Mankind V.S. Adam

[Mr E]

Indeed…



We begin with one story, by what authority do we add another story? There is no need to add another story. And if one decides there are two stories the first being source material and the second being a shadow, the shadow must follow the exact movements of its source.

This does not mean every action of the shadow must be clearly seen, but it does mean the shadow cannot contradict its source.

On earth as it is in heaven.

 

[ScottA]

People have been taught that Adam was the first man, thus ignoring the men and women created on day 6.

But Adam was not the first man, he was the first man in the lineage that would lead to Christ.

Is this surprising? Most Christians believe Eve ate a Apple even though she was in a fig orchard, and there is no mention of an apple.

Acts 17:26​

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,​

​

1 Corinthians 15:45​

And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

​

1 Timothy 2:13​

For Adam was formed first, then Eve.​

 

[Truthnightmare]

Acts 17:26​

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,​

​

1 Corinthians 15:45​

And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

​

1 Timothy 2:13​

For Adam was formed first, then Eve.​

Duly noted… however this is where the reader must make a choice, and it’s not always an easy one. What manuscript do you use? I only ask because of the following….


Let’s take a look.

Acts 17:26: Codex Sinaiticus – Click to zoom
You will notice, the word “blood” and “man” are not found in this ancient copy of God’s Word. Instead, we have “ενοϲ” which is “one” and the next two words that appear in this 1,600-year-old manuscript are “παν εθνοϲ” being “every nation”.

This tells us, the word “blood” was added to the more modern manuscripts, and the word “man” was simply added to modern Bibles.

That is an issue with modern Bibles.

Though they may use an older manuscript, they are a word for thought translation, whereas the KJV is a word for word translation. So they both have their own downfalls.

Adam was the first man in the lineage that would lead to Christ. The Bible is a story about a family.

I could go further into the Bible showing evidence of Adam not being the first man, but ask yourself…

Can a 7 foot African and a 6 foot African female produce a little Chinese baby? Your argument henges on this notion.

 

[Ziggy]

I have always believed the Bible was the family tree of Israel.

Trying to use an example maybe you can see what I see?

Abraham created a child with Hagar an Egyptian and they had Ishmael.
Abraham was promised a child with Sarah whom was his sister/rib and Isaac was formed in her womb.

The Bible doesn't follow Ishmael. His branch was broken off.

Ruth was a Moabite/Gentile who married her mother in laws near kin Boaz.
Ruth bore a child named Obed.
Rth 4:16
And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.
Rth 4:17
And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Rth 1:2
And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.
Rth 2:1
And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband's, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech; and his name was Boaz.

The family tree continues to David, through Jesse. through Boaz.
1Sa 17:12
Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul.

Ammonites and Moabites were not allowed to enter the congregation of the Lord for ever.
So Ruth like Hagar had to fade into the background.

Eve I put in the same catagory as Sarah. She came from a rib of Adam, meaning she may have been a sister or a near kin.
Gen 4:1
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Gen 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Gen 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

The Bible only follows the line of Seth. Cain, Ishmael and Esua follow a different path, even though they come from Adam which was the son of God.
Naomi claimed Boaz as her own, otherwise the geneology would of been broken because Ruth was a Moabite.
But it also shows how God will bring in Gentiles into the tree of Israel to serve the purpose of salvation to all.

I believe when God says I will put enmity between thy seed and her seed, this is the difference between that which was created (Cain)
and that which was promised/formed (Seth)
Created (Ishmael) promised/formed (Isaac)

Jesus is unique in that he is both created. Jesus (created) Emmanuel (promised/formed)
So we come back to Adam.
Adam was created and Adam was also formed.
I see two different hahaha trees in the garden... oh my

Interesting..
Just thinking
Hugs

 

[Mr E]

I could go further into the Bible showing evidence of Adam not being the first man, but ask yourself…

Can a 7 foot African and a 6 foot African female produce a little Chinese baby? Your argument henges on this notion.

Have you read- The Genealogical Adam and Eve, by Joshua Swamidass?

He posits a pre-Adamic 'humanity' populating the earth, outside the garden. It's very interesting in and of itself, but moreso- he harmonizes the theory with scripture in a way that even the strictest literary critics and theologians with ancient language expertise find possible, if not plausible. Guys like Mike Heiser.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Acts 17:26​

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,​

​

1 Corinthians 15:45​

And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

​

1 Timothy 2:13​

For Adam was formed first, then Eve.​

Scott,

TNM... if I may abbreviate his name.... is correct.

Adam was NOT the first man made by God.

Adam was the man formed by God from whom all the genealogies down through Jesus came.

That did not happen with the people created to mind the entire earth.....

It is true Adam was formed first before his wife.

