Bible Discussion Thread

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Has Luke created a problem here, regarding Adam, given:

i.the definition of a Son - a male descendant

ii.the need for a mother for Adam in this construct?

iii.the arguable conflict with the Genesis version of Adam's origin - Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Is this Genesis account consistent with the concept of a son?

This rendition by Luke is even more depressing as it implies that Adam being the first human, then the murderer - Cain - was God's first grandson.

Hi Nstew. Your questions can be easily answered by considering the texts we have in the KJV & comparing them to the Greek (the original language of the New Testament). As you have quoted Luke 3:38 (& you could examine all the preceding verses that give this genealogy), you will notice that "the son" are in italics; unfortunately, this comment section doesn't allow for italics. Whenever we see italicized words, we understand that the Bible translators inserted those words (not found in the original), to give the verse meaning & flow for us who only read it in English. Therefore, that verse would read, "Which was of Enos, which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God". We know that Enos, Seth, & Adam were humans who had wives & bore children through the fertilization of human seed; but God created Adam without the need of a human contributing seed, therefore "of God", or "the son of God" seems reasonable & should be so understood as being different from human conception. I hope this helps to clarify these verses for you.

Thanks Chris. This does help.