In Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
In the NET it gives this word for husband
enowsh H582
Definition:
1) man, mortal man, person, mankind
1a) of an individual
1b) men (collective)
1c) man, mankind
In the KJV, NAS, NIV etc it gives
iysh H376
1) man
1a) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)
1b) husband
1c) human being, person (in contrast to God)
1d) servant
1e) mankind
1f) champion
1g) great man
2) whosoever
3) each (adjective)
H376 is a contracted form of H582
Which one is correct (if we can really know) and does it matter? is there a difference in what is being said, between she gave it to a man376, or mankind582. That seems to be the difference in the two general uses of the two words, although I could be wrong, it has happened once or twice before.
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:
The word also means 'husband' which is the word the translators chose.
Molly, do you know where else it is translated husband? it is husband 3 times, and without looking at all 500 instances (I don't know of a way to see where the word is translated husband), I'd like to see if that is really a correct translation. The reason I say that is the word iysh 376 seems like the better choice for husband, corresponding to the female ishshah H802. I could see why they would use 376 instead of 582, but that may not be correct, and that may tell us something.
A note; the word 582 comes from anash H605 weak, sick, frail, incurable
Here is one example
Jer 17:9 The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
I'm not sure what your question is RHM.
H376 is a frequently used word for husband.
582 is the word in question here. KJV, NAS have 376 in genesis 3:6. NET has 582 in the same spot, and has it listed in its Hebrew. My first question was which is the correct word there.
Oh I don't know.
H376 is the word for husband in E-sword in the Gen verse.
H 582 is the root.
83אישׁ ('ysh). Assumed root of the following.
83aאִישׁ ('ı̂sh) man, mankind, champion,great man, husband, person, whatsoever, whosoever. (ASV, RSV similar.)
The word 'ı̂sh connotes primarily the concept of man as an individual and thus differs in that regard from the more general concepts inherent in the words 'ĕnôsh and 'ādām ("mankind").
Two possible roots have been suggested for the word, 'nsh and 'ysh ('wsh). If from the latter, the word 'ı̂sh may be related to the Akkadian ishānu meaning "strong."
The word is used variously in the ot. Most commonly it denotes any individual male. Less frequently it has the more specific connotation of "male," emphasizing the male sex, as distinct from the female sex (Ex 35:29; Lev 13:29; II Chr 15:13) or man in his sexual role ("to know a man," Gen 19:8, etc.). Characteristically this is zākār.
It is used in many technical expressions such as "man of the earth" (Gen 9:20) meaning "farmer," "man of the field," connoting a hunter (Gen 25:27) and "man of God," referring to a prophet (Deut 33:1, etc.).
Frequently the word functions as an individualizing element connoting the concept "each" as in "each person" (Gen 10:5). It also functions in a broadly inclusive sense meaning "whoever" (Lev 15:5).
One of the most common usages of 'ı̂sh is in the sense of "husband." The word begins to achieve significance in this sense first in Gen 2:23–24 where the origin of woman is described. While the derivation of 'ishshâ from 'ish suggested by this passage is difficult philologi-cally (there may be no more than a word play), there is no question that the words "This ... is bone of my bones ... She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man" (v. 23), communicate a close and intimate relationship that Adam could not find apart from one who shared his own station and nature; indeed, his own life. It reflects God's desire to provide man with a companion who would be his intellectual and physical counterpart. The permanency intended in the relationship is expressed in the assertion that man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife.
A husband could divorce his wife under certain conditions (Deut 24:1–4) but divorce was not encouraged (Mal 2:16; Jer 3:1).
The relationship of husband to wife is used as a metaphor of God's relationship to his people. This relationship is the basis of assurance for the people of God in the book of Hosea where the marriage relationship forms a central motif (see Hos 2:16).
Man possesses great individual worth in the ot, for anyone who murders a man is himself to be put to death (Lev 24:17). God observes the ways of men (Job 34:21; Prov 5:21) and the invitation of wisdom goes out to all men (Prov 8:4) demonstrating God's concern for the individual.
As with 'ĕnôsh a distinction obtains between God and man. Balaam observed that God was not man that he should lie (Num 23:19).
Bibliography: Hallevy, Raphael, "Man of God," JNES 17:237–44. Hoffner, H. A., "Symbols for Masculinity and Femininity," JBL 85:326–34. May, Herbert G., "Individual Responsibility and Retribution," HUCA 32:107–20. TDOT, I, pp. 222–35. THAT, I, pp. 130–37.
T.E.M.
iysh is in the Hebrew text.
thanks WW
Why, why would that one word be changed so many times if there is not something to know? I just feel in my opinion there is more there. :dontknow: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: redhotmagma on November 14, 2011, 12:55:19 AM
thanks WW
I think it doesn't solve any problems.
83a
אִישׁ (
'ı̂sh) man, mankind, champion,great man, husband, person, whatsoever, whosoever. (ASV, RSV similar.)
