A living God's garden children

[welltan]

A living God's garden children

It is not necessary or possible to know everything about God and define everything about God. (including what went on in the garden). The only way to attempt this is to try to contain all of scripture in your mind and to stretch it to cover everything when a living relationship with Christ does not exist outside of scripture knowledge. Knowing God only in the rational abstract can not but tempt a man to create God in his mind's image or his own theo-construct's image. This makes the Bible an idol or at least God in a bottle. If God can only be defined by scripture then scripture becomes the definer's God. The bible was never intended to be an idol. The first chapter of John talks about the beginning and the word but it does not mention scripture unless God is inferred limited to just scripture. Even if the phrase "only inspired word of God" is the motto then at least include that there is a word of God that God did not inspire someone to write about. Does this mean I do not accept scripture? Of course not. However, scripture should not be used to try to kill God by stating God can not talk, walk, or caulk new holes in holy and unholy men's hearts. And if God is still alive now then God was still alive in the garden and could do what he wanted.

Wherever you start man; in the first chapter of Genesis
Gen 1:27
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Or even if you start man in the second chapter with the Adam/Eve/of the dust passage, you still have two healthy people being together before the later fall in the third chapter of Genesis.
I can not find anything that says that Cain and Abel were the first or only children Adam and Eve had or there were no sexual relations till Cain in the fourth chapter or the fall in the third. Cain and Abel were the first mentioned, but then most of the human race is never mentioned in the bible by name anyway. Adam and Eve were created before the fall and there is no reason to say that Adam 'knew' (had sex with) Eve for the first time when she conceived Cain. Actually this implies they disobeyed God and did not be fruitful and multiply until Cain. The story about Cain and Abel's accepted/not accepted offering may include telling us who they were, but does not require us being introduced to any other siblings. And also I have no problem with Adam and Eve reproducing before the fall. I get the idea that everything else around them were reproducing and filling nature valley before the fall quite readily. Why not Adam? (especially since God told him to) If there were offspring people before the fall then it is ridiculous to think that someone that had not the knowledge of good and evil (the tree/fruit) would refrain from sex until the fall or that somehow sin(the fall) makes people fertile or being sinless makes people barren. What I really want someone to do is let me listen (listen only as no fig leaves) while they stand in the garden and try to convince anyone there to not have sex or procreate before they have any knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Anonymous]

A very interesting topic. The world's point of view that sex is sinful, but oh so much fun so we'll do it any way, goes contrary to God's creative work. I have long held the possibility and probability that Adam & Eve reproduced in the garden. I think these children did not become sinners when their parents and they and their descendants account for the sons of God in Genesis 6, and maybe the giants in the earth in those days. Theory, yes, but it works for me so far.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Welltan, I totally agree that God is larger and beyond Scripture. He cannot be contained in it.

However, I would suggest that there is a very strong piece of evidence in this subject to help us know or believe that Cain was indeed the first child. It can be seen in reading straight from the Hebrew. But, when reading from the English it is less clear. I don't talk much about Hebrew because I never really enjoyed my studies in Hebrew, at least not like I did and still do with Greek.

But this is one of the times were fluency in Hebrew does make a difference.

The straight forward reading of the Hebrew is this: Adam knew Eve; she became pregnant and birth Cain. She said: I have brought forth the Lord. Some translations like the Young's Literal says: "I have gotten a man by Jehovah." But that "by" word is not anywhere in the Hebrew. So it actually reads: "I have gotten a man: Jehovah." She literally thought the promise from God had just taken place in her first birth of a child.

The English translations insert "with the help of" or "By the Lord" etc. But literally those phrases are not there. Why? Because Eve had just received the promise about the redeemer (Gen. 3:15). She knew from her offspring would come the promised deliverer.

As to whether or not there were other children that had been born prior to the fall, if one were to entertain that ideology then there would have to be some explanation as to how they fell in Adam due to the specific and precise teaching of Romans 5 (see specically verse 12). When Adam sinned all of humanity sinned in and with him. This strongly implies that each person was seminally (DNA and spiritual DNA so to speak) was there in Adam (not yet outside of Adam, see Hebrews 7:10 and Acts 17:26).

This is the theological doctrine technically called Traduceanism (the doctrine of the origin of the spirit and body).

