Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Hi JRTjr, I assume you are asking in relation to the Hebrew wordא דם being transliterated as Adam. The actual transliteration is adm.In case you were refering to the uses of האדם which is used in 2:19 that was translated Adam. האדם can not be transliterated as Adam. The transliteration is HeadmThe transliteration of אדם is adam acording to Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. If you use letter for letter transliteration it come out adm. I do not have to accept what someone else says as I did my time in a Hebrew class for several years.
Strong's Number: 0120
Original Word Word Origin
~da from (0119)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
'adam TWOT - 25a
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
aw-dawm' Noun MasculineDefinition
man, mankind
man, human being
man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT) Sourceהאדם if translated properly would be 'The man'. So yes he is a specific individual man. The one that was formed from the dust of the ground that God breathed the breath of life into that became a living soul. I don't know where you get the plural sense from in verse 2. The word is א דם that word is singular. But I would have no problem with it being translated mankind as that is the meaning of the word which is to be determined by context as to whether it is singular man, or plural mankind. When talking about 2 you would use mankind. I inserted the Hebrew word translated Adam and man. I inserted the Hebrew word translated Adam. I inserted the Hebrew word translated Adam.So how do you determine how to translate the word א דם?You look in the lexicon and you find it should be translated man or mankind.So when it turns up as Adam it is a transliteration.But the word used in Genesis 1:26, 4:25, 5:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 Chro 1:1 Is the only places it can be transliterated Adam.If you translate it, then it becomes man or mankind in every instance of usage. I think you would agree that in Genesis 1:2 the earth was not in a habital condition. If you disagree give reasons. The Hebrew word translated 'not in vain' is the same word translated 'without form' in Genesis 1:2.So if God did not create it without form why was it without form in Genesis 1:2? It does not say death is passed from man to child. It does not say sin passes from man to child.In case you want to check your Bible translation here is the verse with Strongs #'s numbers so you can look up the different words, if you don't like the translation I gave. What is the difference?One is created like God.The other became like God.It is talking about the same thing. Being like God.It just gives two different ways to get there. Actually the man created in Genesis 1:27 was said to be in the image/likeness of God.The man formed from the dust of the ground in the Day God created the Heaven and the Earth was the man who it is said became like God. Does that verse say it is the generations/history of the Heaven and the Earth in the Day the LORD God created the Earth and the Heavens?If so the man formed from the dust of the ground happened prior to Genesis 1:2.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I do not think Adam was not made in the image of God and according to God's likeness just because these matters are not mentioned in chapter two.You build too much of a case based on the absence of a detail plainly affirmed elsewhere. Yes. And so ? Yes. I see nothing above to help your case of Adam version 1.0 and Adam version 2.0 in Genesis (per JTRjr).... a clever parody that makes an excellent point. That is right. Well, I would say it was the Logos, It was the Son of God before incarnation, It was God the Son the Second of the Trinity. Yes He did.What you are doing now is severly weakening the doctrine of the incarnation of God as a man in Jesus Christ.Romans 8:3 says "God sending His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin condemned sin in the flesh ..."God sent His Son who was sinless but came in the form of the fallen Adam. He came "in the likeness of the flesh of sin".Jesus was God incarnated coming like the fallen Adam in form, yet without the sin in Adam. This fallen man was Adam in Genesis 2:7. He was formed and created there. Correct. Where you are NOT corrrect is that that man is NOT Adam from chapter two of Genesis.Take Romans 8:3 to the Lord in prayer. God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin "that the righteous requirement of the law mght be fulfilled in us, ..."I am only clipping the passage short to HIGHLIGHT the crucial words. I can say "Amen" to this. No problems. It is a correct assertion. Silence concerning Adam's image and likeness in chapter two does not merit the assertion that Adam was not made in the image of God according to the likeness of God.I submitted before that Moses claims that God came looking for Adam in the garden in a apparently human type way. This I pointed out was a theme repeated elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. God wrestled with Jacob. God came and had the lunch with Abraham that had been prepared by Sarah.In Ezekiel's vision the glory of God had the appearance of a the likeness of a man on the throne above the cherubim. That Adam of chapter two was created in the image of God according to the likeness of God, is a correct assertion.I would not assert that the man created in Genesis 1:26 was not capable of sleeping because sleep was not mentioned in Genesis chapter one.Your case built on the silence in chapter two of every detail of chapter one is not convincing to me. But I stand with you on many other things. The first man was Adam. The second man is Christ.Now I think a side effect of your teaching is to weaken this truth. We are in Adam or we are transfered into Christ.Adam = the first man.
Christ = the second man.Adam = the first man who became a living soul.
Christ = the last Adam who became a life giving Spirit.That is Christ concluded Adam's fall on His cross. And Christ starts a new humanity by being able to ENTER into His redeemed people to impart divine life into them.I think your teaching obscurs the great contrast between Adam and Jesus Christ. You misaim. You obfuscate the matter of Adam verses Christ.You do damage to the clear word on the incarnation of God in a man because you obfuscate what a man is anyway. You are clouding the New Testament.And WHY ? Is it for the sake of puzzling over why chapter two of Genesis does not repeat verbatim all that was written in chapter one? Is it for the sake of resolving the puzzle of when animals were made ?What is really gained by the Christian church with your concept of TWO starts of the human family ?The danger of Darwinianism gradualism is that it dulls the Bible's teaching of a FIRST man and a FIRST woman. Your teaching ALSO obfuscates the NT truth of a FIRST man and a FIRST woman.We are thrusted into a labyrinth of excuses and reasonings which as of yet make little sense to me. And I don't hold that it must be right because I don't read Hebrew or because it appears more advanced.I have to see the sound reasoning from Scripture consistent with the major themes of the Bible. You are now speaking of Christ's physical body in resurrection.My discussion on the corperate man is about the so-called "mystical" Body of Christ. That is absolutely critical to the Christian church. I have a strong "Amen" here to this. Okay. They were a little flock called out by Jesus. But how about when they received the Holy Spirit ? That is really the beginning of the New Testament church. That is when the life of God was dispensed into them.I take John 20:22 as really when the mystical Body of Christ came into existence. Perhaps some others would say it was at Pentacost. But the point here is that when God came INTO man in the Holy Spirit is the real beginning of this entity of Christ's inclusion in a Body of His redeemed people. These Christ indwelt humans became members of His Body. Okay. I understand what you are saying. We can talk about the coming of the Holy Spirit perhaps separately. I regard the impartation of the Third of the Triune God into man as a milestone.I do regard the initial calling of the disciples as significant. But the impartation of the Spirit of Christ was them coming into the place which Christ had prepared for them, which place is the Father's house, which house is the church of the living God. I quoted this passage to bring out the truth of the corperate man, Christ is Christ's Body. Christ's church is the corperate man, Christ, which is not divided. Um, excuse me ?
