It's interesting to note that it was apparently fit for Eve's declaration about Seth's birth to be included in Genesis. "For, [said she], God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him. ...". It's apparent that Eve's declaration at the least, emphasizes that Seth represented a man child to fill the painful void left by the murdered Abel. Further, Seth was likely the next man child born. To deduce further from this passage might be a stretch if not for Genesis 5:3 which states, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:". Genesis 5:3 seemingly superfluously states that Seth was after Adam's own likeness and image. But the Bible states things for reasons! We might extrapolate, given that woman can be interpreted as "man's womb"-and that man[Adam-a man] and woman[Eve named only after their fall] were one[Adam naming Eve after the fall would indicate her autonomy/independence from Adam-highly significant], that Adam was emphasizing that he[Adam] had sired Seth, as opposed to another. This possibility/probability cannot be summarily dismissed out of hand. Ivan Panin's discovery (Google him) clearly proves the divine authority and infallibility of the Bible. For anyone to now say otherwise is patently unrealistic.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment to start a new comment thread.
Enter new comment
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?