If we all came from 2 people

[RWNJ]

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

It’s not plain as day at all.
You are stuck on what you have heard since childhood.
Each verse must be taken on its own merit.

What? You are CONSTANTLY on here talking about CONTEXT

Correct...the context of the first 3 days of creation is the lack of stars and planets.
So what effect does that have on the duration of the first 3 “days”?

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

I just love the way people like you twist Scripture to say what you want it to say. Adam was the first man created. Eve was the first woman. That's what Scripture says.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It’s not plain as day at all.
You are stuck on what you have heard since childhood.
Each verse must be taken on its own merit.

What? You are CONSTANTLY on here talking about CONTEXT

Correct...the context of the first 3 days of creation is the lack of stars and planets.
So what effect does that have on the duration of the first 3 “days”?

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

I just love the way people like you twist Scripture to say what you want it to say. Adam was the first man created. Eve was the first woman. That's what Scripture says.

Actually, if you are using the KJV to talk about creation, you are using scripture that has already been twisted around.

In the original Hebrew version of Genesis, yes, there was just one Adam, but there were actually two Eves. The first one wanted to be equal to Adam, but Adam wasn't interested in equality, so she uttered the secret name of God and vanished to become Lillith. Then, when God saw that Adam was sad about being alone, God made another Eve from his rib.

 

[RWNJ]

What? You are CONSTANTLY on here talking about CONTEXT

Correct...the context of the first 3 days of creation is the lack of stars and planets.
So what effect does that have on the duration of the first 3 “days”?

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

I just love the way people like you twist Scripture to say what you want it to say. Adam was the first man created. Eve was the first woman. That's what Scripture says.

Actually, if you are using the KJV to talk about creation, you are using scripture that has already been twisted around.

In the original Hebrew version of Genesis, yes, there was just one Adam, but there were actually two Eves. The first one wanted to be equal to Adam, but Adam wasn't interested in equality, so she uttered the secret name of God and vanished to become Lillith. Then, when God saw that Adam was sad about being alone, God made another Eve from his rib.

Where is this second Eve mentioned? It's not in any Bible I've ever read.

 

[TNHarley]

Correct...the context of the first 3 days of creation is the lack of stars and planets.
So what effect does that have on the duration of the first 3 “days”?

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

I just love the way people like you twist Scripture to say what you want it to say. Adam was the first man created. Eve was the first woman. That's what Scripture says.

Actually, if you are using the KJV to talk about creation, you are using scripture that has already been twisted around.

In the original Hebrew version of Genesis, yes, there was just one Adam, but there were actually two Eves. The first one wanted to be equal to Adam, but Adam wasn't interested in equality, so she uttered the secret name of God and vanished to become Lillith. Then, when God saw that Adam was sad about being alone, God made another Eve from his rib.

Where is this second Eve mentioned? It's not in any Bible I've ever read.

I believe that is Jewish tradition. That story is not actually in the bible. Came about 1500 years or so ago.

 

[Indeependent]

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

I just love the way people like you twist Scripture to say what you want it to say. Adam was the first man created. Eve was the first woman. That's what Scripture says.

Actually, if you are using the KJV to talk about creation, you are using scripture that has already been twisted around.

In the original Hebrew version of Genesis, yes, there was just one Adam, but there were actually two Eves. The first one wanted to be equal to Adam, but Adam wasn't interested in equality, so she uttered the secret name of God and vanished to become Lillith. Then, when God saw that Adam was sad about being alone, God made another Eve from his rib.

Where is this second Eve mentioned? It's not in any Bible I've ever read.

I believe that is Jewish tradition. That story is not actually in the bible. Came about 1500 years or so ago.

It’s due to the fact that Scripture uses the word woman and only later uses her name; no, her name is not Eve, it’s Chava.
Also keep in mind that there is no chronological order in the Torah.
Some verses add continuity and some offer summations of prior verses.
Does one interpretation or the other ensure your entrance into hell?
No.

 

[Indeependent]

What’s the definition of a day?
The English words “evening” and “morning” actually mean mixture and shining.