The word 'ı̂sh connotes primarily the concept of man as an individual and thus differs in that regard from the more general concepts inherent in the words 'ĕnôsh and 'ādām ("mankind").
Husband in Gen 3:6
likely refers to one man according to scholars. But it
can also mean mankind that's usually translated from adam or enosh. According to the same scholars "man/adam" in Gen 3:8 means just one man but the Hebrew word usually refers to more than one person. Mankind.
25
[/color]אדם ('[/color]dm) I. Assumed root of the following.
25a
אָדָם ('[/font]ādām) man, mankind, Adam.
25b
אֲדָמָה ('[/font]ădāmâ) ground, land.
'ādām. Man, mankind; also human (adj.), someone (indef.); Adam (the first man). The ASV and RSV translate the same with notable exceptions. In Job 31:33 the RSV obscures the reference to Adam. Although the etymology of 'ādām cannot be explained with certainty (cf.TDOT. I, p. 78). the word probably relates to the original ruddiness of man's complexion (cf. F. Maas, 'ādāmTDOT, I, pp. 78–79). This word for man has to do with man as being in God's image, the crown of creation. It should be distinguished from 'ı̂sh (man as opposite of woman, or as man distinguished in his manliness), 'ĕnôsh (man as weak and vulnerable), geber (man as mighty and noble), and mĕtı̂m. Ugaritic 'adm normally means "people," and is parallel to l'im, or is used in the appellation 'ab'adm, "father of mankind." 'ādām occurs exclusively in the singular absolute, 562 times.
'ādām also refers to generic man as the image of God and the crown of creation or is a personal name. Hence in Gen 1–3 it is the word usually used for man. (In later passages of Scripture it is difficult to distinguish in meaning from 'ı̂sh.) Here, man is distinct from the rest of creation in that: he was created by special and solemn divine counsel (Gen 1:26); his creation was an immediate act of God; he was created after the divine type; he was created with two distinct elements (Gen 2:7); he was placed in an exalted position (Gen 1:28); he was intended for a still higher (in the sense of a permanent and fulfilled) position. Hence, man (as 'ādām) was the crown of creation. Genesis 1 sets forth 'ādām as the goal and vice-regent of creation, while Gen 2 shows how the creation was formed as the scene of man's activity, i.e. it was formed around 'ādām. In the first three chapters of Gen there is a wordplay on man, mankind, and the first man "Adam." 'ādām connotes man in the image of God as to: soul or spirit (indicating man's essential simplicity, spirituality, invisibility, immortality), physical powers or faculties (the intellect and will with their functions), intellectual and moral integrity (true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness), body (as a fit organ of the soul sharing its immortality, and as the means through which man exercises his dominion), and dominion over the lower creation.
The image of God in man has been much discussed. Engnell, Wildberger, and von Rad refer it to man's dominion over the non-human world. Humbert and Koehler contend that it indicates man's external form, which seems inappropriate in view of the repeated assertion of God's spirituality. Brunner, Kierkegaard, and Berkhouwer think it refers to man's exceptional relationship with God. F. Horst declares that man is a creature who "hears the word of God, speaks to God in prayer and obeys him in service" (TDOT, I, p. 85). In contrast to these somewhat neo-orthodox approachesthe image of God in the narrow sense refers to man as a rational-moral creature (cf.Deut 4:10–12). Significantly God's first words to man are both a command and a prohibition (Gen 2:16–17); man alone is responsible for his decision, man alone determines his destiny by volitional choice, and only man is judged as righteous or sinful by God's law. An older biblical theology holds that the "divine likeness is rather to be referred to the whole dignity of man in virtue of which human nature is sharply distinguished from that of the beasts; man as a free being is set over nature, and designed to hold communion with God, and to be his representative on earth" (G. F. Oehler, Old Testament Theology). Payne remarks that "the terms 'image' and 'likeness' ... are used interchangeably. ...The image thus connotes 'freedom' and 'blessedness', as it reflects within man the cosmic, ethical and beneficent sovereignty of the Testator himself. ...The divine image thus implies all the various aspects of God's reflected glory and honor. ...It may be defined, in summary, as the totality of man's higher powers that distinguish him from brute creation" (PTOT, p. '227). The apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus says of the creation of man: he "made them according to his image, and put the fear of man upon all flesh, and gave him dominion over beasts and fowls. Counsel and a tongue, and eyes, ears, and a heart, gave he them to understand. Withal he filled them with the knowledge of understanding, and showed them good and evil ... and they shall praise his holy name, that they may search out his marvellous works" (Eccles 17:3-9).
Even after the fall 'ādām is used of man! The image of God is still the central distinction. Hence, murder is an attack on the image of God (Gen 9:6). However, the fall lowered man's position before God (Gen 6:5–6; 8:21), ruptured his communion with God, and brought the curse of death on him so that he did not fulfill his intended exaltation. That part of the divine image consisting of true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness was destroyed. Only in and by Christ, the new Adam (Rom 5:12–21), can the original divine promise be realized.