What cliff am I "jumping off" pray tell ? What cliff ? There were many problems in the church in Corinth. The FIRST problem, the underlying problem which is the MOTHER of ALL problems is that the local church there was being divisive.They were damaging the oneness. And because this was the most fundamental cause of ALL their other difficulties, Paul attacks that problem FIRST in the letter.Christ, in Corinth, is NOT divided.Now what "cliff" have I jumped over beloved ? He WAS speaking of the church. Who is the letter addressed to?
Are you sure it is not you who are falling off a ledge here? "To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who is theirs and ours ..." (1 Cor. 1:2)Paul was writing TO the church and speaking OF the church he was writing to. And all those in every place who Lord is theirs and ours are also benefitiaries of what he is writing. All this is the bring out the point of the CORPORATE MAN in Christ. They all have ONE divine Person and ONE divine life living in them. Therefore they should not be living according to the preferences of the OLD MAN with its immaturity, schisms, divisiveness, hero lifting, sectarian, denominating, fleshly and fleshy tendencies.The realm they must live in is the realm of this indwelling Person. Christ in them is NOT divided. All this proves the reality of the corporate man. Exactly. Paul is only a slave for their sakes. He is a servant for their benefit. He is not the Lord. He is not the Holy Spirit. He is not the one who redeemed them. They should receive his ministry but they should not try to champion one teacher over against another so as to denominate the church in Corinth.And today we should not do the same error. In a city the church should be one local expression of the oneness of Christ, even though we may physically meet from house to house or in different meeting facilitiies.What we see as the first problem Paul attacks in Corinth is the proto denominatialism of some of the Corinthian Christians. The mystical Body of Jesus Christ.In Corinth the Body of Christ was being damaged by the schisms of natural minded believers in their immaturity. Their problems did not change the truth of God. There is a corperate Christ with ONE Body. And some must overcome the divisions in Corinth to stand upon this truth and live this reality:It has not changed up to this present day. Corinth's problems did not change the truth of God. "For there must even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifested among you." (1 Cor. 11:19) On one hand Paul says that in Corinth their should be no divisions in the church. She should be one Body - the church in Corinth.On the other hand because he knows that some will overcome and some will be defeated he recognizes that when some are approved, manifested their will stand out among those who are less mature and defeated.Think perhaps of Gideon's army of 300. They were all Israelites. But some were approved to go forth to battle for God and others were not. This is not a matter of God's love or salvation. This is a matter of those approved to come up to the standard of His testimony.These approved ones in 11:19 certainly are those standing on the ground of one body in Christ in Corinth. The problem of divisions in the church did not nullify the truth of the new testament church. This One is Jesus the Lord. And He has dispensed His life into millions of people. And they on the earith comprise His mystical Body on the earth.In each locality there should be one expression of this mystical Body in practical reality. This is what Paul labored to produce. And in Corinth the FIRST problem, the mother of ALL problems was attacked first. That is the Apostle Paul labored to show the Christians in Corinth that CHRIST WAS NOT DIVIDED. Therefore they should not be in schisms, divisions, denominations, and sects.The existence of such revealed a shortage of the vision of some of them and a natural living that he called fleshly and carnal. But they were still all saints and still all those for whom Christ shed His blood and died to redeem. It would be nice. However, I have done quite well without that.I did take a course in Greek with a tutor of 13 students back in the 80s.Now, just because one knows the original language is no garuantee that they cannot be in error. Saul who tried to kill David had good Hebrew reading skills I am sure. And Korah and his band of men who wanted to stone Moses, were able Hebrew readers, I am sure.I have the word of God even though I do not read or write Greek and Hebrew fluently. I am aware of that. My teachers often bring out things like that in order to help us. These are all tremendous verses. I love them.I do not see how ANY of these passages in ANY way negates what I have been writing to you. Nor do I see how any of this effects the clear teaching of the creation of man and the forming of man for ONE initiation of the human race in Genesis one and two.I don't see how any of these marvelous passages negates that there is one Body in Christ.Your appeal to Greek grammer not withstanding, so far. I don't see how this matters that much to the subject of Genesis one and two.Do you really want to change to discuss how I was baptized ? What difference does it make ?I was born into a Presbyterian family. I was sprinkled. That meant nothing to me because I was too young.Latter I became a regenerated Christian. To make a long story short I was immersed first by some divisive believers who thought they were doing me good. Their intention was Okay I guess. But some years latter I really saw the oneness of the Body of Christ in a practical way.The Holy Spirit seemed to urge me to be baptized. That immersion in 1974 was different. I think that was a milestone in my Christian life. I look to that event as my baptism in a real good way with some confirming reality in my spirit about it.Note, I did not say that the previous one was of no use. I just counted the previous one as rather divisive - a baptism into a Baptist kind of sect, a division.The latter I felt was a baptism into the real oneness. I have also been immersed again since 1974. But this was just a kind of personal re-dedication of sorts.Nothing in the New Testament says a Christian cannot be baptized in the water a additional time for some "re-commitment" or "re - dedication". Why is because the Bible's truth of ONE corperate Adam and ONE corperate Christ is important.In this discussion, ONE corporate Adam is important to the truth of all men and women being equal in God's image and likeness.And in the New Testament sense the corporate Christ is crucial to the health of a Christian. This Christian life is not designed that we can make it in a divisive way. The blessing is on the oneness.And many, many, many problems plague Christians because of the lack of the oneness. That is not to speak of the scandel that the world notices that we are divided.Still, some will overcome. Some will come up to the normal standard of living in the oneness of the reality of the Body of Christ. The gates of hell cannot defeat the church which Christ will build. Do you honestly think that this makes the truth of the Body of Christ go away?Did Paul say that because there were divisions in Corinth the church did not exist there ?We do not have to agree on everything. We have to LIVE Christ and receive one another as Christ has received us to the glory of God.Of course it is sweet to agree. But I do not expect that two Christians have the same opinion about everything. Still we can have the life t hat lives not by opinions but by abiding in the Lord and living the indwelling Christ with His humility and love.City by city in many places, Christ is recovering the oneness of the expression of the local churches.Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access DeniedThat is a short word on a very big subject.We are tolf to hold fast to the Head Christ, out from whom all the Body is knitted and fitted together by every joint and supply. We have to try to supply the members of the body with spiritual life.Too often we only give doctrinal teaching. And there is always occasion for disagreements in doctrinal teaching.I think I can still be one with you in the major matters of redemption and salvation and the word of God - Christ and His resurrection.Now, I am going to be away for a few days. I have to stop here.Enjoy the fellowship and the Lord be with your spirit. Pray for the oneness of the brothers in Christ. And do not be discouraged.Do not expect either one of us cannot be corrected in some matter of teaching because we all make mistakes.Agape.