Genesis 3:16 (Curse in Child Bearing)

[stovebolts]

I recently stumbled across this and found it interesting. Personally, when I see Gen 3:16, I focus on God's promise (Proto-Gospel). However, here's a question that was raised that some might find interesting. :D

Did Eve have daughters before she bore Cain?

In Genesis 3:16, the cure is to increase pain in child bearing. Therefore, some say she mush have had children to know the difference. However, there might be some flaws in that way of thinking.

Pro. The Woman was named Eve (Genesis 3:20) because she was the mother of all the living.

Con: Romans 5:12-21, Death was passed on through Adam, and no one had access to the tree of life.

Con: No babies or children mentioned and the Lord did not clothe them.

Con: Each person is accountable for their actions. Therefore, would they be denied access to the tree of life? If they were born before the fall of man and without sin. And were not born from a sinful person, that has a sinful nature.

Thoughts to ponder.

 

[John]

I do believe Genesis states that Adam and Eve had many children and even if the Bible did not i am sure they did seeing how long they lived.

 

[francisdesales]

I do believe Genesis states that Adam and Eve had many children and even if the Bible did not i am sure they did seeing how long they lived.

What difference does it make how long they lived in determining how fertile they were?

Scriptures point to the reality of the rarity of having children at an old age (just as science tells us), such as Sarah. IF men and women were giving birth at 300 years old ordinarily, then why would Sarah doubt that she would be pregnant with Isaac at an less than 100 years old???

Living to an old age is not a sign of fecundity, but a sign of favor with God among those who are set upon the temporal order, such as the Jews of the OT. Blessings were conveyed by wealth and old age - and so an old Adam would point to the blessings God gave Adam, not so he could father more children with Eve at "600 years" old...!

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

So then,

Did the woman bear children before she was named Eve? :nag

After all, God did say,

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!

 

[John]

What difference does it make how long they lived in determining how fertile they were?

Scriptures point to the reality of the rarity of having children at an old age (just as science tells us), such as Sarah. IF men and women were giving birth at 300 years old ordinarily, then why would Sarah doubt that she would be pregnant with Isaac at an less than 100 years old???

Living to an old age is not a sign of fecundity, but a sign of favor with God among those who are set upon the temporal order, such as the Jews of the OT. Blessings were conveyed by wealth and old age - and so an old Adam would point to the blessings God gave Adam, not so he could father more children with Eve at "600 years" old...!

Regards

I know you have a hard time accepting Genesis as is, so I'll ask you not to twist it here please if this was your intention then i apologize.

After the FLOOD (that was global in nature) people did not live to the old ages that they used to. Its true that today people have a hard time bearing children at an old age but those are the key words here "old age" If you lived to be like 900 what was considers old? 200,300, 700?

Lets work with some numbers.

Lets say that pre flood the people lived to an average of 1000 and people post flood live to an average of 100.

if one has a hard time having a baby at say 40 today then if we apply the same on the 1000 year old people then they would have a hard time at around 400 years old. I bet they could have many MANY kids in 400 years ;)

 

[Spiffy]

So then,

Did the woman bear children before she was named Eve? :nag

After all, God did say,

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!

What a fascinating question, StoveBolts! Nowhere does it truly say who was the first born....maybe Hank Hanagraff will know .

 

[francisdesales]

I know you have a hard time accepting Genesis as is, so I'll ask you not to twist it here please if this was your intention then i apologize.

I'll ask the same of you - not to twist the Scriptures to suit your own personal ideas of fairy tale stories of people having children at 1000 years old, which is an assumption on your part, since the bible doesn't mention Adam and Eve having children at over 130 years of age...

All we have is that Adam was 130 years old when he beget Seth. Nothing mentioned about children after Seth. Only your fertile imagination has the Bible insinuate that Adam and Eve continued to have children at their 200th and beyond...

After the FLOOD (that was global in nature)

ANOTHER presumption...

...people did not live to the old ages that they used to. Its true that today people have a hard time bearing children at an old age but those are the key words here "old age" If you lived to be like 900 what was considers old? 200,300, 700?