What does that have to do with a theory you both defend and bash in a matter of minutes?

I’m not talking down to you.
I’m trying to get you to think about the verses from above the walls.

there is no verse that says the earth is 6K years old

Who says there is a verse?
Why are you obsessed with the statements of childish minds?

Then you are confusing me and tying 2 different discussions together lol

You are looking at Scripture through Aristotalian eyes...a sad effect of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Humorme]

It’s not plain as day at all.
You are stuck on what you have heard since childhood.
Each verse must be taken on its own merit.

What? You are CONSTANTLY on here talking about CONTEXT

Correct...the context of the first 3 days of creation is the lack of stars and planets.
So what effect does that have on the duration of the first 3 “days”?

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

genesis states adam was alone. It says that god didnt even make it rain yet. What human can live without plants and water?
Corinthians states h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 ithe last Adam became a jlife-giving spirit.
Maybe the bible is just completely inconsistent.

Lots of crap; no quote from the Bible.

 

[Humorme]

Your only point is that you're a chicken shit know it all that wants an Internet fight because you're too much of a coward to go out in public and spew that swill. Did we miss anything else?

You've made no points because you're talking out your ass with nothing more than your opinion and no relevant sources. By contrast, I'm quoting people that agree and disagree with many of my own positions because in a discussion, I'd like to take away something of benefit.

No, my point in that post was that you have the self awareness of a burnt tree stop in a california wildfire.
You keep saying that shit while ignoring my quotes(or mentioning of specific verses) from the bible. Whats your beef with the bible?

You're the one with a bias against the Bible. I answered your questions to the extent you answered mine. If you think so low of others, how low do you think rational people think of you?

The only thing I'm self aware of that challenges my own sanity is the fact that I waste time arguing with an idiot who has no self respect, no respect for others, and thinks that insults will yield anything other than conflict.

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

If you think you've made a point, you're so far the only one.

What, in the dark recesses between your ears was not fairly addressed? And I'm not going to repeat points made by other posters answering your make believe issues.

genesis is make believe... wow i bet Satan just loves you

Disbelief is not proof of nonexistence.

 

[Humorme]

What? You are CONSTANTLY on here talking about CONTEXT

Correct...the context of the first 3 days of creation is the lack of stars and planets.
So what effect does that have on the duration of the first 3 “days”?

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

I just love the way people like you twist Scripture to say what you want it to say. Adam was the first man created. Eve was the first woman. That's what Scripture says.

Actually, if you are using the KJV to talk about creation, you are using scripture that has already been twisted around.

In the original Hebrew version of Genesis, yes, there was just one Adam, but there were actually two Eves. The first one wanted to be equal to Adam, but Adam wasn't interested in equality, so she uttered the secret name of God and vanished to become Lillith. Then, when God saw that Adam was sad about being alone, God made another Eve from his rib.

What non-canonical source did you get that from?

 

[TNHarley]

What? You are CONSTANTLY on here talking about CONTEXT

Correct...the context of the first 3 days of creation is the lack of stars and planets.
So what effect does that have on the duration of the first 3 “days”?

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

genesis states adam was alone. It says that god didnt even make it rain yet. What human can live without plants and water?
Corinthians states h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 ithe last Adam became a jlife-giving spirit.
Maybe the bible is just completely inconsistent.

Lots of crap; no quote from the Bible.

I have quoted it, actually. Corinthians is quoted in THAT post and its from the bible

 

[Indeependent]

No, my point in that post was that you have the self awareness of a burnt tree stop in a california wildfire.
You keep saying that shit while ignoring my quotes(or mentioning of specific verses) from the bible. Whats your beef with the bible?

You're the one with a bias against the Bible. I answered your questions to the extent you answered mine. If you think so low of others, how low do you think rational people think of you?

The only thing I'm self aware of that challenges my own sanity is the fact that I waste time arguing with an idiot who has no self respect, no respect for others, and thinks that insults will yield anything other than conflict.

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

If you think you've made a point, you're so far the only one.

What, in the dark recesses between your ears was not fairly addressed? And I'm not going to repeat points made by other posters answering your make believe issues.

genesis is make believe... wow i bet Satan just loves you

Disbelief is not proof of nonexistence.

