Genesis: One Man's Observations and Suppositions

[Huckleberry]

Let me preface this, my first post on this forum, by stating that the KJV is the Bible I read.
I am not here to debate Bible versions; that's been done to death.
I just prefer the KJV for several reasons.
Just wanted to get that on the table.

To me, Genesis is the most interesting book in the Bible, especially the antediluvian world.

The original four "lands", two of which were islands.
The implication that gold was ubiquitous.
The four rivers which came from one, opposite of how rivers are now.

There is a lot to be discussed, but I want to touch on a few of my ideas.
I will reference a verse, then my take on it.

Gen. 3:14.
The serpent (reptile?) is cursed above cattle and field beasts.
So they were all cursed but the serpent was cursed more?
Hmmm. Well, a lot of people are pretty repulsed by reptiles, me included.
BTW, I synonymize the terms bless and curse with comfort and discomfort, respectively.

Gen. 3:16.
How can conception be "multiplied"?
I take this to mean that previously, Eve's children were born smaller relative to her size.
Now they will grow significantly bigger while in her womb, and this will cause her much sorrow.
Some will declare "Adam and Eve hadn't had any children up to that point."
Really? Then that makes the phrase "greatly multiply thy sorrow and
thy conception" very mysterious, because previous conception is implied here.

Gen. 4:1.
Eve seems to rejoice in the fact that she's had a son.
Were all their previous children daughters?
This seems implied.

Gen. 4:23,24
Lamech (not Noah's father, but Cain's great, great, great, great, great, great grandson)
is the first polygamist and second murderer documented in scripture.
His story is short, but quite interesting. He apparently either killed Cain, or killed the killer of Cain.
Maybe he killed Cain and his own son, Tubalcain?
Obscure, but fascinating.

I've got more, but will end this for now.

 

[crossnote]

First post pure speculation bordering on heresy at that. Congrats!
From where do you derive your teachings?

 

[Huckleberry]

First post pure speculation bordering on heresy at that. Congrats!
From where do you derive your teachings?

Hey there! Thanks for that warm welcome,
and I just know you and I will be great friends!

 

[CoooCaw]

Let me preface this, my first post on this forum, by stating that the KJV is the Bible I read.
I am not here to debate Bible versions; that's been done to death.
I just prefer the KJV for several reasons.
Just wanted to get that on the table.

To me, Genesis is the most interesting book in the Bible, especially the antediluvian world.

The original four "lands", two of which were islands.
The implication that gold was ubiquitous.
The four rivers which came from one, opposite of how rivers are now.

There is a lot to be discussed, but I want to touch on a few of my ideas.
I will reference a verse, then my take on it.

Gen. 3:14.
The serpent (reptile?) is cursed above cattle and field beasts.
So they were all cursed but the serpent was cursed more?
Hmmm. Well, a lot of people are pretty repulsed by reptiles, me included.
BTW, I synonymize the terms bless and curse with comfort and discomfort, respectively.

Gen. 3:16.
How can conception be "multiplied"?
I take this to mean that previously, Eve's children were born smaller relative to her size.
Now they will grow significantly bigger while in her womb, and this will cause her much sorrow.
Some will declare "Adam and Eve hadn't had any children up to that point."
Really? Then that makes the phrase "greatly multiply thy sorrow and
thy conception" very mysterious, because previous conception is implied here.

Gen. 4:1.
Eve seems to rejoice in the fact that she's had a son.
Were all their previous children daughters?
This seems implied.

Gen. 4:23,24
Lamech (not Noah's father, but Cain's great, great, great, great, great, great grandson)
is the first polygamist and second murderer documented in scripture.
His story is short, but quite interesting. He apparently either killed Cain, or killed the killer of Cain.
Maybe he killed Cain and his own son, Tubalcain?
Obscure, but fascinating.

I've got more, but will end this for now.

watch out - the men in white coats are on their way!

 

[reject-tech]

Huckleberry, I think you are making observations that though they be right or wrong, lead to revelation.
Rather than chastise you for seeking and testing the spirits as we are directed, I will say this.

A river does "normally" become four if you are observing it from downstream upward.
A 7, "completed", month old birth is less likely to tear a woman, and capable of breast feeding -
compared to a 9 almost 10, "large number", month old birth.
The 7 month old newborn is less likely to take it's first breath in this world in a state of sorrow by way of crying.
Conception can also be "multiplied" by requiring more attempts at fertilization, and thus sorrow in waiting month after month for conception to occur.

Polygyny, whether you believe it is wrong or not, is used to demonstrate that some bible men had multiple obsessions in life, reflected in the names and lives of the wives.

Hope that's good food for thought.