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi Jay, Statement one contradicts statement two.This is something that has bugged me for a long time.Why do we call Jesus the Son of God when He was God in the Flesh? Are you saying Mary who provided the channel the perfect sinless flesh body came into being that God inhabited on earth while here on earth is a descendant of the Man formed from the dust of the Ground in Genesis 2:7?I need you to explain how anyone lived through the conditions we find in Genesis 1:2. Where the entire earth was covered with water, there was no food and nowhere to live. How did any humans survive, that she could descend from? God had to have a body like the man formed from the dust of the ground before he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.That means that body had to be completely supplied by God in the womb of Mary. Yea I know that is a little foreign to the general story. But the body God had when He walked on Earth could have no sin in it. It had to be a sinless perfect body.That is the reason finite man describes the perfect sacrifice that went to Calvary as the second Adam.The man formed from the dust of the ground was a perfect sinless being. He had no sin or penalty of sin in him until he disobeyed and ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He chose to disobey.God had to be in a perfect sinless body when He walked on earth. It was the same body that the first man in the garden walked and talked with.The body God had was not subject to death, as we can know from his words in John. No one took his life. He had to lay it down.So yes there are a lot of things we do not understand yet. As Paul tells us the window pane has a lot of dirty film on it that we can't see through. There is no evidence to support your assertion. And I said I had no problem with God walking in the garden in a flesh body nor on any of the other occasions.The one that amazes me is found in Daniel. I have often pondered how Nebuchadnezzar could know what God looked like. An assertion that you have no evidence for. That means it is your opinion based on your imagination. You don't have any evidence that man could sleep or could not sleep.We are descendants of that man and we need sleep so I can have an educated guess that he could sleep. The problem is that chapter two does not have anything to do with chapter one. They are two separate stories about two different events separated by a vast amount of existence all the way from the beginning of the universe which you say you believe was a long time ago. Until about 6,000+ years ago. The only contrast that can be made is.The man formed from the dust of the ground had a perfect sinless body. He chose to disobey a direct command of God.Emanuel had a perfect sinless body.
When tempted by Satan He said: It is not my concept. There is two recorded events of man beginning to exist on earth.1) Man was formed from the dust of the ground in which God breathed the breath of life causing the form to become a living soul. A living being with a mind.2) Mankind was created male and female in the image/likeness of God.That is not a concept that is a fact according to the Bible.Your problem is you are trying to merge them into one event.To do so you have to ignore the facts of the matter.You have to ignore that one was formed in the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.The other was created after Genesis 1:2 which took place some 6,000+ years ago.To get your view everything has to take place at the same time.That would mean a young earth not a old earth.So what is gained by the Church. Nothing but the truth about creation. No Darwinianism requires a FIRST man and a FIRST woman it just does not have a way to accomplish that feat.My teaching does not obfuscate the truth of a FIRST man and a FIRST woman.The FIRST man was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed into that form the breath of life and that form became a living soul.The FIRST woman was made from a rib God removed from the FIRST man.So there is no problem with a FIRST man and a FIRST woman. These people existed in the beginning in the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.You just have a problem because you want the mankind created male and female in the image/likeness of God to be the first humans on earth.I truly do not understand your opposition.You believe there was people on earth before Genesis 1:2 as you call them a Pre-Adamic race.But you are convinced they can not be descendants from the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 and the woman formed from his rib in Genesis 2:22 as it does not fit your worldview.Could you explain where this race of people came from?We do have a lot of fossils that tell us there was people on earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. Like the mystical pink unicorn that gets talked about a lot on EvC.There is no such thing as a mystical body.Christ has a real body.The Church has a real body every time it comes together in one place.The only thing that is absolutely critical to the Christian Church is the Word of God with God's children who have been born again doing what it says.Which very few churches today are doing. There is no such thing as a mystical Body. Either there is a body or there is not a body. What existed after Jesus breathed on them that did not exist prior to Him breathing on them?The Holy Spirit did not come until the day of Pentecost was fully come.A couple of points concerning the church and then leaving it there for now maybe in the future we can go into it in greater detail.The Greek word 'ekklesia' (meaning) 1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.So a church is a called out assembly.Jesus said "I will build my Church".That means He built His Church. It was not started when He breathed on the disciples nor was it started on the day of Pentecost.If it was started on the day of Pentecost as some claim how was there 3,000 souls added to the church. If the church did not exist.You can't add something to an entity that does not exist.But according to the definition of a church when Jesus called Andrew and Peter He had started building His Church. Until Jesus departure from earth the disciples followed by eyesight. They saw the physical Jesus daily and had Him to lead them and guide them in all truth.When Jesus was preparing to leave He told them: Jesus said the Spirit could not come until He was gone. His job on earth had to be completed before the Holy Spirit could come and begin His work of guiding us in all truth.So yes the Spirit is necessary. Can you imagine where we would be today had Jesus not sent the Spirit to lead His children in truth. We have made a big mess out of things with the Holy Spirit trying to lead us in all truth. Then why do we have over 1200 different so called christian denominations in the US alone? What mystical body was having problems in Corinth?I thought the church was having problems because some liked one preacher and others liked another. But Paul is addressing a specific Church is he not? I thought Gideon only being allowed 300 was to show the enemy and Israel that God was in control of the situation. At a latter date you will have to educate me on this mystical body you keep referring too. I know of no such body. Zero.You had just brought up we are baptized into Christ and into His death and I wanted an explanation of how that is done.That is the reason I asked for the explanations you did not reply too. When is Christ going to build that you already call His Body? Enjoy, and I will enjoy a break from all this rambling.Maybe when you get back we can actually discuss what I set out in the OP.