.

Sorry, but I cannot agree since Lord God/Jesus formed Adam from the dust on the 3rd Day before plants, herbs, rain and Trees, which grew on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12

Adam was "created" in God's Image or born again Spiritually by God the TRINITY, the invisible Spirit of God on the 6th Day according to: Genesis 1:26 Genesis 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Don't you know the difference between God (Elohim) and Jesus (YHWH)?

 

[George Antonios]

Sorry, but I cannot agree since Lord God/Jesus formed Adam from the dust on the 3rd Day before plants, herbs, rain and Trees, which grew on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12

Adam was "created" in God's Image or born again Spiritually by God the TRINITY, the invisible Spirit of God on the 6th Day according to: Genesis 1:26 Genesis 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Don't you know the difference between God (Elohim) and Jesus (YHWH)?

I fail to see how those verses counter the ones I gave you.

As for the difference between Elohim and Jehovah, yes I do know what it is. Different names revealing different aspects of the same God. To deny that Jesus is God is to be led by the spirit of antichrist, according to the apostle John:

1Jn_4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn_4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

I proceed no further on this matter.

 

[BenWest]

As for the difference between Elohim and Jehovah, yes I do know what it is. Different names revealing different aspects of the same God. To deny that Jesus is God is to be led by the spirit of antichrist, according to the apostle John:

Then please tell us the difference since Elohim is a plural name and YHWH is a singular name. Do you think it is possible that Elohim is the invisible Spirit of the Trinity and that YHWH refers to the Son of God who entered the physical world on the FIRST Day?

No man has seen God/Elohim at any time but many saw YHWH/Lord God but He emptied Himself of His image as God and came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ. Do you still think I am an antichrist?

Phl 2:5 ¶ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Phl 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Phl 2:7 But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: Phl 2:10
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Phl 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus IS Lord. Amen?

 

[Calminian]

Ok, let me try this way Calminian. Let me grant that my explanation is unnecessary because you have a simpler one.
Consider that granted, Ok? Now let me posit my scenario, and ask you a question:

Adam and Eve spend 100 years in the garden and therein beget sons and daughters.

• Year 100 they are banished.
• Cain is born in 105.
• Abel is born in 110.
• Abel dies in 130.
• Seth is born in 130.

Now there's 20 years between Abel and Seth's births, not 130 years.
Given that we've granted, for argument's sake, that this is not the simplest explanation, do you nevertheless see a logical objection in that set-up as far as the 130-year gap you've been talking about?

I don't think what you say is completely impossible. But, apart from it being unnecessary, IMO, I think it's difficult to assert there were men born prior to Cain, let alone prior to sin.

When Eve bore Cain she said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.” His name means acquired. This reaction would seem odd of Cain were merely the 10th or 20th man born to her.

When she bore Seth she said, "God has granted me another child...." and Abel "she bore again, this time his brother Abel" It would seem logical that the similar language would be used about Cain were he not the firstborn.

And there's general difficulty regarding the silence about hundreds of children born before the Fall, not born in sin. Did they then acquire a sin nature immediately after Adam sinned? I suppose it's possible. Eve became a sinner after Adam sinned. She was from Adam, and the Fall is attributed to him, not her. But then you have even more silence about what God did for the hundreds of descendants that suddenly become sinners. Why wouldn't they also be affected, coming from him? If a large community like that was suddenly cast into sin, and needed garments to cover their nakedness, it's strange nothing is said. And why no mention of hundreds of children being banished from the Garden?

For me, I think we need something from Scripture to go on before putting this forth this idea, especially if it's completely unnecessary.

 

[BenWest]

I don't think what you say is completely impossible. But, apart from it being unnecessary, IMO, I think it's difficult to assert there were men born prior to Cain, let alone prior to sin..

Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water. The bones of the sons of God (prehistoric people) testify to the fact that they moved on the FIFTH Day. Eve was NOT made until the SIXTH Day. Genesis 2:22

When Eve bore Cain she said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.” His name means acquired. This reaction would seem odd of Cain were merely the 10th or 20th man born to her..

The sons of God were NOT Humans (descendants of Adam). Eve is the Mother of ALL living (those who have been born again Spiritually in Christ). Gen 3:20 Humans, who have not been born Spiritually are dead in their trespasses and sins.

