BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
General

"Pre-Fall Children"--why not? (not for the faint of heart or faith.)

T
TS Feb 14, 2006

One prior thought to at least wonder about...the bible says the serpent came to eve and said...if you think about this; why was eve not surprised that a serpent was talking?...could we surmise possibly that some if not all animals spoke prior to the fall? If they did not why would eve (being so intellectually advanced as we have likely have agreed upon---prior statements in "dino-talk") have not been wary if not frightened or at least think this itself is not right that a serpent should be talking to me?not critical to salvation or ones faith but interesting to think on and open the mind a little to think out of the box but not out of the Bible.THE QUESTION OF PRE-FALL CHILDRENBy TS Is it biblical that Adam and Eve bore children prior to the Cain and Abel listed after the fall of man? This is the question to be explored, looked at non-traditionally and set before the reader in a way which brings glory to the Lord even as it challenges the common thought of the day. Some key thoughts in opening the possibility of a pre-fall race of man are as follows. God made man and woman on the 6th day and told them to be fruitful and multiply, the time period between this event and the fall (as defined by the “eating of the fruit”) is not recorded. Now you have a situation because of the fall God places a curse upon women to bear children from this point on in pain and suffering, impressing upon a critical readers mind that there was a time of “birthing” without pain. Consider also the fact that Cain assumed as the firstborn of Adam and Eve (though not biblically defined as such), had sexual relations with his wife and at that time was building a city which he named after his first born Enoch…who exactly comprised this city he was building. To the above concepts one must think of the Nephilum (giants), the time of Lucifer’s fall from Heaven, and the creation of time itself as known within the human paradigm. By no means will this be comprehensive in its exegesis on the subject but rather hopes to provoke in the reader a mindset that allows the God of all creation to burst out of the confines humans hold Him in with their finite thinking.\tOn the 6th day of Creation……So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 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. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which us upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherin there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1: 27-31, KJV, 1850 revision) This text is weighty in that it opens questions that should be looked at specifically as they correlate to the creation detailed in chapter two. Upon reading chapter two it can be surmised that God made the animals, made the Adam and charged him with naming the animals, then put man to sleep and made Eve from Adam, and blessed them and told them to reproduce, on the sixth day. The traditional retelling of the creation story follows along this line: God created everything over the first five days, the sixth day God created man and over a period of time Adam named the animals after which God found that it was not good for man to be alone so He put him to sleep and created Eve from Adam. The critical point overlooked is the fact that the Bible states Adam and eve were created on the same sixth day and that all the animals were named prior to Eve’s creation. One must think of the “time” involved for Adam to name the wondrous creatures God had made even within the perfected state of his being. Can we so unjustly assume that Adam was callous and simply even glibly doled out names for the animals as one might recite an alphabet. Even with such a hideous thought in mind could there possibly be enough time to name the thousands of animals in the hours left on that sixth day as human reckoning acknowledges a day? I believe not. I am convinced that Adam did indeed give thought to each and every animal but spent considerable “time” admiring the beautifully strange and diverse creatures God called to parade before this first man. After this Adam was put to sleep and Eve created of him, being given to Adam as his helper, still within the context of the sixth day. We have realized a first problem in the fact that humans now compartmentalize time to seconds, minutes, hours, and days. With this definition of time there is not any way that Adam could have named the animals with the portion of the day (as we know the term day) left and still allowed time for Eve to be created. At this time we must step out of our comfort zone regarding time defined. What if time had not been created as of yet? Time is absolutely a creation of God, one in which he has blessed us with though caused by our own rebellion. Without time having been created just one unthinkable aspect would be that there could be no ending or end of one “period” allowing for another. If after the fall time did not start clicking redemption could not come. It was prophesied that at a certain time the messiah would come, first to be offered a sacrifice for mans sin, then to come yet again at an “appointed” time to judge and rule and yet again to rule for only a period of time (1000 years). After this eternity will move into place….where time will again be restored to a place of “no relevance”. For how will you count to eternity? What number will be used to grasp the time which would transpire if it was yet measured in eternity as it is measured now within the realm of man. The point can be made without heresy that a day is truly as 1000 years to God and that before time came into being it could have taken a million of what we might call hours to complete the cycle of a day…..the earth spinning in its cycle creating morning, noon and night. If this be true the idea that animals and humans being made and the naming of all the animals happening within a day can be grasped logically. God is the ruler of time, time does not rule the Un-Created One as it does within creation. Think on the fact that God clearly states the days will be shortened at the end of the age so that man is not destroyed. Does this mean there will be fewer hours in the day, or that time itself will be sped up so that an hour no longer takes an hour to go through the hour glass?