Gospel Theory: Cain Wasn't Adam's First Son

[Poseidon]

We are often told that Adam and Eve's first two children were Cain and Abel. Now, it is clear that those two are the first named children, but I think that leads us to wrongfully assume there were no children born before Cain and Abel.

I'm going to lay out my reasoning from Moses Chapter 5 below and you all can tell me what you think. 

 

V.1 Starting here, Adam and Eve have been kicked out into the world, earning their bread by the sweat of their brow. No children yet. 

V.2 Even bears children, sons and daughters. At this point, none of their names are given. 

V.3 The children also divide two in two in the land and have children of their own. Still no names given.  

V.6 The angel comes and explains to Adam the reason for sacrifices. This means there was a time where Adam and Eve had children AND were offering sacrifices without knowing why.

V.10-12 Adam starts to teach and prophecy to all the families of the earth (implying they've been spreading and multiplying for awhile now). 

V.13 Satan draws away Adam's sons and daughters, and they become devilish. Still no names given.  

V.14-15 Some repent, other don't. 

V.16 Eve bears Cain and says "I have gotten a man from the Lord, wherefore he may not reject his words." 

The order of events here is important. If Cain was the first person born, that would mean that the narrative would be going back in time, which isn't unheard of. But we see above that Adam already had children before he learned the gospel and the reason for the sacrifices. If the children came before the angel explained things, and Cain was the first of those children, there shouldn't be any words of the Lord for Cain to reject yet. 

Also, the phrase "he may not reject his (the Lord's) words" only makes sense in the context of other children having already rejected them. Otherwise, what was the point of saying that? 

 V.19-25 The Lord rejects Cain's sacrifice and warns him that if he doesn't keep the commandments he will become Perdition. 

V.26-27 Cain doesn't repent and parents mourn. 

V.28 Cain gets married to "one of his brothers' daughters".  

Look carefully at the punctuation, specifically the placing of the apostrophe. It's after the 'S'. 

In English grammar, to show possession, if the subject having the possession is singular, the apostrophe goes BEFORE the 'S': brother's. 

If the subject is plural, the apostrophe goes AFTER the 'S': brothers' 

The fact that the apostrophe here comes after the 'S' shows that the woman Cain married was a daughter of one of the multiple brothers he had. We're not told the name of this brother, so its clear the scriptures aren't giving us all the names of the first generation. In other words, it confirms there are other of Adam's children who are alive at this time but not being named. 

Consider also that it would be very strange for Cain to have waited this long before getting married if he really had been the first born. Think about it: If he was the first born, that means he waited for 1) Adam and Eve to have Abel, 2) Adam and Eve to have at least one other son, 3) and at least one other daughter, 4) waited for those two children to grow up and get married, 5) waited for those two sibling to have children of their own, and 6) waited for one of those women of the second generation to come to an age old enough to marry. That's a lot of waiting, and it would be very odd. It's far more likely that Cain had many older brothers and sisters who reached that age of sexual maturity long before he did, had children, and those children were pretty near in age to Cain for him to marry one of them. 

V.29 Cain makes an oath with Satan. 

The oath again refers to "brethren", implying that Cain had more than one brother at this point. 

V.32 Cain kills Abel.  

 

[Vort]

I think it's pretty well accepted among Latter-day Saints that Adam and Eve had at least one generation of children before Cain and Abel were born.

[mikbone]

Yup. 

Moses 5:2-3 clearly state that Adam and Eve were grandparents.

And these first couple of generations seem to have been wayward.  They did not have the privilege to co-exist with God like Adam and Eve did.  AND Adam had not yet been taught the gospel.  

It isn't till Moses 5:6-10 that the Gospel begins to be taught to Adam.

Unfortunately when Adam takes this new information to his children none of them perceive the significance (see Moses 5:13).

It isn’t till Abel that a child is born who is wise enough to appreciate the gospel. And then Cain murders Abel. Imagine the discouragement that Adam and Eve must have experienced.

