Gen 3:6 man

[micah7:9]

Very GOOD Indeed redhotmagma.

The Lord showed me that several years ago, I reason there is a GREAT deal of difference. I have nothing really to offer except you have found a very good study.
Should you continue yo will see that man/adam is H120/H121 until Gen 2:24  ThereforeH5921 H3651 shall a manH376
Gen.3:8 and AdamH121       Gen.4:1 a manH376

It is my opinion that there is much to be gleaned from that study, gold me thinks.  :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :happy3:
God's speed :bigGrin:

Been doing some more study(wish I would have done it before I jumped to conclusions) no difference the man/ adam more a literal stye, changing preference same with the eth ha adam as well. From what I have read the eth ha adam is used in more of a racist seperation more than anything. So in other words same o same. :(

[thinktank]

After reading those links more thouroughly I found some hole in the argument.

e.g the premise is that before Adam there was the human race, and that Adam was sent to save humanity, but he failed, so God sent the second Adam.

Now the problem is that scriptures does not blame early man for death, but the blame goes to Adam. That Adam is the one that brought death to mankind. By one man came death.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Adam is seen as the Father of humanity.

This is one scripture which universalist use often

In Adam all die, but in christ all shall be made alive.

If there are other humans or races that existed,before Adam, then it means God does not regard them as Adams children, but are of another.

This raises problems of salvation.

This website also describes Adam as of caucasian race. It is obvious to me that the guy is using his mind, to interpret this. His mind which has been subjected to the conditioning of western thought that Adam and Eve were caucausian. There is no evidence of this, other than a few paintings, which are for fancy, not historic purposes.

But yet he has strong scriptural arguments that there was a creation before Adam was created.

Now I beleive the answer is that mankind were created as spirit beings. We already know that mankind is created in Gods image and people cite this as the scriptures that points to the human spirit.

The only other point of a possible spirit i is when God breathes into Adam. But this spirit is called breath and I believe that this spirit is what makes a living soul, that animates a animal and a human being.

But the creation of male and female I believe to be spiritual humanity before they came to earth as earthly souls.

Adam was the first human soul, and he and his wife sinned causing the downfall o humanity. For some reason they made a grave mistake of having a familly, causing all their sons and daughters to be subject to an alien world, with Adams sinfull blood running through them, so that all blood becomes unclean. But God sent a saviour in Christ Jesus and his blood is spiritual holy blood, that washes man clean and gives him life.

[WhiteWings]

TT,

I agree the painting are often not of any historical use. I've even seen Jesus as someone with long blond hair. My guess is Jesus looked like a Jew He was. Adam being from the same region likely looked the same. I know where the Caucasian idea comes from.
One of the meaning of the (root word for) Adam is "to blush". That's something you see with white people but not with blacks.

Now the problem is that scriptures does not blame early man for death, but the blame goes to Adam.

True.

In Adam all die, but in christ all shall be made alive.

If we take that very strickt it means the other humans didn't die.
People aren't held accountable for things they don't know. Without laws no sins. Adam was the first person recieving a commandment from God. "Don't eat from that tree."
That would mean those other people don't need Jesus for salvation because they are without sin. :dontknow:

[jabcat]

That would mean those other people don't need Jesus for salvation because they are without sin. :dontknow:

It's an interesting discussion.  I believe we all need Jesus due to being born into sin.  Jesus said "I am the way, no one comes to the Father but through me".

However, *this is just my personal belief*  don't ask me to prove it  :laughing7:.;  but I believe those who "have no knowledge", have never heard the name of Jesus, etc., when confronted with Him and His love, will not have any long period of after-life correction/"punishment", but will almost instantly accept/believe Him as Savior.   :2c:

[thinktank]

TT,

I agree the painting are often not of any historical use. I've even seen Jesus as someone with long blond hair. My guess is Jesus looked like a Jew He was. Adam being from the same region likely looked the same. I know where the Caucasian idea comes from.
One of the meaning of the (root word for) Adam is "to blush". That's something you see with white people but not with blacks.

Now the problem is that scriptures does not blame early man for death, but the blame goes to Adam.

True.

