Genesis (2)

PAGES:

1, 3;

My view is that Satan comes from Saturn, and so, that Satan is Odin, Vishnu or Kali (as a female aspect), Ra, Demiurge, The Great Architect of the Universe and etc. I believe Satan is "the god of Death", he is the "Father of Lies" and "The Death". Saturn is a "god of Death", there is interesting peculiarities to make Satan syncretic with Saturn. I do believe pagans talk about true things, but have not the correct practice and worship "lower gods" instead. And i think it is important to find syncretism in the bible with other religions, but taking the bible as authority of what is the real history.

But my view of the Demiurge is that he is a "robber", and not of a "creator of the material realm", i see Yahweh as the creator of the material realm, and that this realm was to be good and will be good in the end. Once again, i believe in a syncretism between pagan entities with Satan, which is not fringe to do, we can see pagan entities in the bible like the Canaanite's Baal.

We can observe this in some interesting curiosities:

https://www.biblestudy.org/meaning-names/chiun-remphan.html

Here we can see some name that were things being worshiped by the Israelites. It is an entity related to the planet Saturn and with Death.

"You have taken along Sakkuth your king and Kaiwan your star god, the idols you made for yourselves" - Amos 5:26.

"You have taken along the tabernacle of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Babylon’" - Acts 7:43.

Chiun (Remphan, Kaiwan)

Meaning of Name: An image, pillar, lifeless

Although there is some debate as to what Chiun (Remphan) is referencing, the consensus among Biblical commentaries is that it refers to the planet Saturn. Worshipping the "host of heaven," meaning the sun, moon, planets and stars (Deuteronomy 4:19, 2 Kings 23:5, Jeremiah 8:2), was common in the ancient world.

"Saturn is no less certainly represented by the star Kaiwan, adored by the reprobate Israelites in the desert... The same word... frequently designates, in the Babylonian inscriptions, the slowest-moving planet... The ancient Syrians and Arabs, too, called Saturn Kaiwan..." (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia).

"The passage in Amos refers to the Saturn worship which appears to have been in vogue in the prophet's days" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).

The Septuagint translates "Chiun" into Remphan, as Stephen quotes it (Acts 7:42 - 43). The same god often had different names... Chiun, the Arabic and Persian name, written also Chevan. In an Arabic lexicon Chiun means "austere"; so astrologers represented Saturn as a planet baleful in his influence (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary).

https://biblenarratives.fandom.com/wiki/Sakkuth_and_Kaiwan

"Sak′kuth and Kai′wan are interchangeable names for the star-god Saturn."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remphan

"There is general agreement among bible scholars, however, that both remphan and chiun refer to the planet Saturn".

"Remphan is a rendering of the Ancient Greek, ρεμφαν. (...) It is likely in reference to "Kiyyun" ("Chiun") mentioned in Amos 5:26, which the Septuagint renders as "Raiphan" (Ῥαιφάν) or "Rephan". Kiyyun is generally assumed to be the god Saturn, the Assyrian name of which was "Kayvân" ("Kēwān")".

Check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_(mythology)

"The potential cruelty of Saturn was enhanced by his identification with Cronus, known for devouring his own children. He was thus used in translation when referring to gods from other cultures the Romans perceived as severe; he was equated with the Carthaginian god Baal Hammon, to whom children were sacrificed".

"Although these features are to be found in Greek god Cronus as well, it appears that those features were proper to Roman Saturn's most ancient aspects, such as his presence on the Capitol and his association with Jupiter, who in the stories of the arrival of the Pelasgians in the land of the Sicels(1.7.27–31) and that of the Argei orders human sacrifices to him".

"There was in the city a bronze image of Kronos, extending its hands, palms up and sloping towards the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tophet#Greco-Roman_sources

"In the Hebrew Bible, Tophet or Topheth is a location in Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), where worshipers engaged in a ritual involving "passing a child through the fire", most likely child sacrifice. Traditionally, the sacrifices have been ascribed to a god named Moloch. The Bible condemns and forbids these sacrifices, and the tophet is eventually destroyed by king Josiah, although mentions by the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah suggest that the practices associated with the tophet may have persisted.