It isn’t till Adam is 120 years old that Seth is born whom is finally the 2nd notably righteous son (see Moses 2:2,10).

We don’t know how old Adam was when he and Eve left the Garden of Eden.  I assume he was at least 17 and Eve was at least 15.  They might have been anywhere from a decade older though.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by mikbone

[laronius]

I watched a BYU discussion group once that speculated that Cain and Abel were the first to be born under the covenant. I don't remember remember everything they said to justify that belief but it does appear that these were not their first children.

[Guest Godless]

Interesting tidbit: Some Hebrew traditions assert that Eve wasn't Adam's first wife.

[LDSGator]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

I think it's pretty well accepted among Latter-day Saints that Adam and Eve had at least one generation of children before Cain and Abel were born.

That’s what I’ve been told before as well. 

[Traveler]

What I have to add to this discussion is somewhat difficult to explain in a precise post for the forum.  Early literature was written differently than what we understand today.  We often think in terms of symbolism or literal meaning.  This is a modern concept.  Early literature was often believed to be divinely inspired that only prophets or seers could correctly understand and decipher.   The Greeks believe that Homer was the first historian to bridge this concept to create historical literature.   Thus, the Greek historical scholars classify the literature pre-Homer as pre-historic and the literature following Homer as historical.  Most of us think of the term or concept of historic as when written language was instituted.

Many (most) modern scholars have a third category for sacred historic religious text.  In the past I have attempted to point out that the Book of Mormon clearly falls into the category of religious text and therefore should not carry the historical text tag.  However, not calling the Book of Mormon (or the Bible) historic, upsets many that are locked into uniquely modern concepts and thus think I am anti-religious or something.

The primary difference between ancient religious text and historical documents is both in purpose and supposed origin.  Religious text being text that communicate divine concepts only understood by the righteous (those that covenant and keep covenants with G-d or in other words prophets and seers) and historical text being human generated to express a point of view of events and the supposed causes or what lead up to bringing the events to come to pass.  I hope that whoever is reading can see why I prefer the Book of Mormon and Bible to be classified as religious text and not as a historical document.

There are many assumptions that can be made concerning the ancient epoch of Cain and Able.  One is a literal interpretation as provided by @Poseidon – may be true.  I am not saying I agree or disagree, but I will put forth another possibility.  The possibility is that Cain was the oldest of all the children of Adam and Eve and that as the narrative of Cain and Able actually took place – there had been more than one generation of children and grandchildren to Adam and Eve that have reached adulthood.   This is the possibility that Cain and Able were only 50 or 60 years old and still single.

I could list at least one other logical possibility from my background of science but for the sake of creating confusion I will leave other possibilities to the imaginations of the readers.

I would point out that the Book of Genesis does provide a narrative for understanding divinely provided revelations as provided in the Epoch of Joseph in Egypt beginning with the interpretations of dreams by Joseph.  Here we learn that analytics are not the most effective means of understanding but rather personal revelation that only comes through obedience to the laws and ordinances of G-d.  This is not to say that Joseph did not employ analytics only that such logic is secondary to personal revelation.

One thing I find interesting in discussing scripture – I often hear arguments of analytics.  Indeed, I most often employ analytics myself.  Seldom do we hear any testify that they have received answer through divine revelation.  I think that this is in part because such revelation to the general population is the defined lane for G-d’s ordained prophets and seers.  But the ordained prophets and seers seem to say little to resolve all the issues that can be imagined.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

4 hours ago, laronius said:

I watched a BYU discussion group once that speculated that Cain and Abel were the first to be born under the covenant.

Very interesting speculation. I think one could make a pretty strong argument for this.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I hope that whoever is reading can see why I prefer the Book of Mormon and Bible to be classified as religious text and not as a historical document.

I think this is reasonable. I also think that we in 21st-century western culture think in terms of "historical" and "mythical". For better or for worse, that's how we classify things.