Again, where does the Bible say that people had children beyond 200 years old???

One hundred years is old when discussing reproduction, before or after the flood.

Lets work with some numbers.

Lets say that pre flood the people lived to an average of 1000 and people post flood live to an average of 100.

Rather than your math - which is faulty for a reason I will soon explain, let's say its more likely that men had many wives and were able to copulate with many more females then when it became unlawful to have many wives. Let's forget about ALL people living to 1000 years old already. There is just speculation, since the Bible doesn't say the 'average' person lived that long, only a select few - and I have already told you why the Bible does this - the same reason why other cultures spoke of long-lived PARTICULAR men.

The bible doesn't say the average age of men was 100 or anything beyond that. It only mentions a few select 'fathers' of ancient Israel, much like many cultures refer to their own ancient parents. For example, Bablyonian rulers of ancient time supposedly lived for 28000 years...

Whether you believe this is another figure of speech or not is inconsequential. What is obvious is that you ASSUME that ALL men obtained the age mentioned of Adam, some 930 years. Which verse do you draw this presumption from?

if one has a hard time having a baby at say 40 today then if we apply the same on the 1000 year old people then they would have a hard time at around 400 years old. I bet they could have many MANY kids in 400 years ;)

People had lots of children during their child-bearing years. There is no need to invent some crazy idea about people living to 1000 years old while having kids the entire time...

Nor is there any need for inventing some crazy story that the Patriarchs sailed to North America to populate this part of the world before the Spanish landed in the New World...

It is inevitable that following the "fundamental" interpretation of Scriptures leads to some pretty strange inventions to "cover the bases".

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

So then,

Did the woman bear children before she was named Eve? :nag

After all, God did say,

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!

What a fascinating question, StoveBolts! Nowhere does it truly say who was the first born....maybe Hank Hanagraff will know .

Hank Hanagraff :rolling Let me know what he has to say about it :shades

I agree, it is a fascinating question. A question I would have never figured to ask, but somebody else did

Like I said, I've always put the focus of this verse pointing to Christ. (Proto Gospel)

I'm just really curious which theology, or doctrine hinges upon the interpretation that the woman had a child before the fall

Where this impedes into the theology I have been taught, is that when Adam and Eve were ejected from the garden, they begin to fulfill God's commandment, "Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!"

I see in scripture a story being retold over and over... Just like when Israel goes into Egypt as a small group, but emerges 400 years later as a nation, if that makes any sense, and you can see how it relates to Adam and Eve. :yes

 

[Spiffy]

StoveBolts,

I will continue believing they procreated after leaving the Garden, however, I also won't be closed minded about it either.

I went to Hank's website and couldn't find where to ask a question. Maybe he's answered all of them :rolling I do have his book upstairs in my bedroom, I'll check to see if that question is answered in there.

 

[John]

I'll ask the same of you - not to twist the Scriptures to suit your own personal ideas of fairy tale stories of people having children at 1000 years old, which is an assumption on your part, since the bible doesn't mention Adam and Eve having children at over 130 years of age...

I never said they had kids at 1000 years old (considering no one lived that long, Methuselah i believe was the oldest human) Now instead of twisting scripture your twisting my words.

All we have is that Adam was 130 years old when he beget Seth. Nothing mentioned about children after Seth. Only your fertile imagination has the Bible insinuate that Adam and Eve continued to have children at their 200th and beyond...

Its called logical deduction, the Bible does not go in to great detail about Adams and Eves life.

After the FLOOD (that was global in nature)

ANOTHER presumption...

No its scriptural. Its not my fault if you throw it aside.

Again, where does the Bible say that people had children beyond 200 years old???

It does not need to, again through the process of logical deduction we can assume they had kids after 200 years of age. Do you really think that the people aged the same way we did? Think about it.

One hundred years is old when discussing reproduction, before or after the flood.

How do you come about this? If you lived to nearly 1000 years 100 is young, if you live to nearly 100 then 100 is old and 10 becomes young.