Most scholars agree that the ritual performed at the tophet was child sacrifice, and they connect it to similar episodes throughout the Bible and recorded in Phoenicia (whose inhabitants were referred to as Canaanites in the Bible) and Carthage by Hellenistic sources".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tophet

Saturn and Cronus are [in many levels], in terms of history, equated with Baal and with the child sacrifices that the bible speaks of. So it is not fringe to think Saturn and Satan are syncretic. I'm not less Christian to think like this.

I then believe all other pagan gods that are falsely attributed as "The Higher God" are in fact all Saturn / Satan. Any god attributed to "creation" or "stealing" of the "material realm" (in specific, Yahweh created the heavens and earth, so, not the same) is one and the same to me: Satan.

And if you change the name of Satan to Saturn, Odin, Kali, Marduk, Enlil, Demiurge or etc in the bible, then this is the history i believe to be correct. So, no, i wont consider pagan myths and histories without skepticism.

"“You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”" - Genesis 3:4-5.

To the contrary of the Gnostic view, this is what brought death to the world, so, the snake was lying already. The Gnostic may say that "but it was God that changed the rules", but that means it was true, if God can do such a thing, it is because God is the creator and controller of the effects of the things that a tree could give.

Adam and Eve have not became like God, so it was also a lie. They had not got a mystical experience that led them to have a gain in Wisdom, instead, it is evident that they maintained their level of knowledge and ignorance, the only new thing that appeared was evil.

What really happened is, that they already had the knowledge of the good, they were innocent like kids.

"Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" - Matthew 18:4.

The same way a kid would be able to see each other naked without understanding this as some type of lust, sin and evilness, that was how Adam and Eve were living.

That is why i like to point the idea of "Tree of Knowledge of Duality". It is not "Knowledge of Good", neither "Knowledge of evil", it is not about Knowledge, God is not against Knowledge and Wisdom, in fact, this is what attracted Eve: verse 6: "it was desirable for obtaining wisdom"; that is also why i think God had to punish the Snake, since he was tricking Eve.

The idea is about "The Knowledge of Good-Evil", which is then the duality. It is not heaven, neither hell, but the mid term, the point of duality. Earth is not bad, it was paradisiacal, now it is not good, but it is not hell, it have both Good and Evil.

Once again, that is why i see it more like the "Tree of Knowledge of the Choice to Sin". Now you know you can sin, you have the freedom of choice to do Evil, now you see each other naked and you have sinful creativity and you choose to do it, however, since this was the first time seeing it, they were ashamed and knew that lust was bad, just like when we were growing up as kid and we knew something was "ugly" to do.

When i was kid, i had a natural instinct that some stuff were "ugly", even if my family have not talked about it (as a way to avoid a conversation in the topic). However, by the eventualities of life, even when we were kid, we may end up seeing something obscene, and since you are an almost sinless innocent kid, you feel in your heart that this is wrong, something wrong to do, something that one do should be ashamed of oneself; some kids even speak when they see, and some get a big internal hatred or disgust. When i was teen, when i started seeing girls i would deem "too cute to do 'ugly' stuff", and they ended up doing it and i ended up knowing it, i felt indirectly sad for her, like, the sadness she should have been feeling was the one i was feeling for her, especially if a close one.

So i think of sex like something akin to gore, sadism and masochism, a psychological masochism with humiliation, and it kinda even make some people to have fetish with pain, spit, pee and stuff. It is a pure denial of our body, which i see as the Temple of God, but some see as "liberating", it is like going out of our body, then proving the body who owns him by making the body do things he wouldn't do itself by natural instinct.