And there's general difficulty regarding the silence about hundreds of children born before the Fall, not born in sin. Did they then acquire a sin nature immediately after Adam sinned? I suppose it's possible. Eve became a sinner after Adam sinned. She was from Adam, and the Fall is attributed to him, not her. But then you have even more silence about what God did for the hundreds of descendants that suddenly become sinners. Why wouldn't they also be affected, coming from him? If a large community like that was suddenly cast into sin, and needed garments to cover their nakedness, it's strange nothing is said. And why no mention of hundreds of children being banished from the Garden?

The sons of God (unlike Humans) did NOT have to obey the Law of God which makes them innocent and destined for Heaven when they leave this Earth. Christians are called the "sons of God" in the New Testament AFTER they are born again Spiritually. This makes Humans "innocent" in God's eyes.

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name:

For me, I think we need something from Scripture to go on before putting this forth this idea, especially if it's completely unnecessary.

I'm happy to supply supporting Scripture which confirms my views. Amen?

 

[George Antonios]

I don't think what you say is completely impossible. But, apart from it being unnecessary, IMO, I think it's difficult to assert there were men born prior to Cain, let alone prior to sin.

When Eve bore Cain she said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.” His name means acquired. This reaction would seem odd of Cain were merely the 10th or 20th man born to her.

When she bore Seth she said, "God has granted me another child...." and Abel "she bore again, this time his brother Abel" It would seem logical that the similar language would be used about Cain were he not the firstborn.

And there's general difficulty regarding the silence about hundreds of children born before the Fall, not born in sin. Did they then acquire a sin nature immediately after Adam sinned? I suppose it's possible. Eve became a sinner after Adam sinned. She was from Adam, and the Fall is attributed to him, not her. But then you have even more silence about what God did for the hundreds of descendants that suddenly become sinners. Why wouldn't they also be affected, coming from him? If a large community like that was suddenly cast into sin, and needed garments to cover their nakedness, it's strange nothing is said. And why no mention of hundreds of children being banished from the Garden?

For me, I think we need something from Scripture to go on before putting this forth this idea, especially if it's completely unnecessary.

Hey Caliminian, sorry, got lost in the posts. I basically dealt with all these objections in Post #26 (the one with the video).
There's no silence of the scriptures, but rather a statement on it:
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. That's before the fall.
Again, I've dealt with counter-objections in my earlier post.

But I just wanted to focus on the gap of 130 years for now. So I'm glad we did that because I don't want to believe and teach something that's wrong, so I'm testing the mettle of this teaching.

Now, I'm sorry if I'm making you repeat, but what are all your scriptural grounds for not believing that the sons in Genesis 5 are not firstborn sons. I.e. putting aside "toledoths" and all that jazz, what from the text, or other texts, would tell us not to view these sons as all firstborn?
Thanks

 

[Calminian]

....Now, I'm sorry if I'm making you repeat, but what are all your scriptural grounds for not believing that the sons in Genesis 5 are not firstborn sons. I.e. putting aside "toledoths" and all that jazz, what from the text, or other texts, would tell us not to view these sons as all firstborn?
Thanks

I've already explained this. Seth, we know for certain is not the firstborn. We know for certain Cain and Abel were born before him. You don't doubt this do you? Thus, if the first son mentioned in the list doesn't fit the firstborn model, why would you still embrace it? I'm just trying to understand why you're still clinging to this?

Second, the purpose of a genealogy is to link descendants to ancestors, not to list firstborn sons. In Jesus' genealogy, for instance, we would never assume all the sons mentioned were firstborn sons. Its only purpose is to link Jesus to Abraham and to Adam, through a line of descendants.

Third, look at the ages of the fathers at the time of the son's birth in the chronological genealogies of Genesis 5. Is it really logical to assume Jared lived 162 years before he had a son? Is it logical to assume Methuselah didn't have a son until he was 187. Or Lamech until 182? Or Noah until 500? Seems a pretty open/shut case.

And BTW, if you're hanging this whole case on Gen. 3:20, I'd pause a bit. First, the statement is made after the Fall, not before.

