Genesis 1 and 2

[Israelsson]

Like I said, sensible ansers please Mr Webster or not at all.

They aren't really two seperate accounts, if you turn to the Hebrew definition of the word 'man' in these verses, you will find that they are the same words. 'haw-Awdawm" or 'the Adam'. Aw-dawm in the Strongs Concordance means 'ruddy, to show blood in the face, to have a rosy complexion.' This term is not a name as much as it is a description. The 'male and female' in Genesis 1:26-27, are a 'people', a race planted here for a purpose. This is why the genealogies in the scripture really ARE important. Jesus' bloodline is traced to Adam through Seth! And this is important to understand to recognize truth in the bible.

The original texts also were on seperate scrolls, so Gen 1 is on one scroll, Gen 2-4 is another, and Gen 5 and on is completely seperate as well. Thats why in chapter 5 you see "This is the book of the generations of Adam..." A start to a completely separate scroll. In the Gen 2 account, we begin to see the reason that Adamkind failed in paradise. They sought knowledge more than life...

I believe it was the Assyriologist Sayce that originally translated the date of Sargon I appearing in ancient Sumer at 3800 B.C. Per Bishop Ussher's Bible chronology Annals Of The World, he traced Adam in God's Garden to 4004 B.C., a mere 204 years difference between Adam and Sargon. Yet Sayce later... changed the 3800 B.C. date of his original translation from the Assyrian tablets to fit more in line with the then existing views of the field of Assyriology (See Bristowe's footnote documentation about this in Sargon The Magnificent).

Because of that, I believe Cain was actually Sargon I who suddenly appears among the Sumerians in ancient Sumer. That would mean that ancient Sumer was the "land of Nod" where Cain went, to a different people that already existed there.

That would make sense being that Eden literally meant the 'steppes' of Mesopotamia. And Sumer was east of Eden. Nice thinking, and being that the Sumerians were of the Caucasoid racial structure as evidenced by recent archaeological findings, this proves to me even more that Adam was white. Not being 'racist' just speaking what is in the Word. This also explains more of what REALLY happened with Noahs flood.

 

[FHII]

That's OK, because Bible context in the KJV is usually pretty good overall, even with its Old English grammar. But with some difficult passages, the context is difficult without going some into the manuscripts. In Acts 12:4 with the word "Easter", it's not in the Greek manuscripts, yet because of tradition the KJV translators added it, when the actual word is 'passover', which they correctly rendered in all other cases. In some Old Testament chapters, the KJV translators didn't translate the meaning of names and places from the Hebrew which help spell out the main Message of the chapter. So there are things that can be missed without going into the manuscripts or at least by using a Lexicon.

For me, the 1611 KJV Bible is still the best and most accurate English translation to date. In the original 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible, the translators included a 'Letter To The Reader' warning about problems they had in the translation. You can still get a copy of the original 1st Edition 1611 KJV from Thomas Nelson Publishers. The 1st Edition included the Apocrypha, a Letter To The Reader, and a Letter To King James, Defender Of The Faith. Those have since been removed from later editions.




aadam by itself, especially when eth ha aadam occurs along with it, are clear distinctions.

Gen 5:1-2
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam (Aadaam). In the day that God created man (aadaam), in the likeness of God made He him;
2 Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam (aadaam), in the day when they were created.
(KJV)


This from Vine's word studies...

"MAN
This noun is related to the verb 'adom, "to be red," and therefore probably relates to the original ruddiness of human skin. The noun connotes "man" as the creature created in God's image, the crown of all creation. In its first appearance 'adam is used for mankind, or generic man: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." Gen 1:26. In Gen 2:7 the word refers to the first "man," Adam: "And 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."
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright ©1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)"


Even Vine's makes a distinction between the 'aadam' of Gen.1:26 compared with the 'eth ha aadam' of later Gen.2:7. He says nothing of the eth ha aadam of Gen.1:27, though it is there also about God's 6th day creation.

Just so you'll know why I consider God's Word there making a distinction, it's because of His creation especially, and not man's theories of evolution. It also aligns with God's Plan to bring His Son through a specific lineage all the way back from the man Adam (per Luke 3) which God created with His Own Image, and not only His 'likeness' of shape or form. It is also about the Gen.2 differences with the man Adam (eth ha aadam) created specifically to till the soil.

One of the vain ideas many have gotten sucked into is the theory of evolution being applied to God's creation, treating the races of mankind as having somehow 'evolved' out of the sole man and woman Adam and Eve. If you really take time to think about that, their coming from one man and woman is actually the theory of evolution, and not God's creation. The reason is because there's no evidence, archaeological, genealogical, nor medical, that two people of one particular race produce offspring of another race. Also, per God's OT commandments to not mix to form hybrids, whether of plant seed, animals, or people (Deut.23:2), He shows that He intended His creation to remain how He created it from the start, and the Hebrew distinction in Gen.1 reveals that order.

Look... I don't Bible jump. I have a copy of the KJV and that's what I go by. In faith I believe that's what God gave me to go by. I am not going to question it. I love breaking down words and studying other Bibles, and other translations, but I'm sticking to one.