Rather than your math - which is faulty for a reason I will soon explain, let's say its more likely that men had many wives and were able to copulate with many more females then when it became unlawful to have many wives.

That is a plausible possibility.

Let's forget about ALL people living to 1000 years old already. There is just speculation, since the Bible doesn't say the 'average' person lived that long, only a select few - and I have already told you why the Bible does this - the same reason why other cultures spoke of long-lived PARTICULAR men.

So because the Bible does not talk about everyone else that means that only a select few lived to nearly 1000? :bigfrown

The bible doesn't say the average age of men was 100 or anything beyond that. It only mentions a few select 'fathers' of ancient Israel, much like many cultures refer to their own ancient parents. For example, Bablyonian rulers of ancient time supposedly lived for 28000 years...

Yes, the Egyptians did that as well with there God-kings, but the Bible is supposed to be accurate and reliable, it would seem (unsurprisingly) that you are trying to compare the Bible with other non Godly accounts.

Whether you believe this is another figure of speech or not is inconsequential. What is obvious is that you ASSUME that ALL men obtained the age mentioned of Adam, some 930 years. Which verse do you draw this presumption from?

Genesis 5.

People had lots of children during their child-bearing years. There is no need to invent some crazy idea about people living to 1000 years old while having kids the entire time...

Again i never said the entire time.

Nor is there any need for inventing some crazy story that the Patriarchs sailed to North America to populate this part of the world before the Spanish landed in the New World...

Where the heck did you draw this from :o

It is inevitable that following the "fundamental" interpretation of Scriptures leads to some pretty strange inventions to "cover the bases".

The Bible is fine as is we don't need some guru to interpret it for us.

Anyhow, i am reporting this thread seeing at it polluted with garbage already...what a shame.

 

[LostSoul]

Again, where does the Bible say that people had children beyond 200 years old???

Regards

I think we can all agree that there are some possibilities that the bible does not mention in particular. For example: Evolution which is still strongly debated between believers and non-believers alike.

Seeing as that is not the topic and things such as the idea of Adam and Eve having other offspring are....let us focus on that shall we?

The initial question of if, if indeed, Adam and Eve had other children....were they too removed from the Garden....?

Honestly I am not 100% sure where to stand there. I would deem it highly possible. Seeing as man is written in scripture to be born of a sinful nature.

Then...these are just my thoughts.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone. No offense was meant.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[Spiffy]

So then,

Did the woman bear children before she was named Eve? :nag

After all, God did say,

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!

What a fascinating question, StoveBolts! Nowhere does it truly say who was the first born....maybe Hank Hanagraff will know .

Hank Hanagraff :rolling Let me know what he has to say about it :shades

I agree, it is a fascinating question. A question I would have never figured to ask, but somebody else did

Like I said, I've always put the focus of this verse pointing to Christ. (Proto Gospel)

I'm just really curious which theology, or doctrine hinges upon the interpretation that the woman had a child before the fall

Where this impedes into the theology I have been taught, is that when Adam and Eve were ejected from the garden, they begin to fulfill God's commandment, "Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!"

I see in scripture a story being retold over and over... Just like when Israel goes into Egypt as a small group, but emerges 400 years later as a nation, if that makes any sense, and you can see how it relates to Adam and Eve. :yes

Well, Hank's Volume 1 and 2 of The Answer Bible Handbooks did not answer the question, however one of the questions he did answer was, "Can God make a rock so big, He can't move it?"

 

[francisdesales]

double post

 

[francisdesales]

I never said they had kids at 1000 years old (considering no one lived that long, Methuselah i believe was the oldest human) Now instead of twisting scripture your twisting my words.

You are in denial. Otherwise, why would you write this:

"...Lets say that pre flood the people lived to an average of 1000 and people post flood live to an average of 100..."

in an attempt to show me about how long men live so as to procreate...?

As usual, you take the literal "1000" years as some sort of "gospel". I suppose when you write "200, 300, 700", that means no one in your mind lived to 201, 304 or 721 years old? They only lived to either 200, 300 or 700 years old in your example...