When you couple this verse with the purpose of why Moses wrote Genesis, to trace their lineage and how they developed, it seems to me to suggest we can know that no children were born before the fall (Tradeucian theory) along with the statemrnt by Eve about Cain's birth fulfilling the promise of the Lord for a deliverer.

You may be asking well how does that imply he was the first? Simple. Because had there been any other offspring Eve would not have been able to place the specific weight or emphasis on Cain as being the fulfillment of the prophecy because she would not have known which offspring to look to for the fulfillment. But because there was no other offspring around the first was her natural inclination as it was the only one present.

Thus the Gen. 3:15 promise and the immediate application of that to Cain by Eve's own confession shows us, along with Romans 5, that the weight of textual evidence suggests no other children before Cain and Abel.

But let me say again, your points about God being larger than Scripture is very much appreciated and helpful. When the Bible does not address a subject we can never wrap God up into a box and make him conform to the box. How true and how refreshing to let God be God.

 

[steve]

we have no idea of the time intervals involved
on what day was eve formed (she was not created other than being created in adam when he was created)
the 8th? 16th? 1347th?
i do not think that we have a clue
on what day was the fruit eaten?
1 day after she was formed? 10? 37? 467?
again, do we have any clues?
maybe they were still building the relationship and had not started fitting the puzzle pieces together before they were led to the exit?
and maybe she was preggers and the fruit tasted like pickels and ice cream?
is the hebrew language that defining that it absolutely precludes a conception in the garden?

to assume that they were not obeying the mandate untill after the fall would be to accuse them of sinning prior to the fall

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Steve, I'm curious as to how you would you respond to the Hebrew grammar of the Genesis text? Why would Eve say what she did (see earlier post)? And why would she place the promise on that specific offspring if there were more? And if there were more how would she know to distinguish between one over the other? Secondly, how would you respond to the fact that all had to be in Adam for all to die in him, the Tradeucian theory (Rom. 5:12; Hebrews 7:10)?

Third, why do you assume they HAD to be in sin if they did not reproduce until after the fall? Or am i not reading correctly what you stated? Was there a text to place a time frame on when they had to reproduce? If, as you claim, there is no way to know how much time passed what if it was so short of time between the command to reproduce and thus their very next act was sin and thus they had no time to reproduce? I don't see how one can claim we do not have time lines but then claim that if they did not have sex during the pre-fall that by not doing so quick enough it was sin. "Quick enough" or pre-fall post-fall time lines suggests it was indeed a time that was enough to where they should have had sexual relations. But if there was this time line one must set forth how much time it was and compare that to how much time was available before needing to reproduce by God's command. That seems confusing to me and thus maybe I am not reading something correctly here. What if they were indeed planning to have sexual relations that night but sinned before the night?

Last, how would you explain the 6th day text of Adam and Eve's creation? Do you hold to days in between the creative days theory, or do you hold to the idea that a "day" in the Hebrew language was something other than a 24 hour day, or do you believe that the day represents ages of time, or do you believe another theory regarding what the 6th day meant?

 

[steve]

Steve, I'm curious as to how you would you respond to the Hebrew grammar of the Genesis text? Why would Eve say what she did (see earlier post)? And why would she place the promise on that specific offspring if there were more? And if there were more how would she know to distinguish between one over the other? Secondly, how would you respond to the fact that all had to be in Adam for all to die in him, the Tradeucian theory (Rom. 5:12; Hebrews 7:10)?
i did not disagree with what you wrote

Third, why do you assume they HAD to be in sin if they did not reproduce until after the fall? Or am i not reading correctly what you stated? Was there a text to place a time frame on when they had to reproduce? If, as you claim, there is no way to know how much time passed what if it was so short of time between the command to reproduce and thus their very next act was sin and thus they had no time to reproduce? I don't see how one can claim we do not have time lines but then claim that if they did not have sex during the pre-fall that by not doing so quick enough it was sin. "Quick enough" or pre-fall post-fall time lines suggests it was indeed a time that was enough to where they should have had sexual relations. But if there was this time line one must set forth how much time it was and compare that to how much time was available before needing to reproduce by God's command. That seems confusing to me and thus maybe I am not reading something correctly here. What if they were indeed planning to have sexual relations that night but sinned before the night?you are way overcomplicating what i wrote and you made my point with the last sentance