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Read the two paragraphs again. They say the same thing. They do not contradict each other.In the first paragraph are you paying attention to the word "but" ? I call Him the Son of God because that is what the Bible says of Jesus Christ. It also says in Isaiah 9:6 that the Son will be called "Eternal Father" and the child born will be called "Mighty God".There are two lines going on in Isaiah 9:6. One is that the [nb]"child ... born"[/b] is the "Mighty God". That boggles the natural mind enough there. How could God be a little child in the womb of a woman for nine months and be born ? It is Wonderful.The other line is that the "son ... given" is the "Eternal Father". This too is Wonderful. For how could a Son be the Eternal Father ?Then of course we have the Word in John 1:1 was not only with God but was God. And in verse 14 this Word became flesh. And as man He was confessed as the Son of God (John 1:49).That is one reason why I call Jesus the Son of God when He is also revealed as God incarnate in the flesh. I am saying that Jesus knew no sin on one hand - "Him who did not know sin ..." (2 Cor. 5:21) and Jesus "Who committed no sin ..." (1 Pet. 2:22) came to the earth "in the likeness of the flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3) .He came in the form of a fallen desendent of Adam. But He did not have the sin nature which all the sons of Adam have.Because a picture is work 1,000 words, I would refer you to the picture of the brass serpent of Numbers 21:4-9 which typology Jesus used to refer to Himself in John's Gospel: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes into Him may have eternal life." (John 3:14,15)Now prepare yourself for a long paragraph. I am not going to leave this truth with you in a few brief words:The third chapterof John deals with regeneration, or being born again. Regeneration brings the divine life of God into the ones who receive Christ.On the other hand regeration terminates the evil nature of Satan in our flesh. In Genesis 3, Satan, the serpent, injected his nature into man's flesh. It is in that fall that "the body of this death" of Romans 7:24 came into existence. The body that God created for Adam somehow became transmuted to become "the flesh" indwelt with the sin nature of Satan.Now when the children of Israel sinned against God, they were bitten by serpents (Number 21:4-9). God told Moses to lift up a bronze serpent on their behalf. Bronze is a metal often associated with judgment in the Bible. The bronze serpent was for God's judgment. By looking upon the bronze serpent all the serpent bitten and serpent poisoned people would live and not die.That bronze serpent was a type that Christ applied to Himself in John 3. It should indicate that Christ had the form of the Satanic poisoned humanity but not its actual poison. He came in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and concerning sin. But He had no sin in the flesh.God judged the Son on the cross as if He were equal to the Satanified human race filled with the sin nature. He was "in the likeness of the flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3), which likeness is equal to the form of the bronze serpent.As the poisoned Isaelites were saved by looking upon that bronze serpent on the pole so the world's sinners are saved and healed by believing into Christ the crucified Son of Man. He who believes into Christ has eternal life.Christ was made in "the likeness of the flesh of sin,"but did not participate in any way in the sin of the flesh (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15).When He was lifted up in the flesh on the cross, by His death, Satan the old serpent, was dealt with (John 12:31-33; Heb. 2:14). This means that the serpentine nature within fallen man has been dealt with. When a man is regenerated with the divine life in Christ, his satanic nature is annulled.When we walk in the Spirit Satan can be crushed under our feet in our daily living (Romans 16:20). If this question is addressed to me, I would answer that Genesis 1:2 is before man is created. Man did not have to live through it because man did not yet exist. I have tried to explain above how the typology of the bronze serpent reveals Christ coming in the form of the FALLEN humanity yet without its sin nature.All of His life Satan tried to inject the Son of God with that same sin nature but he could not. Christ overcame the Devil. But in appearance Jesus Christ came looking like the fallen humanity from Adam's progenity. Yes, He came with a sinless body. But it was like the body of the fallen mankind in every other respect. The New Testament says He is the "last Adam". The New Testament says that He is "the second man". Is that what you mean ? That is right. And after that fall his body was transmuted to become "the body of this death". It has a certain form. Jesus as God incarnated came in the form of the fallen humanity. Yet He had not sin.We really do not know too much about Adam in that pre-Fall state. I don't think we know very much about that. We know a lot more by experience, about the fallen mankind. He has been Satanified and poisoned with the sin nature. That is not how I see it because Romans 8:2 says "... God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh."It does not say here the God sent His Son in the likeness of the SINLESS bodey or the SINLESS flesh. Rather it specifically says the Son of God was sent "in the LIKENESS OF THE FLESH OF SON".But there is no question about the fact that Jesus was sinless. He did not have the sin nature - "Him who did not know sin He made sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:21)He came in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Yet He did not know sin. That is what the word of God tells us. It also says that He was made sin on our behalf. On that cross God made Him sin on our behalf that the believers might become the righteousness of God in Christ.Won't it take us unto eternity to fully appreciate these deep and wondeful statements ? Okay. I have no particular comment. I have support my assertions. You are welcomed to have another opinion. It is a good point. One of them had a glorious appearance. Whatever that glory was it shinned throught the blaze of that fire. It must have been fearful indeed.This was Christ before His incarnation birth from Mary. Man was made according to Christ. Christ was a model according to which man was made.Now admittedly, this is rather circular. We might ask "Who was in the image of who ?" I have backed up my understanding. You are welcomed to hold a different view.I don't think endless repetitions of reasons I have already given is necessary. That is my point.And your assumption that Adam in Genesis 2:7 was not made in the image of God simply because chapter two is not a verbatim repetition of chapter one's detail, is a very flimsy reasoning.It is similar to me saying man in Gen. 1:26 did not sleep because chapter one does not contain a verbatim repetition of chapter two's detail.In other words, your argument based on silence is unconvincing to me. All I did was make a parody of it so you could see how foolish it appears. And by experience we also know that the man in Gensis 2:26 MUST have had a soul. For we have a soul. And by experience we are pretty sure we're on the right track to believe that Adam of 2:7 was made in the image of God. We have this unique difference between us and all other created lives.We are somewhat God-like. We are created in the image of God. To this I would say "Yes and No".On one had it is a distinctly different account. On the other hand it is another viewpoint of the same initiation of humanity on the earth.So I would say - Yes it is different. But NO, it is not totally different. Matthew is different from Luke. But Matthew is not TOTALLY different from Luke.John is indeed different from Mark. But John is not completely and totally different from Mark.I don't think so. No specific comment. I can say Amen to this basically. No further comment here. I don't think understanding ONE initiation of the human race on earth requires that everything else came into being at the same time. I really do not understand you here.I guess in some way, perhaps you feel your theory harmonizes with some kind of pre-human primate people.I have tried to follow you. But I really don't see what this theory does for a clarification of human history.I have turned your view over and over in my mind. I just don't think you're right. But you're welcomed to believe differently from me on this Genesis 1 and 2 matter. Not that you need permission from me. Huh?As it is written we have to wait for Day# 6 for the creation of man. That is afterward the earth being found waste and empty.All the restoration and ordering was for the sake of humanity. What ? Is this your sentence to me?I believe the great grand parents of all humans living is the man and his wife from Genesis 2. The same goes for the man and female created in Genesis 1. Okay. Here is how I feel about this. The Bible is God's revelation. Science is man's invention. If there is a discrepancy between the two I am inclined to believe that the problem must be on the side of man's invention, because God knows all the facts.Maybe the man in Genesis 2:7 goes back further than Ussher's chronology calculated.I don't think making Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:7 refer to TWO initiations of the human race help that problem. I am willing to give the science more time to figure things out. It could be that what is held so firmly today may be overturned for better scientific interpretations in the years to come. Now you're