 

[Huckleberry]

Huckleberry, I think you are making observations that though they be right or wrong, lead to revelation.
Rather than chastise you for seeking and testing the spirits as we are directed, I will say this.

A river does "normally" become four if you are observing it from downstream upward.
A 7, "completed", month old birth is less likely to tear a woman, and capable of breast feeding -
compared to a 9 almost 10, "large number", month old birth.
The 7 month old newborn is less likely to take it's first breath in this world in a state of sorrow by way of crying.
Conception can also be "multiplied" by requiring more attempts at fertilization, and thus sorrow in waiting month after month for conception to occur.

Polygyny, whether you believe it is wrong or not, is used to demonstrate that some bible men had multiple obsessions in life, reflected in the names and lives of the wives.

Hope that's good food for thought.

Oh, so there are people here in "Bible Discussion" who actually do discuss the Bible.
That's a relief.

Not sure what your point is about "seeking and testing the spirits".
I'm just wanting to discuss the Bible, but thanks for not deigning to "chastise" me.

Your point about the rivers would be an excellent one,
except that the detail of the direction that the water was running is revealed.
See, the devil is in the details, if you'll pardon the expression, and details are given.
Lots of pesky details in the Bible.

Nothing you said was especially good food for thought,
but the general tone of the discussion here
in "Bible Discussion" is definitely food for thought.
I've obviously come to the wrong place.

 

[BeanieD]

"Gen. 3:16.
How can conception be "multiplied"?
I take this to mean that previously, Eve's children were born smaller relative to her size.
Now they will grow significantly bigger while in her womb, and this will cause her much sorrow.
Some will declare "Adam and Eve hadn't had any children up to that point."
Really? Then that makes the phrase "greatly multiply thy sorrow and
thy conception" very mysterious, because previous conception is implied here.

NIV which is just like KJ.........Gen 3:16...... "To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children."

 

[BeanieD]

"Eve seems to rejoice in the fact that she's had a son.
Were all their previous children daughters?
This seems implied."

Adam lay with his wife, Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to cain. She said "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man later she gave birth to his brother Abel." These were their first two children. Boys at the time were a great blessing as opposed to girls right off.

 

[Huckleberry]

NIV which is just like KJ.........Gen 3:16...... "To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children."

Genesis 3:16 KJV:
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Oh, yeah. Just like it.

I stated at the outset of this thread I use the KJV.
Please don't bother responding to me using other versions.
If we can't agree on which translation of God's Word is more correct,
we can't agree on much, let alone the actual written details of what's in it.

And just for the sake of clarity, conception is not pain.
A woman's "conception" is the actual child within her.

 

[Huckleberry]

These were their first two children.

There is not one shred of scripture that backs up that statement.
On the contrary, God instructed Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply from the beginning.
Cain and Abel were born after the fall, after Death had been manifested.
As I just said, Adam and Eve were instructed to be fruitful and multiply.
They were given the green-light to get busy, and surely they did.

 

[reject-tech]

Your point about the rivers would be an excellent one,
except that the detail of the direction that the water was running is revealed.
See, the devil is in the details, if you'll pardon the expression, and details are given.
Lots of pesky details in the Bible.

Yeah, I understand the direction of flow. I was talking about the direction of the observer, if he were to walk toward the source(s) of the water for example.

And I also have suspected that the children might have been born smaller, possibly because of shorter pregnancy term due to perfect diet before being booted from the garden. That's what I was getting at with the pregnancy durations.

Those things are surely plausible in my opinion.

I also suspect things for example like - in addition to representing the overbearing ways of sinful men, that the giants in genesis might also refer to "grown ups", making the observation that before being booted, Adam and Eve were unaging and likely locked into their early teen years. Then when sin came, they "overgrew" as they slowly died alive.

Lots of things between the lines I believe. Not saying any of my random thoughts are accurate, but they do make me think outside the box, then test those thoughts to see if they muddle with the gospel, or come back later to explain something somewhere else in scripture. That's what I meant by "trying the spirits"

 

[crossnote]

There is not one genealogy in Scripture that goes from Adam to anyone else but Cain or Abel-Seth. To surmise Adam and Eve had previous children is a pipe dream unsupported by Scripture. If they did those children would have been sinless.

 

[Huckleberry]

Yeah, I understand the direction of flow. I was talking about the direction of the observer, if he were to walk toward the source(s) of the water for example.

And I also have suspected that the children might have been born smaller, possibly because of shorter pregnancy term due to perfect diet before being booted from the garden. That's what I was getting at with the pregnancy durations.

Those things are surely plausible in my opinion.

I also suspect things for example like - in addition to representing the overbearing ways of sinful men, that the giants in genesis might also refer to "grown ups", making the observation that before being booted, Adam and Eve were unaging and likely locked into their early teen years. Then when sin came, they "overgrew" as they slowly died alive.

