>>>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.

The "begat's" are there because the line of Christ is important to know as there were promises/propheicies made regarding His line.