(Which is not even self-consistent—after all, "history" does not mean what actually happened, but what the records say about what happened. It's entirely possible to have a false history; indeed, one might argue that almost all our histories are false, since none is a true and perfect reflection of what actually happened.)

I have postulated, and heard many others postulate, that the past is essentially unknowable. Even our own past actions and memories can be misinterpreted, misremembered, and falsified. The law recognizes this basic fatal flaw in any recounting of an event, and thus establishes "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the level needed to convict someone of a felony. Absolute certainty is understood to be impossible, so the law requires no such thing. Divine law, of course, is another thing entirely. I feel quite sure that our every act is recorded in our very being and physical makeup, never to be lost or forgotten, however much we may pine for it to be.

Anyway, the point is, when you say that the Book of Mormon is not historical, the common and obvious interpretation is that you are saying it is mythical or ahistorical. That is why I insist that, whatever its imperfections, the Book of Mormon is indeed fundamentally historical. The so-called historicity of the Book of Mormon is a more or less permanent discussion point between believers and non-believers. I fall firmly in the believer camp.

[Anddenex]

On 5/27/2023 at 7:21 AM, laronius said:

I watched a BYU discussion group once that speculated that Cain and Abel were the first to be born under the covenant. I don't remember remember everything they said to justify that belief but it does appear that these were not their first children.

Intriguing theory, and I would be curious as to what scriptures they are using to substantiate this theory.

I don't see any way this would be plausible. Adam and Eve were married by God. Their covenants began before they had children. All their children were already born under the covenant as Adam and Eve were sealed as husband and wife.

It's the sealing that causes us to be born under the covenant. I would be more curious as to what they then defined as "under the covenant."

[Vort]

19 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Intriguing theory, and I would be curious as to what scriptures they are using to substantiate this theory.

I don't see any way this would be plausible. Adam and Eve were married by God. Their covenants began before they had children. All their children were already born under the covenant as Adam and Eve were sealed as husband and wife.

It's the sealing that causes us to be born under the covenant. I would be more curious as to what they then defined as "under the covenant."

Adam's covenant is detailed in Moses 6:51-68:

Quote

 

51 And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.

52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.

53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.

54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.

56 And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.

57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

58 Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying:

59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.

62 And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time.

63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.

66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever;

67 And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity.

68 Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen.

Please note (verse 50) that this is Enoch's recounting of Adam's and Eve's history, given many centuries after it happened. The conversation reported by Enoch took place long before Enoch was born, but still (verse 53) well after the events in the garden of Eden. This is the history of Adam's first, primal baptismal covenant. Whatever covenants Adam had made in the garden of Eden may have been in force, just as any premortal covenants we have made are still in force; but this first baptismal covenant in the flesh (meaning in mortality) must be made upon which to establish the other covenants that follow in mortality.

Note also in verse 68, the Lord makes clear that, though Adam was a son of God by creation, as are we, Adam became a son of God through covenant, as may we. Until this primal baptismal covenant was made, Adam had no sealing promise. That covenant in the flesh must have been made after their fall into mortality and subsequent to their baptism, despite their premortal creation and assignment in the garden of Eden. Thus, I do not believe that Adam and Eve's children to this point had been born in the covenant, because that covenant cannot yet have been made in mortality.

Backing up a chapter, we see in Moses 5 that Adam and Eve, having been expelled from the garden, immediately began producing children. Verse 4 (after the report of Eve's bearing of children is recounted) tells of their worship of God. This alone is a pretty weak foundation upon which to try to prove that they were only then (after the children were born and grown) under covenant, but in concert with Enoch's history in Moses 6, that is the reasonable inference. The rest of chapter 5 tells of the happenings after the gospel was preached to Adam and his posterity. Only then (verse 16, after repentance was widely preached and rejected) was Cain born, whom Adam and Eve rejoiced in and said that "he [Cain] may not reject his [the Lord's] words." That sounds to me like they, as parents, were at this point under covenant, and thus it is reasonable to infer that Cain was born under that covenant. For all the good it did him, which appears to be none. But the point is, the inference that Cain was the first of Adam's and Eve's children to be born under Adam's and Eve's covenant marriage seems perfectly reasonable to me, and very much scripturally based.

