Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Romans 5:12-14 KJVEve was part of mankind.
My point without eve there would not be any procreation .He would have procreated.
Much love!
Adam's transgression
Bacause she would have sinned and been cast out?My point without eve there would not be any procreation .
Interesting interpretating of events! I understand now where you are getting this idea from, thank you!“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” (Genesis 5:2)
No if Adam was the only human created he would be alone permanently. No woman no children hence my procreation comment :)Bacause she would have sinned and been cast out?
Much love!
One does not even have to be a spiritual person to discern religious bigotry. YOU indeed need to have faith in Christ...and stop just pointing Him out. You are in fact pointing in the wrong direction...since you don't know Christ...only a religious representation of Him.
You are constantly using the Lord's name in vain. And you think that....along with knowledge, wisdom and understanding...is nothing to consider as being important. To people here that is not offensive...as they play in their religious puddles. But it is offensive to God.
Anyone can grandstand, virtue-signal, be sanctimonious....etc Only religious hypocrites do such things. Only indoctrinated people DON'T see that.
Be a troll if you want. This is a free forum.
Oh but he did . GOd told adam his error . YE hearkend unto the voice of your wife .Interesting interpretating of events! I understand now where you are getting this idea from, thank you!
I've never heard the idea before that Adam didn't sin.
To me, the Greek writing in Romans seems pretty clear about this, that Paul was speaking of the man instead of the woman, considering he used both of their names when speaking of them in his letters, Adam, and Eve. I don't think he would have confused the matter by switching back and forth. So that's how I see it.
Also, when you consider Adam as a type of Christ, it seems to me that speaks of the man, from whom the woman was taken, who is the head of the woman.
Much love!
male and female he created them , and blessed them and called their name Adam . Not transadameve .“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” (Genesis 5:2)
male and female he created them , and blessed them and called their name Adam . Not transadameve .
Sadly i heard a man say GOD made me this way as he was supporting his transideals he was a woman
WORSE i seen a pastor agreeing with him
But lambs know the truth . GOD made him male , HE TRIED to make HIMSELF female .
This is a poor translation, since "Adam" is capitalized in the quote. "adam" is Hebrew for human being. Here are two much more accurate translations: "When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created." NIV or "This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humans, he made them in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called them humans when they were created." NRSVue
adam does not mean human being it means man. Adam was a male not a female.This is a poor translation, since "Adam" is capitalized in the quote. "adam" is Hebrew for human being. Here are two much more accurate translations: "When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created." NIV or "This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humans, he made them in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called them humans when they were created." NRSVue
Logically, of course, "Adam" and "Eve" were two different people, so their name couldn't have been "Adam".
Another reason why people should use a translation other than the KJV.
What a statement.... As if the first Adam was the only human created....No if Adam was the only human created he would be alone permanently. No woman no children hence my procreation comment :)
adam was the only man created from the dust, eve was created from adam.What a statement.... As if the first Adam was the only human created....
1Co 15:45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
adam was the only man created from the dust, eve was created from adam.
as you said what a statement. no eve no children, no human race.
hope this helps !!!
I'm sorry... are you suggesting I wrote....adam was the only man created from the dust, eve was created from adam.
as you said what a statement. no eve no children, no human race.
hope this helps !!!
Are you a jehovah witness by chance who denies the Deity of Christ , the One who is the Creator of all things ?I'm sorry... are you suggesting I wrote....
1Co 15:45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Not this Paul....
Yet Luke has lots to say on this matter...
Luk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. Second Adam minus the dust...
Now what is the Son of God??? The First Adam is called the Son of God... Why not the Last???
Luk 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Study Hebrew Christophany...
Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus’. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God. This conclusion will lead you right into the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is the formula they adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when they said:
"The Son is of the same substance as the Father."
It was at this council that Jesus was first made God. The Holy Spirit interestingly enough was not included in the formula. It was included fifty-six years later at another council. Let’s see what this title really means:
Son of God - In the Old Testament Israel is described as God’s first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah "Son of God" for he is Israel’s representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).
"Son of God" denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman’s contention that the Hebrew concept of "son" does not denote an extensive circle of relationships" (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His "son" in 1 Chronicles 28:6.
For Paul, "Son of God" is essentially a Christological description expressing "the Son’s solidarity with God" (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of "Son of God"(Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God’s anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing.
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:
"The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation:
Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man
applies to Mark’s gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament."
Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:
"The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization."
This is the meaning of the title "Son of God." Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man. The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let’s take a look at some verses to confirm this.
"The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)"… "I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)"… "The LORD said to me, "You are my son" (Psalm 2:2,6-7).
Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son.
"He first found his own brother and told him, "We have found the Messiah"…"Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel" (John 1:41& 49).
John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author.
Hope this helps... FYI.... Not my own work but taken from thousands of studys and dead web sites that no longer exist... except now it's here...
Paul
No... Dumb ... F.....FollowerAre you a jehovah witness by chance who denies the Deity of Christ , the One who is the Creator of all things ?