>>>Do I need any disclaimer as to the obvious? OK: this is just my opinion.
>>>
>>>And, I know, you're only the messenger, and a brave one at that, who had the courage to point out the obvious that I didn't see.
>>
>>At first, I thought you were just yanking her chain - but - now looks like this is a problem for you. There are both men and women that the Bible does not mention. I don't see a problem with that. The Bible is not meant to be a historical record (althought is can be used as such.) It is meant to show us that we need a Saviour and to point us to Him.
>
>Ah, but if there was no intention to be a historical record, why the long begat? And in all those genealogies, there seemed to be a long line of miracles, sort of male-only parthenogenesis. But I knew that - what I didn't know was that the practice went to the very beginning.
>
>BTW, I'm glad that she ate from that tree of knowledge, so at least one from the gen-Z got an honorable mention. Wait!... knowledge? And the most used euphemism for copulation in that book is "to know"? Didn't think of that before.
>
>Doug was right, start thinking about it and draw your own conclusion, you'll get far.

Eek! Knowledge of fruit? What are you doing??