[laronius]

7 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Intriguing theory, and I would be curious as to what scriptures they are using to substantiate this theory.

I don't see any way this would be plausible. Adam and Eve were married by God. Their covenants began before they had children. All their children were already born under the covenant as Adam and Eve were sealed as husband and wife.

It's the sealing that causes us to be born under the covenant. I would be more curious as to what they then defined as "under the covenant."

I think @Vort did a good job of pointing out some of the things that seem to imply the sealing covenant took place well after expulsion from the garden. But I would also point out that Adam and Eve were still quit ignorant upon leaving the garden. They didn't even know the purpose of animal sacrifices. I think they needed to grow in their knowledge of spiritual things just like we do. This fact also seems to support the idea that any covenant entered into would likely only have happened when they were in a position to keep it. And while this does not imply they needed to be anymore prepared than 20 year olds are today in making that covenant I think it would be safe to assume that only being a barely accountable 8 year old (spiritually speaking) would have been a bit premature.

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, laronius said:

I think @Vort did a good job of pointing out some of the things that seem to imply the sealing covenant took place well after expulsion from the garden. But I would also point out that Adam and Eve were still quit ignorant upon leaving the garden. They didn't even know the purpose of animal sacrifices. I think they needed to grow in their knowledge of spiritual things just like we do. This fact also seems to support the idea that any covenant entered into would likely only have happened when they were in a position to keep it. And while this does not imply they needed to be anymore prepared than 20 year olds are today in making that covenant I think it would be safe to assume that only being a barely accountable 8 year old (spiritually speaking) would have been a bit premature.

This is all very interesting, but it doesn't negate what is already understood as the basis of being born under the covenant, which is eternal parentage. The sealing, marriage, is done by covenant. Adam and Eve's marriage was done by God, an eternal covenant providing all offspring they have to be born under the covenant -- or having an eternal parentage. If Adam and Eve weren't sealed by God, which is exactly what God did when he married them, then I would say this argument has some validity other than that I don't see any merit to it -- at this point.  Thank you (Vort and laronius) for the additional insight to why you feel this is plausible.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/help/children-who-are-born-in-the-covenant-bic?lang=eng

EDIT: I think for me I would have to have someone use scripture to explain how Adam and Eve's sealing by God wasn't a covenant, and how it would bear no weight for eternal parentage to Adam and Eve's offspring until some mortal covenant was made. The covenant in the Garden of Eden would have just as much weight then, prior to mortality, and during mortality.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Anddenex

[laronius]

7 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This is all very interesting, but it doesn't negate what is already understood as the basis of being born under the covenant, which is eternal parentage. The sealing, marriage, is done by covenant. Adam and Eve's marriage was done by God, an eternal covenant providing all offspring they have to be born under the covenant -- or having an eternal parentage. If Adam and Eve weren't sealed by God, which is exactly what God did when he married them, then I would say this argument has some validity other than that I don't see any merit to it -- at this point.  Thank you (Vort and laronius) for the additional insight to why you feel this is plausible.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/help/children-who-are-born-in-the-covenant-bic?lang=eng

EDIT: I think for me I would have to have someone use scripture to explain how Adam and Eve's sealing by God wasn't a covenant, and how it would bear no weight for eternal parentage to Adam and Eve's offspring until some mortal covenant was made. The covenant in the Garden of Eden would have just as much weight then, prior to mortality, and during mortality.

You would play the scripture card. 😀

Well that's why I called it speculation because I don't even know that the scriptures ever say they were even officially married, let alone sealed. And while you may be completely right you also might be assuming things that aren't explicitly taught. Unless a prophet has officially addressed the issue I think it's a matter of trying to fill in the blanks based off those things we do know.