\tWith the idea of time now being redefined we see that other possibilities can now exist with no lapse in logic or critical thinking needed to fit creation into our finite understanding. After Adam so aptly named the creatures he now was able to commune with the creature God saved for last. The idea that His creation went from good to better in the period he spent creating should allow one to wonder at the beauty and fullness of creation God bestowed upon that which would be a helper to man. This combined with a Garden tilled by the creator Himself as a home for them allowed for perfect circumstances to develop in which the man would know the woman and offspring would follow. The idea that the “day” after Adam and Eve were created was when they sinned is ludicrous, yet most often held either consciously or subconsciously to be true. Could you imagine that after being created you open your eyes and gaze upon God, not as a baby uncomprehending the father’s eyes of love but as a fully mature human complete with perfect emotions with which you could grasp the love emanating towards you from this Eternal Father. This is the case with Adam, after which he is bestowed all power and dominion over all of creation and doubly blessed with the most beautiful woman made to exactly complement the areas in the heart that makes man what he is. The celebration continues with the gift of a home: the Garden of Eden.The Creator now was able to commune with His creation, actually and experientially walking in the cool of the day with Adam and Eve. Words are as a dry well in the desert when used to describe what free and perfect communion is like with God. Yet we are to think, I believe because of the very sin nature we have, that man so quickly abandoned this in order to rebel against their Friend and God by doing the only thing He commanded them not to do. One could surmise that a great period of fellowship ensued after creation, one which allowed for the world to be filled with the children of Eve. Would the joy of watching, even participating in the multiplication of His creation be limited to a fallen man reproducing in sorrow and pain as one would have to believe if there were no children prior to the fall? Why would God not be blessed as He watched his creation grow, multiply, and subdue the earth as He directed?\tSegueing into the realm of Lucifer is of importance at this point. On the sixth day God, after his creation was complete, announced that it was “very good.” This again establishes an area of thought that must be considered; could His creation have been “good” if Lucifer had already fallen? I believe it could not have been. Lucifer, after his rebellion was sent out of heaven and into the “atmosphere” of creation. If a fallen creation had already been imposed upon the earth within the six days of creation then it could not be perfect and good, for it was already in a degenerative state of order. I submit that the creation of man as a creation being lesser than the angels yet eternal and made in the image of the creator in a manner that the angels (servants of God) were not, contributed to, possibly even initiated the sin of pride within the angel of light who was Lucifer. When this pride grew and exalted itself above the Creator he and a third of the angels were expelled from the Kingdom of God to the Kingdom of Man. Within this latter kingdom at a point that is not defined Satan tempted man to disobey the only law imposed on them to that point. How long was the influence of Satan and his angels in the atmosphere prior to this point? What if the world was populated, the children of eve outside the garden…filling the earth as described and were at this point, as the scripture references, “angels knowing the daughters of man”, enticed to have relations with these fallen angels creating the race known as Nephilim? (Genesis 6:1-4)\tWith the fall of man conceptually behind us we move into the realm of the curse. God told Eve that in pain and sorrow would she now bear children. After the curses, consequential to their sin was pronounced we move to the birth of Cain and Abel. Again the misconceived idea of these sons being the firstborn is carried into our thoughts not based on biblical insight but upon the assumed obvious fact that if the bible did not list any previous children then these are the firstborn. If indeed they were the firstborn how could the bible have not communicated this to us? In the chronologies of the bible it is usually narrated in a manner that states the firstborn as clearly defined from the rest of the siblings, reference Cain and Abel may not have been the first born but only the first born since the fall. The bible simply states that Adam knew Eve and she bore a son Cain and again bore a son Abel. What is noted in these scriptures (Genesis 4:1-2) is that Eve said ”and with the Lord’s help I have given birth to a man,” again almost insinuating that prior to the fall she did not need the Lords help. (As in perfect environment, free from pain and sorrow). Later in the same chapter of Genesis Cain kills Abel and goes away to the Land of Nod, east of Eden. So after the only other person listed as being alive in the entire world is killed, Cain takes a wife and moves to the city he was building. Where did Cain get a wife, who was in the city he was building, and who named this land Nod? It all leads one to believe that there was more on the earth than you would think. \tKnowing the bible as a book describing a love story; the love of the creator towards his creation we should not put blinders on our mind when it comes to thinking of creation and pro-creation. When we can trust God as being good and merciful, striving always to allow His creation to commune with Himself then we can look at the options left us in the Book of Genesis. These options though thought provoking do not hinder in any way the Book as a whole but rather allow the created mind of man to reach into the un-created mind of the Father. As one does not know what eternity future holds one can only equally surmise thoughts based on bits of attainable information about eternity past.

