Adam was created on the 3rd day

quote:

---

Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time;

---

and Adam, and Eve, and Abram, and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel ...oh, and various prophets ...Edited by doctrbill, : Additions and Corrections

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

You tell me. I am merely sharing what I see in the Bible. You tell me. I am merely sharing what I see in the Bible. No thanks.If you don't know what the scripture says on this subject, or you think there's some reason to doubt what it says, then tell us what you think it should say.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

What do you mean, what did he mean? Yet you recognize that John's statement apparently contradicts Old Testament witnesses who claim to have seen God face to face, wrestled with him, had lunch with him and argued with him. Yes?John also says: "God is a spirit." Spirits are invisible. Thus, by John's logic: God is invisible. Moses might take issue with John's statement but that's not my problem.I could try to tell you everything I know on the subject but where's the fun in that? It would be more enjoyable and far more convincing to discover the answers for yourself.For the purpose of assisting topical study, nothing beats: blueletterbible.org

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Is your mouse finger broken? I am not a kindly ol' Sunday School teacher. I've given you excellent clues and offered you sophisticated tools. You'll have to do your own homework.I look forward to our next conversation.Goodnight.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

You overlook, I think, a number of items which might be construed as challenging to your hypothesis. He was apparently NOT taken from the irrigated soil of the Garden but rather from the dusty land of “Thorns and thistles.” Gen 3:18

quote:

---

"dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return."

---

Something to think about.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

According to Strong's lexicon, the word translated "mist" is derived from a term which describes smoke. According to the scripture:

quote:

---

"... the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, ..." Genesis 2:5

---

According to the scripture, it watered:

quote:

---

... the whole face of the ground ..." Genesis 2:6

---

And if that mist supplied moisture enough then why was a river needed for irrigation?

quote:

---

"... a river went out of Eden to water the garden ..." Genesis 2:10

---

Ancient authorities do not agree on whether it should read "a mist" (Tanach) or "a spring" (LXX/Vulgate). Modern authorities cannot agree on whether it is about "earth" (most versions) or "land" (English Standard Version). The situation is understandably confusing and creationists do not agree on what it says, much less on what it means. It appears that you could benefit from re-reading whatever is your favorite translation of the story. I say this because I know of none which would lead you to suggest that "the mist" condensed and fell back to earth as "rain." It does not apparently occur to you that your hypothetical rain would be the very same water which had already come out of that ground which needed watering and would thus provide no additional moisture. That and the fact that your Bible asserts it had not rained, leads me to believe that you need further study.Good luck with that.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Hi Buzz,I see you are hanging in there as well. Two problems I see with this answer, Buzz. They are the same two problems stated in verse five (vs. 5): 1) - Nothing is growing "because" it hasn't rained. - If the mist had provided adequate soil moisture then surely something would have been growing. And, 2) - There is no one to "till" (work, cultivate) the soil. - The man was created in the first place because "there was not a man to till the ground." In fact, these people were brought in "to dress the garden and keep it." (vs. 15).One cannot keep a garden without working the soil. It is interesting to note (and I had not seen this before now) that the Hebrew term 'abad - translated "till" in verse 5 is translated "dress" in verse 15. Indeed, some modern versions read:"to till it" (NRSV);
"to work it" (NIV);
"to cultivate it" (NASB).You will note that both the "mist" and the "irrigation" are in place before the fall (vs. 10).Hope this answers your question.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

And yet, you wish the second narrative to agree with the first. If the second narrative is sequentially inconsistent (inconsistent with narrative one) then what makes you think that narrative one is the "consistently sequential...record." What makes you think the man was made before the woman? Because the story has a flow to it, that's why. God made the man and then the animals and brought the animals to the man to see what he would call them. After surveying and naming all the animals, the man found no mate among them. Then the woman was made; after the man; after the animals. So, actually, the sequence of narrative two IS consistent with the story of narrative two. It is NOT consistent with the story of narrative one.Narrative one; the narrative you say is "the only consistently sequential record of creation" has plants appearing on day three, birds appearing on day five, and animals including humans (male and female) on day six.Telling the story as if the man appears before the plants, before the birds, before the other animals and well ahead of woman is no accident but is important to the story in narrative two. You cannot reorder the events of narrative two without ruining the story told there; and the order of those events is entirely different from what you have called "the only consistently sequential record of creation," i.e. narrative one.BTW, The woman of narrative 2 is made NOT by speaking her into existence simultaneously with the man, as depicted in narrative 1, but rather by cloning her, sometime after, from a surgically removed piece of the man. This is not a random and irrelevant reordering of events but a purposeful and independent description of a very different idea of origins. The fact that it does not mention fish or seas is on a par with the fact that it does not mention sun, moon, or stars. It's all about the land, the garden, the naked people, and the talking snake.Narrative one sounds a bit like an evolution. Narrative two sounds exactly like a fairy tale.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -