PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Enoch the seventh from Adam ( please help with your thoughts )



neverleaveunorfors
Dec 14th 2008, 07:05 PM
Jude 14 Now Enoch ,the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also,saying "behold the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints. Ok here is the Question if Enoch was the seventh from Adam how does it add up or does this statement exclude Cain (and possibly Able) and why ? 1st chronicles Adam Seth Cainan,Mahalaiel, Jared, Enoch Luke 3:37the son of Enoch the son of Jared the son of Mahalaiel the son of Cainan Luke 38 the son of Enosh the son of Seth the son of Adam the son of God this account is closer looking at blood line but it still only adds up to six unless the son of God is added to it but it says the seventh from Adam not the seventh form the son of God Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo?:giveup:

markedward
Dec 14th 2008, 07:20 PM
I've noticed the some thing.

Some people say that it's supposed to include Adam in the count (using the Genesis accounting), which would make Enoch the seventh "of" Adam, rather than the seventh "from" Adam.

Alaska
Dec 14th 2008, 11:35 PM
Adam

1) Abel
Gen. 4:2
And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

2) Seth
Gen. 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

3) Enos
Gen.5:6
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

4) Cainan
Gen 5:9
And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

5) Mahalaleel
Gen. 5:12
And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:

6) Jared
Gen. 5:15
And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

7) Enoch
Gen. 5:18
And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

Since we have the actual lineage from Adam to Enoch without any names ommitted in the text, and since Jude records that Enoch was the 7th from Adam, it makes sense to believe that Abel is included in the reckoning since he was a replacement, so to speak, for his brother Abel, the two being one in a certain sense but in all reality they are two.
Hence, Enoch the seventh from Adam.

Gen. 4:25 also happens to be an example of a woman prophesying, like Phillips daughters or like Anna. And if this is indeed a prophesy, that is to say, God revealed to her that Seth was to be a replacement of Abel, then so much the more reason to include Abel.

markedward
Dec 15th 2008, 12:33 AM
It doesn't make any sense to count Abel. First, if you're counting Abel, who is not a direct ancestor of Enoch, why not count all of his indirect ancestors?

Second, the logic behind the "replacement" idea, counting Abel because Seth replaced him, likewise doesn't make sense (to me at least). If Seth is replacing Abel, then Abel is being discounted. This seems like an over-reaching attempt to reconcile an apparent contradiction.


Since we have the actual lineage from Adam to Enoch without any names ommitted in the textYou're using different chapters and sections to come up with your lineage, though. Genesis 5 directly gives us the genealogy of Adam, and Abel is not counted in it, at all. Likewise, Abel is not counted in the genealogies found elsewhere in the Bible between Adam and Enoch. (E.g., 1 Chronicles 1.)

Alaska
Dec 15th 2008, 02:28 AM
Genesis 5 directly gives us the genealogy of Adam, and Abel is not counted in it, at all.


Does the chapter in which something is recorded disqualify its relevance?
Eve's prophesy in the previous chapter draws a clear connection between Abel and Seth. Including Abel in the reckoning is not very unlike raising up seed to the name of the dead in Deut. 25.
A similar principle is available in both situations: a person is reckoned as part of the lineage even though in all reality the dead man is not as you say "a direct ancestor". Honour is bestowed on the man in the unfortunate situation of his death by having him be included and counted in the geneological line.
I think your position is unnecessarily legalistic as in being overly strict and sticking to the letter or technicality that "technically" Abel is not a direct descendant. Lighten up, doesn't Eve's words have any weight at all?
Perhaps maybe the law under the OT to reckon the dead man as the child's father, (which he technically was not) out of honour for the dead man, originated from Abel being honoured and counted in Seth's line.

Abel is often also honoured in the NT. It is fitting that he is included next to Seth and counted in connection with Enoch.

So would you rather support the theory that the record in Jude is "an apparent contradiction" or will you try to vindicate the Word of God and find practical acceptable ways to defend it?

Premise: the word of God is true both in Jude and in Genesis.
Objective: discover any practical explanations to support the above premise.
I have presented what I believe to be a reasonable line of reasoning.

There is not another name that may be included in order to vindicate Jude's 7 count other than including Adam.
That works mathematically, I mean at least you get 7.
I am much more ready to consider that before throwing in the towel under the defeatist "apparent contradiction" banner.