And so, we can see that the thing we gained as heritage of this fruit event, is this, i don't know, spontaneous propensity to have evil creative thoughts which leads to temptation which may lead to sin. I think that is the Fruit's effect, if you think of it like a drug; and if that drug fades, it is like it also would fade that morbid imagination and curiosity that leads us to think stuff like "he is near the edge of this giant cliff, imagine someone goes there and kick him?", but at an higher level, something that would whisper to a psychopath, "why don't you kick him", and he does.

Which i think would be how the Second Coming of Jesus would lead the world to be, in fact, how it was before, in this, which i would say it is an evidence at level of a proof (at least for Christ's believers), that: we had Knowledge before The Fruit.

Important to note that, in verse 6:

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it".

It never says if Adam was aware of what fruit it was. But we can understand that Eve would not do something like this to him, so we assume that Adam was aware, since he was with her, but later something important gets under observation...

Also, take in consideration that she only saw this after she was fooled that it was good to eat, in here the word 'saw' must be interpreted as "when the woman was convinced", especially with the word “when”, which means it was an aspect of time.

This is more a translation difference, which is a huge debate in apologetic, some translations try to be loyal to the words, but some to the intention of the words usage, for example, the word used in that verse means “to see”, but in Hebrew it can also mean “consider”, “perceive”, “take into consideration”, that is why in the “New Living Translation” it says “the woman was convinced”, which is the correct use of the word in such context. It could also be read as “the woman took in consideration that the tree was good for food”, which is also a correct translation of that Hebrew word, and then, it makes more sense.

Verses 10 - 13:

"“I heard Your voice in the garden,” he replied, “and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.”

“Who told you that you were naked?” asked the LORD God. “Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

And the man answered, “The woman whom You gave me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

“The serpent deceived me,” she replied, “and I ate”".

Notice that Adam was afraid not because he knew he did something wrong, but because he knew he was naked.

And God questioned him, because, he shouldn't know he was naked. However, it is interesting to notice that Adam does not talk like he was aware that it was from that tree, but that a fruit was offered to him and he had ate it. So, it is probable that Adam had eaten this without knowledge of what truly was it.

However, we can't be harsh to Eve, she does not talk like she did something wrong, she said she was deceived, so, her intentions with Adam was not bad.

Eve was told that the reasons to not eat from the tree was something that was the opposite of what the Snake said. Eve was innocent and don't knew Evil to understand why would someone lie, and it seems like the Snake already knew what is Evil.

If the tree was the opposite of what God told to be bad, then, it was seem as good. And then, when Eve saw it, she saw (which should be understood that, this is her point-of-view) that it looked good for food and wisdom, and it was very likely a beautiful fruit.

All of that deceived her: the looks deceive, it looked beautiful, it looked good to eat; the reasons to eat deceived, it can kill, and now it doesn't? If it does not kill, there is no reason to not eat.

And i think that is why God had the decision to punish the Snake, because God knows that Adam and Eve were very innocent to know Evil, to know that something would be a lie, since, who would have the evil idea of lying? Why would someone lie? Is there a reason to lie? The world just started! They knew nothing at this time! The snake is fully at fault.

Then i think that in fact the Snake is the reason of why God though was fair to come as flesh and die for our sins. Because God loves us and he knows we are flawed and can be deceived because our innocence.

"That everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him" - John 3:15-17.

"And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves" - Genesis 3:7.

Adam and Eve are not innocent like children anymore, they feel lust, they know the dirtiness of what they surrounded themselves. That is the first thing they notice, that they are naked. And that is why i consider that the root of all sins is sexual lust.

And i think the mission of Christ, from his Death & Resurrection to his return, is to makes us feel the "Trip of Duality" that this fruit gives and then teach us how to defeat it and become good again, even if we now have the knowledge of Evil, isn't that what you wanted?! Then Evil will be defeated, Death will be defeated, but, maybe, the Knowledge of Good and Evil will always persist.

