Pat Robertson says quake was their own fault

[RoBoTeq]

You can show me where Scripture contradicts Scripture? Nope. Ya can't. Can you show me portions of Scripture that you disagree with? Absolutely. But one has not to do with the other.
I don't believe that scripture does contradict scripture. If you had read my posts starting this conversation, you would know that I am attempting to dispell the interpretations of scripture that seem to contradict other scripture.

If you had had the courtesy to answer my questions as I posed them, you would understand what I was getting at. Instead, you decided to attack my faith and insult me. Are you willing to have a rational discussion without the attacks on me and without evading the subject? If so;

If Adam and Eve are the beginning of all of mankind, who is it that Cain is afraid of and who is it that Cain married? What scripture addresses this?

With so little information overall, why are there two "different" descriptions of the creation of man? The first creation of man indicates that man was made male and female from the dust of the Earth. The second creation of man is specific to Adam being formed from the dust of the Earth, but Eve is not. Why two different mentions of the creation of man if there were not two seperate creations of man?

[timebuilder]

Might be why we have different religions coming out of the different birthplaces of civilization. Could it be God was acting as a painter and using different canvases to paint a different vision?


You raise an EXCELLENT point!!!

The idea that God provides many paths to Himself for many cultures is a construct of theologians called "ecumenicism."

The Bible makes it clear when Jesus says this to His remaining disciples, after the death of Judas, in Matthew 28:18-20:

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

The key there is "all the nations."

If they had an alternate theology that was approved by God, this evangelism would not be needed, nor commanded.

[timebuilder]

I read it. At what age is the tree? Has the words translated well down through the ages? Who said the story did not get exaggerated as some do? You should have seen the fish I caught.

Another good point.

If you had been called by God as a prophet to write the scriptures, you would have been guided inerrantly to provide only the meaning that God intended. See my signature link for 2 Timothy.

[RoBoTeq]

Hey, Robo. What do you know about the Hittites?
Biblically the tribal offspring of Heth. Since Heth was a son of Cannan, Hittites and Cannanites are closely related. Why?

[timebuilder]

So you are saying people saw dinosaurs in action? Maybe I am missing your meaning.

I am saying that the creatures mentioned existed at the time of the writing, as the writers would have no knowledge of them had they existed long before their lives, nor is it in God's character (as demonstrated through Scripture) to inform us of creatures that could not be experienced by the scripture writer.

In Ezekiel, a machine is described that had features "like" creatures. In Revelation, John describes the appearance of "living creatures," some of which may not have been creatures at all as we would identify them, but a man of John's life experience would try to fit what he saw into the context of what he knew in his life.

[printer2]

If they had an alternate theology that was approved by God, this evangelism would not be needed, nor commanded.

If God wanted the other religions to change their direction and focus why did he not just go to those locations and command it using whoever he wanted to deliver his message? Why allow hundreds or in some cases thousands of years to go by? Think of all those souls that have been lost in that time. You would think God does not waste what he makes.

[timebuilder]

If God wanted the other religions to change their direction and focus why did he not just go to those locations and command it using whoever he wanted to deliver his message? Why allow hundreds or in some cases thousands of years to go by? Think of all those souls that have been lost in that time. You would think God does not waste what he makes.

The short answer is that His plan exceeds our understanding.

One of the things I find most interesting is that the Bible indicates that there is much that does not appear in it. There are legions of mysteries and facts that we will not know until we receive our glorified bodies.

And even then, we will not know all of God's mind, as that is not possible.

[RoBoTeq]

The idea that God created multiple men and women then fixated on Adam and Eve alone just does not make sense.
Why not? If we dismiss literal time and put hundreds or thousands of years between a first creation of mankind and the creation of Adam and Eve, it makes very good sense.

First we must ask ourselves; what is God's purpose for creating man at all? I am of the thought that God created man to be completely able to have free choice of thought and devotion. Job is a good example of why God may have created man. In Job, God is at odds with Satan over whether man loves God for what God does for man or unconditionally. This gives us the indication that God created man in order for God to receive unconditional love from those who have the choice to love God or not. The rub is that Satan has the ability to deceive man while God does not deceive man.

So, God's first creation of mankind grows with the deceit and most likely knowledge bestowed on mankind from Satan. Maybe God's attempts to be known to mankind is what became bastardized into the many Pagan beliefs of multiple gods where Pagans had difficulty determining the good of God from the evil of Satan in their perceived gods. Just a thought.

So, after a while, God realizes that mankind has turned from God and so God decides to create a race of man who God intends to raise without the vast influence of Satan. Why God had to have the trees of knowledge and life available in the Garden of Eden is an unknown, but it was the tree of knowledge that thwarted God's plan for Adam and Eve to be the untainted beginnings of a new race.

Once again, these are just thoughts of one way the Genesis story may have unfolded. It has as much merit as the traditional theory of Adam and Eve being the progenerators of all of mankind but does not conflict with other passages of scripture near as much.

[printer2]

The short answer is that His plan exceeds our understanding.

One of the things I find most interesting is that the Bible indicates that there is much that does not appear in it. There are legions of mysteries and facts that we will not know until we receive our glorified bodies.

And even then, we will not know all of God's mind, as that is not possible.

But our understand has developed so much over the years. I would think some clarification or direction from on high would achieve his aims more efficiently.

[timebuilder]

But our understand has developed so much over the years. I would think some clarification or direction from on high would achieve his aims more efficiently.


A great number of people would agree with that, but from everything we have in Scripture, His plan is not the same as what "our" plan would be.

[RoBoTeq]

Many scientific ideas have been disproved in the past by newer science. I do not recall a theory being bumped off by the bible.

So what makes you think they were talking about a dinosaur but not an elephant?
There are many archaeological claims from the 1800s that have been proven wrong by the Bible, or more so, the Bible proved itself to be correct against the claims from science that it was not. This mostly pertains to alleged scientific proof that David did not exist or that certain places in the Bible did not exist.

Is this an elephant?

15 "Look at the behemoth, [1] (http://www.whiterosesgarden.com/Nature_of_Evil/Satan/Satans_bible_files/book_of_job-NIV.htm#40:15-NIV) which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

Or this a crocodile?

12 "I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form.
13 Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle?
14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth?
15 His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.
21 His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.
22 Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him.
23 The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable.
24 His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone.
25 When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make him flee; slingstones are like chaff to him.
29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31 He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is his equal- a creature without fear.

Maybe even a dinosaur we are unaware of having the ability to breath fire. Could be where the dragon lore, which is worldwide, came from.

[timebuilder]

This page about a little beetle makes it clear that a real, fire-breathing dragon IS possible.

http://library.thinkquest.org/19012/amazing.htm




.

[RoBoTeq]

No answer eh?
Those of us of faith are agreeing that no tampering has been done to scripture, which ancient versions of scripture completely support to be true.

There certainly may and most likely are variances in the meanings of the words, but we need to be somewhat reasonable in our assessments. Most of scripture has been disected quite well with the language translation abilities we currently have. There is little indication that the actual words are not mostly accurate. The context and colloqreal meaning of those words are still a matter of understanding fully.

[RoBoTeq]

So you are saying people saw dinosaurs in action? Maybe I am missing your meaning.
Could be a couple of explanations here. One would be that there were some sort of man, maybe even from that first creation of man thingy I have been discussing, that we are not yet aware of having existed. Job is a book of the Bible that came close to not being canonized. I am thinking that Job is 100% a parable and has little if any historical accuracy or value.

Another scenario could be that God just started rattling off about previous life forms on Earth and that Job was standing there thinking to himself; "holy crap! What have I got myself into. Now God is telling all about creatures I know nothing about but certainly don't want to ever meet!",.....or something like that.

[RoBoTeq]

If God wanted the other religions to change their direction and focus why did he not just go to those locations and command it using whoever he wanted to deliver his message? Why allow hundreds or in some cases thousands of years to go by? Think of all those souls that have been lost in that time. You would think God does not waste what he makes.
God's message in not flawed. It is our understanding of God's message that is flawed. Not only flawed by our own desire to think we are intelligent enough to bend God's will to what we want it to be, but also by the constant influence from forces that oppose God.

I too believe that God has tried to communicate with all of mankind throughout the world. It appears that all of mankind has misunderstood or misinterpretted God's word everywhere, including today's understanding of the Christian Bible.

[timebuilder]

Those of us of faith are agreeing that no tampering has been done to scripture, which ancient versions of scripture completely support to be true.

There certainly may and most likely are variances in the meanings of the words, but we need to be somewhat reasonable in our assessments. Most of scripture has been disected quite well with the language translation abilities we currently have. There is little indication that the actual words are not mostly accurate. The context and colloqreal meaning of those words are still a matter of understanding fully.

Here is a guide to understanding Scripture that I was taught several years ago:

"If the plain sense makes sense, then don't make any other sense."

[printer2]

My point is more that some people get hung up on a word and do not look at the bigger picture of what is being taught. One of the reasons I think the bible has stood the test of time is because it has had much time in which to be refined. If one of the writers misquoted or added something not in keeping with the message it may have just been dropped by the wayside.


There are over 200,000 variants in the New Testament alone. How do these variants effect our confidence that the New Testament has been faithfully handed down to us?


James White, on p. 40 of his book The King James Only Controversy states: "The reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally altar the message of the Scriptures!

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html


The bible may not be the whole story but it servers its purpose well.

[Some Dude]

Why not? If we dismiss literal time and put hundreds or thousands of years between a first creation of mankind and the creation of Adam and Eve, it makes very good sense.

First we must ask ourselves; what is God's purpose for creating man at all? I am of the thought that God created man to be completely able to have free choice of thought and devotion. Job is a good example of why God may have created man. In Job, God is at odds with Satan over whether man loves God for what God does for man or unconditionally. This gives us the indication that God created man in order for God to receive unconditional love from those who have the choice to love God or not. The rub is that Satan has the ability to deceive man while God does not deceive man.

So, God's first creation of mankind grows with the deceit and most likely knowledge bestowed on mankind from Satan. Maybe God's attempts to be known to mankind is what became bastardized into the many Pagan beliefs of multiple gods where Pagans had difficulty determining the good of God from the evil of Satan in their perceived gods. Just a thought.

So, after a while, God realizes that mankind has turned from God and so God decides to create a race of man who God intends to raise without the vast influence of Satan. Why God had to have the trees of knowledge and life available in the Garden of Eden is an unknown, but it was the tree of knowledge that thwarted God's plan for Adam and Eve to be the untainted beginnings of a new race.

Once again, these are just thoughts of one way the Genesis story may have unfolded. It has as much merit as the traditional theory of Adam and Eve being the progenerators of all of mankind but does not conflict with other passages of scripture near as much.

So everyone else was perfect and well behaved and it was Adam and eVE ALONE ALONG WITH sAtan who brought up the issue of universal sovereignty? So instead of punishing those two alone God decided to collectively punish everyone else alive at the time and not just the original man and woman long with their offspring?

[RoBoTeq]

If God wanted the other religions to change their direction and focus why did he not just go to those locations and command it using whoever he wanted to deliver his message? Why allow hundreds or in some cases thousands of years to go by? Think of all those souls that have been lost in that time. You would think God does not waste what he makes.
I could not love a Creator who would dismiss our spiritual eternity over our inability to understand God. I don't have any specific answers for how God has taken care of the righteous throughout the realm of mankind's existance, but I do believe God has done so.

It is Satan that wants us to argue and fight over our perception of God's will. That is what we need to avoid.

[RoBoTeq]

The short answer is that His plan exceeds our understanding.

One of the things I find most interesting is that the Bible indicates that there is much that does not appear in it. There are legions of mysteries and facts that we will not know until we receive our glorified bodies.

And even then, we will not know all of God's mind, as that is not possible.
I absolutely agree. This is a major reason why I do not believe in being short sighted about what we may think that God's intentions are with certain passages. In general, if there is any conflict at all, we need to not tie ourselves down with doctrine and dogma.

[printer2]

I absolutely agree. This is a major reason why I do not believe in being short sighted about what we may think that God's intentions are with certain passages. In general, if there is any conflict at all, we need to not tie ourselves down with doctrine and dogma.

I do not profess to have any answers to life or God's will. Why are there inequities in life, why do some survive an earthquake and why do some not? I summed up the reason for us being here as a method of refining souls. Right or wrong it works for me.

[RoBoTeq]

But our understand has developed so much over the years. I would think some clarification or direction from on high would achieve his aims more efficiently.
I am somewhat Diest about this, at least since God became incarnate in Jesus Christ and walked among us as one of us.

Prior to God's becoming man in Jesus, God interacted with the Hebrews/Jews more directly. Mostly, God was either misunderstood or just flat out disobeyed by the His chosen people when God communicated more directly with them. After becoming one of us in Jesus, God was able to devise His new plan where we would have his desires for us laid out and there would be no need for further direct contact.

Those of us who have devout faith in prayer, the personal and direct communication with God in our sincere thoughts, know that God will and does still intervene on our behalf. We too often dismiss miracles, the hand of God altering circumstances beyond what should occur, as coincidences. I don't. If only 1% of coincidences were acknowledged as the hand of God it would give us an understanding of God's always being with us. I for one am more apt to consider 99% of coincidences as God's intervention. Quite unusual for someone who is not known for being an optimist.

[RoBoTeq]

This page about a little beetle makes it clear that a real, fire-breathing dragon IS possible.

http://library.thinkquest.org/19012/amazing.htm




.
No doubt about it. With dragons being described in most all cultures throughout the world, it would be odd if something like dragons did not exist during the time of man. The movie Reign of Fire has a great way of describing a way that such a creature could have existed without leaving physical evidence of it's existance.

[RoBoTeq]

My point is more that some people get hung up on a word and do not look at the bigger picture of what is being taught. One of the reasons I think the bible has stood the test of time is because it has had much time in which to be refined. If one of the writers misquoted or added something not in keeping with the message it may have just been dropped by the wayside.





http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html


The bible may not be the whole story but it servers its purpose well.
The theories that scripture has been altered to suit the desires of those who translate scripture is only true in versions of scripture that are known to have done so. While the KJV is knowingly flawed, it was still translated accurately according to the most ancient scriptural texts of its time. The NIV is even more accurate to original content because it was translated with better understanding of the ancient languages and becuase it was translated from an even older version of scripture.

No findings of ancient scripture have ever disputed what is depicted in today's accepted versions of the Bible(s).

[RoBoTeq]

So everyone else was perfect and well behaved and it was Adam and eVE ALONE ALONG WITH sAtan who brought up the issue of universal sovereignty? So instead of punishing those two alone God decided to collectively punish everyone else alive at the time and not just the original man and woman long with their offspring?
That's not what I get out of scripture. What I get is that God's original creation of mankind went so far astray from God that God turned from them completely and went about creating a whole new race in a different way. The Old (Hebrew) Testament is filled with stories of how the descendants of Adam and Eve fight against others with God on the side of His chosen people or letting them on their own when they were disobedient to God.

There is just so much in the Bible to indicate that there were at least two different creations of mankind and how in the Hebrew Testament they were at odds with one another until the New Testament unites all of mankind under Jesus Christ.

[RoBoTeq]

I do not profess to have any answers to life or God's will. Why are there inequities in life, why do some survive an earthquake and why do some not? I summed up the reason for us being here as a method of refining souls. Right or wrong it works for me.
If I had to use a two word reason for our existance, I think that "refining souls" is as good as any other words I could think of.

While I do not believe that God is not concerned with us as physical beings, It makes a lot more sense that God is more concerned with our spiritual nature, which is our permanent nature. We are only physical for a brief time, so whether we live 100 years or 1 year is really not of much importance to us as mortals, but may make a big difference for our spiritual being. I am so glad I did not die early in my life when I was denying God.

[bootlen]

No answer eh?

You were serious? I couldn't tell with that childish question. The word "reed" comes to mind when an elephant tail is described poetically. Certainly not "cedar".

Umm, you HAVE seen a cedar tree, I assume?

[bootlen]

I don't believe that scripture does contradict scripture. If you had read my posts starting this conversation, you would know that I am attempting to dispell the interpretations of scripture that seem to contradict other scripture.

If you had had the courtesy to answer my questions as I posed them, you would understand what I was getting at. Instead, you decided to attack my faith and insult me. Are you willing to have a rational discussion without the attacks on me and without evading the subject? If so;

If Adam and Eve are the beginning of all of mankind, who is it that Cain is afraid of and who is it that Cain married? What scripture addresses this?

