Seth = Third son of Adam?

@lena2000 (2392)
Belgium
August 25, 2007 3:20pm CST
I've always been 'told' that Seth was the 3rd son of Adam. But is that really so? Genesis 4, seems to just simply name Seth as the 'replacement' for Abel. And from that we infer that he is the 3rd son, when really he is just the 3rd NAMED son of Adam. It seems to me that if Adam is 120, and Cain is old enough to have 'moved out' so to speak, that there would have been many more interviening sons of Adam. On the otherhand, , Gen 5 list the lineage of Adam-Seth-Enosh... But on the other-otherhand, if Seth is considered the 'replacement' for Abel, then the lineage could be listed that way. (Since Cain, the true first-born, was dis-owned so to speak). Similar to the way a dead mans heir could be fathered by his brother to continue the family line. I realize it's not a big-super-important question, I just like to separate facts from assumptions. (Like people assuming there were 3 wise men in the NT)
4 responses
@sweetdesign (5151)
• United States
26 Aug 07
Wow what a stumbler. All we really know about Adam's children (and we have to assume that there were many of them) is that Cain and Abel were first and then Seth is mentioned so that we can see the lineage. If every child of Adam was list Genesis would be a huge book of its own lol. Whether or not Seth was actuall the third born is anyone's guess. I believe that he was the third born but that is strictly my opinion.
• United States
26 Aug 07
Oh I should have said that I believe he was the third born son. There could have been lots of girls in between the three boys.
@squaretile (3835)
• Singapore
27 Aug 07
Thanks for highlighting this! I've never thought about this seriously. Went to check the bible and this is what Genesis 4 has to say: Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD. Not that much mention of Seth, although it seems on a surface reading that he could be the third child, but it's just as likely that he was not. And it's interesting that the bible goes on immediately to name Seth's son - Enosh, with no description of what happened between the time seth was born and the time when he had a son. It's great that we search the scriptures like the Bereans. :)
• China
26 Aug 07
Is Bible always true
@Rozie37 (15505)
• Turkmenistan
25 Aug 07
Okay, no offense, but I have been told that I think to much. I was never willing to accept that this was possible until I read this post. My head is spinning. I get what you are saying, but I don't think that God believed in replacements. Remember the situation with David and Bathsheeba. Even though David married her, after he had Uriah killed. Throughout the Bible, she is still referred to as Uriah's wife. We all serve a unique purpose in the Kingdom Of God. If they both were gone, wouldn't it take two to replace them. Or is this where Seth and Enoch come in. One was killed and the other was basically thrown to the wind.