behaving like the skeptics.When Saul was persecuting the church Jesus showed Saul that he was persecuting Jesus Himself - "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" .Paul started his Christian life with the strongest possible revelation of God that Christ's people on the earth was Christ Himself dispensed into them to form a corporate Christ - "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?"Jesus here did not say "Why do you persecute My church?" He did not say "Why do you persecute My people?". He did not say "Why do you persecute My followers?"No, Christ showed Paul that these persecuted saints on earth were Jesus Christ Himself as a corporate entity - the enlarged and collective "ME".If you have not seen this there is no need to be cynical about it. The Body of Christ as a corporate entity is more real than yours or my physical body.The Body of Christ as the church is more real than you are. Your body and my body is a shadow of the corporate body of the Son of God. The reality is with the Son of God. His Body is more of a reality then your body is.His Body will last unto eternity. Your body, without His resurrection, will crumble to dust. Christ's Body is more of a substantial reality then the shadow of your own physical body is. It another subject. This view of there being no mystical body of Christ I would regard as unreliable.At best you could say that you personally do not experience the Body. Or that you are severely dissappointed in any experience of the Body of Christ.Corinth had problems. Philippi had problems. Many churches in the New Testament had problems. That is why there are letters t them dealing with all kinds of problems.Paul did not say that because the churches were not a utopia therefore there was no Body of Christ. He did not say that because Corinth had all kinds of problems and divisions it followed that there was no Body of Christ.Ephesus was not without her problems as a local church. Paul did not say there was no Body of Christ because the church in Ephesus had problems that needed exhortations and adjustments.So I don't think you should proclaim that there is no Body of Christ because of the problems of today's Christians. Rather we should see to be overcomers who come into the practical reality of the real Body of Christ that exists.You have thrown in the towel in dispair. You have changed the word of God to adjust for the shortcomings of believers. The Apostle Paul did not do what you are doing, thank God. I don't think so. John chapters 14,15,16,17 prepare the way for something entirely new to exist upon the earth. That is not to mention chapters 18,19.The church is the new creation. Now God dwells in man. God imparts His life and nature into man. God dispenses His Holy Spirit into the regenerated spirits of those redeemed by Christ.This was something new. This was the NEW COVENANT. The one hundred and twenty had three thousand added to them. So the church had some added to them. What is the problem.Then the 120 + 3000 had another 5000 added to them. So God added to the church. What is the problem.I don't think arguing whether the church came into being in John 20 or in Acts 2 is too crucial. But I notice that the 120 had been praying for many days in the upper room. That is not easy to do without the Holy Spirit.So I think the Holy Spirit that came upon them in the day of Pentacost was specifically to empower them. My opinion is that they received the Holy Spirit as divine life in John 20 when He breathed upon them saying "Receive the Holy Spirit".It is interesting that as you have rather obscured the beginning of the human race you also seem to obscure the beginning of the New Testament church.Some of what you say below this reminds me of a debate I had years ago. Someone maintained that there was no univrsal church but only specific local churches.This is something like what you maintain. I think you said there is no mystical body of Christ but only local assemblies that Paul addressed.I have seen arguments like this before. I really involves a whole discussion on another thread.But anyway Paul did of course write letters to individual churches. But Paul also saw a universal church. This is definitely seen in the books of Ephesians. And Paul also taught of a Body of Christ.I am not sure whether the word "mystical" is the best word or not to discribe what the Apostle taught. However, Paul does speak of a Body and a Man who is a universal corporate Christ.Now the experience of the Body life in a practical way can be weak or strong. It can be deficient or healthy. But saying because of a weak or deficient practical experience of the Body makes the Body not exist is very wrong.We must overcome. The call of the Lord is to overcome the surrounding degradation. Throwing in the towel in dispair saying that there is no mystical Body of Christ and no universal church is not overcoming. It is changing the word of God to make sense of a unhealthy situation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hijay, Yes I noticed the conjunction "but".1a) God sent His Son who was sinless
2a) Jesus was God incarnated coming like the fallen Adam in form,The first Adam was sinless until he ate the fruit disobeying God.1b) but came in the form of the fallen Adam.
2b) yet without the sin in Him.Adam after he had fallen had the fallen form.1c) He came "in the likeness of the flesh of sin".
2c) This fallen man was Adam in Genesis 2:7Therefore Jesus came in a sinful form.You are saying a sinless God came in the form of a sinful man.The man in Genesis 2:7 who was formed from the dust of the ground was a perfect sinless living being.Emanuel had to come in a sinless body in order to be compared to the first mankind formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7.Anything else would be a Lamb with a blemish which is not permissible for a sacrifice.Emanuel never committed sin in the flesh body.But on the cross God the Son took my sin upon Himself and somehow God the Son was separated from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. I can not fathom how that is possible but for my sin debt that had to be accomplished.This separation came when God the Father and God the Holy Spirit turned their back on God the Son and darkness came over the face of the earth and they were separated for 3 hours at the end of which God the Son said "It is Finished". My debt was paid in full. All I had to do was accept that sacrifice for my sin, to receive eternal life. In my preaching and teaching I very seldom ever refer to Jesus as anyone other than God the Son.The reason I think the writers used the name Jesus is because they had a hard time understanding how this Emanuel could be God.He did remind them several times. That last one tears up a lot of peoples theology. God the Son had to have a body just like the man formed in Genesis 2:7 prior to his disobeying the command of God.He could not have a body like the man had after his disobeying God.That would be a body subject to the penalty of sin and would require a sacrifice to restore it to fellowship with God. I can cover Moses and the serpent in a few words.The people rebelled.God sent fiery serpents among the people and everyone that got bit died.God told Moses to put the image of a serpent on a pole and anyone who was bitten would live if they looked upon the serpent on the pole.God the Son was lifted up on a pole, the cross. God says everyone who will look upon this sacrifice though they are sentenced to separation from God will live eternally with God. The problem is the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 was formed in the day the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth. According to Genesis 2:4 which says this history is of that day. What changed in the appearance of the man in Genesis 2:7 when he ate the fruit in Genesis 3:6?The only difference was that he was a sinner and knew it.God the Son had to have a body like the man had before he disobeyed.If he did not we are in trouble as He was not a fit sacrifice for our sins. How could it be subject to death as the fallen mankind was?If His body was subject to death it had sin in it. The first man was a perfect man with no sin in him. This is the man who was formed from the dust of the ground that God breathed the breath of life into and the form became a living soul.The second man or last man was a perfect man with no sin in Him.The man in Genesis 2:7 and God the Son is the only two mankind that entered the earth as sinless perfect mankind. We know God formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into him and he became a living soul.We know God gave him one