Last, how would you explain the 6th day text of Adam and Eve's creation? Do you hold to days in between the creative days theory, or do you hold to the idea that a "day" in the Hebrew language was something other than a 24 hour day, or do you believe that the day represents ages of time, or do you believe another theory regarding what the 6th day meant?
i believe in a literal 6 day creation. adam was made in the image of God and was created male and female. God is male and female in one being. He is not two beings (one male, one female)adam was created as one person, male and female (do not ask me what his body looked like, i do not know). at the end of the sixth day there is a good chance that only one being walked the earth with God. at some point after the creation of adam, he was put to sleep and the female was removed from him and formed into eve's body. this could have been 5 minutes after he was created (unlikely) or days, weeks, months, years? later. the point is that she was created at the same time that adam was created and formed as a seperate being later

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Uh oh....somehow or another I thought you were suggesting the opposite. :? As the ole saying up here goes; "my bad."

Oh well, thanks a bunch for clarification there

 

[welltan]

quote="Dr. K.R. Allen"]Welltan, I totally agree that God is larger and beyond Scripture. He cannot be contained in it.

However, I would suggest that there is a very strong piece of evidence in this subject to help us know or believe that Cain was indeed the first child. It can be seen in reading straight from the Hebrew. But, when reading from the English it is less clear. I don't talk much about Hebrew because I never really enjoyed my studies in Hebrew, at least not like I did and still do with Greek.

But this is one of the times were fluency in Hebrew does make a difference.

Many of your posts first introduce yourself as an expert. That is only required if you are new to the forums or unsure your words carry weight. You are respected rest assured so you can lay the Greek and Hebrew card to rest.

The straight forward reading of the Hebrew is this: Adam knew Eve; she became pregnant and birth Cain. She said: I have brought forth the Lord. Some translations like the Young's Literal says: "I have gotten a man by Jehovah." But that "by" word is not anywhere in the Hebrew. So it actually reads: "I have gotten a man: Jehovah." She literally thought the promise from God had just taken place in her first birth of a child.

Your inclusion of an opinion that Eve thought Cain was the promised one is not used in any of these English Bible translations of Genesis 4:1

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
The Message
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
King James Version
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
New Century Version
21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Young's Literal Translation
Darby Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reading Version
New International Version-UK
Todays New International Version

However most of these translations did notice the Hebrew wording as you did but translated it as Eve felt she had "gained a man with the help of the Lord" (Amplified) or Eve saying "I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah." (New American Standard)

The only translation I found that agrees with you is:

God's Word Translation

Which translates Genesis 4:1 "Adam made love to his wife Eve. She became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “I have gotten the man that the Lord promised.”

Presuming that God's Word Translation was the only translation that utilized Hebrew scholars, I fail to see how this infers that Cain was the first child or that Eve is saying that Cain was first. Another lady, Mary the mother of Jesus, also thought that she had birthed the promised one from God and indeed had done just that. Your logic demands that the 150 million other people alive at the time of Christ's birth could not have existed because a mother thought she had birthed the promised one.

Genesis 3:15? Are you sure this is the scripture you want? This is God making a promise to the serpent not Eve.

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

To get a promise to Eve out of verse 15 one would need to infer that Eve was within hearing range when God made the promise to the serpent. A promise made to someone may have results for others, but the promise was to the serpent not Eve.

As to whether or not there were other children that had been born prior to the fall, if one were to entertain that ideology then there would have to be some explanation as to how they fell in Adam due to the specific and precise teaching of Romans

You seem to have difficulty with the sadness of total depravity including the whole earth being involved with the fall. Sin brought death upon the sinless trees, plants, animals, all of nature and any people existing at the fall. Christ redeemed for those that existed in the past. There is no conflict if Adam and Eve fell and took those from their past with them into sin.

When you couple this verse with the purpose of why Moses wrote Genesis, to trace their lineage and how they developed, it seems to me to suggest we can know that no children were born before the fall

Remarkable conclusion as there is never a lineage in scripture that attempts to list everyone alive at the time. People do not want children before the fall because they do not fit into status quo theology.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

quote="Dr. K.R. Allen"] you can lay the Greek and Hebrew card to rest. Myself, having attended Bible College and Seminary .

