Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
A clarification -
The meanings of the words - according to the people who wrote them - have not changed.
The meanings of the words - as interpreted by modern people - have changed.
What affect is there on The Fall and The Atonement, if Adam was not the first human?
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The meanings of the words - according to the people who wrote them - have not changed.
The meanings of the words - as interpreted by modern people - have changed.
That may well be true, but one does not understand an ancient text by what it's words mean today, but by what they meant to the authors example
Not to long ago ' gay ' meant happy now it means something else equally ' nice ' had a meaning of precise, now it means acceptable.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
No disagreement here.
Now, how do translators determine what meaning the original authors intended? They look at other manuscripts from the same period and examine the context clues there.
For Hebrew, we have over a thousand "new" manuscripts with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)... and they are mostly centuries older than the others we have... and they are contemporary to the New Testament writers. This was a game-changer for translating Hebrew.
Basically, for any Bible translator to have value, they either need to be so ancient that they have knowledge of the New Testament writers, or else modern enough to be after the translation of the DSS.
Adam was the first man - don't even think about stupid claims of other humans or evolved monkeys on Earth at Creation.
Eve's seed DNA carried down into Jesus.
Just believe Jesus was GOD's son and tell everyone else it too!
Welcome to the forum.
I believed Adam was the first man for most of my life. As I said in the OP (opening post)...
"Trying to sort this out in my own mind. Stuck somewhere between science and religion."
(history and archaeology as well)
After much discussion with fine Christian folk and some reading I was faced with the fact that Christianity
recognizes mythology in ALL other religions, but not in our own. The major reason being... (imho) that mythology
is viewed as not being "true", while we consider the Bible to be true. Therefore NOT mythology.
We have no problem understanding that Jesus' parables were not true stories, but would
not view the Genesis account that way. Even though it was not written by eye-witnesses, obviously.
What was the source of the Genesis account? Christianity tells us that it was dictated to Moses by God.
As if there was no oral tradition (mythology) of our origins.
As a mythology, "Adam" (adamah) may be representative of humankind. And our sinful state reflected backward
to the creation account and "the Fall" of humankind due to "original sin". Which then becomes the source.
Genesis 2:7 NIV
Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,
and the man became a living being.
Read full chapter
Footnotes
- Genesis 2:7 The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah);
it is also the name Adam (see verse 20).
[
Maybe if you understood that Moses spent 80 x 24 hours listening to GOD you might understand that such a length of time allowed GOD to tell him everything right back to Genesis 1.
You seem to be yet another wolf in a Christian forum.
You seem to be yet another wolf in a Christian forum.
Are you suggesting that Moses listened to God for "80 x 24 hours" and then wrote Genesis?
There are 50 chapters and 1533 verses.
Or perhaps you are claiming all five books of Moses?
That was uncalled for.
[
Are wolves all those posting on this site who disagree with your interpretation of Genesis? If so, I'm running in @St.Steven's pack.
Taken
Well-Known Member
What affect is there on The Fall and The Atonement, if Adam was not the first human?
I do Not challenge Adam was the first human.
Adam was not the First to Sin.
The First to Sin was a holy angel, who was called by the name Lucifer and thereafter banned from his holy estate, relinquished from his holiness, and his characteristic thereafter being that of an unholy devil, whose mission became that which to cunningly deceive human men (in their estate /Earth/ ) into rejecting God, His Word, His Power.
Glory to God,
Taken
I do Not challenge Adam was the first human.
Adam was not the First to Sin.
The First to Sin was a holy angel, who was called by the name Lucifer and thereafter banned from his holy estate, relinquished from his holiness, and his characteristic thereafter being that of an unholy devil, whose mission became that which to cunningly deceive human men (in their estate /Earth/ ) into rejecting God, His Word, His Power.
Glory to God,
Taken
Yes, I noticed you're not much of a Christian.
Get a good Bible and read it.
Instead of posting nonsense get a good Bible and read it.
My KJV quite clearly says Moses spent 80 x 24 hours listening to GOD.
RedFan said:
Are wolves all those posting on this site who disagree with your interpretation of Genesis? If so, I'm running in @St.Steven's pack.
@RedFan - join the "Or so they say..." club. High praise indeed. (considering the source)
[
Are wolves all those posting on this site who disagree with your interpretation of Genesis? If so, I'm running in @St.Steven's pack.
LOL
@RedFan - join the "Or so they say..." club. High praise indeed. (considering the source)
[
Dust you are and to dust you will return - unless you are lucky enough to be alive to be raptured up off Earth when Jesus and his angel army come to destroy all the wicked and sinners.
All Bibles ae good but some choose immature wording to fit today's people.
I've no idea what KJO or JWKJOOSAS means but I presume its something trivial minds occupy themselves with.
I've no idea what KJO or JWKJOOSAS means but I presume its something trivial minds occupy themselves with.
Taken
Well-Known Member
--- PARODY TIME ---
KJO reader: This is what the Word of God says.
NIV reader: Let's compare the NIV translation.
KJO reader: WHAT! ??? That's a terrible translation!
NIV reader: Are you saying it isn't the "Word of God"?
KJO reader: The NIV left verses out of the Bible!
NIV reader: No, the NIV kept the same verse numbering system
but left out verses that didn't belong there in the first place.
KJO reader: THEY REMOVED VERSES FROM THE BIBLE !!!!
NIV reader: No, that's not what happened.
KJO reader: Yes it is what HAPPENED !!!
NIV reader: Show me one.
KJO reader: Here you go.
NIV reader: My footnote accounts for that.
KJO reader: Accounts for verses removed from the Bible? ???
NIV reader: The footnote says: It does not appear in any New Testament
manuscript prior to the end of the 6th century.
KJO reader: It's NOT the Word of God !!!!
NIV reader: Seriously?
Interesting that the Bible is "the Word of God", unless someone quotes a translation you disagree with.
Do you do that?
/
Similar threads