With so little information overall, why are there two "different" descriptions of the creation of man? The first creation of man indicates that man was made male and female from the dust of the Earth. The second creation of man is specific to Adam being formed from the dust of the Earth, but Eve is not. Why two different mentions of the creation of man if there were not two seperate creations of man?

I gotta admit, Robo. You are really good at this kind of post.

[bootlen]

Could be a couple of explanations here. One would be that there were some sort of man, maybe even from that first creation of man thingy I have been discussing, that we are not yet aware of having existed. Job is a book of the Bible that came close to not being canonized. I am thinking that Job is 100% a parable and has little if any historical accuracy or value.

Another scenario could be that God just started rattling off about previous life forms on Earth and that Job was standing there thinking to himself; "holy crap! What have I got myself into. Now God is telling all about creatures I know nothing about but certainly don't want to ever meet!",.....or something like that.

And you posted that I was making stuff up.

Laughable.

[bootlen]

I absolutely agree. This is a major reason why I do not believe in being short sighted about what we may think that God's intentions are with certain passages. In general, if there is any conflict at all, we need to not tie ourselves down with doctrine and dogma.

So why change what He said to something He did not?

[RoBoTeq]

I gotta admit, Robo. You are really good at this kind of post.
Why are you avoiding a conversation on this? All I am asking for is a Q&A conversation. What are you afraid of?

[RoBoTeq]

And you posted that I was making stuff up.

Laughable.
When it comes to understanding scripture, much of what is stated is made up. That is why I want to have an open discussion about parts of scripture that are assumed by some to be absolutely about one made up scenario while ignoring any other rational scenario that could be made up.

If we pass around enough made up scenarios, we just may be able to come a little closer to the truth of scripture rather then accepting just one possible scenario and defending it as if it were absolute.

I make no bones about the fact that what I am writing, I am making up. I am making it up based on scripture, and on scripture either supporting scripture or at least on not going against scripture elsewhere in the Bible.

The made up scenarios that you have come to believe, you are stating as if they are absolute fact. All I am asking is that you show definitive scriptural support for what you believe in.

[RoBoTeq]

So why change what He said to something He did not?
I am not changing a thing of what God tells us in scripture. I am simply not accepting a Paganistic point of view of what God is telling us. God is always the same, but our perspective of what God is telling us can change dramatically, especially when there is a deceitful influence from evil sources at play.

If I make the comment that I was very gay today, one person might believe that I was happy and in good spirits while another person might think I was kneebound in front of naked men all day. It's all a matter of perspective. Do we really want to hold to the perspective of those who were raised as Pagans and who need to have a father and mother of humanity as Pagans have always needed?

[bootlen]

Why are you avoiding a conversation on this? All I am asking for is a Q&A conversation. What are you afraid of?

I gave straightforward answers and you rejected them outright. Why should I continue?

[bootlen]

When it comes to understanding scripture, much of what is stated is made up.

Such as?

If we pass around enough made up scenarios, we just may be able to come a little closer to the truth of scripture rather then accepting just one possible scenario and defending it as if it were absolute.

It would appear you are serious.

I make no bones about the fact that what I am writing, I am making up. I am making it up based on scripture, and on scripture either supporting scripture or at least on not going against scripture elsewhere in the Bible.

Scripture leaves VERY little room for made up stuff.

The made up scenarios that you have come to believe, you are stating as if they are absolute fact. All I am asking is that you show definitive scriptural support for what you believe in.

I try very hard to post only that for which I have found supporting Scripture. You cannot honestly say the same.

[RoBoTeq]

I gave straightforward answers and you rejected them outright. Why should I continue?
I definitely missed any straight forward answers from you. I read a couple of claims based on assumptions, but nothing showing scriptural support for what you believe.

You gave an offhanded remark about their being two different and distinct passages about the creation of man is saying that "it was important to God". OK, where in scripture does it say that God mentioned the same event in two different places using different methods but was referring to the same event?

Other questions I don't recall you addressing;

Who was Cain afraid of in the land of Nod and who was the woman that Cain married? Scriptural references, please.

Why are females created from the dust of the Earth in Genesis 1 but Eve is said to have been formed from Adam's rib in Genesis 2?

[bootlen]

I am not changing a thing of what God tells us in scripture.


Really? What Scripture backs this?

There is just so much in the Bible to indicate that there were at least two different creations of mankind and how in the Hebrew Testament they were at odds with one another until the New Testament unites all of mankind under Jesus Christ.

Or this?

But God does not smite us any longer.

There are others but I think this should suffice for now.

Or this?

You can't have God be both Old Testament and New Testament

[RoBoTeq]

When it comes to understanding scripture, much of what is stated is made up.

Such as?

If we pass around enough made up scenarios, we just may be able to come a little closer to the truth of scripture rather then accepting just one possible scenario and defending it as if it were absolute.

It would appear you are serious.

I make no bones about the fact that what I am writing, I am making up. I am making it up based on scripture, and on scripture either supporting scripture or at least on not going against scripture elsewhere in the Bible.

Scripture leaves VERY little room for made up stuff.

The made up scenarios that you have come to believe, you are stating as if they are absolute fact. All I am asking is that you show definitive scriptural support for what you believe in.

I try very hard to post only that for which I have found supporting Scripture. You cannot honestly say the same.
I have been honest in stating that the scenarios I have proposed are alluded to by scripture, are not supported by other scripture. You will not admit the same for your claims that Adam and Eve are absolutely the origins of all of mankind.

The scenario I have come up with is not conflicting with other scripture, as is what you believe. In order to deal with the Genesis 1 description of a creation of mankind, male and female, you have to dismiss that passage as being redundant. Yet it is not actually redundant at all because it is very much different.

What have you made up based on scripture but not supported by scripture?

Adam and Eve being the absolute origins of all of mankind rather then the beginning of the race that God claims as His chosen people.

The Earth is only several thousand years old.

Dinosaurs existed at the same time that man did.

And we are still "in the beginning".

[timebuilder]

I was taught that the reference to male and female in Genesis 1:27 is a reference to the more detailed description to come in Genesis 2.

One event that is first capsulized, and then explained more fully.

[bootlen]

Other questions I don't recall you addressing;

Didn't see these.

Who was Cain afraid of in the land of Nod and who was the woman that Cain married?

Some of his own brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces.

Scripture does not say oxygen was created. So, what did they breathe?

Scriptural references, please.

Answer my question and I'll provide references.

Why are females created from the dust of the Earth in Genesis 1 but Eve is said to have been formed from Adam's rib in Genesis 2?

ALL humans are made from the dust of the earth. But we now know exactly which dust was used on Eve.

[bootlen]

I have been honest in stating that the scenarios I have proposed are alluded to by scripture, are not supported by other scripture. You will not admit the same for your claims that Adam and Eve are absolutely the origins of all of mankind.

The scenario I have come up with is not conflicting with other scripture, as is what you believe. In order to deal with the Genesis 1 description of a creation of mankind, male and female, you have to dismiss that passage as being redundant. Yet it is not actually redundant at all because it is very much different.

What have you made up based on scripture but not supported by scripture?

Adam and Eve being the absolute origins of all of mankind rather then the beginning of the race that God claims as His chosen people.

The Earth is only several thousand years old.

Dinosaurs existed at the same time that man did.

And we are still "in the beginning".

Wow! Yeah! And you're wrong on each and every count.

Amazing, huh?

[RoBoTeq]

Really? What Scripture backs this?

There is just so much in the Bible to indicate that there were at least two different creations of mankind and how in the Hebrew Testament they were at odds with one another until the New Testament unites all of mankind under Jesus Christ.Genesis 1 account of a creation of mankind differs from Genesis 2 account of a creation of a singular man referred to as Adam. I have posted this already in detail.

Are you disputing that Hebrews fought agains many others all throughout the Bible?

Are you disputing that all nations were united under Jesus Christ? Do you oppose that all non-Jews are grafted into God's covenant through Jesus Christ. That non-Jews (descendants of God's first creation of mankind?) and Jews (descendants of Adam and Eve?) became equal in the eyes of God?


Or this?

But God does not smite us any longer.How does God smite us today? Why have Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour if the Big Guy is just going to whack on us while Jesus is telling us to be peaceful?


There are others but I think this should suffice for now.

Or this?

You can't have God be both Old Testament and New Testament
Well, did God give us Salvation through Jesus Christ or not? No, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say out of one side of your mouth that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God etc. is our Salvation and out of the other side of your mouth; "GOD IS GONNA GET YOU FOR THAT!" If God is going Old Testament on us, Jesus is worthless to us.

[RoBoTeq]

I was taught that the reference to male and female in Genesis 1:27 is a reference to the more detailed description to come in Genesis 2.

One event that is first capsulized, and then explained more fully.
That is the way I was taught as well, but as I explore scripture more on my own I cannot accept such pat answers as that.

Several things don't make sense for that event being a consolidation of later descriptions. For one thing, the Creation account is not much more then an outline format of events. You just don't reiterate something in an outline.

Then there are the detail differences between Genesis 1 creation of man and Genesis 2 creation of man. With as few details that are given in Genesis, it just doesn't make sense that there would be different details in two different accounts of the same incident.

Then there is having to come up with explanations as to who it was who built the cities in the land of Nod if Cain and Abel were still with Adam and Eve. If those in the land of Nod were brothers and sisters of Cain, they would all be younger. Why did they leave the first familiy homestead? Why were they expected to be aggressive toward Cain? It just doesn't make sense if those in the land of Nod are all family members of Adam and Eve. Talk about reason for gossip about a dysfunctional family.

So, if we understand Genesis 1 to be an earlier accounting of a creation of mankind, it makes more sense for the related stories when Adam and Eve come along.

[bootlen]

Genesis 1 account of a creation of mankind differs from Genesis 2 account of a creation of a singular man referred to as Adam. I have posted this already in detail.

Are you disputing that Hebrews fought agains many others all throughout the Bible?

Nope. That was not in the post to which I was responding in this case. (You do this a lot, ya know.)

Are you disputing that all nations were united under Jesus Christ? Do you oppose that all non-Jews are grafted into God's covenant through Jesus Christ. That non-Jews (descendants of God's first creation of mankind?) and Jews (descendants of Adam and Eve?) became equal in the eyes of God?
How does God smite us today? Why have Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour if the Big Guy is just going to whack on us while Jesus is telling us to be peaceful?

See. Ya did it again.

Well, did God give us Salvation through Jesus Christ or not? No, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say out of one side of your mouth that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God etc. is our Salvation and out of the other side of your mouth; "GOD IS GONNA GET YOU FOR THAT!" If God is going Old Testament on us, Jesus is worthless to us.

I don't have to say it. God did. "There is a sin that leads unto death." DUDE! THAT is the ultimate smite.

[bootlen]

Genesis 1 account of a creation of mankind differs from Genesis 2 account of a creation of a singular man referred to as Adam. I have posted this already in detail.


Yes...two accounts. Not two creations.

[RoBoTeq]

Wow! Yeah! And you're wrong on each and every count.

Amazing, huh?
If you don't want to have a rational conversation but rather just want to be a mule about this subject, why do you keep posting? This sort of arrogant rhetoric is of absolutely no help whatsoever and is certainly not what I consider very good evangelism. Just my opinion, of course. If your arrogant elitist attitude works for you with other people, please, go preach to them. I now find you quite a boor.

[RoBoTeq]

Yes...two accounts. Not two creations.
Please tell us why these two very different accounts are not describing two creations of man. Or should we assume that the Genesis 1 accounting of the creation of man is an error since it does not have Eve coming from Adam?

I now realize that this subject may be offending your psychy by defying what you have believed all of your life, but isn't knowing the Truth of God's Word better then denying that truth for the sake of your vanity?

[timebuilder]

That is the way I was taught as well, but as I explore scripture more on my own I cannot accept such pat answers as that.

Several things don't make sense for that event being a consolidation of later descriptions. For one thing, the Creation account is not much more then an outline format of events. You just don't reiterate something in an outline.

Then there are the detail differences between Genesis 1 creation of man and Genesis 2 creation of man. With as few details that are given in Genesis, it just doesn't make sense that there would be different details in two different accounts of the same incident.

Then there is having to come up with explanations as to who it was who built the cities in the land of Nod if Cain and Abel were still with Adam and Eve. If those in the land of Nod were brothers and sisters of Cain, they would all be younger. Why did they leave the first familiy homestead? Why were they expected to be aggressive toward Cain? It just doesn't make sense if those in the land of Nod are all family members of Adam and Eve. Talk about reason for gossip about a dysfunctional family.

So, if we understand Genesis 1 to be an earlier accounting of a creation of mankind, it makes more sense for the related stories when Adam and Eve come along.

Well, you can call it a "pat answer," but one thing about the Bible is that very often what makes sense IS the sense.

These accounts were passed orally for a long time. I makes sense to me that the Genesis 1 account is a capsulization, and Genesis 2 is the explanation of how that was done.

[RoBoTeq]

Well, you can call it a "pat answer," but one thing about the Bible is that very often what makes sense IS the sense.

These accounts were passed orally for a long time. I makes sense to me that the Genesis 1 account is a capsulization, and Genesis 2 is the explanation of how that was done.
I'm trying not to just be argumentative, but you still have not explained the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts of the creation of man.

What about Eve? In the Genesis 1 account, male and female are created equally;
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

If vegetation was created on the second day, why does Genesis 2:5 refer to their being no shrubs or plants in the field and no man to tend the ground? Why would God even be talking about man tending the ground before he even created Adam who was only required to tend the ground after the fall?

We need to read these accounts better. What we have been taught does not make sense. Even without understanding the details, it makes more sense that mankind existed before the creation of Adam and Eve.

[timebuilder]

I'm trying not to just be argumentative, but you still have not explained the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts of the creation of man.

What about Eve? In the Genesis 1 account, male and female are created equally; [/font]

If vegetation was created on the second day, why does Genesis 2:5 refer to their being no shrubs or plants in the field and no man to tend the ground? Why would God even be talking about man tending the ground before he even created Adam who was only required to tend the ground after the fall?

We need to read these accounts better. What we have been taught does not make sense. Even without understanding the details, it makes more sense that mankind existed before the creation of Adam and Eve.

I'm trying to not lose patience here.

It's called a synopsis. We have them on the net now. You have a summation or synopsis of an article, and then a "click here" for more info.

I'm not a scholar, but for centuries Bible scholars have reached the same conclusion.

Once again, "If the plain snese makes sense, then don't make any other sense."

[RoBoTeq]

I'm trying to not lose patience here.

It's called a synopsis. We have them on the net now. You have a summation or synopsis of an article, and then a "click here" for more info.

I'm not a scholar, but for centuries Bible scholars have reached the same conclusion.

Once again, "If the plain snese makes sense, then don't make any other sense."
Why would Bible study cause you to lose your patience?

If you believe in something because you have been wrongly informed about that something, don't you want to seek the truth?

So what that Bible scholars have been saying the same thing for centuries? The RCC was in complete control over scripture for centuries. How long does wrong take to become right?

Why won't you even look at and comment on the specific passages that do not jive with one another?

[timebuilder]

Why would Bible study cause you to lose your patience?

If you believe in something because you have been wrongly informed about that something, don't you want to seek the truth?

So what that Bible scholars have been saying the same thing for centuries? The RCC was in complete control over scripture for centuries. How long does wrong take to become right?

Why won't you even look at and comment on the specific passages that do not jive with one another?

Well first, there is a difference between Bible study and Bible doubting. I think this is very close to the latter.

The RCC has not been the keeper of scripture. They had it, yes, but the KJV was translated without the auspices of any pope or cardinal, and using the experts in greek and hebrew at the time, which many argue exceeds the knowledge of such translators today.

Since the translation is not a faulty construct of the RCC, and the Dead Sea scrolls contend that the basis of the translation is as correct as can be known, my position is that the scholars who have studied the texts and the pastors who are so schooled are worthy of trust that they do indeed have the best understanding possible.

Without undertaking the same lifetime of scrupulous and diligent study, I am willing to accept that this concept is correct, as taught.

[RoBoTeq]

Well first, the is a difference between Bible study and Bible doubting. I think this is very close to the latter.

The RCC has not been the keeper of scripture. They had it, yes, but the KJV was translated without the auspices of any pope or cardinal, and using the experts in greek and hebrew at the time, which many argue exceeds the knowledge of such translators today.

