Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 5:3.
- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition
View Wesley's Notes for Genesis 5:3
5:3 Seth was born in the 130th year of Adam's life, and probably the murder of Abel was not long before. Many other sons and daughters were born to Adam besides Cain and Abel before this; but no notice is taken of them, because an honourable mention must be made of his name only, in whose loins Christ and the church were. But that which is most observable here concerning Seth, is, that Adam begat him in his own likeness after his image - Adam was made in the image of God; but when he was fallen and corrupted, he begat a son in his own image, sinful and defiled, frail and mortal, and miserable like himself; not only a man like himself, consisting of body and soul; but a sinner like himself, guilty and obnoxious, degenerate and corrupt. He was conceived and born in sin, #Psa 51:5|. This was Adam's own likeness, the reverse of that Divine likeness in which Adam was made; but having lost it himself he could not convey it to his seed.
Stanman's comment on 2012-10-28 23:52:32:
When Adam and his wife were given skins directly from the LORD God, this was in a figure of the shed blood of Jesus Christ, slain from the foundation of the world, as were the sacrifices under the Law of Moses. What this means is that Adam was redeemed to be as one of us (Genesis 3:22). Adam was cleansed and made as a son of God by those skins! So a son in his image would also be as a son of God. And Luke 3:23-38 identifies Adam as a son of God. What's the problem?
Dan's comment on 2012-10-27 12:36:39:
It's interesting to note that it was apparently fit for Eve's declaration about Seth's birth to be included in Genesis. "For, [said she], God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him. ...". It's apparent that Eve's declaration at the least, emphasizes that Seth represented a man child to fill the painful void left by the murdered Abel. Further, Seth was likely the next man child born. To deduce further from this passage might be a stretch if not for Genesis 5:3 which states, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:". Genesis 5:3 seemingly superfluously states that Seth was after Adam's own likeness and image. But the Bible states things for reasons! We might extrapolate, given that woman can be interpreted as "man's womb"-and that man[Adam-a man] and woman[Eve named only after their fall] were one[Adam naming Eve after the fall would indicate her autonomy/independence from Adam-highly significant], that Adam was emphasizing that he[Adam] had sired Seth, as opposed to another. This possibility/probability cannot be summarily dismissed out of hand. Ivan Panin's discovery (Google him) clearly proves the divine authority and infallibility of the Bible. For anyone to now say otherwise is patently unrealistic.
Share your own thoughts or commentary here...