In Adam all die, but in christ all shall be made alive.

If we take that very strickt it means the other humans didn't die.
People aren't held accountable for things they don't know. Without laws no sins. Adam was the first person recieving a commandment from God. "Don't eat from that tree."
That would mean those other people don't need Jesus for salvation because they are without sin. :dontknow:

There i a scripture that deals with that scenario, where if there is no law then the penalty cannot be imputed. so if there was an early human races, that was subject to death, but there was no law, till Adam, the scripture says that nevertheless death reigned.

But the big problem is that if there was a creation of humanity before Adam, how can they be in Adam, how can they be saved?

What are they in terms of scripture?

Are we talking about neathandral man here? Or just humanity as is today with it's various distinct culture?

[micah7:9]

After reading those links more thouroughly I found some hole in the argument.

e.g the premise is that before Adam there was the human race, and that Adam was sent to save humanity, but he failed, so God sent the second Adam.

Now the problem is that scriptures does not blame early man for death, but the blame goes to Adam. That Adam is the one that brought death to mankind. By one man came death.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Adam is seen as the Father of humanity.

This is one scripture which universalist use often

In Adam all die, but in christ all shall be made alive.

If there are other humans or races that existed,before Adam, then it means God does not regard them as Adams children, but are of another.

This raises problems of salvation.

This website also describes Adam as of caucasian race. It is obvious to me that the guy is using his mind, to interpret this. His mind which has been subjected to the conditioning of western thought that Adam and Eve were caucausian. There is no evidence of this, other than a few paintings, which are for fancy, not historic purposes.

But yet he has strong scriptural arguments that there was a creation before Adam was created.

Now I beleive the answer is that mankind were created as spirit beings. We already know that mankind is created in Gods image and people cite this as the scriptures that points to the human spirit.

The only other point of a possible spirit i is when God breathes into Adam. But this spirit is called breath and I believe that this spirit is what makes a living soul, that animates a animal and a human being.

But the creation of male and female I believe to be spiritual humanity before they came to earth as earthly souls.

Adam was the first human soul, and he and his wife sinned causing the downfall o humanity. For some reason they made a grave mistake of having a familly, causing all their sons and daughters to be subject to an alien world, with Adams sinfull blood running through them, so that all blood becomes unclean. But God sent a saviour in Christ Jesus and his blood is spiritual holy blood, that washes man clean and gives him life.

I find much of what you brought out very good, and I, thank you for your work. but..... here is where, in my opinion[and the Word of God] contend where you went off.
"Now I beleive the answer is that mankind were created as spirit beings. We already know that mankind is created in Gods image and people cite this as the scriptures that points to the human spirit." TT

1Co 15:45  so also it hath been written, `The first man Adam became a living creature,' the last Adam is for a life-giving spirit,
1Co 15:46  but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.


Also, "We already know that mankind is created in Gods image ..." TT
I have not been given to "know" this. I contend that Gen.1:27 is being  done, and He will complete what He says.

I happened to have a book(had it for a long time, should throw it out, but it keeps upright) "Elohiym and Yahovah in Genesis" by Gabriel. No real identification on the author "Gabriel," but it is one of the most racist books I have ever read that claims to be right about what God did. 

[WhiteWings]

That would mean those other people don't need Jesus for salvation because they are without sin. :dontknow:

It's an interesting discussion.  I believe we all need Jesus due to being born into sin.  Jesus said "I am the way, no one comes to the Father but through me".

However, *this is just my personal belief*  don't ask me to prove it  :laughing7:.;  but I believe those who "have no knowledge", have never heard the name of Jesus, etc., when confronted with Him and His love, will not have any long period of after-life correction/"punishment", but will almost instantly accept/believe Him as Savior.   :2c:

That's a (slightly) different thing.
Sin entered the world trough Adam. That means there was no sin before Adam. So imo those people don't need Jesus to wash away their sins. For me that's different from kneeling for Jesus to enter heaven. (but strongly related in most cases)
I asked this before in this thread but got no answer: What is the defenition of man according to the Bible?
I think the answer can be of importance. Are none Jews human according to OT standards?