[Anddenex]

5 hours ago, laronius said:

You would play the scripture card. 😀

Well that's why I called it speculation because I don't even know that the scriptures ever say they were even officially married, let alone sealed. And while you may be completely right you also might be assuming things that aren't explicitly taught. Unless a prophet has officially addressed the issue I think it's a matter of trying to fill in the blanks based off those things we do know.

Yes, yes indeed. With one as studied as yourself, I will always play the scripture card. 😁

I was first taught Adam and Eve's marriage by G.A. on my mission, and at that time coming from a G.A. I automatically assumed it was right. It wasn't until reading the following manual from the Church that it seemed to be a proper teaching.

This particular statement, "Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world. They had an eternal marriage. They taught the law of eternal marriage to their children and their children’s children."

In a different manual from the Church, we can read the following from Joseph Fielding Smith, "President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: “Marriage as established in the beginning was an eternal covenant. The first man and the first woman were not married until death should part them, for at that time death had not come into the world. The ceremony on that occasion was performed by the Eternal Father himself whose work endures forever. It is the will of the Lord that all marriages should be of like character, and in becoming ‘one flesh’ the man and the woman are to continue in the married status, according to the Lord’s plan, throughout all eternity as well as in this mortal life” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie [1955], 2:71)."

You are correct though, we don't have any scripture that specifically says they were married in the Garden of Eden -- sealed; although, it seems more likely that this was done at this time. They were having children. They were married. Who married them? If the interpretation of scripture, as taught in Church manuals, is accurate then their marriage was a sealing covenant and any child then born to them would have been born under the covenant.

I'm open though to what is true. This is why I was wanting to know the scriptures used to purport the idea of the sealing later and that Cain and Abel were the first under such. If that is the truth, then that is the truth.

 

[mikbone]

It appears that Adam and Eve had a civil marriage officiated by God in the Garden.  Otherwise Adam would not have referred to Eve as his wife.

Moses 3:24-25; 4:14, 18

Adam was not taught the Gospel in the Garden. Adam is already a Grandfather in Moses 5:3.  The Gospel begins to be taught in Moses 5:7.  Cain isn’t born until Moses 5:16.

The temple ordinance isn’t mentioned until - Moses 5:58-59  (timeframe is a bit uncertain here as the verse takes place well after Cain is born - but it seems to me that verses 58-59 could have just as well fit in-between verses 10 & 11).

Adam received the priesthood as indicated in - Moses 6:67

 

If I was a betting man, I would put higher odds on Adam and Eve being endowed and sealed prior to Cain and Able’s birth.

Edited May 30, 2023 by mikbone

[JohnsonJones]

I feel that they were originally sealed together in the Garden.  This would mean ALL their children would be born under the covenant. 

It does not make sense to me that the Lord would purposefully cause any of his children to be born out of the covenant when he is the one officiating over the ceremony.

The story of Cain and Abel does not depend on whether Cain was the First born, the second born, or even younger than Abel.  What matters is what the story is about.

Abel was the chosen one, or the chosen line through which the Savior would have come through.  Cain wasn't just being disobedient or sinful.  He chose to follow the adversary and in doing so choose to try to destroy the plans of the Lord.  The idea was that if he could kill Abel, then the line would never exist, thus the Lord could never be born and there would never be a Savior for all mankind.

Hence, he became a son of perdition.  He was so set against the plan of salvation he would destroy it if he could and follow his new master into darkness with the hope that he would condemn all men to the same fate.

The Lord is wise.  Our Father is wise.  The death of Abel was not the end.  The Lord had other ways to accomplish the divine plan that was created for us.  Another son came which was designated to be the line through which our Savior would be born.  This was Seth.

