Mankind V.S. Adam

[Ronald Nolette]

*4 male and female created he them = Notice here in Gen 1:27 that both male and female were created at the same time. Contrast this with Gen 2:7 where Adam is formed(not created) first, and then in Gen 2:22 Eve is taken from him. This is significant!

This is an assumption on your part. there is nothing in the context or grammar that says God created them simultaneously. Once again that is you assuming something without biblical warrant.

Why start a conversation speaking to me that way? You keyboard warriors wouldn’t raise your voice at another man in person, but become tough guys online. You would get humbled real quick where I’m from!

Well I am a very direct poe3rson both on the keyboard and in person. I mean no ill, though one cannot discern that just by reading words on a screen.

*4 male and female created he them = Notice here in Gen 1:27 that both male and female were created at the same time. Contrast this with Gen 2:7 where Adam is formed(not created) first, and then in Gen 2:22 Eve is taken from him. This is significant!

Once again an irrelavent argument you make. Create is "bara" and means make fashion or form. Genesis 1 tells us simply that god made man, Genesis 2 tells us how He made man then woman.

Note: Whenever you see a word italicized in your KJV Bible it means that the word is not in the original manuscripts, but was added by the translators because sometimes one Hebrew or Greek word requires two or three English words to properly relay the value of the word. Their intent was harmless, but sometimes they were wrong. The translators were not aware that there were two creation events and that this was speaking of the first event involving many different peoples, thus the phrase: In God's OWN image is not correct; the correct phrase is: In God and the Angels image ('elohiym).

And what expertise do you rely on to tell the Hebrew scholars down through the ages that God made man in His image and the image of angels. Jesus said we are made in the image of God. Nowhere in Scripture does it say we are made in the image of God and angels.

Usually loud mouths like you don’t know much try and keep up with the usage of article and particle here.

YOU made my argument for me here:

'adam is man, any man, men, mankind.

haa-'adam with the Article is the man.

'eth haa-'adam with the Article & Particle is this particular man Adam.

Sharpen up load mouth…
Gen 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man

in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man

in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. KJV
Gen 2:7
7 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. KJV

As for the them in verse 26- it has two grammatical and only two possibilities. Teh first and most likely is that God was referring to the male and female as the them. the other possibility though not as likely is that they were to be fruitful so as man grew in numbers- it was they who were to have dominion.

If you got something to get off your chest go to the local MMA or Boxing gym… how many insults can you hurl there? Not 1 clown.

Boy you are very think skinned aren't you? You need to chill or have a doc give you prozac or something. I meant no evil, but you most certainly did. I just pointed out your error and you had a hissy fit over the word error? May be you should refrain from posting knowing people will disagree with you ion many grammatic fashions.

In both of the above we see Adam with BOTH the Article and the Particle. The Particle and Article in Gen 1:27 is to denote that the man (the male of the species) is made in the image of 'Elohiym (God) unlike the female;

Particle does not specify a specific thing

and as Ha'adam being "the adam you are wrong:

The Definite Article​

There is no indefinite article in Hebrew like we have in English, which is the “a” and the “an.” A noun by itself is typically translated, based on the context of the passage, with the English indefinite article “a” or “an.” The definite article in Hebrew, which is “the,” is written as הַ (ha), and the first letter of the word it is attached to contains what is called a Daghes Forte in it, which is a dot in the middle of the word, such as the phrase, “the king,” is written in Hebrew as הַמֶּלֶךּ (hammelek). There are other variations of the definite article with what are called guttural letters (e.g., אהחע and also the ר), but for your translation purposes, this is the primary information about the article that is important for you to know.

Look at your own Hebrew English and you will not see the Daghes Forte in Adam. Also you need to know that Adam is also the Hebrew word for mankind just like anthropos in the greek is used for mankind in the generic sense.

You did a lot of hard work, but it proves the standard ages long belief still.

Other than in your imagination, there is not one even implied passage that speaks of God creating a mass of mankind, then creating Adam and Eve in a second "creation". You have no empiorical biblical evidence to support such a wild claim.