Since the translation is not a faulty construct of the RCC, and the Dead Sea scrolls contend that the basis of the translation is as correct as can be known, my position is that the scholars who have studied the texts and the pastors who are so schooled are worthy of trust that they do indeed have the best understanding possible.

Without undertaking the same lifetime of scrupulous and diligent study, I am willing to accept that this concept is correct, as taught.
I am not doubting the Bible at all. I am doubting what we have been taught is being told to us by the Bible.

The KJV and even more so, the NIV are both very well "translated" from the ancient languages and early text, so there is no argument with the translations. Sure, the KJV has a few errors, especially the Red Sea mistake and the mentioning of Easter, and we have recently figured out that the number of the beast in Revelation is most likely not "666" but rather "766". But again, these are relatively minor details that can all be corrected as we learn more and more about ancient languages and ancient cultures.

What is at stake here is the most probable error of events such as the creation of man. It certainly does make a difference if Adam and Eve were a seperate race then the first creation of mankind. If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, why did God differentiate the Hebrews from the rest of mankind as God's chosen people? Would they not all be of the same descendants?

No, I am not disputing any of the language. I would like for us to look at exactly the same passages, written with exactly the same words, and try to understand what those words are pertaining to and in what time span they were referring to.

The way Genesis reads, it looks like the Creation of the Universe story specifically ends with Genesis 2:4. Everything from that point is after the fact of the story of the seven day Creation of the Universe.

[bootlen]

I am now convinced that Robo is planning on moving to CA and run against Nancy Pelosi in the Dem primary. This thread is his rehearsal for news conferences and campaign speeches.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I am now convinced that Robo is planning on moving to CA and run against Nancy Pelosi in the Dem primary. This thread is his rehearsal for news conferences and campaign speeches.

Yeah, spin does seem to be the new goal...

I am signing out of this thread. You all have a good time here.

[Some Dude]

2 tim 2:23 Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.

[timebuilder]

2 tim 2:23 Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.

Amen to that.

[RoBoTeq]

Interesting. The three fundamentalists are running from a debate the same way that Al Gore runs from a debate on all of the wrong things he claims about global warming.

I really am surprised. I thought I could at least respect believers of the Christian faith in respect to their wanting to understand God's Word. I was wrong. They want to be able to continue to bash others with holier then thou rants based on false doctrine. That is a shame.

Even more of a shame is for these alleged Christians to make false claims about me personally rather then to discuss the Bible as gentlemen. I have severely underestimated the power of Satan's deceit.

[Hugh B]

If you know your Bible you will know that Adam is and can only be the very first man.

Romans informs us that it was by one man (Adam) that sin entered into the world and by one man (Jesus Christ) that the solution to sin is provided.

Romans goes on to inform us that it was by one man (Adam) that sin passed on to all men. (This is because all men came from Adam and inherited sin natures from their human father Adam)

A full and careful reading, and a plain reading of the Bible usually clears up all of these silly misunderstands such as a race of people prior to Adam. Most of these types of speculations are easily dismissed by a literal reading of the text and comparing scripture with scripture.

[Some Dude]

Interesting. The three fundamentalists are running from a debate the same way that Al Gore runs from a debate on all of the wrong things he claims about global warming.

I really am surprised. I thought I could at least respect believers of the Christian faith in respect to their wanting to understand God's Word. I was wrong. They want to be able to continue to bash others with holier then thou rants based on false doctrine. That is a shame.

Even more of a shame is for these alleged Christians to make false claims about me personally rather then to discuss the Bible as gentlemen. I have severely underestimated the power of Satan's deceit.

Robo its only a debate if both sides make valid points, creating your own reality is a dangerous thing. You are doing exactly what Jesus refereed to as straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel.
Honestly you are sounding a bit unsteady, almost like you arent even writing your own posts. You doing okay???? Is this a cry for help???? Are you being held captive????? type no for yes and yes for no,,,,,,,,,,,,,too late.

[RoBoTeq]

If you know your Bible you will know that Adam is and can only be the very first man.

Romans informs us that it was by one man (Adam) that sin entered into the world and by one man (Jesus Christ) that the solution to sin is provided.

Romans goes on to inform us that it was by one man (Adam) that sin passed on to all men. (This is because all men came from Adam and inherited sin natures from their human father Adam)

A full and careful reading, and a plain reading of the Bible usually clears up all of these silly misunderstands such as a race of people prior to Adam. Most of these types of speculations are easily dismissed by a literal reading of the text and comparing scripture with scripture.
Romans scripture has already been discussed Hugh. Are you too set in your ways to be able to discuss the questions I have been asking as well? If so, I have done my best to have a theological discussion to no avail.

[Some Dude]

If you know your Bible you will know that Adam is and can only be the very first man.

Romans informs us that it was by one man (Adam) that sin entered into the world and by one man (Jesus Christ) that the solution to sin is provided.

Romans goes on to inform us that it was by one man (Adam) that sin passed on to all men. (This is because all men came from Adam and inherited sin natures from their human father Adam)

A full and careful reading, and a plain reading of the Bible usually clears up all of these silly misunderstands such as a race of people prior to Adam. Most of these types of speculations are easily dismissed by a literal reading of the text and comparing scripture with scripture.

Yeah ,,,he already rejected that for worldly wisdom, pesky bible.

[RoBoTeq]

Robo its only a debate if both sides make valid points, creating your own reality is a dangerous thing. You are doing exactly what Jesus refereed to as straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel.
Honestly you are sounding a bit unsteady, almost like you arent even writing your own posts. You doing okay???? Is this a cry for help???? Are you being held captive????? type no for yes and yes for no,,,,,,,,,,,,,too late.
I'm fine zach. I am very comfortable in my relationship with God. So comfortable that I run every thing I think about by God and pray for His guidance in understanding His Word. That is my motivation for questioning age old claims of scripture that tend to lead to hate and despair and divide men from one another.

Once again, you have shown a penchant for being hateful rather then a desire to have a rational discussion. Sorry I bothered you.

[bootlen]

Interesting. The three fundamentalists are running from a debate the same way that Al Gore runs from a debate on all of the wrong things he claims about global warming.

I really am surprised. I thought I could at least respect believers of the Christian faith in respect to their wanting to understand God's Word. I was wrong. They want to be able to continue to bash others with holier then thou rants based on false doctrine. That is a shame.

Even more of a shame is for these alleged Christians to make false claims about me personally rather then to discuss the Bible as gentlemen. I have severely underestimated the power of Satan's deceit.

Indeed you have and have fallen victim to it.

[Some Dude]

I'm fine zach. I am very comfortable in my relationship with God. So comfortable that I run every thing I think about by God and pray for His guidance in understanding His Word. That is my motivation for questioning age old claims of scripture that tend to lead to hate and despair and divide men from one another.

Once again, you have shown a penchant for being hateful rather then a desire to have a rational discussion. Sorry I bothered you.

Oh stop it, i was just kidding you, sheesh need a hankie?
And im never hateful unless we are talking about goodman.

[bootlen]

Romans scripture has already been discussed Hugh. Are you too set in your ways to be able to discuss the questions I have been asking as well? If so, I have done my best to have a theological discussion to no avail.

Yeah, Hugh. Romans does not have anything to do with Genesis. It's not even part of the Bible or Robo would allow it to be used in this discussion.:rolleyes:

[RoBoTeq]

Yeah ,,,he already rejected that for worldly wisdom, pesky bible.
I have rejected nothing. I am open to all discussion. I merely pointed out that Adam as the origin of all of mankind does not fit with much of what scripture tells us and does not make chronological sense.

In order for Adam to be the origin of all of mankind, a lot of assumptions and variations have to be made to a lot of other scripture.

Did you guys ever give thought to the fact that the Romans so hated the Jews that they could not possibly allow Jesus Christ to be from a lineage of chosen people who were created completely seperate from the rest of the human race? In keeping with the Roman hatred of the Jews, we actually deny Jesus Christ's very heritage.

[Hugh B]

Romans scripture has already been discussed Hugh. Are you too set in your ways to be able to discuss the questions I have been asking as well? If so, I have done my best to have a theological discussion to no avail.

You seem a bit testy tonight there Robo. Perhaps you need to leave the keyboard for a few days and relax.

I admit to not having actually read this entire thread thru prior to posting my Romans comment. I could post several more Biblical arguments in support of the conservative position as well as answer your objections. None of this is new to me.

However, given your state of mind the better part of wisdom is not to bother until you have a better attitude.

[bootlen]

I have rejected nothing. I am open to all discussion. I merely pointed out that Adam as the origin of all of mankind does not fit with much of what scripture tells us and does not make chronological sense.

In order for Adam to be the origin of all of mankind, a lot of assumptions and variations have to be made to a lot of other scripture.

Did you guys ever give thought to the fact that the Romans so hated the Jews that they could not possibly allow Jesus Christ to be from a lineage of chosen people who were created completely seperate from the rest of the human race? In keeping with the Roman hatred of the Jews, we actually deny Jesus Christ's very heritage.

Umm...the book of Romans is Paul's letter to the believers in Rome...not a book by or about Rome.

[RoBoTeq]

Indeed you have and have fallen victim to it.
What else could you believe?

[RoBoTeq]

Yeah, Hugh. Romans does not have anything to do with Genesis. It's not even part of the Bible or Robo would allow it to be used in this discussion.:rolleyes:
It was used, discussed and not refuted by any of you who claim to be of God.

[RoBoTeq]

You seem a bit testy tonight there Robo. Perhaps you need to leave the keyboard for a few days and relax.

I admit to not having actually read this entire thread thru prior to posting my Romans comment. I could post several more Biblical arguments in support of the conservative position as well as answer your objections. None of this is new to me.

However, given your state of mind the better part of wisdom is not to bother until you have a better attitude.
If you will bother to read the thread, you will have a better understanding of my frustration with those who I believed to be brothers, albeit not so close brothers, but brothers none the less in Christ.

I am not so much as testy as I am confused and bewildered at the personal attacks that have been made in order to keep from discussing the creation of mankind and the creation of Adam and Eve, which are clearly two distinctly different events.

[RoBoTeq]

Umm...the book of Romans is Paul's letter to the believers in Rome...not a book by or about Rome.
If you refuse to even read my posts properly, you have no right attempting to preach at me. No where did I confuse what the book of Romans is about and I have even gone into detail discussing the book of Romans in previous posts, which you have no doubt ignored as you have ignored any rational discussion.

Look guys, it is clear what you think of me. All I can say is that I regret having lost respect for those of you who refuse to even be civil and participate in a rational discussion.

[Some Dude]

Hope things look better for you today.

[timebuilder]

I am not so much as testy as I am confused and bewildered at the personal attacks that have been made in order to keep from discussing the creation of mankind and the creation of Adam and Eve, which are clearly two distinctly different events.

Perhaps this stems from this being a singularly unusual belief about the meaning of scripture. I'm not personally offended bro, just bewildered that you seem to stick to this one without a cross reference from elsewhere in the Bible.

Clearly, other post-Adam humans were created in nearby areas such as Nod. And clearly, these people might be angry with a person who committed the first murder, so he was marked for his own protection.

The Bible may be at times enigmatic, but we must realize that it meets God's intent and not necessarily our desires. Clearly, the intent was to bring us closer to a rudimentary understanding of our relationship to God, and to allow us to take a path to salvation the The Law would not provide for most of us sinners.

Returning to the fundamental explanation of understanding Scripture, when the plain sense makes sense, don't make any other sense.

[RoBoTeq]

Perhaps this stems from this being a singularly unusual belief about the meaning of scripture. I'm not personally offended bro, just bewildered that you seem to stick to this one without a cross reference from elsewhere in the Bible.But I have shown the contradictions from elsewhere, right in Genesis. I asked several times for a scriptural explanation for the seeming descrepencies, but not one of you has addressed them.


Clearly, other post-Adam humans were created in nearby areas such as Nod. And clearly, these people might be angry with a person who committed the first murder, so he was marked for his own protection.OK, now we are getting somewhere. So, you do see that there are other humans who are not from Adam and Eve. It seems that you agree that God did indeed create other humans, just at a different time period then I am suggesting. Is there anything in scripture that indicates when these other people were created by God?


The Bible may be at times enigmatic, but we must realize that it meets God's intent and not necessarily our desires. Clearly, the intent was to bring us closer to a rudimentary understanding of our relationship to God, and to allow us to take a path to salvation the The Law would not provide for most of us sinners.
You keep stating "clearly", but it is not at all clear to me. What scriptural passages make these things so clear to you?
Returning to the fundamental explanation of understanding Scripture, when the plain sense makes sense, don't make any other sense.
That's all well and good as long as plain sense actually does make sense, whereas Adam and Eve being the beginning of all mankind does not make sense. You yourself are agreeing that there were other created humans not related to Adam and Eve. It is now just a matter of timing. Why does it make a difference whether or not Adam and Eve came before these other created humans, especially since Genesis tells us that they were created before Adam and Eve?

[Some Dude]

Chopping things up like that doesnt help , it also adds to the confusion.
I think everyone is just a little lost as to why a simple scripture has been dissected so much.
When god said let us make man in our image , he wasnt just talking about Adam, but about the entire race that would spring from Adam and Eve, there were no men before Adam, thats why the scriptures tell about God making all the fish, animals etc. In Fact i also believe it talks about Adam naming all the animals as well.
The use of the Noun man describes Adam and his offspring nothing more or less, any other interpretation would point to a poor start to the issue of universal sovereignty.

[Some Dude]

Perhaps this stems from this being a singularly unusual belief about the meaning of scripture. I'm not personally offended bro, just bewildered that you seem to stick to this one without a cross reference from elsewhere in the Bible.

Clearly, other post-Adam humans were created in nearby areas such as Nod. And clearly, these people might be angry with a person who committed the first murder, so he was marked for his own protection.

The Bible may be at times enigmatic, but we must realize that it meets God's intent and not necessarily our desires. Clearly, the intent was to bring us closer to a rudimentary understanding of our relationship to God, and to allow us to take a path to salvation the The Law would not provide for most of us sinners.

Returning to the fundamental explanation of understanding Scripture, when the plain sense makes sense, don't make any other sense.

Its important to note one thing regarding the murder of Able.
Up until this time , no one had ever died before, there was no reference , also the first murder being a fratricide made it really bad as well.

God put a mark on Cain, so no one would kill him, part of his punishment.
Consider this too, reading the scripture, god was more upset with the motive for the murder than the murder its self.
As far as other people being created, it takes how long to reproduce ?
In the beginning people were closer to perfection, therefore they lived longer. Methuselah lived to be how old? Even Moses lived to be over 200 and that was centuries after the flood.
There had been plenty of time to populate the earth in 1000 years or so.
Read through out the scriptures and you will see some children are mentioned and some rarely it depends on where the focus was and what we are supposed to be learning from the most important book ever written.

[RoBoTeq]

Chopping things up like that doesnt help , it also adds to the confusion.
I think everyone is just a little lost as to why a simple scripture has been dissected so much.
When god said let us make man in our image , he wasnt just talking about Adam, but about the entire race that would spring from Adam and Eve, there were no men before Adam, thats why the scriptures tell about God making all the fish, animals etc. In Fact i also believe it talks about Adam naming all the animals as well.
The use of the Noun man describes Adam and his offspring nothing more or less, any other interpretation would point to a poor start to the issue of universal sovereignty.
Once again, we are seeking truth, not attempting to confuse. Accepting that Adam and Eve are the beginning of all of mankind is very confusing when compared to many other passages in scripture. So, we are exploring what we may be mistaken about in our beliefs.

If we openly look at what is being told to us in Genesis 1, without trying to make it fit into Adam and Eve being the first humans, we will see that mankind was "created" by God to rule over all of the animals of the Earth. Think of these animals as all wild animals. Also, every fruit bearing tree is given to man for food. Again, these are wild growing plants.

When we get to the end of Creation in Genesis 2:4, things take a dramatic turn of events. Genesis 2:5 is claiming that there was no shrub or plant in the "field", not the Earth as was stated in Genesis 1, but in the "field". Also, there was no rain and no man to work the "field". This suggests that God's previous creation of mankind, male and female, in Genesis 1, were hunters and gatherers. Now, in Genesis 2:5, God seems to be referring to man as a farmer.