'ădāmâ. Ground, land, earth. The ASV and RSV reflect the difficulties in deciding which of the English words to use in translation. Originally this word signified the red arable soil. From this it came to denote any cultivated, plantable ground and/or landed property. At times it approaches the meaning "home country" (see especially Jon 4:2), but probably not in a political sense (however, Isa 14:2; 19:17, and especially Ezekiel's almost exclusive "land of Israel," et al.). One should compare and distinguish 'ereṣ "earth, land," and 'āpār, "dry earth, dust." Also, contrast ḥelqâ "portion, field," yabbāshâ "dry land, dry ground," and śādeh "field, land, open country." 'ădāmâ occurs 224 times.
The Bible makes much of the relationship between man ('ādām) and the ground ('ădāmâ). That this might be vivid in the mind of the reader we will transliterate the words in the following discussion. Initially, God made 'ādām out of the 'ădāmâ to till the 'ădāmâ (Gen 3:23, to bring forth life?). The 'ădāmâ was God's possession and under his care (Gen 2:6). Thus, the first 'ādām (the man, Adam) and his family were to act as God's servants by obeying him in maintaining the divinely created and intended relationships vertically and horizontally. As long as this condition was sustained God caused the 'ădāmâ to give its fruitfulness (blessing) to 'ādām.
Then came sin. The unit 'ādām (Adam and Eve; see also Rom 5:12) violated the created structure. The 'ădāmâ, henceforth, brought forth thorns and thistles rather than freely giving fruit (Gen 3:17). Since 'ādām had disrupted the paradisiacal life-producing state, he was driven off the paradisiacal 'ădāmâ and sentenced to return to the 'ădāmâ (Gen 3:19). He was driven to it rather than it being given to him. He was to go down rather than up. His life moved in and toward death rather than in and toward life. However, the gracious Creator did not completely destroy 'ādām. He promised to bring forth from 'ādām a lifegiver (Gen 3:15). As a token of that promise the Creator caused the 'ădāmâ to give of its fruit (blessing) to 'ādām (note the curse on Cain, Gen 4:12,14, whereby the 'ădāmâ was no longer to give its strength to him). Because of disobedience 'ādām received a curse from the 'ădāmâ rather than life. Thus, we see that 'ādām/'ădāmâare deeply involved in the pattern creation-fall-redemption.
This pattern is repeated throughout the ot. After the flood God said he would never again curse the 'ădāmâ because of 'ādām(Gen 8:21). He made a new covenant (creation) with Noah (Gen 9:1–17) who became the father of 'ādām (since only Noah and his immediate family were in the ark, Gen 7:7). Noah became a tiller of the 'ădāmâ (Gen 9:20), and God blessed his efforts. However, Noah sinned. In Abraham the promise (redemption) given by God through Noah to Shem emerges in the form of Paradise regained, i.e. the promised land ('ădāmâGen 28:14–15).
In the Mosaic legislation God gives the 'ădāmâ or takes it away according to the obedience of his people (Lev 20:24). Its fruitfulness depends upon their obedience (Deut 11:17). Solomon repeats this creation-fall-redemption pattern around 'ādām/'ădāmâ (I Kgs 8:34, 40). This cycle governs the history of Israel (I Kgs 13:34; 14:15; II Kgs 21:8; 25:21). Nehemiah recognizes the same theological pattern (Neh 10:37 [H 38]).
In the eschaton God will change the inner constitution of 'ādām (fully restore the divine image) so as to eliminate the possibility of a fall and assure eternal possession of the 'ădāmâ which yields its fruit freely (Ezk 36:25–30; cf.Jer 31:33–34; II Cor 5:17; Heb 8:8–12)—the return to the garden of Eden (Ezk 36:35).
Bibliography: Asselin, David Tobin, "The Notion of Dominion in Genesis 1–3," CBQ 16:277–94. Bloom, Alfred, "Human Rights in Israel's Thought," Interp 8:422–32. DeFraine, J., "Individue et Societe dans la Religion de I'Ancien Testament," Bib 33:324–55, 445–75. Koehler, Ludwig, Hebrew Man, Abingdon, 1957. May, Herbert G., "Individual Responsibility and Retribution," HUCA 32:107–20. Oehler, G. F., Old Testament Theology, Funk & Wagnall, 1883, pp. 146-47. Payne, J. Barton, Theology of the Older Testament, pp. 221–31. Porter, J. R., "The Legal Aspects of the Concept of 'Corporate Personality' in the Old Testament," VT 15:361–80. Richardson, TWB, pp. 14–15. Thomas, D. W., ed., Archaeology and Old Testament Study, Oxford:Clarendon, 1967. Wright, J. Stafford, Man in the Process of' Time, Eerdmans, 1956. TDOT, I, pp. 75–87, 88–98. THAT, I, pp. 41–56, 57–59.L.J.C.
