Mankind V.S. Adam

[Truthnightmare]

That's where hope and faith come in.

It's a long story between the trees.

ok, how about 2 trees but 1 root.

God is the root. The tree of knowledge is the Law, and the tree of Life is Jesus.

You have to go through one to get to the other, but both lead eventually to the same outcome. God.

This is all covered by Paul in the NT about the law being our schoolmaster...

Gal 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

it's the same analogy.

Hugs

That's where hope and faith come in.

It's a long story between the trees.

ok, how about 2 trees but 1 root.

God is the root. The tree of knowledge is the Law, and the tree of Life is Jesus.

You have to go through one to get to the other, but both lead eventually to the same outcome. God.

This is all covered by Paul in the NT about the law being our schoolmaster...

Gal 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

it's the same analogy.

Hugs

You can read about the bad tree here.. symbolism.

Ezekiel 31
3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.

5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.

6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.

7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.

9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

10 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart is lifted up in his height;

11 I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out for his wickedness.

 

[Ziggy]

Ask yourself… If it’s only one tree, is that tree Good or Bad? It can’t be both.

Matthew 7:17-23 King James Version (KJV)Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

the tree wasn't good or evil. The knowledge of good and evil is not evil.
You have to know the difference so you will choose the right one.
The evil was the choice Eve made by taking it.

Did Eve know what she was doing was evil? Maybe not. But after they took it they knew.
And when God asked them what they had done, they passed the buck.. she did it, nope, the snake did it..
And the snake said nothing.

They should of confessed, but instead they hid themselves..

Jhn 3:20
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Everything in Genesis 1 is in the Gospels.
More specifically in the book of John.
Because it is the same.. In the beginning.... and will be again.

There wasn't anything wrong with the fruit. It was the eater that was at fault.

Hugs

 

[Ziggy]

You can read about the bad tree here.. symbolism.

Ezekiel 31
3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.

5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.

6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.

7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.

9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

10 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart is lifted up in his height;

11 I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out for his wickedness.

A lot of trees in that garden for sure.
Good find.

 

[Ziggy]

You can read about the bad tree here.. symbolism.

Ezekiel 31
3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.

5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.

6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.

7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.

9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

10 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart is lifted up in his height;

11 I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out for his wickedness.

Eze 17:22
Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:
Eze 17:23
In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.
Eze 17:24
And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.

I didn't see any fruit on your cedar so I went digging..

Hugs

 

[Truthnightmare]

A lot of trees in that garden for sure.
Good find.

I believe different than most people.. and I don’t believe Eve knew what she was doing.

1 Timothy
And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.

 

[Ziggy]

I believe different than most people

Me too.
LOL

1am heading out.
Enjoying the conversation.
Hope to see you tomorrow

Hugs

 

[ScottA]

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

First, as I said before, applying worldly logic to these matters of God and the things of God...well, it doesn't really work, any more than darkness has communion with light.

If you will notice, chapter 1 of Genesis speaks of 6 days, but chapter 2 speaks of "the day (that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens)"--a single day. Chapter 2 also says "before"--only showing in part the chronology that has eluded you. And did you notice that in chapter 1 it says "God created the heavens and the earth", but in chapter 2 it says "God made the earth and the heavens", in the opposite order?

And what do you see when you look at an image in a mirror? You see it backwards. And this is the "image" uniquely given to man--"and the darkness did not comprehend it."

The "image" is one narrative, but only an image. Or it is as the words of a book that is written that only tells the story of what it is written about...only to be understood if at all by word by "rightly dividing" the one narrative from the other, and not without the Spirit.

 

[ScottA]

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



What scripture or scriptures lead you to this?

Surely you know the scriptures I have quoted.

 

[ScottA]

Genesis 11
11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Take a step back…

10 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Who are these gentiles? Notice they are divided by there tongue (languages)

Verse 5: "the children of men."

What does that tell you, and why do you ask?

 

[Mr E]

​

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's definitely different. Two different perspectives. I suppose it could be recorded as two accounts of different events, or it could simply be two different angles of one single thing. Like the way a diamond catches light in different colors of a spectrum depending on the cut of each facet and how it reflects.

I agree with you that the retelling in Genesis 2 isn't a deeper explanation, as it raises at least as many questions as it answers. So then, what is it's purpose? I'll suggest to you, that it's purpose has been mostly lost to the dustbin of history, like an old manuscript that has been sitting on a shelf in a monastery somewhere... dusty and forgotten, written in a language no one understands anymore, so that even now, looking at it, the meaning is entirely lost, or entirely dismissed by even those that stumble upon it.

Great subject, btw..... Don't feed the bears.

 

[Truthnightmare]

It's definitely different. Two different perspectives. I suppose it could be recorded as two accounts of different events, or it could simply be two different angles of one single thing. Like the way a diamond catches light in different colors of a spectrum depending on the cut of each facet and how it reflects.

I agree with you that the retelling in Genesis 2 isn't a deeper explanation, as it raises at least as many questions as it answers. So then, what is it's purpose? I'll suggest to you, that it's purpose has been mostly lost to the dustbin of history, like an old manuscript that has been sitting on a shelf in a monastery somewhere... dusty and forgotten, written in a language no one understands anymore, so that even now, looking at it, the meaning is entirely lost, or entirely dismissed by even those that stumble upon it.