G
Greenquality Feb 14, 2006

# 1 was adam created on the 6 day? where did cain get a wife? were cain and abel twins? I think man was created on the 6 day,but adam was created on the eighth day!I think cain and abel are twin!and is the main subject of the post about (the serpent seed?)

B
Billy7 Feb 15, 2006

In regards to the age old question, "Where did Cain get a wife"? I heard a good one a while back...Once upon a time, there was a young street preacher that was on the corner preaching one day when suddenly, he was rudely interrupted by a heckler who said, "Alright preacher, you think you're so smart. Where did Cain get his wife? Pondering for a moment, the young preacher thoughtfully replied, "I don't know, but when I get to heaven I'll be sure and ask him."Totally unsatisfied with the preacher's answer, the heckler fired back, "Well what if you die and you get to heaven and Cain isn't there?" To which the preacher immediately replied, "Then I guess that when you die you can ask him.":-P Personally, When some one ask me, "where did Cain get his wife?" my favorite reply is, "I don't know, but I'd tell you if I was Abel." :-)

T
tacklebox Feb 15, 2006

Here's a challenging question:How does pursuing this edify the body of Christ?Is this just intellectual brain candy or are the motives pure?-Chris

G
Greenquality Feb 15, 2006

((((How does this edify the body of Christ?)))for me, It gets me to think & and read Gods word. and also, why do you belive the things you do.so (((when some one ask you where did cain get a wife?)))then you can give a biblcal answer!!!.remember even a (child) will understand God word.and yet it so complexes the human mind.The truth is never ashamed to be tested.This is what got me to read God word 11 years ago.then I got emotionally involed,and then Saved.because I learned to think for my self.and know why do I belive the things I do. reading is one of the greatest gifts ,out there,understanding God word is even greater, (((and doing God word is Blessed.))) so if this challenges some one. get a gear moveing, get some one who never picked up a bible before or used it in away to study to this is where pure motives start!