Alright then are you able to translate that phrase directly from the Hebrew? If so where do you find the phrase "with the help of?" or "by"? I've looked at it and just can't find it. As for Bible college and seminary I thought that was what they taught us, to go back to the original languages if there was some dispute, not to learn it and walk away and leave it or put it to rest.

Granted, I'm NOT an expert in Hebrew as I noted. I can use it and work with it but would not call myself an expert. But what I can do is work directly with it and thus I'd like to know what Hebrew words you find that correspond to the English words?

I'm not trying to prove anything about myself here but I am trying to see the Hebrew grammar for what it is. My question is not intended to offend you or to try and show some superior knowledge. But the languages are indeed important in some cases where a subject is disputed, and this is one of those. I'm all ears if you have a better translation of this from the Hebrew.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Presuming that God's Word Translation was the only translation that utilized Hebrew scholars, I fail to see how this infers that Cain was the first child or that Eve is saying that Cain was first.

Two issues arise with this that help to make this point. First, if there was a promise that the Messiah would come forth through the seed of the woman then the phrase: "I have gotten a man, the Lord" would show that she applied that to Cain. Why would she believe it was Cain if she had other offspring? The promise was there through the words: "and her seed." Eve knew from her seed was coming the one who would bruise the Serpent, Satan, on the head. A statement referring to the Serpent's eventual downfall.

If she had other seed already in existence then how would Eve apply this promise to only one of her seed Cain? The implication behind this is that there was no other option for Eve to consider because Cain was indeed the first and ONLY child to come from Eve's body. That implies no other children in existence.

Lastly, it is not that God's Word translation is the ONLY one to use Hebrew scholars, which I'm sure you realize, it is just that in this one instance it did not insert additional interpretive words. Many of the translations at least do so show that the words "with the help" or by are inserted words. So thus they are admitting they are giving an interpretive translation by insertion of those words.

And thus that is why I am asking what is the literal word for word translation of the Hebrew? The way I see it when doing my homework on that phrase and by evaluating other Hebrew grammarians, and translating it myself, it does indeed look like Eve thought this was her first child by the choice of words she used. Some Hebrew scholars even suggest that her phrase was a "phrase of surprise," showing that she was amazed because this was the first time she ever saw a child be born, which would also imply Cain was the first offspring in human history.

And again, I'm not sure what in my original post agitated you because my goal was not to toot my horn in Hebrew or anything like that. If I came across that way then I apologize. I am a stickler for education though and for precision thinking as those two are spiritual issues of growth in grace and knowledge. But as I said, I enjoy Greek much more than Hebrew, and am not a scholar in Hebrew, but in this case since it is Hebrew we have to examine this issue by the Hebrew grammar. My point was simply to press the issue of what is the word for word for Hebrew and the implication of it to this issue.

So if your translating of the Hebrew yields a different conclusion then by all means let me know. I just can't find any words to correspond to the with the help or by and thus it seems to suggest strongly Eve thought this offspring was the fulfillment of the promise and she could only know that because this was the first child to be born in human history.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

my kjv has these three hebrew words listed for the 4:1 passage, the h854 word being the source for the translation of the "by or from" translations, FWIW. There is not a ":" anywhere in the hebrew either, so to be fair, the

So it actually reads: "I have gotten a man: Jehovah."

is not word for word either.


H376
אישׁ
'ı̂ysh
eesh
Contracted for H582 (or perhaps rather from an unused root meaning to be extant); a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation.) : - also, another, any (man), a certain, + champion, consent, each, every (one), fellow, [foot-, husband-] man, (good-, great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him (that is), husband, man [-kind], + none, one, people, person, + steward, what (man) soever, whoso (-ever), worthy. Compare H802.

H854
את
'êth
ayth
Probably from H579; properly nearness (used only as a preposition or adverb), near; hence generally with, by, at, among, etc.: - against, among, before, by, for, from, in (-to), (out) of, with. Often with another preposition prefixed.

H3068
יהוה
yehôvâh
yeh-ho-vaw'
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Paul you are correct. The ":" are English additions.

Literally without English punctuation it simply reads:

I have gotten a man the Lord

or

I have gotten a man Jehovah