Great subject, btw..... Don't feed the bears.

I suppose it could be recorded as two accounts of different events, or it could simply be two different angles of one single thing. Like the way a diamond catches light in different colors of a spectrum depending on the cut of each facet and how it reflects.

Indeed, but if two angles are parallel to each other, representing the same thing, then these angles cannot cross one another for they would intersect and no longer be parallel but a contradiction.

I'll suggest to you, that it's purpose has been mostly lost to the dustbin of history, like an old manuscript that has been sitting on a shelf in a monastery somewhere...

1 Corinthians 13:8
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

[Truthnightmare]

Verse 5: "the children of men."

What does that tell you, and why do you ask?

Well let me ask you, do you believe that only Noahs family survived the flood?

 

[ScottA]

Well let me ask you, do you believe that only Noahs family survived the flood?

I know what you are asking...but it would not appear that you do.

What flood, what family? Remember there are two narratives written. If you combine them you make God a liar by your own lack of understanding. But what has He said, what is written? Remember, the order of the day was the dividing of light from the darkness. That is the narrative of Noah of God. So then, the better question is: Did evil and darkness survive the flood? The answer--to your credit--is yes.

But your point was regarding other people. What other people, and thus, what other narrative? It is as I told you, the one narrative is only a manifestation, only pointing to the other and that which was before the foundation of the world. Such things are for a sign. If you came to a sign that said "Danger Ahead!"...is it the sigh that is the danger, or rather what is ahead? Why then do you ask about the sign manifest in evil men? Ask rather, what it points to.

Again, what is written? Were there other people besides Noah's family that survived the flood? Your logic tells you there is an issue with what is written--and I have explained the reason. But for One who makes men manifest in the world, whether good or evil, what is more important--that which seems impossible to you, or what is indeed possible with God who is operating on both fronts? That is, on the front of revealing the man of sin and every hidden thing and overturning every stone--for "the end of all flesh", or on that other front of delivering on His promise to save that which is perfect as God whom is not flesh but spirit, is perfect, and those who "take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—?

Isaiah 45:7​

I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.’​

Two narratives, one seen, one not seen but revealed.

 

[Truthnightmare]

I know what you are asking...but it would not appear that you do.

What flood, what family? Remember there are two narratives written. If you combine them you make God a liar by your own lack of understanding. But what has He said, what is written? Remember, the order of the day was the dividing of light from the darkness. That is the narrative of Noah of God. So then, the better question is: Did evil and darkness survive the flood? The answer--to your credit--is yes.

But your point was regarding other people. What other people, and thus, what other narrative? It is as I told you, the one narrative is only a manifestation, only pointing to the other and that which was before the foundation of the world. Such things are for a sign. If you came to a sign that said "Danger Ahead!"...is it the sigh that is the danger, or rather what is ahead? Why then do you ask about the sign manifest in evil men? Ask rather, what it points to.

Again, what is written? Were there other people besides Noah's family that survived the flood? Your logic tells you there is an issue with what is written--and I have explained the reason. But for One who makes men manifest in the world, whether good or evil, what is more important--that which seems impossible to you, or what is indeed possible with God who is operating on both fronts? That is, on the front of revealing the man of sin and every hidden thing and overturning every stone--for "the end of all flesh", or on that other front of delivering on His promise to save that which is perfect as God whom is not flesh but spirit, is perfect, and those who "take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—?

Isaiah 45:7​

I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.’​

Two narratives, one seen, one not seen but revealed.

Your logic tells you there is an issue with what is written--

I don’t… what do you believe im taking issue to?

 

[ScottA]

I don’t… what do you believe im taking issue to?

Correct me if I am wrong about your Original Post, but did you not point out an issue between "Mankind V.S. Adam" (in Genesis 1 and 2)?

 

[Truthnightmare]

Correct me if I am wrong about your Original Post, but did you not point out an issue between "Mankind V.S. Adam" (in Genesis 1 and 2)?

I see no issue, I see mankind (races) being created, man and woman… then later Adam being formed and Eve taken from Adam.

Issues arise when one says Genesis 2 is a reenactment of Genesis 1.

 

[ScottA]

I see no issue, I see mankind (races) being created, man and woman… then later Adam being formed and Eve taken from Adam.

Okay. If you see no issue, what then do you make of it?

 

[Truthnightmare]

Okay. If you see no issue, what then do you make of it?

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.

 

[Mr E]

Indeed, but if two angles are parallel to each other, representing the same thing, then these angles cannot cross one another for they would intersect and no longer be parallel but a contradiction.

And yet from the source come echoes and reflections. Not only reflections, but also refractions and ricochets. So maybe one story is source material and the other a shadow, not something that provides more detail, but ‘other’ detail.

A person standing on the shore can surely appreciate the size of the ocean, and yet he’s seeing only the top of it and not the depth of it at all.

 

[Truthnightmare]

And yet from the source come echoes and reflections. Not only reflections, but also refractions and ricochets. So maybe one story is source material and the other a shadow, not something that provides more detail, but ‘other’ detail.

A person standing on the shore can surely appreciate the size of the ocean, and yet he’s seeing only the top of it and not the depth of it at all.

And yet from the source come echoes and reflections. Not only reflections, but also refractions and ricochets.

Indeed…

So maybe one story is source material and the other a shadow, not something that provides more detail, but ‘other’ detail.

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.