It is true that The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit
As this came about through God breathing life into him after molding him from the earth.

He breathed nothing into those first people, he simply made them male and female after "their" likeness.

Whether it was soul or spirit breathed into Adam, or both is for another day.

NOW...

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth

Is arguable

I say arguable simply because it is certain that Noah ultimately came from him... and I suppose that one blood from Adam could be the cause of all....

Nasb95 says: and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

But I believe that if we ever know enough from back then that if Noah's sons intermarried other races that could have come about from original man and woman... or the dastardly off spring of the Sons of God mating with the daughters of man... YOU know.... like if you check your DNA and find all that stuff back there....
(Me... a fair amount of Neanderthal according to 23 and me)

But I digress...

This point you posted about the blood I say no.I do not care what ACTS says.... for what is said here that sounds so definitive which most thing means that one blood came from Adam I say it could only be believable if it was the man and woman God made in his image....

OK... I'm done.....

Be blessed one and all.

 

[Truthnightmare]

On earth as it is in heaven.

I like you!

Have you read- The Genealogical Adam and Eve, by Joshua Swamidass?

He posits a pre-Adamic 'humanity' populating the earth, outside the garden. It's very interesting in and of itself, but moreso- he harmonizes the theory with scripture in a way that even the strictest literary critics and theologians with ancient language expertise find possible, if not plausible. Guys like Mike Heiser.

No I have not, but it would seem I would be in agreement. I will check it out. The position presented here offers many answers to questions. I see confirmation of this is Jeremiah.

Jer 4:22-27
22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Here you see a second Scriptural witness to Genesis 1:2, this lets you know that we are talking about the destruction of the first earth age. This destruction was brought about by water, just as with Noah's flood, but should not be confused by Noah's flood; they were two different events.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

This is thought by some to be the cause of the earth being off-kilter. It is a fact that the earth spins on an axis that is 23½ degrees of center, and also that True North and Magnetic North are several degrees apart; the number of degrees varies depending where on earth you take the measurement.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

We see in verse 25 above: "there was no man" and "all the birds of the heavens were fled", that we are not talking about Noah's flood here. For Noah, his family, as well as sets of every flesh animal, including birds, passed through the flood!

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

He seems to also have a few lectures…

 

[ScottA]

Duly noted… however this is where the reader must make a choice, and it’s not always an easy one. What manuscript do you use? I only ask because of the following….


Let’s take a look.

Acts 17:26: Codex Sinaiticus – Click to zoom
You will notice, the word “blood” and “man” are not found in this ancient copy of God’s Word. Instead, we have “ενοϲ” which is “one” and the next two words that appear in this 1,600-year-old manuscript are “παν εθνοϲ” being “every nation”.

This tells us, the word “blood” was added to the more modern manuscripts, and the word “man” was simply added to modern Bibles.

That is an issue with modern Bibles.

Though they may use an older manuscript, they are a word for thought translation, whereas the KJV is a word for word translation. So they both have their own downfalls.

Adam was the first man in the lineage that would lead to Christ. The Bible is a story about a family.

I could go further into the Bible showing evidence of Adam not being the first man, but ask yourself…

Can a 7 foot African and a 6 foot African female produce a little Chinese baby? Your argument henges on this notion.

Henry Ford invented the combustion engine and started the Ford Motor Company. Can Ford make a compact car and a superduty pickup? Big deal--God can do anything. In fact one baby comes out male, and another female, or twins--it just amazing!

Regardless, the "one blood" or "one" is still "of one", it doesn't change anything; and building your case upon wordsmithing God-confused language, is just foolishness. That is not how it is defined. So, yes, I am sure you could go on and on--it means nothing, except "much study is wearisome to the flesh."

Besides, it is written, Eve is "the mother of all living."

 

[Mr E]

He seems to also have a few lectures…

Yes, he has stirred a lot of interest in academic and theological circles alike. Heiser, before his unfortunate passing due to cancer, interviewed him at length and both the interview and subsequent commentary are also available on YouTube. It's fascinating.

Mike Heiser was an extremely well regarded biblical (Hebrew) scholar and theologian.

 

[ScottA]

Scott,

TNM... if I may abbreviate his name.... is correct.

Adam was NOT the first man made by God.

Adam was the man formed by God from whom all the genealogies down through Jesus came.

That did not happen with the people created to mind the entire earth.....

It is true Adam was formed first before his wife.

It is true that The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit
As this came about through God breathing life into him after molding him from the earth.

He breathed nothing into those first people, he simply made them male and female after "their" likeness.

Whether it was soul or spirit breathed into Adam, or both is for another day.

NOW...

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth

Is arguable

I say arguable simply because it is certain that Noah ultimately came from him... and I suppose that one blood from Adam could be the cause of all....