T
TS Feb 15, 2006

i am honored and humbled that any would read my little essay...greenquality i appreciate your defense of "having a questioning mind"...my opinion is if there was no one to question what is not obvious (or what even seems obvious) then would the reformation have taken place? or would there be any one ready to be martryed for something just because it is said to be so. tacklebox...i truly appreciate you question of motive...i hope that my question stems from something God put in my mind/heart when he created me and that these questions are but a reflection back to my creator of what He knows to be true but me in my present physical/temperal body can only wonder. i often wonder whether i have ever had one "pure" motive...this likely is the same reason I can come to my Father and ask him "What was it like before we fell?, how long was it before we acted in rebellion....was there not a long time that we enjoyed being with you?"I am but dust trying to understand the Eternal...i choose to ask the questions that come to my mind. As far as edifying to the Body...i picture the body of Christ in America as a 1000 pound man...laying on a couch watching TV...unable to move. If it is not edifying he would not notice...if it is edifying he still would not notice.billy7----I loved you answer...If i were abel i'd tell you.we are all but pieces of the body...doing what we do...exhorting, challenging, laughing, asking. when we can work as a whole we would indeed be powerful. i do not believe a unified body, powerful and full of the Spirit will ever exist until we are under persecution. This day is coming soon...the Lord will have His bride..."pure and spotless". he will not come back for a "sullied" maiden as we (the body) now are. God Bless and even so come!At least one true motive for posting...is to gain knowledge-sharpen what wits I have...is there anyone who can add or deflect information given in the essay?....think hard...i have only gleaned from the posts thoughts on if this should have even been written...nothing to say why they agree/don't agree and some evidence to support. why is the beginning any less important than the end of which we have so many scholarly opinions floating around. if i was to be save today and the one i talked to could only tell me of the end and nothing of the beginning something would seem wrong.

B
Billy7 Feb 16, 2006

I think it's only natural that we should wonder about things like Cain's wife and dinosaurs, but the reality of the matter is that there are just some things we are not going to know this side of heaven.

N
nacl Feb 16, 2006

Romans 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."In fact read Romans 5:12-19. It tells us throughout that passage that sin entered the world and "all" men through the transgression of one, namely Adam.If there were "pre-fall" undefiled children, then they wouldn't be considered part of the "all."There would have been sinless people, but scripture says that "all have sinned."

G
geddingsm Feb 16, 2006

Gen. 5:4 ...the days of Adam were eight hundred years;and he HAD SONS AND DAUGHTERS.Cain married either his sister or a cousin of even a niece. There was no law against what we call incest. The "gene pool" was pure, hence the long lives. Every man who is married is married to his sister in a way.The question is not that difficult if you look to the Word.Gen. 4:17 And Cain knew his wife,...It doesn't say he went away and found a wife. He took her with him.In Him,geddingsm

N
nacl Feb 16, 2006

Let me say that this is a thought-provoking thread. Interesting in a way we don't often see.So when I say that I disagree, I say it with love and good-will. It's good for us to use the ol' brain once in a while, think outside the proverbial box.

C
Christisking Feb 16, 2006

I have been following this very interesting discussion (and the similar dinosaur thread) but have not as of yet been lead to post. All bring up very valid,interesting and thought provoking comments, ideas and opinions - but the following post may Scripturally lay the discussion to rest -so any comments on this particular quote both yea and nay would be great.Romans 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." In fact read Romans 5:12-19. It tells us throughout that passage that sin entered the world and "all" men through the transgression of one, namely Adam.If there were "pre-fall" undefiled children, then they wouldn't be considered part of the "all."There would have been sinless people, but scripture says that "all have sinned."This seem pretty rock solid - don't you think?also.......i picture the body of Christ in America as a 1000 pound man...laying on a couch watching TV...unable to move. If it is not edifying he would not notice...if it is edifying he still would not notice.I have seen the same picture my friend.

T
TS Feb 17, 2006

Now we're cooking!to nacl: i would agree All have sinned and that sin entered the world through one man...namely adam the first man...why would his sin not fall upon the "pre-fall" children as it does to the "after fall" children. Why would they not be considered as part of the "all". I think maybe in Gods grace and to give us (humans) as much opportunity to not break fellowship (sin) with him that the one rule was given only to adam and eve. Eating of the tree was the only way as explained by God to sin, but once it happened any living man/woman or child was sinful. to geddingsm--how many years would have gone by before adam and eve had children? and was there not even one year that passed prior to them doing the one thing God asked them not to? if there was even one year you can be sure that they had a child...it was a command of the creator to adam and eve...be fruitfull and multiply....was the age 800 years a total age for adam from his creation? I think it was the time he lived after the fall....the reason being is he would not have aged at all prior to the fall and the introduction of death...if he did not age then it can not be counted can it?it is a great puzzle to think about...