OK, I admit, "replacement" is not good enough. Someone help me out here with a better way of expressing the idea.

Alaska
Dec 15th 2008, 02:55 AM
It doesn't make any sense to count Abel. First, if you're counting Abel, who is not a direct ancestor of Enoch, why not count all of his indirect ancestors?



Because God did not specify any other than Abel.
Gen. 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

She understood this to be of God. This is not to be taken as some flippant rant.
If God expressly gave this revelation, as it appears He did, then the answer to why not all of his indirect ancestors were also counted is also answered by Eve's words.

The fact that Adam was Abel's direct father and also a great grandfather of Enoch creates more of a direct connection between Abel and Enoch than perhaps some would like to consider. The main points of connection between Abel and Enoch being Adam and the revelation by prophesy apparently given by God through Eve.

markedward
Dec 15th 2008, 03:26 AM
Does the chapter in which something is recorded disqualify its relevance?Chapter 4 simply states a matter of fact that Adam and Eve had a son named Abel. Chapter 5 shows that he was not counted among Enoch's ancestry.


Eve's prophesy in the previous chapter draws a clear connection between Abel and Seth.Eve wasn't prophesying anything... she was making a proclamation - as a mother - that God had blessed her with a new son in place of the one she had lost.

divaD
Dec 15th 2008, 04:08 AM
Jude 14 Now Enoch ,the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also,saying "behold the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints. Ok here is the Question if Enoch was the seventh from Adam how does it add up or does this statement exclude Cain (and possibly Able) and why ? 1st chronicles Adam Seth Cainan,Mahalaiel, Jared, Enoch Luke 3:37the son of Enoch the son of Jared the son of Mahalaiel the son of Cainan Luke 38 the son of Enosh the son of Seth the son of Adam the son of God this account is closer looking at blood line but it still only adds up to six unless the son of God is added to it but it says the seventh from Adam not the seventh form the son of God Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo?:giveup:



If one were counting to 7 from number 1, And if number 1 equals Adam, and if number 7 equals Enoch, then number 7 will be the 7th from number 1. IOW, Enoch would be the 7th from Adam.

Ok..so I wasn't good in math..lol.

Alaska
Dec 15th 2008, 04:44 AM
Chapter 4 simply states a matter of fact that Adam and Eve had a son named Abel. Chapter 5 shows that he was not counted among Enoch's ancestry.



But Jude says 7th from Adam. So Jude was wrong or what?

Gen. 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.


Eve wasn't prophesying anything... she was making a proclamation - as a mother - that God had blessed her with a new son in place of the one she had lost.

"God blessed me" as a declaration of being blessed and "God hath appointed me" does not necessarily mean the same thing.

The bottom line is we need to get 7 in there.
Being satisfied with 6 doesn't work for me.

Literally the seventh from Adam is not even true if we are to maintain a strictly legalistic view. It is understood to mean the 7th from Adams chosen line or Godly line or whatever you want to call that line.
Cain who was also from Adam also had children so if we are to be very literal about how many came from Adam before Enoch, we would need to include the sons of Cain.
So if it is agreed that the seventh from Adam more precisely means the seventh from Adams favoured line, then it is easier to include Abel in the line since:
1) Jude declares deliberately that Enoch was the 7th from Adam
2) Eve prophesies the connection between Abel and Seth making Seth a kind of carry-on from Abel.

Chapter 5 is very clearly a record of births from Adam, who in turn begat sons. Though Adam begat Abel, Abel is not even listed in the narration of chapter 5 apparently because this pertains to sons who in turn had other sons.
That does not negate the practical conclusion that Abel, the Son who Seth was to carry on for, could not have been included in the reckoning of how many there were in Adam's favoured line up to and including Enoch.

markedward
Dec 15th 2008, 04:58 AM
But Jude says 7th from Adam. So Jude was wrong or what?I didn't say Jude was wrong. I'm simply saying that using Abel as a way to connect Enoch as "the seventh of Adam" is a huge stretch. Jude didn't say anything about Abel in regards to Enoch. No other Scripture makes the connection that Seth's descendants are counted to both him and Abel. Personally, I find the simplest answer would be that Adam is counted in the numbering.