 

[ScottA]

​

The Differences between the two creation events​
In Genesis chapter One They all (plural) were CREATED. Created is Hebrew word #1254 bara' "...male and female created he them" (Gen 1:27)​	But in Genesis chapter Two Adam alone (singular) is FORMED Formed is Hebrew word #3335 yatsar "...in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." (Gen 2:8)​
They are created male and female at the same time. No 'Adam's Rib' here!​	Adam is formed some time before Eve. She later being made from him.​
They were simply created, human and mortal. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"(Heb 9:27).​	Adam given the breath of life, became a living soul. (Adam would have lived forever had he not fell - see Gen 6:3 "for that he also is flesh"). Ask yourself, "also," as in whom else?​
They are told to multiply. "...Be fruitful and multiply..." (Gen 1:28)​	No such command is given to Adam and Eve (Adam's family was told to multiply after the flood; i.e., Noah's family was told in Gen 9:1).​
Mankind given dominion over animals and fish.​	Adam was a farmer.​
The animals were wild animals and the plants were wild plants. No names given.​	They were domestic animals and crop plants. Adam named these.​
There was not yet rain.​	"...went up a mist from the earth..."(Gen 2:6)​
The creation was completed. All the various races, men and women alike, were created. THEN ------ >>>​	But after that, in Gen 2:5, God saw that He "did not have a man to till the ground" (farmer). So God then FORMED Adam.​

But probably the most striking evidence that Genesis chapter Oneand Genesis chapter Two are not speaking of the same event would be:


This immediately dismisses the misconception that the account in Gen 2 is merely a deeper explanation of the events in Gen 1, as many will say and teach. For if it were, then God 'messed up' on the order of His creation, which is of course impossible. When God and man are at variance, man is always wrong and God always right. Let's now go to the Creation Scriptures themselves for further evidence and documentation.

It is not advisable to look at the events of creation by human understanding and terms of chronology which are according to this world and not the kingdom of God.

Likewise, there was light before there was a sun or moon. But again, mixing the terms of this world with the terms of the kingdom of God is the cause of many misunderstandings. Even so, you have rightly pointed out a difference; and yet it is not two creations of a worldly nature, but rather of one "before the foundation of the world" and another of the world there made manifest.

 

[Truthnightmare]

You can’t even follow simple wording.
God created man and female in Genesis 1.

I’m Genesis 2 God formed the man Adam.

CREATED: Hebrew word # 1254; bara' - to shape, to fashion, to create (always with God as subject) used of individual man,used of new conditions and circumstances, to be created, used of birth, used of something new.

FORMED: Hebrew word # 3335; yatsar - to form, to fashion, to frame, used of human activity, used of divine activity, used of Israel as a people, to frame, to pre-ordain, to plan (figurative of divine) to purpose of a situation, to be predetermined, to be pre-ordained, to be formed.

In the belief that Genesis 2 is a reenactment of Genesis 1 is based on the change in authorship from the "P" to the "J" manuscripts, because we are using our commentary from Ezra and Nehemiah's "Massoretic text"

This is incorrect as the authorship did not change. Truth be told, you can’t tell me
I’m in error until you actually can point out errors in my utilization of the manuscripts, which you don’t seem to have a basic understanding off.

Adam when occupied by article and particle denotes a man, self not mankind, your just posting crap you know nothing about.

Gen 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man

in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man

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

There is no mention of the forming of haa-'adam with Article

We see the first occurrence of haa-Adam which denotes a specific man is in Genesis 2:7 observe

Gen 2:7
7 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. KJV

God created the races in Genesis 1 and they multiplied.

This is why Cain was worried about being killed when he went to the land of Nod.

You’re doing a horrible job pretending you study Hebrew!

 

[ScottA]

You can’t even follow simple wording.

You mean..."wording" that God Himself "confused" at Babel? --Right!

Anyway, when addressing or accusing someone, you should show the courtesy of using the "Reply" function below their comment.

If you were referring to me, I was not reading or "following", but interpreting--not "Hebrew" but by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Truthnightmare]

You mean..."wording" that God Himself "confused" at Babel? --Right!

Anyway, when addressing or accusing someone, you should show the courtesy of using the "Reply" function below their comment.

If you were referring to me, I was not reading or "following", but interpreting by the Holy Spirit.

Thought I replied properly, my fault… And I was not addressing you.

One should probably have a understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 before tackling the Tower of Babel.

 

[ScottA]

Thought I replied properly, my fault… And I was not addressing you.