Note that the scholars use "possible", "likely", "assumed" and "unknown" quite often when giving defenitions for adam/enosh/Ish
It's so vague word meanings are of little use to prove anything. Genesis 3:6 and Genesis 3:8 are proof of that. The verses are about the same Adam and Eve, but if we take the most likely meaning of the Hebrew word Eve was married to 1 man in verse 6 and to every male on the planet in verse 8.
Luckily there was only 1 man on the whole planet so 1 man equals mankind :winkgrin:
Alternative view
Mankind created on day 6. Adam created on day 8.
- http://www.biblestudysite.com/creation.htm
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/pers01.htm
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 14, 2011, 05:21:50 PM
Alternative view
Mankind created on day 6. Adam created on day 8.
- http://www.biblestudysite.com/creation.htm
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/pers01.htm
Two seperate creation events in gen 1 and gen 2 and Adam is the 8th day man.
Of course I've been saying this for years, but does anyone listen to me?
noooooooooo :laughing7:
I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.
Thanks for those links wings.
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.
There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.
QuoteThanks for those links wings.
At your service Sir Tank :hihat:
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 14, 2011, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.
There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.
QuoteThanks for those links wings.
At your service Sir Tank :hihat:
By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.
I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.
I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.
Days are very flexible.... Day can also be an era. http://www.fossilmuseum.net/PaleobiologyVFM.htm
Imo the 1 day is a 1000 years starts when Adam is created.
The part about the 7th day being a gap was just a little joke.
If there is really a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 it's can't be the 7th day because several days follow that gap. Not just one.
At best the gap is part of day 1.
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 08:21:04 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 14, 2011, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.
There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.
QuoteThanks for those links wings.
At your service Sir Tank :hihat:
By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.
I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.
I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.
Gap theory is something else.
ww's link is talking about how Gen 1 and Gen 2 are looking at two different creations.
That God rests on the 7th day, and on the 8th day he creates Adam [having already created man on the 6th day].
In other words, Adam is not the first man, he is the first covenant man, created to tend and keep God's garden.
The first set apart man, set apart in the garden of God.
Quote from: Molly on November 14, 2011, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 08:21:04 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 14, 2011, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.
There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.
QuoteThanks for those links wings.
At your service Sir Tank :hihat:
By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.
I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.
I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.
Gap theory is something else.
ww's link is talking about how Gen 1 and Gen 2 are looking at two different creations.
That God rests on the 7th day, and on the 8th day he creates Adam [having already created man on the 6th day].
In other words, Adam is not the first man, he is the first covenant man, created to tend and keep God's garden.
The first set apart man, set apart in the garden of God.
:sigh: but thats just me :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Molly on November 14, 2011, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 08:21:04 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 14, 2011, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.
There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.
QuoteThanks for those links wings.
At your service Sir Tank :hihat:
By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.
I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.
I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.
Gap theory is something else.
ww's link is talking about how Gen 1 and Gen 2 are looking at two different creations.
That God rests on the 7th day, and on the 8th day he creates Adam [having already created man on the 6th day].
In other words, Adam is not the first man, he is the first covenant man, created to tend and keep God's garden.
The first set apart man, set apart in the garden of God.
Yeah I know I looked at the website. I remember writing about this issue about a year ago, but I could not find any material on the subject.
I'm not sure though what kind of creation the links are talking about in Genesis 6.
The theory I presented was that mankind of Genesis 6 was a spirit being and Adam was Gods first physical creation of the Earth.
I showed scriptural evidence of how the natural laws did not follow suit, as science currently defines them, so I reasoned that the creation concerning before Adam was a spiritual kingdom, that did not follow laws of nature, due the their spiritual element of being outside of the laws of physics
But with this website I'm not sure what kind of human being he presents mankind as, I think he's looks upon them as physical flesh, which makes his theory slightly different to mine.
Quote from: thinktank on November 15, 2011, 12:31:17 AM
Quote from: Molly on November 14, 2011, 09:14:24 PM
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 08:21:04 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 14, 2011, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: thinktank on November 14, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
I don't remember you saying anything about the 8th day creation, when I presented my findings. I remember heard you arguing about the gap theory though.
There is a "gap" between the sixth and eighth day. Often called the seventh day :winkgrin:
The duration, reason and events during that gap is a different discussion.
QuoteThanks for those links wings.
At your service Sir Tank :hihat:
By Gap theory I mean between gen 1 and gen 1.2, where something happened between creation and the darkness.
I believe that gap theory is a term that mostly is ascribed to this.
I'm not familiar with the gap you speak of between 6 and 8. That God rested on the 7th day, I assume that 6th day creation continues living for 1000 years, until God decided to create Adam the first man, which would be the 8th day, but since there is no record of numbers, that day could be the 12th day or any day after 7.