There's no silence of the scriptures, but rather a statement on it:
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. That's before the fall.

The Fall is documented in verses 3:1-19. Then comes this statement. Following this is the conception of Cain in 4:1.

Also, there are translations that render the passage "would become" which is perfectly legitimate. But other translations are fine as well. The account is not written in real-time, but after the entire account. Moses is simply recording the meaning behind her name, given by Adam.

Then go back to the 130 years span when other sons and daughters were obviously born, and the case for prelapsarian children falls apart. It's unnecessary and vastly unlikely.

 

[George Antonios]

I've already explained this.

As I said, I know. And thank you for taking the time again.
Let me take one thing at a time here.

And BTW, if you're hanging this whole case on Gen. 3:20, I'd pause a bit. First, the statement is made after the Fall, not before.
The Fall is documented in verses 3:1-19. Then comes this statement. Following this is the conception of Cain in 4:1.

Doesn't the same logic cause us to say that therefore Adam calls Eve the mother of all living before Cain is conceived in Genesis 4:1 (since Genesis 3:20 is made before Genesis 4:1)?

 

[Calminian]

...Doesn't the same logic cause us to say that therefore Adam calls Eve the mother of all living before Cain is conceived in Genesis 4:1 (since Genesis 3:20 is made before Genesis 4:1)?

No. I added a bit after you quoted this, but the account is not written in real-time as it unfolds. And it is not a direct quote from Adam making the statement in real-time. Moses is simply giving the meaning behind Eve's name. Adam and Eve were determined to obey God at this point, and multiply as commanded. Eve would become the mother of Adam's race, and therefore he gave her this name, after the fall (before the fall she was just known as "the woman.") And Eve is the mother of the all the living from the time we are reading this, and from the time the author of this account wrote it. There is nothing here to build on in regard to children before the fall.

 

[George Antonios]

No. I added a bit after you quoted this, but the account is not written in real-time as it unfolds. And it is not a direct quote from Adam making the statement in real-time. Moses is simply giving the meaning behind Eve's name. Adam and Eve were determined to obey God at this point, and multiply as commanded. Eve would become the mother of Adam's race, and therefore he gave her this name, after the fall (before the fall she was just known as "the woman.") And Eve is the mother of the all the living from the time we are reading this, and from the time the author of this account wrote it. There is nothing here to build on in regard to children before the fall.

Right because I could have also again pointed out that Genesis 3:20, though said after 3:1-19, is in the past tense was, and that, before the banishment of 3:23-24.

Now, in this explanation you've presented, we cannot use the placement of Genesis 3:20 after Genesis 3:1-19 as an objection anymore to saying that 3:20 must have been her condition before the fall. Right?

 

[Calminian]

Right because I could have also again pointed out that Genesis 3:20, though said after 3:1-19, is in the past tense was, and that, before the banishment of 3:23-24.

Now, in this explanation you've presented, we cannot use the placement of Genesis 3:20 after Genesis 3:1-19 as an objection anymore to saying that 3:20 must have been her condition before the fall. Right?

Well, the narrator of the story could have mentioned this anywhere the way he did and not obligate pre-Cain children in the Garden. It's simply a statement of record. Eve was the mother of the living and will be of all humans in the future.

But in this case, the narrator is speaking, saying that she was the mother of the living, and saying it after he presented the events of the fall and the banishment from the Garden. Before this she was merely called "the woman." The name Eve is signifiant in this regard, which is then immediately explained by the announcement of her acquiring a male child. It all fits together and makes sense.

You're trying to build a strict chronology from this, to justify prelapsarian children, and IMO, missing the whole point. You're reading much too much into a single verse.

 

[Calminian]

BTW, George, this may help you understand the point I'm trying to make.

Do you believe Abraham was the father of many nations prior to Isaac's birth? Based on the argument you're presenting you must, for Scripture clearly says,

Gen. 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.​

There you go, past-tense, done deal, prior to Isaac's conception. We have to, therefore, assume that prior to Sarah conceiving, Abraham must have been at work for many decades already having thousands of descendants. Right?

What is the problem with this argument?