One should probably have a understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 before tackling the Tower of Babel.

You perhaps are a student of language--good for you, I am not. However, your reactions I understand.

 

[Truthnightmare]

You perhaps are a student of language--good for you, I am not. However, your reactions I understand.

But we are all students none the less, even a teacher of the word is a student to himself.

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal…

My reactions are simple, if I’m in error then simply tell me where you believe I’m in error. To begin the conversation by saying I’m a lazy reader is a statements of finality.

One would need to prove I have overlooked the obvious countless times.. and then show such evidence. Overlooking or missing something here and there doesn’t make one lazy.

Being a jerk to John might give you silence, being a jerk to Peter may cause you to lose a ear. But treating others as you want to be treated can alleviate much…

Proverbs 15:11

King James Bible
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger

Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[ScottA]

My reactions are simple, if I’m in error then simply tell me where you believe I’m in error.

I did.

To begin the conversation by saying I’m a lazy reader is a statements of finality.

Wasn't me.

 

[Truthnightmare]

I did.

Wasn't me.

That’s fine… Use scripture to prove your assertions…

 

[Pierac]

You can’t even follow simple wording.
God created man and female in Genesis 1.

I’m Genesis 2 God formed the man Adam.

CREATED: Hebrew word # 1254; bara' - to shape, to fashion, to create (always with God as subject) used of individual man,used of new conditions and circumstances, to be created, used of birth, used of something new.

FORMED: Hebrew word # 3335; yatsar - to form, to fashion, to frame, used of human activity, used of divine activity, used of Israel as a people, to frame, to pre-ordain, to plan (figurative of divine) to purpose of a situation, to be predetermined, to be pre-ordained, to be formed.

In the belief that Genesis 2 is a reenactment of Genesis 1 is based on the change in authorship from the "P" to the "J" manuscripts, because we are using our commentary from Ezra and Nehemiah's "Massoretic text"

This is incorrect as the authorship did not change. Truth be told, you can’t tell me
I’m in error until you actually can point out errors in my utilization of the manuscripts, which you don’t seem to have a basic understanding off.

Adam when occupied by article and particle denotes a man, self not mankind, your just posting crap you know nothing about.

Gen 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man

in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man

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

There is no mention of the forming of haa-'adam with Article

We see the first occurrence of haa-Adam which denotes a specific man is in Genesis 2:7 observe

Gen 2:7
7 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. KJV

God created the races in Genesis 1 and they multiplied.

This is why Cain was worried about being killed when he went to the land of Nod.

You’re doing a horrible job pretending you study Hebrew!

I think I like you... You might actually have eyes to see....LOL

KJV Ecc 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this soreH7451 travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

Word Study: H7451 רע ra‛, ָרָעה
rā‛āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil.

Concordant OT Ecc 1:13 “It is an experience of evil Elohin [God] has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it.”

The Concordant OT..... owned this verse!!!

Yea... I know it's off topic.... but thanks to me... you will never see Ecc 1:13 the same way again....

Then we go.... well, we go here!

Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope

Come on.... Put two and two together...
Paul

 

[Truthnightmare]

I think I like you... You might actually have eyes to see....LOL

KJV Ecc 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this soreH7451 travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

Word Study: H7451 רע ra‛, ָרָעה
rā‛āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil.

Concordant OT Ecc 1:13 “It is an experience of evil Elohin [God] has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it.”

The Concordant OT..... owned this verse!!!

Yea... I know it's off topic.... but thanks to me... you will never see Ecc 1:13 the same way again....

Then we go.... well, we go here!

Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope

Come on.... Put two and two together...
Paul

KJV Ecc 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this soreH7451 travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

Word Study: H7451 רע ra‛, ָרָעה
rā‛āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil.

H7451 is not merely an adjective, but it’s utilization is also rendered a masculine and feminine noun.

Original Word: רַע
Part of Speech: Adjective; noun masculine; noun feminine
Transliteration: ra'
Phonetic Spelling: (rah)
Definition: bad, evil

This should be considered when rendering appropriations to parts of speech.

Concordant OT Ecc 1:13 “It is an experience of evil Elohin [God] has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it.”

Evil Elohim (God)? There is no such thing as evil God, surely you have read.