Gap theory is something else.
ww's link is talking about how Gen 1 and Gen 2 are looking at two different creations.
That God rests on the 7th day, and on the 8th day he creates Adam [having already created man on the 6th day].
In other words, Adam is not the first man, he is the first covenant man, created to tend and keep God's garden.
The first set apart man, set apart in the garden of God.
Yeah I know I looked at the website. I remember writing about this issue about a year ago, but I could not find any material on the subject.
I'm not sure though what kind of creation the links are talking about in Genesis 6.
The theory I presented was that mankind of Genesis 6 was a spirit being and Adam was Gods first physical creation of the Earth.
I showed scriptural evidence of how the natural laws did not follow suit, as science currently defines them, so I reasoned that the creation concerning before Adam was a spiritual kingdom, that did not follow laws of nature, due the their spiritual element of being outside of the laws of physics
But with this website I'm not sure what kind of human being he presents mankind as, I think he's looks upon them as physical flesh, which makes his theory slightly different to mine.
Yeah. There's more than one way to look at it. I think they all are profitable, for their own purposes.
I like the one with Genesis 1 man being created before Adam the best because it, combined with the gap theory, makes the most sense to me from a scientific point of view.
But, all the different ways of looking at those first three chapters are very interesting.
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.
The Book is about these sons of Adam, --they are the [human] stars of the story.
Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Okay, from what I can gather it is this "eth haa Aadam" of Gen.1:27 that in my opinion seems to be causing something to stir up.
Now I have listened to this fella out of Gravette, Arkansas, a pastor Murray of Shepards Chapel, and he is very adamant that there is a great deal of difference to the Gen.2:7 man,
using 2Pe 3:5 for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by the word of God,
2Pe 3:6 through which the then world, by water having been deluged, was destroyed; as his basis,
Mr. Murray, when he speaks of this is very racist in his oration, that is one reason I find him well, very unreliable to say the least.
What I would like to know is just what is the opinion of "eth haa Aadam" as pertaining to what of we speak, as the man of 1:27 and 2:7?
Thank you. :HeartThrob: I for one find the idea of an 8th day man somewhat reaching and quite a stretch of the imagination, this is only my opinion of course. :icon_flower: :cloud9:
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 01:07:40 AMAnd, 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:
Quote from: micah7:9 on November 13, 2011, 09:27:48 PM
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. :(
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.
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.
QuoteNow the problem is that scriptures does not blame early man for death, but the blame goes to Adam.
True.
QuoteIn 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:
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
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:
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
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.
QuoteNow the problem is that scriptures does not blame early man for death, but the blame goes to Adam.
True.
QuoteIn 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?
Quote from: thinktank on November 15, 2011, 08:27:58 PM
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.
Quote from: jabcat on November 15, 2011, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
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?
Quote from: jabcat on November 15, 2011, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
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.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 10:53:00 PM
Quote from: jabcat on November 15, 2011, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
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.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 10:53:00 PM
Quote from: jabcat on November 15, 2011, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
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?"
Quote from: thinktank on November 15, 2011, 09:56:14 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
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.
QuoteNow the problem is that scriptures does not blame early man for death, but the blame goes to Adam.
True.
QuoteIn 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.
Quotethe scripture says that nevertheless death reigned.
They just died. That's different from sinning.
QuoteBut 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."
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 09:15:16 AM
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 01:07:40 AMAnd, 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.
Quote from: wwI 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.
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 10:57:56 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 10:53:00 PM
Quote from: jabcat on November 15, 2011, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 11:04:42 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 09:15:16 AM
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 01:07:40 AMAnd, 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?
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.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 11:15:03 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 11:04:42 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 09:15:16 AM
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 01:07:40 AMAnd, 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.
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 11:20:59 PM
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:
Adam before the "fall" and Adam after surely had a markedly different "appearance".
lol,
lines and wrinkles and gray hair.
Unfunny: hunger and thirst.
Oh YES! They were a changed man.
TIME HAD BEGUN !!!
(with a curse)
...and as good 'ol Nathan will tell us — The curse is reversed!
Quote from: MicahI 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.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on November 16, 2011, 01:00:13 AM
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?
Adam shone with the glory of life within!
As Jesus Christ shines with the glory of life poured out!
Quote from: micah7:9 on November 16, 2011, 01:44:34 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on November 16, 2011, 01:00:13 AM
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?
The descent of time.
Time can "stand still".
...ask Joshua!
Quote from: Molly on November 16, 2011, 01:40:13 AM
Quote from: MicahI 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.
Adam was a human being (homo sapien,) now as for my opinion, sounds good. :thumbsup:
"A God who looks like us? Seen Jesus lately?"
I am only going by how Gen.1:26-27 reads for that statement.