command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We know he had fellowship with God and carried on a conversation with God. We know that to be in the presence of God he had to be sinless as God can not have sin in His presence.Now let me kick my imagination into overdrive. What was this God like? Was He like the God that Moses looked upon the hinder parts and his face glowed so much he had to cover his head as the people could not bear to look upon his face as it glowed so much.Was that man like us?ORWas that man more like we will be when we get our new body?We will see God as He really is then. Was this first man allow the same privilege before he disobeyed God? He did walk and talk with Him.I sure wish God had given Moses more information or if He did He would have let him write it down for us to study. I don't know what you put in your tea but whatever it was cut it out, it is fogging your memory and eyesight. Here is the verse you was coating. I included the Strong numbers in case you would like to look up the meanings of any of the Greek words used.homoioma 3667 translated the likeness1) that which has been made after the likeness of somethinga) a figure, image, likeness, representationThis does not say God the Son was in a sinful flesh body like the fallen man had.It does say God the Son came in a body that looked like the sinful flesh of mankind. If you believe that why are you trying to convince me He came in a body the likeness of the fallen man? I think it can be understood now.The first man came in a sinless body.The second man God the Son came in a sinless body.That sinless body remained a sinless body until it was offered as a sacrifice for my sins so that I could have eternal life. What is circular about it? God settled that question.Modern mankind including the one in Genesis 1:27 was made in the likeness/image of God.You still have not convinced me the man in Genesis 2:7 was formed in the image/likeness of God. You have done a gish gallop around a lot of things but you have yet to present any scripture that backs up the fact that the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 was formed in the likeness/image of God.There is zero texts that state such.The only way anyone can come to the conclusion you have is to assume it so. If they were the same story and were simply duplication they would be identical.Since they are about two different events that took place with a undetermined existence between them they are not the same and do not tell the same story.That is what this thread is all about. If the man in Genesis 2:7 formed in the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth is the same man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 It all had to happen only 6,000+ years ago.Which you say you do not believe.You did say you believed in an old earth.You did say Genesis 2:4 is the history/generations of the Heaven and the Earth in the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.The man that was formed in Genesis 2:7 was formed during the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.He could not be formed in Genesis 1:1 and then created in Genesis 1:27 on the sixth day of restoration and be the same man.Since you have been spouting that could you please explain how they could be the same using the text you find in Genesis chapter 1, and 2.Now I do not say everything in Genesis 2:4-4-24 happened in the same instant.I do say they took place in the light period that the Heaven and the Earth was created in that has ended at Genesis 1:2. No I believe the man formed from the dust of the ground was the first mankind on the planet Earth.I believe that man is responsible for mankind being under the penalty of sin which is death.I believe that man is responsible for mankind being separated from God as he was drove from the presence of God.So all mankind are under that condition by birth. And God does have exceptions.We are the descendants of the mankind created male and female in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 some 6,000+ years ago.This mankind was the beginning of modern man. The restoration was for the modern man to have a place to live. The mankind created in the image/likeness of God. Then how did they survive the water that covered all the land mass in Genesis 1:2? Give science all the time you want.They are not going to change their mind about mankind being on this earth for a very long time.And yes a man that was formed from the dust of the ground in the beginning when God created the Heaven and the Earth would pre-date any fossil science has uncovered.Any descendants of that man would not exist today as he could not have survived in the condition found in Genesis 1:2.I will save the discussion of the Church until another thread as we have cluttered this one up too much already. I will address this one item.I have not obscured the beginning of the human race.
I have only presented what Genesis chapter 1 and 2 say.I did that on a step by step basis in several posts in this thread.
No one has taken that presentation and refuted any of the points I raised.Which is required in real debate.Everybody has just been preaching their beliefs with no debate involved.I have not obscured the beginning of the church.ekklesia translated church means 1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly[/qs]When Jesus called Peter and Andrew away from their jobs as fisher of fish to be fishers of men you have the first called out assembly of disciples/followers of Jesus.This is the beginning of the Church of God the Son.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi bro,Thanks for the invite to your thread. What exactly is it that you are wanting me to refute or agree with my brother?I can't see anything in your Origonal Post that I am particularly opposed to or alarmed by. Nor do I see how it ties in with the rediculousness that is going on in the g1 g2 thread.I'm not sure exactly what I said that you disagree with in that thread but I would like you to clarify what that is please if you are so inclined.I don't believe in the gap theory either. I dont believe in any theories quite frankly.The war that went on in heaven did not destroy heaven but there was definately a very distructive war that took place there. We are not told much other than thatI have been learning a lot about the depth of meaning in scriptures in Genesis lately, from great preachers and teachers like Oswald Chambers at Charles Spurgeon.Chambers makes mention that earth being "with out form and void" was as a result of the war in Heaven. In other words sin entered the creation a long time before Adam.Chambers goes onto to bring out the marvelous idea that Adam AKA mankind is Gods solution to defeat Satan, and that perhaps the world was without form and void until a suitable creation AKA man was created. A creation even more superior to the Angels, an entity through which the very creator of the universe could enter into in order to defeat death and hell and redeem all of creation. I find that breath taking. Also the heel that is to bruise the serpents head mentioned in Genisis 3:14 (which I also assumed to mean Jesus Christ and is Jesus Christ ) does not acrtually refutethe idea that its actually MANKIND that will bruise the serpents head not only Jesus Christ persay.I'm not sure I fully agree or fully grasp what Chambers is teaching as yet, but at the same time I'm not sure what is meant by the earth being "with out form and void", because this raises the question "Would God "create" anything that is without form and void?I would suggest that no, God would not do that, so it does open the door to the idea that the formless void was perhaps the result of some sort of calamity not of Gods doing. The theistic evolutionist uses this to open the door of the gap theory of up to billions of years which as I have said I don't accept either.There is one other point I would like to thorw into the mix regarding the "perceived age of the universe"When God created the stars and the moon and sun etc, according to modern science "we are told that it takes billions of light years for light to travel from the nearest star to earth right? Well Im not disputing that, but it does not erradicate the idea that during the beginning of creation that the light form all of the stars was here instantly IE that the "let there be Light and there was Light, means precisely that.Also something can be created with the APPEARANCE of age, but it can still be brand new. One can not assume that because it appears to be old that it neccessarily is old. Nor is it scientific do assume so.Any way. nice to talk to you.God bless you.