Lots of things between the lines I believe. Not saying any of my random thoughts are accurate, but they do make me think outside the box, then test those thoughts to see if they muddle with the gospel, or come back later to explain something somewhere else in scripture. That's what I meant by "trying the spirits"

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
Discussing the Bible; I love it!

Concerning Eve's conception, diet may have been a, or the, factor.
Their diet was herbs, fruits, and seeds up to that point.
Then they got booted, Adam had to farm for a living, and bread came into the picture. Gen. 3:19
More carbs. Interesting angle I hadn't thought of before.
Now you're giving me some food for thought, pun intended.
I don't think people started eating meat until right after the flood,
which was the reason for the necessity of seven of every clean beast on the Ark.

Concerning giants, here's my take:
There are giant fossils found of almost everything, including people.
The world's climate was obviously conducive to great size and longevity.
The rainbow God used to signify His covenant with Noah was maybe the first ever rainbow.
If so, that means that direct sunlight before the Flood was diffused.
That would have made the world much more conducive to great size and longevity,
and fits in with the Bible's multiple references to significant amounts of water above the atmosphere.
I believe there were giants, and that they were giant.
And they existed after the Flood, too, according to many OT accounts.
The Great Pyramid, Greek ruins, ruins of Baalbek, Easter
Island heads, et al; they weren't built by no puny little girly-men.

 

[Huckleberry]

There is not one genealogy in Scripture that goes from Adam to anyone else but Cain or Abel-Seth. To surmise Adam and Eve had previous children is a pipe dream unsupported by Scripture. If they did those children would have been sinless.

Okay so, no genealogy in Scripture, it didn't happen.
That about size up your doctrinal position?

It is generally believed and highly probable that the Kenites were
descendants of Cain through one of Noah's daughters-in-law.
There is no genealogy of Cain given after the children of Lamech.
Didn't happen?

 

[crossnote]

Okay so, no genealogy in Scripture, it didn't happen.
That about size up your doctrinal position?

It is generally believed and highly probable that the Kenites were
descendants of Cain through one of Noah's daughters-in-law.
There is no genealogy of Cain given after the children of Lamech.
Didn't happen?

Here is your quote...

"Gen. 3:16.
How can conception be "multiplied"?
I take this to mean that previously, Eve's children were born smaller relative to her size.
Now they will grow significantly bigger while in her womb, and this will cause her much sorrow.
Some will declare "Adam and Eve hadn't had any children up to that point."
Really? Then that makes the phrase "greatly multiply thy sorrow and
thy conception" very mysterious, because previous conception is implied here."

Here is my question...
Do you affirm that if Adam or Eve had children before the Fall they would have been born without sin?

 

[Huckleberry]

Here is my question...
Do you affirm that if Adam or Eve had children before the Fall they would have been born without sin?

All children are born sinless, or "pure in heart".
The Calvinist "inherited depravity" shtick is unscriptural.

 

[notuptome]

"Eve seems to rejoice in the fact that she's had a son.
Were all their previous children daughters?
This seems implied."

Adam lay with his wife, Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to cain. She said "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man later she gave birth to his brother Abel." These were their first two children. Boys at the time were a great blessing as opposed to girls right off.

Cain and Able were from a single conception.

If there was no death before the fall why would there be any requirement to replenish the earth?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Huckleberry]

Cain and Able [sic] were from a single conception.

That may be true, but is not definitively stated in the Bible.

If there was no death before the fall why would there be any requirement to replenish the earth?

I'm not one to constantly refer to the original languages, but in this case, it is needed.
The word translated as "replenish" means "fill".
In 1611, the word "replenish" in English meant "fill".
Words sometimes change meanings, e.g., the word "gay" used to mean "happy".
If you want to believe there was sin and death before The Fall,
that's your business, but it is unscriptural, and unnecessary.

 

[phil36]

Well, Huckleberry,


Here is the problem. You want to debate on your terms alone. You misunderstand what is said in Genesis 3:16, I think the ESV says it better and its the same as Niv..

when its says multiply thy sorrow, and he will multiply sorrow in childbirth, read v16 again the whole of it..here is the second part:

"in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"


It always amazes me why those with leftfield views of scripture..are adamant that you must use the KJV? (not to confuse that with the KJV only crowd).

So here is what scripture says in plain English:

and you shall bruise his heel.”[SUP]16 [/SUP]To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for[SUP][f][/SUP] your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”



You see you set your debate up on the basis that it stands only on the King James... that is why you start of with a blurb about you using King James. and you still get it wrong.

 

[BeanieD]

Great post Phil36. Amen to what you said.