Psalms 92:15
To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness (evil) in him

Unrighteousness H5766
iniquity, perverseness, unjustly, unrighteousness, wickedness
Or lavel {aw'-vel}; and (feminine) lavlah {av-law'}; or owlah {o-law'}; or.olah {o-law'}; from aval; (moral) evil -- iniquity, perverseness, unjust(-ly), unrighteousness(-ly); wicked(-ness).

God cannot give evil, for there is no evil in Him to give, He can only allow evil.

James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Yea... I know it's off topic.... but thanks to me... you will never see Ecc 1:13 the same way again....

Even if I change my viewpoint concerning the aforementioned, should I give thanks to you?

Ephesians 5:18-20 - Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Pierac]

H7451 is not merely an adjective, but it’s utilization is also rendered a masculine and feminine noun.

Original Word: רַע
Part of Speech: Adjective; noun masculine; noun feminine
Transliteration: ra'
Phonetic Spelling: (rah)
Definition: bad, evil

This should be considered when rendering appropriations to parts of speech.


Evil Elohim (God)? There is no such thing as evil God, surely you have read.

Psalms 92:15
To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness (evil) in him

Unrighteousness H5766
iniquity, perverseness, unjustly, unrighteousness, wickedness
Or lavel {aw'-vel}; and (feminine) lavlah {av-law'}; or owlah {o-law'}; or.olah {o-law'}; from aval; (moral) evil -- iniquity, perverseness, unjust(-ly), unrighteousness(-ly); wicked(-ness).

God cannot give evil, for there is no evil in Him to give, He can only allow evil.

James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:



Even if I change my viewpoint concerning the aforementioned, should I give thanks to you?

Ephesians 5:18-20 - Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Silly Child.... Did not the other Paul.... record/teach...no less than six times.... ALL THINGS ARE OF GOD!

You think Evil is not part of God.... and somehow came to exist with out God....

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

1Co 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust

1Pe 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

1Jo 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

Job 26:13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient744 serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

G744 ἀρχαῖος archaios
Thayer Definition:
that has been from the beginning, original

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent3789 deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

G3789 ὄφις óphis; gen. ópheōs, masc. noun.
A snake, serpent. The Gr. word drákōn (G1404), dragon, was a huge serpent

Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient744 serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

Mar 4:15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them.

2Co 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Isa 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith [Satan] that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

1Pe 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:

Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Satan is God's tool.... six times...all things are of God!!!
Your looking dumber than I thought...

 

[ScottA]

That’s fine… Use scripture to prove your assertions…

My point and offer of correction to you regarding your Original Post about the difference between Adam and mankind in Genesis 1 and 2, was that there was not two creations, one of Adam and another of mankind, but that there is rather two narratives--not the two narratives that you cited as being an incorrect theory as a reiteration of the same creation...but one narrative of what occurred before the foundation of the world, and another or second narrative of the first being made manifest in the world. Which I did not offer to convince you or to even have a discussion about it, but as I said, as correction, simply telling you the truth.

But you asked for scripture which I certainly can provide: As it is written, the creation of man was an "image" since the beginning, an image made manifest of what was "before the foundation of the world." And now I am repeating myself, and therefore I said, "I did" when you responded, saying, "if I’m in error then simply tell me where you believe I’m in error." But to be clear, I have not told you what I "believe", but what is simply the truth.

 

[Truthnightmare]

Silly Child.... Did not the other Paul.... record/teach...no less than six times.... ALL THINGS ARE OF GOD!

You think Evil is not part of God.... and somehow came to exist with out God....

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

1Co 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust

1Pe 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

1Jo 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

Job 26:13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient744 serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

G744 ἀρχαῖος archaios
Thayer Definition:
that has been from the beginning, original

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent3789 deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

G3789 ὄφις óphis; gen. ópheōs, masc. noun.
A snake, serpent. The Gr. word drákōn (G1404), dragon, was a huge serpent

Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient744 serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

Mar 4:15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them.

2Co 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Isa 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith [Satan] that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

1Pe 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:

Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Satan is God's tool.... six times...all things are of God!!!
Your looking dumber than I thought...

What you are presenting is a notion based on evaluation, of what. I am simply giving you scripture… Observe:

You think Evil is not part of God.... and somehow came to exist with out God....