Please. Such bickering over the sense is pointless. We know what you meant. Your idea is that man lived to such an old age, as Adam to 930, for the point of procreating all the way to his death. I said that the age of Adam means nothing about how fertile he was - and you jumped on me with your usual attacks about how I twist Scriptures and so forth...

All we have is that Adam was 130 years old when he beget Seth. Nothing mentioned about children after Seth. Only your fertile imagination has the Bible insinuate that Adam and Eve continued to have children at their 200th and beyond...

Its called logical deduction, the Bible does not go in to great detail about Adams and Eves life.

No, it's called illogical presumption, since the Bible does not point out that ANYONE gave birth beyond their 130th birthday. We call this "eigesis", inventing stuff and then twisting Scriptures to say something it just doesn't say.

No its scriptural. Its not my fault if you throw it aside.

Where does the bible say that the flood was "GLOBAL"? Perhaps it was, but the BIBLE does not make that statement clearly. The "earth", to the author of Scriptures, consisted of a very small part of the actual earth. The term can be refering to a local event that was destructive only where he was familiar with.

It does not need to, again through the process of logical deduction we can assume they had kids after 200 years of age.

:biglol

"It doesn't need to. I can make up stuff because I want to..."

Listen, if the Bible doesn't mention ANYWHERE that a woman gave birth while she was older than 130 years old (presuming Eve was only slightly younger than Adam - we don't know WHEN God created Eve), why do you pretend to make "logical deductions"? Based on WHAT evidence? Do we have ANY evidence, either Scriptural or outside of Scriptures in the historical annals of mankind that women give or gave birth to a child while they were older than 130 years old?

Sorry, you are NOT making 'logical deductions' because there is absolutely no support, even implicitly, in the Bible about such events... Nor has man experienced such a thing. It is simply based upon a FALSE presumption.

How do you come about this? If you lived to nearly 1000 years 100 is young, if you live to nearly 100 then 100 is old and 10 becomes young.

One hundred is not young to humans, nor to the reproductive organs of women. Because a woman "lived" to several hundred years old doesn't mean her body did not age appropriately. Where does the bible tell us that God changed man's entire anatomy and physiology after the flood?

It appears more likely that this aging thing is a literary device, just as numerous other cultures of ancient times used it.

Rather than your math - which is faulty for a reason I will soon explain, let's say its more likely that men had many wives and were able to copulate with many more females then when it became unlawful to have many wives.

That is a plausible possibility.

That is much more likely than your option of a 500 year old woman having sex and giving birth, for heaven's sake... ;)

And naturally, the Bible never says that a woman anywhere near that age gave birth... Let's not forget that obvious statement...

So because the Bible does not talk about everyone else that means that only a select few lived to nearly 1000? :bigfrown

Only a few people are mentioned. It doesn't say MEN lived that long. It only names a few of the patriarchs, Noah, Enoch, Adam, etc... Don't jump to conclusions.

Yes, the Egyptians did that as well with there God-kings, but the Bible is supposed to be accurate and reliable, it would seem (unsurprisingly) that you are trying to compare the Bible with other non Godly accounts.

The Bible IS accurate, reliable and inerrant. But that doesn't mean that the author INTENDS on saying that men LITERALLY lived to that age. In his mind, he is using a device similar to other cultures and for the same reason. It is accurate, reliable and inerrant on what the AUTHOR INTENDS to write, not what you WANT to read. What is inerrant is the intent of God, not your interpretation.

When Jesus spoke in parables, did he have an actual man in mind or was he telling a story for illustrative purposes? Stories do not have to be historically accurate to be accurate for the AUTHOR'S purpose.

For example, if I am writing a cartoon sketch, is it my intent that I believe that there are talking dogs or am I trying to teach a more metaphorical meaning? ALL truth does not need to be told literally. But we have already discussed this and I am probably not going to get through this time, either.

Genesis 5.

Where does it say ALL men lived to a ripe old age of just shy of 1000 years? Genesis 5 doesn't mention that. It lists SEVERAL men for the purpose of speaking of the blessings received by the ancient patriarchs.