[micah7:9]

That would mean those other people don't need Jesus for salvation because they are without sin. :dontknow:

It's an interesting discussion.  I believe we all need Jesus due to being born into sin.  Jesus said "I am the way, no one comes to the Father but through me".

However, *this is just my personal belief*  don't ask me to prove it  :laughing7:.;  but I believe those who "have no knowledge", have never heard the name of Jesus, etc., when confronted with Him and His love, will not have any long period of after-life correction/"punishment", but will almost instantly accept/believe Him as Savior.   :2c:

"However, *this is just my personal belief*  don't ask me to prove it  :laughing7:.;  but I believe those who "have no knowledge", have never heard the name of Jesus, etc., when confronted with Him and His love, will not have any long period of after-life correction/"punishment", but will almost instantly accept/believe Him as Savior.   :2c:" Jabcat

Very good, excellent.

[Molly]

That would mean those other people don't need Jesus for salvation because they are without sin. :dontknow:

It's an interesting discussion.  I believe we all need Jesus due to being born into sin.  Jesus said "I am the way, no one comes to the Father but through me".

However, *this is just my personal belief*  don't ask me to prove it  :laughing7:.;  but I believe those who "have no knowledge", have never heard the name of Jesus, etc., when confronted with Him and His love, will not have any long period of after-life correction/"punishment", but will almost instantly accept/believe Him as Savior.   :2c:

That's a (slightly) different thing.
Sin entered the world trough Adam. That means there was no sin before Adam. So imo those people don't need Jesus to wash away their sins. For me that's different from kneeling for Jesus to enter heaven. (but strongly related in most cases)
I asked this before in this thread but got no answer: What is the defenition of man according to the Bible?
I think the answer can be of importance. Are none Jews human according to OT standards?

Of course non Jews are human.  good grief.

Adam brought death and decay on all creation, not just humans, btw.

[micah7:9]

That would mean those other people don't need Jesus for salvation because they are without sin. :dontknow:

It's an interesting discussion.  I believe we all need Jesus due to being born into sin.  Jesus said "I am the way, no one comes to the Father but through me".

However, *this is just my personal belief*  don't ask me to prove it  :laughing7:.;  but I believe those who "have no knowledge", have never heard the name of Jesus, etc., when confronted with Him and His love, will not have any long period of after-life correction/"punishment", but will almost instantly accept/believe Him as Savior.   :2c:

That's a (slightly) different thing.
Sin entered the world trough Adam. That means there was no sin before Adam. So imo those people don't need Jesus to wash away their sins. For me that's different from kneeling for Jesus to enter heaven. (but strongly related in most cases)
I asked this before in this thread but got no answer: What is the defenition of man according to the Bible?
I think the answer can be of importance. Are none Jews human according to OT standards?

"So imo those people don't need Jesus to wash away their sins." WW I agree, but they do NEED Jesus to show them The Way, He is THE WAY. imo

Also I don't quite understand your questiion..." What is the defenition of man according to the Bible?
I think the answer can be of importance. Are none Jews human according to OT standards?"

[WhiteWings]

TT,

I agree the painting are often not of any historical use. I've even seen Jesus as someone with long blond hair. My guess is Jesus looked like a Jew He was. Adam being from the same region likely looked the same. I know where the Caucasian idea comes from.
One of the meaning of the (root word for) Adam is "to blush". That's something you see with white people but not with blacks.

Now the problem is that scriptures does not blame early man for death, but the blame goes to Adam.

True.

In Adam all die, but in christ all shall be made alive.

If we take that very strickt it means the other humans didn't die.
People aren't held accountable for things they don't know. Without laws no sins. Adam was the first person recieving a commandment from God. "Don't eat from that tree."
That would mean those other people don't need Jesus for salvation because they are without sin. :dontknow:

There i a scripture that deals with that scenario, where if there is no law then the penalty cannot be imputed. so if there was an early human races, that was subject to death, but there was no law, till Adam,

Exactly my point.

the scripture says that nevertheless death reigned.

They just died. That's different from sinning.

But the big problem is that if there was a creation of humanity before Adam, how can they be in Adam, how can they be saved?