We have internet now, the most horrible cruelty, perversion, nastiness, sexual orgies of the worst kind... We are "like gods" now, we always were like gods, we are as gods as any so called "gods", but we never were like God Almighty, and we wont ever be.

Every type of knowledge now is able to be done by humans, and humans are going to do every single one until they get tired of knowing everything. They are going to do the most painful thing ever, the most humiliating sexual act ever, the most cruel things ever and etc... The knowledge of Good AND EVIL.

And everything over the root of Lust. This one captivating temptation that we have to test what we know instantly in our hearts that is Evil. We do anyway, because we know, it is evil, but it is pleasure, it is addictive, it gives us power, control...

... It all come from Lust, the pleasure that is not productive, yet requires the cold and emotionless soul killing abuse of someone to have a superficial desire attended, and the only avoidance from it is "self-control".

Would you humiliate yourself for [what you lust for]? Would you be on all fours for it? Licking the shoes of someone? Being sexually used for a reward? Would you kill someone for it? Would you make a secret society, an empire, where you can do whatever you want? "As long is consensual"? And sell yourself, the unique time of your life, for it?

And now, this is what Adam and Eve were feeling, this lust, the idea of "what can we do to deal with this that we now feel?".

They now look at each other and have sexual lust and have to control themselves, and they can't do nothing but to feel this that they have never felt before, and deal with the fact that now they saw something that they can't "un-see".

In a sort it is like a mystical experience, but the opposite of it. Instead of having revelations of the Lord, and this truth changing you forever; now Adam and Eve had a revelation of the Evil and Lust, and this changed everything...

And since i think everything modifies through what surrounds everything, then that this changed all the nature and ambient, because the world was not ready and evolved to this. And so, the nature becomes something brutal, harsher and death enters the world. "You will not surely die", it was in the end, all a lie.

Also interesting to point this:

"Alcohol in the Bible explores the dual role of alcohol, highlighting its positive uses and warnings against excess. In biblical narratives, the fermentation of fruit into wine holds significance, with grapes and wine often linked to both celebration and cautionary tales of sin and temptation, reminiscent of the concept of the forbidden fruit" - Wiki.

My point-of-view is not that it was alcohol, but i liked the idea of comparing with it. I normally nickname alcohol as "The Entheogen of the Devil". Strangely how alcohol makes people perverts, sinful, prone to violence and etc. And this would explain very well how the fruit could be in terms of effects; a fruit that have effects of bringing this sinful desire like alcohol, but maybe degrees stronger.

Refuting the Gnostic view of the fruit:

• The view is that the fruit is like an entheogen that brings a knowledge that would show the evil intentions of their creators and take them out of a state of ignorance.

If the fruit was to make one keep in the state of ignorance, why don't we see any later signals of Adam, Eve or any human achieving a state of wisdom that reveals to them that they were deceived? Why does Abel and Cain do offerings and want good relationship with the God that should be know as "Demiurge, the one that is maintaining them as ignorant"? It shouldn't even be something that is about "as custom", because then, Demiurge himself would know that Adam and Eve "already know", and that forcing them to anything would be obviously a mere theater to them.

With that in mind, we can see that both Adam and Eve and their generations never treated God as an evil being with evil intentions that maintained them in ignorance.

If we also consider that the fruit indeed had brought death in the world, then the Snake have indeed lied and the Gnostic view of the Snake being benevolent (or even Christ in a past form) is wrong.

The fruit brought death, don't matter from where, if by God or by the fruit effects. If that happened by God, it does not excuse, the fruit was not something that would bring them life either, and so, they would "surely die" anyway, and the snake lied and knew about that.

If they were to be "like gods", it is only in terms of Knowing Evil like they do.

First, i want to address that i do believe we are "as god as those lower gods" since ever; the "gods" and us are equal as us in substance (in my belief). We are made of spirit and we can do anything a "god" can do, however we are not God Almighty, and we can't do anything God Almighty can do.