Could it be that mankind did not work out as hunter/gatherers as God had hoped for and so God changed things up and "formed" Adam to be a farmer? Keeping in mind that Adam was "formed" by God, not created. Why the difference? If God had already "created" mankind as we are told in Genesis 1, then God was not creating Adam, but rather "forming" another man for a specific purpose. Later on, God "made" a woman from Adam's rib. "Made", not created. God had already "created" females in Genesis 1. Eve was not a "creation" just as Adam was not a "creation". Adam was "formed" and Eve was "made" from Adam.

All I ask is that you read the passages and compare them to one another.

[bootlen]

If you refuse to even read my posts properly, you have no right attempting to preach at me. No where did I confuse what the book of Romans is about and I have even gone into detail discussing the book of Romans in previous posts, which you have no doubt ignored as you have ignored any rational discussion.

Look guys, it is clear what you think of me. All I can say is that I regret having lost respect for those of you who refuse to even be civil and participate in a rational discussion.

Then what did the post to which I was referring have to do with anything? The book of Romans was mentioned and you said what you did about Rome. It is only natural to assume you were talking about the same Rome. Were you not?

[bootlen]

Clearly, other post-Adam humans were created in nearby areas such as Nod. And clearly, these people might be angry with a person who committed the first murder, so he was marked for his own protection.
[/I]

Not if one is to believe the whole of Scripture. And if the whole is not true, none is to be trusted.

It has been established by Scripture that sin entered the world through one man...Adam...and that "there is not one righteous, no not one". Any created other than Adam and Eve would not be sinful through Adam...making Scripture a lie.

[RoBoTeq]

Its important to note one thing regarding the murder of Able.
Up until this time , no one had ever died before, there was no reference , also the first murder being a fratricide made it really bad as well. We are getting a little ahead of the story with Cain and Abel. But, for reference sake, does scripture actually tell us that the murder of Able is the first murder that man has commited? Or, are we assuming this based on our perception that Adam and Eve are the beginning of all of mankind?


God put a mark on Cain, so no one would kill him, part of his punishment.
Consider this too, reading the scripture, god was more upset with the motive for the murder than the murder its self.
So, who are these other people and why are they in a place that is hidden from God?


13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear.
14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

As far as other people being created, it takes how long to reproduce ?
In the beginning people were closer to perfection, therefore they lived longer. Methuselah lived to be how old? Even Moses lived to be over 200 and that was centuries after the flood.
There had been plenty of time to populate the earth in 1000 years or so.
Read through out the scriptures and you will see some children are mentioned and some rarely it depends on where the focus was and what we are supposed to be learning from the most important book ever written. [/quote]

Once again, if these other people are the offspring of Adam and Eve, why are they hidden from God?

16 So Cain went out from the LORD'S presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

We are seeing that mankind was created during the seven day Creation of the Universe. This mankind is created to be hunter/gatherers. We then jump to a time when God decides to form Adam and later make Eve to be farmers. This progression incidentally also follows the evolutionary pattern of mankind first being hunter/gatherers and later on becoming farmers and herdsman.

After the fall of Adam and Eve in which they are driven from Eden, Cain gets into trouble by killing Abel. Here the Bible tells us that Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel are all living together. If there were more children of Adam and Eve, why would they not be living with the family? Would it not make more sense that the oldest would be the ones to leave? Also, if there were other children who left to live elsewhere, like in the land of Nod, why were they outside of God's presence? What would possess God to turn away from all of these alleged other children of Adam and Eve without a mention of such a thing in scripture?

[RoBoTeq]

Then what did the post to which I was referring have to do with anything? The book of Romans was mentioned and you said what you did about Rome. It is only natural to assume you were talking about the same Rome. Were you not?
You mixed up where I was referring to the book of Romans and where I was discussing the Romans take over of scripture.

[bootlen]

Once again, we are seeking truth, not attempting to confuse. Accepting that Adam and Eve are the beginning of all of mankind is very confusing when compared to many other passages in scripture. So, we are exploring what we may be mistaken about in our beliefs.

If we openly look at what is being told to us in Genesis 1, without trying to make it fit into Adam and Eve being the first humans, we will see that mankind was "created" by God to rule over all of the animals of the Earth. Think of these animals as all wild animals. Also, every fruit bearing tree is given to man for food. Again, these are wild growing plants.

When we get to the end of Creation in Genesis 2:4, things take a dramatic turn of events. Genesis 2:5 is claiming that there was no shrub or plant in the "field", not the Earth as was stated in Genesis 1, but in the "field". Also, there was no rain and no man to work the "field". This suggests that God's previous creation of mankind, male and female, in Genesis 1, were hunters and gatherers. Now, in Genesis 2:5, God seems to be referring to man as a farmer.

Could it be that mankind did not work out as hunter/gatherers as God had hoped for and so God changed things up and "formed" Adam to be a farmer? Keeping in mind that Adam was "formed" by God, not created. Why the difference? If God had already "created" mankind as we are told in Genesis 1, then God was not creating Adam, but rather "forming" another man for a specific purpose. Later on, God "made" a woman from Adam's rib. "Made", not created. God had already "created" females in Genesis 1. Eve was not a "creation" just as Adam was not a "creation". Adam was "formed" and Eve was "made" from Adam.

All I ask is that you read the passages and compare them to one another.

Scripture says Adam culktivated the garden...not just "gather". There was work in paradise but Adam did not "labor" as he did after the fall.

[bootlen]

You mixed up where I was referring to the book of Romans and where I was discussing the Romans take over of scripture.

Okay, my bad. I withdraw my comment.

[RoBoTeq]

Not if one is to believe the whole of Scripture. And if the whole is not true, none is to be trusted.

It has been established by Scripture that sin entered the world through one man...Adam...and that "there is not one righteous, no not one". Any created other than Adam and Eve would not be sinful through Adam...making Scripture a lie.
You continue to dwell on what Paul was telling previously Pagan Romans in order for them to understand sin. The Romans that Paul was addressing would not have been aware of the Hebrew Testament and would not have been aware of the two creations of man in Genesis. Also, this is after God has grafted all of mankind into the same covenant, at this time now making all sin to have come through Adam either by bloodline or by grafting in.

[bootlen]

BTW, Adam % Eve's other children can be found in Gen. 5:4. Just thought you'd like to know.

Adam fathered kids for some 800 years. How many kids do you think he could father in that time? I'm guessing around 800. And if just one of his kids fathered just 600, that's 1400 total. I think you can see the geometric progression here.

[RoBoTeq]

Scripture says Adam culktivated the garden...not just "gather". There was work in paradise but Adam did not "labor" as he did after the fall.
Exactly. Adam was formed to be a farmer, not a gatherer. Scripture does not give us the details of how the Garden of Eden was worked by Adam without being laboreous, so we don't really know what the difference was.

Adam was not formed to be a hunter/gatherer like mankind was previously created to be.

[RoBoTeq]

BTW, Adam % Eve's other children can be found in Gen. 5:4. Just thought you'd like to know.

Adam fathered kids for some 800 years. How many kids do you think he could father in that time? I'm guessing around 800. And if just one of his kids fathered just 600, that's 1400 total. I think you can see the geometric progression here.
Genesis 5 gets even more confusing until we again look at it from a different perspective. In Genesis 5, God reiterates the "creation" of man while talking about the line of "Adam".

Also, it is interesting that in Genesis 5, Seth appears to be Adam's first son when Adam was 130 years old. We are obviously missing something being told us here.

However, we are really getting ahead of our study of Genesis 1 and 2 by jumping around like this.

[bootlen]

You continue to dwell on what Paul was telling previously Pagan Romans in order for them to understand sin. The Romans that Paul was addressing would not have been aware of the Hebrew Testament and would not have been aware of the two creations of man in Genesis. Also, this is after God has grafted all of mankind into the same covenant, at this time now making all sin to have come through Adam either by bloodline or by grafting in.

The church at Rome was not composed of Romans alone. It was made up of all believers. And Paul certainly knew from whence he was speaking.

Also, given Scripture is God-breathed for ALL to hear...in the past, the present, and future, I'm sure God chose the exact words that would make sense to all and not contradict itself.

[RoBoTeq]

The church at Rome was not composed of Romans alone. It was made up of all believers. And Paul certainly knew from whence he was speaking.

Also, given Scripture is God-breathed for ALL to hear...in the past, the present, and future, I'm sure God chose the exact words that would make sense to all and not contradict itself.
OK boots, you keep taking this subject into different directions. It has already been explained...twice now, that at this much later point in time that you keep whoooshing us off to that all of mankind is included in God's view of the descendants of Adam and Eve. So yes boots; AT THIS POINT IN TIME in the New Testament, all sin is due to Adam and Eve.

Can we please try to stay on track and not be going off on tangents hundreds of years away?

[bootlen]

Genesis 5 gets even more confusing until we again look at it from a different perspective. In Genesis 5, God reiterates the "creation" of man while talking about the line of "Adam".

Also, it is interesting that in Genesis 5, Seth appears to be Adam's first son when Adam was 130 years old. We are obviously missing something being told us here.

Firstly, Genesis is not entirely a chronological list of events. One must remember book names, chapter and verse numbers were not part of inspired Scripture but added much later to help find passages. Genesis could very well have been several books about different perspectives of teh same events...like has been mentioned...a synopsis.

Secondly, I guess you get your assumption from vs. 3..."When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of a son and named him Seth." There is nothing there to indicate Seth was first born son...just a son.

Also, there is nothing to indicate A & E did not have children after C & A and before Seth. They may have had many children. I don't think there is any indication of Adam's age when he fathered C or A but there could easily have been more than 100 years, during which time many children could have been born to A & E, grew up, and moved to lands unknown.

But to say others were created and not born is contradictory to other Scripture.

However, we are really getting ahead of our study of Genesis 1 and 2 by jumping around like this.

I suppose one could become confused by this but if Scripture is to be tested and allowed to interpret Scripture, we have no choice, particularly since Genesis 1 & 2 come before any other passages that reveal the truth of these 2 chapters.

Hey, Robo...how's that for definitive answers? Please surprise me.

[bootlen]

OK boots, you keep taking this subject into different directions. It has already been explained...twice now, that at this much later point in time that you keep whoooshing us off to that all of mankind is included in God's view of the descendants of Adam and Eve. So yes boots; AT THIS POINT IN TIME in the New Testament, all sin is due to Adam and Eve.

Can we please try to stay on track and not be going off on tangents hundreds of years away?

Sure. But see the last sentence of my last post.

[timebuilder]

Also, it is interesting that in Genesis 5, Seth appears to be Adam's first son when Adam was 130 years old. We are obviously missing something being told us here.

I think one of the things we are missing is that with a longer lifespan, old testament men had no trouble fathering children at what we would view as an "advanced" age, and neither did the women in bearing them.

[bootlen]

I think one of the things we are missing is that with a longer lifespan, old testament men had no trouble fathering children at what we would view as an "advanced" age, and neither did the women in bearing them.

Very definitely a factor.

[Some Dude]

I thought i said that.

[bigtime]

Do you guys really beleive people lived 800 years? Do you really beleive one man and one woman had kids, and their kids conceived other kids?

[bootlen]

Do you guys really beleive people lived 800 years? Do you really beleive one man and one woman had kids, and their kids conceived other kids?

Incest still happens today. Problem is, the accumulated recessive gene pool tends to mess up the the genes of the child and leaves deformity.

And yes, I do believe people lived that long. We were created to live eternally...and believers have eternal life right now...just not in these earthly bodies. But because of the fall of man, death, shortened physical life, disease, etc. is now a factor.

[printer2]

We were created to live eternally...and believers have eternal life right now...just not in these earthly bodies. But because of the fall of man, death, shortened physical life, disease, etc. is now a factor.

And I thought it was just the greasy food.

[timebuilder]

Do you guys really believe people lived 800 years? Do you really beleive one man and one woman had kids, and their kids conceived other kids?

I believe what it says.

[acmanko]

what does any of this have to do with what Pat Robinson said?


But it is ironic that the creoles that where kicked out of Canada settle in both Haiti and New Orleans

[RoBoTeq]

Genesis 5 gets even more confusing until we again look at it from a different perspective. In Genesis 5, God reiterates the "creation" of man while talking about the line of "Adam".

Also, it is interesting that in Genesis 5, Seth appears to be Adam's first son when Adam was 130 years old. We are obviously missing something being told us here.

Firstly, Genesis is not entirely a chronological list of events. One must remember book names, chapter and verse numbers were not part of inspired Scripture but added much later to help find passages. Genesis could very well have been several books about different perspectives of teh same events...like has been mentioned...a synopsis.This is very well understood. The Creation actually ends at Genesis 2:4 instead of where we would think it would end at the end of Genesis 1. I have made no mention of the chapter and verse order other then to point everyone to where I was looking.


Secondly, I guess you get your assumption from vs. 3..."When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of a son and named him Seth." There is nothing there to indicate Seth was first born son...just a son.You are absolutely correct that Seth being a first born was an assumption, and not even much of one. I made it very clear in the beginning of this conversation that I am looking for evidence of data to lead me to the truth of Genesis, not to take away from any current beleifs. The current beliefs that don't add up and are awkwark when compared to other passages are what I am looking at the hardest. I see no reason to stop believing that Cain was the first born to Adam and Eve.

This of course makes it more difficult to understand why, if Cain was first born, why would later born children of Adam and Eve leave and not Cain. Also, if Adam and Eve had other children who left to form other towns in Nod before Cain killed Abel, why were they out of the sight of God, and why would they want to kill Cain?


Also, there is nothing to indicate A & E did not have children after C & A and before Seth. They may have had many children. I don't think there is any indication of Adam's age when he fathered C or A but there could easily have been more than 100 years, during which time many children could have been born to A & E, grew up, and moved to lands unknown. Again, I have no disagreement that this "could" have occurred also. So far, neither of us can show any scripture to support all of the coulda, shoulda, woulda scenarios we are coming up with to make Adam and Eve's being the beginning of all of mankind likely. So far, none of what we can come up with properly explains away the creation of man in Genesis 1 either.


But to say others were created and not born is contradictory to other Scripture.Absolutely not so. Genesis 1 clearly states that God (plural usage) "created" man (plural, as in mankind), male and female. It is not until Genesis 2, at an undetermined time period after the seven days of Creation, that God "forms" "the man" (singular)...no female, just "the man" who is later confirmed to be Adam. Actually, the Aramaic term for man and mankind is the same as the name Adam. This in itself causes confusion if we do not take all of these passages in the context in which they are being used. Mankind was "created" in Genesis 1, male and female. Some undetermined time later in Genesis 2, Adam was "formed" and even later, Eve was "made" from Adam.

Indications from Genesis 1 and 2 strongly support that mankind was created during seven day Creation of the Universe and were designed to be hunters and gatherers. Later on, Adam was "formed" to work the land as a farmer and to tend to domestic animals. It was planted vegetation and domestic animals that Adam gave names to. Later still, Eve was "made" from Adam's rib. Genesis 1 and 2 strongly suggest that Adam was not created. That would be because mankind had already been created. Adam was formed from the dirt and given life with God's breath. Adam and Eve were more likely the beginnings of a special race of man, different then all the rest of mankind.


However, we are really getting ahead of our study of Genesis 1 and 2 by jumping around like this.

I suppose one could become confused by this but if Scripture is to be tested and allowed to interpret Scripture, we have no choice, particularly since Genesis 1 & 2 come before any other passages that reveal the truth of these 2 chapters.

Hey, Robo...how's that for definitive answers? Please surprise me. Thank you. This is exactly the kind of dialogue I have been hoping for. No surprises, just maybe a different way of thinking about what actually went on so we can better understand what is going on today.

[corny]

Pat Robertson probably has a couple of young haitian boys tied up in a basement or shed somewhere. His haitian comments are probably in response to his guilt about what he does to those boys.

Officially back on topic.......

[bootlen]

Absolutely not so.

Then can you explain how sin came into the world through one man and ALL sin if some besides Adam were created? The ONLY possible scenario under these circumstances is the God created ONLY Adam (of whom is the man spoken above in this post) and Eve and the rest were biologically conceived in the natural order of things.

[glennac]

Pat Robertson probably has a couple of young haitian boys tied up in a basement or shed somewhere. His haitian comments are probably in response to his guilt about what he does to those boys.

Officially back on topic.......

Well I'm not a supporter of Pat Robertson but your comment is way over the top and pure hateful and I guess this can be expected from you. This sort of trash could be said for someone convicted of such things or at least is under a cloud of suspension for it for good reason but this sort of cruel slander in my opinion should not be allowed on this forum for someone who has never even been implicated in such things. Thank you very much.