What are they in terms of scripture?

Are we talking about neathandral man here? Or just humanity as is today with it's various distinct culture?

I think that's what the discussion is a about.
In the evolution theory species keep evolving and at a certain point they are called human. But why at that point? Why not for example IQ above 100? Or Hitlers idea of human and sub-human? There are so many ways to draw the line.
What makes an American an American? A piece of paper/plactic called passport. The convenant of the Americans so to speak.
So what about teh following statement?
"The difference between man and beast is a convenant."

[Molly]

And, for our purposes in this thread, we are asking, why the different words for men?

Some are called iysh, enosh and some are called sons of Adam.  Are they diferent groups?  I'd say yes, in that the generations of Adam lead directly to Jesus in an uninterrupted bloodline.

Maybe we first should find the defenition of mankind.

Not every mammal is human; but every human is mammal.
Not every man is Jew; but every Jew is man.
Not every man in gentile; but every gentile is man. Or not.....?

Let's assume Darwinian evolution is 100% correct. (which I don't think). According to that theory there are animals and humans. At some point in evolution there are animals that are almost human and the next mutation the animals officially became human. The criteria for that are not important for this discussion. The main point is that there is something that divides man from beast.
The Bible classifies whales as fish, while science classifies whales as mammals.
Maybe the Bible has a different defenition of man/beast too. For example a beast becomes man when it knows about God?
:dontknow:

They have never found Darwin's missing link, nor will they ever find it.

God's creation is digital not analogue.  Man is defined by his DNA and his very special brain.

[Molly]

I think that's what the discussion is a about.
In the evolution theory species keep evolving and at a certain point they are called human. But why at that point? Why not for example IQ above 100? Or Hitlers idea of human and sub-human? There are so many ways to draw the line.
What makes an American an American? A piece of paper/plactic called passport. The convenant of the Americans so to speak.
So what about teh following statement?
"The difference between man and beast is a convenant."

Now you see part of the evil that calls itself evolution.  which evil was employed by Hitler to justify his killing of all kinds of groups that he arbitrarily deemed inferior.

100 is the average IQ.  If you wipe out everyone under 100, you will have a new average which you might find is getting close to home.

[WhiteWings]

That would mean those other people don't need Jesus for salvation because they are without sin. :dontknow:

It's an interesting discussion.  I believe we all need Jesus due to being born into sin.  Jesus said "I am the way, no one comes to the Father but through me".

However, *this is just my personal belief*  don't ask me to prove it  :laughing7:.;  but I believe those who "have no knowledge", have never heard the name of Jesus, etc., when confronted with Him and His love, will not have any long period of after-life correction/"punishment", but will almost instantly accept/believe Him as Savior.   :2c:

That's a (slightly) different thing.
Sin entered the world trough Adam. That means there was no sin before Adam. So imo those people don't need Jesus to wash away their sins. For me that's different from kneeling for Jesus to enter heaven. (but strongly related in most cases)
I asked this before in this thread but got no answer: What is the defenition of man according to the Bible?
I think the answer can be of importance. Are none Jews human according to OT standards?

Of course non Jews are human.  good grief.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm not talking about today but around the time of Adam. I'm aware Adam was no Jew; it's just easier to explain that way. Read my previous posts and reconsider your answer to this post.
And again what's the difference between man and beast? Not just how God classified them but why.

[WhiteWings]

And, for our purposes in this thread, we are asking, why the different words for men?

Some are called iysh, enosh and some are called sons of Adam.  Are they diferent groups?  I'd say yes, in that the generations of Adam lead directly to Jesus in an uninterrupted bloodline.

Maybe we first should find the defenition of mankind.

Not every mammal is human; but every human is mammal.
Not every man is Jew; but every Jew is man.
Not every man in gentile; but every gentile is man. Or not.....?

Let's assume Darwinian evolution is 100% correct. (which I don't think). According to that theory there are animals and humans. At some point in evolution there are animals that are almost human and the next mutation the animals officially became human. The criteria for that are not important for this discussion. The main point is that there is something that divides man from beast.
The Bible classifies whales as fish, while science classifies whales as mammals.
Maybe the Bible has a different defenition of man/beast too. For example a beast becomes man when it knows about God?
:dontknow:

They have never found Darwin's missing link, nor will they ever find it.