Hi Noma,There was a minor error in your post that doesn't affect your argument at all, but I want to put the correct information out there: The nearest star is about 4.5 light years away, and so it takes only about 4.5 years for light to travel to Earth. The nearest galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away, so it takes its light about 2.5 million years to reach Earth. The oldest galaxies we can observe are around 13 billion light years away, so it takes their light about 13 billion years to reach Earth.--Percy

Hi Noma,I believe in a literal interpertation of the Bible. It is History that was given to us through men by God.I believe the Bible is its own best interperter.I believe that without the leadership of the Holy Spirit the natural man can not understand the message of the Bible.Having said that we have many beliefs that have been determined by what we have been told by others.Now to my thread and what I have presented here. This thread was set up as a debate which no one has debated.In Message 1 I said: So I affirm that there are two different stories in Genesis which most Biblical Scholars agree with. Just for different reasons than I do.In Message 36 I put forth what I can know from each verse in chapter 1 through 2:3.The story in Genesis 1:2-2:3 has been refered to by many as the seven days of Moses.In Message 52 I put forth what I can know in the second story which begins with Genesis 2:4 and ends at Genesis 4:24.All these events took place in the light period (DAY) the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth as proclaimed in Genesis 2:4.I support all those statements with arguments throughout the thread.So my question to you would be what is wrong with what I have presented.I believe that in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. This was a completed peferct universe prepared for the introduction of man as stated in several places in the Bible.I believe in that light period (DAY) all the things from Genesis 2:4-4:24 took place. This was an extended light period as there was no darkness. Just like the New Heaven and New Earh of Revelation will experience.I believe that something happened to cause the condition we find the earth in at Genesis 1:2. But there is no reason given in the Bible. Only in the immaginations of mankind. I don't believe in the gap theory.I do believe in existence that has existed forever.I believe that time is a concept of man created to measure duration and is determined by the rotation of the earth in relationship to the sun.God is not limited by our time. What war?If you are refering to the one that Satan was kicked out of Heaven being cast down to the earth that has not taken place yet. In Job's days Satan had not been cast out of heaven as he had free access to the presence of God.If Satan had access to the throne of God in Job's days that was several years after Genesis 1:2.Therefor the story that Satan was cast down and he destroyed the original creation is false and greatly exatgerated. I don't agree with Chambers or anyone that teaches that Satan has been cast out of Heaven and that is the reason for the earth being without form and void in Genesis 1:2.Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement of completed action in the Hebrew construction it is recorded.There is a disjunctive conjunction between verse 1 and verse 2 as noted even by the Masorets. This conjunction was translated by the KJV translators as and when it should have been translated as but. The Hebrew word חיח translated was in Genesis 1:2 is only translated was 2 times in the OT. Genesis 1:2 and 3:1According to Brown, Driver, Biggs Lexicon and many others the meaning of חיח is:

