Eve the first woman

  • Thread starter Thread starter FootStool
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FootStool

Guest
Can you share your knowledge with me regarding Eve. We do believe her to be the very first woman for Adam… to go forth and multiply. Then came Cane, Abel, Seth after him I do not know. Who are where did Cane and Abel’s wife’ come from? How did they procreate?
 
I’ve also heard the theory that possibly God created more people after the fall… I don’t know if this holds much water though.

As well I’ve also heard that they married their sisters who weren’t mentioned as children in Genesis.

Hopefully someone here will be able to post more on this topic since I’m sure it’s been thought about before.
 
They would have come from their sisters. Incest wasn’t a sin at this time, out of necessity. Even Abraham married his half-sister. You’ll need to answer the same questions about those that descended immediately after Noah’s children, too.
 
They would have come from their sisters. Incest wasn’t a sin at this time, out of necessity. Even Abraham married his half-sister. You’ll need to answer the same questions about those that descended immediately after Noah’s children, too.
So how many children did Adam and Eve have in all? Some people say that Cain and Abel would have “been” with their mother?!?! :eek: Abraham married half-sister? With Noah it could be cousins having to procreate.

We also hear that angels (good ? and/or bad?) were captivated by the beauty of women so they had intercourse with them and brought forth heirs? Is that true? :confused:
 
It may be that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory and refer to the first society of men and women. God told me. I presume there was a first man and woman but he must have created more. I don’t believe they practiced incest in accordance with God’s will but they could have done. They could have been on a number of continents.
 
So how many children did Adam and Eve have in all? Some people say that Cain and Abel would have “been” with their mother?!?! :eek: Abraham married half-sister? With Noah it could be cousins having to procreate.

We also hear that angels (good ? and/or bad?) were captivated by the beauty of women so they had intercourse with them and brought forth heirs? Is that true? :confused:
Even though the bible is silent on any remaining children of Adam and Eve, its hard to imagine living 600 years without pro-creating. It seems to be the semitic way to list only the children that tend to be pertinent to the story. Even Matthew skips over at least 3 generations when providing the lineage of Jesus.

I’m not sure about the angels. Being that they didn’t have corporeal bodies, how could they pro-create. I’ll look over some commentary on those statements, though.
 
It may be that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory and refer to the first society of men and women. God told me. I presume there was a first man and woman but he must have created more. I don’t believe they practiced incest in accordance with God’s will but they could have done. They could have been on a number of continents.
In that case, there would be the possibility of not having to descend from Adam and Eve - the source of Original Sin.

The Church disagrees with this hypothesis.
 
Can you share your knowledge with me regarding Eve. We do believe her to be the very first woman for Adam… to go forth and multiply. Then came Cane, Abel, Seth after him I do not know. Who are where did Cane and Abel’s wife’ come from? How did they procreate?
Hi, friend.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

Cain and Abel are fictional. The only reason why anyone says otherwise is that they are clinging to a false notion that “understanding the Bible is simple. Since the book is ‘from God,’ every jot and tittle is perfectly true.”

In fact, even ancient Hebrew children – even ancient Hebrew little children – knew that the Genesis Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel stories were fictional.

Fictional doesn’t mean “bad theology.” In fact the stories teach good theology. Infallible theology.

But they don’t teach infallible history. In fact, the stories are the ancient version of modern day Dr. Seuss stories. If we were travel back in time and kidnap two ancient Hebrew children to our day-and-age, and plunk them down in front of a computer screen and translate what some of the folks here maintain, when they say that the Bible, including the Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel stories, are perfectly historical, the ancient Hebrew children would look at each other with complete astonishment, and then burst out laughing at the members of this site who maintain that the stories are historical.

The effect would be the same as a room full of adults seriously discussing in front of modern kids whether Mickey and Donald and Pluto ever got married, and where they spent their honeymoon, and, by the way, do they have good credit and do they prefer Mastercard or Visa, or Discover Card?

The story of Cain and Abel is the story of Mr. Smith and Mr. Shepherd – literally!

The Hebrew term underlying Cain’s name, qayin, means “[metal] smith.” The real reason why the story gives him that name as a baby is that at the end of the story Cain becomes a tatooed wanderer, like the metal-mongering nomads of ancient times, anbd in fact a subsequent story has one of Cain’s descendants becoming a metal smith. When the story, in Genesis, says that Eve “conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have produced a man with the help of the LORD,’” Genesis 4:1, that is an ancient Hebrew joke – a pun to make the audience laugh. The Adam and Eve story has several of these jokes. We don’t see them because puns are almost always innately non-translatable.