God's creation is digital not analogue.  Man is defined by his DNA and his very special brain.

You keep picking apart the example but tactically avoid the question. Why?

[Molly]

I consider Adam to be the first modern man.  He looked just like us.  If you did an autopsy and dna test you would see no difference.

Were there others around before adam?  I see no scientific evidence of it, but maybe.

There is this whole hidden history movement going on these days.

The Genesis 1 man would be like Adam without the covenant [assuming he's a different group of men].  But he would still be man.

We see modern civilization blossoming out of nowhere in the region where Adam was created, about a 1000 years after the creation of Adam.

[Molly]

And, for our purposes in this thread, we are asking, why the different words for men?

Some are called iysh, enosh and some are called sons of Adam.  Are they diferent groups?  I'd say yes, in that the generations of Adam lead directly to Jesus in an uninterrupted bloodline.

Maybe we first should find the defenition of mankind.

Not every mammal is human; but every human is mammal.
Not every man is Jew; but every Jew is man.
Not every man in gentile; but every gentile is man. Or not.....?

Let's assume Darwinian evolution is 100% correct. (which I don't think). According to that theory there are animals and humans. At some point in evolution there are animals that are almost human and the next mutation the animals officially became human. The criteria for that are not important for this discussion. The main point is that there is something that divides man from beast.
The Bible classifies whales as fish, while science classifies whales as mammals.
Maybe the Bible has a different defenition of man/beast too. For example a beast becomes man when it knows about God?
:dontknow:

They have never found Darwin's missing link, nor will they ever find it.

God's creation is digital not analogue.  Man is defined by his DNA and his very special brain.

You keep picking apart the example but tactically avoid the question. Why?

If the question is---Do you have to be in covenant with God to be considered human,or man,  the answer is NO.

But, I would also say, that all men are by definition in covenant with God--be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth is a covenant.

[micah7:9]

I consider Adam to be the first modern man.  He looked just like us.  If you did an autopsy and dna test you would see no difference.

Were there others around before adam?  I see no scientific evidence of it, but maybe.

There is this whole hidden history movement going on these days.

The Genesis 1 man would be like Adam without the covenant [assuming he's a different group of men].  But he would still be man.

We see modern civilization blossoming out of nowhere in the region where Adam was created, about a 1000 years after the creation of Adam.

"I consider Adam to be the first modern man.  He looked just like us.  If you did an autopsy and dna test you would see no difference."

Is that your opinion? And should it be, how did you come that "He looked just like us."?
It is my opinion that would not be true, unless you mean had a nose, ears, mouth, eyes, torso, hands, and feet.... and if so
he may not look like me or you.
Have we, who believe the Bible, taken the "formed man from the dust of the ground," and made that what we think or reason that form to be? I mean we have run the "image and likeness" reasoning into a God who looks like us? Or visa versa?
I don't know, but it is my opinion that is just how we start to see things possibly incorrectly from the get go. Just my opinion and how i see it. :dontknow: :HeartThrob:

[Beloved Servant]

Adam before the "fall" and Adam after surely had a markedly different "appearance".

[Beloved Servant]

lol,
lines and wrinkles and gray hair.

Unfunny: hunger and thirst.

Oh YES! They were a changed man.

[Beloved Servant]

TIME HAD BEGUN !!!

(with a curse)

[Beloved Servant]

...and as good 'ol Nathan will tell us — The curse is reversed!

[Molly]

I mean we have run the "image and likeness" reasoning into a God who looks like us?

A God who looks like us?  Seen Jesus lately?

When I say Adam looked like us I mean he is homo sapiens sapiens, nor neanderthal or cro magnon, etc.

[micah7:9]

TIME HAD BEGUN !!!

(with a curse)

In my opinion, this was a milestone in time. In my opinion to say "time" had begun at that point would be saying that "In the beginning..." was out of time?

[Beloved Servant]

Adam shone with the glory of life within!
As Jesus Christ shines with the glory of life poured out!