People had lots of children during their child-bearing years. There is no need to invent some crazy idea about people living to 1000 years old while having kids the entire time...

Again i never said the entire time.

Missing the point again. Your idea is that people have children at up to 1000 years old. Thus, the POSSIBILITY that people can have children during the entire time, their entire life. Seems you arguments are getting pretty desperate to take this tact... Where do we find this idea in Scriptures? Nowhere.

Nor is there any need for inventing some crazy story that the Patriarchs sailed to North America to populate this part of the world before the Spanish landed in the New World...

Where the heck did you draw this from :o

Do a little thinking. The Mormons, like you, take the literal interpretation of this part of Scripture. It follows that SOMEONE had to populate North America BEFORE the Spaniards came in force and it had to come from the Middle East. Thus, the Mormons discuss a theory of the Patriarchs sailing to America long time ago. At least they address it with their fanciful inventions. You have painted yourself into a corner and don't even realize it. Where DID the American Indians come from, then?

The Bible is fine as is we don't need some guru to interpret it for us.

Scriptures say that incorrect interpretations can lead to "destruction". Maybe you might consider looking somewhere else to get your information, before you are "destroyed".

Anyhow, i am reporting this thread seeing at it polluted with garbage already...what a shame.

You brought up the silly notion that people over 200 years old were populating the world and talked about how I twist Scriptures because you don't get it, not me...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I think we can all agree that there are some possibilities that the bible does not mention in particular. For example: Evolution which is still strongly debated between believers and non-believers alike.

The initial question of if, if indeed, Adam and Eve had other children....were they too removed from the Garden....?

The question is not whether Adam and Eve had other children, but if they gave birth to any after Seth - or if ANYONE gave birth to a child while aged over 130 years old... If the possibility existed, either in medical science, or in the pages of Scriptures EXPLICITLY, then we have no problems and we can make such speculations. However, the bible never makes any sort of statement about women being fertile beyond 130 years old. We can SAY they did, but that is, indeed, going beyond what the Scriptures say, even implicitly. Just because someone is alive for many years doesn't mean they are capable (or would desire) to copulate and procreate at such an advanced age.

As to your particular question, if Adam and Eve had other children in the Garden, they were also removed. Why wouldn't they? EVERYONE is subject to what Adam and Eve did, the born and unborn people of the couple.

Regards

 

[LostSoul]

The question is not whether Adam and Eve had other children, but if they gave birth to any after Seth - or if ANYONE gave birth to a child while aged over 130 years old... If the possibility existed, either in medical science, or in the pages of Scriptures EXPLICITLY, then we have no problems and we can make such speculations. However, the bible never makes any sort of statement about women being fertile beyond 130 years old. We can SAY they did, but that is, indeed, going beyond what the Scriptures say, even implicitly. Just because someone is alive for many years doesn't mean they are capable (or would desire) to copulate and procreate at such an advanced age.

As to your particular question, if Adam and Eve had other children in the Garden, they were also removed. Why wouldn't they? EVERYONE is subject to what Adam and Eve did, the born and unborn people of the couple.

Regards

Francesdesales,

I am inclined to disagree in terms of the Bible NEVER speaking of any having children in their old age....for did not John the Baptist come from a very much elderly lady? Look also at Abraham.....his son Isaac was born unto him at a rather late period also. To limit the possibilities of God's power just does not sound logical....or right to me. Then...could be just me.

I did not ask if Adam or Eve was removed let alone their offspring....I do believe if you reread my post you will find I answered that question even as I posted it so as to well....share my points of view. Do I believe Adam and Eve could have had other children? Yes....does that mean I believe any less in the Bible not necessarily. I just have not been much of a student or studier of geneology. Which could likely answer such a question by itself if one is to investigate...though usually daughters are not mentioned I do not think in such cases in the Bible...so that may not prove much help....who knows though? I could be wrong.

Just my thoughts. I appologize if I have offended you in any way. None intended.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[francisdesales]

Francesdesales,

I am inclined to disagree in terms of the Bible NEVER speaking of any having children in their old age....for did not John the Baptist come from a very much elderly lady? Look also at Abraham.....his son Isaac was born unto him at a rather late period also. To limit the possibilities of God's power just does not sound logical....or right to me. Then...could be just me.