The sad fact is that I know Rabbis who believe the stories in the Midrash are to be taken literally.

 

[TNHarley]

No, my point in that post was that you have the self awareness of a burnt tree stop in a california wildfire.
You keep saying that shit while ignoring my quotes(or mentioning of specific verses) from the bible. Whats your beef with the bible?

You're the one with a bias against the Bible. I answered your questions to the extent you answered mine. If you think so low of others, how low do you think rational people think of you?

The only thing I'm self aware of that challenges my own sanity is the fact that I waste time arguing with an idiot who has no self respect, no respect for others, and thinks that insults will yield anything other than conflict.

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

If you think you've made a point, you're so far the only one.

What, in the dark recesses between your ears was not fairly addressed? And I'm not going to repeat points made by other posters answering your make believe issues.

genesis is make believe... wow i bet Satan just loves you

Disbelief is not proof of nonexistence.

genesis is make believe. Who knew?

 

[Humorme]

Correct...the context of the first 3 days of creation is the lack of stars and planets.
So what effect does that have on the duration of the first 3 “days”?

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

genesis states adam was alone. It says that god didnt even make it rain yet. What human can live without plants and water?
Corinthians states h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 ithe last Adam became a jlife-giving spirit.
Maybe the bible is just completely inconsistent.

Lots of crap; no quote from the Bible.

I have quoted it, actually. Corinthians is quoted in THAT post and its from the bible

Chapter, verse, version

 

[jillian]

No, my point in that post was that you have the self awareness of a burnt tree stop in a california wildfire.
You keep saying that shit while ignoring my quotes(or mentioning of specific verses) from the bible. Whats your beef with the bible?

You're the one with a bias against the Bible. I answered your questions to the extent you answered mine. If you think so low of others, how low do you think rational people think of you?

The only thing I'm self aware of that challenges my own sanity is the fact that I waste time arguing with an idiot who has no self respect, no respect for others, and thinks that insults will yield anything other than conflict.

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

If you think you've made a point, you're so far the only one.

What, in the dark recesses between your ears was not fairly addressed? And I'm not going to repeat points made by other posters answering your make believe issues.

genesis is make believe... wow i bet Satan just loves you

Disbelief is not proof of nonexistence.

and belief is not proof of existence.

that's pretty much why it's "faith" and not "fact".

 

[Indeependent]

Correct...the context of the first 3 days of creation is the lack of stars and planets.
So what effect does that have on the duration of the first 3 “days”?

What does that have to do with what genesis says plain as day about adam being the first human?

You have failed to show a single verse in Genesis that says Adam was the first man.

What Genesis DOES say is that God made both man and beast in Genesis 1: 25 and 26.

AFTER that seven "day" creation, AFTER man was created... on the EIGHTH "day" in Genesis 2 :5, God decided there was not a "man to till the ground." In verses 7 of Genesis and in verse 8 (chapter 2) God put this man he had formed (not created) into the Garden of Eden.

This "man" mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis was unlike the "man" that God created that merely had dominion over the other beasts. Formed man, Adam man was not only created, but now had the breath of life breathed into his nostrils where he became a living soul.

There are theories that Genesis 2 is a repeat of Genesis 1; however, the evidence is that AFTER the seven day creation, there was not a man to till the ground and that, IN MY OPINION, means that God created Adam man, which is quite different from the "man" created in the seven "day" creation.

How long was one of these days? We don't know factually. All I can tell you is that the word "day" as used in Genesis chapter 1 of Genesis comes from a Hebrew word called yowm.

In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, that is number 3117 in the Hebrew dictionary and it is a "space of time defined by an associated term." It absolutely does not mean a literal 24 hour day.

Whether God created the entire earth in six days as we know them or 6 million years, it is wholly irrelevant as to whether or not we all descended from Adam and Eve. We did not.

