|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblically, Was Adam The First Man? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
In Genesis 1:28 my Hendrickson Interlinear Hebrew-Aramaic to English Interliner applies the phrase, "be frutful, multiply and fill," as do a number of translations, referring to God's instruction for Adam to do.
Some other translations, including the KJV use the term "replenish rather than "multiply." Why would a planet void, cold and dark, having no atmosphere or sunneed to be replenished (abe: with life)? Interlinears render the nearest English equivalent to the manuscript text. Translators are not generally so exact, taking the liberty to make the text more readable, sometimes applying their own interpretation. If you begin with Genesis 1:1 and read all of the way down to verse 28, it's appears obvious from context that the interliner as well as the majority of translations are correct using "be fruitful, multiply and fill. What do you think? The Bible Study, perhaps. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in context Edited by Buzsaw, : Change wording gramatically BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Thanks, Modulous and Flyer. I was wondering why some translators used that word, replenish. This serves to support the position that for moderns, fill is the more appropriate translation.
So now, the debate will need to focus on whether Adam was the 1st man created on the sixth day. Perhaps I misunderstood our new member, Jeff Davis. I took it that he thinks the first man of Genesis one was not the first man. Perhaps Jeff will weigh in here on what his position actually is. I will be out of town most of the day so may not find time to respond much today. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Huntard writes: According to Gen 1 Man and Woman (unnamed) were created last. According Gen 2, Man (named Adam) was created first. So wahtever the case, Adam was not created on the sixth day. Either a man and a woman were created on the sixth day, after the animlas, and we don't know their names, or Adam was created first and the animals after. Huntard, my understanding is that the oldest manuscripts do not name Adam until Genesis 3:21. The term the man, is used exclusively in most translations in both chapters one and two. The KJ and Douay are the only major ones which name Adam in Genesis 2:20, the first mention of him in the KJ version. This is the problem when translators take it upon themselves to interpret what they translate. They remind me of the activist judges today who take it upon themselves to establish law to suit themselves rather than to apply what is written. A careful and logical reading of chapters one and two make it obvious that chapter one is a concise record of the chronological order in which God worked on the planet to prepare it for life and to create, by design, life. Chapter two, not being chronological is the detail chapter, explaining the creation of life and how the woman came to be from a part of Adam. If you read chapters one, two, and three in one sitting, you read of "the man" all through chapter one and most of two in all translations and not until chapter 3 in the interlinears. It should be obvious that one man is featured in all three chapters as the first man. This is how the large majority of scholars have always read and understood these origin chapters. Not only that, but throughout the NT Jesus and his apostles depict Adam as the first man. Edited by Buzsaw, : Update message title BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Huntard writes: Buzsaw writes:
Huntard, my understanding is that the oldest manuscripts do not name Adam until Genesis 3:21. No idea. Got a source on that? The Alexandrian manuscript texts, from which the 1901 ASV was translated in the most literal way does not name Adam until Genesis 3:12 .
Huntard writes: WHat are the "major" ones Buz? I looked it up and found these version who mention adam in gen 2:NIV NASB Amplified Bible ESV NKJV NCV 21st century KJ DT NIRV NIVUK TNIV And that's only the English ones. Are you saying that all these are not "major" ones? The KJV and I believe, the Douay (Catholic) were actually translated from later manuscripts; the KJV taken from what is known as the "Textus Receptus or Received Text." The rule of thumb is that the oldest texts are the most literal. I would say that most on your list are not major translations, but regardless, it is the early manuscripts from which translations are taken which are most significant. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
There are other factors which have not been aired. First, from the gitgo throughout this account, one man is implicated; not men or more than one. "The man," is the term used throughout this account.
Secondly, regardess of the meaning of Adam and man, both are alluded to as one and the same in context, even after Adam was named. The same goes with the woman. Eve was also addressed as "the woman." The two are obviously the first, male and female. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
ringo writes: As I often tell people, the talking snake should be your first clue. Do you really think Paul believed in talking snakes? LOL. Biblically there were no snakes at the time the serpent communicated with man. There were serpents, the Biblical term for reptiles which, Biblically, were, before they were cursed, more subtile/intelligent than all of the other animals of the field. These serpents were implicated as long legged serpents as were the dinosaurs. Go figure. The talking snake serpent was likely a dinosaur. Logically, the curse of the serpent kind involved much more than a removal or shortening of the legs, but other physiological features as well, some to adapt them to close to the dust and others things like a possible diminshment of intelligence. After all, if the dinos were capable of some communication with humans and this effected a problem for humans, the intelligence feature of the cursed dinos would likely be removed so as not to become a problem to humans. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
ringo writes: Nonsense. The Bible says no such thing. You're just making that up.Ironic, ain't it? You're making up fiction to try to prove that Bible fiction isn't fiction. Dinos are the only evidence of serpents having long legs. Go figure. Scriptural verification is verified by archeological observation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
ringo writes: Exactly, because "serpent" means "snake". References to other creatures as "serpents" are figurative, indicating that they are "snake-like" (simile, "like a snake"). Serpents are snakes are serpents.And they don't talk, which was my point. The story is obviously fictional. Therefore, the man refered to in it is also fictional, not an actual "first man". By insisting that there really was a talking snake/dinosaur/whatever, you're just underlining how ludicrous a literal interpretation of the story is. Biblically, serpent was a relative term, relative to context. The Genesis context in question is the pre-cursed serpent kind which had not yet been cursed to be close to or down to the ground belly crawlers. Whatever you believe, this is what is clearly implied in the Genesis record which emphatically implies that the pre-cursed serpents were not belly crawlers. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
bluescat writes: Dinos aren't serpents. Serpents are members of the suborder Serpentes, that is snakes. Google dinosaur, serpent, and go figure. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024