We don't know if or how many other sons that were good or evil that were born to Adam.  In this story it is not important.  It is not the focus.  The focus is on the way that the Lord has provided for us to progress, and part of that was that there was a chosen one who would come and atone for us.  This would save us from both physical and spiritual death.  The line was provided genealogically, even though there was an attempt to thwart it from the beginning.  That the Lord's plans cannot be thwarted is one valuable lesson from all of this, another is that the Lord will always provide a way.  There also many other lessons that can be learned from this.

I don't think it is really important where Cain and Abel's place of birth order really is, though it can make for interesting trivia and discussion, the important part is what the story says and discusses. 

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Abel was the chosen one, or the chosen line through which the Savior would have come through.  Cain wasn't just being disobedient or sinful.  He chose to follow the adversary and in doing so choose to try to destroy the plans of the Lord.  The idea was that if he could kill Abel, then the line would never exist, thus the Lord could never be born and there would never be a Savior for all mankind.

It sees almost everyone assumes that Abel had no seed. I don't see any reason for this assumption, though. The strongest evidence for this idea that I know of is the fact that Abel's descendants are never mentioned anywhere in scripture. But that is pretty weak evidence, an argument from silence. For example, if not for a rather random reference to Simon Peter's mother-in-law, we would otherwise have no evidence that Peter was married. But obviously, even if Peter's mother-in-law were never mentioned anywhere, that would not mean that Peter had been unmarried.

[JohnsonJones]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

It sees almost everyone assumes that Abel had no seed. I don't see any reason for this assumption, though. The strongest evidence for this idea that I know of is the fact that Abel's descendants are never mentioned anywhere in scripture. But that is pretty weak evidence, an argument from silence. For example, if not for a rather random reference to Simon Peter's mother-in-law, we would otherwise have no evidence that Peter was married. But obviously, even if Peter's mother-in-law were never mentioned anywhere, that would not mean that Peter had been unmarried.

This is true.

The reason I say Abel was the chosen line was because I was taught this in my youth and that this was also taught by the prophets (it is what I was told, I do not have a reference for it). 

WE do see this which could be seen as symbolic from Moses 5 (Edit for clarity: Symbolic in that, though the events happened, the symbolism is also regarding the flocks in that instead of the Savior being our master, with lacking that the flocks now revert to another). 

Quote

32 And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.

33 And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.

As well as this which indicates that Seth WAS more than just a righteous man, but an actual replacement

Quote

2 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bare a son, and he called his name ^aSeth. And Adam glorified the name of God; for he said: God hath appointed me another seed, instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Edited May 30, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[laronius]

44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I feel that they were originally sealed together in the Garden.  This would mean ALL their children would be born under the covenant. 

It does not make sense to me that the Lord would purposefully cause any of his children to be born out of the covenant when he is the one officiating over the ceremony.

I agree that the idea of God performing a non-celestial marriage does sound odd. But so does the idea of God requiring Adam and Eve to make a covenant to good when they didn't even know what good was. Where's the agency in that?

In the temple the initial instruction they were given came by way of commandment. There wasn't any covenant making or even a formal acceptance, simply go do such and such. Now marriage is not explicitly addressed in that presentation, though it is definitely implied, but I lean towards something similar happening with that, Adam and Eve being told they are married and they are supposed to have children. This does not in my mind constitute a celestial marriage covenant, assuming of course that's what happened.

Edited May 30, 2023 by laronius

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Adam and Eve most likely had children in a large number, probably 20 to 30. Then  she would have gone through menopause around the age of 50 or 60. At this point their children would have had a large number of kids too. If Even had twins several times their children could have numbered closer to 60. Pairing off their children's children had dozens also. The population would within about 5 generations there would be well over 1 million people in the world.

I believe Adam and Eve had Cain as a miracle from God, just like Abraham and Sarah or Zechariah and Elizabeth. Cain, followed closely by Abel. Then within a few years she had Seth. Cain left after the murder of Able and married one of the women of the hundreds of thousands available.