Now, "Seen Jesus lately?"...... I have to honestly say no I have not "seen" Jesus lately, unless you speak of when I woke up, stood out side and breathed stuff like that.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on November 16, 2011, 01:47:33 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on November 16, 2011, 01:44:34 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on November 16, 2011, 01:00:13 AM
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?
The descent of time.
Time can "stand still".
Yes that is true, but what has that have to do with your statement that "time has begun." And I have read about Joshua and time standing still and I believe it! :thumbsup: :bigGrin:
well.. until then, Adam could not have died; He walked with the Lord in the mist.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on November 16, 2011, 02:27:11 AM
well.. until then, Adam could not have died; He walked with the Lord in the mist.
That my friend is just beautifully said and wonderful words. "He walked with the Lord in the mist." I just wish that I was the song smith the Lord had blessed me with when I was somewhat younger, but still my brother, may I try without any fear of liable? Should the song or poem gain monetary success, I would not hold back on the royalties! :bigGrin: I am as serious as I hopefully bring about humor. That all said,
"Adam could not have died; he walked with the Lord in the midst." Is it so filled with a powerful and spiritual push for me. (for it is just my opinion.)
Have you ever heard the phrase: That's a good idea!
Ya' well.
That's all it took.
Mist gone.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on November 16, 2011, 03:44:08 AM
Have you ever heard the phrase: That's a good idea!
Ya' well.
That's all it took.
Mist gone.
I do not know what you said?
In the same way that Jesus is the last man, maybe Adam is the first man. Jesus isn't the last man to ever live, in our physical time-space. He is the last representative man. Maybe in the same way Adam is the first representative man. There could have been many other men, created as is, or evolved, maybe at the point where they come to "human" is when God forms adam and puts Him in the garden. As a head, or ideal man, that we rise or fall with.
Quote from: micah7:9 on November 16, 2011, 05:03:20 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on November 16, 2011, 03:44:08 AM
Have you ever heard the phrase: That's a good idea!
Ya' well.
That's all it took.
Mist gone.
I do not know what you said?
The length of "time" that Adam walked in the Garden with God was no more than a split-second.
"I think therefore I am."
Okay I get it, you don't believe that the Lord God walked with Adam after he breathed the breath of life into His formed man, after man disobeyed, is that what you mean?
ummm...Nope!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqAhREiKQGg
Without the breath of God we are dust...until we are in Him.
FREEDOM!
wow...awesome...thanks for sharing :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on November 16, 2011, 07:36:55 AM
ummm...Nope!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqAhREiKQGg
Without the breath of God we are dust...until we are in Him.
FREEDOM!
I will remain oblivious as usual :HeartThrob:
:icon_flower:
The Lord declaring the END= Adam [Image of GOD]GEN 1 "FROM" the BEGINNING= GOD ""CREATED"".... by"moving upon" that which was "without form and void"... CONFORMING US "into" THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, who is THE IMAGE OF GOD!! ~ Christ the ALPHA and Omega~
The creation process from the First ADAM made of the EARTH=Gen 2 unto the The Image Gen 1 ~Christ the FIRST AND LAST ADAM= Beginning and END~HE WHO CALLS those things which ARE NOT (yet) - AS THOUGH THEY ARE
:icon_flower:
Quote from: Taffy on November 16, 2011, 03:18:00 PM
:icon_flower:
The Lord declaring the END= Adam [Image of GOD]GEN 1 "FROM" the BEGINNING= GOD ""CREATED"".... by"moving upon" that which was "without form and void"... CONFORMING US "into" THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, who is THE IMAGE OF GOD!! ~ Christ the ALPHA and Omega~
The creation process from the First ADAM made of the EARTH=Gen 2 unto the The Image Gen 1 ~Christ the FIRST AND LAST ADAM= Beginning and END~HE WHO CALLS those things which ARE NOT (yet) - AS THOUGH THEY ARE
:icon_flower:
:cloud9: :thumbsup:
:thumbsup:..isn't the word 'void' a lot like vanity?
Quote from: sheila on November 16, 2011, 05:07:14 PM
:thumbsup:..isn't the word 'void' a lot like vanity?
:icon_flower:
MAN made Subject to Vanity~ :icon_flower:
Quote from: sheila on November 16, 2011, 05:07:14 PM
:thumbsup:..isn't the word 'void' a lot like vanity?
bohua vacuity, that is, an indistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void
tohu to lie waste, a desolation, desert, a worthless thing, adverbially in vain, confusion, an empty place
And the earth was tohu and bohu, without form and void; Gen 1:2
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 11:04:06 PM
Quote from: thinktank on November 15, 2011, 09:56:14 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
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.
QuoteNow the problem is that scriptures does not blame early man for death, but the blame goes to Adam.
True.
QuoteIn 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.
Quotethe scripture says that nevertheless death reigned.
They just died. That's different from sinning.
QuoteBut 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."
