|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblically, Was Adam The First Man? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You need to understand that there is no single purpose to the stories of the Bible. Different authors at different times wrote different stories meant to communicate different things to the people of the authors times.
The old Genesis 2&3 fables show a primitive view of life and were meant as Just So Stories to explain why childbirth seemed more painful for women then the other animals, why women would be subject to the man, why we fear snakes, wear clothes, have to farm instead of just hunting and foraging like the other animals, why we create a moral based society instead of the general amorality found in the animal kingdom. It was meant to show why man was over the animals and plants. It is NOT about sin. BUT...it was a very, very old folk tale, one that had been told for thousands of years, one that evry child, every adult knew. Then came Paulie. Paulie was a zealot, both before and after he got traded to the new club. In Hockey he would be considered the enforcer. He is writing to a new audience, marketing this new creation of his called Christianity and he often used old stories that folk likely knew as a platform for some new message, new interpretation. BUT...if you look at Paulie's assertions and then go back and actually look at the stories themselves, often you find that Paulie has taken things out of context and revised the message to fight his marketing plan. A GREAT modern example are the Mercury ads that have been running for several year in the US, Research the actual lyrics to the tune used as background music. Research Major Tom and then try to fit that into a reason to buy a Mercury? Quotemining and reinterpretation has a long and glorious history, but don't get fooled into thinking that Paulie actually uses the quotes as their authors intended. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hERICtic Member (Idle past 4516 days) Posts: 371 Joined: |
I was going to ask Ringo if Paul believed in Genesis as just a story. Then I read your post. Answered my question.
What makes you think that the authors of Genesis (and other books) didnt believe Adam was the first man though? I can "see" how it deals with why we fear snakes, wear clothes, pain in childbirth etc...but why would you assume the author was deliberately making up a story? On what basis is your line of thinking? Are you suggesting its not possible the authors actually believed these stories? Perhaps they were passed along to him? Matthew: 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Based upon the scripture above, it would seem "Jesus" also accepted the story that humanity started with two individuals. What about the lineage found in Luke, tracing its way back to Adam? Do you beleive the author also accepted Genesis as you do or that he actually believed Adam was the first man? Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What makes you think that the authors of Genesis (and other books) didnt believe Adam was the first man though? I can "see" how it deals with why we fear snakes, wear clothes, pain in childbirth etc...but why would you assume the author was deliberately making up a story? On what basis is your line of thinking? Are you suggesting its not possible the authors actually believed these stories? Perhaps they were passed along to him? First, you can't make any statements that apply to all the different authors. Different authors had different purposes and different audiences. About the only universal characteristic is that not one of the authors was writing anything for folk living today. Genesis 2&3 though have all of the characteristics of folk story, a talking serpent, making critters out of mud, magic trees and fruit. It likely developed during a long long tradition of oral story tellers earning a meal and place to sleep. It is a "Long long ago in a land far far away" story.
Matthew: 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Another great example of quotemining and recycling. Notice in that quote the primary reference is to Genesis 1 where the God in that story does create everything by sexes, but also alludes to Genesis 4 where the idea of Adam and Eve being married and virtual parents first shows up. BUT...it also redirects the allusions. There is NOTHING in Genesis 1, 2, 3 or 4 even that shows a man leaving his father and mother. The sources simply don't have anything to do with the conclusion.
Based upon the scripture above, it would seem "Jesus" also accepted the story that humanity started with two individuals. Or that the author of Matt used stories that the audience would be familiar with to introduce a totally different and unrelated subject.
What about the lineage found in Luke, tracing its way back to Adam? Do you beleive the author also accepted Genesis as you do or that he actually believed Adam was the first man? Genealogy was very important at that time. Who you were related to determined what rights you had. Take the time to really read Numbers. It is not just begets and begats, it also involves what lad you could use, what your job would be, who you could marry, what you can inherit. The later genealogies as found in the New Testament seem to be totally contrived, invented, and quite frankly, ad hoc creations. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
hERICtic writes:
As I often tell people, the talking snake should be your first clue. Do you really think Paul believed in talking snakes? I can "see" how it deals with why we fear snakes, wear clothes, pain in childbirth etc...but why would you assume the author was deliberately making up a story? The snake has at least two functions in the story:
It wasn't until the Dark Ages that people became dumb enough to take it literally. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: As I often tell people, the talking snake should be your first clue. Do you really think Paul believed in talking snakes? I don't know whether Paul believed in talking snakes or not. I can say that I believe in talking mules and horses. There are many movies made of Francis the talking mule and Ed the talking horse. Also I have seen dummys like Mortimer carry on a conversation with his side kick. Now I know these creatures had these sounds put in their mouths by someone else. Now if humans can accomplish such a feat what would keep Satan from being able to speak through a snake, serpent, tree, or the fruit itself. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Nonsense. The Bible says no such thing. You're just making that up. Biblically there were no snakes at the time the serpent communicated with man. Ironic, ain't it? You're making up fiction to try to prove that Bible fiction isn't fiction. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
There is no Satan in the story. Now if humans can accomplish such a feat what would keep Satan from being able to speak through a snake, serpent, tree, or the fruit itself. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: Nonsense. The Bible says no such thing. You're just making that up. The word snake does not appear in the Hebrew text or the Greek text of the Bible. There are serpents and there are vipers mentioned in the Bible. Serpent appears 40 times and serpents is used 13 times and vipers 4 and viper 4. So no Buz is not making things up. It is just your interpretation of what the Bible says that is made up. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Dinos are the only evidence of serpents having long legs. Go figure. Scriptural verification is verified by archeological observation. How are defining "serpent"? How does the Bible define "serpent"? Dinosaurs are certainly not snakes they aren't Lizards or Crocodilians either
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Dinos are the only evidence of serpents having long legs.
Who, besides fundies trying to shoehorn anything to make their arguments work, classifies dinosaurs as serpents? All the definitions I can find, that define serpent as an animal, define it as a synonym for snake. You do know dinosaurs are not snakes don't you? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
DC85 writes:
The Hebrew nâchâsh means "snake", probably an onamatapoeia for "hiss". How does the Bible define "serpent"? Edited by ringo, : Fixed formatting. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: There is no Satan in the story. There is no Satan mentioned in the story. But evil was there. Ops Satan is evil. There was no Satan in the story when Jesus speaking to Peter said "Get thee behind me Satan". But Satan's presence was there. But we are getting off topic here as this has nothing to do with Adam being the first man on earth. Which the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 was the first man on earth makes no difference what name you give him. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Dinos are the only evidence of serpents having long legs. Go figure. Scriptural verification is verified by archeological observation. Dinos aren't serpents. Serpents are members of the suborder Serpentes, that is snakes.
wiki writes: Scleroglossa is the suborder of Squamata (snakes and lizards) that contains the geckos, ananguids, worm lizards, monitor lizards, such as helodermatids, skinks and snakes. The name is derived from the Greek, skleros, meaning hard and glossa, meaning tongue. * Infraorder Amphisbaenia — worm lizards* Infraorder Anguimorpha — ananguids (alligator lizards, glass lizards, galliwasps and legless lizards), monitor lizards, mosasaurs, and helodermatids (Gila monster and beaded lizard) * Infraorder Gekkota — (the geckos) * Infraorder Scincomorpha — (skinks, whiptail lizards and common European lizards) * Infraorder Serpentes — snakes wiki writes: Collectively, dinosaurs are usually regarded as a superorder or an unranked clade. They are divided into two orders, Saurischia and Ornithischia, depending upon pelvic structure. Dinosaurs aren't Squamata and thus are not serpents. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024