Who cares what I think… What does scripture say?

Psalms 5:4
: For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.

So no! evil is not part of God nor does it dwell with thee..

Silly Child

Matthew 18:3
and said, “Verily I say unto you, unless ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Truthnightmare]

My point and offer of correction to you regarding your Original Post about the difference between Adam and mankind in Genesis 1 and 2, was that there was not two creations, one of Adam and another of mankind, but that there is rather two narratives--not the two narratives that you cited as being an incorrect theory as a reiteration of the same creation...but one narrative of what occurred before the foundation of the world, and another or second narrative of the first being made manifest in the world. Which I did not offer to convince you or to even have a discussion about it, but as I said, as correction, simply telling you the truth.

But you asked for scripture which I certainly can provide: As it is written, the creation of man was an "image" since the beginning, an image made manifest of what was "before the foundation of the world." And now I am repeating myself, and therefore I said, "I did" when you responded, saying, "if I’m in error then simply tell me where you believe I’m in error." But to be clear, I have not told you what I "believe", but what is simply the truth.

Why does your two narratives contradict each other in regards to the Hebrew and the order of events?

 

[Pierac]

What you are presenting is a notion based on evaluation, of what. I am simply giving you scripture… Observe:



Who cares what I think… What does scripture say?

Psalms 5:4
: For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.

So no! evil is not part of God nor does it dwell with thee..



Matthew 18:3
and said, “Verily I say unto you, unless ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yea.... But is it your lot in life.... LOL

NASB Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

Net Eph 1:11 In Christ28 we too have been claimed as God's own possession,29(G280) since we were predestined (G4309) according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will

29 tn Grk "we were appointed by lot." The notion of the verb κληρόω (klēroō) in the OT was to "appoint a portion by lot" (the more frequent cognate verb κληρονομέω [klēronomeō] meant "obtain a portion by lot"). In the passive, as here, the idea is that "we were appointed [as a portion] by lot" (BDAG 548 s.v. κληρόω 1). The words "God's own" have been supplied in the translation to clarify this sense of the verb. An alternative interpretation is that believers receive a portion as an inheritance: "In Christ we too have been appointed a portion of the inheritance." See H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 226-27, for discussion on this interpretive issue.

Word study
G2820
κληρόω
klēróō; contracted klērṓ, fut. klērṓsō, from klḗros (G2819), a lot. To cast lots, determine by lot, i.e., to determine something, choose someone. In Eph_1:11, it means, "in whom the lot has fallen upon us also, as foreordained thereto . . . to be" (a.t.). The idea expressed here is that Christians have become heirs of God due to the fact that God predestined them according to His purpose. In a manner of speaking, the "lot" fell to believers not by chance but solely because of the gracious and sovereign decision of God- Almighty to select them to be His heirs.

Deriv.: prosklēróō (G4345), to give or assign by lot.

Word study
G4309
προορίζω
proorízō; fut. proorísō, from pró (G4253), before, and horízō (G3724), to determine. To determine or decree beforehand (Act_4:28; Rom_8:29-30; 1Co_2:7; Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11). The peace of the Christian Church has been disrupted due to the misunderstanding which surrounds this word. It behooves the Church to consider the divinely intended meaning of this word by carefully examining the critical passages where it is used.

In 1Co_2:7 it has a thing as its obj., namely, the wisdom of God. The purpose was our glory, i.e., our benefits of salvation.

In Act_4:28 the verb is followed by the aor. inf. genésthai (gínomai [G1096], to be, become), to be done. The action of Herod and Pontius Pilate in crucifying Jesus Christ is said to have been predetermined or foreordained by the hand and will of God. This indicates that Christ's mission, especially His death and resurrection, was not ultimately the result of human will but originated in the eternal counsel of God which decreed the event determining all its primary and secondary causes, instruments, agents, and contingencies.

In Rom_8:29-30, predestination is used of God's actions in eternally decreeing both the objects and goal of His plan of salvation. Proorízō has a personal obj., the pl. relative pron. hoús, whom. This relative pron. refers to those previously mentioned as those whom God foreknew (proégnō [G4267]). The translation is, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate." The objects of predestination are those whom He foreknew. Predestination does not involve a predetermined plan only but also includes the individuals for whom the plan is devised. The goal of predestination is expressed in the phrase, "to be conformed to the image of his Son."