[RoBoTeq]

I think one of the things we are missing is that with a longer lifespan, old testament men had no trouble fathering children at what we would view as an "advanced" age, and neither did the women in bearing them.
So, do you believe that Seth was the first born to Adam and Eve and that Cain and Abel came along later? Actually, Genesis 4:25 details that better by stating that;
25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." So, scripture tells us that Cain and Abel came before Seth.

Genesis 4:1 and 4:2 tells us;
1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."


2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. Notice that Cain and Abel farm and tend flocks, as God had planned for Adam.

So, Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old and was the replacement for Abel. Why would a replacement for Abel be needed if there were already a bunch of other sons who had gone away to build towns in Nod? This makes no sense. What makes sense is that there were already people in Nod who were not of the lineage of Adam and Eve. Genesis 1 and 2 clearly support this by telling us that mankind was created before Adam was formed.

[RoBoTeq]

Do you guys really beleive people lived 800 years? Do you really beleive one man and one woman had kids, and their kids conceived other kids?
Yes to the time span. If not precisely what scripture states, at least a time span relatively longer then today. At least for Adam and Eve and their descendants.

As far as the intermarriage in order to create a race, I'm not so sure about that occurring intentionally to create complete races. It would be more feasible that all of the races of man were "created" in Genesis 1 except for the race that was the line of Adam and Eve.

There are many family trees, especially in Europe's recent past, that are a straight tree trunk with few branches. Of course we know that intermarriage causes diminished capacity children, so it is now frowned on and illegal in most places.

[bootlen]

Why would a replacement for Abel be needed if there were already a bunch of other sons who had gone away to build towns in Nod?

Abel was the "rancher" if you will. He replaced the "rancher".

This makes no sense. What makes sense is that there were already people in Nod who were not of the lineage of Adam and Eve. Genesis 1 and 2 clearly support this by telling us that mankind was created before Adam was formed.

Nope. Nowhere in Scripture will you find a passage that says God did what you claim.

[bootlen]

Yes to the time span. If not precisely what scripture states, at least a time span relatively longer then today. At least for Adam and Eve and their descendants.

As far as the intermarriage in order to create a race, I'm not so sure about that occurring intentionally to create complete races. It would be more feasible that all of the races of man were "created" in Genesis 1 except for the race that was the line of Adam and Eve.

There are many family trees, especially in Europe's recent past, that are a straight tree trunk with few branches. Of course we know that intermarriage causes diminished capacity children, so it is now frowned on and illegal in most places.

There is only one race...the race of man.

http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-39765.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLXAFOw8wfg&feature=fvw

I would be willing to bet that A & E had at least several black kids.

Sorry, Glenn. :couchhide:

[RoBoTeq]

Then can you explain how sin came into the world through one man and ALL sin if some besides Adam were created? The ONLY possible scenario under these circumstances is the God created ONLY Adam (of whom is the man spoken above in this post) and Eve and the rest were biologically conceived in the natural order of things.
OK BOOTS. Since you insist on keep taking this discussion off course, lets' discuss what YOU want to discuss and get it out of the way!

The epistle to the Romans was written by Paul, a devout Jew. It was written to the church in Rome which was comprised mostly of ex Pagan Romans, Greeks etc. who were not familiar with the Hebrew Bible. Here are the passages that keep interrupting this discussion with;

10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!First thing that comes to my mind is that this is a parable that Paul has designed from his teachings of how sin came to be, which Paul would have received from the Hebrew Bible that the Roman's would not be familiar with.

Even if it is not a parable, for the third time now;;;;; THINGS CHANGED AFTER CHRIST! That's why it is called the NEW TESTAMENT!

After Christ's death and ressurection, all of mankind was put under the same umbrella through Jesus Christ.

If mankind were created before Adam was formed, obviously mankind already had sin. It was only Adam who was without sin because Adam was not given by God the thing that makes us understand good and evil. When Adam took the apple, Adam lost his sinnlessness.

Of course I am ad-libbing all of this because scripture has not yet revealed this answer to us that I am aware of. Just because I don't know a thing, does not mean that thing does not exist.

[RoBoTeq]

Well I'm not a supporter of Pat Robertson but your comment is way over the top and pure hateful and I guess this can be expected from you. This sort of trash could be said for someone convicted of such things or at least is under a cloud of suspension for it for good reason but this sort of cruel slander in my opinion should not be allowed on this forum for someone who has never even been implicated in such things. Thank you very much.
Nothing is more hateful then what Pat Robertson said. What corny said in his post about Pat Robertson is a lot more likely then what Pat Robertson said about Haiti.

[bootlen]

OK BOOTS. Since you insist on keep taking this discussion off course, lets' discuss what YOU want to discuss and get it out of the way!

The epistle to the Romans was written by Paul, a devout Jew. It was written to the church in Rome which was comprised mostly of ex Pagan Romans, Greeks etc. who were not familiar with the Hebrew Bible. Here are the passages that keep interrupting this discussion with; First thing that comes to my mind is that this is a parable that Paul has designed from his teachings of how sin came to be, which Paul would have received from the Hebrew Bible that the Roman's would not be familiar with.[/FONT][/SIZE]

Even if it is not a parable, for the third time now;;;;; THINGS CHANGED AFTER CHRIST! That's why it is called the NEW TESTAMENT!

After Christ's death and ressurection, all of mankind was put under the same umbrella through Jesus Christ.

If mankind were created before Adam was formed, obviously mankind already had sin. It was only Adam who was without sin because Adam was not given by God the thing that makes us understand good and evil. When Adam took the apple, Adam lost his sinnlessness.

Of course I am ad-libbing all of this because scripture has not yet revealed this answer to us that I am aware of. Just because I don't know a thing, does not mean that thing does not exist.

Once again, if Scripture is to be tested as accurate and is to interpret Scripture, other Scripture MUST be used. What do you WANT to do...allow Mother Goose to interpret Scripture?

[RoBoTeq]

Why would a replacement for Abel be needed if there were already a bunch of other sons who had gone away to build towns in Nod?

Abel was the "rancher" if you will. He replaced the "rancher".
So, you agree that Adam was formed to be a farmer and a herdsman, or rancher? Does it seem odd to you that Adam had a bunch of other sons and instead of either being farmers or herdsmen like their father, they split to start towns away from the sight of God? And, what I am really looking for, is there anything in scripture that indicates or even hints to Adam and Eve having a bunch of other kids after Abel and before Seth? And, are there any indications in scripture telling us that these other offspring of Adam and Eve left their family to go into the land of Nod, away from the sight of God, and build towns? Does scripture hint to why Cain's alleged family members who left the family to go to the land of Nod, out of God's sight, would hate Cain and want to kill him? Any hint that Cain marries his sister?:anyone:


This makes no sense. What makes sense is that there were already people in Nod who were not of the lineage of Adam and Eve. Genesis 1 and 2 clearly support this by telling us that mankind was created before Adam was formed.

Nope. Nowhere in Scripture will you find a passage that says God did what you claim.
For the fourth time;
Genesis 1

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so. Aside from creating man in the plural, both male and female, and telling them to go forth and multiply, it seems that God also may have intended mankind to be vegetarians along with the beasts and the birds. Maybe something went wrong with that vegetarian thing. But, I digress.

Compare this first accounting of the creation of mankind with the accounting of the forming of Adam;
Genesis 2

7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
A
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
In Genesis 1, during the seven day Creation of the Universe, after wild vegetation and wild beasts and birds have also been created, God creates mankind (clearly plural). Both male and female of mankind were created at this time.

Now, the Bible jumps ahead to an unspecified time later when it is noted that there was no shrub or plant in the "fields" or was there any man to work the "fields". For what ever reason, God is now wanting a man to farm and so God "forms" a man, Adam, and puts Adam in God's Garden of Eden.

Note that there was no female counterpart "formed" from the dust with Adam; just Adam, who was "formed", not created. Later on God "makes" Eve. God does not create Eve and Eve was not made at the same time as Adam as Eve's female counterparts in the creation of mankind were. Eve is "made" from Adam's rib. The forming of Adam and the making of Eve is very different then the creation of mankind during the seven days of Creation.

[corny]

Well I'm not a supporter of Pat Robertson but your comment is way over the top and pure hateful and I guess this can be expected from you. This sort of trash could be said for someone convicted of such things or at least is under a cloud of suspension for it for good reason but this sort of cruel slander in my opinion should not be allowed on this forum for someone who has never even been implicated in such things. Thank you very much.


I would say that over 50 percent of the comments on this part of the forum are full of hate...... Not doing any math......just a guess.... but Id say its pretty accurate.

Slander..... Nope....my opinion....

Now if I had written "I heard" or "I know for a fact"... that Pat blah blah blah.... now that would be libel.....

slander is spoken word......libel is written.....but of course neither apply here....

Please Glenn....dont drag this off topic again.... If you have nothing of relavance to the topic..... Pat Robertsons demented sexual preferences and his blaming of the victims to help repress his guilty feelings.....then please just dont respond.

[glennac]

Nothing is more hateful then what Pat Robertson said. What corny said in his post about Pat Robertson is a lot more likely then what Pat Robertson said about Haiti.

One wrong doesn't make another wrong a right robo. Do you know anything about Pat Robertson that would allow Corny, you or anyone else to say that he is a child rapist?

Because Pat Robertson makes a statement that the earthquake was God's will and while it may be outlandish and so on, you can then rightly chastise him for that. But it is not morally correct, honest or Christian even to make knowingly false charges against him for that. I am truly surprised that you would defend corny for this.

So if anyone makes a statement which you in your mind know is wrong, you can falsely charge him with crimes that he has never committed and that is morally OK. Please correct yourself robo because you are defending slander, perjury, of the worst kind because you disagree with someone. How can you defend that. You can't. Thank you, thank you very much.

[RoBoTeq]

There is only one race...the race of man.

http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-39765.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLXAFOw8wfg&feature=fvw

I would be willing to bet that A & E had at least several black kids.

Sorry, Glenn. :couchhide:
This is pretty sick, if not blasphemy. Are you suggesting that Eve had sex with a White guy and a Black guy in order to have White and Black offspring? That's what needs to occur according to the link you posted;
Genetically its possible for a woman to bear twins fathered by two different fathers. This can happen when a woman has sexual intercourse with 2 men within a short interval. If the mother ovulates more than one egg and has more than one partner during her fertile period, one egg is fertilized with sperm from one partner, and the other egg from sperm of the second partner resulting in 2 different fathers for the same pair of twins. This rare phenomenon is known as the milkman effect.

However, you bring up another point that supports that mankind was created before Adam and Eve and that mankind was created as the different races. Race is determined by DNA. We know that now, the authors of the Bible would not have known that. Even though we refer to blood lines, it is DNA that makes us what we are, not blood. You could be a White person who has had transfussions of blood from a Black person with compatible blood and you would never become Black. A White man and a White woman cannot genetically produce a Black child. There must have been a variety of races created.

[RoBoTeq]

Once again, if Scripture is to be tested as accurate and is to interpret Scripture, other Scripture MUST be used. What do you WANT to do...allow Mother Goose to interpret Scripture?
I addressed what you wanted to discuss, three times now. Can you please try to stay on track? You are like a ferret with ADD. At least let's try to stay in the same book for now.

[RoBoTeq]

One wrong doesn't make another wrong a right robo. Do you know anything about Pat Robertson that would allow Corny, you or anyone else to say that he is a child rapist?

Because Pat Robertson makes a statement that the earthquake was God's will and while it may be outlandish and so on, you can then rightly chastise him for that. But it is not morally correct, honest or Christian even to make knowingly false charges against him for that. I am truly surprised that you would defend corny for this.

So if anyone makes a statement which you in your mind know is wrong, you can falsely charge him with crimes that he has never committed and that is morally OK. Please correct yourself robo because you are defending slander, perjury, of the worst kind because you disagree with someone. How can you defend that. You can't. Thank you, thank you very much.
I don't much care what anyone says about Pat Robertson after what he said. We also can't say for certain that corny is wrong about Pat Robertson. Let's put it this way, if I heard what corny stated in a news bulletin, it wouldn't surprise me.

Then again, I understand that since you used to sleep with some of the men you worked with that you would want to dismiss things that Pat Robertson might be doing:eek2:. And you know that what I just typed about you is accurate because you told me it happened:angel:

[corny]

One wrong doesn't make another wrong a right robo. Do you know anything about Pat Robertson that would allow Corny, you or anyone else to say that he is a child rapist?

Because Pat Robertson makes a statement that the earthquake was God's will and while it may be outlandish and so on, you can then rightly chastise him for that. But it is not morally correct, honest or Christian even to make knowingly false charges against him for that. I am truly surprised that you would defend corny for this.

So if anyone makes a statement which you in your mind know is wrong, you can falsely charge him with crimes that he has never committed and that is morally OK. Please correct yourself robo because you are defending slander, perjury, of the worst kind because you disagree with someone. How can you defend that. You can't. Thank you, thank you very much.

Hi Glenn, guess you are here on the forum now...

Its not slander when I post what I think about Pat Robertson. As a televangelist he should be automatically suspect for deviant sexual activity.....they all should be... Jim Bakker, Swaggert..... "Oral" Roberts.....

Bunch of sexual deviants and wolves in sheeps clothing if you ask me.....

and again.....written word is libel.......but being as I was stating my opinion and not writing that I had evidence of this....that someone had told me that or that I had read it or heard it somewhere.... then its not a crime....

>:)

[glennac]

.............................
Please Glenn....dont drag this off topic again.... If you have nothing of relavance to the topic..... Pat Robertsons demented sexual preferences and his blaming of the victims to help repress his guilty feelings.....then please just dont respond.

I can and will respond provided I don't use hate and knowingly false charges in my post. Or show us where your charges that Pat Robertson is a child rapist or has demented sexual preferences even if you have robo agreeing with you. I wish you could do the same. Thank you very much

[RoBoTeq]

I can and will respond provided I don't use hate and knowingly false charges in my post. Or show us where your charges that Pat Robertson is a child rapist or has demented sexual preferences even if you have robo agreeing with you. I wish you could do the same. Thank you very much
Pat Robertson is the only one I have ever heard speak authoritively about having sex with ducks. Yes he did! Look it up. The man is a quack.

[glennac]

................Then again, I understand that since you used to sleep with some of the men you worked with that you would want to dismiss things that Pat Robertson might be doing:eek2:. And you know that what I just typed about you is accurate because you told me it happened:angel:

You are knowingly implying another falsehood here robo. Please tell what I actually said. Here is it for the record, back in the 60's it was considered socially acceptable for single straight guys to share an apartment and me and two other guys who worked at TVA in Kentucky shared part of a large old house which was subdivided into separate apartments.

We got three rooms one was the old kitchen, living room and then the dinning room. There were no doors and only one large king sized bed. Well until we could get some single beds a week later we had to share the king size bed we all had girl friends and while it was funny at the time we joked about it we were straight as arrows.

Now I told you that as a funny joke about how times are changed now where two straight guys can't share an apartment now without being looked at funny at least since the 80's.

I consider that a low blow robo. That you are now trying to slander me over a falsehood which you implied and didn't tell the whole truth. Thank you, thank you very much.

[RoBoTeq]

You are knowingly implying another falsehood here robo. Please tell what I actually said. Here is it for the record, back in the 60's it was considered socially acceptable for single straight guys to share an apartment and me and two other guys who worked at TVA in Kentucky shared part of a large old house which was subdivided into separate apartments.

We got three rooms one was the old kitchen, living room and then the dinning room. There were no walls and only one large king sized bed. Well until we could get two single beds a week later we had to share the king size bed we all had girl friends and while it was funny at the time we joked about it we were straight as arrows.

Now I told you that as a funny joke about how times are changed now where two straight guys can't share an apartment now without being looked at funny at least since the 80's.

I consider that a low blow robo. That you are now trying to slander me over a falsehood which you implied and didn't tell the whole truth. Thank you, thank you very much.
LOL! I still love telling that one just to see you get all flustered all over again:LOL:::DD:

[corny]

Just be glad Pat Robertson wasnt staying in that house with you all...... of course I am assuming you were all over 18 so you more than likely would have been safe....

Especially if there were some chickens nearby.....

[RoBoTeq]

Just be glad Pat Robertson wasnt staying in that house with you all...... of course I am assuming you were all over 18 so you more than likely would have been safe....