Second, if we ignore or add to my belief, in no moment Adam and Eve have special proprieties in them that makes them "like gods", in terms of the creation powers and capacities normally attributed to gods. And so, there is absolutely no detail written in the bible showing any "being like gods" benefits.

The only thing that is truly clear of what happened is that sin entered the world in the form of lust, since the first thing they noticed in them is that they were naked.

"The Fate of the Serpent

So the LORD God said to the serpent:

“Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and every beast of the field!

On your belly will you go,

and dust you will eat,

all the days of your life.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your seed and her seed.

He will crush your head,

and you will strike his heel".

- Genesis 3:14-15.

It is interesting to note that God is talking to the snake, the "enmity" is what the Snake have with the woman and her seed, and also with the Snake's own seed. Which in my view is that the Snake and the Snake children will be inherently an enemy of Adam and Eve and their children. This can also be a signal that the snake at this time was not completely a Snake, but a being that could represent another type of rational tribe (or the seeds may represent the tribe). Which begs the question, does the Snake already had some of its seeds populating the earth at the time? This would be a hint about the other type of people that appears later in the bible, not exactly from the Snake, but maybe another creation.

"He" may refer to Adam, and so, Adam will crush the Snake's head, and the Snake will react by biting his heel. However, i think this sounds figurative, and that in fact is that there will be a cycle of events where Men and Snake will react in conflict, one moment Men seed will advance over the Snake seed, and the Snake will react back again.

This is interesting, because this part opens doors to some of those Conspiracy Theories that there are "reptilians" or something. I don't think exactly as "reptilians", but as a tribe represented by a Snake, especially if you consider the name Adam as "mankind" and "how the other humans appeared?".

Which also opens another door. Could be that this part of the bible to be cryptic metaphors? And that in fact the Snake represent another type of tribe of humans, and Adam as "Mankind" was not a single person, but the whole human race? But that looks pretty fringe and strange in the narrative. Anyway, i like to talk random stuff sometimes to bring up all kind of discussion.

It would be like Constantine, people that are from a demon bloodline, the mixed ones and the "angel" ones. I have a view of the idea of the bible of the concept of the "people of the world", and the "people of God", but like, everyone can be saved and son of God, but i feel like there are some people that you look them eyes and you could feel something that would make one say or think (using this concept), "wow, i feel like i was seeing someone from the 'seeds of the snake'".

Then God punishes Adam and Eve, and etc...

It is important to notice, at verse 21, we can see it was God that made the garments of them, which gives us a tip that God was indeed present physically at that time. Which is not the only time, if i remember correctly, before the Sodoma event, God also appeared as a man.

At verse 22, again we see God using the word "Us":

"man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil". And now, lest he reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever...”"

It also happened at Genesis 1:26: "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness".

This makes me think if this is in a reference to archangels or something. Pagans may accuse this of saying it was in fact multiple "gods" and that the history was in fact borrowed, the idea also contain the concept of "being like gods" attached to the fruit. And then it would be because in the Mesopotamian and Babylonian religion had multiple gods trying to make humans as slaves. Would in this case in their view to see the fruit as something good, because it revealed that humans were slave of the gods?

Then in their view, so, in such case, would then be that the gods don't want humans to live forever knowing they were slaves?

In my case, i would rather believe those are Angels, Cherubim, Archangels or whatever. Or that there is also the fact that i don't know Hebrew to understand how those words are indeed used.

Especially that God later stationed a cherubim on the east side of the Garden of Eden.

The view presented in the Wiki is pretty alike mine:

"However, a serpent convinces Eve to eat fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. These acts not only give them additional knowledge, but also give them the ability to conjure negative and destructive concepts such as shame and evil. God later curses the serpent and the ground. God prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying him. Then he banishes them from the Garden of Eden".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

CHAPTER 4:

Here comes one of my criticism against Ellen White, quoting myself:

Ellen talks like only after the flood people were permitted to eat meat, but that does not seems true either, as, in Genesis 4, Abel gave as offering the firstborn of his flock (verse 4).