In Eph_1:5, Eph_1:11 this same purpose of foreordination is termed adoption. Adoption (huiothesía [G5206]) is the placing into sonship or legal heirship of those who are born of God. According to Eph_1:5 the basis of this prior decree is "the good pleasure of His will." The word rendered "good pleasure" is eudokía (G2107) and means pleasure or satisfaction, that which seems good. Paul is careful to add that it is the good pleasure of God's will, it is what seems good to God-not man. Similarly, in Eph_1:11 foreordination is based upon "the purpose (próthesis [G4286]) of the One who is working all things ([neut. acc. pl.] tá pánta [G3844], an idiom for the entire metaphysical and physical universe) according to the decision of His will" (a.t.). This same thinking is reflected in Rom_8:30 where foreordination is joined successively to foreknowledge. Here it is presented not as a capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of raw will or unreasoned impulse, but as the expression of a deliberate and wise plan which purposes to redeem those undeserving sinners whom God freely favors as the objects of His mercy.

Because it is neither possible nor permissible for us to pry into God's secret counsel, it is not proper to be fixated with determining who the predestined are. Instead, we should contemplate the glories of what they are predestined to, i.e., salvation, adoption, or glory.

Syn.: protássō (G4384), to appoint before; procheirízō (G4400), to appoint beforehand; proetoimázō (G4282), to prepare before.

You now have A LOT... to take in....
Silly Child
Paul

 

[Truthnightmare]

Yea.... But is it your lot in life.... LOL

Proverbs 20:24
Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way

You have provided much, it is not possible for me to render an adequate rebuttal, perhaps you should narrow your proposals precept upon precept.

Moreover I do not use the the NASB, and this will undoubtedly lead to us disagreeing on translations.

For example:

1st Jn 5:7-8:

SCRIPTURE​	KJV (King James Version)​	NIV (New International Version)​	NASB (New American Standard Bible)​
1st Jn 5:7-8	7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)	7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NIV) *(And similarly in all newer Bible versions)	7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NASB)

 

[Pierac]

Proverbs 20:24
Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way

You have provided much, it is not possible for me to render an adequate rebuttal, perhaps you should narrow your proposals precept upon precept.

Moreover I do not use the the NASB, and this will undoubtedly lead to us disagreeing on translations.

For example:

1st Jn 5:7-8:

SCRIPTURE​	KJV (King James Version)​	NIV (New International Version)​	NASB (New American Standard Bible)​
1st Jn 5:7-8	7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)	7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NIV) *(And similarly in all newer Bible versions)	7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NASB)

Your becoming my favorite.... You act like I care about any particular translation.... then post The Johannine Comma as an example..... Brilliant !!!! LOL...

The Johannine Comma​

(1 John 5:7-8)​

The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. In these editions the verses appear thus (we put backets around the extra words):

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts. In the Clementine edition of the Vulgate the verses were printed thus:

Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.

From the Vulgate, then, it seems that the Comma was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek text, and in a handful of late Greek manuscripts. All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. For example, the English Standard Version reads:

For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

We give below the comments of Dr. Bruce M. Metzger on 1 John 5:7-8, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993).

---

​

After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

(A) External Evidence.​

(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.

88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.

221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.

629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.

636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.

918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.

2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

(B) Internal Probabilities.​

(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.

For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.

1 John 5:7-8... I LOVE IT!!!!​

Paul

 

[Truthnightmare]

These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.

Please consider…
There are no extant (existing) Greek Manuscripts older than the fourth century, the oldest two Greek uncial Manuscript copies, the Vaticanus {B} and the Sinaiticus {Aleph} are without those last twelve verses, however, of all the others, consisting of some eighteen uncials and some six hundred cursive Manuscripts (those which contain the Gospel of Mark), there is not one which leaves out these twelve verses! Yet the newer Bible versions translated from the two corrupt Manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) omit the verses or include them but state that they don't belong (which is almost just as damaging). Why?

Moreover, the Papyri, which were discovered in the 1950's, date back to A.D. 180-220 which are earlier than both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (A.D. 330). The Papyri support the reading in the King James Version (from the Textus Receptus). So when they simply state that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are older than any other GREEK Manuscript they are being somewhat deceiving, for they lead the reader to believe that they are older than any other Biblical Manuscript - which they ARE NOT!.