When Abel is named Abel, and we are told that Abel became a shepherd, that, too, is a joke. “Abel” was the ancient Hebrew word for “herdsman” derived from the ancient Syrian tongue – “shepherd”! The joke is, How did Eve know that Abel, as an adult, would engage in the work which was the same as his name?

The reason why the story doesn’t tell us about the mother of Cain’s children isn’t because the story assumes “incest.” That whole “incest” business is the worst form of nonsense. It’s because the story was a kid-level piece of fiction, that doesn’t answer things like, “Did Mickey and Minnie Mouse have sex?”

The story teaches excellent theology, though. Abel is a picture of Christ. Abel’s death is a picture of Christ’s death. Cain’s “punishment” is really a reward, just as mankind was rewarded for killing Christ – we received salvation!
 
Even though the bible is silent on any remaining children of Adam and Eve, its hard to imagine living 600 years without pro-creating. It seems to be the semitic way to list only the children that tend to be pertinent to the story. Even Matthew skips over at least 3 generations when providing the lineage of Jesus.
I agree with NotWorthy here the bible does tend to only state the children that are important to the story. So it’s quite possible that there were more but they weren’t metioned in Genesis.

God Bless

-Tyler
 
Hi, friend.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

Cain and Abel are fictional. The only reason why anyone says otherwise is that they are clinging to a false notion that “understanding the Bible is simple. Since the book is ‘from God,’ every jot and tittle is perfectly true.”

In fact, even ancient Hebrew children – even ancient Hebrew little children – knew that the Genesis Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel stories were fictional.
Pete, I gotta ask you. Are you serious when you put down “Catholic” as your religion? Are you what others consider “Roman Catholic” or a Church that is in communion with the Roman Catholic Rite?

Because you are claiming one thing, and then stating (albeit, as an opinion of yours) something that is totally against Catholic teaching.

I don’t claim that every jot and tittle of the bible is true, and neither does the Church, but I do hold that Cain and Able were sons of Adam and Eve.
 
Pete, I gotta ask you. Are you serious when you put down “Catholic” as your religion? Are you what others consider “Roman Catholic” or a Church that is in communion with the Roman Catholic Rite?

Because you are claiming one thing, and then stating (albeit, as an opinion of yours) something that is totally against Catholic teaching.

I don’t claim that every jot and tittle of the bible is true, and neither does the Church, but I do hold that Cain and Able were sons of Adam and Eve.
Hi, friend.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

Because of your dyed-in-the-wool belief in the literal truth of the fundamentals of the story, you won’t believe me when I state that, functionally, my Catholic Christianity is more Catholic than yours.

This is true transactionally, not just generally.

For example, Abel really IS a picture of Christ. He is a foreshadowing of Christ. That, precisely, is WHY that Dr. Seuss story was included in Scripture – to foreshadow Christ.

Note well: Biblical literalists really never discuss the story of Cain and Abel for its actual value – as a Christ foreshadowing.

When Abel brings a firstling from his flock to God, that is a picture of Christ the Good Shepherd bringing HIMSELF (!!!) the Paschal Lamb to sacrifice.

When Cain brings his veggies to sacrifice, God prefers Abel’s sacrifice because the sacrifice of Christ is what was needed to save mankind.

When Cain kills the Christ figure, note what happens to Cain: He gets protected from being made to die – just as Christ’s sacrifice wins eternal life, right? – and he ends up in the East – an anaolog of the Light Type referring to the Christ. He ends up in “Christ Land”! Christianity!
 
Hi, friend.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

Because of your dyed-in-the-wool belief in the literal truth of the fundamentals of the story, you won’t believe me when I state that, functionally, my Catholic Christianity is more Catholic than yours.

This is true transactionally, not just generally.

For example, Abel really IS a picture of Christ. He is a foreshadowing of Christ. That, precisely, is WHY that Dr. Seuss story was included in Scripture – to foreshadow Christ.

Note well: Biblical literalists really never discuss the story of Cain and Abel for its actual value – as a Christ foreshadowing.

When Abel brings a firstling from his flock to God, that is a picture of Christ the Good Shepherd bringing HIMSELF (!!!) the Paschal Lamb to sacrifice.

When Cain brings his veggies to sacrifice, God prefers Abel’s sacrifice because the sacrifice of Christ is what was needed to save mankind.

