Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1 of 109 (580394)
09-08-2010 10:52 PM


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 sun
need 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 11:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 4 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2010 2:18 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 09-09-2010 3:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 105 by granpa, posted 01-08-2013 8:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 01-08-2013 8:45 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 7 of 109 (580469)
09-09-2010 8:35 AM


Re: Replenish
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 09-09-2010 9:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 9 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2010 9:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 13 of 109 (580551)
09-09-2010 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Huntard
09-09-2010 9:18 AM


Re: One Man, Adam
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2010 9:18 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 09-10-2010 1:27 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 17 by purpledawn, posted 09-10-2010 8:28 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 25 of 109 (580717)
09-10-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Huntard
09-10-2010 1:27 AM


Re: One Man, Adam
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 09-10-2010 1:27 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 26 of 109 (580829)
09-11-2010 3:48 PM


Re: Adam, The Man
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 09-11-2010 4:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 09-11-2010 6:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 30 by purpledawn, posted 09-11-2010 6:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 65 of 109 (581991)
09-18-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
09-18-2010 2:34 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 2:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 3:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 69 of 109 (582004)
09-18-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
09-18-2010 3:29 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 3:29 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by DC85, posted 09-18-2010 3:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 09-18-2010 3:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 75 by bluescat48, posted 09-18-2010 4:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 109 (582019)
09-18-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
09-18-2010 4:22 PM


RE: Biblical Serpents
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 4:22 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by DC85, posted 09-18-2010 4:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 81 of 109 (582021)
09-18-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by bluescat48
09-18-2010 4:03 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by bluescat48, posted 09-18-2010 4:03 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024