Perhaps some day we will unearth a Greek Manuscript older than the forth century, then some day an older one than that older one... Or perhaps some day it will be proven that the Codex Vaticanus {B} (now in the Vatican, Rome), and the Codex Sinaiticus {Aleph} ( in St. Petersburg, Russia) are forgeries from the 14th century or so. If one knew the true nature of the Catholic Jesuit Priesthood, they wouldn't exclude that possibility.

The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century])

Your memory fails you old man!

• The SYRIAC Version: The Syriac version of the New testament Scriptures is the oldest in its various forms: the "Peshitto" (2nd century), and the "Curetonian Syriac" (3rd century). Both are older than any Greek Manuscript in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. So with the "Philoxenian" (5thcentury) and the "Jerusalem" (5th century).

• The LATIN Versions: Jerome (A. D. 382), who had access to Greek Manuscripts older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which is believed to belong to the 2nd century, and contains these verses.
• The GOTHIC Version: (A. D. 350) contains them.
• The EGYPTIAN Versions: the 'Memphitic' (or Lower Egyptian, less properly called "Coptic"), belonging to 4th or 5th century, contains them; as does the'Thebaic' (or Upper Egyptian, less properly called the "Sahidic"), belonging to 3rd century.
• The ARMENIAN: (5th century), The ETHIOPIC: (4th - 7th century), and The GEORGIAN: (6th century) also bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.

This brings us to the early writings of the Church Fathers: Whatever may be their value (or otherwise) as to doctrine and interpretation yet, in determining actual words, or their form, or sequence, their evidence, even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions.

There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; while between A. D. 300 and A. D. 600 there are about two hundred more, and they all refer to these twelve verses.

• PAPIAS: (about A. D. 100) refers to v. 18 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc 3, 39).
• JUSTIN MARTYR: (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).
• IRENAEUS: (A. D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).
• HIPPOLYTUS: (A. D. 190 - 227) quotes vv. 17-19 (Lagarde's ed., 1858, p. 74).
• VINCENTIUS: (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage, held under Cyprian.
• The ACTA PILATI: (2nd century) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1853, pp. 243, 351).
• The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS: (3rd or 4th centuries) quotes vv. 16, 17, 18.
• EUSEBIUS: (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by Marinus from a lost part of his History.
• APHRAARTES: (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted vv. 16 -18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869, i., p. 21).
• AMBROSE: (A. D. 374 - 97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vv.15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and v.20 (once).
• CHRYSOSTOM: (A. D. 400) refers to v. 9; and states that vv. 19, 20 are "the end of the Gospel".
• JEROME: (born 331, died 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation; besides quoting vv. 9 and 14 in his other writings.
• AUGUSTINE: (Fl. A.D. 395 - 430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches.
• NESTORIUS: (5th century) quotes V. 20, and:
• CYRIL of ALEXANDRIA: (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.
• VICTOR of ANTIOCH: (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many Manuscripts which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.

Interesting trail of Biblical literature is it not? Thank you for giving me something to review over this blessed season…

You're not to bad… would not mind learning a bit from you….OLD MAN!

 

[Truthnightmare]

My point and offer of correction to you regarding your Original Post about the difference between Adam and mankind in Genesis 1 and 2, was that there was not two creations, one of Adam and another of mankind, but that there is rather two narratives--not the two narratives that you cited as being an incorrect theory as a reiteration of the same creation...but one narrative of what occurred before the foundation of the world, and another or second narrative of the first being made manifest in the world. Which I did not offer to convince you or to even have a discussion about it, but as I said, as correction, simply telling you the truth.

But you asked for scripture which I certainly can provide: As it is written, the creation of man was an "image" since the beginning, an image made manifest of what was "before the foundation of the world." And now I am repeating myself, and therefore I said, "I did" when you responded, saying, "if I’m in error then simply tell me where you believe I’m in error." But to be clear, I have not told you what I "believe", but what is simply the truth.

Perhaps we can find common ground, or at least get a grasp of the positions each of us hold.

As it is written, the creation of man was an "image" since the beginning, an image made manifest of what was "before the foundation of the world."

What scripture or scriptures lead you to this?