I am not saying old woman never bore children. However, Scriptures make this a MIRACULOUS EVENT, not COMMON PLACE.

In addition, Sarah and Elizabeth are not described as being over 130 years old. Seth remains the person with the oldest parents at his birth, as far as we know. Unless God was involved in making woman fertile at 500 years old - a miraculous event becoming common place - we have absolutely nothing to base a speculation on. Neither modern science, history, or the Bible mentions woman over 150 years old giving birth!

Of course God is not limited. But the idea that women give birth at over 200 years old would be miraculous. The definition of miraculous is not something common place, as John seems to believe regarding woman's reproductive organs before the flood (which the Bible never makes mention of...)

I did not ask if Adam or Eve was removed let alone their offspring....I do believe if you reread my post you will find I answered that question even as I posted it so as to well....

Sorry, I was confused.

Do I believe Adam and Eve could have had other children? Yes....does that mean I believe any less in the Bible not necessarily.

You certainly are welcome to believe that. It is quite likely that Adam and Eve had more children than the Bible mentions. However, to say that children were born from 200 year old woman is pure speculation, not based on any Scriptures or scientific data. Thus, such speculations are that. Presumptions. One cannot make theological statements of any solidity based upon that. The idea is that God kept man and woman alive for 900 years so as to give birth to children throughout their long life. Where do we find that idea in Scriptures? It is a tradition of men, not based upon the Word of God. Anywhere.

Just my thoughts. I appologize if I have offended you in any way. None intended.

Offense? Not at all.

Regards

 

[LostSoul]

I am not saying old woman never bore children. However, Scriptures make this a MIRACULOUS EVENT, not COMMON PLACE.

In addition, Sarah and Elizabeth are not described as being over 130 years old. Seth remains the person with the oldest parents at his birth, as far as we know. Unless God was involved in making woman fertile at 500 years old - a miraculous event becoming common place - we have absolutely nothing to base a speculation on. Neither modern science, history, or the Bible mentions woman over 150 years old giving birth!

Of course God is not limited. But the idea that women give birth at over 200 years old would be miraculous. The definition of miraculous is not something common place, as John seems to believe regarding woman's reproductive organs before the flood (which the Bible never makes mention of...)

Francisdesales,

You bring up a valid and yet very interesting point. It was indeed NOT COMMON place for women within the bible to give birth after certain ages. Though I will admit this does only further serve to rouse the curiousity seeing as there were at least a number of men that lived....hundreds of years according to scripture. It really is something to ponder at.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts on the topic.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[Paidion]

Scriptures point to the reality of the rarity of having children at an old age (just as science tells us), such as Sarah. IF men and women were giving birth at 300 years old ordinarily, then why would Sarah doubt that she would be pregnant with Isaac at an less than 100 years old???

First, let's establish the fact that Noah had children after he was 500 years old!

After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Genesis 5:32 ESV

You ask why Sarah would doubt that she would be pregnant with Isaac at an less than 100 years old? Sarah lived in a different age from that of Noah. After the flood, people aged faster, and died MUCH earlier. The greater exposure to the sun may have been a factor. Also, the air pressure was only half as much, and the oxygen level went down from 30% to 20%.

Although the following doesn't have a lot of relevance to the topic, it is interesting that the writer to the Hebrews felt that Abraham's body was as good as dead when he begat Isaac:

Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore. Hebrews 11:12

Yet, God must have restored a lot of virility to Abhram. For after Sarah's death, he married Keturah and she bore him 6 sons, and he had concubines besides (Gen 25:1-6)

 

[Eccl12and13]

Con: Each person is accountable for their actions. Therefore, would they be denied access to the tree of life? If they were born before the fall of man and without sin. And were not born from a sinful person, that has a sinful nature.
Thoughts to ponder.

To answer this part of your question, ALL have sinned!

Eccl:
[20] For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Rom.3
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom.5
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: