Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblically, Was Adam The First Man?
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 109 (581775)
09-17-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by hERICtic
09-17-2010 6:40 AM


Re: Erets and Adamah
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by hERICtic, posted 09-17-2010 6:40 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 1:24 PM jar has replied
 Message 103 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 5:28 AM jar has not replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 62 of 109 (581968)
09-18-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
09-17-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 09-17-2010 1:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 09-18-2010 1:52 PM hERICtic has replied
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 2:34 PM hERICtic has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 109 (581973)
09-18-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hERICtic
09-18-2010 1:24 PM


Re: Erets and Adamah
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 1:24 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 4:42 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 64 of 109 (581988)
09-18-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hERICtic
09-18-2010 1:24 PM


hERICtic writes:
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?
As I often tell people, the talking snake should be your first clue. Do you really think Paul believed in talking snakes?
The snake has at least two functions in the story:
  1. He's somebody for Eve to talk to, since there were no other people except Adam, who had another role to play. If Shakespeare had written Genesis, he might have had Eve do a soliloquy instead.
  2. As a huge flashing neon sign proclaiming, "THIS IS FICTION!"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 1:24 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 2:54 PM ringo has replied
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 3:11 PM ringo has replied
 Message 80 by hERICtic, posted 09-18-2010 4:36 PM ringo has 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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 66 of 109 (581996)
09-18-2010 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ringo
09-18-2010 2:34 PM


Re: Talking
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."

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 68 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 3:32 PM ICANT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 67 of 109 (582000)
09-18-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Buzsaw
09-18-2010 2:54 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
Buzsaw writes:
Biblically there were no snakes at the time the serpent communicated with man.
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.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 2:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 3:37 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 3:44 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 109 (582002)
09-18-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ICANT
09-18-2010 3:11 PM


Re: Talking
ICANT writes:
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.
There is no Satan in the story.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 3:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 4:00 PM ringo has not 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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 70 of 109 (582006)
09-18-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
09-18-2010 3:29 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
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."

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

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 71 of 109 (582007)
09-18-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Buzsaw
09-18-2010 3:37 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 3:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 3:54 PM DC85 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 72 of 109 (582010)
09-18-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Buzsaw
09-18-2010 3:37 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 3:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 73 of 109 (582011)
09-18-2010 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DC85
09-18-2010 3:44 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
DC85 writes:
How does the Bible define "serpent"?
The Hebrew nâchâsh means "snake", probably an onamatapoeia for "hiss".
Edited by ringo, : Fixed formatting.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DC85, posted 09-18-2010 3:44 PM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 4:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 74 of 109 (582013)
09-18-2010 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
09-18-2010 3:32 PM


Re: Talking
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 3:32 PM ringo has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 75 of 109 (582014)
09-18-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Buzsaw
09-18-2010 3:37 PM


RE: Talking Snakes
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 3:37 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 09-18-2010 4:37 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