Even if some say about that this was for offering (which would be strange that God wants an offering of dead flesh considering about what Ellen said of the violence of killing), still, the fact Abel had a flock and knew how to butcher the fat, is, in my opinion, an indirect proof that Abel created his flock for food.

Since, not only he knew how to manage butchering skills for food, he also knew that the fat would be desirable to God, and that seems to me a strong evidence that he knew that the fat was good to eat.

Just like we know that fat (tallow or lard) is one of the healthiest ways to fry food (check the links from the sources i'm giving that meat is good for health) and healthy to eat.

Very likely Abel knew this was good for him, and so, for God as an offering.

The wiki about Cain says:

"Noteworthy is the difference in the type of sacrifice: fruits of the soil are renewable and bloodless, while fat-portions are set apart for the Lord and taken from the firstborn, pointing to an act of faith, since it is not guaranteed there will be more. The Midrash suggest that although Abel brought the best meat from his flock, Cain did not set aside for God the best of his harvest".

My view is pretty carnivorous, and this is my belief. But i think this is pretty much it if that is the case, best of one what?! Fruit harvest? Spices? Is there something more delicious and desirable than a fatty meat? Isn't Wagyu desirable because its content of fat?

Isn't tallow and lard one of healthiest ways to fry food?

However, i do believe God was probably distasteful about something else over it. Maybe, to compensate the meat, he should give a big amount of, i don't know, rare spices? I'm not sure if that "is how God works", since i normally say that God is not a robot.

Verses 6-8:

"“Why are you angry,” said the LORD to Cain, “and why has your countenance fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you refuse to do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires you, but you must master it.”

Then Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out to the field.” And while they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him".

God scolding seems to be more about Cain's attitude than about the offering. And it seems like now there is this "problem with sin". And it seems like there was something being done by Cain that was not being done right, and that sin is related to "what is right", until it becomes a temptation.

This was before the Mosaic Law. Showing that there was in inherently knowledge of "what is right", which matches the verse of the bible that talks that God wrote the rule in our hearts:

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus, as proclaimed by my gospel" - Romans 2:14-16.

At verse 9, it seems like God is still with his presence in physical form. For Cain, it seems like this scene is something pretty natural by how he answer ("Am I my brother’s keeper?").

In later verses, in moments like: "whoever finds me will kill me", "If anyone slays Cain", "no one who found him".

It is clear that there are already more people on earth. That means, the whole chapter seems to fit a large time gap.

The bible is never clear about how other people got on earth.

Did God made more tribes? Are them all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve? Are those creation of other gods?

By the way, i heard people saying that Cain was to be a forever wanderer (or better, he is still alive), but i can't find nothing that indicates it and it is not part of my current belief.

I'm going to leave this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Nod

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain

The Descendants of Cain:

Cain, Enoch (also a city), Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, and then Lamech.

Lamech with Adah: Jabal and Jubal.

Lamech with Zillah: Tubal-cain and Naamah.

"Then Lamech said to his wives:

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;

wives of Lamech, listen to my speech.

For I have slain a man for wounding me,

a young man for striking me.

If Cain is avenged sevenfold,

then Lamech seventy-sevenfold”"

- Genesis 4:23-24.

So there is another death that happened, which is not talked like there is importance, however, still is if you consider it was added in the book.

25-26:

"And Adam again had relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another seed in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”

And to Seth also a son was born, and he called him Enosh.

At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD".

And so, then there was still another from Adam and Eve.

A good point to consider here is that God was seem as a benevolent to have granted another seed, and people at Enosh's time used to call upon the name of the Lord. This shows that Adam and Eve have a good relationship with God, and would deny the Gnostic view, since, if they had "the knowledge to see God as Demiurge", they would not desire more children, neither consider good that God granted them another chance and neither create a culture that worship God.