quote:

---

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

---

So the verse should begin with: "But the earth became".The Hebrew word םחר translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2 according to the lexicons means.

quote:

---

1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness

---

So should have been translated formeless because it was covered with water at the time.The Hebrew word בחר translated "and void" in Genesis 1:2 according to the lexicons means:

quote:

---

1) emptiness, void, waste

---

So should have been translated empty.The Hebrew word חשש translated darkness in Genesis 1:2 according to the lexicons means:

quote:

---

1) darkness, obscurity

---

So it was covered with darkness and obscurity. No light was available on earth, as something had light blocked. There is light in the universe as there is no such thing as an absence of all light.So to paraphrase Genesis 1:2 tells us the earth was without form as it was covered with water and was empty of land life forms as there was no dry land, and there was no light shining through to the face of the earth. And you are assuming they were not created until the fourth day which occured less than 10,000 years ago.There is a huge problem with that. These are the only verses in the Bible where anything is created.All other uses of the Hebrew word כרא is in reference to one of these events.Everything in Genesis 2:5-25 was formed by the hands of God or caused to grow out of the ground by the Word of God.Everything in Genesis 1:2-31 except the ones mentioned above was a re-arranging of existing things.All plants came from seed that was in the ground.All creatures came from the water, or ground after their kind which means they had existed previously.The sun, moon, and stars existed as they were not created. But they were made visible to a earth that had been in darkness obscure from the light they radiated, for this period of darknessThe length of that period of darkness would determine if there was any life forms existing at Genesis 1:2 So when was the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1?God says the close of the light period that the Heaven and Earth was created in found at Genesis 1:2 coupled with the dark period that ended with the light portion of day two was "the first day".God declared a light period as DAY.God declared a light period with a dark period as a DAY. I believe God created the Heaven and the Earth.I believe the Bible is God's manuel recorded by inspired men for our edification.I believe science is a study of how God brought about His creation.Therefore I believe the Bible must agree with science.According to the Bible "in the beginning" there is no date stamped on the Earth anywhere.There is one stamped in the Earth and this is the one that science has tried to reveal to us.I believe they are wrong as it is older than they can immagine. There is no date for the beginning.The Bible tells us the Heaven and Earth had a beginning. Science agrees, thus the Big Bang Theory. There are a few Scientist that are trying to get the universe to exist without a beginning. The problem they are trying to solve is they have no mechanism for something to begin to exist from an absence of any thing.The Bible tells us the Earth has been covered with water Gen. 1:2 Science agrees. Fossils in and on mountains testify to that fact.The Bible tells us that all the land was in one place at one time. Gen. 1:9. Science agrees and calls it Pangea. In fact science says the continents have moved several times since the beginning.The Bible tells us God streached out the Heavens Isaiah 45:12 Science tells us the universe is expanding.The Bible and science seem to agree.It is just the interpertations of men that disagree as to what each is saying.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi PerceyThanks for the correction. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Hi I CANTI have come to your attention from my posts in the G1 and G2 thread. There I have stated and will continue to state here that Genesis 1 and 2 are not two different/separate creation accounts, nor is G1 an G2 separated by billions of years. This would be a different kind of gap theory, but a gap theory all the same, and you say you dont believe in the gap theory and yet seem to have invented a Gap theory I've never heard of before?Your suggestion that this view is accepted by literal fundmentalist is completelty false. (IE that the Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation accounts)The following is a list of at least 22 recognised literal fundamentalist scholars who would laugh that statement to scorn. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a list of at least 22 recognised literal fundamentailist scholars who support (in writting) the claim you suggest they support.James A. Borland Th. D
Benjamin C Chapman Ph. D
Edward G. Dobson D.D
Jerry Falwell D.D, D. Litt
Paul R. Fink Th. D
Harvey D. Hartman Th. M.
Ronald E. Hawkins D. Min
Edward E. Hinsdon, Th. D D. Min
Elmer A. Jantz. Th. M
F.Gerald Kroll, D. Min
Woodrow Michael Kroll Th. D.
William E. Matheny Ph. D
Stephen R. Schrader Th. D
Elmer L Towns Ph. D D.D
Harold L Wilmington
Charles L. Fineberg Th. D Ph. D
Daniel R Mitchell Th. D
C Summer Wemp D.D
Edward R Roustio Th. D
James D. Stevens D. Min
James Freerkson Th. DMay inquire as to what bible college you attended?I have been, what some would refer to me as, a "Fundie" for 20 years and this is the first time I have seen any one, let alone an illedged Christian, put forward theories like yours.But for now you will need to first PROVE that G1 and G2 are two separate accounts in order for your wild flights of fancy to hold water.Within the bonofide literal fundamentalist circle of recognised theoligians no one has even brought this to the table, especially whilst claiming to be reading Genesis one and two with a literal and fundamental understanding of English.You do raise some very valid points about the illedged "war in heaven" and Job though. And I will be sure to read your whole thread to fully inform myself on your very interesting views.Kind regardsNOMAEdited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Hi NOMA, I think I presented the evidence for my claim of two separate accounts in Genesis.The premise is laid out.The evidence is presented.If you or any or anyone else would like to rebut my argument put forth in this thread please do. I went to Florida Baptist College in Lakeland Fl in the 60's. As it was very, very fundamental it did not last to this day and age as they were not liberal enough. The name is now the property of a school in Tampa Fl but is not the same school. I don't know what you call a Hebrew scholar but I don't see one listed that I recognize.I do see someone I discussed my view with and he gave me the same answer I had always been given. His assesment was that the story in Genesis 1:2-2:3 was the original creation story and the one in Genesis 2:4-4:24 was an explanation of what happened in the first with the emphasis on man.I asked how do you solve the conflict of the man in Genesis 2:7 being formed from the dust of the ground and the breath of life breathed into him by God who was the first life form before any plant, creature, or fowl.Being the same mankind who was created male and female at the same time in the image/likeness of God after all other life forms?I also asked how the man of Genesis 2:7 could become as God If he was created in the image/likeness of God? The mankind created in Genesis 1:27 was created in the image/likeness of God therefore he could not become as God. He was already as God.He said he would have to study that out and get back to me with an answer. I have been waiting a little over 25 years and still no answers.That is just a couple of problems, there are several more. This man was placed in a garden.This man was forbidden to eat of a specific tree.He was never told to be fruitful and multiply.The woman was formed from a rib taken from his side after all other life forms were formed, or produced by the earth.This man was told that if he ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die that day.He either had to die that day or God lied.The mankind created male and female in the image/likeness of God was told: These people were told to multiply, and replenish the earth.They were told every herb bearing seed and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed was meat for them.There is nothing forbidden.They were never placed in a Garden.Male and female was created at the same time.This man lived to be 930 years old according to chapter 5.So if you could kindly solve all these contradictions I would appreciate it.In my version there are no contradictions, or problems.I will dig around in my books and get you some Hebrew Scholars that agree that there are two stories in Genesis chapter 1 and 2.I have found nobody that agrees with my version though.If you study from the evening found in Genesis 1:2 and the following morning being the beginning of day two you only have 6 1/2 day event as the first day was only 12 hours of darkness.If you add my light period that the Heaven and Earth was created in which had ended in Genesis 1:2 that God declared as the first day in Genesis 1:5 you have a complete 7 day event.I presented my version as a 10 year old boy at a prayer meeting as a devotion in 1949. I had never heard anyone present such an idea and have not until this day found anyone that will agree with me.So I don't expect you to agree.And I don't really expect you to try to refute what I have presented as you can not take the KJV, LXX and Hebrew text and do so.As you will notice if you read the entire thread I have been told I am wrong but no one has even put forth an effort to refute any one of the arguments I put forth.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Bro, well you got the correct and only valid answer from the person on the list that you asked, because it's the plain and simple literal fundamental answer AS IT IS WRTTEN DOWN N PLAIN ENGLISH AND IN BLACK AND WHITE.I will say one thing, you haven't supplied evidence of anything duder. I'm really not sure what you have in your wheaties but if its legal I want some.God bless you brother, Im not really into another complete mind bender, Ive got enough going on in another thread at the moment dealing with a tag team of disinformation thought terrorists experts.This story of yours takes the cake bro. I think you should write a science fiction novel using this concept as your plot. You'll make a fortune out if it and most probably end up the leader in your own brand new Bible Cult religion which is a growing trend today.What comes to mind when I think of this theory is, "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"All the best with it. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Minor correction to your correction: they're actually 46.5 billion lightyears away* but the expansion of space itself during that time meant that the light only went through 13 billion years of travel.*give or take a couple billion. If somebody wants to correct the correction's correction then do it!

I'm quite surprised. I re-read ICANT's explanation of how the two genesis accounts can make sense and itt...actually can make sense (in a narrative way).If you read genesis 1 as the creation of the universe, then God creates everything - the planet, the stars, the moon, the animals and finally "mankind".Then you get to genesis 2, and God specifically creates Adam and Eve (and the garden of Eden, and a few rivers).Now, you've got to assume that any creation is actually talking about a recreation inside the garden, it would make more sense if Eden was created in the middle of an otherwise barren section of the planet. The language itself is vague and imprecise and we definitely have translation errors so the text can be made to fit, if you can happily swallow the idea that the first few lines are talking about the creation that went on inside the garden in line 8.This does mean, however, that there are plenty of humans not burdened by original sin, not destined for hell by default and do not need to revere nor worship this god or any other.

Never assume, it makes an ass out of you and me which is happeneing way too much for my liking, but who am I right? Just another internet forum junkie with a $500 a day habit. IE the amount of money I could be making if I wasn't traped in disinformation land arguing the toss with disinformation specialists who care as much about truth as a one man band cares about his base player.Give peas a chance! Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : WarningEdited by AdminPD, : No reason given.