Nasb95 says: and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

But I believe that if we ever know enough from back then that if Noah's sons intermarried other races that could have come about from original man and woman... or the dastardly off spring of the Sons of God mating with the daughters of man... YOU know.... like if you check your DNA and find all that stuff back there....
(Me... a fair amount of Neanderthal according to 23 and me)

But I digress...

This point you posted about the blood I say no.I do not care what ACTS says.... for what is said here that sounds so definitive which most thing means that one blood came from Adam I say it could only be believable if it was the man and woman God made in his image....

OK... I'm done.....

Be blessed one and all.

Genesis 3:20​

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.​

 

[Truthnightmare]

Henry Ford invented the combustion engine and started the Ford Motor Company. Can Ford make a compact car and a superduty pickup? Big deal--God can do anything. In fact one baby comes out male, and another female, or twins--it just amazing!

Regardless, the "one blood" or "one" is still "of one", it doesn't change anything; and building your case upon wordsmithing God-confused language, is just foolishness. That is not how it is defined. So, yes, I am sure you could go on and on--it means nothing, except "much study is wearisome to the flesh."

Besides, it is written, Eve is "the mother of all living."

You are overlooking the obvious…
Eve wasn't Adam's mother, grandmother, nor great-grandmother etc., therefore she could not be the mother of all living as you reason it. That interpretation is flawed. Eve can only be the mother of all through her great descendant, Jesus Christ, whom is able to give life to all. Eve was not the first female human on the planet and Adam was not the first male; he was the first Adam, but not the first of the species human.

 

[Truthnightmare]

Yes, he has stirred a lot of interest in academic and theological circles alike. Heiser, before his unfortunate passing due to cancer, interviewed him at length and both the interview and subsequent commentary are also available on YouTube. It's fascinating.

Mike Heiser was an extremely well regarded biblical (Hebrew) scholar and theologian.

Definitely going to check it out. Within the Chinese culture it is said that a flood to place, but did not reach the elevation of where they resided, leading to much agricultural engineering.

 

[ScottA]

You are overlooking the obvious…
Eve wasn't Adam's mother, grandmother, nor great-grandmother etc., therefore she could not be the mother of all living as you reason it. That interpretation is flawed. Eve can only be the mother of all through her great descendant, Jesus Christ, whom is able to give life to all. Eve was not the first female human on the planet and Adam was not the first male; he was the first Adam, but not the first of the species human.

Your understanding of things does not make God's word void.

But no, on the contrary--Adam and Eve were one--the word stands as is.

 

[Mr E]

Your understanding of things does not make God's word void.

But no, on the contrary--Adam and Eve were one--the word stands as is.

Scott-- he countered your premise in a very logical way. You should respond to that, no?

How does your understanding comport with scripture that says Adam became a living being BEFORE Eve came into existence? In what manner of speaking is Eve the mother of all living? "All" would include Adam, right?

 

[Truthnightmare]

Your understanding of things does not make God's word void.

But no, on the contrary--Adam and Eve were one--the word stands as is.

Of course not, but I fail to see by what logic the narrative I’ve presented would make Gods word void.

Probably the simplest and most undeniable evidence that there was more than one creation event—that is to say that there were separate races created and that not all races of men came down from Adam and Eve—is the fact that there are different races. And we see these different races in Sumerian and early Egyptian paintings and carvings very early in the history of the world. And to believe that the separate races all came down from Adam and Eve would be to believe in evolution. The Bible does identify separate races.​

Jeremiah 13:23 [Written circa 500 B.C.]
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. KJV​

Pictographs and carvings in Egyptian monuments erected a scant few hundred years after Noah's Flood show captives in tow of at least four different races. Now, if all races came from Adam (circa 4004 B.C.), and then again presumably again through Noah (circa 2450 B.C.)—for those who believe in a global flood, which I do not believe the Bible is describing—then how is it that the Negro and Asiatic races were known to the Egyptians so early?
And early Sumerian (circa 3400 B.C. [only 600 years after Adam was formed]. *But see note below) and ancient Assyrian traditions hold that the Sumerians (a darker race), under the lead of a foreigner (Cain?) fought against a White race of men (Adam's tribes?). What kind of "evolution" could work that fast and then abruptly stop changing? It can't, evolution is a lie. God created everything and every race just as it is today. “ WBSG​

*Note: Wikipedia Encyclopedia has an interesting comment on the Sumerians (the people of Sumer) relating to their early date. Now, for whatever stock one may or may not put in the reliability of Wikipedia, the below sets Sumer's date at 6th millennium B.C., which would place it almost exactly at the creation date for the 6th day creation of Genesis chapter one; i.e., circa two thousand years prior to Adam at 4004 B.C. Interesting confirmation from a non-Biblical and non-Christian source!​

 

[ScottA]

Scott-- he countered your premise in a very logical way. You should respond to that, no?