CHAPTER 5:

The Descendants of Adam:

(1 Chronicles 1:1–3)

3:

"When Adam was 130 years old, he had a son in his own likeness, after his own image; and he named him Seth. And after he had become the father of Seth, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. So Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died".

I normally say that to have children is to participate in creation and knowing how is to see by how God see us, an innocent child that knows nothing and do lot of mistakes but you love it a lot. Here it is written in such a way that compare both acts.

USCatholic have an interesting view of the "age subject":

"

People lived longer back in the days before the great flood in Genesis, so the story goes—a lot longer. The implication is that, closer to the bestowal of the divine likeness on the first couple, mortality was a longer-term proposition. This original blessing is passed on through firstborn sons for 10 generations from Adam to Noah, most of whom live nearly a millennium. Then the good old days end, as a corrupt humanity is nearly washed away in the flood. Another 10 generations of firstborns live only between 200 and 600 years, after which the fabled time of extreme vitality comes to an end.

The record of the long-lived is found in Genesis Chapter 5. Adam lives to be 930, though nothing is said of Eve—typical of biblical genealogies concerned with patriarchal lineage. The longest-lived supercentenarian is Methuselah at 969. The shortest is Enoch at 365, whose years echo the solar year. Enoch’s relatively short span is linked to his closeness with God; it seems that God “took” him while he was still intimate with the divine ways. Lamech lives to be 777, after bragging he’d avenge himself 77 times for an injury he suffered. His years imitate his boast.

Lamech’s son Noah is the final super-ager, dying at 950. In Hebrew, Noah is “favor” spelled backward. He’s the last of those who bear the original blessing before the flood.

No supercentenarian achieves a full millennium, a reminder that immortality is denied outside of Eden. Even the great Abraham dies at 175. Moses lives to 120, the limit God sets on mortality (Gen. 6:3) as a deterrent to how much damage a sinful humanity can accomplish.

(...)

When the celestial ones have offspring with humans, God sets limits on longevity altogether.

Parallels to the fabulous biblical ancients exist in a Mesopotamian list of Sumerian kings, which lists rulers who live into the tens of thousands of years. Their disappearance is likewise attributed to a great flood, so legendary antediluvians are an established pattern in storytelling. Buddhism, Islam, and other religions also tell of astonishing super-agers in olden days.

Bible literalists attribute such longevity to better diets or a more protective firmament over the sky. Some translate the 10 generations as epochs rather than individual lifespans. Most scholars, however, agree that biblical longevity is less a historical fact than a theological point: Sin kills. Psalm 90 is realistic about what we can expect: “Seventy is the sum of our years, or eighty if we are strong” (90:10). Life is short. Don’t waste a moment of it.

"

I also heard a theory that we don't understand how they used numbers back then and it have a strange correlation with certain numbers and certain meanings and we can't be sure if those ages are real ages or have deeper meaning.

In my point of view, God can do anything, and so, God can make one live that much, and saying so is lack of faith. Atheist would try to attack this point of the bible, however, they themselves can't know if that is true or not.

That does not mean i believe it is literal or not, i'm in fact inclined to believe it is literal, but, honestly, i don't care about this debate that much, it wont change my faith and neither atheists beliefs.

Another point is that we don't know how the food and nature was back then, neither people's metabolism. And if it is show to be a metaphor or symbolic, that would mean nothing to my faith, however, then it would put down the atheist argument, and not because the bible talks in secrecy, but more in terms that we don't know how people talked at the dawn of humanity.

For example at 7-8:

"(...) Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. So Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died".

Does that mean Seth stopped having sons and daughters at 807? Or had more at 807? And then he died at 912.

Or does it mean 807 means something and 912 something else, and Seth passed through both and this passage is represented by the word "lived"?

The same at 10-11:

"Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. So Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died".

CONTINUE:

https://telegra.ph/Genesis-3-03-20