The Jews talk about the Abrahamic covenant, rarely if ever do you hear Jews talk about the Adam covenant. It is the covenant with Abraham that brought forth Israel the blessing that would bring forth the messiah.
I believe the difference between man and beast is that beasts are similar to Adam, taken from the ground - the earth and breathed into.
But humanity are made in Gods image and have his life giving spirit, so are able to compose music and create art, tools, etc.
So in a sense Adam was downgraded from a spirit being, into a natural earthy being as the animals, his spiritual nature veiled by the flesh, but retains some of it's characterisitics. Maybe that's why Adam and Eve failed the test, because their perfect spirit was veiled by the limitations of the senses of the flesh/soul, and the seductive charm of the fruit and the enticement by Eve, was to much for Adam to resist.
When it comes to the variety of races and how is is possible for one race(Adam/Eve) to produce so much variety, the answer could be something I thought of the other day.
The Tower of babel!.
What's the obvious thing that seperates races?
language!. At the tower of babel God seperated humanity. This I believe is strong scriptural evidence of the birthing of the variety of races we have today.
Genesis 11
1And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
Same language and even the same speech(accent)
4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
God desires that men are seperated. So if God clearly seperates language, maybe skin colour and features as well, so that humanity is seperated by Gods hand. This indeed has seperated mankind throughout history, it is only recently that mankind have began communication between cultures on a massive scale, as the end is the begining, as we return to the days of babylon, building towers to heaven, space stations etc, as Jesus said as in the day of Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of man be.
" So in a sense Adam was downgraded from a spirit being,........"
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.
Quote from: micah7:9 on November 16, 2011, 10:10:47 PM
" So in a sense Adam was downgraded from a spirit being,........"
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.
I hear you with your point of view, I think it has merit. But when I take this scripture
Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
I see that humanity took part of flesh and blood, just like Adam the spirit man became a living creature and Jesus the only begotten Son of God who likewise took part of the same. So to me the scripture 1 co 15:45 is talking about Adam the first natural man, as opposed to Adamkind or humanity, male and female created he (spirits men)them.
Perhaps the combination is that the first human spirits were alive spiritually, but dead souls. Adam becomes the first living soul. Not quite sure what a soul is, but it is spoken of in the bible as distinct from the spirit in man, I think my instincts is that soul is human experience.
so when saul died his flesh and blood died, but his spirit kept on living.
But I see there are almost conflicting patterns in the bible, where it seems evil men can continue to be unclean spirits, but maybe others simply sleep in the dust. I perceive perhaps it is a choice. That a person without Jesus can either sleep in the dust or wander about as fugitives upon the earth, waiting for the judgment- Job
Well in my opinion your way of reasoning is in conflict as to what the Bible is very clear on. Paul said it as plain as plain can be put to paper 1Co 15:46 but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.
Should you, IMHO desire to think that it/man/adam/human being was spirit first, then ok.
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
--Eph 1:4
How were we chosen if we didn't exist?
Something to consider about the "natural first, then the spiritual"; that likely can't be talking about each and every situation without exception. I haven't studied it out, but I think there must be context to take into account? Because otherwise, an example might be, that would mean God could not have existed first - because He IS Spirit... However, in the beginning, God..
Hey, ya'll, in my opinion, should all of you need to have the spirit first before the natural and, in my opinion, consider what Paul stated as not to be so, well then there you go. The way I see it from my opinion and view you desire something to be what the Bible says it aint. And if this thought and thinking "How were we chosen if we didn't exist?" keeps you up at night, then from my point of view and in my opinion, you will probably not sleep well. :HeartThrob: :icon_flower: :cloud9: :bigGrin:
Quote from: micah7:9 on November 17, 2011, 12:47:45 AM
Well in my opinion your way of reasoning is in conflict as to what the Bible is very clear on. Paul said it as plain as plain can be put to paper 1Co 15:46 but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.
Should you, IMHO desire to think that it/man/adam/human being was spirit first, then ok.
What about Jesus?
Spirit --> Man ---> Spirit
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 11:24:04 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 11:15:03 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 11:04:42 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 15, 2011, 09:15:16 AM
Quote from: Molly on November 15, 2011, 01:07:40 AMAnd, 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.
Another approach. What's the Biblical difference between man and beast?
BTW I use the words Jew and convenant very loosely because for example during Adam's time there were no Jews.
Quote from: micah7:9 on November 17, 2011, 02:31:21 AM
Hey, ya'll, in my opinion, should all of you need to have the spirit first before the natural and, in my opinion, consider what Paul stated as not to be so, well then there you go. The way I see it from my opinion and view you desire something to be what the Bible says it aint. And if this thought and thinking "How were we chosen if we didn't exist?" keeps you up at night, then from my point of view and in my opinion, you will probably not sleep well. :HeartThrob: :icon_flower: :cloud9: :bigGrin:
I wasn't going to say anything, but since you started it. I feel that you hold dogmatically to your position. So far you have reiterated the same scripture without any wisdom/material to offer, you remind me, pardon me of the ET ist who quotes certain scriptures over again. You have not tempted to understand what I wrote or others, because you have no interest at all in the concept of man being a spirit, or perhaps the entire idea of there being, other spirit beings apart from God, which you also dismiss. I have wrote a lot of material with scientific reason and scriptural wisdom as to my position, I think it is a strong position, dare I say stronger than yours.