How does your understanding comport with scripture that says Adam became a living being BEFORE Eve came into existence? In what manner of speaking is Eve the mother of all living? "All" would include Adam, right?

I did respond.

As for how what I have said "comports with scripture that says Adam became a living being BEFORE Eve came into existence", just as the Lamb was before and was slain before the foundation of the world, so too was Adam also before while Eve was yet in him.

As for "what manner of speaking is Eve the mother of all living"--the manner is that it is written of what was also before the foundation of the world.

 

[ScottA]

Of course not, but I fail to see by what logic the narrative I’ve presented would make Gods word void.

Probably the simplest and most undeniable evidence that there was more than one creation event—that is to say that there were separate races created and that not all races of men came down from Adam and Eve—is the fact that there are different races. And we see these different races in Sumerian and early Egyptian paintings and carvings very early in the history of the world. And to believe that the separate races all came down from Adam and Eve would be to believe in evolution. The Bible does identify separate races.



Pictographs and carvings in Egyptian monuments erected a scant few hundred years after Noah's Flood show captives in tow of at least four different races. Now, if all races came from Adam (circa 4004 B.C.), and then again presumably again through Noah (circa 2450 B.C.)—for those who believe in a global flood, which I do not believe the Bible is describing—then how is it that the Negro and Asiatic races were known to the Egyptians so early?
And early Sumerian (circa 3400 B.C. [only 600 years after Adam was formed]. *But see note below) and ancient Assyrian traditions hold that the Sumerians (a darker race), under the lead of a foreigner (Cain?) fought against a White race of men (Adam's tribes?). What kind of "evolution" could work that fast and then abruptly stop changing? It can't, evolution is a lie. God created everything and every race just as it is today. “ WBSG​

I will read your reply, but don't expect me to follow you down rabbit holes. It is enough that I address your opening premise.

You presented that Eve could not be Adam's mother, therefore not "the mother of all" as the scriptures say, even though they also say that they were one and also became "one". That was my correction of your reply...because not only is it against God's word, it is against His own explanation--which I should not have needed to tell you, but apparently did need to tell you. And what did I say, but to explain in the same way God did?

Thus, the logic is God's, explaining the oneness of Adam and Eve, which you claimed was not true by asserting that it meant that Eve could not possibly be Adam's mother. Which if you would have understood His logic as given rather than rejecting it, means that according to all that is written, that because Adam and Eve were made of the dust of the earth in the form of one, this was their "parting" (translated: "mother") from God. Which extrapolated to include the passage stating that Eve was "the mother of all" would mean "the parting of all" from God.

 

[Truthnightmare]

I did respond.

As for how what I have said "comports with scripture that says Adam became a living being BEFORE Eve came into existence", just as the Lamb was before and was slain before the foundation of the world, so too was Adam also before while Eve was yet in him.

As for "what manner of speaking is Eve the mother of all living"--the manner is that it is written of what was also before the foundation of the world.

What scriptures lead you to

I did respond.

As for how what I have said "comports with scripture that says Adam became a living being BEFORE Eve came into existence", just as the Lamb was before and was slain before the foundation of the world, so too was Adam also before while Eve was yet in him.

As for "what manner of speaking is Eve the mother of all living"--the manner is that it is written of what was also before the foundation of the world.

But that’s not scriptural…

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world

Adam and Eve have no article here, scripture tells us…

Genesis 2
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[ScottA]

But that’s not scriptural…

Your understanding is not the measure of what is and is not scriptural.

 

[Truthnightmare]

I will read your reply, but don't expect me to follow you down rabbit holes. It is enough that I address your opening premise.

You presented that Eve could not be Adam's mother, therefore not "the mother of all" as the scriptures say, even though they also say that they were one and also became "one". That was my correction of your reply...because not only is it against God's word, it is against His own explanation--which I should not have needed to tell you, but apparently did need to tell you. And what did I say, but to explain in the same way God did?

Thus, the logic is God's, explaining the oneness of Adam and Eve, which you claimed was not true by asserting that it meant that Eve could not possible be Adam's mother. Which if you would have understood His logic as given rather than rejecting it, means that according to all that is written, that because Adam and Eve were made of the dust of the earth in the form of one, this was their "parting" (translated: "mother") from God. Which extrapolated to include the passage stating that Eve was "the mother of all" would mean "the parting of all" from God.

At this point, I would ask that you provide scripture.

We can start here..

Adam and Eve were made of the dust of the earth in the form of one

What book, chapter and verses confirm this?