When Cain kills the Christ figure, note what happens to Cain: He gets protected from being made to die – just as Christ’s sacrifice wins eternal life, right? – and he ends up in the East – an anaolog of the Light Type referring to the Christ. He ends up in “Christ Land”! Christianity!
👍 As usual, your explanation is the only one that makes sense. Of course these old stories in the Bible aren’t literal. That they have so much hidden meaning is what awes me!
 
👍 As usual, your explanation is the only one that makes sense. Of course these old stories in the Bible aren’t literal. That they have so much hidden meaning is what awes me!
Thank you, Christine.

It’s really amazing to comprehend that when we read a story like that of Cain and Abel, we’re really reading about Christ.

When I understood what I was looking at, years ago, I suddenly became addicted to Scripture!

Pete
 
The Hebrew term underlying Cain’s name, qayin, means “[metal] smith.” The real reason why the story gives him that name as a baby is that at the end of the story Cain becomes a tatooed wanderer, like the metal-mongering nomads of ancient times, anbd in fact a subsequent story has one of Cain’s descendants becoming a metal smith. When the story, in Genesis, says that Eve “conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have produced a man with the help of the LORD,’” Genesis 4:1, that is an ancient Hebrew joke – a pun to make the audience laugh. The Adam and Eve story has several of these jokes. We don’t see them because puns are almost always innately non-translatable.

When Abel is named Abel, and we are told that Abel became a shepherd, that, too, is a joke. “Abel” was the ancient Hebrew word for “herdsman” derived from the ancient Syrian tongue – “shepherd”! The joke is, How did Eve know that Abel, as an adult, would engage in the work which was the same as his name?
Maybe smithing was named after Mr. Smith and shepherding named after Mr. Shepherd instead of the other way around? I mean, the exact state of human language is relatively sketchy at this point. And I agree with your point about not actually having any evidence to support this, you really don’t have any basis for these claims even in enthymetic evidence.
 
Maybe smithing was named after Mr. Smith and shepherding named after Mr. Shepherd instead of the other way around? I mean, the exact state of human language is relatively sketchy at this point. And I agree with your point about not actually having any evidence to support this, you really don’t have any basis for these claims even in enthymetic evidence.
Hi, SlyOne.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

Cain’s name is a Hebrew pun. Abel’s name is a Hebrew word derived from Syrian.

I take it, therefore, that you believe that Eve spoke Hebrew?
 
Hi, friend.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

Because of your dyed-in-the-wool belief in the literal truth of the fundamentals of the story, you won’t believe me when I state that, functionally, my Catholic Christianity is more Catholic than yours.

This is true transactionally, not just generally.

For example, Abel really IS a picture of Christ. He is a foreshadowing of Christ. That, precisely, is WHY that Dr. Seuss story was included in Scripture – to foreshadow Christ.

Note well: Biblical literalists really never discuss the story of Cain and Abel for its actual value – as a Christ foreshadowing.

When Abel brings a firstling from his flock to God, that is a picture of Christ the Good Shepherd bringing HIMSELF (!!!) the Paschal Lamb to sacrifice.

When Cain brings his veggies to sacrifice, God prefers Abel’s sacrifice because the sacrifice of Christ is what was needed to save mankind.

When Cain kills the Christ figure, note what happens to Cain: He gets protected from being made to die – just as Christ’s sacrifice wins eternal life, right? – and he ends up in the East – an anaolog of the Light Type referring to the Christ. He ends up in “Christ Land”! Christianity!
You seem to imply that, if something is Typology, then that means its not true, but a fabricated story to teach a lesson. I have heard Catholic commentators call Abel a Type of Crhist, but I’ve never heard one say its a fable (for lack of a better term).

I’m curious, though, can you explain the “I’m more Catholic than you” statement? You can PM me if you wish to keep the thread from going off-topic.
 
I’m not questioning the veracity of the story. But to deny that we are descended from Adam and Eve is what I’m calling a foul on.
 
You seem to imply that, if something is Typology, then that means its not true, but a fabricated story to teach a lesson. I have heard Catholic commentators call Abel a Type of Crhist, but I’ve never heard one say its a fable (for lack of a better term).

I’m curious, though, can you explain the “I’m more Catholic than you” statement? You can PM me if you wish to keep the thread from going off-topic.
It’s not my intent to imply that if something is typological, it’s fictional. God is deeply, deeply clever. He is easily able to structure reality itself so that, when recounted, it can speak typologically.

It is apparent, however, that some parts of the Bible are fiction teaching theology, very frequently by typology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top