T
TS Feb 17, 2006

to ChristisKing...i gave my thoughts on the same passage from another reply on these verses...but looking through romans 5:12 again it even reads like there may have been men on the earth other than adam...read it slow..."and so death passed upon all men."...plural and this verse would do nothing to prove that there were not multiple men on the earth when the fall took place or if it does it is not registering with me...there are a TON of other questions in the original essay that are also very hard to prove wrong...it is fun to talk and edifying to me that we can examine the Word and get our dull minds moving towards the mystery's that are God.more thoughts on this?on my quote of the Body...thanks for the agreement...it is sad...good news is God will most definitely bring it around...also i feel in no way better than what i envisioned...just a true desire for God to work me out of it. you have to recognize a problem in order to know you need help.

N
nacl Feb 17, 2006

If I understand the traditional view of the entrance of sin into the world, Adam's descendents became sinful because Adam was made sinful.If I understand TS's perspective, or the way in which this thread's topic has been presented, sin entered into the world in general through Adam's one transgression of eating from the tree of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil. That this instance of sin tainted all of creation in and of itself.Am I seeing this correctly?I must say (with all kindness and no hostility) that the burden of proof lies upon the newer theory. Which puts TS in an uncomfortable position, basing questions on what the Bible doesn't say.1 Corinthians 15:22 says "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." I think that this is important. The verse did not say "BECAUSE of Adam all die," but rather that "IN Adam." I think "in" is "because of" plus connected/related to, if that makes sense."In Christ all shall be made alive," not because of Christ all shall be made alive." See the difference. "Because" leads to universal salvation as a result of Christ's; "in" requires vital relationship of the believer with Jesus Christ in order to be made alive because of His work. Being made alive in Christ is "because" of Him and in connection to Him.The same is true for "in Adam." Sin passes upon all men that were related to Adam in his sinfulness. Any children that Adam and Eve had before the fall/the entrance of sin would not be in Adam in this way. They couldn't inherit something that Adam developed after they were born. Therefore they wouldn't become sinful just "because of Adam" (just like men cannot be saved just "because of Christ"). They could choose to be "in Adam," and thereby become sinners as well. Maybe that will help you (TS) see how there couldn't be pre-fall children. You can see now how they wouldn't be part of the "all" of Romans 5:12. Hopefully I said something, after having talked so much.:-DMatthew 5:17-18 "Every good tree bringeth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."Now I don't think that the Messiah had this discussion in mind as He spoke these words, but these words to give us a useful principle. If Adam and Eve had children before they fell, they would be unfallen, that much is logical and agreed upon by all.This brings me to two points. Firstly, in connection with my earlier rambling rants, these children would have been good fruit, having come from a good tree (Adam before the fall). Once this fruit is brought forth (birthed) there is a separation, accountable to themselves. So any subsequent corruption of the tree does not affect the separated fruit. So, again, the children wouldn't be included in Roman 5:12's "all."Secondly, the Bible says that all men are evil fruit(Romans 3:23, 1 Kings 8:46, etc.). Wouldn't that mean that all men came from a corrupt tree? Doesn't that signify post-fall Adam? If so, then that means that there were no children before the fall. This is true because "in Adam all die" as a result of sin.If there were children before the fall, why is Seth's birth so important? Wouldn't the progeny of the pre-fall children be even better candidates for a godly family line?I say and ask all of this in love and with an honest heart. I mean no disrespect, and I'm not being sarcastic at all.Alive in Christ,D.