Especially if there were some chickens nearby.....
Ducks. Pat Robertson seems to prefer sex with ducks.

[glennac]

Ducks. Pat Robertson seems to prefer sex with ducks.

You all are both sick. I might add while I'm not a supporter of Robertson my wife is and be glad she doesn't know what you all are saying. I'm going to sleep. Thank you very much

[RoBoTeq]

You all are both sick. I might add while I'm not a supporter of Robertson my wife is and be glad she doesn't know what you all are saying. I'm going to sleep. Thank you very much
Pat Robertson really did talk about having sex with ducks;
“Ladies and gentleman, just figure this: You got somebody, he’s really weird, and—and his ‘sexual orientation’ is he likes to uh–have sex with ducks. Is he protected under hate crime? http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/140346/sex_with_ducks:_a_hilarious_take_down_of_pat_rober tson's_stance_on_gay_marriage/

[glennac]

Pat Robertson really did talk about having sex with ducks; http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/140346/sex_with_ducks:_a_hilarious_take_down_of_pat_rober tson's_stance_on_gay_marriage/

This is a gay web site with a cartoon mocking Robertson because he is against gay marriage. Quote:

A great pro-gay marriage music video in response to Robertson's quote that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing sex with ducks.


So you are using this gay web site which mocks Pat Robertson because he said that legalizing gay marriage could lead to legalizing sex with ducks and other animals to claim that he had sex with a duck. I say again robo you are sick and made another false charge against Robertson and your favorite gay web site doesn't even claim this. They are opposed to Robertson stand against gay marriage and are you for gay marriage. That is the question here. Thank you very much.

[Some Dude]

Glen if you want them to continue the attack stay on topic,some of these guys would rather pretend they found something new in the Bible that no one else has in hundreds / thousands of years.
Maybe they want their own religion, seems to me though, if there were other people bopping around doing whatever they wanted then the entire bible would be a lie.
Guess it was ok for everyone else to eat from any old tree except Adam And Eve, maybe this was the first instance of prejudice robo, god for some reason hated Adam and Eve so he put more restrictions on them than all the other people ,[ unnamed by the way] he had created.

Robo, you are taking liberties with Gods holy word, you should stop now and not lean on your own understanding before you get yourself in trouble.

Ever wonder why the three fundamentalist as you call us have absolutely no idea where you are coming from?
Maybe its not us, im just sayin.

[kitchenfixer]

I think Pat lost his marbles many years ago. As a Christian, I am embarrassed and outraged by some of his statements. He sets a bad example for our faith.

X2 X2!!:eek2:

Pat Robertson is one of the great Bible Scholars of our time, but needs to learn tact and compassion. I make this comment while looking in the mirror (A LOT)!

[corny]

Lighten up Glenn..

Public fiqures are insulted on this forum every day.....

Ive also seen personal insults hurled about on here....but the post ended with a "just kidding".....or something along those lines.

I cast my fly upon the waters and you bit.........lol

[bootlen]

So, you agree that Adam was formed to be a farmer and a herdsman, or rancher?

Secondarily and as a means of physical satisfaction and pleasure.

Does it seem odd to you that Adam had a bunch of other sons and instead of either being farmers or herdsmen like their father, they split to start towns away from the sight of God?

Maybe they wanted their space. And who said they were all not farmers, herdsmen, etc. I'm sure some were and some were not. Maybe they were wood crafters or some such. It's really not pertinent to the discussion at hand. God cares not what kind of legitimate career path we follow.

And, what I am really looking for, is there anything in scripture that indicates or even hints to Adam and Eve having a bunch of other kids after Abel and before Seth?

Yes.

And, are there any indications in scripture telling us that these other offspring of Adam and Eve left their family to go into the land of Nod, away from the sight of God, and build towns?

Yes.

Does scripture hint to why Cain's alleged family members who left the family to go to the land of Nod, out of God's sight, would hate Cain and want to kill him?

Yes.

Any hint that Cain marries his sister?

Yes.

For the fourth time;Aside from creating man in the plural, both male and female, and telling them to go forth and multiply, it seems that God also may have intended mankind to be vegetarians along with the beasts and the birds. Maybe something went wrong with that vegetarian thing. But, I digress.

No problem. But you are correct.

Compare this first accounting of the creation of mankind with the accounting of the forming of Adam; In Genesis 1, during the seven day Creation of the Universe, after wild vegetation and wild beasts and birds have also been created, God creates mankind (clearly plural). Both male and female of mankind were created at this time.

Yes. Two is plural. Additionally, He created procreative components in mankind for perpetuation of mankind.

Now, the Bible jumps ahead to an unspecified time later when it is noted that there was no shrub or plant in the "fields" or was there any man to work the "fields". For what ever reason, God is now wanting a man to farm and so God "forms" a man, Adam, and puts Adam in God's Garden of Eden.

Yes.

Note that there was no female counterpart "formed" from the dust with Adam; just Adam, who was "formed", not created. Later on God "makes" Eve. God does not create Eve and Eve was not made at the same time as Adam as Eve's female counterparts in the creation of mankind were. Eve is "made" from Adam's rib. The forming of Adam and the making of Eve is very different then the creation of mankind during the seven days of Creation.

Yes. But we already know Adam was created and NOW we know he was "formed" and not just left as a pile of dirt without legs to get around, eyes to see, ears to hear...uh, you get the picture.

[bootlen]

This is pretty sick, if not blasphemy. Are you suggesting that Eve had sex with a White guy and a Black guy in order to have White and Black offspring?

I went back and read that and don't see where I said that.

That's what needs to occur according to the link you posted; However, you bring up another point that supports that mankind was created before Adam and Eve and that mankind was created as the different races. Race is determined by DNA. We know that now, the authors of the Bible would not have known that. Even though we refer to blood lines, it is DNA that makes us what we are, not blood. You could be a White person who has had transfussions of blood from a Black person with compatible blood and you would never become Black. A White man and a White woman cannot genetically produce a Black child. There must have been a variety of races created.

One race...man. Some have recessive blond hair and blue eye genes but have black hair and brown eyes because of dominant black hair genes and brown eye genes. And others of us have recessive black hair and recessive brown eye genes and have blond hair and blue eyes because of those dominant genes. (I am not saying all blonds have blue eyes and all black haired people have brown eyes. This is just as an example.)
But suppose a man with the former and a lady with the former have children and those recessive genes make the connection and become dominant in the child.
This blond hair and blue eyed couple have given birth to a black hair brown eyed child. I have seen it happen.
Dominant genes manifest themselves in our appearance and recessive ones do not.

[bootlen]

OK BOOTS. Since you insist on keep taking this discussion off course, lets' discuss what YOU want to discuss and get it out of the way!

The epistle to the Romans was written by Paul, a devout Jew. It was written to the church in Rome which was comprised mostly of ex Pagan Romans, Greeks etc. who were not familiar with the Hebrew Bible. Here are the passages that keep interrupting this discussion with; First thing that comes to my mind is that this is a parable that Paul has designed from his teachings of how sin came to be, which Paul would have received from the Hebrew Bible that the Roman's would not be familiar with.[/FONT][/SIZE]

Even if it is not a parable, for the third time now;;;;; THINGS CHANGED AFTER CHRIST! That's why it is called the NEW TESTAMENT!

After Christ's death and ressurection, all of mankind was put under the same umbrella through Jesus Christ.

If mankind were created before Adam was formed, obviously mankind already had sin. It was only Adam who was without sin because Adam was not given by God the thing that makes us understand good and evil. When Adam took the apple, Adam lost his sinnlessness.

Of course I am ad-libbing all of this because scripture has not yet revealed this answer to us that I am aware of. Just because I don't know a thing, does not mean that thing does not exist.

Nah. Forget it. I didn't start the topic...someone else did. I was just responding too whomever it was.

[bootlen]

Nothing is more hateful then what Pat Robertson said. What corny said in his post about Pat Robertson is a lot more likely then what Pat Robertson said about Haiti.

I don't know if it was hateful so much as just plain ignorant. He's on the same level as Jimma in my book.

[Some Dude]

2 tim 2:23 Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.

Im out intill another thread where hopefully everybody's on the same plane of existence and the space time contemn hasnt been altered. nano nano

[RoBoTeq]

Glen if you want them to continue the attack stay on topic,some of these guys would rather pretend they found something new in the Bible that no one else has in hundreds / thousands of years.
Maybe they want their own religion, seems to me though, if there were other people bopping around doing whatever they wanted then the entire bible would be a lie.
Guess it was ok for everyone else to eat from any old tree except Adam And Eve, maybe this was the first instance of prejudice robo, god for some reason hated Adam and Eve so he put more restrictions on them than all the other people ,[ unnamed by the way] he had created.

Robo, you are taking liberties with Gods holy word, you should stop now and not lean on your own understanding before you get yourself in trouble.

Ever wonder why the three fundamentalist as you call us have absolutely no idea where you are coming from?
Maybe its not us, im just sayin.
Actually zach, I am more concerned that it was the Roman Catholic Church that took liberties in changing the intent of the Bible to suit their Pagan needs in the fourth century A.D.

We only have commentary on the Bible from relatively recent authorities who are all relating scripture to us from the viewpoint of the RCC. I believe that the Hebrews and original Christians would have understood Genesis more the way I am proposing it was. This is not some new idea of mine. This is one of the many things about scripture that has bothered me all of my life. I pray often for understanding of scripture and this is one of the thoughts that came to me. On doing some investigation, I found that this issue has been investigated by others and answers a lot of unanswered questions or questions that can only be answered with wild assumptive answers.

What I am proposing is not a new concept, but rather the original way that scripture was understood because it is the true intent of scripture.

To test the different versions of the creation of mankind and the forming of Adam and making of Eve, we only have to look for a reason that the RCC would want to alter the passages, as the RCC has done with so many other passages of scripture in order to make Mary, the mother of Jesus, a goddess, to make the Apostle Peter the bishop of Rome and to make Mary Magdelene a prostitute, none of which are supported by scripture alone.

[RoBoTeq]

X2 X2!!:eek2:

Pat Robertson is one of the great Bible Scholars of our time, but needs to learn tact and compassion. I make this comment while looking in the mirror (A LOT)!
A very good way to look at this issue. Thanks for the reminder to pay attention to the plank in my own eye while dwelling on the splinter in the eyes of others.

[corny]

I don't know if it was hateful so much as just plain ignorant. He's on the same level as Jimma in my book.


If I was ignorant Id be on here defending my position that the earth is 6000 years old or so.....lol

You can be a perfectly good christian without being a complete dumbass....

[acmanko]

This discussion about Genesis has been debated at least 10 times since ARP was created.

Everyone is strong enough in their respective faith, and how they worship.

In the Lord's Name I hope each can find peace .

[RoBoTeq]

So, you agree that Adam was formed to be a farmer and a herdsman, or rancher?

Secondarily and as a means of physical satisfaction and pleasure.I am not disagreeing that I feel the same way, but where does scripture indicate this? With telling us of the garden prepared for Adam to work, we are absolutely being told that Adam is the origin of the farmer.


Does it seem odd to you that Adam had a bunch of other sons and instead of either being farmers or herdsmen like their father, they split to start towns away from the sight of God?

Maybe they wanted their space. And who said they were all not farmers, herdsmen, etc. I'm sure some were and some were not. Maybe they were wood crafters or some such. It's really not pertinent to the discussion at hand. God cares not what kind of legitimate career path we follow. Again, I cannot disagree. It is just that scripture does not address any of this. The most important factor here is why would the offspring of Adam and Eve be away from the sight of God? This seems to be a pretty important thing if it is truth.


And, what I am really looking for, is there anything in scripture that indicates or even hints to Adam and Eve having a bunch of other kids after Abel and before Seth?

Yes.
Could you please expand on this and show us that scripture?

And, are there any indications in scripture telling us that these other offspring of Adam and Eve left their family to go into the land of Nod, away from the sight of God, and build towns?

Yes.Again, please show this scripture so we may learn.


Does scripture hint to why Cain's alleged family members who left the family to go to the land of Nod, out of God's sight, would hate Cain and want to kill him?

Yes.Again, please show this scripture so we may learn.


Any hint that Cain marries his sister?

Yes. Again, please show this scripture so we may learn.


For the fourth time;Aside from creating man in the plural, both male and female, and telling them to go forth and multiply, it seems that God also may have intended mankind to be vegetarians along with the beasts and the birds. Maybe something went wrong with that vegetarian thing. But, I digress.

No problem. But you are correct.Are you saying that I am correct about mankind being created to be vegetarians in the original creation of mankind during the seven days of Creation? Good, we may be getting somewhere.


Compare this first accounting of the creation of mankind with the accounting of the forming of Adam; In Genesis 1, during the seven day Creation of the Universe, after wild vegetation and wild beasts and birds have also been created, God creates mankind (clearly plural). Both male and female of mankind were created at this time.

Yes. Two is plural. Additionally, He created procreative components in mankind for perpetuation of mankind.Two or more is plural. God formed Adam as a singular being, so Genesis 1 cannot be referring to Adam the man who God placed in the Garden of Eden but rather adam referring to mankind, male and female of all of the races that now exist on the Earth. Good, we are making progress.


Now, the Bible jumps ahead to an unspecified time later when it is noted that there was no shrub or plant in the "fields" or was there any man to work the "fields". For what ever reason, God is now wanting a man to farm and so God "forms" a man, Adam, and puts Adam in God's Garden of Eden.

Yes. OK, so we agree that there is an unspecified timespan between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. We agree that mankind has already been "created" in the plural (no specifics as to how many), male and female during the seven day period of Creation. And now we are some time after the Creation of the Universe and God is looking at bare fields that have no man to work. Something very wrong must have occured with God's created mankind that God decided to form another man to work the field. I am sure that what occured to God's created mankind is a very interesting story, but it is not a story told in the Hebrew Bible.


Note that there was no female counterpart "formed" from the dust with Adam; just Adam, who was "formed", not created. Later on God "makes" Eve. God does not create Eve and Eve was not made at the same time as Adam as Eve's female counterparts in the creation of mankind were. Eve is "made" from Adam's rib. The forming of Adam and the making of Eve is very different then the creation of mankind during the seven days of Creation.

Yes. But we already know Adam was created and NOW we know he was "formed" and not just left as a pile of dirt without legs to get around, eyes to see, ears to hear...uh, you get the picture. Hmmm, not a pretty picture....

Seems like you are stretching a bit to make what we have been taught work in scripture. In order to make this bizzaro scenario of a formless Adam floundering about as dirt we have to neglect that Eve was not formed the same as Adam. Genesis 1 is pretty specific about man (adam with a small "a")was "created", male and female. If this adam with a small "a", indicating mankind, is the specific Adam who is put into the Garden of Eden, who is the female counterpart created with this adam? Jews today claim she was Lilith. Are you suggesting that the first creation of mankind that is cited in Genesis 1 has God "creating" Adam and Lilith and then later on when Lilith didn't work out, God formed Adam again and "made" Eve from Adam's rib? Wow; this is getting a bit convoluted in order to make Adam fit into the original creation of mankind.

[RoBoTeq]

This is pretty sick, if not blasphemy. Are you suggesting that Eve had sex with a White guy and a Black guy in order to have White and Black offspring?

I went back and read that and don't see where I said that.

That's what needs to occur according to the link you posted; However, you bring up another point that supports that mankind was created before Adam and Eve and that mankind was created as the different races. Race is determined by DNA. We know that now, the authors of the Bible would not have known that. Even though we refer to blood lines, it is DNA that makes us what we are, not blood. You could be a White person who has had transfussions of blood from a Black person with compatible blood and you would never become Black. A White man and a White woman cannot genetically produce a Black child. There must have been a variety of races created.

One race...man. Some have recessive blond hair and blue eye genes but have black hair and brown eyes because of dominant black hair genes and brown eye genes. And others of us have recessive black hair and recessive brown eye genes and have blond hair and blue eyes because of those dominant genes. (I am not saying all blonds have blue eyes and all black haired people have brown eyes. This is just as an example.)
But suppose a man with the former and a lady with the former have children and those recessive genes make the connection and become dominant in the child.
This blond hair and blue eyed couple have given birth to a black hair brown eyed child. I have seen it happen.
Dominant genes manifest themselves in our appearance and recessive ones do not.
Our race is not determined by the color of our eyes or hair. You cannot wiggle out of this one, race in genetic and two persons of one race cannot produce a child of another race as you tried to justify with your link to a woman who must have had sex with two men of different races very close together. You are really wallowing in some lowly gutters to try to support what you believe here. Please, pull yourself out of the gutters and lets open our minds and hearts to scripture by pushing aside all that we have been taught that may be very wrong.