 

[BenWest]

I've already explained this. Seth, we know for certain is not the firstborn. We know for certain Cain and Abel were born before him. You don't doubt this do you? Thus, if the first son mentioned in the list doesn't fit the firstborn model, why would you still embrace it? I'm just trying to understand why you're still clinging to this?

Seth is the firstborn among the "living" which are those who have been born again eternally.. Eve is the Mother of all "living" but she is NOT the Mother of the dead, who remain in their trespasses and sins. Seth was born 130 years AFTER Adam and Eve were born again Spiritually by God the Trinity Genesis 5:1-2 AFTER Cain killed Abel..Amen?

 

[George Antonios]

BTW, George, this may help you understand the point I'm trying to make.

Do you believe Abraham was the father of many nations prior to Isaac's birth? Based on the argument you're presenting you must, for Scripture clearly says,

Gen. 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.​

There you go, past-tense, done deal, prior to Isaac's conception. We have to, therefore, assume that prior to Sarah conceiving, Abraham must have been at work for many decades already having thousands of descendants. Right?

What is the problem with this argument?

Easy. The previous verse, which defines the following verse, is the problem:
Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
"There you go", future tense

 

[Calminian]

Easy. The previous verse, which defines the following verse, is the problem:
Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
"There you go", future tense

I think it is easy. The point is, this literary tool is common in the Bible. Things are spoken of as if they've already happened when the outcome is certain. God's promises are often spoken of in the past tense. In this instance, the narrator speaks of Eve as currently being the mother of the living since the outcome is certain. Adam could have said this directly at the time, and it wouldn't have mandated children born in the Garden, in fact no one would come to that conclusion without other motivations (such as solving another apparent textual difficulty).

This may be why the NIV translators rendered it, "would become."

Gen. 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, a because she would become the mother of all the living.​

This undermines, really, your last real goto proof text for prelapsarian children born in the Garden. There's literally nothing in Scripture to point to it. Not even a hint. Thus, I think you're making a mistake preaching this.

 

[George Antonios]

I think it is easy. The point is, this literary tool is common in the Bible. Things are spoken of as if they've already happened when the outcome is certain. God's promises are often spoken of in the past tense. In this instance, the narrator speaks of Eve as currently being the mother of the living since the outcome is certain. Adam could have said this directly at the time, and it wouldn't have mandated children born in the Garden, in fact no one would come to that conclusion without other motivations (such as solving another apparent textual difficulty).

This may be why the NIV translators rendered it, "would become."

Gen. 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, a because she would become the mother of all the living.​

This undermines, really, your last real goto proof text for prelapsarian children born in the Garden. There's literally nothing in Scripture to point to it. Not even a hint. Thus, I think you're making a mistake preaching this.

I read it as the plain meaning of the text. I got there because of it.
I do appreciate all the input though, it has helped me.

 

[Calminian]

I read it as the plain meaning of the text. I got there because of it.....

Well you got there because you were looking to solve some other apparent textual issues like Cain's wife, and Cain's fear of human vengeance. Then you saw this one text that might offer a way out and jumped on it, creating this elaborate scenario of prelapsarian children. The problem is, the text doesn't pan out when you look at it closely, and there is a much better solution to the problem.

 

[BenWest]

Well you got there because you were looking to solve some other apparent textual issues like Cain's wife, and Cain's fear of human vengeance.

Cain's wife came from the sons of God (prehistoric people) who were created from WATER on the 5th Day.Genesis 1:21 It happened again when Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans to marry on planet Earth. This fulfills the prophecy of Genesis 6:4 which tells us that it happened on Adam's Earth and also after that on the present Earth. Genesis 6:4 If you disagree, tell us what you think the verse is saying.

 

[church mouse guy]

Cain's wife came from the sons of God (prehistoric people) who were created from WATER on the 5th Day.Genesis 1:21 It happened again when Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans to marry on planet Earth. This fulfills the prophecy of Genesis 6:4 which tells us that it happened on Adam's Earth and also after that on the present Earth. Genesis 6:4 If you disagree, tell us what you think the verse is saying.

There was no law and mutations were minimal in the DNA so none of what you say is true. It was not magic. One married close relatives until forbidden by the law.

Americans still marry first cousins legally as do Muslims and who knows what depravity exists amongst Mormons?