T
TS Feb 18, 2006

Nacl...i have spent a long time typing a response...punched the wrong key and lost it all...sometimes i hate computers:(anyway i hold no offense for opposing views and in fact delight in finding or at least hunting for truth with another eager mind.the quote: "1 Corinthians 15:22 says "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." I think that this is important. The verse did not say "BECAUSE of Adam all die," but rather that "IN Adam." I think "in" is "because of" plus connected/related to, if that makes sense."the holes I see in this response are these: if the children of adam are "in" and connected to adam enough to attain sin from adam after the fall...why does being a child of adam pre-fall prevent this. It is the same....cain and abel may not have eaten from the fruit but they were sinful. Death came to creation because of Adam...when God said you shall surely die if you eat of it He did not say and I include all the children you will have. Adam being the first man brought death to creation by acting in dis-obedience to God. Any children that they had "pre-fall" would be mandated into this death because of adam as much as any children that came after. Think of the animals after the fall they started eating each other instead of plants...sin came to creation because of the fall. The comparison you make to the "choice" of being in Christ is true but it is in response to having no choice but to be in sin. We all have a choice to be in Christ...it is not by flesh and blood that we are related to Christ...it is by the substitution of his perfection and my sins which is accomplished by the cross and God now looking at me through the "perfect Man" Christ. the analogy is flawed that you make. No human has a choice to be in or out of "Adam" we are all simply born into sin. or like adam and his pre-fall children under the curse of sin (ulitmately seperation from God/broken communion) after the fall took place. Look at the question this one verse which is in the bible has to bring to a thinking man...Genesis 1:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Do you hear how THIS is phrased? I will greatly INCREASE your pains in childbearing...how can you increase something that has never taken place as is traditionally held? If she never had a baby prior to the fall...well then what is there to increase? For that matter if Eve had not had a baby prior to the fall then she would not even know what God was talking about. She would think "What does God mean?...pain in childbearth...what is a child?"Please re-read my essay at the beginning of this thread and look at the myriad of questions that need to be looked at....not ignored. Do we really think that all teaching in the church is perfect? If it were the Church would be in a lot better shape than it's in...it might even be relevant to a world that is dying.Another question that must be looked at in relation to the specific one dealing with is this: HOW LONG WAS IT AFTER ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED BEFORE THEY SINNED? think deep on this and please write a reply...if it was only 9 months then i believe they had a child...this is what i think as written from my essay:The idea that the “day” after Adam and Eve were created was when they sinned is ludicrous, yet most often held either consciously or subconsciously to be true. Could you imagine that after being created you open your eyes and gaze upon God, not as a baby uncomprehending the father’s eyes of love but as a fully mature human complete with perfect emotions with which you could grasp the love emanating towards you from this Eternal Father. This is the case with Adam, after which he is bestowed all power and dominion over all of creation and doubly blessed with the most beautiful woman made to exactly complement the areas in the heart that makes man what he is. The celebration continues with the gift of a home: the Garden of Eden.The Creator now was able to commune with His creation, actually and experientially walking in the cool of the day with Adam and Eve. Words are as a dry well in the desert when used to describe what free and perfect communion is like with God. Yet we are to think, I believe because of the very sin nature we have, that man so quickly abandoned this in order to rebel against their Friend and God by doing the only thing He commanded them not to do. One could surmise that a great period of fellowship ensued after creation, one which allowed for the world to be filled with the children of Eve. Would the joy of watching, even participating in the multiplication of His creation be limited to a fallen man reproducing in sorrow and pain as one would have to believe if there were no children prior to the fall? Why would God not be blessed as He watched his creation grow, multiply, and subdue the earth as He directed?Thoughts?