[RoBoTeq]

I don't know if it was hateful so much as just plain ignorant. He's on the same level as Jimma in my book.
I'll go along with this. This is a better way for us to think of the man. After all, we can only expect to be forgiven in the way that we forgive others.

[RoBoTeq]

Im out intill another thread where hopefully everybody's on the same plane of existence and the space time contemn hasnt been altered. nano nano
Sorry to see you not want to participate in seeking truth from scripture. You do realize that I will consider this your way of hiding your head in the sand:angel:

[bootlen]

This discussion about Genesis has been debated at least 10 times since ARP was created.

Everyone is strong enough in their respective faith, and how they worship.

In the Lord's Name I hope each can find peace .

Why, thank you, Pastor. I have.

[acmanko]

Why, thank you, Pastor. I have.

Are you giving me a Title or calling me a name?:rolleyes: I don't want to have to sick K or M on you

[geerair]

If I was ignorant Id be on here defending my position that the earth is 6000 years old or so.....lol

You can be a perfectly good christian without being a complete dumbass....Yes, that is perfectly true but some of the brethren here choose to remain ignorant.

[geerair]

This discussion about Genesis has been debated at least 10 times since ARP was created.But it is quite entertaining if not enlightening everytime they battle it out.

[acmanko]

But it is quite entertaining if not enlightening everytime they battle it out.

Yes it is

[bootlen]

I am not disagreeing that I feel the same way, but where does scripture indicate this? With telling us of the garden prepared for Adam to work, we are absolutely being told that Adam is the origin of the farmer.Again, I cannot disagree. It is just that scripture does not address any of this.

Apparently, it is not an issue to God.

The most important factor here is why would the offspring of Adam and Eve be away from the sight of God? This seems to be a pretty important thing if it is truth.Could you please expand on this and show us that scripture?Again, please show this scripture so we may learn.Again, please show this scripture so we may learn.Again, please show this scripture so we may learn.

They were not out of God's sight. No one is. He is omnipresent. Ps. 139:8 ; Jer. 23:23,24. There are others but this should suffice.

Are you saying that I am correct about mankind being created to be vegetarians in the original creation of mankind during the seven days of Creation?

Now, THAT is an excellent question. I love it.

Scripture does not come out and address this directly but given that the first blood shed was an that of animal whose skin was used to cover A & E's sin, I would think God's intention would be for us to be non-carniverous. BUT, He gave us teeth specifically designed to chew meat. So there is some dichotomy. My take is that His intention was that no animal die but He knew man was (close your eyes, Scrog) going to screw up so He made man capable of eating meat. But why? I can only surmise that there is something (Protein, maybe? I dunno.) in consumption of meat that would help in our survival of the environment after the fall and Great Flood. This is one of those questions that will be asked, and I'm sure, answered in eternity.
As I said, it's a GREAT question but certainly not important for salvation.

Good, we may be getting somewhere. Two or more is plural. God formed Adam as a singular being, so Genesis 1 cannot be referring to Adam the man who God placed in the Garden of Eden but rather adam referring to mankind, male and female of all of the races that now exist on the Earth. Good, we are making progress.

Nope. You are putting stuff in there that is not there. Otherwise, it is YOUR turn to show me Scripture that says God created others as He created Adam.

OK, so we agree that there is an unspecified timespan between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. We agree that mankind has already been "created" in the plural (no specifics as to how many), male and female during the seven day period of Creation.

Scripture says Adam created from dust of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib (which also has its origin in dust).

And now we are some time after the Creation of the Universe and God is looking at bare fields that have no man to work. Something very wrong must have occured with God's created mankind that God decided to form another man to work the field. I am sure that what occured to God's created mankind is a very interesting story, but it is not a story told in the Hebrew Bible.Hmmm, not a pretty picture....

Nope. Same guy...Adam. Otherwise, it is up to YOU to show Scripture that says they are different guys.

Seems like you are stretching a bit to make what we have been taught work in scripture. In order to make this bizzaro scenario of a formless Adam floundering about as dirt we have to neglect that Eve was not formed the same as Adam.

Ya might wanna go back and reread my post about this. I said God did NOT leave Adam as a pile of dirt but "formed" him into a walking, living, seeing, hearing entity.

Genesis 1 is pretty specific about man (adam with a small "a")was "created", male and female. If this adam with a small "a", indicating mankind, is the specific Adam who is put into the Garden of Eden, who is the female counterpart created with this adam? Jews today claim she was Lilith. Are you suggesting that the first creation of mankind that is cited in Genesis 1 has God "creating" Adam and Lilith and then later on when Lilith didn't work out, God formed Adam again and "made" Eve from Adam's rib? Wow; this is getting a bit convoluted in order to make Adam fit into the original creation of mankind.

Now you are into myths and where I stop.

[bootlen]

But it is quite entertaining if not enlightening everytime they battle it out.

Good to know you are being enlightened as to the truth of Holy Scripture. As long as you draw breath, there is hope...dim though it may be.

[Some Dude]

Sorry to see you not want to participate in seeking truth from scripture. You do realize that I will consider this your way of hiding your head in the sand:angel:

None of your hypothesis makes sense,It completely changes the time line, it shifts the entire theme of the Bible to???????????
Its basic common sense that god created male and female the first humans on earth namely Adam and Eve.
Look at it this way,. given the fact that mankind was still close to perfect lets say living to 700 years, if they only had 300 children, then they had 300, then they had 300, how long would you think it would take to inhabit a large area?
Why are no other people mentioned by name until later?
Again your hypothesis just does not make sense.

[bootlen]

Are you giving me a Title or calling me a name?:rolleyes: I don't want to have to sick K or M on you

Well, ac, it's all in how ya take it. Either way, I don't care.

[geerair]

Good to know you are being enlightened as to the truth of Holy Scripture. As long as you draw breath, there is hope...dim though it may be.The phrase "if not enlightening" does not mean what you think it means. In fact it means the opposite.

[bootlen]

The phrase "if not enlightening" does not mean what you think it means. In fact it means the opposite.

("He doth protest too much, methinks.")

[geerair]

("He doth protest too much, methinks.")You doth misunderstand common phrases, me thinks.

[acmanko]

Well, ac, it's all in how ya take it. Either way, I don't care.

I'll take the Title, that being said, you don't have to be indifferent just because Robo is taking you to the woodshed on this one,:argue:

[acmanko]

You doth misunderstand common phrases, me thinks.

lack of use of the right side of the brain, thats what we have.

[bootlen]

I'll take the Title, that being said, you don't have to be indifferent just because Robo is taking you to the woodshed on this one,:argue:

Oh. Okay.

[bootlen]

I'll take the Title, that being said, you don't have to be indifferent just because Robo is taking you to the woodshed on this one,:argue:

Hey, Robo! Look at this. You make sense to AC.

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Some Dude]

Hey, Robo! Look at this. You make sense to AC.

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

And Geer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,wow

[acmanko]

And Geer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,wow

It has more to do with presentation, not content. Maybe you should learn the difference.

[RoBoTeq]

I am not disagreeing that I feel the same way, but where does scripture indicate this? With telling us of the garden prepared for Adam to work, we are absolutely being told that Adam is the origin of the farmer.Again, I cannot disagree. It is just that scripture does not address any of this.

Apparently, it is not an issue to God. Your judgement of how God thinks is not scripture. I asked for scripture to support your claims. Do you have something from scripture or not?


The most important factor here is why would the offspring of Adam and Eve be away from the sight of God? This seems to be a pretty important thing if it is truth.Could you please expand on this and show us that scripture?Again, please show this scripture so we may learn.Again, please show this scripture so we may learn.Again, please show this scripture so we may learn.

They were not out of God's sight. No one is. He is omnipresent. Ps. 139:8 ; Jer. 23:23,24. There are others but this should suffice.So, are you saying that Genesis 4 is not telling us that where Cain is being sent is out of God's presence?

14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
or again in Genesis 4 here?
16 So Cain went out from the LORD'S presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Just because God is omnipresent does not mean that God can not choose to ignore certain people, does it?

Are you saying that I am correct about mankind being created to be vegetarians in the original creation of mankind during the seven days of Creation?

Now, THAT is an excellent question. I love it.

Scripture does not come out and address this directly but given that the first blood shed was an that of animal whose skin was used to cover A & E's sin, I would think God's intention would be for us to be non-carniverous. BUT, He gave us teeth specifically designed to chew meat. So there is some dichotomy. My take is that His intention was that no animal die but He knew man was (close your eyes, Scrog) going to screw up so He made man capable of eating meat. But why? I can only surmise that there is something (Protein, maybe? I dunno.) in consumption of meat that would help in our survival of the environment after the fall and Great Flood. This is one of those questions that will be asked, and I'm sure, answered in eternity.
As I said, it's a GREAT question but certainly not important for salvation.OK, we are on the same page with not knowing for sure but assuming some logical scenarios on this one. Let's shelve this for discussion on something we appear to agree pretty well on.


Good, we may be getting somewhere. Two or more is plural. God formed Adam as a singular being, so Genesis 1 cannot be referring to Adam the man who God placed in the Garden of Eden but rather adam referring to mankind, male and female of all of the races that now exist on the Earth. Good, we are making progress.

Nope. You are putting stuff in there that is not there. Otherwise, it is YOUR turn to show me Scripture that says God created others as He created Adam. [quote]My entire basis for this conversation is on scripture I have shown over and over that mankind was created before the forming of Adam the man. To get really technical, I am not stating that God created others "as He created Adam" because scripture does not tell us that God ever "created" Adam. Scripture tells us that God "created" mankind, male and female in Genesis 1; [quote]
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." This accounting of the "creation" of man(kind, adam; small "a") cannot possibly be when God "formed" Adam. This "creation" of mankind is clearly a "creation" of male and female humans who are being told to have sex and multiply in their numbers. None of this was said to Adam the man when God formed Adam. In fact, Adam the man didn't even have a female in which to have sex with when God first formed Adam.


OK, so we agree that there is an unspecified timespan between Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:5. We agree that mankind has already been "created" in the plural (no specifics as to how many), male and female during the seven day period of Creation.


Scripture says Adam created from dust of the earth and Eve from Adam's rib (which also has its origin in dust).This is not exactly true, if we are to stick only to scripture. Scripture states that God "formed", not "created" the man, singular, from the dust. Eve does not come along for a few passages later. Adam the man and Eve were not formed and made at the same time as were those humans that God "created" in Genesis 1. The more you compare Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4 with Genesis 2 from Genesis 2:5, they more apparent it becomes that Adam the man was formed by God at an undetermined later time then was mankind (adam, small "a").

One of the things making this issue so easy for the RCC priests to confuse us is that the same word, adam, is used both as a word meaning "mankind" and as a proper name for "the man" that God put in the Garden of Eden.


And now we are some time after the Creation of the Universe and God is looking at bare fields that have no man to work. Something very wrong must have occured with God's created mankind that God decided to form another man to work the field. I am sure that what occured to God's created mankind is a very interesting story, but it is not a story told in the Hebrew Bible.Hmmm, not a pretty picture....


Nope. Same guy...Adam. Otherwise, it is up to YOU to show Scripture that says they are different guys.How many times do I have to copy/paste Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 before you will actually read it? You have eyes, but you refuse to see. It is right there in front of you in every Bible, saying the same thing; God "created" mankind, both male and female in Genesis 1 and later on in Genesis 2 God formed Adam the man by himself.


Seems like you are stretching a bit to make what we have been taught work in scripture. In order to make this bizzaro scenario of a formless Adam floundering about as dirt we have to neglect that Eve was not formed the same as Adam.


Ya might wanna go back and reread my post about this. I said God did NOT leave Adam as a pile of dirt but "formed" him into a walking, living, seeing, hearing entity.Then why is there so much scripture between the time God created mankind, both male and female, and the time God formed Adam the man? What? Did God forget to tell Moses that part and just added it in later?


Genesis 1 is pretty specific about man (adam with a small "a")was "created", male and female. If this adam with a small "a", indicating mankind, is the specific Adam who is put into the Garden of Eden, who is the female counterpart created with this adam? Jews today claim she was Lilith. Are you suggesting that the first creation of mankind that is cited in Genesis 1 has God "creating" Adam and Lilith and then later on when Lilith didn't work out, God formed Adam again and "made" Eve from Adam's rib? Wow; this is getting a bit convoluted in order to make Adam fit into the original creation of mankind.

Now you are into myths and where I stop.
It is not me who is into mythology. The only way to make Adam and Eve being the first of all mankind is to create myths about other passages from scripture, which is exactly what we have done over the centuries in order to provide a cover for teaching what is not true.

[RoBoTeq]

None of your hypothesis makes sense,It completely changes the time line, it shifts the entire theme of the Bible to???????????
Its basic common sense that god created male and female the first humans on earth namely Adam and Eve.[quote]Show me one line of scripture that states that either Adam the man or Eve were "created"....ever. [quote]
Look at it this way,. given the fact that mankind was still close to perfect lets say living to 700 years, if they only had 300 children, then they had 300, then they had 300, how long would you think it would take to inhabit a large area?This is all conjecture made up by you because you cannot make Adam and Eve being the origin of all of mankind fit with what scripture actually tells us.

Why are no other people mentioned by name until later?Because the Hebrew Bible is about the Hebrew race and not about all of the other races that existed when Adam was formed and Eve was made from Adam. When you talk about your family, do you mention any of my family by name?

Again your hypothesis just does not make sense.
This is not at all my hypothesis. Literally everything I have proposed is directly and only supported by literal scripture. In order to attempt to support Adam and Eve being the origins of all of mankind, we must hypothesise what coulda, woulda, mighta happened in a lot of other passages of scripture.

What I am proposing that Bible is actually telling us about the creation of mankind and the forming of Adam and making of Eve is directly from scripture and so other related scripture does not need to be manipulated any longer.

[RoBoTeq]

Hey, Robo! Look at this. You make sense to AC.

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
God does work in mysterious ways. Now if only the hearts and minds of my other brothers in Christ can be opened to the Truth of God's Word.:angel:

[bootlen]

Stick me with a fork. I'm done. The longer this thread goes, the more ludicrous and asinine your questions. And the answers I have given are from Scripture except those that I mentioned are not.

You really should learn to read with comprehension. I am pretty sure I made my self clear to all but you, geer, and ac. That speaks volumes to me.

G'bye now.

[RoBoTeq]

Stick me with a fork. I'm done. The longer this thread goes, the more ludicrous and asinine your questions. And the answers I have given are from Scripture except those that I mentioned are not.

You really should learn to read with comprehension. I am pretty sure I made my self clear to all but you, geer, and ac. That speaks volumes to me.

G'bye now.
Interesting. You could not show a rational reason for believing that Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind from scripture alone, so you abandon seeking the truth in lieu of believing what is false just because that is what you have always believed.

I was expecting an honest dialogue. Since honesty shows what we have been taught all of our lives as being wrong, we dismiss honesty for the comfort of familiarity.

No problem. I thought you were sincere in seeking the Truth of God's Word.

[bootlen]

Interesting. You could not show a rational reason for believing that Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind from scripture alone, so you abandon seeking the truth in lieu of believing what is false just because that is what you have always believed.

I was expecting an honest dialogue. Since honesty shows what we have been taught all of our lives as being wrong, we dismiss honesty for the comfort of familiarity.

No problem. I thought you were sincere in seeking the Truth of God's Word.

I gave you an honest dialogue and used Scripture to show A & E were the first humans. It was you who started asking REALLY SILLY questions about his kids being somewhere else out of God's sight. Frankly, that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard from an adult claiming to be looking for proof as to who the first humans were.

You have the last word. G'bye for good.

[Hugh B]

Interesting. You could not show a rational reason for believing that Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind from scripture alone, so you abandon seeking the truth in lieu of believing what is false just because that is what you have always believed.

I was expecting an honest dialogue. Since honesty shows what we have been taught all of our lives as being wrong, we dismiss honesty for the comfort of familiarity.

No problem. I thought you were sincere in seeking the Truth of God's Word.


What other resource do you have other than the Bible regarding the first humans?