If we accept the theory that Adam and Eve were the first people the Bible calls "man," you're still stuck with the beast that had all the physical attributes of a man (see post # 40 on this thread) OR

If we accept the theory that Adam man is an EIGHTH DAY CREATION, you still have pre-Adamic man. Any way you stack it or slice it, the Bible never says that Adam was the first man.

genesis states adam was alone. It says that god didnt even make it rain yet. What human can live without plants and water?
Corinthians states h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 ithe last Adam became a jlife-giving spirit.
Maybe the bible is just completely inconsistent.

Lots of crap; no quote from the Bible.

I have quoted it, actually. Corinthians is quoted in THAT post and its from the bible

The NT is a cornocopia of misquotes, including what you just posted.

 

[jillian]

You're the one with a bias against the Bible. I answered your questions to the extent you answered mine. If you think so low of others, how low do you think rational people think of you?

The only thing I'm self aware of that challenges my own sanity is the fact that I waste time arguing with an idiot who has no self respect, no respect for others, and thinks that insults will yield anything other than conflict.

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

If you think you've made a point, you're so far the only one.

What, in the dark recesses between your ears was not fairly addressed? And I'm not going to repeat points made by other posters answering your make believe issues.

genesis is make believe... wow i bet Satan just loves you

Disbelief is not proof of nonexistence.

genesis is make believe. Who knew?

allegory

 

[Indeependent]

You're the one with a bias against the Bible. I answered your questions to the extent you answered mine. If you think so low of others, how low do you think rational people think of you?

The only thing I'm self aware of that challenges my own sanity is the fact that I waste time arguing with an idiot who has no self respect, no respect for others, and thinks that insults will yield anything other than conflict.

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

If you think you've made a point, you're so far the only one.

What, in the dark recesses between your ears was not fairly addressed? And I'm not going to repeat points made by other posters answering your make believe issues.

genesis is make believe... wow i bet Satan just loves you

Disbelief is not proof of nonexistence.

and belief is not proof of existence.

that's pretty much why it's "faith" and not "fact".

Judaism is a religion of behavior.

 

[Humorme]

You're the one with a bias against the Bible. I answered your questions to the extent you answered mine. If you think so low of others, how low do you think rational people think of you?

The only thing I'm self aware of that challenges my own sanity is the fact that I waste time arguing with an idiot who has no self respect, no respect for others, and thinks that insults will yield anything other than conflict.

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

If you think you've made a point, you're so far the only one.

What, in the dark recesses between your ears was not fairly addressed? And I'm not going to repeat points made by other posters answering your make believe issues.

genesis is make believe... wow i bet Satan just loves you

Disbelief is not proof of nonexistence.

The sad fact is that I know Rabbis who believe the stories in the Midrash are to be taken literally.

The real problem with all of it, you cannot take it literally and make sense of it. Secondly, we are talking about men who were inspired of God; it's not God doing the actual writing. So, those men have to write according to their own experiences, using the slang of their times.

 

[jillian]

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

If you think you've made a point, you're so far the only one.

What, in the dark recesses between your ears was not fairly addressed? And I'm not going to repeat points made by other posters answering your make believe issues.

genesis is make believe... wow i bet Satan just loves you

Disbelief is not proof of nonexistence.

and belief is not proof of existence.

that's pretty much why it's "faith" and not "fact".

Judaism is a religion of behavior.

so if someone picks what they observe, they aren't a Jew?

 

[jillian]

You either ignore what i say or you just say "nu uh"
You STILL ignore the account out of genesis. It is RIGHT THERE PLAIN AS DAY.
If i cant take the bible for what it says, whats the point?

If you think you've made a point, you're so far the only one.

What, in the dark recesses between your ears was not fairly addressed? And I'm not going to repeat points made by other posters answering your make believe issues.

genesis is make believe... wow i bet Satan just loves you

Disbelief is not proof of nonexistence.

The sad fact is that I know Rabbis who believe the stories in the Midrash are to be taken literally.

The real problem with all of it, you cannot take it literally and make sense of it. Secondly, we are talking about men who were inspired of God; it's not God doing the actual writing. So, those men have to write according to their own experiences, using the slang of their times.

that's still what you "believe". it certainly isn't fact-based. that's fine... but it isn't fact.