T
TS Feb 18, 2006

re-reading your response nacl; i would say that if this is true---- "If I understand the traditional view of the entrance of sin into the world, Adam's descendents became sinful because Adam was made sinful."---- which you opened with.Then what exactly in a "pre-fall" child would disqualify him from being a "descendant" of Adam?ts

J
jimbob Feb 19, 2006

TS, I for one agree that if (theoretically) Adam had "pre-fall" children, then they also would suffer the effects of the fall, along with the rest of creation. The doctrine is known as federalism, i.e. Adam was the representative of all of mankind, as Adam goes we all go. Adam was our chosen representative, although we did not choose him, God did.

P
phebebird Feb 19, 2006

Hi Guys,I think this thread is interesting. True, it's not things that will (or should) make or break our faith in God, but it is interesting to wonder about--just as long as we realize that we are doing just that (wondering) and we won't know for sure until we get to heaven.I personally think that there are many things in mythology and fairytales that are closer to the truth than we may realize. For example, almost every culture on earth has a "flood story", and, as we see in the Bible, that really happened. Many cultures also have "dragon stories", and I think that there is probably some grain of truth there. This is just my ponderings, but I do wonder if, before the serpent was cursed he might have had wings (not legs like a lizard). The Chinese (one of the oldest cultures on earth) have mythological dragons that are supposed to be very clever and looked very much like serpents with wings. I don't know about the other animals, but I'm sure that the serpent did talk, how else could he be known to be "clever"? I'm sure Eve had heard him before.The Bible doesn't say if Adam and Eve had children before the fall. They might have, who knows? Like I said, this is not a doctrinal issue, but it does make one look forward to heaven, when we can ask God all of these interesting questions.Also, strange as it may seem to us, I think that Cain and Abel married their sisters. What other females were around? Remember, God did not establish this as sin until a bit later (when it would have caused weakening of the gene pool, etc, etc). Of course, God clearly labeled it as incest and a horrible, horrible sin later on during the era of the Ten Commandments. Remember, though, that Abraham married his half-sister and nobody blinked an eye.Thanks for the interesting post. Mmmm... Other people lie awake wondering about the same things as me :). Maybe it's just my inner romanticism, but I'd like to believe that myths and fairytales have some bits of truth in them. Why would we all have stories about dragons if there never were any?Phebe

P
phebebird Feb 19, 2006

Okay, I just saw that someone already addressed the issue of Cain marrying his sister. Sometimes it would pay to read the WHOLE thread! :)

N
nacl Feb 20, 2006

I guess in my response to you, TS, I have assumed what I defined as the traditional view, i.e., that sin came upon all of mankind as an inheritance of sorts.So, when I said that pre-fall children would not be sinful, I was thinking of sin as something akin to alcoholism. Parents can pass alcoholism "risk factors" to your children; they inherit those risk factors from them. but is it possible to pass on those same risk factors if the parents become alcoholic after their children are born and grown? I see a separation there. That's what I said would disqualify them as Adam's descendents, to use your words.Of course, those children without alcoholic risk factors could become alcoholic as a result of their own decisions.So I meant that the only people who ever would have the choice of being "in Adam" as far as sin is concerned would be the pre-fall children, as they did not inherit the sin nature. We do not have that choice.Now, if the sin-as-inheritance is an untrue assumption on my part, which I will admit iy could very well be, then this logic goes out the door.I have not been ignoring your questions, or at least not intentionally. But in assuming the bearing that Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 16 had on the matter (I tried to explain how I saw that fit in) I did not deal with them, as those thoughts would be speculation and pertinent Scriptures are more important to consider and would better address the matter. So I went to the Scripture first, in an attempt to show what I believe that those passages mean and how they relate to the subject of Adam's seed (though not necessarily the specific questions you asked), allowing time for musing about the other details at a later point, if that was necessary.Seeing that my point was not proven (or accepted as proof), than we can deal with the other issues that you've brought up. :-)By the way, animals didn't start eating each other until after the flood. So carnivorous diets are a result of the fall, but did not happen until much later (Genesis 9). Just in case there was any confusion on that.Thanks for the challenging posts!D.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 23 posts