May the joy of the Lord be with you.
Quote from: wwAnother approach. What's the Biblical difference between man and beast?
This is one of those 'buttons' for me, so I don't tend to handle the question very well.
But, I think I understand what you are asking when I come back from the stratosphere.
I know a lot of leaders throughout history have considered men [other than themselves, of course] just animals, cattle, beasts of burden, and not human [as they themselves are human, of course]. This attitude has showered tragedy after tragedy upon the human race.
Nevertheless, this is why Gen 1 is so important, that man was created in the image and likeness of God, just so those in charge know who they are really dealing with when they deal with man.
And, this is why it's so important to them to convince us we are just glorified monkeys.
1 Cor 15;45,46
BUT...the first shall be last,and the last shall be first....I am the Alpha and Omega
Quote from: Molly on November 17, 2011, 07:54:26 PM
Quote from: wwAnother approach. What's the Biblical difference between man and beast?
This is one of those 'buttons' for me, so I don't tend to handle the question very well.
Perhaps because you didn't understand the question. :icon_king:
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 19, 2011, 09:59:36 AM
Quote from: Molly on November 17, 2011, 07:54:26 PM
Quote from: wwAnother approach. What's the Biblical difference between man and beast?
This is one of those 'buttons' for me, so I don't tend to handle the question very well.
Perhaps because you didn't understand the question. :icon_king:
In the bible a beast can be eaten, but not a human.
Quote from: thinktank on November 20, 2011, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 19, 2011, 09:59:36 AM
Quote from: Molly on November 17, 2011, 07:54:26 PM
Quote from: wwAnother approach. What's the Biblical difference between man and beast?
This is one of those 'buttons' for me, so I don't tend to handle the question very well.
Perhaps because you didn't understand the question. :icon_king:
In the bible a beast can be eaten, but not a human.
True; but the question is: What is a human?
For example is a Cro Mag or Neandertahl a human?
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 21, 2011, 10:56:41 AM
Quote from: thinktank on November 20, 2011, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 19, 2011, 09:59:36 AM
Quote from: Molly on November 17, 2011, 07:54:26 PM
Quote from: wwAnother approach. What's the Biblical difference between man and beast?
This is one of those 'buttons' for me, so I don't tend to handle the question very well.
Perhaps because you didn't understand the question. :icon_king:
In the bible a beast can be eaten, but not a human.
True; but the question is: What is a human?
For example is a Cro Mag or Neandertahl a human?
Well their human imagination perhaps :icon_jokercolor:
How many skeletons of these have they found?
If neathandral existed, they would be similar to a gorilla. Gorilla has rights.
Quote from: thinktank on November 21, 2011, 06:47:59 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 21, 2011, 10:56:41 AM
Quote from: thinktank on November 20, 2011, 09:55:08 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 19, 2011, 09:59:36 AM
Quote from: Molly on November 17, 2011, 07:54:26 PM
Quote from: wwAnother approach. What's the Biblical difference between man and beast?
This is one of those 'buttons' for me, so I don't tend to handle the question very well.
Perhaps because you didn't understand the question. :icon_king:
In the bible a beast can be eaten, but not a human.
True; but the question is: What is a human?
For example is a Cro Mag or Neandertahl a human?
Well their human imagination perhaps :icon_jokercolor:
How many skeletons of these have they found?
If neathandral existed, they would be similar to a gorilla. Gorilla has rights.
You can't trust anything these 'scientists' say.
The people who started the theory of evolution created a 50 year hoax called the piltdown man, and they have been lying their heads off ever since.
There is a difference between finding things and using it as proof for evolution.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 22, 2011, 11:26:12 AM
There is a difference between finding things and using it as proof for evolution.
So you think they have found many skeletons? only use one or two as proof?
Maybe those skeletons are simply deformed human skeletons. Very possible considering the range of deformities that exist.
Quote from: thinktank on November 22, 2011, 07:41:45 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 22, 2011, 11:26:12 AM
There is a difference between finding things and using it as proof for evolution.
So you think they have found many skeletons? only use one or two as proof?
They have found zero missing links. All so called missing links have proved to be mistakes or big fraud.
QuoteMaybe those skeletons are simply deformed human skeletons. Very possible considering the range of deformities that exist.
Could be. But not in all cases.
There is more than one type of evolution. The Darwinian type seems to be the only one known to most people. Dawin was wrong. Others (like haeckel) have turned it into a hoax. Darwin wasn't as convinced of his own theory as many others.