[RoBoTeq]

I gave you an honest dialogue and used Scripture to show A & E were the first humans. It was you who started asking REALLY SILLY questions about his kids being somewhere else out of God's sight. Frankly, that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard from an adult claiming to be looking for proof as to who the first humans were.

You have the last word. G'bye for good.
If my questions were so silly, why could you not answer them? You showed absolutely nothing from scripture that even states that Adam was created let alone the created as the first of all of mankind. I on the other hand showed scripture that was very clear about mankind being created in a plural sense, both male and female and then later on, after the story of Creation, Adam the man was formed to work the field. Then, even later, Eve was made from Adam as Adam's wife and companion.

What I have proposed follows a chronilogical order, answers the questions about two seemingly contradicting creation stories and makes many other questionable passages after the fall of Adam and Eve make a lot more sense.

Adam and Eve as the beginning of all of mankind not only causes a lot of issues with other scripture, it is not ever claimed in scripture.

[RoBoTeq]

What other resource do you have other than the Bible regarding the first humans?
Are you serious?! The whole idea here is that scripture proves out scripture. Are you suggesting that the Bible(s) are flawed and require outside sources to verify scripture?

If you take Genesis as it is written, without having to manipulate the passages by changing them around chronologically and by not adding to the actual words in scripture, scripture clearly shows the creation of mankind, male and female, in Genesis 1 and clearly shows the forming of Adam the man and the making of Eve in Genesis 2.

Unless you are suggesting that God was stumbling over His accounting of the creation of mankind by having to go back to Genesis 1 time period from Genesis 2, "AND" change the way Adam the man was created "AND" change the creation of the female to a completely different scenario, then you must accept that an unspecified number of mankind was created, male and female both, in Genesis 1 and "after" the Creation time, at an unspecified time later, God "formed" Adam the man and made Eve from Adam's rib.

[Some Dude]

Ok ok i get it, this is a test, you know,,,, how long can you keep an idiot on a forum replying to complete and utter nonsense?

[timebuilder]

Are you serious?! The whole idea here is that scripture proves out scripture. Are you suggesting that the Bible(s) are flawed and require outside sources to verify scripture?

If you take Genesis as it is written, without having to manipulate the passages by changing them around chronologically and by not adding to the actual words in scripture, scripture clearly shows the creation of mankind, male and female, in Genesis 1 and clearly shows the forming of Adam the man and the making of Eve in Genesis 2.

Unless you are suggesting that God was stumbling over His accounting of the creation of mankind by having to go back to Genesis 1 time period from Genesis 2, "AND" change the way Adam the man was created "AND" change the creation of the female to a completely different scenario, then you must accept that an unspecified number of mankind was created, male and female both, in Genesis 1 and "after" the Creation time, at an unspecified time later, God "formed" Adam the man and made Eve from Adam's rib.


According to the Bible, I should correct a brother when his understanding is apparently incorrect.

Genesis 1 is a description of the creation of the world, including the forming of humans. In Genesis 2, that forming of humans is more clearly articulated, as I mentioned in my previous posts.

Genesis 2:4 shows us that that the account in Genesis 1 is a summary of creation, following the finishing of God's work in Genesis 2:1. So, with creation being finished, further mention is a deeper articulation of what was alluded to in Genesis 1.

[RoBoTeq]

Ok ok i get it, this is a test, you know,,,, how long can you keep an idiot on a forum replying to complete and utter nonsense?
While this is something I have done before with our resident leftists, that is certainly not my intent here. Let's just do a brief rundown of Genesis's accounting for mankind, Adam and Eve.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Aramaic word for mankind was "adam", which had no proper name designation. Genesis also tells us of a man actually named Adam, with the Aramaic designation that this Adam was a proper name as opposed to the term "adam" used to designate "mankind". OK, here we go with Genesis. We will jump ahead to the sixth day, after God had "created" vegetation, animals and the like. So, vegetation for mankind to eat is already on the Earth;

1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man (adam, meaning "mankind") in our image, in our likeness, and let them (clearly plural, but not specific as to how many) rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

1:27 So God created man (adam, meaning "mankind") in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (both male and female of mankind has clearly been "created" by God here. Since Eve was made from Adam's rib, this passage cannot be referring to Eve).

1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. (when God put Adam the man in the Garden of Eden, there was not even a female for Adam to have sex with. Until they gained knowledge from the apple, did Adam and Eve even know what sex was? They did not know they were naked.) Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

And now we move ahead to an undesignated time period after the seven days of Creation. Genesis 2:4 clearly ends the discussion of Creation
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- On a closer look, it also appears that the numbering of Genesis 2:4 may have incorporated the actual time span gap between the telling of the seven days of Creation and the forming of Adam the man. The last line of Genesis 2:4 appears to be the first part of what comes in Genesis 2:5. The actual fluid reading could very well be a long run on sentence covering the end of Genesis 2:4 through to Genesis 2:7; "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

One thing that is clear is that Genesis 2 is not a reiteration of Genesis 1 because the data is not the same. Continuing on to Genesis 2:4 through 2:7 where scripture goes on to tell us how God formed Adam the man and made Eve from Adam;

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. (this is clearly the end of the telling of the seven days of Creation) When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--

5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up (Genesis 1 tells us that vegetation was created before mankind), for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,

6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--

7 the LORD God formed (Adam, or "the man", was not created in the same way that "adam", or mankind was in Genesis 1. When there were a lot fewer words in language to use, scripture has used specific and different terms for the creation of mankind in Genesis 1 and the forming of "the man" in Genesis 2) the man ("the man" is singular as opposed to the term used in Genesis 1 which is plural) from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (There is no mention of a female here. The man was formed as a single entity with no female counterpart. In the creation of mankind in Genesis 1, male and female are created at the same time and told to be fruitful and multiply. The man formed by God here has no one to be fruitful with.)

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. (again, the man is alone. This seems to indicate the beginning of agriculture. Adam appears to be designated the first farmer.)

Now, we have to jump ahead a bit before Eve comes on the scene;

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." (not at all like the creation of mankind in Genesis 1)

Actually, the whole Eve thing sounds like Adam was put under anestesia and operated on for DNA removal and Eve was a clone of Adam, but we will leave that for another discussion.

So, now we have mankind that has been on the Earth being fruitful and multiplying and building cities such as in the land of Nod, and, we have a new and different race recently kicked out of paradise but still in the sight of God.

[RoBoTeq]

According to the Bible, I should correct a brother when his understanding is apparently incorrect.

Genesis 1 is a description of the creation of the world, including the forming of humans. In Genesis 2, that forming of humans is more clearly articulated, as I mentioned in my previous posts.This is what we all have been taught. Unfortunately, it does not wash. How does completely changing the way mankind came about more clearly articulate it? It doesn't. The creation of mankind in Genesis 1 is completely different then the forming of Adam and the making of Eve in Genesis 2. The stories are not even close to resembling one another. Also, why would there be a reiteration of one point of the Creation when the whole of Creation is so vague? It makes no sense to scripture.


Genesis 2:4 shows us that that the account in Genesis 1 is a summary of creation, following the finishing of God's work in Genesis 2:1. So, with creation being finished, further mention is a deeper articulation of what was alluded to in Genesis 1.
There is nothing in scripture that designates Genesis 2 as a reiteration of one part of Genesis 1. And even if there were such a reiteration, why is it completely different? From the vegetation that was created before mankind to both male and female of mankind being created at the same time, there is no continuity between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 whatsoever. Genesis 2 is a completely different story at a later point in time then is Genesis 1.

[Some Dude]

Hey man, i dont know who you are, but you need to get off robos computer and quit posting.

[RoBoTeq]

Hey man, i dont know who you are, but you need to get off robos computer and quit posting.
Ah ha! Maybe I am possessed with the spirit of God and showing everyone how we all have been deceived.

[Some Dude]

Ah ha! Maybe I am possessed with the spirit of God and showing everyone how we all have been deceived.

Oh yeah, you and you alone throughout the centuries are the only one that has seen the light,,,and manco and geer.
When is the mother ship scheduled to come pick us up anyway?

[RoBoTeq]

Oh yeah, you and you alone throughout the centuries are the only one that has seen the light,,,and manco and geer.
When is the mother ship scheduled to come pick us up anyway?
As I have already stated, the Adam and Eve story has always bothered me. After seeing how we have been most likely manipulated into a wrong belief over the centuries, I investigated my suspicians and found that they are hardly unfounded or new.

I am thinking that the truth of Adam and Eve being the beginning of a completely different race, conceived completely differently by God then the rest of mankind, was fully understood by Hebrew believers and most probably even by early Christians who were Jewish or of Jewish heritage. My guess would be that the changes of how Biblical figures are viewed was the work of the RCC in order to either discredit Jews in Christianity or to pacify Pagan believers who were being forced to convert to Christianity.

I am a firm believer in that very intelligent man's saying that there is nothing new under the Sun. However, old things forgotten can certainly be rediscovered.

[Some Dude]

Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun and that everything is vanity and a striving after the wind. Kinda like where this thread has gone.
Now,,,,,,,if you could please release my friend robo i would appreciate it.:angel:

Robo, run to the light,,,,,,,follow my voice,,,,,,,come baaaaaaacckk

[RoBoTeq]

Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun and that everything is vanity and a striving after the wind. Kinda like where this thread has gone.
Now,,,,,,,if you could please release my friend robo i would appreciate it.:angel:

Robo, run to the light,,,,,,,follow my voice,,,,,,,come baaaaaaacckk
This was fun for a post or two, but now I will be ignoring this kind of insolence designed only to distract from our seeking the Truth in scripture.

More points to ponder;


If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, why would Jesus need to have such a detailed accounting of His lineage back to Adam? If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, everyone would have a line back to Adam.
If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, then how do we account for the various races of the world? Two people of the same race cannot give birth to a child of another race. Did God come back later and create even more people of different races?
If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, how could God have a chosen people? Would not all people be chosen since all people would have been from the same lineage?
With a creation of mankind of the various races prior to Adam and Eve, it makes more sense what the difference between gentiles and God's chosen people is. With Adam and Eve being distinctly different then any other race of created humans, the lineage of Adam and Eve would have an actual meaning.

[acmanko]

i suppose I'm an internet god now.I've created a monster out of Robo.

2000 years from now, some pious person will come across this and consider him to have spoken to God

[Some Dude]

This was fun for a post or two, but now I will be ignoring this kind of insolence designed only to distract from our seeking the Truth in scripture.

More points to ponder;


If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, why would Jesus need to have such a detailed accounting of His lineage back to Adam? If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, everyone would have a line back to Adam.
If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, then how do we account for the various races of the world? Two people of the same race cannot give birth to a child of another race. Did God come back later and create even more people of different races?
If Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, how could God have a chosen people? Would not all people be chosen since all people would have been from the same lineage?
With a creation of mankind of the various races prior to Adam and Eve, it makes more sense what the difference between gentiles and God's chosen people is. With Adam and Eve being distinctly different then any other race of created humans, the lineage of Adam and Eve would have an actual meaning.

Thats it, i know your an impostor now, my good old buddy robo doesn't use words like insolence,,,nope nope he dontdent.
Whats next are you going to smite me?
1 yes they can
2 the jews were gods chosen people for may reasons, mostly leading up to the christ, notice its not christs for the original humans you say god made and another for adam and eve.
3 the races evolved from their geographical locations, many who settled in Scotland were known to be hard headed and not admit when they are wrong.

[glennac]

Well looks like we might have a heritic here. Perhaps robo should be judged and if found guilty burned at the stake.:eek2: We wiill have to have judges and acusers of course. I'm sure robo will have his defenders like ace, geer, corny, etc. Probalby won't help his cause much beciause some have been judged dishonest and ignorant of the teachings of the Bible. Just an observation on my part here.:bump: Just kidding now. Thank you, thank you very much

[corny]

Bring Jesus into your life...live your life in a decent way according to the teachings of the bible.... thats all you gotta do...

Jesus isnt going to punish people because they dont get every message in the bible.... If that was true then there are a whole lot of folks in church...including ministers... who would end up in hell just because of their poor reading comprehension skills.... or their trusting of a dumbass to interpret the scripture for them.

[RoBoTeq]

i suppose I'm an internet god now.I've created a monster out of Robo.

2000 years from now, some pious person will come across this and consider him to have spoken to God
I speak to God several times a day. One would hope that all persons of faith communicate with God regularly. We officially call it praying, but what it really is is simply a dialogue with God.

No, God does not "speak" back to me. Not in words, anyway. I believe that our answers from God come through what we call the Holy Spirit. I pray, and the answers to my prayers just become known to me. I have been earnestly asking to be able to better understand scripture recently and I believe I am being guided to some better understanding.

Or, it could just be an over active imagination. All I am asking is for us to openly look at the posibility that what we have been taught over many centuries is not accurate.

[RoBoTeq]

Thats it, i know your an impostor now, my good old buddy robo doesn't use words like insolence,,,nope nope he dontdent.
Whats next are you going to smite me?
1 yes they can Really? Then show us proof. Just saying "yes they can" is exactly how Obama tricked too many Americans into making him president. Let's see some proof, because everything I am readins says it can't be done. DNA set's our race and cannot be changed. Show me where two persons of one race have ever produced a child of another race. Boots tried to prove this with a woman who had twins, one White and one Black. The only explanation given for this phenomenum is that the woman would have had to have had sex with both a White male and a Black male within a short period of time. Even if Eve did go for a threesome, we are missing one male of a different color.

2 the jews were gods chosen people for may reasons, mostly leading up to the christ, notice its not christs for the original humans you say god made and another for adam and eve. But if Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind, everyone would be considered God's chosen people. But, since all of mankind were not from Adam and Eve, only the descendants of Adam and Eve were God's chosen. Eventually, as the Hebrew Bible gives testimony to, God's chosen had mixed so much with the other races, God changed up the rules and became man incarnate in Jesus Christ in order to proclaim a new covenant in which all of mankind could be in the covenant of the Lord.

3 the races evolved from their geographical locations, many who settled in Scotland were known to be hard headed and not admit when they are wrong. The Scots are more an evolutionary bred then a created race. Are you suggesting that descendants of Adam and Eve who traveled to Africa became Black and the ones who traveled to Asia became Asian, etc.?

[RoBoTeq]

Bring Jesus into your life...live your life in a decent way according to the teachings of the bible.... thats all you gotta do...

Jesus isnt going to punish people because they dont get every message in the bible.... If that was true then there are a whole lot of folks in church...including ministers... who would end up in hell just because of their poor reading comprehension skills.... or their trusting of a dumbass to interpret the scripture for them.
I agree that the details won't matter in the long run. However, it seems that if we understand all of God's Word more clearly, we will be able to more easily follow how mankind got to this point. This clearer understanding could very well help keep evil from influencing those who might want to become persons of faith but feel they cannot trust scripture because scripture appears to contradict itself.

By understanding that all of mankind was created in tact for the races they are and inhabited the Earth, we take away a lot of stubling blocks in understanding scripture and for having scripture and science be more agreeable with one another. Also, with Adam and Eve being formed and made by God to be different then all of the other of mankind that was previously created, it becomes more understandable why God would have a chosen people. You can't chose if everyone is from the same source. The line of Adam and Eve were different then any of the other races on Earth that God created during Genesis 1.

[RoBoTeq]

Well looks like we might have a heritic here. Perhaps robo should be judged and if found guilty burned at the stake.:eek2: We wiill have to have judges and acusers of course. I'm sure robo will have his defenders like ace, geer, corny, etc. Probalby won't help his cause much beciause some have been judged dishonest and ignorant of the teachings of the Bible. Just an observation on my part here.:bump: Just kidding now. Thank you, thank you very much
I think herecy is a good thing to look into here. Let's consider that the RCC did alter the perception of scripture during the centuries when they completely controlles what the masses were taught about scripture. If the RCC priests did manipulate scripture to be believed in a way that is not intended, would that not be heresy? We know that the RCC lied about Mary Magdelene being a prostitute, Mary the mother of Jesus remaining a virgin forever and Peter being the bishop of Rome. So, why is it difficult to believe that the RCC deceived Christians into believing that Adam and Eve were the origins of all of mankind?

And speaking of burning at the stake for herecy; is this what Jesus would have done? Would Jesus have in any way supported the horrors that Christians have done to others over the centuries in His name? Think about it. Pray on it. All I'm asking is to open our minds and hearts to the Truth and exorcise deceitful teachings.